On scribblers and writers

[Simosito]

Hello there!
I haven't posted anything in a while, so I will now start asking again a lot of things!
As you may (or may not) know I have a website in English and Italian.
I wrote a new text for this website, and I'd like you to check if I made any mistake.
(The things in bold are those I am not sure about)

When he doesn't explain literature, my Italian teacher gives us advice on how to write.
Thanks to him I can finally translate my articles for the "English Edition" without extra brains or illegal stimulants.
And it is indeed because of him that I am writing this text: he often talks about scribblers and writers.
What is a scribbler? What does make him different from a writer?
One would call writer someone who published something somewhere, including newspapers and magazines. But publication is now obsolete: there's the Internet, there are blogs, and self-publication websites spring like an unfaithful star's children after divorce.
So no, one who gets something published is not a writer.
Can one recognise a writer from the number of readers? No, instruction books and horoscopes are not written by writers.
If one writes novels, stories or poetry he's a writer, then? No, because some are scribblers.
Being scribblers or writers does not depend on what one does, but on how he does it. A writer uses the language, moulds it; the scribbler just writes his ideas in shorthand as they whirl in his head.
The writer thinks, the scribbler writes.

These first 1200 characters make me think about two things (yay, another dichotomy!): «I'm hungry» and «What am I?».
Since it's not dinner time, I will focus on the second one.
I can state that each of my texts is born from second thoughts, corrections, cuts. I can say that I use figures of speech now and then to polish or highlight the contents.
I write with my brain, which is something, but I can't call myself a writer yet.
I gave birth to horrible monsters, some I could delete, others will be there forever ("On the beach", my last two Italian essays). Sometimes I make mistakes I shouldn't make, I find out a bit too late that some things are not written the way I write them. And I have length issues (if it is long it is unreadable, if it is readable it is short).
So I am neither a scribbler (gratias Deo maximas) nor a writer, I am in the Limbo.
Maybe one day I will come forth to rebehold the stars.

To Laura the writer, who knows about Limbo and other things, and keeps trying vainly to persuade me that I know how to write.

Just a few things:

• "dichotomy" is a difficult and technical word, I know, that's why I am using it.

• "length issues" should be what in Italian is called doppio senso:it does mean that I can't write long texts, but one should also think I am talking about my "virility". (By the way: how is this called in English?)
• "come forth to rebehold the stars" here I'm quoting Dante's Inferno.

Thank you very much for your time,
S~

[birdeen's call]

• "dichotomy" is a difficult and technical word, I know, that's why I am using it.

Hmm... Is it the only reason why you're using it or do you want it to make sense too? I'm not sure where any non-trivial dichotomy is here. A dichotomy is a division. What is divided? You mentioned two "things", only two. Any division (non-trivial partition) of a two-element set must be into two parts so, in other words, it must be a dichotomy...

[Simosito]

Well, the dichotomy thing (and the lenght thing and the Limbo thing) are some kind of internal jokes. I wrote those two because I know they will be understood by the person for whom I wrote the text. So only one person has to understand...

I am not sure I understood what you wrote. Did you mean "there is no whole to be divided in two so this is not a dichotomy"?

[birdeen's call]

Well, the dichotomy thing (and the lenght thing and the Limbo thing) are some kind of internal jokes. I wrote those two because I know they will be understood by the person for whom I wrote the text. So only one person has to understand...

I am not sure I understood what you wrote. Did you mean "there is no whole to be divided in two so this is not a dichotomy"?

Almost. I meant, "The whole is too small. There's only one possible division, whose being a dichotomy is obvious."

You had two thoughts, say 1 and 2. The only division of {1,2} is the division into two parts, one containing 1 and the other containg 2. It seemed strange to me that you mentioned such a division.

PS: I think I failed to understand what struck me most. The American Heritage Dictionary says a dichotomy is a "division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions". I was looking for contradictions and couldn't find them!

[Simosito]

Well I wrote "another dichotomy" because the first paragraph itself uses a real dichotomy (difference between writers and scribblers). Of course the second dichotomy is not correct, for the two parts should be either contradictory or complementary.

