I'll respectfully disagree with you, and say that the problem with TCD's novels / movie is the problem of anyone who's switching genres / mediums. He's put hundreds if not thousands of hours into writing and acting short comedic criticisms of visual mediums, and he's got a smooth, polished delivery that plays well to its medium and audience. That's not just criticism, that's a performance.
But he hasn't put out the same volume of work, with the same level of feedback, in another medium - and as you rightly point out, being great at deconstructing something is not the same as being great at doing it, especially when you're starting over in maybe a different medium, definitely different tone, different genre, and different audience expectations.
Even if you're staying in the same medium - JK Rowling was right to put out her adult novels under a pen name, because they were decent beginner novels in that genre... but could never live up to the expectations that she was going to put out something as good for that particular genre as her children's series were.
I recently went with friends to a pottery studio, and painted glaze on a premade ceramic teapot. No matter how much colour theory and art layout I know from working with cover artists, it didn't help with the doing. Once it was fired and I got the results back, I had to laugh, because it looks about as enthusiastic and terrible as you'd expect from anyone creating something for the first time without close supervision breathing down their neck. Doesn't matter how good my prose may be, my pottery painting skills are level 0, and I need a lot of directed practice in order to get better.
The lesson I walk away with isn't that the critic/creator model is dead, but that expertise at one thing, and broad reach for discovery, isn't going to drive sales on the other thing unless it's good enough to attract crossover market... and keep them coming back.
The only point I'd want to push back on is this one: "...both of them are bad at it. So bad that their opinions on culture need only carry as much weight as the nameless kid..."
I'm not a fan of the idea that you have to be successful in a field to successfully criticise it because they're wildly different skillsets. In the same way as there are excellent editors who never write their own books, I have no problem with someone like Critical Drinker writing entertaining takedowns of modern entertainment even if he doesn't have the skills to replace it. (I've not tried his book yet, so I couldn't say.)
It's good that they stepped into the arena, but mostly because it'll make them better at the craft of criticism to understand what goes into the crafts that they criticise. The success of it is irrelevant to whether they do a good job of assessing other work.
I know I'm the flipside, I can write, I can even edit writing, but don't ask me to do breakdowns of why some other content worked or didn't work because the best I've got is "I liked it".
But your point about not trying to build an audience for your creations by criticising other stuff is 100% correct. Not least because you attract an audience of people who like criticising stuff 😂
"I had good reason for thinking I could sell what I wrote. I had gone thoroughly through some of the all-fiction magazines and I made up my mind that if people were paid for writing such rot as I read I could write stories just as rotten. Although I had never written a story, I knew absolutely that I could write stories just as entertaining and probably a lot more so than any I chanced to read in those magazines." - Edgar Rice Burroughs
I stopped giving bad reviews when I became an author. The original reason was that I didn't want any splashback - because there are people who will come after you (Especially in Indie) if you say anything bad about them.
As I got more successful, it really was just not having the time and not really caring all that much about what others were doing. If I didn't like it, I didn't read it, let others who might enjoy it have their fun.
Now I'm at the point were I *can't* say anything at all bad about someone else's work, I can't even try to offer constructive criticism - none of that. Because now I'm 'punching down' and being Lomprey on them and destroying their dream (etc etc etc). It's... weird.
I've never felt that being negative was a good vibe for creativity or a good place to start. It's easy to say what people don't want, it's harder to figure out what they do.
Amen that. Especially in the indie scene. We’re all struggling for attention, the most merciful and just way to handle bad indie fiction is to ignore it.
Yes, but at the same time, toxic positivity can drag the whole scene down. It makes readers who AREN’T aspiring writers not trust anything people say or anything that comes out of it.
I agree with this whole-heartedly. It’s easy to stand on the side-lines and criticize. It’s another thing to do. There’s an author out there that makes videos on how to make your story good. I won’t say their name, but I read their book and it doesn’t justify much of the sarcasm I see on their channel.
