What a Creator Should Stop Doing Immediately
There is a quiet habit killing more independent creators than bad writing, bad art, or bad luck. It is so common it feels like professionalism. It is so ingrained it masquerades as responsibility.
Most people who practice it believe they are being prudent, patient; even virtuous. In reality, it is the single most corrosive behavior an indie creator can still be indulging in.
Waiting.
Not waiting to improve your craft. Not waiting for the right moment to release a finished work. Waiting for permission you are never going to receive.
For decades, creators were trained to believe that legitimacy flowed from institutions. A publisher’s logo on the spine. A studio credit. A festival slot. An editor’s nod. These were treated as proof of seriousness. Even creators who claimed to hate the system still measured themselves against it in private. The rejection letter hurt not because it delayed a deal, but because it felt like a judgment on worth.
That reflex is now lethal.
The old filters no longer function as talent selectors. They function as ideological firewalls and risk-avoidance engines. They reward neither initiative nor competence. What they reward are compliance and predictability. Continuing to orient your behavior around gatekeeper approval is like calibrating a compass to magnetic north after the poles have shifted.
Many creators still structure their lives as if a breakthrough from above is imminent. They keep polishing a pitch. They persist in revising a manuscript to satisfy an imaginary gatekeeper. And all the while, they tell themselves that once the right person sees their work, everything else will fall into place.
Years pass. Output slows. Energy drains away. The work never meets the audience it was meant for.
That’s why the first thing to stop doing is optimizing for hypothetical acceptance.
If no one is paying you, no one is obligated to care how clean your submission looks. If your audience is real, they do not require a seal of approval from New York or Los Angeles. They require consistency, clarity, and the sense that the person they are supporting actually intends to keep going.
Another habit to abandon immediately is chasing reach at the expense of ownership.
Large platforms encourage creators to believe that visibility is the same as success. A spike in views feels like progress. A viral moment feels like momentum. Neither guarantees durability. Attention borrowed from a platform can be revoked without warning, explanation, or appeal. The creator who depends on it is always one policy update away from invisibility.
Creators who thrive now treat reach as secondary. The primary goal is control over the relationship with readers, viewers, or listeners. That means directing people somewhere stable. And it requires cultivating a list you can actually contact. The name of the game is now trading rapid growth for resilience.
So stop mistaking applause for income. Praise is cheap. Likes cost nothing. Shares often come from people who will never return. None of these passing accolades keep the lights on or fund the next project. A creator who cannot distinguish between validation and support will stay eternally busy and perpetually broke.
There is also a subtler behavior to drop: one that feels noble but quietly sabotages progress.
Stop trying to be for everyone.
Broad appeal was once necessary because distribution was scarce. Today, obscurity is not cured by dilution. It is solved by specificity. The more a creator trims edges to avoid alienating anyone, the harder it becomes for the right people to recognize themselves in the work. Patronage does not form around neutrality, but conviction.
Note that this kind of authenticity does not involve provocation for its own sake. It means projecting clarity about what you are making and who it is for. Ambiguity may feel safe, but it rarely attracts loyalty.
And to address the elephant in the room, you need to stop deferring monetization until you reach some imagined milestone. The belief that asking for support too early is gauche or premature is a holdover from an older professional culture. In that model, money arrived after validation. In the current landscape, support is one form validation takes.
People who find value in your work often want to help sustain it. When you don’t let them support you, they drift away. Providing a way to contribute is not an imposition. It is an invitation.
Another behavior worth abandoning: constant reinvention.
A creator does not need a new brand every six months. Nor should you chase every trend or platform. You do not need to announce a grand pivot to justify steady output. Consistency is trustworthy. Repetition signals seriousness. Many creators quit on projects just as their wins start to compound.
The final habit to stop is outsourcing confidence.
If you need an institution to tell you your work matters, you will always be at the mercy of organizations that benefit from your dependence. Independent creation demands an internal decision: “This work is worth making, and I will continue making it as long as there are people willing to meet me halfway.”
Everything else flows from that posture.
The takeaway is that the creators who endure are not the most connected or the most visible. They are the ones who stopped waiting, stopped seeking approval, and started building something small, durable, and genuine.
Enjoy the post? Unlock the full archive and all future paywalled essays by upgrading to a Substack membership here.
Want to go further? Join The Court of Kairos on Patreon and gain exclusive Discord access, monthly AMAs, and behind-the-scenes insights. Memberships start at $5/month, with higher tiers unlocking ever more benefits. Join today!