Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumIguana
Few people read books randomly.
|
Is that a fact?