You Are The Symbiote II

In writing the original piece upon which this one is based, I realized that in my excitement I forgot to include the central point upon which my entire article was based.

I was cleaning my bedroom when it occurred to me that all of the creators with whom I’d describe myself as having a ‘consumption-based relationship’ spanning [at least] a decade have themselves become different people from when I first encountered them.

In other words, they have grown — and that growth wasn’t accidental. I believe that if they had not grown [or developed their crafts, or reinvented themselves every now and then], I myself would have outgrown them and moved on to someone more my contemporary speed.

This goes without saying, so it’s not very insightful as-is.

If, however, you’ve read my original article, you’d understand why this is the foundation of the entire theory.

Creators who go on to become the noteworthy names in the category they dominate have a way of ‘hedging’ against churn. They do this, broadly speaking, by differentiation, but more specifically by ‘cultivating their audience.’

Imagine, for example, that you decide today to become a writer. Your first article is going to be so terrible that the only person who can possibly call your work ‘amazing’, is someone who does not read too many successful authors that their taste standards can no longer be contaminated. In other words, you [terrible writer] create your audience [someone who does not read at all, but who happens to know/like you or to be within warpable proximity for you to foist your ‘writing’ on them.]

If you keep at it, you will accumulate more of these non-readers, and soon you’ll become an ‘influence’ within that microsphere. If you do not improve further, the non-readers who have now read you will develop an appetite for further reading [seeking creators sufficiently different from you by a significant yet not absolutely transforming degree as mentioned in point [3] in the first article] and will hop from branch to branch to better, more advanced writers.

This is what tends to happen with a number of writers who eventually ‘quit’ writing to do something else. They were hemorrhaging readers and could not make the evolutionary leap into being better writers.

If, however, you continue to write, and to get better, you will cross from one creator band to the other, where you’ll get better readers via audience-acquiring [and even lose some of your older readers for whom the same laws apply — if the reader does not improve/grow, then they will find you abstruse and less enjoyable as you go.]

You continue on this ladder, first starting by audience-expanding, then continuing by audience-acquiring/expanding, and your audience grows as you grow.

Think of any [creative] creator you know who has spanned at least a decade and who is considered noteworthy in their category, and you’ll see a pattern similar to the skeleton I have outlined.

Another hypothesis: the pros need the rookies as much as the rookies need the pros — after a while, only rookies can expand the audience.