just because you have written a book does not make you an author

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

This thread topic falls short of the minimum standards required for intelligent discussion. We regret that it can no longer be referred to as a "thread." Sorry.

I wish that could be incorporated into our Posting Guidelines!

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

This thread topic falls short of the minimum standards required for intelligent discussion. We regret that it can no longer be referred to as a "thread." Sorry.

lol that's pretty good

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

This thread topic falls short of the minimum standards required for intelligent discussion. We regret that it can no longer be referred to as a "thread." Sorry.

I'd say that the OP doesn't meet the minimum standards for posting here and should be banned.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

I'd say that the OP doesn't meet the minimum standards for posting here and should be banned.

Well, if you're into dismissive, arbitrarily defined/applied competency standards that the OP--themselves--seem to support, then yes; certainly.

Spoiler:

This is all tongue-in-cheek, of course. Even though I disagree with moonshot (and am enjoying using his/her argument against his/her efforts to articulate that very argument), I don't think (s)he's done anything remotely ban-worthy.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The problem is that your point of view is simply wrong. You're persistent, but persistently wrong. If you wrote a book, you're an author. If writing a book didn't mean you were an author, that would lead to the absurdity of a book having no author. But being an author doesn't mean your books are any good. There are plenty of litmus tests that you can apply to decide to decide whether or not you might want to read a book. No one picks up a book and says "This was written by an author, it must be good!" The world of books is NOT swamped with with the bad books because we have plenty of litmus tests we can apply to find books we might like to read. Few people read books randomly.

Simply wrong. At lease it is not getting to complicated.

My original point was that there should be some way to separate the person who writes for a living from those that write as a 'hobby'.

Another analogy, if the singer one did not work to well, could be a 'Footballer' and someone who plays football for fun.

I decorated my house but I am not a decorator. Whether I made a professional job of it or a pigs ear of it is not relevant.

I think most people who have commented here understand what I am getting at, but they don't agree, fair enough, but they are debating the use of the word author rather than the meaning of what I am getting at.

If anyone can put words on paper and call themselves an author in the literal sense then maybe those that make a living from it should have the higher title of 'writer' or Professional author.

Most professions have a training period and a learning curve and so it should be with anyone who puts pen to paper and then uploaded it to Amazon and uses the word author in the given sense.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Few people read books randomly.

Is that a fact?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by moonshot

My original point was that there should be some way to separate the person who writes for a living from those that write as a 'hobby'.

Another analogy, if the singer one did not work to well, could be a 'Footballer' and someone who plays football for fun.

I decorated my house but I am not a decorator. Whether I made a professional job of it or a pigs ear of it is not relevant.

I think most people who have commented here understand what I am getting at, but they don't agree, fair enough, but they are debating the use of the word author rather than the meaning of what I am getting at.

If anyone can put words on paper and call themselves an author in the literal sense then maybe those that make a living from it should have the higher title of 'writer' or Professional author.

Most professions have a training period and a learning curve and so it should be with anyone who puts pen to paper and then uploaded it to Amazon and uses the word author in the given sense.

You're talking about what British law calls "protected occupations". In the UK you're not allowed to call yourself an architect, engineer, lawyer, or doctor, unless you hold the appropriate professional qualifications for the job.

I'm afraid "author" is not a protected occupation, and is never likely to be one, like it or not.

[DiapDealer]

What you want, moonshot, cannot be achieved (not through beauracracy anyway). Plain and simple. At what point can it be determined that someone is no longer a "hobbyist"? There are hobbyists whose main source of income might be from writing. There are also best-selling professionals who no longer do what they do for fame or money. Are they now tinkerers? There are pros who suck and amateurs who excel--why should one be validated where the other is not?

Readers are perfectly capable of handling this on an individual basis. Most readers actually enjoy thinking for themselves.

Can you honestly say you're having difficulty finding books worthy of your attention?

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

This is all tongue-in-cheek, of course. Even though I disagree with moonshot (and am enjoying using his/her argument against his/her efforts to articulate that very argument), I don't think (s)he's done anything remotely ban-worthy.

Neither do I, hence the in my other post.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by moonshot

Most professions have a training period and a learning curve and so it should be with anyone who puts pen to paper and then uploaded it to Amazon and uses the word author in the given sense.

And just what set of standards would you set for someone to call themselves an author? Other than publishing in hardback format which you mentioned earlier.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

Neither do I, hence the in my other post.

Oh, I never had any doubt of that. No prob. I just wanted to make sure moonshot (and others) knew that. My deadpan delivery often gets me in trouble.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by moonshot

Simply wrong. At lease it is not getting to complicated.