Also, I wanted to focus on the dichotomies because it was typical of the 1200s writings, which we are studying in Italian Lit.

[birdeen's call]

Well I wrote "another dichotomy" because the first paragraph itself uses a real dichotomy (difference between writers and scribblers). Of course the second dichotomy is not correct, for the two parts should be either contradictory or complementary.

Also, I wanted to focus on the dichotomies because it was typical of the 1200s writings, which we are studying in Italian Lit.

OK, I see. I just found it a little strange.

I think there are some other issues in the text but I think it would be better if someone else would take care of it. I'm not sure if I'm able to spot and correct all of them.

[Simosito]

Ok, thank you!

[Gillnetter]

Hello there!
I haven't posted anything in a while, so I will now start asking again a lot of things!
As you may (or may not) know, I have a website in English and Italian.
I wrote a new text for this website, and I'd like you to check if I made any mistake.
(The things in bold are those I am not sure about)

Just a few things:

• "dichotomy" is a difficult and technical word, I know, that's why I am using it. It is a fairly common word.

• "length issues" should be what in Italian is called doppio senso:it does means that I can't write long texts, but one should could also think I am talking about my "virility". (By the way: how is this called in English?) I don't know. Virility refers to ability not length. I would just say that I have a problem writing long texts.
• "come forth to rebehold the stars" here I'm quoting Dante's Inferno.

Thank you very much for your time,
S~

When he doesn't isn't explaining literature, my Italian teacher gives us advice on how to write. (I assume this is the meaning you are after. This means that when he isn't doing one thing, he is doing another. The other possible meaning is that the teacher doesn't explain literature - in this case the sentence should begin with while.)
Thanks to him I can finally translate my articles for the "English Edition" without extra brains or illegal stimulants.
And it is indeed because of him that I am writing this text: he often talks about scribblers and writers.
What is a scribbler? What does makes him different from a writer?
One would call a writer someone who published something somewhere, including newspapers and magazines. But publication is now obsolete: there's the Internet, there are blogs, and self-publication websites spring like an unfaithful star's children after a divorce.
So, no, one who gets something published is not a writer.
Can one recognise a writer from the number of readers? No, instruction books and horoscopes are not written by writers. (Instruction books are written by technical writers.)
If one writes novels, stories or poetry he's a writer, then? No, because some are scribblers.
Being scribblers or writers does not depend on what one does, but on how he does it. A writer uses the language, moulds it; the scribbler just writes his ideas in shorthand as they whirl in his head.
The writer thinks, the scribbler writes.

These first 1200 characters make me think about two things (yay, another dichotomy!): «I'm hungry» and «What am I?».
Since it's not dinner time, I will focus on the second one.
I can state that each of my texts is born from second thoughts, corrections and cuts (Unsure of how you are using "cuts'). I can say that I use figures of speech now and then to polish or highlight the contents.
I write with my brain, which is something, but I can't call myself a writer yet.
I gave birth to horrible monsters, some I could delete, others will be there forever ("On the beach", my last two Italian essays, for example). Sometimes I make mistakes I shouldn't make, I find out a bit too late that some things are not written the way I write them. And I have length issues (if it is long it is unreadable, if it is readable it is short).
So I am neither a scribbler (gratias Deo maximas) nor a writer, I am in the Limbo.
Maybe one day I will come forth to rebehold the stars.

To Laura the writer, who knows about Limbo and other things, and keeps trying vainly to persuade me that I know how to write.

[Simosito]

When he doesn't isn't explaining literature, my Italian teacher gives us advice on how to write. (I

Thank you.

What is a scribbler? What does makes him different from a writer?

Why without "does"? Is that because make is an auxiliary itself?

One would call a writer someone who published something somewhere, including newspapers and magazines. But publication is now obsolete: there's the Internet, there are blogs, and self-publication websites spring like an unfaithful star's children after a divorce.

Ta.

corrections and cuts (Unsure of how you are using "cuts'). I can say that I use figures of speech now and then to polish or highlight the contents.

Definition of cut noun (PART REMOVED) from Cambridge Dictionary Online: Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus
this one.

Thank you very much!