I think the most dogmatic you can get without becoming subjective is to say that a writer is someone who writes. Once you start defining a writer by projects accomplished or method of writing it's only your opinion.
So why am I talking about this? Well, because of a blog post I recently read which spawned this counter-post (a riposte?).
“Yes, but no true writer—”
Well, who gets to decide what a true writer is? Who gets to make the list of requirements everyone has to meet before he can become a true writer?
I’m sticking with the dictionary definition.
You can pretend to be someone you’re not, but that’s being a fake cool/smart/happy/whatever person; not a fake person. Clothing store mannequins actually are fake people, but let’s not judge them for something they can’t help.
Well, you can (it’s a free country), but calling him a fake doesn’t make him one.
What if you love the Harry Potter movies but have never read the books? Does that make you a fake fan?
Nope. Not according to the dictionary.