For many of us scribblers, publication is essential. It isn’t fame and fortune we’re seeking (not mainly, anyway) but readers. We see writing as communication. Without an audience, half the equation is missing.
But not everyone agrees. In The Writer’s Book of Hope, Ralph Keyes shares a conversation with a writer named Tom, who never tried to get his short stories published. When Keyes asked why, Tom replied, “Why should I?” The only two reasons to publish, he said, were money and fame. He already had enough of the first, and didn’t want the second. So he just wrote for his own enjoyment. Keyes believes Tom is on the right track.
Not caring about publication might sound like an excuse drummed up by a lazy or untalented writer, but history shows that’s far from the case. Among writers who eschewed publishing were some of the most brilliant in history. Emily Dickinson called publication “the Auction/of the Mind of Man,” and Gustave Flaubert called it “the height of prostitution, and the vilest kind” (although he later ignored his own advice and worked hard to get his work in print).
Many contemporary writers agree that publishing isn’t and shouldn’t be the writer’s goal. Blogger Jeff Goins seconds Keyes’ thoughts about publication:
“Real writers don’t write to get published. They write just to write. Real writers don’t write for recognition or fame or notoriety. They write because they simply cannot not write. . . Real writers do not begin the day with aspirations of seeing their words in print; they simply show up, available to be used as a mouthpiece.”
Perhaps it will always be a debate among writers. There will always be some of us who yearn for the public validation of publication—who need to share their work with the world. And there will always be some who genuinely don’t care who might one day read their words.
But even among those of us who virtually always write with thoughts of an audience in their minds, the words of Tom and Jeff Goins ring true. As much as I write for publication, I can also say that, even if I knew with absolute certainty nothing I wrote in the future would ever make its way to print, I wouldn’t stop writing.
Where do you stand on this debate? Does a writer need to publish to be a real writer? Are unpublished writers merely “mumbling to themselves?” Should publishing be a goal of every writer? Or is there some middle ground?
I love this post. Thanks for reminding me to question my “belief” about what it means to be a “real” writer.
Thanks! I’m glad you liked it.
Writing for publication is not the same as writing for spiritual psychological understanding. That is not to say that one must write with an either/or mentality, or that the two purposes cannot be satisfied in the same piece. However, certain writings are not, and should not, be exposed beyond the heart of the writer. These writings include those that are simply not crafted well enough to engage a reader, but might still hold great significance for the writer.
Personally, I love and need publication, but not as a goal in itself. I think about publication when I write a piece that seems to speak to a wider audience, or when I write something that might resonate with a reader.
In Progoff’s Intensive Journal, however, publication of work generated within the workshop is not to be published, nor shared beyond the boundaries of the workshop atmosphere. This guideline serves to free up the inner critic, and to encourage the writer to “let it all hang out.”
As for who is a “real” writer, that’s easy. Whoever sits and writes is a real writer.
Beautifully said, Marie! Thank you. And I agree entirely with your definition.