I have to admit that I disagree with the statement "Everyone's an author", and I found that even after reading the introduction "Is Everyone an Author?" my opinion was unchanged. I am not opposed to the idea, nor do I think that all who follow this line of thought are wrong or mislead, I just don't concur with the concept. Everyone is a writer, we all have ideas, arguments, and are capable of expressing those things in written form. Despite that, I still feel that there is more involved with the label "author" than just the ability to write.
When I hear the word "author" I think of lots of work, much more work than it would take me to post, or blog. I imagine phases of outlining, researching, writing, revising, re-revising, getting outside edits, revising again, perhaps getting more edits, all before the text is published under some form of label. The label speaks to the credibility, the authenticity, or the entertainment value. This, of course, is not to say that some things that have been published weren't terrible. The title "author" is not a category in which any writer falls, it is the prize for running the marathon, the trophy for surviving the stages of generator to researcher to writer to editor.
So, has the definition really changed? Not in my opinion, what has changed is accessibility to the title. As was described in "Everyone's a Researcher", it is far more effortless to be exposed to resources, or readers, in today's world. In this age and all it's technologies and opportunities, it is easier than ever for anyone to become an author, they just haven't gotten there yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment