What stage are you in as a writer?

Quote by magnificent1rascal
Check out Kristen Lamb's excellent blog on the Three Phases of Becoming a Master Author, then come back and discuss where you think you are on the writing journey.

Since I'm not sure, and have been thinking this over since I first read it, I'll either have to come up with something and let you know later, or confess that I'm easily side-tracked, because when reading the definitions for the three categories I came up with some questions, rather than answers. For instance, there are many genres and fields in which one can write - fiction, essays, journalism, critiques, etc. One can write at the level of a Master in, say the field of journalistic writing, but be at the neophyte or advanced level in fiction. One could be at the advanced level in short story writing, but a master when writing a novel.

One can be a writer but not an author, but one cannot easily be an author without being a writer. A playwright is a writer, and author of plays, but would calling him or her an author lead to confusion?

I've written since I was a child, in one form or another. We were taught, both at home and at school, to write letters, and I belong to a family of letter writers. I've been telling stories since I was a child as well, and later started to write them down. When I was in 10th grade, I had a wonderful English teacher. Part of the course work that year was dedicated to the study of short stories. We would be assigned a short story to read, it would be discussed and analysed in class with a focus on a particular structural element, and how that element worked within the story itself. There would then be an assignment that required that we use that element in a piece of writing, in the style of the story itself.

The one story and consequent assignment that I have never forgotten was The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. After having studied it, we were assigned to write our own story, using Thurber's as a model. We had to follow the structure he used to portray the endearing character of Mitty, and his incredible ability to lapse into his fantasy life.

My story was worked out in my head, and I went over it half a dozen times, mentally, before writing it down. It flowed, from start to finish, in one draft. All the corrections and revisions had been done before I put pen to paper. The result was on a single page of foolscap. When I handed it in, it was clear from the expression on Mr. B's face that he was surprised it was so short, but he made no comment: most of the other assignments handed in were two or more sheets of paper, stapled together.

The following week, after he had read and graded our stories, he made some general comments before handing them back. Some people had totally misunderstood the assignment, he informed us, some had done not too badly, some quite well, but there was just one that had nailed it and received full marks. The sheaf of papers in his hand diminished until there was just one, single sheet of paper left. At that point he announced he was going to read that story aloud, the one story that was, in his opinion, perfect. He did, and it was mine.

What I learned from that man, and it is a tremendous amount, about the craft and discipline of writing has been priceless to me over time. My debt to him is great in that respect. But it goes deeper than that, because he was the first person who recognised and acknowledged that what I had written was good, and that he had enjoyed reading my work. He was the first person, the first adult who gave me recognition and validation as a writer; all at the age of 15.

So I don't know what level I'm at. I'm not a neophyte, that I can say with certainty. An apprentice? I don't think so. At the Master level? Not so sure about that, either.

In her article, Kristen Lamb says this: "Masters have a lot of pressure to be perpetual geniuses." I'm not a genius, but I will not allow anything mediocre to be signed by my name, and believe me, the stuff I write that you don't see, that gets hidden or deleted, is mediocre. Does it mean I'm at that level because I personally will not allow anything I've written be seen by anyone if it hasn't first gained the approval of the harshest critic of my work, namely, myself ? And even after having done that, I then send my text to a dear friend who is my first reader, proof reader, editor and critique partner. It doesn't make me a Master, it just means I have standards for my writing and I hold to them.

She also states this: "We need to give ourselves permission to grow..." I agree with her. Permission to grow, for me, means that I have absolved myself of the needless requirement to write what has already been written before simply because it is popular at the moment. Liberating myself from some imagined notion as to what is expected from me has been wonderful, and it is advice I've given to other writers, both here and you-know-where-else.

"If we love and respect our craft, we will always be learning..." That should apply to everything, not just the craft of writing. If we love and respect ourselves, we should always be learning, always willing to learn, and never cease to be curious about the world around us, people, books, anything and everything. It will all feed back into our work in some way. We should also always be on the lookout for sloppy habits, complacency and laziness in the writing we do, particularly if we are going to send it out into the world to sink or swim on its own.

This is why I can't say which level I'm at.

EDITED to add that after rereading what I wrote above, I still haven't answered the question as Maggie asked it, and have gone completely off topic with that ramble. The ramble was, however, sparked by the question and the prolonged thinking about it that followed.

