I do know some writers who would deny themselves that description, but the majority of my writing acquaintances accept it.
Friday evenings I browse the online newspapers for book related items that might interest friends and provoke discussions. That was how I came across this article 'Am I a writer' in the Guardian books section by Rick Gekoski- who has had a number of non-fiction books published, and is also a book dealer.
His daughter, a forensic psychologist with numerous articles to her name ( and also a published author) said to him she was not a writer. " "It's just a job of work," she said. "There's no art in it, no imagination or creativity, and no fuss. Writers always make a fuss.""
Now perhaps that is the scientist speaking, but is 'art' the difference between factual writing and fiction?
Do writers make a fuss? Though we don't have any explanation of what type of fuss she means, so perhaps we can ignore that statement...
I suspect it is really about how we define ourselves and the terms 'writer', 'author' and 'novelist'.
This is my personal view of those terms, so they won't necessarily reflect another person's opinion, or the dictionary definitions.
I am a writer because I write (with an aim to be published). Perhaps that moment when we say we are a writer-when someone asks what we do- is when we embrace the description and accept the mantle of writer as part of our identity.
When it comes to the difference between an author and a novelist, is it only me who feels that an author is anyone who has published a book, while the novelist is a term more applicable to writers of 'literary' fiction?
I'm interested in finding out how you view both yourself and the terms mentioned, so please share your views.