There are no interruptions. There are no petty hobbies or blue collar jobs for the writer. The writer lives on a higher plane.
Most writers, or aspiring writers, desire nothing better than to become so rich and famous that they are able to quit their day job and live this life (which looks pretty darn boring to me). But in the off chance that they did become rich and famous (which is impossible for 99.999999999999% of authors), would this life really help them?
The title "writer" is a misnomer. It assumes that all the person does for their vocation is write - that a writer is all that he or she is.
I'd like to suggest that the very best writers regularly experience day to day life. The very best writers do not isolate themselves from people or reality, but indulge in it, observe it, and thereby are able to record or imitate it accurately in their works. It must be admitted that most writers have introverted tendencies. But this is something that must not take over.
In recent times, I read a small novella by someone who did not have a job and constantly spent their time at home. This person wrote very unrealistically, and the character development was poor. Dialogue was limp in this novella, and the story ended on a whimper because of weak characters. This is just one demonstration of what will happen to an author who wishes to remain just that: an author.
On the contrary, the definition of the word "author" or "writer" shouldn't be a narrow one, restricted to writing. It should be one that includes an ability to understand people, an ability to be intensely human and yet to impose order on the chaos of human life. It should speak of a professional observer and interpreter of human behaviour. It should speak of someone who understands what it means to be alive.
In Ann Swinfen's In Defence of Fantasy, C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia are discussed in detail. However, Swinfen suggests in a number of places that Lewis' character development was weak. His story-crafting was magnificent. His description was clear and elegant. The differentiation between the speech of the characters, for the most part, was clever (apart from the speech of the Pevensie children, which - being contemporary speech - should have been something Lewis was familiar with). But ultimately, the story-teller so imposed himself on his characters that they did not develop fully. They remained pawns for the author to move as he wished.
Lewis is acknowledged by a number of sources to have been something of a recluse. Could this have been why his character development suffered?
I know an author that has had about ten different occupations in his lifetime. His work is coloured and varied as a result of all his experiences with people. That is an example of what an author should be: a jack of all trades; an advanced dabbler; someone who doesn't quit their day job, but regularly has face to face interactions with people.
Stories are about people. Stories are made colourful through characters.
It follows naturally, then, that an author should be a professional person - a person in the highest degree. This is a calling that I have not done justice to, and might never do justice to. But I can only try. Let's all try to be better authors. Let's all try to be better people.