What separates early postmodernists from their followers?

The Beast of Burden

Postmodernists are known for criticizing traditional thinking in the West, and postmodernism has become a caveat for anything that is new, creative, or goes against the grain.  Contemporary philosophers and popular culture spew postmodern critiques at anything that can be called knowledge or truth.  But what makes the original postmodern philosophers, like Nietzsche, Sartre, and Heidegger (not to mention Pascal, arguably the first postmodernist), different from their followers.  In one sentence, early postmodernists did the work of learning the tradition, incorporating ideas and references from countless books and articles, whereas followers of postmodernism offer critiques freely and frequently without having done any of the work. 

Nietzsche understood Plato, Descartes, Hegel, Leibnitz, Hume, and Aristotle.  He also knew about the history of philosophical thought and could trace ideas back to their origins as early as Thales, Epicurus, and Heraclitus…not to mention to religion and Greek mythology.  Contemporary philosophers and participants of popular culture, on the other hand, are just fine with spouting new ideas that have no philosophical basis.  They criticize any idea that is traditional, but they don’t even understand the traditions that they criticize.

The same goes for creative writing.  Can you just create a new work from your own imagination, or do you have to learn the literary techniques and theories that you are attempting to overthrow.  I believe that doing the former is just a sign of intellectual laziness. In any subject area, you have to understand old ideas before you can reject them.  You must carry the beast of burden, as Nietzsche says, before you can become like a lion, and then like a child.