Note: A special thank you to Kati Lewis, director of the Community Writing Center and associate professor of English at Salt Lake Community College, for helping me edit this essay.
Who is a writer?
It seems a simple enough question, yet the answer is surprisingly complex and fraught with societal expectations. I’ve often pondered this, especially as someone deeply engaged in the act of writing, yet not always identifying with the label “writer” in a way that aligns with common understanding.
This exploration stems from my own experiences and observations of how our culture often restricts the definition of “writer” to those who have achieved publication, thereby marginalizing countless individuals who pour their hearts and minds onto the page.
I hope to share this with anyone who feels a connection to writing, whether or not they’ve pursued traditional publishing, especially those who struggle with the feeling of not being “enough” because they haven’t been formally recognized. Ultimately, I want readers to consider and take away the idea that being a writer is rooted in the self and the art itself, independent of external validation.
Defining the terms: “Am” and “Not”
To delve into this concept, let’s first examine the fundamental components of the question itself. “Am” and “Not” are the crucial elements here. “Am” represents the present state of being, defining who or what we are in any given moment, whether individually or as a collective.
Conversely, “Not” negates that present state, indicating the absence of the defined identity. The crux of the matter lies in how we reconcile these opposing forces: I Am, therefore I Am Not.
The collective consciousness vs. the singular experience
The world often perceives a “writer” through the lens of collective consciousness, equating the term with someone who has been published in some form.
This perspective isn’t inherently wrong; societal acceptance often hinges on tangible evidence of one’s work. However, what about the individual who dedicates themselves to the craft, pouring countless hours into their writing, yet remains unpublished?
Do they not deserve the title of “writer”? Is the universal consciousness dismissing their personal identification, or is this the “illusion of the singular?”
The illusion, defined
The illusion of the writer, as I see it, is this very dichotomy. To the unpublished, writing might be a hobby, a form of entertainment, or a deeply personal exploration.
Regardless, in their singular experience, they are writers, driven by passion and a commitment to their craft. Yet, in society’s eyes, the definition remains contingent upon publication.
The societal acceptance of a published entity as a “writer” is understandable. Publication provides a form of validation, a tangible marker of achievement. However, it shouldn’t be the sole determinant of one’s identity as a writer.
Redefining the writer
Ultimately, the question of whether one “is” or “is not” a writer hinges on self-identification. The illusion lies in the perceived conflict between the singular entity and the collective perception.
A writer both is and isn’t, depending on the perspective. It’s time to broaden our understanding of what it means to be a writer, recognizing the inherent value in the act of writing itself, irrespective of publication.
With that in mind, let us celebrate anyone who dares to put pen to paper. Where words cannot be spoken, let them be written instead.
