I am more grateful than I can say for Trudeau sticking with his Sunday Doonesbury strip all these years. I respect Bill Watterson's right to shape his own career, but at the same time I also mourn the disappearance of Calvin and Hobbes from our public life.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit. Aspiring to be famous is definitely a particularly common form of insanity, especially these days.
I could think of nothing worse than having to deal with the average person pestering you everyday - recognition of your achievements is wonderful yes, but to live under a microscope is definitely not worth it. I think people are finally copping on in the age of MeToo and all the rest of it, no point painting a target on your back.
Watterson was ahead of the curve. I'm sad to say I never read Calvin and Hobbes, and I feel I may be in the latter camp despite spending all of my schooling years looking out at the birds. I think I'll have to back and do so. There's a lot of lessons in children's books anyway.
"Watterson continued in this fashion, surviving on minimum wage ad layout work for a local newspaper, devoting his free time to cartooning.
This routine lasted *for over four years."*
Character stories have to arc - read enough biographies and the trends become obvious enough that they should sink in, but somehow when *you're* the one in the fire it never seems that way.
"And the Rolling Stones have been the number one Rolling Stones tribute band since at least 1974."
Brilliant.
"Failing to bow out at the peak leads to what I like to call Metallica Syndrome. This idea simply states that five good albums + five (and counting) bad albums= diminished legacy."
As a fellow metalhead - equally brilliant. Although there is a large cohort of people who would argue there are really only 4 great Metallica albums...
Love the ending, and I really admire how you get a very real sense for your principles from your writing Tom. The degree of self-awareness feels strange to read, in the best possible way, and I'm not sure if I'll ever get used to it.
Great post, I think it was a re-read for me, but I thoroughly enjoyed it all the same.
I had a bit of a vision a few years ago, where I saw everything I wanted to write over the course of a potential 'career' (or lifetime). It began at the end, with what you might call a 'Hollywood' or multimedia masterpiece, something vaguely articulated but clearly visible, a product of influences from childhood to where I was then.
Everything else I might write to get me there quickly kind of fell into place - a career path if you will. It all seemed to make sense that I would write and produce something every couple of years, about five steps in total that formed a reasonable enough career trajectory (I use the term career loosely but purely artistically I suppose).
Ten years seemed to make sense, something every two years. That might have been possible if I'd already been an established or even just a proficient writer at the time. It was actually only after that 'moment' that I got my finger out and started writing articles, and then shortly after that I started putting them out online.
So now I see it just as a rough artistic trajectory, which at the rate I'm going will happily last a lifetime. I'm firmly in the middle of step 1 but it's all going well so far.
But yeah, the ten year thing resonates, if not literally then as a rough guide. And the 'start at the end and work your way back'. Over two years in and I'm more certain than ever that my rough guide is the right path for me. So yeah, this has me thinking a bit about the path. I really enjoyed this one. Oh, to be content to be Bill Masterson...
(And when I say I had a bit of a vision I mean it literally, it's something I allude to in my Travel Diary #1 and will probably get back to writing more directly about, perhaps when I'm a bit further along the 'path').
I love this article, though I suppose the going out on top bit is a matter of what you are trying to achieve. Legacy or the love of the game.
I once read an article by Billie Jean King about how she wished she hadn't been pressured to "quit at the top" because playing tennis is her favorite thing to do, even if she's losing. I actually saved the quote because it was meaningful to me. She said: “You should go up the mountain and down the mountain all the way, just like you do in real life. You don’t have to go out at number one if you don’t want to.”
Which is definitely how I feel about writing. I will write as long as I love writing, not as long as other people like my writing. Which leads me to wonder, should we really define legacy by "when a work has reached mass appeal" and define the end of a legacy by "right before the masses don't like the work anymore?" If so, many never achieve that level of legacy. Some don't achieve a legacy until after they are dead.
I think about Seinfeld which "went out on top." And certainly, from my perspective, that was Jerry Seinfeld's best work. But should Larry David have stopped before Curb Your Enthusiasm (in my opinion, Larry David's best work). And should Julia Louis-Dreyfus have stopped before Veep (which many, including the award ceremonies, say is her best work)? If the masses are defining when an artist should stop, then we can easily be wrong.
Who are we to say that Bill Watterson didn't have another cartoon up his sleeve that could have been even more imaginative and beloved than Calvin & Hobbes? We will never know because he "went out on top."
It would be difficult to gain just the right amount of fame that your work is widely recognised while avoiding fame from overflowing and destroying your privacy.
Bill obviously did a great job of balancing fame, I had no idea who he was when I started reading this post, but I can say that I knew of Calvin and Hobbes.
I find it interesting that another cartoonist decided to do the opposite. Dilbert is a wildly successful comic that's been running for many years. Scott Adams could have easily copied Bill Waterson's plan, avoided fame and enjoyed his fortune. Instead Scott has continually published more comics and books. And he is very public about his political opinions.
I guess for some personalities a large amount of fame would be enjoyable.
