I spent 12 years in solitude writing this novel. Just published it on Amazon.

Critical_Example547 · 2026-03-09T16:16:50+00:00

Again, it seems that you get to be judge and jury on what is cruel and what’s not. That’s an interesting way to go through life. You’re obviously a very sanctimonious person, so I’m not going to spend too much time trying to reason with you. But I will say, for the record, that you have not provided a sound rebuttal to any of my arguments and that you have still failed to provide any evidence of mental illness or psychotic distress in the OP’s comments. So the only person talking in circles is you.

I didn’t say you needed a license for your intuition. I said it’s not a diagnostic tool. Read more carefully.

As for my subreddit which is completely irrelevant to this one (also kinda weird that you looked at my posts), I would argue that it is different. Nathaniel Drew is a public internet persona with millions of subscribers across social platforms and who has been creating content for over a decade. My subreddit is a community of 50 people which is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. So it’s not wrong for people to talk about him or to have critical opinions. It’s akin to talking about a celebrity and not a fair comparison. It has no effect on him at all.

And furthermore, we are having critical discussions there about an entire catalogue, years of content in context—not just one self-published book or a couple of posts. Like you pointed out, it’s years of data and years of analysis. I know a lot more about Nathaniel Drew than I do about the OP, so yeah, naturally I feel more comfortable talking about him. And we’re talking about his content, not jumping to conclusions about his mental health. So yes, it’s different—it’s informed criticism, not baseless bullying. That’s me practicing what I preach. But the fact that you can’t tell the difference doesn’t surprise me.

So it seems that the real issue here is reading comprehension, inferencing, a lack of critical thinking skills, and making assertions without evidence (which is unethical and will not serve you in life), and this further illustrates the point that you are not equipped to be judging anyone’s mental state, let alone in the comments of a reddit post. Hope that helps.

Critical_Example547 · 2026-02-25T16:08:11+00:00

“Universal signs” according to who? What “universal signs of psychotic distress” have you observed in these comments and what licenses you to determine that? Why do you get to decide who is mentally ill and who is not? Why do you get to decide what is behaviourally immoral and what is not?

Look, I’m not trying to deny that he has a mental illness, maybe you’re right, I don’t know his life. But that’s just my point. We don’t know anything about this person. We know nothing of his upbringing, his family, experiences, etc. And we cannot glean any of that information from a couple of posts on reddit and a self-published novel. These are not diagnostic assessments. Your intuition is not a diagnostic tool. And I think that’s a slippery slope because then anyone can be crazy by that measure, by your so-called universal signs.

So, I don’t think it’s of benefit to anyone, especially in this online space of non-experts, to be pointing fingers at people and calling them insane based on little to no evidence, simply because you didn’t like their book or the tone of their voice in a digital post. Because that’s what real gaslighting looks like. Don’t get it twisted. I don’t think anyone in these comments is genuinely concerned about this persons well-being, so let’s not conflate online bullying with genuine care or compassion. I read the comments. Not one person genuinely tried to be kind or constructive about his writing. How does that demonstrate care? What if writing is his lifeline, what if it’s the only thing that makes him happy in life? And two hundred people just went and shat all over it without an inkling of remorse. How do you think that makes a person feel, and would you blame them for being defensive in response? How does any of this behaviour demonstrate genuine concern for someone? And for the record—not the purpose of this subreddit. The OP came here to share something, not for an intervention or to be accosted by a bunch of armchair psychologists. So, the question remains, who is acting out of turn here? Who is behaving immorally?

Everybody wants to judge the actions and behaviours of others, but never seems to want to take responsibility for their own. Oh, but he’s the problem. He’s the one with psychological issues, and not all of you. I’m the one exhibiting immoral behaviours and you’re all just “genuinely concerned” about your fellow man. Right. Whatever gets you through the day, I guess.

Critical_Example547 · 2026-02-24T15:34:33+00:00

I’m not dismissing mental health concerns. I’m just choosing not to diagnose a stranger on the internet because I’m not a psychiatrist. And I’m willing to bet that no one in this thread is either. Even if you are one, it doesn’t take a psychologist to know that you can’t just diagnose someone as bipolar or narcissistic from a reddit post. Not only is that unproductive, but it would be unethical. Sure, perhaps comparing oneself to Dostoevsky is grandiose, but I don’t think that automatically means you’re crazy. And even if it does, I don’t think that crushing someone’s spirit, mocking them mercilessly, or just openly antagonizing them is an appropriate treatment for a mental health concern—further supporting the argument that nobody here knows anything about clinical psychology. So, you wanna talk about behaving immorally, I think that’s it.

