RyanHoliday.net:

Like I've said before, I devour books. Over the last 2-3 years, Tucker's Reading List served as a guide for my journey through literature. I thought I'd put together a list of my own--although this is a bit of crossover between the two. So here are the books that have greatly influenced me. I'd recommend starting with these and then following my chain-method, which is to read as your next book, one that is cited by the book your currently reading.

Books to Base Your Life On

The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
I would call this the greatest book ever written. I've read it countless times and have a large passage that I printed out and posted above my desk to look at before I start each day. It is the definitive text on self-discipline, personal ethics, humility, self-actualization and strength. If you read it and aren't profoundly changed by it, it's probably because as Aurelius says "what doesn't transmit light creates its own darkness." You HAVE to read the Hay's translation. If you end up loving Marcus, go get The Inner Citadel by Pierre Hadot that studies the man behind the work.

The War of Art by Steven Pressfield
This is from the guy who wrote Gates of Fire and it's probably the closest thing I've seen to a modern version of The Mediations. He breaks down what he calls "The Resistance" or the force within us that we allow to hold us back from success. It's split up like The Meditations or any other philosophical dialog, but intended specifically to help artists make the transition from amateur to professional. Works well in conjunction The Dip.

Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl
Frankl is one of the most profound modern thinkers on meaning and purpose. His contribution was to change the question from man asking "What is the meaning of life?" to man being asked and forced to answer with his actions. He looks at how we find purpose by dedicating ourselves to a cause, learning to love and finding a meaning to our suffering. Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning is also extremely powerful. For more on the existential vacuum, try The Broken American Male by Rabbi Schmuley

48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene
It is impossible to describe this book and do it justice. But if you plan on living life on your terms, climbing as high as you'd like to go, and avoid being controlled by others, then you need to read this book.

Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk
I'm amazed how many young people haven't read this book. Truly life-changing. This is the classic of my generation; it is the book that defines our age and ultimately, how to find meaning in it.

War/Strategy Books

History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
Tucker has this on his list, but he recommends reading it in a classroom setting. Wikipedia makes it possible to do it on your own, just read in front of the computer. Consider it the first history book ever written (Herodotus doesn't count because it's part fantasy) perhaps the greatest war book as well. Every tactic, every strategy, every war the world has ever fought is essentially a microcosm of the nearly 30 year war between Athens and Sparta. Seriously, read it, and then reread the 48 Laws of Power and you'll understand it on an entirely new level. I would buttress this with The Greco-Persian Wars by Peter Green.

Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals Saul D. Alinsky
This is the 48 Laws of Power written in more of an idealist, activist tone. Alinksy was the liaison for many civil rights, union and student causes in the late 50's and 60's. He teaches how to take implement your radical agenda without using radical tactics, how to disarm with words and media as opposed to arms and Utopian rhetoric.

Boyd: The Fight Pilot who Changed the Art of War by Robert Coram
Boyd was probably the greatest post-WWII military strategist; he developed the F-15 and F-16, revolutionized ground tactics in war and covertly designed the US battle plans for the Gulf War. He shunned wealth, fame, and power all to accomplish what he felt needed to be accomplished. Coram captures his essence in a way that no other author has touched.

Of course you also need to read 33 Strategies of War by Robert Greene. The Strategy Paradox by Raynor. Machiavelli's The Prince, The Discourses and The Florentine Histories (the last one is difficult, but enables you to see what Machiavelli actually believed) Von Clausewitz' On War is also a must-read text.

Evolutionary Psychology

The Moral Animal by Robert Wright
This is probably the definitive beginner text on evolutionary psychology and one of the easiest to get into. It's a little depressing at first, realizing how ruthless many of our so called "good" feelings are. But then you realize that truth is better than ignorance, and you emerge seeing the world as it truly is for the first time. Also, a similar read is Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, which is more of a Q&A approach to the subject and has contemporary edge.

Sex on the Brain by Deborah Blum
One of the better books on evolutionary biology that focuses almost entirely on the biological and psychological differences between men and women. It's written by a journalist (who cites scientists) so it's easy to read if you're not studied in the field. If you want to get into evolutionary psychology--which you totally should--this is a good starting point because it covers all the basics. Essentially, it discusses how men and women have benefited evolutionarily through different behaviors and strengths so it would only make sense that they would have developed into two very different entities.

Sperm Wars by Robin Baker
This book shatters any illusions you may have had about the sanctity of sex in our lives. The premise is that sexual intercourse is based on sperm competition--the majority of our sperm is designed to kill another man's sperm, the penis is designed to remove semen from the seminal pool, women's menstrual cycles are hidden to gain control. It also analyzes the causes of homosexuality, adultery and illegitimate children.