I'm not a good writer so I'll stick to some bullet points here:
• You never know when you've done your best work, 'quitting while you're on top' is (to me) simply fear of failure. The dread of not being able to please people again.
• Your greatest piece of work may be your last - you don't know.
• To consider one's legacy is to let the ego indulge in self-importance. A single good piece of work is enough of a legacy, what's important is the work, not what people think of you when you're gone. If a person builds a bridge over a river where it's needed, that's amazing. It doesn't matter if all the other things they built after the bridge were just walls, we still need walls.
• An artists' early work is most often their purest, most unique work. A product of the forming personality and ego. It may be great, but it can be inaccessible to a wider audience. The mellowing of the personality with age, the humility that experience can bring gives later work a broader reach. Genius is diminished, that's true, but understanding that your creativity doesn't need to be about yourself is good for mankind's legacy.
•What matters is the life you're living, don't worry about your obituary, you're not going to read it. A life for a few lines about some good stuff you did when you were young? Written for an abstract and possibly non-existent audience? Not worth it.
Very thought-provoking as usual, especially for me at the beginning of my journey. In the era of "consistency", "systems", "personal brands" we rarely think about the concept of magnum opus and legacy.
Want to add a bit of "value" (pardon me) about "Metallica Syndrome". It is something really painful to experience when you follow a band for years (or watch a long-lasting TV show). I know many bands like this, but I also know a couple of bands who managed to "stay creative". They did it via a gradual transition to different genres, experimenting and not writing music by inertia, rolling on their past successes. Their music now and their music on the first album are two completely different things. And it's great! I think of it as "local maximums". You make a great piece, feel stuck, move to another area, experiment, reach another "maximum". Some fans are against such transitions and I believe it's often the fanbase that is a part of what makes artists converge to their "niche". They reject experiments, artists see it and go back to their previous style.
To wrap up, I agree with your point about the finite nature of creativity, but I believe that the solution can be in changing genres, experimenting or transitioning to another craft completely. The whole idea resonates with me, even more, when I think about it in the context of life in general, and "the rat race" in particular. People often stuck with one profession they don't like anymore and do it just because that's what they know how to do.
You should prize the audience, rather than have the audience prize you” . This is wisdom for me. Interesting read!
I am more grateful than I can say for Trudeau sticking with his Sunday Doonesbury strip all these years. I respect Bill Watterson's right to shape his own career, but at the same time I also mourn the disappearance of Calvin and Hobbes from our public life.
What do you want the work, as a whole, to say?
That life is wonderful, and you should enjoy it:
Movies To Help You Love Life
Nine Life-Affirming Films
https://moviewise.substack.com/p/movies-to-help-you-love-life
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit. Aspiring to be famous is definitely a particularly common form of insanity, especially these days.
I could think of nothing worse than having to deal with the average person pestering you everyday - recognition of your achievements is wonderful yes, but to live under a microscope is definitely not worth it. I think people are finally copping on in the age of MeToo and all the rest of it, no point painting a target on your back.
Watterson was ahead of the curve. I'm sad to say I never read Calvin and Hobbes, and I feel I may be in the latter camp despite spending all of my schooling years looking out at the birds. I think I'll have to back and do so. There's a lot of lessons in children's books anyway.
"Watterson continued in this fashion, surviving on minimum wage ad layout work for a local newspaper, devoting his free time to cartooning.
This routine lasted *for over four years."*
Character stories have to arc - read enough biographies and the trends become obvious enough that they should sink in, but somehow when *you're* the one in the fire it never seems that way.
"And the Rolling Stones have been the number one Rolling Stones tribute band since at least 1974."
Brilliant.
"Failing to bow out at the peak leads to what I like to call Metallica Syndrome. This idea simply states that five good albums + five (and counting) bad albums= diminished legacy."
As a fellow metalhead - equally brilliant. Although there is a large cohort of people who would argue there are really only 4 great Metallica albums...
Love the ending, and I really admire how you get a very real sense for your principles from your writing Tom. The degree of self-awareness feels strange to read, in the best possible way, and I'm not sure if I'll ever get used to it.
Great post, I think it was a re-read for me, but I thoroughly enjoyed it all the same.
Best,
Conor
Great article Thomas.
The ten year thing is interesting.
I had a bit of a vision a few years ago, where I saw everything I wanted to write over the course of a potential 'career' (or lifetime). It began at the end, with what you might call a 'Hollywood' or multimedia masterpiece, something vaguely articulated but clearly visible, a product of influences from childhood to where I was then.
Everything else I might write to get me there quickly kind of fell into place - a career path if you will. It all seemed to make sense that I would write and produce something every couple of years, about five steps in total that formed a reasonable enough career trajectory (I use the term career loosely but purely artistically I suppose).
Ten years seemed to make sense, something every two years. That might have been possible if I'd already been an established or even just a proficient writer at the time. It was actually only after that 'moment' that I got my finger out and started writing articles, and then shortly after that I started putting them out online.
