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

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by moonshot

I was giving a reasonable reply to a daft suggestion, shop blindfold etc.

It wasn't a daft suggestion, it was an ironic suggestion about your suggestion that people just buy whatever is in front of them. If you read the blurb then, like @QuantumIguana said, that isn't random behavior. That is using peoples' natural capacity for analysis of things in order to fit it into a (subjective) categorization of quality.

It is one of the many methods I use in order to learn more about the book before deciding whether I should buy it or not!!!

[Graham]

Originally Posted by moonshot

I was giving a reasonable reply to a daft suggestion, shop blindfold etc.

OK, ignore the blindfold. Do you agree with the rest of Bilbo's thought experiment? It works just as well without the blindfold:

Go to a bookshop near you. Stand in it and watch the people buying books. Count how many walk in and pick a book at random from the shelves.

Surely you agree that the majority, if not all, the shoppers do not exhibit this behaviour?

Graham

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Graham

OK, ignore the blindfold. Do you agree with the rest of Bilbo's thought experiment? It works just as well without the blindfold:



Surely you agree that the majority, if not all, the shoppers do not exhibit this behaviour?

Graham

Unless someone wants to argue that it is random selection to buy a book solely based on the blurb.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Why would you be annoyed by an iron-clad argument? But by all means, prefer nonsense if you wish.

Because just becaust a person is an author of a book (unpublished or whatever) it does not automatically imply that it is reasonable to present yourself as an author. It is different meaning of the word and different context.

It is as silly as saying that just because something is called identity theft then it must be like theft.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Graham

I would assume that he had written a book.

It's possible that he mainly wrote short stories, or worked in some other medium such as blogging, but my base assumption would be that he had written at least one book.

That doesn't mean to say that someone who specialises in short stories or does some serious blogging isn't also an author.

But note, there is absolutely no recognition of a base level of quality in this assumption.

Graham

Assuming that because someone is an author that a whole host of other things must be true - making a living from writing, writing good book that are widely read, etc - is to make a Towel Fallacy. Here's the relevant passage from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: nonhitchhiker) discovers that a hitchhiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, washcloth, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet-weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitchhiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitchhiker might accidentally have "lost." What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the Galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through and still knows where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Unless someone wants to argue that it is random selection to buy a book solely based on the blurb.

I expect that it's never just the blurb for sighted readers anyway. It would be hard not to form an opinion of the cover at the same time.

You'd also almost certainly be taking into account where in the shop you found the book: in which genre shelves, or in the bargain bin, or on the bestseller display, etc.

Graham

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Catlady

This thread is a disaster because everyone seems to be talking about something different.

That's because the OP conflated of the necessity of defining the word author (according to strikingly odd criteria) with determining which authors are worth reading, which in turn has split the coherence of the thread, creating further topical instability.

A friend of mine has disassociative identity disorder. He is also a musician who likes to experiment with quarter tones. He tells me that split personalities are like quarter tones between semitones: Once splitting has occurred, the structure becomes unstable and is likely to split again.

Even the vibrations of a string continue to divide into smaller and smaller vibrations, creating denser harmonics.

The integrity of this thread was cracked from inception. Therefore the crosstalk; therefore the sound of each of us enclosed in our pocket of comprehension, making sense that doesn't connect with the sense of the rest.

For me, as I said before, the first criterion is, if you make money doing it, you can use the label. (And please don't tell me there are famous authors who are exceptions; OF COURSE there are exceptions.)

Doctor Johnson would agree with you, but I don't. Emily Dickinson and Gerard Manley Hopkins were writers of the most profound sort and never made any money at all. They're not exceptions; in fact, they're models. So in their way are the greatest experimental academics.

Look at Charles Baudelaire, Percy Shelley and Raymond Roussel. They were born into money, squandered their fortunes while writing and then couldn't support themselves. Proust wasn't far behind. Wallace Stevens had to be a lawyer. William Carlos Williams was a doctor. Many of our greatest writers had to do something else their whole lives to make a living. The great challenge is always finding the time, the will and the energy to write. Sometimes the hunger to write, the fugitive quest for stray hours, actually fuels the work.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by tompe

Because just becaust a person is an author of a book (unpublished or whatever) it does not automatically imply that it is reasonable to present yourself as an author. It is different meaning of the word and different context.

It is as silly as saying that just because something is called identity theft then it must be like theft.

I would argue both words mean the same thing both times...

Identity theft steals someone's reputation and uses it as collateral for various miscellany/whatever. The original owner does not get his reputation back... although it is possible to rebuild it...

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by tompe

Because just becaust a person is an author of a book (unpublished or whatever) it does not automatically imply that it is reasonable to present yourself as an author. It is different meaning of the word and different context.