I'm going to give a long reply to your long reply, Gypsy.

Seriously, you brought up a lot of good points and I want to give them their due.

Quote by gypsymoth
Since I'm not sure, and have been thinking this over since I first read it, I'll either have to come up with something and let you know later, or confess that I'm easily side-tracked, because when reading the definitions for the three categories I came up with some questions, rather than answers. For instance, there are many genres and fields in which one can write - fiction, essays, journalism, critiques, etc. One can write at the level of a Master in, say the field of journalistic writing, but be at the neophyte or advanced level in fiction. One could be at the advanced level in short story writing, but a master when writing a novel.

One can be a writer but not an author, but one cannot easily be an author without being a writer. A playwright is a writer, and author of plays, but would calling him or her an author lead to confusion?

Quote by gypsymoth
When I was in 10th grade, I had a wonderful English teacher. Part of the course work that year was dedicated to the study of short stories. We would be assigned a short story to read, it would be discussed and analysed in class with a focus on a particular structural element, and how that element worked within the story itself. There would then be an assignment that required that we use that element in a piece of writing, in the style of the story itself.

The one story and consequent assignment that I have never forgotten was The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. After having studied it, we were assigned to write our own story, using Thurber's as a model. We had to follow the structure he used to portray the endearing character of Mitty, and his incredible ability to lapse into his fantasy life.

Quote by gypsymoth
My story was worked out in my head, and I went over it half a dozen times, mentally, before writing it down. It flowed, from start to finish, in one draft. All the corrections and revisions had been done before I put pen to paper. The result was on a single page of foolscap. When I handed it in, it was clear from the expression on Mr. B's face that he was surprised it was so short, but he made no comment: most of the other assignments handed in were two or more sheets of paper, stapled together.

The following week, after he had read and graded our stories, he made some general comments before handing them back. Some people had totally misunderstood the assignment, he informed us, some had done not too badly, some quite well, but there was just one that had nailed it and received full marks. The sheaf of papers in his hand diminished until there was just one, single sheet of paper left. At that point he announced he was going to read that story aloud, the one story that was, in his opinion, perfect. He did, and it was mine.

Quote by gypsymoth
What I learned from that man, and it is a tremendous amount, about the craft and discipline of writing has been priceless to me over time. My debt to him is great in that respect. But it goes deeper than that, because he was the first person who recognised and acknowledged that what I had written was good, and that he had enjoyed reading my work. He was the first person, the first adult who gave me recognition and validation as a writer; all at the age of 15.

Quote by gypsymoth
So I don't know what level I'm at. I'm not a neophyte, that I can say with certainty. An apprentice? I don't think so. At the Master level? Not so sure about that, either.

In her article, Kristen Lamb says this: "Masters have a lot of pressure to be perpetual geniuses." I'm not a genius, but I will not allow anything mediocre to be signed by my name, and believe me, the stuff I write that you don't see, that gets hidden or deleted, is mediocre. Does it mean I'm at that level because I personally will not allow anything I've written be seen by anyone if it hasn't first gained the approval of the harshest critic of my work, namely, myself ? And even after having done that, I then send my text to a dear friend who is my first reader, proof reader, editor and critique partner. It doesn't make me a Master, it just means I have standards for my writing and I hold to them.

Quote by gypsymoth
She also states this: "We need to give ourselves permission to grow..." I agree with her. Permission to grow, for me, means that I have absolved myself of the needless requirement to write what has already been written before simply because it is popular at the moment. Liberating myself from some imagined notion as to what is expected from me has been wonderful, and it is advice I've given to other writers...

"If we love and respect our craft, we will always be learning..." That should apply to everything, not just the craft of writing. If we love and respect ourselves, we should always be learning, always willing to learn, and never cease to be curious about the world around us, people, books, anything and everything. It will all feed back into our work in some way. We should also always be on the lookout for sloppy habits, complacency and laziness in the writing we do, particularly if we are going to send it out into the world to sink or swim on its own.

Quote by gypsymoth
This is why I can't say which level I'm at.

EDITED to add that after rereading what I wrote above, I still haven't answered the question as Maggie asked it, and have gone completely off topic with that ramble. The ramble was, however, sparked by the question and the prolonged thinking about it that followed.