Why Creative Success Destroys People

[gunhilltrain]

I just saw this, so I have to think more about it. One thought: here, we are paid nothing and only have to deal with a few thousand viewers at a time. Most of us are using pen names, not our own. But maybe that's not so bad. We can afford to mess up sometimes, and still come back again. If somebody likes what we're doing, they owe us nothing and don't even really know us - so it's probably genuine? We have a certain amount of freedom that way, perhaps.

 

[Britva415]

A lot of us like repeating that "audience comes last" bit around here.

And, while in the video the message is "that's bullshit," here it does make sense because none of us are commercializing what we're putting on Lit. There are other measures of success here, and so for some of us, that is bullshit, but for a lot of us, it's totally not.

 

[Bamagan]

There was a Peanuts special called Snoopy Come Home, more than 50 years ago now. At the end, Snoopy hands out letters to Charlie Brown and the others, demanding that they return items that he'd given them when he expected to be moving away permanently. His letter to Charlie basically said, since he hadn't given him anything, nothing was owed.
That basically sums up my feelings on the audience here and on similar sites. Nothing exchanged. That's less true for some authors, obviously, who enjoy and encourage engagement with their readers. To each their own.

 

[iwatchus]

That basically sums up my feelings on the audience here and on similar sites. Nothing exchanged.

I understand your point, but they gave us their time. And by publishing our stories, we are asking for that time. And time is absolutely the most precious resource any f us has.

Part of me thinks that the site owes them an easier way to find stories they will like. As a longtime reader here, that was my biggest complaint.

 

[NotWise]

I was taken by his closing comment that it's community rather than commercial success that makes creative efforts worthwhile.

You might complain about Literotica in a lot of different ways, but the site seems pretty committed to helping us build community. That is mostly in the form of a community of readers who appreciate our work. AH is obviously a tool for building a community of other authors. AH has worked for some of us, and it has failed for others. Mostly I feel like it could be better, I just don't know how to make it so.

 

[Bamagan]

I understand your point, but they gave us their time. And by publishing our stories, we are asking for that time. And time is absolutely the most precious resource any f us has.

Part of me thinks that the site owes them an easier way to find stories they will like. As a longtime reader here, that was my biggest complaint.

Gotta say I disagree. They're not giving us their time when they read our stories. They may be choosing to spend their time on the thing we spent (even more) time making, and perhaps that's complimentary, but that's not really a transaction or even a gift. We don't get their time, or ours back. Yes, perhaps it makes the time spent feel more worthwhile if you know people appreciate what you did with it. But for me, I spent the time doing something I enjoyed, and if someone else enjoys it too, that's a bonus for both of us.

 

[gunhilltrain]

One segment that struck me was how Colin Greenwood (did I get his name right) was for a long time trapped by the Radiohead song "Creep." It happens to other musicians too, but Greenwood was in a position where he almost had to sing the song at every concert because the audience demanded it. Some bands are lucky enough to have a wide enough repertoire that they could have many options. But some people have only one signature song that defines them and then limits them.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

A lot of us like repeating that "audience comes last" bit around here.

And, while in the video the message is "that's bullshit," here it does make sense because none of us are commercializing what we're putting on Lit. There are other measures of success here, and so for some of us, that is bullshit, but for a lot of us, it's totally not.

Many of those same people will complain about voting, favoriting and comments... they obviously care a little about the audience.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Actors are often typecast, and writers may work on the same story for months or years. Writers might find such success with one particular story that they never stray from that genre or character and write the same thing over and over. That may or may not be a bad thing. The problem is that creative people often have an addictive disorder. Meaning, they are susceptible to addiction. Addicted to coffee, smoking, dope, a TV show, doing things they like so much, nothing else matters. It doesn't even have to be something dangerous in and of itself. Whatever they are addicted to becomes their escape from the creativity they're good at.

 

[Britva415]

Many of those same people will complain about voting, favoriting and comments... they obviously care a little about the audience.

There are those people, definitely.

I haven't noticed them being the same people as the ones who I talked about, though.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

There are those people, definitely.

I haven't noticed them being the same people as the ones who I talked about, though.

A Venn diagram would definitely show some overlap. I don't claim it's everyone though.

 

[Gamblnluck]

I understand your point, but they gave us their time. And by publishing our stories, we are asking for that time. And time is absolutely the most precious resource any f us has.