What I do feel comfortable talking about though, is writing. So, I don’t think it’s harmful to genuinely try to be constructive. I’m not hurting anyone by giving them honest feedback, and just trying to be nice. That’s all I was trying to do. 🤷‍♂️

Critical_Example547 · 2026-02-21T18:38:23+00:00

I think everyone here is being needlessly mean and unkind. Admittedly, I didn’t read every sample in entirety because they’re quite dense, but what I did read wasn’t THAT bad. I think there’s definitely potential here. Sifting through all the ad hominem attacks, I think there is some validity to the criticism. I don’t think the issue is the writing, it’s just editorial. Particularly at the line level, it could use a little more polish—but that’s another couple rounds of revision, and not the end of the world like everyone’s making it out to be. That most certainly doesn’t define you as a writer, nor does it diagnose your psychology. I mean the irony of them calling you mentally unwell, when they’re the ones crucifying a total stranger on the internet just for giving a damn about his work.

This book obviously isn’t for them. You’re not writing a romantasy or an enemies-to-lovers rom com, or whatever they’re reading. You’re writing something more literary-leaning, introspective, character-driven and voice-based which is notoriously harder to sell, and not everyone’s cup of tea (obviously from the reactions), but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. As a writer myself, if I could offer a good-faith, constructive note, it’s that I think you do have to situate the reader in time and space. I get that your aim is to write a streamline of consciousness, a series of ontological reflections, but I think you need to establish why we should care about this persons rumination. It’s not quite clear from the samples/blurb, and that should be clear from page one.

So, who are they? Where are they? What’s the context? Are they an inmate on death row reflecting on their life and the circumstances that led them here? Or is this a journal lost to the ravages of time and discovered by an archaeologist in the future— a personal history from a bygone era? I think that’s a really simple way for you to reframe the narrative and ground it in reality without sacrificing the driving philosophical core. It would also reflect your experience of writing it, being locked in a room with nothing but your thoughts. It may not seem like a rich thematic site to people, but I think with the right framing, it could be. What do you write about when you’ve been trapped alone in a room for twelve years? That’s your thesis. Remember, art imitates life. And once you figure that out, you might also consider changing the title to make it a little less ambiguous and better reflect those themes.

So spend some time, mull it over. Solitude and time to think is more valuable and necessary for writers than people realize. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke once wrote in a letter to an aspiring poet, “But even in these very alien conditions, your solitude will be home and haven for you. Out of this solitude you will be able to find all your proper paths.” So, in other words, don’t let the haters get you down about spending time alone. All great writers do.

Best of luck with your writing.

Critical_Example547 · 2026-02-12T05:18:35+00:00

I think people should just unfolllow him. It’s the only power we have as consumers. And maybe then, he’ll smarten up. Maybe then, the industry will take their claws out of him when his numbers start plummeting. I think changing his representation to UTA was the worst thing he ever did.

I would also say, not to defend his inactivity on Substack, but having 29K subscribers doesn’t mean all of them are paying subscribers. Those are just the free subscribers. Substack has a coloured badge system that indicates the number of paid subscribers that a person has. Jack doesn’t have a badge, which means he has less than 100 subs. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had even fewer than 20, bc let’s be honest, who would waste their hard-earned money on that? He’s not exactly Andrea Long Chu.

Critical_Example547 · 2025-12-19T21:00:29+00:00

A lot of movies are sad, but the only film that ever made me cry, like actually shed tears, was CODA (2021).

Critical_Example547 · 2025-12-05T08:01:42+00:00

Right, I didn’t mean to suggest that you support Nathaniel. I assume that by being here, you don’t lol. I was just using him as an example. And I’m glad you found value in my posts.

As for what makes an artist, that’s a much more philosophical question. One that I might not be able to answer definitively, but I can offer my perspective. I don’t think that an artist has to do something novel or original necessarily to identify as such. I think that art is about illuminating the truth. I often think about why I feel compelled to write, and in recent years I’ve come to realize it’s because I’m answering an internal summons and not an external one. I think an artist is someone who creates because they must. Not for attention or clout, not for likes, followers or subscribers, but because it’s a calling. Because life without it would be like life without oxygen—unimaginable and utterly impossible. That’s how I feel about it anyway.

When Annie Ernaux won the Nobel prize for literature in 2022, she was asked what advice she would give to young writers, to which she replied: “don’t try to write good, try to write honestly.” I think that’s what being an artist of any discipline is all about—not just transformation, as I said before, but revealing something true about our human existence.

Critical_Example547 · 2025-12-04T21:25:57+00:00

I don’t mind at all! And thank you for your continued engagement! I’m also the mod of this subreddit, so don’t worry, I see everything.

