I would point out that Stan Lee initially viewed comics as a temporary stopping point on the path to becoming a novelist.
|Posted: 13 March 2018 at 10:45am | IP Logged | 1
"I was a little embarrassed to be doing the work I did, and I figured someday I'll write the Great American Novel and I don't want to ruin my possibilities by having my name disliked this way. And I became Stan Lee."
I don't think there's anything wrong in someone working in one capacity and having an eye on changing role later on, provided it doesn't lessen the work they are currently doing. Of course, making noises about how you want to move on would be obnoxious, but there is nothing inherently bad about having a long-term plan to move on, in my opinion.
I'd like to think Marie Curie's students from her teaching days didn't begrudge her going on to do Nobel-prize winning work in physics. And that her friends in the physics world didn't begrudge her when she went on to do Nobel-prize winning work in chemistry.
Jodie Foster has said she always wanted to be a director, but it didn't stop her delivering better work than most of her peers as an actor. Ron Howard even acted in the movie Eat My Dust, purely to get the gig as a director on the film Grand Theft Auto. I don't think Ron Howard was disrespecting acting by doing so; he was just leveraging his commercial muscle in one area to open up an opportunity in another.
In a general sense, I don't see why someone working in a field for a short time feels it is less of a privilege than someone who works in that field for life, or brings any less enthusiasm to the task. I think there is an argument to be made that, in many walks of life (and I'm not talking about comics here), there is a danger that when someone has a job for life that they might take it for granted.