OPINION: I’m a former actress, MA in Film Studies, singer, I took college art classes in high school. Like I’ve sort of been around some stuff to pick up on a few patterns. This is my belief. The art of criticism is HIGHLY misunderstood. It does not guarantee success as an artist and it isn’t really designed to? Going to higher level art classes didn’t make me better at doing art itself. Learning film studies doesn’t mean I know how to hold a camera. I do not know anything about this person or his history, but I’ve seen some of his videos. What criticism is…is discourse. A way to track the ongoing conversation about how and why we consume the things we consume and what that means for the greater world around us. Would you like this? Would this annoy you? Is this dangerous to a certain group of people and why…It’s not a failing so much as it is a learning curve to go from criticism to creation. I made that journey backwards and am heading back the direction I started in. These days we fail in public. The only person online who makes writing I actually read is Hello Future Me, because he put it in one of his videos anonymously so I had no idea it was his work until after the analysis. And I thought…wow I actually quite enjoyed that.
Just because the friggin French New Wave had filmmakers who became critics to boost their own movement doesn’t mean their criticisms were “good” so it works both ways.
I’m happy this guy is doing his best to build a new skill because the comfort of being a critic can, in my experience, kill the discomfort of creation. It’s why I left academia but I’ve already gone on too long. Thank you for your insights, friend!
This is why comps are so important. When I started out, I'd lie to myself that there was nothing out there like what I was writing. That cannot be true, ever 🤣 But I've since learned that it's OK to show your stuff to an audience who already like similar things. You're not losing anything by making your work more relevant to potential readers. I'd read the next GoT book even though it's been years since the last one and I read the series. I just like that. If someone presented a book and said "this is for fans of George RR Martin," I'm probably going to be interested.
As for reviewing other books: can't do it unless I enjoyed it. I've never used the critic to creator model, but I've seen others try and it goes down like a lead balloon now that we have substack where people can just see for themselves what you write like.
It's not that I don't want to hear this, Graham...it's that it doesn't matter.
Let me try and add to your article--cause it was a good one (thumbs up).
I've been at the indie game for a very long time.
1986 long time.
I'm not famous. I'm not rich.
But I have provided for my very large family doing this over the years (13 kids, all boys buy 9).
Read your article, and I can, most definitely see some of the points, Graham...I can...and I'm certainly not saying you're wrong.
I'm just thinking, "What DOES this have to do with me AS an indie author?"
I say this with a grin on my face, because the thousandth time around this block has taught me many valuable lessons.
IF I'm doing what I SHOULD be doing (as an indie author)...none of it matters.
None of it should matter.
Don't know about you, or readers here, but I don't base my goals, thoughts, ideas, ideals on Drinker.
What he (or anyone like him) does, doesn't do, thinks, says, has nothing to do with me, nor does it affect my world/worldview.
Also, I could care less what the big kid from school does, because I don't get into the ring with guys like that. Never did.
...I waited for the sucker to be alone, and confronted them in MY way, on MY terms...EXACTLY as I do with writing and publishing.
Think about that one, because we all have access to pretty much the same tools & knowledge in today's environment, regardless of where you live or who you are.
So what is really the takeaway from your article, IMHO?
What makes us different (or SHOULD make us different) from these examples you gave?
DON'T SUCK.
Anything can be accomplished, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T SUCK.
Don't have to be the best writer. Not even close.
...but you MUST NOT SUCK.
Let that burn in your brain...cause we justify, reason, and lie our asses off to avoid the reality of those two words.
THAT will hunt you down and destroy you.
You can be the best at marketing, have friends in every meaningful place, connections, money, advantages, but if you SUCK....it WILL NOT MATTER.
You will fail.
You just proved that point by this article, Graham. I didn't know any of that about Drinker. Yup, I listen to his reviews on movies, as well as Nerdrodic, and I agree with them 25-35% of the time. I, like you, have enjoyed many movies these guys probably trashed.
But you've shown me a new side that now has me 'critically' (heh) thinking about them, and NOT in a good way.