I tend to agree. I can tell myself a story while mowing the yard. (called a fantasy). But when I write it here, I am telling a story to an audience. Just because they are not paying me, does not mean they are irrelevant.
Yes, I am still going to tell the story that I want to tell, in the manner that I want, but I still want it to connect with an appreciative (for the most part) audience. Otherwise, why bother?

 

[gunhilltrain]

Many of those same people will complain about voting, favoriting and comments... they obviously care a little about the audience.

We all obliviously notice the reactions we get. Sometimes the worst fate is to be mostly ignored. Yet it's a balancing act to not be consumed buy those metrics, but to keep going anyway. I mentioned that since we are not paid anything, and the cost of writing a story is negligible, that gives us some freedom perhaps.

I wouldn't want to be a filmmaker, because the costs for anything above an experimental little movie can rise very fast. The worst problems are with directors who have success, and then think they are above the constraints of budgets and schedules. Michael Cimino succumbed to megalomania, perhaps, but he never seemed to grasp how far he had gone.

Something similar happened to Francis Coppola. He was truly in a crazy situation, filming on the other side of the world in the Philippines. And he made the huge movie-making blunder of starting production without a completed script.

 

[SmilingLez]

Seems like as time passes, humans demand more and more ego stroking, either directly or indirectly; and those who don't feel they get all the warm fuzzies they feel they "deserve" go out of their way to screw others to get the warm fuzzy lie of thinking they are superior.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Actors are often typecast, and writers may work on the same story for months or years. Writers might find such success with one particular story that they never stray from that genre or character and write the same thing over and over. That may or may not be a bad thing. The problem is that creative people often have an addictive disorder. Meaning, they are susceptible to addiction. Addicted to coffee, smoking, dope, a TV show, doing things they like so much, nothing else matters. It doesn't even have to be something dangerous in and of itself. Whatever they are addicted to becomes their escape from the creativity they're good at.

There are plenty of addictions going around with people who are not creative. My guess is that creative people with financial success can afford to buy a little more time to indulge themselves, but not as much as they think. Elvis, Amy Winehouse, and John Belushi are all mentioned in the video.

It's possible that Keith Richards actually cleaned-up years ago, but he holds on to his "bad-boy" addict persona as part of his image. Pure speculation of course.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I wasn't even referring to the famous ones, but rather those who are working-class writers, actors, and artists. You don't have to be creative to have an addictive personality disorder—just a propensity to excess in the things you do. My father's first wife says that Dad's always been an adrenaline junkie. That was probably true back in the 70s and 80s, but now that he's in his early 70s, not so much.

There are plenty of addictions going around with people who are not creative. My guess is that creative people with financial success can afford to buy a little more time to indulge themselves, but not as much as they think. Elvis, Amy Winehouse, and John Belushi are all mentioned in the video.

It's possible that Keith Richards actually cleaned-up years ago, but he holds on to his "bad-boy" addict persona as part of his image. Pure speculation of course.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I'm not sure how well the addiction thing really plays.
Is there any reason to think that creative types are more likely to be alcoholics/drug users/whatever than the average person?
The big difference is that when John Belushi ODs the world knows about it. When Frank in apartment 23B ODs it's a line on the police blotter and only his family knows.
Also, having money and the freedom that acting and music at high levels provides allows you to "work" for longer while you are an addict.
If I showed up at work drunk I'd be fired instantly. If your average rock star is drunk on stage no one cares as long as she can play.

The jobs enable the behavior, but that isn't the root cause of it.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Something similar happened to Francis Coppola. He was truly in a crazy situation, filming on the other side of the world in the Philippines. And he made the huge movie-making blunder of starting production without a completed script.

And ended up with one of cinema's great movies. Just because he didn't have a completed script going in didn't matter. I think most of the best movies tweak their scripts as they went along.

 

[Baztrachian]

I just saw this, so I have to think more about it. One thought: here, we are paid nothing and only have to deal with a few thousand viewers at a time. Most of us are using pen names, not our own. But maybe that's not so bad. We can afford to mess up sometimes, and still come back again. If somebody likes what we're doing, they owe us nothing and don't even really know us - so it's probably genuine? We have a certain amount of freedom that way, perhaps.

Creative success does not destroy people. It's just that certain types of creative people who are exceedingly talented also tend to put themselves in harm's way.

The artistic, musical, and theatrical communities are rife with people who drink to excess, use drugs, have unstable personalities, and etc.

How many of them kill themselves? How many die of overdoses?

It's almost as if the universe demands a high price for their success.

 

[iwatchus]

I am not a trained psychiatrist, but I am about to play one on the internet so...