A Farewell to Alms by Gregory Clark
Utterly destroys the perception that human evolution stopped a few thousand years ago. Clark asserts that the modern traits we associate with success were bred into the population between 1200-1800 as the upperclasses reproduced significantly more than the poor, violent or lazy. It changes how you look at the world, how you understand economic problems and how you relate to history. What if pre-industrial man is difficult to understand because he was almost a different kind of person?
The Origins of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes is similarly shocking.

I would also recommend: Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student which is a fascinating study of college health and how the things our culture glamorizes are incredibly self-destructive. The Origins of Virtue asserts that we had morality before religion, trade before capitalism and cooperation before government.

The Internet
The Long Tail by Chris Anderson
There is not much that needs to be said about this book other than it defines current net economics. There's the head of the tail which is the stuff you find in Borders, and the tail, which is the infinite inventory on Amazon. You need to be familiar with this theory.

The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell
Malcolm Gladwell is a genius and his writing is superb. I resisted this book for a long time but when I acquiesced, it changed how I looked at the world. Without understanding why and how things tip, you'll never be able to master business, product launching, PR, or social networks like Digg or Myspace. Blink is also an amazing book.

Made to Stick by Dan and Chip Heath
This book comes right after The Tipping Point as far as important internet texts go. Gladwell tells you what tipping is and MTS teaches you how to do it. They are great guys, I've talked to them a few times. Understanding their rules makes you a better writer and strategist.

Other Important Internet Texts:
Purple Cow--Seth Godin
Wisdom of Crowds--James Surowicki
The Pirates Dilemma--Matt Mason
The New New Thing--Michael Lewis
Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything--Don Tapscott

Biographies
I've always been a big biography/memoir fan, so I thought I'd throw together a few that influenced me.

- My Bondage and My Freedom by Frederick Douglass and The Autobiography of Malcolm X, two of the most inspiring men of the last 150 years.
- The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris. Dr. Drew recommended this book to me, it is spectacular. He's my favorite president.
- Caesar by Christian Meier. I'm not sure why, but I really related to Caesar.
- Wouldn't it Be Nice by Brian Wilson. I used this book to write a big research paper a few years back. He defined how I understood the 1950's and 1960's in America.
-Hollywood Animal: A Memoir by Joe Eszterhas. The first big book I read on Hollywood. Estzerhas controlled his own destiny and ruled where he should have been a minion.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 05:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

If you aren't doing this already, you ought to be monitoring the Del.icio.us bookmarks of the preeminent web leaders. For instance, Steve Rubel's feed is a good place to catch web news the day before it breaks. Normally, he's tagging articles that will likely make the rounds in the next few hours--plus you get a glimpse into the media he's consuming. I make this suggestion reluctantly, however, after being take aback a bit after I discovered a few people doing that to my feed.

In the spirit of the pot calling the kettle black, I stole this from Tucker's. He'll probably write more about it later, but in the meantime, enjoy.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Calacanis has been "Fatblogging" excessively and I wish I could say I relate. I'm shedding so much weight on such a regular basis that I think I might have cancer.

I've gone through my 3rd wardrobe overhaul since Thanksgiving. I'm down to a 30 waist. And let's not pretend I eat healthily. Yesterday, I had Oreos for breakfast. You can find me in Carl's Jr at least 4 times a week. My favorite foods ranked, in order, go as follows:

1) Chicken Fried Steak
2) Movie Popcorn
3) Nachos

None of this is to brag. It's just the truth. There's this part of The Secret--and yes, the majority of the book is just retarded--where they talk about the dichotomy between the attitudes of fat people and those of fit people. You hear "I try and eat healthy all the time and just keep putting on weight" and "I do whatever I want and I haven't gained a pound" respectively. At some point you have to consider that attitude is a factor--that it influences reality. But what The Secret doesn't understand, which is why it resonates with lazy people so much, is that there is a second step. You can do whatever you want when you put in the work that justifies it.

I don't want to call out Calacanis because all I have is respect for the guy, in all likelihood I wouldn't be blogging without him. At the same time, why even bother walking for 30 minutes on the treadmill? Let's just save society the electricity and not bother. I have Oreos for breakfast because I promised myself that I'd be running 4-5 miles within the next few hours. I know that like clockwork, at least 5 days a week, I'll be running and finishing with situps until I can't even bend over. So that 24/7, I can eat as I please. It's a simple as that: Do the work, reap the benefits.