If you had told me that Drinker was exceptional at writing, and you were shocked, I would likely go buy a book and see for myself. Total flip of the script...now I wont bother.
As indie authors, we have complete freedom.
That also means complete responsibility and accountability. If you fail, for ANY reason, it's on you.
110% just you.
Don't suck.
Use the right tools.
LEARN HOW TO GET FOUND.
Plant seeds for your stories.
Make friends, romance your readers.
Create an immersive experience readers become addicted to.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
If you can sell one book, why not 10, 100, 1000?
Why not a million, if you get enough eyes on your work...that doesn't suck?
(EDIT: My very first novel sold just over 23,000 copies. That includes the 20 family and friends. 100% word of mouth...ZERO advertising...and I STILL thought I sucked!)
Plus, the more you practice, the better you'll get.
As long as you don't suck.
It's so bloody simple...just not easy.
You're not competing with ANYONE out there, BTW. That's a BS perspective that'll get you nowhere in record time.
This is a long game to reach the tipping point.
-------
The last thing I'll say, is that being an indie author requires two very specific hats to succeed financially.
The writer / the businessman.
If you're writing as a hobby, awesome -- rock on.
If you want money, a living, freedom, you have to think like a business owner.
Doesn't take any of the joy from the writing, trust me on this...you just have to understand the world and your audience in a different way, and shift your approach.
Until then, well, you can let Justin Lomprey lay on top of you until you're ready to change the rules and play your own game.
I was a big fan of the Critical Drinker when I first discovered him. Thought he was funny and witty, but I started to see a pattern of reliance on the reactionary crowd to get his points across, which makes him very dependent on modern media to have a voice.
I always wished he would have done more Drinker Recommends. It was always a bit of a nice contrast for him to talk about something he enjoys. But those videos didn't generate controversy and clicks, I suppose.
I think so. When I first first discovered him he was still in the 100,000s of subscribers but he went to 1 million subs fast from the reactionary videos. I enjoyed the Drinker Recommends too, and the Drinker Fixes, where he would edit a movie that he felt was good but needed a little fixing to make it better. That's a game we all play with movies we like.
IIRC Adam from YMS is a non-writer example of this. He started his movie review channel to bring attention to his music. Is that music any good? I don't know. I do know I watched a delightful 2 hour and 30 minute blow-by-blow historical deep dive covering every show and movie released in the Kimba the White Lion franchise.
I don't know these writers you're talking about, but this is still why my goal is to be published by a traditional publisher. Say what you will about their politics, they do know writing, and being published and not self-publishing will let me know that I'm not just looking in a mirror and being pleased with what I see.
It's a decent goal for a beginner as you need someone to give you honest feedback about the quality of your work. When you reach the point when the professionals in trad publishing note the quality of your work but refuse to buy it because the content doesn't fit with their vision of the way the world should be, is the time to start on your own.
I cannot answer specifically for Drinker or July, but also consider that many of the "popular" culture voices actually have business loans from banks because they created, submitted, and had approved actual business plans. They get loaned hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases and are able to push their name via advertising/content pushing by literally renting that space from platforms. In cases where this is true, their names sometimes only become popular because they are just the ones being pushed because they paid for it, when their content would never have made it on its own.
I just write, man, just write.
Perfect response
I'll respectfully disagree with you, and say that the problem with TCD's novels / movie is the problem of anyone who's switching genres / mediums. He's put hundreds if not thousands of hours into writing and acting short comedic criticisms of visual mediums, and he's got a smooth, polished delivery that plays well to its medium and audience. That's not just criticism, that's a performance.
But he hasn't put out the same volume of work, with the same level of feedback, in another medium - and as you rightly point out, being great at deconstructing something is not the same as being great at doing it, especially when you're starting over in maybe a different medium, definitely different tone, different genre, and different audience expectations.
Even if you're staying in the same medium - JK Rowling was right to put out her adult novels under a pen name, because they were decent beginner novels in that genre... but could never live up to the expectations that she was going to put out something as good for that particular genre as her children's series were.