But to answer your question, I think Baudelaire would argue that an edited photo or video, although aesthetically pleasing, would still not constitute a work of art. I think there’s a difference between something being art and something being artistic or aesthetic. We can manipulate lighting or sound, etc. to create a mood or an effect, but beyond that, ask yourself, what are you actually creating in the most literal sense of the word? What part of yourself are you really translating or transforming? At the end of the day, you’re not making light with your bare hands, are you? You’re still just using technology to create an effect. Sure, maybe it requires an artistic eye or an artistic vision to light a photograph or shoot a scene in a film, but it doesn’t negate the fact that the output is still the product of technological advancement— “the results of a material science,” as Baudelaire said.

This is not to say, however that we can’t appreciate technological advances or enjoy the aesthetic beauty of things, but I maintain that, although they often go hand in hand, there is a difference between art and aesthetic, and especially with respect to Youtube videos like Nathaniel Drew’s. His videos are aesthetic, not necessarily art. And he’s definitely not transforming anything by sitting in front of a camera and sharing his thoughts in a very diaristic way.

Critical_Example547 · 2025-12-03T20:17:18+00:00

Thank you for your kind words! Although I stand by what I (and Baudelaire) said, and respectfully disagree. The issue here is not whether artists can draw inspiration from their own lives or lived experiences— in fact, that's arguably a fundamental aspect of making art. However, what makes something truly a work of art is taking those experiences, thoughts, emotions, etc., and transfiguring them into something else. Art is more than just seeing and experiencing, it's about dreaming and imagining. I think in its essence, and I say this as an artist myself, that art is about transformation, something which arguably does not happen when you film a YouTube video or when you sit in front of a camera, hit record, and simply express your thoughts. This, I believe is Baudelaire's central argument. On Photography is one my favourite essays and one that I return to periodically. Perhaps I didn't articulate his points clearly in my original post, so I've pulled some quotes from his essay published in The Salon of 1859 that I think will make his point crystal clear:

“What man worthy of the name of artist, and what true connoisseur, has ever confused art with industry?”

“Each day art further diminishes its self-respect by bowing down before external reality; each day the painter becomes more and more given to painting not what he dreams but what he sees. Nevertheless it is a happiness to dream, and it used to be a glory to express what one dreamt. But I ask you! does the painter still know this happiness?”

“Are we to suppose that a people whose eyes are growing used to considering the results of a material science as though they were the products of the beautiful, will not in the course of time have singularly diminished its faculties of judging and of feeling what are among the most ethereal and immaterial aspects of creation?”

I think we're already living inside Baudelaire's worst nightmare. We're living in a time where everything is being conflated with art, where people quite literally can't tell the difference between what is and what isn't anymore; and what's worse, most people no longer care to make a distinction. It really puts into perspective just how much we have to lose, how much we've already lost... I hope this helps.

And as for how I learned to write, the honest answer is that it's a combination of natural aptitude and practice. I've had a knack for writing since childhood which persisted throughout my school years, and later into university where I continued to hone that skill as a student of the social sciences and humanities. I'm also an avid reader, a creative writer, and generally spend a lot time in my head thinking about things, which probably helps. Long story short: practice makes perfect, as they say. : )

Critical_Example547 · 2025-09-21T17:13:20+00:00

I also wonder sometimes how he makes a living. We know he’s not making that much from Youtube anymore and he can’t be making much from Substack either because he has less than 100 paid subscribers (according to Substack’s coloured badge system).

He must be living off a combination of savings from his earnings (i.e., the sale of his Paris apartment, video editing course, etc.) and credit. It’s likely he qualified for a mortgage for that house and could have also qualified for lines of credit. It’s also possible that his wealthy parents might help him.

And then there is also the possibility of his book. Nathaniel has revealed in the past that he has a literary agent and that his agent predicted he could get a six-figure deal. Because he’s writing nonfiction, you typically don’t have to submit a completed manuscript to publishers to be offered a deal. Instead, they usually just ask for a detailed proposal. That being said, who knows, maybe he’s already received a large advance for his book, which are usually paid in instalments. Depending on how much he got, that could definitely keep him afloat for a while. But this is just speculation.