School works the same way. You can sit in lecture and ask annoying questions until the crowd threatens to kill you, or you can hone your mind to a point where a cursory read is all that is required. Yes, you can analyze the etymology of each word in the study guide, or if you'd laid the foundations for college properly, you'd have already read and owned the texts before you'd even considered taking the course.

Like Tim Ferriss says, there's working and there is being busy. There's exercise and then there is physical exertion. The marginal return on eating a salad and counting calories is well...marginal. Understand that if you suck it up and pour some true energy into it, you'll be able to move on. I'm not sure if he wants to be outed, but someone ridiculously important in Hollywood gave me this advice last week: "Set goals, listen and learn, but understand the concept of The Commander's Intent and the fluidity of randomness in the real world. Adjust and get it done and off your list."

When you focus on the chickenshit details you're going to end up with chickenshit results. Of course, that's not always true, but as far as self-improvement goes, it is. It must become "This is my new lifestyle, this is how I am." Embody that ethic and it will become reality. This is what I was trying to say before, envision how you want to be, insert it into your consciousness and then you won't have to worry about it. And with that freedom you can move on to the next thing.

Sidenote: There are some downsides. Like the fact that I am increasingly looking like a little kid and that I'm tired of going shopping.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This is not a shill, I promise.

One of my favorite sites out there right now is CopyBlogger--both for the quality of the content and the mindset it embodies. For the last few months I have literally scoured the internet in search of every site related to blogging, web 2.0, technology, marketing, citizen journalism etc, and came across a sad truth.

NO ONE CARES ABOUT CONTENT.

Except for Brian Clark at CopyBlogger. Of course, only in Tech could everyone's focus be so misguided, but it's true. You could drown in all the PR, link dumps, social networks, SEO, advertising optimization, even grammar blogs, without ever seeing someone go more in depth then "Oh, don't forget to have great content."

The name CopyBlogger should be redundant. Blogs ought to imply copy, but they don't. The internet is thriving because people are hungry for great writing (+ video and audio) but hardly anyone is willing to do the work required to provide it. Instead, we're all so focused on tricking people into liking what we already have. That's how old media works--we're supposed to be different. We're supposed to cater to the audience, not cascade them into consuming.

This is why Brian's site is so great. He doesn't update a ton, but when he does, it's awesome stuff. Last week's post was straight out of the 48 Laws of Power, with him advising that you create an enemy as fall-back inspiration for writing. Earlier in the month he advised on how to avoid burying the lead, and captivating the audience with a killer opening. And he's done a great series on headlines, which have really helped me on sites like Digg and Reddit.

Seriously, if you're a writer on the internet (or a writer anywhere) you need to be reading his site. It's worth 5 TechCrunchs or ValleyWags, because without content, none of this is sustainable. It's about time the rest of the internet woke up and starting looking at the creative process as the engine instead of an afterthought.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 11:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Paul Levinson wrote a great piece on what he called "The Deeper Digg Effect."

Far more significant than the quantity of Diggs that landed me there are the deeper secondary effects - for example, picked up on Wired.com, where Chris Kohler not only linked to my blog, but said it describes in "hilarious detail" how I was brought onto CNBC. Since Digg operates on the Web, everything that happens on it has the power to galvanize every other part of the Web - YouTube, Wired.com, StumbleUpon, podcasts. And since each of these, in the embodiment of hyperlinking, connects to a myriad of other interconnected engines and elements on the Web, as well as older media centers that operate partially offline - like conventional television, radio, and newspapers - the potentials are enormous.

He is discussing an often ignored benefit of social networks. The real boost you get after scoring on Digg is not the first wave of traffic, it's the third, fourth and fifth waves that are important. Every time a Rudius author is submitted and is dugg significantly, a whole slew of PR and link offers come through from other sites. In the last Ebner push, he garnered and enormous about of votes. And yes, the traffic was important, but Diggers are notorious for not sticking around. But many of them reposted the link on the Myspace blogs and Livejournals; which in turn recruited 5 or 6 six friends to come over. Those are the valuable referrals, because they're genuine. Who do you trust more, Digg or your real-life friends? Not to mention the radio interviews that followed.

It's easy to get distracted by the first traffic spike, but that's not the end all be all. Be a little patient and wait for the next one. Those are the people you need to woo and thank for their support. Someone who has linked your site after finding it on Digg is a ripe, potential contact for your site. Do not let that go to waste. Comment on their posts, drop them an email. If they've started a forum discussion based on you, you ought to join in. It'll pay big dividends, trust me.