My understanding is that each individual has a propensity towards addiction, but becoming an addict depends heavily on the stress put on someone. That and combined with access to an addictive substance. The army was very concerned about the addiction rates in Nam, but the medical world was shocked when most of them actually just stopped using when they got back out of that hellhole. I believe most people have a breaking point that they will turn to an addiction if they have access, although that breaking point varies from person to person. Some of that breaking point may be external, like Viet Nam was, or internal, ones demons or what Stephen Stills called the Multi-Colored Beast in his ode too battling suicidal thoughts.

I do think creative people are more likely to have internal demons. It is not limited to them and I assume that not all creative types do. And the pressures of trying to get this phrase perfect or that chord or a brush stroke doesn't matter. It is a pressure almost all creatives feel. Many of us have talked in threads about the compulsion to get the words out. When they want to come out and can't, it is hard on your psyche. And there be demons there.

I will go back to being an opinionated college professor who knows nothing about psychiatry now.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Hey, my demon is a nice demon!

I am not a trained psychiatrist, but I am about to play one on the internet so...

My understanding is that each individual has a propensity towards addiction, but becoming an addict depends heavily on the stress put on someone. That and combined with access to an addictive substance. The army was very concerned about the addiction rates in Nam, but the medical world was shocked when most of them actually just stopped using when they got back out of that hellhole. I believe most people have a breaking point that they will turn to an addiction if they have access, although that breaking point varies from person to person. Some of that breaking point may be external, like Viet Nam was, or internal, ones demons or what Stephen Stills called the Multi-Colored Beast in his ode too battling suicidal thoughts.

I do think creative people are more likely to have internal demons. It is not limited to them and I assume that not all creative types do. And the pressures of trying to get this phrase perfect or that chord or a brush stroke doesn't matter. It is a pressure almost all creatives feel. Many of us have talked in threads about the compulsion to get the words out. When they want to come out and can't, it is hard on your psyche. And there be demons there.

I will go back to being an opinionated college professor who knows nothing about psychiatry now.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm not sure if "creative success" is the problem, but I think there are two issues.

One is that success, creative or not, meaning making lots of money and getting fame, can screw some people up, especially if it happens early. Some people get a sense of entitlement. Success can make some people fat and happy and lazy. But on the other hand there are plenty of successful people who aren't affected in this way.

The other thing is that, in my humble opinion, we look at art the wrong way. We think of art as a special ethereal realm where the normal rules don't apply, and I think this attitude screws people up. Artists would be better off if they thought of themselves as craftsmen. Like writing a story is like building a chair. You're not special. You're just writing something that some people want to read, like some people want to sit in an especially comfy chair.

 

[OddLove]

I definitely recognize and appreciate the freedom being a 'nobody' grants me when it comes to writing erotica. I still put a little pressure on myself just cause I wanna write the best story I can.

But I imagine the aftermath of making it really big then receiving criticism from millions of people is legitimately soul crushing and damaging to people's mental health.

It's still easy to mock them for complaining though, like 'Aww, boo hoo. Go cry in your mansion while your maid raises your kids and your butler walks your stupid pure inbred lowchens around your gated neighborhood you fuck.'

I still try to sympathize though, it's just difficult.

 

[gunhilltrain]

And ended up with one of cinema's great movies. Just because he didn't have a completed script going in didn't matter. I think most of the best movies tweak their scripts as they went along.

I think it's a great movie until the last scene with Brando. He had Brando and Sheen improvise most it because he was running out of time (to keep Brando, in other words). I think I've seen it three times, and I always think the film runs out of energy at that point. He had other endings in mind, and we'll never know how those would have worked.

By the way, I've seen the director's cut, and I understand why most of that had to go. The French Plantation scene was an interesting idea but the movie also loses it's momentum during that sequence.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I definitely recognize and appreciate the freedom being a 'nobody' grants me when it comes to writing erotica. I still put a little pressure on myself just cause I wanna write the best story I can.

But I imagine the aftermath of making it really big than receiving criticism from millions of people is legitimately soul crushing and damaging to people's mental health.

It's still easy to mock them for complaining though, like 'Aww, boo hoo. Go cry in your mansion while your maid raises your kids and your butler walks your stupid pure inbred lowchens around your gated neighborhood you fuck.'

I still try to sympathize though, it's just difficult.

Look at all those movie stars
They're all so beautiful and clean
When the housemaids scrub the floors
They get the spaces in between
I wanna live a life like that
I wanna be just like a king
Take my picture by the pool
'Cause I'm the next big thing