So now I see it just as a rough artistic trajectory, which at the rate I'm going will happily last a lifetime. I'm firmly in the middle of step 1 but it's all going well so far.
But yeah, the ten year thing resonates, if not literally then as a rough guide. And the 'start at the end and work your way back'. Over two years in and I'm more certain than ever that my rough guide is the right path for me. So yeah, this has me thinking a bit about the path. I really enjoyed this one. Oh, to be content to be Bill Masterson...
(And when I say I had a bit of a vision I mean it literally, it's something I allude to in my Travel Diary #1 and will probably get back to writing more directly about, perhaps when I'm a bit further along the 'path').
I love this article, though I suppose the going out on top bit is a matter of what you are trying to achieve. Legacy or the love of the game.
I once read an article by Billie Jean King about how she wished she hadn't been pressured to "quit at the top" because playing tennis is her favorite thing to do, even if she's losing. I actually saved the quote because it was meaningful to me. She said: “You should go up the mountain and down the mountain all the way, just like you do in real life. You don’t have to go out at number one if you don’t want to.”
Which is definitely how I feel about writing. I will write as long as I love writing, not as long as other people like my writing. Which leads me to wonder, should we really define legacy by "when a work has reached mass appeal" and define the end of a legacy by "right before the masses don't like the work anymore?" If so, many never achieve that level of legacy. Some don't achieve a legacy until after they are dead.
I think about Seinfeld which "went out on top." And certainly, from my perspective, that was Jerry Seinfeld's best work. But should Larry David have stopped before Curb Your Enthusiasm (in my opinion, Larry David's best work). And should Julia Louis-Dreyfus have stopped before Veep (which many, including the award ceremonies, say is her best work)? If the masses are defining when an artist should stop, then we can easily be wrong.
Who are we to say that Bill Watterson didn't have another cartoon up his sleeve that could have been even more imaginative and beloved than Calvin & Hobbes? We will never know because he "went out on top."
I love this. Excellent piece.
I think you cracked it when you spoke about ego.
As soon as ego gets in the way everything goes wrong. If you can keep the ego out of it you can keep going and potentially still produce great work.
I often talk about producing work for yourself. If you can keep selfishly creating you have a superpower in this modern dopamine world.
It would be difficult to gain just the right amount of fame that your work is widely recognised while avoiding fame from overflowing and destroying your privacy.
Bill obviously did a great job of balancing fame, I had no idea who he was when I started reading this post, but I can say that I knew of Calvin and Hobbes.
I find it interesting that another cartoonist decided to do the opposite. Dilbert is a wildly successful comic that's been running for many years. Scott Adams could have easily copied Bill Waterson's plan, avoided fame and enjoyed his fortune. Instead Scott has continually published more comics and books. And he is very public about his political opinions.
I guess for some personalities a large amount of fame would be enjoyable.
Hi Tom,
interesting read, thanks.
I'm not a good writer so I'll stick to some bullet points here:
• You never know when you've done your best work, 'quitting while you're on top' is (to me) simply fear of failure. The dread of not being able to please people again.
• Your greatest piece of work may be your last - you don't know.
• To consider one's legacy is to let the ego indulge in self-importance. A single good piece of work is enough of a legacy, what's important is the work, not what people think of you when you're gone. If a person builds a bridge over a river where it's needed, that's amazing. It doesn't matter if all the other things they built after the bridge were just walls, we still need walls.
• An artists' early work is most often their purest, most unique work. A product of the forming personality and ego. It may be great, but it can be inaccessible to a wider audience. The mellowing of the personality with age, the humility that experience can bring gives later work a broader reach. Genius is diminished, that's true, but understanding that your creativity doesn't need to be about yourself is good for mankind's legacy.
•What matters is the life you're living, don't worry about your obituary, you're not going to read it. A life for a few lines about some good stuff you did when you were young? Written for an abstract and possibly non-existent audience? Not worth it.
Thank you, Tom!
Very thought-provoking as usual, especially for me at the beginning of my journey. In the era of "consistency", "systems", "personal brands" we rarely think about the concept of magnum opus and legacy.
Want to add a bit of "value" (pardon me) about "Metallica Syndrome". It is something really painful to experience when you follow a band for years (or watch a long-lasting TV show). I know many bands like this, but I also know a couple of bands who managed to "stay creative". They did it via a gradual transition to different genres, experimenting and not writing music by inertia, rolling on their past successes. Their music now and their music on the first album are two completely different things. And it's great! I think of it as "local maximums". You make a great piece, feel stuck, move to another area, experiment, reach another "maximum". Some fans are against such transitions and I believe it's often the fanbase that is a part of what makes artists converge to their "niche". They reject experiments, artists see it and go back to their previous style.
To wrap up, I agree with your point about the finite nature of creativity, but I believe that the solution can be in changing genres, experimenting or transitioning to another craft completely. The whole idea resonates with me, even more, when I think about it in the context of life in general, and "the rat race" in particular. People often stuck with one profession they don't like anymore and do it just because that's what they know how to do.