EDIT: Ironically, Paul's piece is doing well on Digg. Vote for it here.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know I wrote about Web 2.0 rather negatively a few weeks ago, but I've got a bit of an announcement.

Rudius Media has joined Twitter--or at least one of the sites has. DrinkingForTwo, probably the funniest one on the entire network is now microblogging. Basically, now you can get the ridiculous one-liners from DFT directly on your phone, IM client or RSS reader. I set it up for my phone and now one or two times a day, they show up in my inbox and show them to my friends.

The problem for Twitter before was that 1) No one was posting anything of any sort of quality. 2) The gung-ho early adopters enthusiasm made it annoying. Since Rudius understand how most of Web 2.0's features are invasive and unwanted, we're not going to abuse that trust. We're not going to bombard you because we wouldn't wanted be bombarded. And since I'm a subscriber myself, I'm going to shut anything down that crosses the line.

So seriously, join Twitter and add Drinking For Two to your friends list. The content is much more suited for a service like Twitter than it is for the regular domain it's on now. If you like it, pass it along.

Here are some drinking for two quotes:
-i say if you can have a drink with a straw then you can do the same with soup god dammit.
-my new word for the day is 'restimate'. a restimate is the amount of time that i think that i am going to nap for.
-although i have never been to northern china or am related to anyone from northern china i really miss the place.
-i got a new pair of shoes today. when i went up to the cash with the box the chick behind the counter asked me 'who served you?'. I didn't know, i didn't pay attention to the name as i didn't think that i was going to be tested. I wanted to tell the girl at the cash that i was served by the girl with the nice ass and perky tits but instead i just said 'i think she had glasses'.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Get Rich Slowly was one of the sites someone suggested to me after my plea for new reading a few weeks ago, and now it's my turn to pass it along. It's a fantastic site about the conservative approach to investing. Anyone who only follows the advice of Jim Cramer or Warren Buffet is an idiot. (I've made plenty from both) Their strategies although totally different have made a ton of money which means they've both done a ton right. Buffet clearly made a bit more and that's the side that Get Rich Slowly comes down on.

Anyways, GRS has a great post out on Finding a Mentor

Mentors come in many forms. The key is identifying those people from whom you can learn, and to ask them to share their wisdom with you. Do you work in a large firm? Would you like to pick the brain of the CEO? Form some questions and call her. Are you an aspiring writer? Drop your favorite author a line and ask him for advice. Don't fawn. Don't gush. If you are polite, and if you are sincere, most people will be pleased to respond. They were young once, too. They know what it's like to be starting out.

As someone who has learned almost everything they know from a series of mentors--with the latest one being a rather infamous internet star, I think I'm qualified to weigh in on this.

The costs of emailing or contacting someone you want to learn from are about as close to zero as they'll ever be. Honestly, what's the worst that can happen? You come off as someone eager to learn. If they ignore you, you know it's because they're too busy doing to talk about. If they're a dick, then you've already learned a valuable lesson.

What many of you don't understand is just how willing most of these people are to lend a hand. They know what it's like to be where you are. That you've even taken the step of contacting them puts you levels above most of the population. That you could cough out a coherent email without patronizing them or treating them like they weren't human is often enough to get you in the door.

The point is this: You'll learn more from a mentor directly than you ever will from books. So make a list of the people you'd like to learn from a give it a shot. But do.not.be an idiot about this. Think about how you'd like to be contacted if you were in their shoes. Would you even respond to an email that literally said "I'd like you to be my mentor?" If you have an intelligent question, ask them--and if it's appropriate, describe your situation. But never, and I repeat never, act like they're obligated to do anything; because they're not. Always remember that there is a reason they've had the success they've had and you haven't, and let that dictate the terms. The other caveat is to realize that not all mentors are famous and not all of them are writers. You can find one anywhere, and often times they ones that no one has heard of will give you the best advice on life.

Here are a few don'ts and a few dos.

1) Don't be presumptuous. I can't tell you how often I am literally appalled at the balls on some people. Whatever you're asking for, it's probably too much, so scale it back. If it's a question they'll answer it. If it's "Will you sit and listen to my life story?" you've crossed the line. Obviously the relationship is centered around getting something from them, but you need to space that out over time. Perception changes everything, so consider that asking for everything up front as opposed to a little advice every couple weeks could mark the difference between learning a lot or nothing at all.

