The Professional versus the Inspired Amateur

Great article by Steve Martin in February issue of The Smithsonian magazine. It occurred to me on reading it that there's a lot of overlap between stand-up comedy and teaching. Here's something surprising that he has to say about the difference between being great and being good:

The consistent work enhanced my act. I learned a lesson: it was easy to be great. Every entertainer has a night when everything is clicking. These nights are accidental and statistical: like lucky cards in poker, you can count on them occurring over time. What was hard was to be good, consistently good, night after night, no matter what the circumstances. Performing in so many varied situations made every predicament manageable, from Toronto, where I performed next to an active salad bar, to the well-paying but soul-killing Playboy Clubs, where I was almost but not quite able to go over. But as I continued to work, my material grew; I came up with odd little gags such as "How many people have never raised their hands before?"

Well, that difference between being great when inspired, when the spirit moves you, and being consistently good is precisely what it means to be a professional, isn't it? Amateurs can be great at what they do because they can be inspired but that's something that's outside your control - by definition. You have to depend on the muses to be inspired and they are...fickle. But a professional has honed his or her craft to the point where he or she is at least good pretty much all the time.

Someday, when you're really a professional, all your classes will be good and, when inspiration does strike, you'll be great.