The point is, when does that magic moment arise when one is qualified to 'give advice'? And who does the qualifying? Learning to write is painful and also joyous, particularly when you look back at your writing from, say, two years ago, and notice how you've improved.

I think your writing is excellent - it's clear and it's logical and it communicates. You have mastery of language. The pieces are in place. You have craft, and something to say. You even manage to be charming when not everyone might manage to be, under the circumstances. So, of course you have valid advice to give.

Getting paid for your writing is not the sole criterion for proving your work is of value. That is simply bullshit. The proof that your work is of value is that it communicates what you want to say to someone other than yourself.

It is so offensive to me that some people seem to get their kicks here wielding their grandiose self-regard and hectoring people with their rigid concepts of what constitutes "good" and "bad" writing. What the fuck does it matter? So don't read the "bad writing. "

Show us your wonderful writing instead of writing the same angry negative article fifty times, frankly.

If Medium fails because writers are engaging in just the way they're encouraged to engage, that's the fault of Medium's model, not the writers. It's an open platform. There's going to be all levels of skill and experience, and that's a good thing.

True, there's no good writing without reading (like, literature, as well as other writers on Medium, as well as good journalism.) But that's an easy fix. Don't let the nattering nabobs of negativity get you down. Ever.