2) Don't compliment yourself. Don't insult yourself. Both extremes are equally detrimental. They are the ultimate distraction from the issue at hand. The former, they have to (if anything at all) take you down a notch. The latter, they have to waste their precious time reassuring a complete stranger. Either option leaves you spending capital that is already in short supply. Once you've finished writing your email, scroll through and find out all the affirmative claims you make about yourself and delete them. Remember what Ralph Ellison said about power--that it was "confident, self-assuring, self-starting, and self-stopping, self warming and self-justifying." It does not need to make claims, they are implied. That the issue is even being addressed says the opposite about you. And on the other end, if you're lacking the confidence to get it done, why should someone bother putting any energy into you?

3) Don't be obsequious. Compliments are one thing, being full of shit is another. A person worthy of mentoring you is going to be self-aware enough to realize the majority of their flaws and faults. For you to come in and pretend those don't exist shows that you either are too oblivious to accurately judge situations or dangerous brown-noser. They want to relate to you on a real level, and that's impossible if you approach them as something other than a real person. So it is imperative that you let them know why you respect them, but they are not the second coming of Christ--and they know it.

4) Whatever you do, do not insult them or what they stand for. I got an email a little while back where someone pretty ruthlessly insulted Tucker, and then the guy wanted something from me. Now aside from the fact that I would consider TM a friend and someone who has helped me enormously, how does it benefit anyone to insult my boss (and indirectly me for working for him)? Understand that people hold certain things to be sacred. You need to find out what those are and treat them with the reverence they deserve. Let me say this again, being brutally honest doesn't make you stand out, it makes you a dick. If that's the route you want to take, go for it, but people don't often mentor dicks.

5) Stay in the picture. You are easily forgotten, remember that. The key then is to find ways to stay relevant and fresh. Drop emails and questions at an interval that straddles the fine line between bothersome and buzzworthy. Even if they don't respond, that they saw your name again means a little. If they forget your name or what you offer them then the relationship is pretty much dead. And it's easier to keep something alive than it is to revive the deceased. I get an email from one kid every couple weeks and it's perfect, they are always short little emails and I almost always see through them--but at the same time, I respect the ingenuity.

6) Bring something to the table. Anything. Quid pro quo. Even if it's just energy. Even if it's just thanks. You cannot ask and ask and not expect to give anything in return. The bigger the payoff you can offer, the longer they'll take you under their wing. Figure out what you can offer and actually give it. Here's a freebie: Find articles and books that relate to their field and pass on a recommendation and then they won't have to waste their time searching.

7) Apologize. When you screw up, more likely than not, you'll realize you did it immediately after saying or emailing it. Don't wait for their reprisal, or the token period of silence. They'll forgive your errors (within reason) if you indicate a propensity for identifying them. I know when I've crossed the line and you probably too. Reproach can be softened by mutual understanding.

Note: If any of these things reference something you think you might have emailed me, chances are it's not. They've all happened multiple times--and some of them are ones I've made myself.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 04:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I rushed the last entry so I thought I'd expand on it.

How do benchmarks and leading questions make you a better person? Well they do exactly as they imply, they lead you in a direction that you've indicated you'd wish to travel. The idea stuck with me from an example in Made to Stick about Southwest Airlines. They want to be "THE low fare airline" so every decision is guided by "Will this make us more or less of a low fare airline?" So even before this, I began by creating mission statements for myself, concrete but concise, that made moral and strategic decisions easy. After all, once you've decided where you'd like to go, it's pretty easy to deduce backwards and find the turns you'll need to take.

I said that this helps the "real me." I mean that in the sense that, we're all consumed by our appetites, we all have that animal instinct. But we also have who we truly are, the decent and honest and purposeful selves. It is simply up to the individual to decide which one they'd like to turn control over to. So when I pose each question, it normal illustrates this dichotomy.

There's nothing nefarious about it. There never has been. Setting goals and benchmarks for yourself is the essence of self-improvement. Evolutionarily, are we really built to be happy and successful? Or are we supposed to fall in line and maintain order? And so it becomes about understanding that new norms--productive ones--will be self-created. That's what I do.

I've been quoting Frankl a lot lately, but I think another one of his philosophies applies. It's not, he said, man asking "What is the meaning of life?" but rather, man being asked "What is the meaning of life?" and answering with his actions. Do that here on a smaller scale. Define how you want to be, the person or ideal to which you aspire. Pose the question that illustrates the chasm and answer it each time you're asked. Or as Karl Jaspers wrote: "What one is, he has become through that cause which he has made his own." Make who you'd like to be your cause, and each day set out to serve it. Through this, literally, you become who you truly are.

"I guess I can understand how that would be a useful strategy in your particular position at Rudius, but is that how you generally live your life, too?"