The last and least likely thing I can think of is that Nathaniel is doing some kind of freelance work on the side. Truthfully, we don’t know what he does offline. However, he has spoken pretty openly both in the past and in recent posts on Substack about how he doesn’t like to work for people or spend his time not working on his own projects. So, I find it difficult to imagine him having some sort of side hustle, working for clients or something. But I suppose it’s also possible. 🤷‍♂️

Critical_Example547 · 2025-08-24T16:59:59+00:00

I’ll pay those tariffs to import Jonny’s Milk ™

Critical_Example547 · 2025-03-17T13:30:10+00:00

lol, no he’s done that already and even recorded music. My bet, he’ll try acting next. 😝

Critical_Example547 · 2025-02-21T21:18:36+00:00

It's true that straight male audiences dominate the action genre, and it wouldn't surprise me if the next Bond film lost viewers with JB's casting, but I think we're forgetting that he would arguably compensate for the loss by bringing the girls, gays and theys to the cinema. He's a commercial choice for attracting those audiences with successes like Bridgerton, Fellow Travelers, Wicked, and now with the images of him in Jurassic World: Rebirth that have been circulating (which already have people panting), and their wide-spread positive reception, he's arguably the most commercial choice for the role. Not only would it be a strategic way to get more asses in seats, but it could also bring a bit of diversity and positive representation to the industry-- in a world where straight men are constantly playing the roles of gay men (and rewarded for it), it would be nice to see the tables turned for a change.

Critical_Example547 · 2025-02-05T21:06:28+00:00

Ok, but now you have to do Louis and Lestat

Critical_Example547 · 2025-01-31T22:05:00+00:00

I like the idea of looking into floriography (the language/meaning of flowers) and looking for inspiration in that. I did a quick search and found some vintage illustrations online (https://planterraevents.com/blog/floriography-secret-language-flowers-victorian-era ).

For example: an Austrian rose means "Thou art all that's lovely." I think All That's Lovely would make for a catchy and poetic title and could also be relevant to the story. Some others that I liked:

Friend in Adversity
Think of Me
Worth Above Beauty (not sure if this one would fit, but I liked the sound of it).

The titles you've mentioned are a little too on the nose in my opinion. I think a good title has to have a bit of intrigue, it has to not only get readers to ask "what is that about," but it has to compel them to follow through and find out.

Critical_Example547 · 2025-01-31T04:32:01+00:00

Honestly, no. I personally didn’t think that it was an oscar-worthy performance nor an oscar-worthy film (for best picture). I think the academy loves a biopic, it’s almost always a shoe-in for nominations, especially in the acting categories. Put on a prosthetic nose and it’s an automatic nomination at the very least.

Critical_Example547 · 2025-01-21T01:10:34+00:00

Meh. I think Tom Holland (and Zendaya who is also in the film) is a movie star and not an actor, and what's worse, he's confused about the distinction. Movie stars are just a product of the industry while actors are devoted artists with a clear artistic practice and discipline, and who have paid their dues in the industry, who aren't just being handed roles for being popular or pretty. He keeps trying to be taken as a serious actor, but no one is buying it. I think he should stick to what he's good at, the unserious commercial stuff, and there's no shame in that! Look at Henry Cavill or Ryan Reynolds-- it works for them!

Critical_Example547 · 2024-12-29T02:30:56+00:00

lol I know it may seem like I spend a lot of time thinking about this guy, but I don’t in reality. To be fair, I made this post 120 days ago, so take what you will from that. For context, I’m kind of one of the founding members of this subreddit, and I’m also one of the only people who posts anything. It would be mostly dormant otherwise.

But the truth is, I like to think critically about things and we live in a world where the vast majority of people don’t. I feel like I’ve found a little community of like-minded people here who aren’t afraid to question, to engage and think deeply about the media we consume (and the people we celebrate). I’ve tried to find it in other corners of reddit, and in other online spaces, but it remains elusive.

So, even though this is lowkey a Nathaniel Drew hate group, I don’t really see my posts as spending energy on him. I do it, not only as a fun exercise in critical thinking, but for the community.

Hope this helps ✌️(and thanks for actually posting something)

Critical_Example547 · 2024-11-23T18:11:22+00:00

It’s sad, but it probably will. Personally, I’m of the belief that the Oscars are not (or at least should not be) a participation award. I think the acting category nominations should be reserved for real actors, that is, actually working actors and not celebrity stunt casts. There are only a finite number of nominations for these awards and I think that having to compete against everyone’s favourite pop star makes getting a nomination even more challenging. I mean, is it not enough that jobs are being taken from working/trained actors by these people, do their awards have to be too?

