Thanks. I didn't get much say in it.
Pretty bow. I don't think the green in the image approves, though.
I didn't mean for this to turn into a debate. I was just looking for some comfort. I apologize if anything I've said has been unclear. I've been suffering from brain farts lately.
It might be interesting for you to have a look into how long those people who are at the top have been in the field and how many avenues they have travelled in order to find their succcess. I definitely don't think being popular on the internet is impossible, but it takes a lot of patience, effort and initiative. Either that, or a lot of luck, and that's rare.
*frowns* I'm sorry if I offended you. I did not mean to imply one was easier than the other. Just that people from my experience hold onto the belief that the majority of internet critics all go in looking for something to hate and nitpick in order to find something negative to say, even if it's done in a funny way. Places like Channel Awesome being used in such examples. I disagree that it's next to impossible, though. It's crowded, sure, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Otherwise no one would be at the top, but they got there somehow. There are several popular blogs out there, after all. My initial concern was in reaction to how people view critics in general, which tend to be negative wherever I go, but I can see my concerns are misplaced. I get plenty of traffic to my blog, not much conversation, but plenty of traffic.
Regardless of the platform being used, I still have to convince people to give myself, and my work, a chance. My success in this area is down to my relentless pitching to everybody who will listen, and even to those who won't. There are plenty of successful internet critics, but they go out of their way to pitch their work to everyone and anyone in order to achieve that success. It's next to impossible to do well for yourself if you are only relying on your blog and a social media page or two to generate traffic. The market is just too crowded for that. That being said, I'm interested by the opinion you seem to hold that it is easier to be in publications than it is to write on the internet. If it is so much easier, why choose the harder route? I assure you being published is not easy. It has taken many years, unmeasurable amounts of work, countless pitches and incredible dedication to convince people to give me a chance. I have worked damn hard for the success I've found.
That's publication, I'm an internet critic. The title carries its own stigma. My concern lies with people giving me a chance, not the content itself. Good to hear. I'll have to tear myself from the outside world to get this review done over the weekend.
I write critical reviews for publication also, as well as short stories, poems, feature articles and essays. My range is broad. People obviously need to have interest in the things I say to read my writing also, otherwise I'm not going to get publications, awards or royalties. I must be doing something right, as I am receiving those things. Like I said, I've simply found I've had more luck in making people care about my writing when I'm writing things that I'm interested in. I'm good. Been writing since I got home from my day job this morning.
It's a bit different for me because I'm a critic. People generally need to have some interest in what I have to say, if not interest in the game itself, to visit my blog. The stigma I see for my chosen field doesn't help matters. How are you, btw?
Not really, but I write for myself and not for what other people think of my work. I find the more I care about what I've written, the more other people care. My most successful work are the pieces I've written because they mean something to me - those are the ones I've made money off.