I recently went with friends to a pottery studio, and painted glaze on a premade ceramic teapot. No matter how much colour theory and art layout I know from working with cover artists, it didn't help with the doing. Once it was fired and I got the results back, I had to laugh, because it looks about as enthusiastic and terrible as you'd expect from anyone creating something for the first time without close supervision breathing down their neck. Doesn't matter how good my prose may be, my pottery painting skills are level 0, and I need a lot of directed practice in order to get better.
The lesson I walk away with isn't that the critic/creator model is dead, but that expertise at one thing, and broad reach for discovery, isn't going to drive sales on the other thing unless it's good enough to attract crossover market... and keep them coming back.
The only point I'd want to push back on is this one: "...both of them are bad at it. So bad that their opinions on culture need only carry as much weight as the nameless kid..."
I'm not a fan of the idea that you have to be successful in a field to successfully criticise it because they're wildly different skillsets. In the same way as there are excellent editors who never write their own books, I have no problem with someone like Critical Drinker writing entertaining takedowns of modern entertainment even if he doesn't have the skills to replace it. (I've not tried his book yet, so I couldn't say.)
It's good that they stepped into the arena, but mostly because it'll make them better at the craft of criticism to understand what goes into the crafts that they criticise. The success of it is irrelevant to whether they do a good job of assessing other work.
I know I'm the flipside, I can write, I can even edit writing, but don't ask me to do breakdowns of why some other content worked or didn't work because the best I've got is "I liked it".
But your point about not trying to build an audience for your creations by criticising other stuff is 100% correct. Not least because you attract an audience of people who like criticising stuff 😂
I've been saying this for years. I'm just glad I wasn't the only one.
Though it gives me hope. If brands can build audience and write so poorly, then I have no excuse not to build an audience if I can write better.
The Crowns on the ground, waiting.
"I had good reason for thinking I could sell what I wrote. I had gone thoroughly through some of the all-fiction magazines and I made up my mind that if people were paid for writing such rot as I read I could write stories just as rotten. Although I had never written a story, I knew absolutely that I could write stories just as entertaining and probably a lot more so than any I chanced to read in those magazines." - Edgar Rice Burroughs
ERB took his shot and he was right. His stories did their job.
I stopped giving bad reviews when I became an author. The original reason was that I didn't want any splashback - because there are people who will come after you (Especially in Indie) if you say anything bad about them.
As I got more successful, it really was just not having the time and not really caring all that much about what others were doing. If I didn't like it, I didn't read it, let others who might enjoy it have their fun.
Now I'm at the point were I *can't* say anything at all bad about someone else's work, I can't even try to offer constructive criticism - none of that. Because now I'm 'punching down' and being Lomprey on them and destroying their dream (etc etc etc). It's... weird.
I've never felt that being negative was a good vibe for creativity or a good place to start. It's easy to say what people don't want, it's harder to figure out what they do.
Amen that. Especially in the indie scene. We’re all struggling for attention, the most merciful and just way to handle bad indie fiction is to ignore it.
Yes, but at the same time, toxic positivity can drag the whole scene down. It makes readers who AREN’T aspiring writers not trust anything people say or anything that comes out of it.
It’s a tough conundrum with no easy solution.
I agree with this whole-heartedly. It’s easy to stand on the side-lines and criticize. It’s another thing to do. There’s an author out there that makes videos on how to make your story good. I won’t say their name, but I read their book and it doesn’t justify much of the sarcasm I see on their channel.
And the ones who CAN do it usually aren't out there trashing other stuff.
I try not to trash stuff as I know how much work goes into all this.