Yes. In my current relationship it's often "Do I want to make the same mistakes I made last time?" with the negative course of action implied to myself. Or it will be more specific "Will I be better by saying what I am thinking or will I just feel better? "Would sleeping in be capitulating the Resistance or bringing me closer to that which I aspire?"

I'd really love a Blackberry so I don't have to carry around my laptop. Deep down though, I know I don't need one. I know that I actually want one only because of the significance it would superficially bestow, not because I'm actually deserving or in need of it. I'm not busy enough to necessitate one, I'd just like to think I am. So every time the idea comes up, I asked myself the question: "Do I deserve it or do I want to seem like I deserve it?" The matter is then officially solved.

And of course, my newest one "Does this make me seem younger or older?"

Naturally, I make the wrong choice with disappointing regularity; on average though, I lean towards the progress side. That's all you can really ask for. Because each time I make the right choice, I actualize and grow, I am one step closer to the person I'd like to be--that I am. To me, that's what being a good person is: defining what you feel is 'right' and then judging everything you do in accordance to that. Personality is just like a career, and so are morals, in that they are all a methodical upwards march (or downwards depending on your choices) Yes, Aristotle in Ethics said that doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, or even having to think about it, is still wrong. Fuck that, this is about reality. This is about struggling with life and ideals. Becoming who you want to become isn't easy, it's a daily battle. Some days it is following the arrows you laid out with rhetorical questions, and others it is sleeping on the floor because you're broken with disappointment in yourself.

Each day then is a chance at another iteration and another opportunity for proof and improvement.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 01:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Not quite sure how to word this, but I'm not the Ryan Clark you're looking for. I noticed my Google Search referrals were way up today, and then found out why: One of the students killed in dorms at Virginia Tech was named Ryan Clark. If you're just confirming this for the first time after coming from a search engine, I'm sorry it came from me. From what I read he seemed like a great kid--only 3 years ahead of me.

Again, my condolences and sorry for your loss. Here are some more links about the story involving him:
NYT: A friend, a Good Listener and a Victim
Georgia student said among 32 killed at Virginia Tech
Local Student among the dead

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 08:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Does this make you seem younger or older?

As I get more comfortable in situations, I tend to shed some of the restraint that got me to that level of comfort in the first place. In some cases this is beneficial, I loosen up and am no longer plagued by nervousness. I become the real me. The only problem is that the real me also happens to be 19 years old. What's funny to my friends, or even appropriate decorum tends to fall flat. Even worse, that sort of childish energy is self-perpetuating and I grow exponentially more and more out of touch with what I personally find to be reasonable.

So normally when I sense these things coming, I create some aphorism or question to pose to myself in regards to each action I take. For a while--when I first started interning at Rudius--it was "Tone it Down, Too Much Noise." I realized that my job to be seen, not heard. Although I'm always ready to go at full speed, I had to accept that it was my duty to first prove that I was deserving of that responsibility. With this I always had an answer to the question: "Should I say or do this?" It was normally NO. But when it was YES, due to my policy of caution, it was definitely YES.

Today I got that same sense and instituted a new question: "Does this make you seem older or younger?" If it doesn't project an image of maturity, then I don't want to do it. I'm not going to let my own enthusiasm ruin the restraint I aim to cultivate.

Which is why I've mentioned so many times the messages I have taped above my computer. I'm a big believe in normative explanations. You become how you repeatedly act. And so when you envision how you want to be, the process of getting there is fairly simple. Envision. Act. Act. Are.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 12:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The more I read the more I become convinced that life's only meaning from that which ascribe to it. That purpose exists only when your project and live it daily. That the only good life is one filled with excellent action. And I find this to be especially significant in Greek and Roman literature--and then again recently with Coelho's concept of a personal legend or Pressfield's book, The War of Art.

But I've been drawn to the Greek concept of eudaimonia--the idea of happiness is a product of living productively. That's meant in the literal sense, productive--results.

I see Plato and Aristotle and Aurelius and Coelho intersecting at the point of each life have a single cause. Each person was created to do one thing and one thing well. A life is maximized--its telos reached--when it dedicates itself entirely to that action.

I'm not quite sure what mine is yet; it might be years until I know. But I am sure, however, that I'm at least on the right path. Although I might not have reached true actualization, I am well on my way to warming up. Everyday I get up and I scratch a little at the walls that society sets up to prevent you from getting there. That my purpose is to be involved in the creation and furtherance of public discourse, so each book I read and word I write is the functioning of my soul. Happiness comes from action, and that action must be excellent.

