I actually think the headline, which the writer may not have chosen herself, is a bad description of the post. The irony of a article about writing somehow miss

I actually think the headline, which the writer may not have chosen herself, is a bad description of the post. The irony of a article about writing somehow missing le mot juste... It's not about handbooks; it's about the blurry edges of the writing profession, where people tip over from "someone who writes" into someone who self-identifies as a writer and is dubbed a writer by others. This is partially because writing, like coding, is an open profession. Unlike medicine for a example. Degrees may be helpful, but they are not mandatory. So there is no clear symbolic threshold separating the hobbyists from whoever deserves to be called a writer. There is no officially accepted imprimatur, no government-certified club that doles out memberships. But there is a clear practical threshold, and that is money. If you make a living writing, then you are a writer as long as you do that. There are also other good indicators, which may involve less (social) currency: If you spend a lot of time writing or thinking about writing, until it becomes your daily and predominant activity, then you are a writer. Being a writer does not mean someone is a good writer. Personally, I don't think Stephen King is a good writer, and I wouldn't read him for advice -- but he is indisputably a writer, regardless of that subjective judgment.