OPINION: I’m a former actress, MA in Film Studies, singer, I took college art classes in high school. Like I’ve sort of been around some stuff to pick up on a few patterns. This is my belief. The art of criticism is HIGHLY misunderstood. It does not guarantee success as an artist and it isn’t really designed to? Going to higher level art classes didn’t make me better at doing art itself. Learning film studies doesn’t mean I know how to hold a camera. I do not know anything about this person or his history, but I’ve seen some of his videos. What criticism is…is discourse. A way to track the ongoing conversation about how and why we consume the things we consume and what that means for the greater world around us. Would you like this? Would this annoy you? Is this dangerous to a certain group of people and why…It’s not a failing so much as it is a learning curve to go from criticism to creation. I made that journey backwards and am heading back the direction I started in. These days we fail in public. The only person online who makes writing I actually read is Hello Future Me, because he put it in one of his videos anonymously so I had no idea it was his work until after the analysis. And I thought…wow I actually quite enjoyed that.
Just because the friggin French New Wave had filmmakers who became critics to boost their own movement doesn’t mean their criticisms were “good” so it works both ways.
I’m happy this guy is doing his best to build a new skill because the comfort of being a critic can, in my experience, kill the discomfort of creation. It’s why I left academia but I’ve already gone on too long. Thank you for your insights, friend!
This is why comps are so important. When I started out, I'd lie to myself that there was nothing out there like what I was writing. That cannot be true, ever 🤣 But I've since learned that it's OK to show your stuff to an audience who already like similar things. You're not losing anything by making your work more relevant to potential readers. I'd read the next GoT book even though it's been years since the last one and I read the series. I just like that. If someone presented a book and said "this is for fans of George RR Martin," I'm probably going to be interested.
As for reviewing other books: can't do it unless I enjoyed it. I've never used the critic to creator model, but I've seen others try and it goes down like a lead balloon now that we have substack where people can just see for themselves what you write like.
It's not that I don't want to hear this, Graham...it's that it doesn't matter.
Let me try and add to your article--cause it was a good one (thumbs up).
I've been at the indie game for a very long time.
1986 long time.
I'm not famous. I'm not rich.
But I have provided for my very large family doing this over the years (13 kids, all boys buy 9).
Read your article, and I can, most definitely see some of the points, Graham...I can...and I'm certainly not saying you're wrong.
I'm just thinking, "What DOES this have to do with me AS an indie author?"
I say this with a grin on my face, because the thousandth time around this block has taught me many valuable lessons.
IF I'm doing what I SHOULD be doing (as an indie author)...none of it matters.
None of it should matter.
Don't know about you, or readers here, but I don't base my goals, thoughts, ideas, ideals on Drinker.
What he (or anyone like him) does, doesn't do, thinks, says, has nothing to do with me, nor does it affect my world/worldview.
Also, I could care less what the big kid from school does, because I don't get into the ring with guys like that. Never did.
...I waited for the sucker to be alone, and confronted them in MY way, on MY terms...EXACTLY as I do with writing and publishing.
Think about that one, because we all have access to pretty much the same tools & knowledge in today's environment, regardless of where you live or who you are.
So what is really the takeaway from your article, IMHO?
What makes us different (or SHOULD make us different) from these examples you gave?
DON'T SUCK.
Anything can be accomplished, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T SUCK.
Don't have to be the best writer. Not even close.
...but you MUST NOT SUCK.
Let that burn in your brain...cause we justify, reason, and lie our asses off to avoid the reality of those two words.
THAT will hunt you down and destroy you.
You can be the best at marketing, have friends in every meaningful place, connections, money, advantages, but if you SUCK....it WILL NOT MATTER.
You will fail.
You just proved that point by this article, Graham. I didn't know any of that about Drinker. Yup, I listen to his reviews on movies, as well as Nerdrodic, and I agree with them 25-35% of the time. I, like you, have enjoyed many movies these guys probably trashed.
But you've shown me a new side that now has me 'critically' (heh) thinking about them, and NOT in a good way.
If you had told me that Drinker was exceptional at writing, and you were shocked, I would likely go buy a book and see for myself. Total flip of the script...now I wont bother.
As indie authors, we have complete freedom.
That also means complete responsibility and accountability. If you fail, for ANY reason, it's on you.
