Al Cook wrote:
"One does not have to suffer for one's art for that art to be 'real'. What great literature do we have that was not professionally published? What great art do we have that has not been bought & sold at least once?"

I agree that art does not necessitate suffering, Al. And even though I can't think of a good example offhand, I am fairly certain that we have more than one artist who's work has been sold after their death, or even earlier "aspiring" work being sold only after they've had a debut breakthrough novel (or other) published. The idea that the financial transaction is what validates the work puts me off. If the value is intrinsic value and that suggests a price, as you say, are we only measuring the value of art in financial terms? And how do we treat material with a intrinsic value that has not yet manifested itself in payment.
I have had a few pieces of short fiction and poetry published in a few places. Sometimes only receiving copies of the published book or magazine, sometimes receiving money. The process of my writing all of the pieces were more or less the same, and I never knew if they'd be published or if I'd get pay when I wrote them.
Now here are a lot of problems with the financial aspect applied to the notion of a "real" writer: Was I a "real" writer when I wrote the pieces (even those I received payment for later when they were published)? Am I a "real" writer now, even though there's no continuity in my publishing at the moment? And how does my writing status effect the texts I've got my name attached to?
Furthermore, even though I have received payment for some of my texts, and although I would argue that I am a writer... I've never considered myself a professional writer, as I have as of yet never made my living on writing.
Add to that this most Swedish writer (writing in Swedish) can hardly sustain enough income to be full time professionals (given a small population and smaller print runs), some relying on government stipends and even more needing to have daytime jobs or temp jobs. Would this mean that Sweden have very few "real" writers? And that most Swedish literature is written by something other than real writers?

Kurt Anderson wrote:
"I'm not saying that the guy who writes great fanfic is the same as Alan Moore, and I'm not saying that the guy who draws great fan art is the same as Neal Adams. But I'd still refer to them as writers and artists."

And let's remember that not all non-professional fiction out there is fan fiction either. I'd argue that most debut novels are written by people who are writing them in their own time and on their own money. And that's probably true for second novels as well. In the world of literature, I wonder how many "real" writers can really support themselves off their sales from early on in their careers.
That's actually a place where I think comics writers/artists (like tv writers and other writers of commercial, serialised fiction) are more fortunate in being able to get hired to produce written material on a weekly/monthly (regular) basis.

Al Cook also wrote:
"John Byrne was an aspiring comic book artist prior to his first sale."

Well only if a comic book artist can never be defined as somebody making comics. He wasn't a professional artist though. But if he'd draw comics all his life and never publishing a thing in that time, the stuff that would be found after his demise would be comics and they'd sure as heck have been made by an artist. The proof of the artist is in the art... not in whether it is right for the market place during his/her lifetime.