Suppose that a writer is that which writes. What is written is merely the result of the writer writing. Things scrape against other things and leave residue constantly, creating some beautiful friction, if we’re lucky leaving a sensual residue. Imagine that writing is not simply fricated residue, even though surely some writing has been written this way. Writing is not simply the residue left behind from a writer writing, unless it is possible to answer the question "What is writing?" with the answer "Writing is what a writer has written."

What is a writer? Paradoxically, a writer is that which writes. A writer has some capability, writing, which it does. Does it always do this? In other words, is a writer always writing? That which isn’t writing must not be writing, and if a writer is that which is writing, then that which isn’t writing has no possibility of being a writer. So if a writer isn’t writing, then it’s not a writer, because a writer is that which is writing.

Is all writing autobiographical? A writer is that which writes, and that if a writer isn’t writing, then it’s not a writer. But what does that which writes refer to? If that which writes is simply that which holds the shape “is writing” then a writer is writing. So it seemed that a writer was that which writes, but now it seems that a writer is writing, because that which writes is writing. So a writer is writing, it exists.

Yet again, why is a writer not that which writes? A writer is writing. If a writer is that which writes, there is no writing. If what a writer is "is writing," then it seems the answer to the question "What is a writer?" is simply writing.