Who is an author?

In these days of plenty, it becomes not easy to define or point out who an author is. Normally an author is the one who writes creatively. He naturally must be proficient in the language in which he desires to write. He must also been well-read. He must be both an intellectual and scholar. In addition if he wants to be a poet, one must be rich in imagination. He is also expected to be an aesthetic person and a person of warmth. He must be compassionate and be objective if he wants to be an essayist. And must be able to grasp between the lines if he wants to be a journalist.

The 'author' should be spiritual and need not be a theist and believe in religion and rituals. It would be great if he can respect fellow human beings and observe and deal with them transcending his and their religious, ideological, regional, sub-cultural affiliations.

But the above definition and description of an author seems to be ideal.

In India many presently are wedded to an ism and are lacking objectivism and are becoming more and more parrots in the cage of their chosen ism. And are becoming bitter critics of any written thing other than their favourite ism. They are also unnecessarily vehemently down grading ancient Indian thought and culture. And even though many are writing they are not having avenues to present their work. The obsession with printed work is playing a major role in calling one an author or poet.sny avenues are available on the internet to post one's creation. But all award presentations are confined only to printed works. And one is not an author unless he published printed work.

Authors are made or unmade by their acquaintances with professional critics - who are biased to the ism of their affiliation. It has become very difficult to be called an author or is recognised as one. Domination of isms and critics' obsession with them and prominence given to printed works only are limiting the nomenclature of author to a select few. Mere ability to create literary works is not making one an author. And conversely, affiliation to isms and friendships with committed critics and printing one's work are determining who is to be conferred the "title" of author. And the old definition of "naanrushihi kurute kaavyam - only seers and sages can compose quality literature - dictum is completely given a go by both by current "recognised" authors and critics. Thus it has become privilege of limited writers to be recognised and called an author. And most writers are creating sans being called an author.