I'm tired of the obfuscation. We can't be "anything," we can be one thing. Your child doesn't have the world at his fingertips; it's already in his hands, in his body. They just need be self-aware enough to realize it. Meaning doesn't come from religion, it comes from work. When we fail to tell people this, they lose life in the forest for all the trees--clutching with the vastness of it all, when what they need is tiny enough to hold. Some of us know this and are happy--and productive. Others know this and refuse to admit it, drowning the simplicity with alcohol or drugs. Plato speaks of this too:

"He will not turn over the body's habits and training to brutish and irrational pleasures, no will he turn his gaze in that direction. Neither will he make health his life's chief aim. He will count health, strength, and beauty important only insofar as they serve to make him more temperate."
Plato

Once you find that one thing, or rather, unearth it within yourself, the fog that surrounds your choices disappears. Your course of action is direct and never in doubt. They say good strategy require a pithy, concrete aphorism to serve as a benchmark, so when you're employees face a decision, they always know where to side. I think this is what you gain when you discover your personal legend. From that point forward, all choices revolve on the axis "does this help me reach it?" And indeed, if you function telologically, you only pursue when the answer is yes. Marcus Aurelius asked himself this question each morning as he arose--as do I, siding always with more work, with one more step in the right direction.

"At dawn, when you have trouble getting out of bed, tell yourself: 'I have to go to work--as a human being. What do I have to complain of, if I'm going to do what I was born for--the things which I was brought into the world to do? Or is this what I was created for? To huddle under the blankets and stay warm?'
Marcus Aurelius

But I would assert, as the greats have asserted, the excellence is life's main fungibility. Excellence here becomes excellence there, and combined they equal the ultimate excellence: happiness. It seems to be logical, if happiness is that which we all aspire too, it must be the most excellent--and only through excellent action are we excellent.

"In the same way in which, if people are behaving literately and musically, they are already expert at reading and writing and in music."
Aristotle

And though I'd love to continue quoting, over and over, I feel at some point it would become absurd. I find the same words in each book I read, from Malcolm X, Viktor Frankl and John Boyd, even evolutionary psychology. Man was created to serve a single purpose, to complete one task. Now even if the allure of that job is just some neurons misfiring--an evolutionary side effect of a primal, sustenance based need that doesn't make the gratification any less powerful. There MUST be some reason that philosophy's Greats hammer back to the same point: Find your cause and execute it with excellence. Do what you're to do and do it well. Iterate excellence and it will pervade your existence.

This is how intellectual accomplishment 'produces' happiness; for since it is part of excellence as a whole, it is the possession of it, and its exercise, that make a person happy. Again, the 'product' is brought to completion by virtue of a person having wisdom and excellence of character; for excellence makes the goal correct while wisdom makes what leads to it correct.
Aristotle.

So like Aristotle said, results combine to equal the result. Read and read often. Act in moderation. Resist the pleasures and pains that distract you. Wake each morning prepared for exertion. Do not sleep or leave the gym until you have. Drench the ground in your sweat, fill the pages with words. The Resistance will dog you the entire way, pay it no attention. When you diverge from the path, look inwards and correct--dedicate a second to chastisement and move on. But most importantly, realize that not knowing your purpose is no excuse for stasis. Even if the destination has yet to reveal itself, you still must be ready for the call. Prepare, be active, and be open. Only then will you find happiness and contentment. I have had only a small taste, but I at least know it's worth every bit of effort.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 08:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I just reread Viktok Frankl's book "Man's Search for Meaning" which is one of my favorites. I added a new quote from the book to the Book Quotes and Passages section. View it HERE

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 02:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What is this?

We got Mark Ebner's latest entry picked up by Page Six--the online version I imagine, I don't get the real one. And obviously that's fantastic. But when you get over the prestige, what did Rudius and Mark Ebner really gain?

Because of the Post's absurd practice of not linking: almost nothing. When we got an Ebner story on the front page of Digg last month, we did about 10,000 uniques. The time before that, 15-20,000. Here: hardly a spike worth mentioning.

Perhaps my perspective prevents me from understanding some sort of hidden benefits, but I doubt it. Look at the exchange of services. Page Six took Mark's story, Mark's sources, Mark's lead, added a "Sean Penn did not return comment" and called it original content. In return, they granted us an unlinked, lowercase attribution to Hollywood Interrupted--and no where did they mention the man behind the site. So as far as branding goes, yes we got the title of the site on Page Six, but no name.

