I think I read it in "Watching the English" by Kate Fox that the working class and the upper class have a lot more in common than these two with all the middle classes.
This is such an interesting topic that I wish you could elaborate on it more ;)
Rereading that one really made me think yet again about some of my painful writing processes. Just write where the pen and tips of fingers lead you, it may be unintelligible or a work of genius. You'll only know when it's done anyway... Thanks as always Tom!
"Either read big, intimidating serious books or read fun trash." - haha this is literally the motto I go by!! (not sure where this post lies on the curve - let's just say the right)
Though it's called Medium, not median, I feel the impulse to cancel that subscription now an instead hand that money to you.
Such eloquence demands reward and deserves recognition.
Where your verbal capabilities are unquestionable, your logic seems to be on the sweet threshold of the Dunning-Kruger-Graph, still warranting imposter syndrome, providing you with a healthy humility and impulse to improve yet already beyond the midwit's territory, in my humble opinion.
Keep up the good work. I look forward to reading it.
First of all, congrats with 2k subs! Glad to be a 0.0005th part of it, and a 0.019th part of 'Literally Just Outside'.
I'll just throw two random facts this time (is this a way to avoid the middle? who knows):
1. Dostoevsky too feared the middle: "Most of all I dread mediocrity : a work should either be very good or very bad, but, for its life, not mediocre. Mediocrity that takes up thirty printed sheets is something quite unpardonable."
2. There is a french word 'Nanar' that describes particularly cinema that is "so bad, it's good". It's used to group something like B-movies, thrash-kind-of-films, that are notoriously bad yet 'watchable' because of their naiveness and almost surreal bad production. Some of these films, like The Room, have become iconic and have some cultural value (paradoxically). (shameless self-promo plug - I'm writing a piece about that 🤞)
Ah, the inevitable case of feeling like you’ve said something worthwhile only to find that Dostoevsky has said the same thing in a much better way.
Also Nanar is a cool word. And things like The Room prove my point. It’s great because it’s trying. It’s a real sincere effort that failed miserably and because of that succeeded. I’d rather watch an abysmal, sincere train wreck than competent but by the numbers work-by-committee. For me Netflix originals are the definition of this. On the other hand take someone like Ed Wood- he was absolutely sincere and in a way a true auteur. His films are awful but he was really trying. He meant it. That’s far more admirable than lazy irony, or following the herd creatively.
Look forward to you piece on The Room. Drop a link in the cult when it’s done and I’ll check it out.
Thanks for Ed Wood, I will check his work. Another guy worth mentioning is Uwe Boll. He is into game adaptations. All of them are bad but he does not stop (afaik). ‘Alone in the dark’ can fight with ‘The Room’ for the worst film ever made title.
Tim Burton made a biopic called Ed Wood which is both Burton’s best film and also Depps best role (possibly joint first place with him playing John Wilmot in The Libertine)
Watch Ed Wood and you’ll see what I mean about what I said above. He’s a terrible film maker. But he is 100% sincere. After that you can check out his legendary Plan 9 From Outer Space to see just how bad his films were. Guarantee you’ll enjoy it, especially if you get a few friends around too...
Reminds me of the magnanimous man in Aristotle’s ethics: he talks slowly and does little, saving his energy for the truly grand endeavors while ignoring the midwit hustle. Something to live by.
Excellent point, John. And the more I think about it the more I find: predators, great athletes, creatives. It’s either do or don’t do, no half measures.
Loved this! I wonder if you can be both far left of the curve (simpleton) in certain areas outside your circle of competence and far-right while solidly operating within what you know best. In other words, it's domain-dependent. Or is this a blanket, "way of life" attitude?
That’s a great question, Adam. I lean more towards the attitude angle, but who can say? Maybe the lesson is that rather than trying to round out weaknesses, we should instead try to maximise strengths, thus giving us attributes in both the left and right without much in the middle...
I like that. You need a minimum awareness of your weaknesses to be able to recognize them and get assistance from others but otherwise focus on your strengths. And using numeracy, we can reason that there will be WAY more things we don't know/are weak at vs. things we are good at, so focus on the few don't dilute them.
Precisely. You read enough biographies and you see that the greats were world class at a few things and were deeply flawed/lacking in some other areas. Eventually it's poor ROI to try and fix weaknesses unless they are really detrimental to the strengths. And there is also something deeply freeing about letting go of certain peripheral aspirations and areas to focus on the thing that you clearly have a shot of becoming very, very good at.
Glad you are enjoying my writing Nitin, and I’m doubly glad that you found me through Mr Newport’s blog. Since leaving (/being booted off) social media I have been trying to do things the old fashioned way- driving traffic through leaving comments on blogs and writing essays good enough for people to feel compelled to share. It’s a lot harder than low effort twitter posting and is of course ultimately more rewarding.
Anyway. To your point, spreading ourselves to thin is incredibly common and I would say that the internet encourages it as you can make the most money from the middle. Not to be too cynical but if money and fame is the goal you want people spinning their wheels and unsatisfied as that is what keeps them coming back for more. Couldn’t be me.
Regarding the two fields you’ve outlined I would say that with reading the way to avoid the middle is to alternate between those actual hard books and papers and then unabashed, guilt-free fun reading (comics, trashy novels, or whatever that looks like for you). And with guitar it’s a question of alternating scales and theory (the actual hard work that virtually no one does) with mindfully listening to music. The middle for learning and instrument is to learn a few songs and riffs and to mindlessly noodle them with no purpose or method for improvement. Do this and overtime you actually end up regressing. I speak from experience on this one.
Anyway, I hope that ramble above helped and thanks for signing up and taking the time to leave a comment.
Thanks - I needed to be reminded of this!
I think I read it in "Watching the English" by Kate Fox that the working class and the upper class have a lot more in common than these two with all the middle classes.