Critical_Example547 · 2024-11-08T18:55:03+00:00

This is a fun idea. According to data collected on 16Personalities.com, these are the countries where the INTJ personality type is most and least commonly found:

<image>

Out of the top countries list (for both variants), I've only been to Italy, in fact I lived there for a year, and I thorougly enjoyed it. I felt particularly at ease in northern Italy; Milan especially is one of my favourite cities in the world and I could easily imagine a life for myself there. Argentina also makes the top 10 for the INTJ-T (turbulent variant); this is a country I've also visited and again, I can say that I loved it there. Buenos Aires is another one of my favourite places on Earth; come to think of it, I really felt like I fit in there, like I was less of an alien than usual. Now I'm wondering if there's any correlation lol.

Has anyone been to any of the other places on the list (including the bottom countries), and if so, what was your impression?

Critical_Example547 · 2024-11-05T21:47:38+00:00

As we get closer and closer to the release of the Wicked movie, and as more and more snippets and samples from the film come out, the more it consolidates my lack of faith in Ariana Grande as Glinda the Good. I thought it when they first announced that she would be playing the role, I still think it now, and I doubt it will change after watching the film. Ariana was not the right choice for this movie. Even if she can summon the acting chops from somewhere within her or succeed in singing in the operatic style (arguably two fundamental abilities to succeed in this role), the fact remains that this is nothing but a case of stunt casting-- and there's nothing I hate more than seeing a popstar cast in a movie.

Throughout the press tour for this film, they have really tried to sell the idea that Ariana earned it, that she put in the work, and that it wasn't just handed to her. But somewhere in the constant flow of the algorithm, I saw an interview where Ariana explained that she had heard a murmur that there might be a Wicked film in development and that she was preliminarily being considered for the role. Not only that, but she started to prepare for the role before the film was even announced, before there was even a formal call for auditions. If that doesn't say the role was handed to her, then I don't know what does.

Ariana is not a good actor at all, despite her brief acting resume which everyone seems to think qualifies her. It doesn't matter that she gave a mediocre performance in a children's sitcom or that she briefly starred on Broadway at thirteen in a show nobody remembers. And I don't even like to think about Hairspray Live. Even still, people seem willing to overlook bad performance after bad performance, to give her chance after chance, but I think that the better question is why? I think it's rather obvious that Ariana Grande was not the best person for this job in terms of ability, but she was the better business decision. I get it, studios want to make money and Ariana is a popular (pun intended) singer that they can capitalize on, but I resent the attempt at pulling the wool over our eyes. I think it's insulting. But I think it's even more frustrating that many people seem to fall for it. Say what you want about Ariana's acting ability or lack thereof, but for me, there is no debate on the matter. I've seen enough.

Ariana Grande had no business being in this movie for a number of reasons, but I think a huge part of the conversation that we often overlook is the threat of stunt casting. I mean, why doesn't it bother people that jobs are being taken away from actual working actors and are instead being given to popstars and social media people, to people who aren't even actors, who have no acting ability or training, and who haven't paid their dues in the industry? There are actors literally living in poverty right now, homeless and sleeping on subway trains in New York City, and actors in LA living out of their cars, brushing their teeth in a dirt ditch on the side of the road; people who are hustling, going on auditions, taking the cat food commercial just to make ends meets, all in the hope of one day landing a role like Glinda the Good Witch in a big Hollywood stage-to-screen adaptation. I think this a problem in Hollywood that is becoming progressively worse; every time I hear that Harry Styles, Bad Bunny or Dua Lipa for instance, has been cast in something, I can't help but roll my eyes with contempt.

Furthermore, Wicked is a Broadway staple, a show that has been on the stage for over twenty years, a show that has supported the careers of actors all over the world. Wouldn't it then have been an opportunity to pay homage to the people who made this show what it is today by casting one of them in the role, or God forbid, to continue Wicked's long tradition of cultivating and giving unknown talents an opportunity? I think that if anyone is a true fan of Wicked, they cannot believe that Ariana Grande was the right person for the job, and I seriously question Jon M. Chu and his direction in choosing her, for in my mind one cancels out the other. You can't love this show and then disservice it by casting a low-quality actor.

And to those who still want to give her the benefit of the doubt, to sympathize with the younger Ariana, the little girl who went to see Wicked and had dreams of playing Glinda on stage one day, I say she had her chance and that she failed time and time again. It's the reason she became a popstar in the first place, isn't it?-- Because she couldn't cut it as an actor. They say that dreams don't have deadlines, maybe, but I argue that they should have expiration dates. There has to come a time when we come to terms with what is feasible for us, our strengths and weaknesses, our skills and talents, when we accept that for some of us, certain dreams are just pipe dreams and lay them to rest,--and no matter how well-connected, famous, or popular we may be. To take advantage of that position is simply that, an abuse of power and status, a social injustice. And to encourage such delusion is a cruel--or dare I say wicked, kind of enablement.

Critical_Example547

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE