The big question this leaves with me is about time. I usually think of perseverance as something we need over a decade or more. His "2 years by age 30" threshold was totally arbitrary, and this story really only has legs because he got that incredible review right as he was about to quit.
So take the other path—what if that review did happen, and his tour ended without the breakthrough, which is more commonly the case for most people building something new. Do we extend the timeline by another two years? Give up and build something new? I worry about survivorship bias in this one.
The two years were years 11 and 12 of performance, so I wouldn’t look at them in a vacuum.
It seems like the review was lucky, but actually, he had other reviews in years 2, 4, 7, etc. I mean, he’d been on national TV, Carson, he had positive feedback or signs that he was on the right track. He didn’t start from scratch like you may be implying.
The going out on the road was to get better and build his following outside of Hollywood. This is actually a typical route these days to become a headliner in standup comedy, and to round out your act for any audience. To be clear, it's still scary and not everyone has the guts to do it. Certainly not if they already have a writing job and TV appearances like Martin did, so that was his risk. But if he didn’t get that review, he’d still have that 2 years and his decade before. He would have definitely gotten work if he wanted back in Hollywood or whatever. Maybe became an executive on a show.
But it was the continuation of a decade. So it could have happened at any point in there. For that reason, I question your “which is most commonly the case” point.
I think I also question the cutoff as “arbitrary.”
To me that means random with no reason at all. But he did have a reason— two years, based on his intuition (intuition built on a decade of performance), he figured, should be enough time to hone is act and eventually book big shows. It was also something he could set in his head as a container so that he could approach it, so he could keep the fear and doubt at bay— 'ok, let’s give it two years, then reassess.' That’s not random to me, that’s psychological intelligence.
Here's where your comment is great, though-- I should have made this more clear in the post. That there was positive feedback along the way, and this was another leg in the context of 12 years. As he says, "not heroic but plodding."
I'll aim to make it more contextual in the future. Thanks for the comment.
Such a great story here. Nicely recapped.
The big question this leaves with me is about time. I usually think of perseverance as something we need over a decade or more. His "2 years by age 30" threshold was totally arbitrary, and this story really only has legs because he got that incredible review right as he was about to quit.
So take the other path—what if that review did happen, and his tour ended without the breakthrough, which is more commonly the case for most people building something new. Do we extend the timeline by another two years? Give up and build something new? I worry about survivorship bias in this one.
Good challenge. Let me clarify.
The two years were years 11 and 12 of performance, so I wouldn’t look at them in a vacuum.
It seems like the review was lucky, but actually, he had other reviews in years 2, 4, 7, etc. I mean, he’d been on national TV, Carson, he had positive feedback or signs that he was on the right track. He didn’t start from scratch like you may be implying.
The going out on the road was to get better and build his following outside of Hollywood. This is actually a typical route these days to become a headliner in standup comedy, and to round out your act for any audience. To be clear, it's still scary and not everyone has the guts to do it. Certainly not if they already have a writing job and TV appearances like Martin did, so that was his risk. But if he didn’t get that review, he’d still have that 2 years and his decade before. He would have definitely gotten work if he wanted back in Hollywood or whatever. Maybe became an executive on a show.
But it was the continuation of a decade. So it could have happened at any point in there. For that reason, I question your “which is most commonly the case” point.
I think I also question the cutoff as “arbitrary.”
To me that means random with no reason at all. But he did have a reason— two years, based on his intuition (intuition built on a decade of performance), he figured, should be enough time to hone is act and eventually book big shows. It was also something he could set in his head as a container so that he could approach it, so he could keep the fear and doubt at bay— 'ok, let’s give it two years, then reassess.' That’s not random to me, that’s psychological intelligence.
Here's where your comment is great, though-- I should have made this more clear in the post. That there was positive feedback along the way, and this was another leg in the context of 12 years. As he says, "not heroic but plodding."
I'll aim to make it more contextual in the future. Thanks for the comment.