This is such an interesting topic that I wish you could elaborate on it more ;)
Rereading that one really made me think yet again about some of my painful writing processes. Just write where the pen and tips of fingers lead you, it may be unintelligible or a work of genius. You'll only know when it's done anyway... Thanks as always Tom!
"Either read big, intimidating serious books or read fun trash." - haha this is literally the motto I go by!! (not sure where this post lies on the curve - let's just say the right)
Though it's called Medium, not median, I feel the impulse to cancel that subscription now an instead hand that money to you.
Such eloquence demands reward and deserves recognition.
Where your verbal capabilities are unquestionable, your logic seems to be on the sweet threshold of the Dunning-Kruger-Graph, still warranting imposter syndrome, providing you with a healthy humility and impulse to improve yet already beyond the midwit's territory, in my humble opinion.
Keep up the good work. I look forward to reading it.
Thomas! Good stuff! (This comment is to be placed on the left side of the curve).
And it is all the better for it!
First of all, congrats with 2k subs! Glad to be a 0.0005th part of it, and a 0.019th part of 'Literally Just Outside'.
I'll just throw two random facts this time (is this a way to avoid the middle? who knows):
1. Dostoevsky too feared the middle: "Most of all I dread mediocrity : a work should either be very good or very bad, but, for its life, not mediocre. Mediocrity that takes up thirty printed sheets is something quite unpardonable."
2. There is a french word 'Nanar' that describes particularly cinema that is "so bad, it's good". It's used to group something like B-movies, thrash-kind-of-films, that are notoriously bad yet 'watchable' because of their naiveness and almost surreal bad production. Some of these films, like The Room, have become iconic and have some cultural value (paradoxically). (shameless self-promo plug - I'm writing a piece about that 🤞)
Cheers,
John
Ah, the inevitable case of feeling like you’ve said something worthwhile only to find that Dostoevsky has said the same thing in a much better way.
Also Nanar is a cool word. And things like The Room prove my point. It’s great because it’s trying. It’s a real sincere effort that failed miserably and because of that succeeded. I’d rather watch an abysmal, sincere train wreck than competent but by the numbers work-by-committee. For me Netflix originals are the definition of this. On the other hand take someone like Ed Wood- he was absolutely sincere and in a way a true auteur. His films are awful but he was really trying. He meant it. That’s far more admirable than lazy irony, or following the herd creatively.
Look forward to you piece on The Room. Drop a link in the cult when it’s done and I’ll check it out.
Thanks as always, mate.
Thanks for Ed Wood, I will check his work. Another guy worth mentioning is Uwe Boll. He is into game adaptations. All of them are bad but he does not stop (afaik). ‘Alone in the dark’ can fight with ‘The Room’ for the worst film ever made title.
Tim Burton made a biopic called Ed Wood which is both Burton’s best film and also Depps best role (possibly joint first place with him playing John Wilmot in The Libertine)
Watch Ed Wood and you’ll see what I mean about what I said above. He’s a terrible film maker. But he is 100% sincere. After that you can check out his legendary Plan 9 From Outer Space to see just how bad his films were. Guarantee you’ll enjoy it, especially if you get a few friends around too...
“Saunter or sprint”
Reminds me of the magnanimous man in Aristotle’s ethics: he talks slowly and does little, saving his energy for the truly grand endeavors while ignoring the midwit hustle. Something to live by.
Excellent point, John. And the more I think about it the more I find: predators, great athletes, creatives. It’s either do or don’t do, no half measures.
Loved this! I wonder if you can be both far left of the curve (simpleton) in certain areas outside your circle of competence and far-right while solidly operating within what you know best. In other words, it's domain-dependent. Or is this a blanket, "way of life" attitude?
That’s a great question, Adam. I lean more towards the attitude angle, but who can say? Maybe the lesson is that rather than trying to round out weaknesses, we should instead try to maximise strengths, thus giving us attributes in both the left and right without much in the middle...
I like that. You need a minimum awareness of your weaknesses to be able to recognize them and get assistance from others but otherwise focus on your strengths. And using numeracy, we can reason that there will be WAY more things we don't know/are weak at vs. things we are good at, so focus on the few don't dilute them.
Precisely. You read enough biographies and you see that the greats were world class at a few things and were deeply flawed/lacking in some other areas. Eventually it's poor ROI to try and fix weaknesses unless they are really detrimental to the strengths. And there is also something deeply freeing about letting go of certain peripheral aspirations and areas to focus on the thing that you clearly have a shot of becoming very, very good at.
Glad you are enjoying my writing Nitin, and I’m doubly glad that you found me through Mr Newport’s blog. Since leaving (/being booted off) social media I have been trying to do things the old fashioned way- driving traffic through leaving comments on blogs and writing essays good enough for people to feel compelled to share. It’s a lot harder than low effort twitter posting and is of course ultimately more rewarding.
Anyway. To your point, spreading ourselves to thin is incredibly common and I would say that the internet encourages it as you can make the most money from the middle. Not to be too cynical but if money and fame is the goal you want people spinning their wheels and unsatisfied as that is what keeps them coming back for more. Couldn’t be me.
Regarding the two fields you’ve outlined I would say that with reading the way to avoid the middle is to alternate between those actual hard books and papers and then unabashed, guilt-free fun reading (comics, trashy novels, or whatever that looks like for you). And with guitar it’s a question of alternating scales and theory (the actual hard work that virtually no one does) with mindfully listening to music. The middle for learning and instrument is to learn a few songs and riffs and to mindlessly noodle them with no purpose or method for improvement. Do this and overtime you actually end up regressing. I speak from experience on this one.
Anyway, I hope that ramble above helped and thanks for signing up and taking the time to leave a comment.
Cheers.