Arguments for "Yes":
* Writing is an action, not a result. Someone can be actively writing, crafting stories, poems, essays, or even blog posts, without ever seeking publication. The act of creation is intrinsic to being a writer.
* Publication is a goal, not a requirement. Many writers write for personal enjoyment, to process emotions, or to develop their craft. Publication may not be their priority.
* There are many platforms beyond traditional publishing. Self-publishing, online platforms, and sharing work with close circles all contribute to a person's identity as a writer.
Arguments for "No":
* Publication is a validation. For many, the act of being published signifies a level of quality and acceptance within the writing community.
* Exposure and feedback are key. Publication allows writers to reach a wider audience, receive feedback, and potentially build a career.
* The term "writer" often implies a public audience. While a person can write for themselves, the term "writer" is often associated with the intention of sharing their work with others.
Ultimately, the answer depends on your definition of "writer".
* If you focus solely on the act of writing: Anyone who creates written content can be considered a writer, regardless of publication.
* If you emphasize the public nature of writing: Being published would be a more essential factor in defining someone as a writer.
It's important to remember that:
* Labeling oneself is personal. A person can identify as a writer even if they haven't been published.
* Publication is a journey, not a destination. Many writers struggle with getting published, and that doesn't diminish their skill or passion.
So, whether someone is considered a writer without publication depends on your perspective and the context of the conversation.