110% just you.
Don't suck.
Use the right tools.
LEARN HOW TO GET FOUND.
Plant seeds for your stories.
Make friends, romance your readers.
Create an immersive experience readers become addicted to.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
If you can sell one book, why not 10, 100, 1000?
Why not a million, if you get enough eyes on your work...that doesn't suck?
(EDIT: My very first novel sold just over 23,000 copies. That includes the 20 family and friends. 100% word of mouth...ZERO advertising...and I STILL thought I sucked!)
Plus, the more you practice, the better you'll get.
As long as you don't suck.
It's so bloody simple...just not easy.
You're not competing with ANYONE out there, BTW. That's a BS perspective that'll get you nowhere in record time.
This is a long game to reach the tipping point.
-------
The last thing I'll say, is that being an indie author requires two very specific hats to succeed financially.
The writer / the businessman.
If you're writing as a hobby, awesome -- rock on.
If you want money, a living, freedom, you have to think like a business owner.
Doesn't take any of the joy from the writing, trust me on this...you just have to understand the world and your audience in a different way, and shift your approach.
Until then, well, you can let Justin Lomprey lay on top of you until you're ready to change the rules and play your own game.
Thanks, Graham.
Enjoyed the article.
Whoa...thanks for this. This is exactly what I needed to hear (some was already bouncing around in my head...but not enough).
st
Very welcome.
Go be awesome =)
I was a big fan of the Critical Drinker when I first discovered him. Thought he was funny and witty, but I started to see a pattern of reliance on the reactionary crowd to get his points across, which makes him very dependent on modern media to have a voice.
I always wished he would have done more Drinker Recommends. It was always a bit of a nice contrast for him to talk about something he enjoys. But those videos didn't generate controversy and clicks, I suppose.
I think so. When I first first discovered him he was still in the 100,000s of subscribers but he went to 1 million subs fast from the reactionary videos. I enjoyed the Drinker Recommends too, and the Drinker Fixes, where he would edit a movie that he felt was good but needed a little fixing to make it better. That's a game we all play with movies we like.
Yeah, I do some of that myself as a writing exercise, it’s useful.
Yes. It's a way to find story and see how "efficient" the story is:)
Nobody ever built a statue to a critic...so it's said. I bet there's one out there somewhere.
Maybe critics get meta statues made from the literary dross of famous writers.
Literary dross. Moved me. Screw the critics except the ones that will publish me.
My favorite part about not being famous is how little the burden stings.
IIRC Adam from YMS is a non-writer example of this. He started his movie review channel to bring attention to his music. Is that music any good? I don't know. I do know I watched a delightful 2 hour and 30 minute blow-by-blow historical deep dive covering every show and movie released in the Kimba the White Lion franchise.
I don't know these writers you're talking about, but this is still why my goal is to be published by a traditional publisher. Say what you will about their politics, they do know writing, and being published and not self-publishing will let me know that I'm not just looking in a mirror and being pleased with what I see.
It's a decent goal for a beginner as you need someone to give you honest feedback about the quality of your work. When you reach the point when the professionals in trad publishing note the quality of your work but refuse to buy it because the content doesn't fit with their vision of the way the world should be, is the time to start on your own.
Best of luck to you.
Hearing that from a publisher or agent would grind my gears.
Trust me. I've heard it. In fact I heard it probably long before you were born.
It's always much easier to tear something down than build it up.
I cannot answer specifically for Drinker or July, but also consider that many of the "popular" culture voices actually have business loans from banks because they created, submitted, and had approved actual business plans. They get loaned hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases and are able to push their name via advertising/content pushing by literally renting that space from platforms. In cases where this is true, their names sometimes only become popular because they are just the ones being pushed because they paid for it, when their content would never have made it on its own.
Great article, sir!
Well written article. Didnt piss me off though. I guess because i know my place in the universe.
If you’ve the time. Check out Fragments, a serialized novel. New chapters drop every Wednesday.