I know folks disagree with me and I think it's cool that Long Days comes right out and says my working definition of a writer is horseshit. It's cool because it shows a certain amount of trust.

But I dunno.

I don't see the brilliance and I'm not trying to be modest and I'm not looking for compliments or praise.

Technically, by definition, I'm a writer and granted some of my apprehension to take on the label as 'writer' is because there would be added pressure to perform, even if only in my own head. So, the definition lover in me knows that it is indeed all horseshit that I do subscribe to the idea that a writer is more than just one who writes, that there is an artistry to it, that there needs to be at least a passion for writing to be called a writer.

A writer afterall is merely one who writes, period, this I know - but I disagree.

I think part of the reason I disavow being a writer is because I don't see what I do here is on level as those writers I read. There is no real effort contain in this space. I rarely rewrite anything. Everything here is a first draft finished project. To call myself a writer would be disrespectful to the writers I respect, true wordsmiths who forge the written word.

This here is all just me talking to myself, this is all the dialog; replaying of events; and retelling of stories that has always happened within my head since I can remember. I remember a lot in the form of written words, when I memorize things, I memorize them as though they were written on a page. I was asked what somebody's name was the other day and I couldn't remember but I said that it was short, it had four letters, a moment later I said Eric.

All of this is just a transcribed copy of the noise in my head.

I wouldn't label the monks that spent their whole lives making copies of the ancient texts as writers either.

Long Days is correct, I am I writer but I disagree.