It is as silly as saying that just because something is called identity theft then it must be like theft.

They still would be an author! whether or not they where a good author is an entirely different subject and discussion.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tompe

Because just becaust a person is an author of a book (unpublished or whatever) it does not automatically imply that it is reasonable to present yourself as an author. It is different meaning of the word and different context.

It is as silly as saying that just because something is called identity theft then it must be like theft.

No, it's not a different meaning of the word. Just because you assume certain things when you hear the word 'author' doesn't mean that assumption is valid. Your position like saying shoplifting is not theft, only bank robberies are theft. While a bank robber steals more than does a shoplifter, both are in fact thieves.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Graham

I expect that it's never just the blurb for sighted readers anyway. It would be hard not to form an opinion of the cover at the same time.

You'd also almost certainly be taking into account where in the shop you found the book: in which genre shelves, or in the bargain bin, or on the bestseller display, etc.

Graham

Fair enough, that too. I have a feeling some here still think that is random, though.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If someone told me at a party that they were an author, an artist or a musician, all I know is that they write books, create art or make music. It doesn't imply that they write good books, create good art or create music, or that their creations would be to my liking.

Authors must write books? As opposed to poems, essays, short stories, letters, blog posts, grocery lists? Why only books?

Quality is a different issue entirely.

We have no basic for limiting the definition of author, artist or musician to someone who is able to make a living at it, because that sort of reasoning leads to absurdities.

I didn't say "make a living at it." I said make money from it.

I don't think my criterion is as absurd as your complete lack of any criteria--we're all authors, artists, singers, etc., etc.

If writing good books is a prerequisite to being an author, it follows that there is no such thing as a bad author. It implies that the starving artist meme is invalid - there could not exist such a thing as a starving artist, instead, we would have a non-artist. A person playing guitar for tips in the subway station is in fact a musician.

I did not say anything about quality. Again, neither did I say that the artist needs to make a living through art, only earn some money from the artistic endeavor.

Yes, the person playing guitar in the subway is a musician because he's making money from it. He fits my criterion.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If someone told me at a party that they were an author, an artist or a musician, all I know is that they write books, create art or make music. It doesn't imply that they write good books, .

Correct. Well sort of. But let me split hairs like so many are doing here. They don't write books at all, they write stories.

They tell a story. The story could be good to one reader while another thinks it is not so good, for many reasons. Someone here commented on Dan Brown and another commented on JK Rowling. They may not be wordsmiths but they tell a good story, assuming that it's your cup of tea.

It is the standard of writing that I have a gripe with, not what is written. After all it has been said that there are only seven separate stories to be told and every plot will fall within one of those seven. ie boy meets girl.

Every one and every thing needs boundaries and so do people writing 'stuff' for other people to read, uploading what you think will be the new Raymond Chandler might please your mum, but how will you be sure it's nothing more than that before you take peoples money.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If someone told me at a party that they were an author, an artist or a musician, all I know is that they write books, create art or make music. It doesn't imply that they write good books, create good art or create music, or that their creations would be to my liking.

I'm leaving good or bad creations in the middle in this discussion, but I do understand what CatLady says, and also what moonshot means.

If you would ask me at a party: "Hey man, what do you normally do?"

I could answer: "I'm a Hammond organ player."
I could also answer: "I'm a photographer."
Or: "I'm an author."
Or: "I'm a martial artist."
Or: "I'm a chess player."
Or....

It's true. I'm all of those. Still, it would be ludicrous of me to give any one of those as an answer. I would not be surprised to get a follow-up question:

"Cool! What band do you tour with / in what magazines did your pictures appear / what books have you written / in what movies do you play / what tournament did you win last?"

And my answer would have to be: "Uh..... ahem... gurgle... On a different note... it's cold outside, isn't it? Hehe. *swallow*"

If you tell people "I'm a ....", the expect that you make your primary living on it. If not, then you're not going to mention this if people are asking after your occupation.

In my situation, the only correct answer would be: "I'm a software engineer," as that is my primary source of income, and I *could* mention that I do one of the other things for fun, and sometimes make some money with it.

If you would make the point that you consider yourself an author first, and the supporting job second, you'd say something like: "I am a fantasy author, but regrettably, I don't make enough money on writing yet. Therefore, I also have a day job/part time job as a software engineer as well."

I agree with CatLady that telling people you're an author while you don't make a dime with it and actually work as a cleaner to earn some money is stupid and maybe even snobbery; pretending that you're better than you are. In that case you are an author, obviously, but your occupation is that of a cleaner.

Damn. Quantum Thread. *runs*

[Glorfindel]

you are not taking peoples money... they are willing to give it to you based on their personal preferances...