If by "simply wrong" you mean "iron-clad fact", sure. I can play this game as long as you want, I don't tire of making mincemeat.

My original point was that there should be some way to separate the person who writes for a living from those that write as a 'hobby'.

That's easy enough, for reasons I have already stated; the same methods that worked before self-published books became available. Do not book critics provide useful information? Want to read best-sellers? Read the books on the best-sellers list. What to read books that have good reviews? Read the reviews, and then read those books. Want to read award-winning books? Look up the books that win awards.

What do these bad books have in common? They don't sell a lot of copies, they don't get a lot of glowing reviews, and they don't win awards. Want a method to tell good books from bad books? That's available. What you want already exists.

Another analogy, if the singer one did not work to well, could be a 'Footballer' and someone who plays football for fun.

Yes, of course. A person who plays football is a football player, even if they don't play at a professional level. "Joe plays football, but is not a football player" is simply absurd.

I decorated my house but I am not a decorator. Whether I made a professional job of it or a pigs ear of it is not relevant.

If you offer your services as a decorator, you are, in fact, a decorator. You might be a bad decorator and go out of business quickly, but you're still a decorator.

I think most people who have commented here understand what I am getting at, but they don't agree, fair enough, but they are debating the use of the word author rather than the meaning of what I am getting at.

They are responding to your claims that writing a book doesn't make you an author. If you want to rescind that claim, you're free to do so and make some other claim. If you want to claim that we need some method to tell good books from bad (we already have such methods) then why not make that claim instead of the easily-refuted claim that writing a book doesn't make you an author?

If anyone can put words on paper and call themselves an author in the literal sense then maybe those that make a living from it should have the higher title of 'writer' or Professional author.

What would that tell you? How about "best-selling author", "highly-reviewed author" or "award-winning author"? That's information that is already available.

Most professions have a training period and a learning curve and so it should be with anyone who puts pen to paper and then uploaded it to Amazon and uses the word author in the given sense.

Some have requirements which a person must have, but many do not. A doctor or a lawyer have requirements that they must meet, it does not follow that because some professions have requirements that authors must. A musician is still a musician whether they sing at Carnegie Hall or at the local bar. The singer at Carnegie Hall may be a better singer than the singer at the bar, but that is irrelevant to whether or not the person is a singer. If you listen to the singer at the bar and complain that you didn't get the quality you would expect from a singer at Carnegie Hall, that's your problem. There is no barrier to becoming a musician.

An artist is still an artist whether their works hang in the Louvre or in the local coffee shop. Again, the artist with the works in the Louvre is probably a better artist than the artist whose works hang in the coffee shop, but it is still a fact that both are artists.

An author is still an author whether or they top the best-seller charts or they sell few books. While there are jobs that have entry requirements, there exist no such entry requirements for musicians, artists or authors; in fact a great many jobs have no requirements at all. Whether the person succeeds of fails is determined by the market. The better singer will sell the most music, the better artist will sell the most art, and the better author will sell the most books, just as the better baker will sell more loaves of bread.

Is that a fact?

Yes, it is. Few people will purchase a book completely at random, assuming it must be good. People use various techniques to determine if they are likely to enjoy a book.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by moonshot

I think most people who have commented here understand what I am getting at, but they don't agree, fair enough, but they are debating the use of the word author rather than the meaning of what I am getting at.

I understand what you're saying. You want to change the definition of Author to be something that virtually nobody else agrees with and you can't seem to understand why we won't agree to your definition.

The almost universally accepted definition of Author (from Wikipedia):

An author is broadly defined as "the person who originated or gave existence to anything" and whose authorship determines responsibility for what was created. Narrowly defined, an author is the originator of any written work and can also be described as a writer.

Now, if in your world you want a different definition, go right ahead. I'll just continue to read the books I like without *any* concern whether the Author is a professional or not.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're talking about what British law calls "protected occupations". In the UK you're not allowed to call yourself an architect, engineer, lawyer, or doctor, unless you hold the appropriate professional qualifications for the job.

Sadly, "engineer" isn't a protected occupation in the UK - anyone can call themselves an engineer.

There are variants ("chartered engineer" etc.) which are protected, but the unadorned "engineer" can be used by anyone.

/JB

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jbjb

Sadly, "engineer" isn't a protected occupation in the UK - anyone can call themselves an engineer.

There are variants ("chartered engineer" etc.) which are protected, but the unadorned "engineer" can be used by anyone.

/JB

My apologies for the error. My general point is still valid, however.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My apologies for the error. My general point is still valid, however.

Oh, I completely agree with your point. I only corrected the engineer part as the (lack of) status of engineering in the UK is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine!

Apologies for the digression!

/JB