Which leads me to wonder, does the New York Post assume that the web is its own private wire service? That it can just pick up stories from writers--bloggers who because they write for free, couldn't possibly demand more than the crumbs they throw at them? That even though thousands of sites link to Page 6 stories each week as inspiration for posts, they'd never have to return the favor?

Fortunately Mark Ebner is an established journalist and Rudius Media has enough foresight to see beyond simple web economics, because if they didn't, this would be inexcusable. Think about it, if you were some regular blogger who found one of those rare, potentially viral stories and then you got scooped by the MSM, how mad would you be? Would the pittance of prestige be enough to keep you from raising hell? Maybe I'm just young, and naive, and not yet broken by this insanely backwards system, but it smells like bullshit to me.

And of course, non-msm sites know how respect and credit works:
TMZ: Sean Penn Angers Hawaiian Locals with Vacation Spot
A Socialite's Life: Hawaiians Disappointed in Sean Penn

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 11:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Obviously I am a little biased when it comes to Rudius posts--so I'll make that clear up front. That being said, Mike Gill's latest post on ChasingKaz.com is absolutely spectacular. It looks at the question "What is strength?" and does a fantastic job. Aside from asserting the predominant importance of sheer will power, Gill sets forth the rules required to "be your own master." This is my favorite line in the piece:

Your mind is holding you back. You lack discipline and fear pain. They are
restricting your progress. They are results of evolution and environment, but
you can change them by making simple daily routines part of your lifestyle.

So before I go much further, add the site to your reader. It's going to be huge. These guys can write. Anyways, it reminded me of something I'd written a few months back during my running binge--which is still ongoing but I've toned it down to 20-23 miles a week, over 5 days. I tried to explain the same concept that Gill did a better job of doing, how exercise can be a way to conquer the body. Allow you rule over yourself with complete satisfaction, prove that you're not all talk or thought. That to truly be your own master you literally must force labor from your body.

***
My body aches to quit, my muscles turn to stone or wood, and yet my mind is two miles down the road. There is no question of quitting, no possibility of stopping early. I have broken the spirit of my body like a rider to a mustang, spurs scraping deep against the flesh till the blood flows freely. The sweat pouring from my skull like streams from melting snow, dumping salt into the scratches and cuts and ground. I care little, if at all. Two more laps makes three miles...Which makes 2 miles left...But the last one is just a sprint anyway.

A good runner comes to be optimistic in their math. It's not out of compassion for the body. On the contrary, it's because the end is where the battle is, where you can really exert that crushing authority. Where your lungs gasp and cry for air, and calves stretched like taunt cables, and like a light switch, you take it to a whole other level. And all the body's whining fades to background noise as you conquer your own limitations.

But today, here, I could barely move. Nearly 30 miles a week for a month straight is bound to catch up with you. And did it ever. At mile two, my body stopped responding. That control I cherished so much, left me as it does a general attacked on both fronts. Screaming commands left and right, faster, longer strides, anything--just don't slow down, but nothing worked. And as it left me, so too did my spirit. My confidence is founded on this premise--that I had grown to a position of control. That my body was the subject of my mind and never the reverse--at least, never again.

I tend to agree with Aurelius when he said the body was just "rotting meat in a bag." Or Tyler Durden, that self-improvement is masturbation. This is not self-improvement, this is not masturbation. This is waking up and asserting my dominance. This isDimmesdale , in the closet with the cat o' nine tails. I prefer self-flagellation to self-improvement. Self-destruction, Jack had responded, was a whole different animal.

The work I do on my body is not about looks or health. A sculpted body to me, is the sign of a sculpted mind. The media--even popular culture--doesn't exactly bear this theory out, but that's not really important. To some, the body is the manifestation of what's on the inside. It embodies, literally, determination. It's a punching bag, the scourge for frustrations. For that control to escape me, for the first time since I really started was shock I could not prepare for.

It wasn't long ago that this relationship was inverted. And my mind would scream for me to quit long before my body. In retrospect it was pathetic--but then again, most youth is. To have a mind that's reluctant to be inside itself, or weary of itself, is not healthy. It's the mark of an intellectual weakling, to not enjoy the time to think, to not relish control. But that's where I was.

*** I promised myself that I would win--that I would finish. As I have so often found, when you really want something, it doesn't come easy. You grind it out one step at a time, the world fighting you for every inch. That's how it was here, at the speed of walker and the form of a runner.

Tears welled in my eyes, limbs barely moved. My legs turned to stone, dragging behind me, tin cans tied to a car. The track circles basketball courts. As I slowly passed them, I'd turn my head in shame, not wanting anyone to see me like this. The struggle inside me is epic, but on the outside, it's nothing; pathetic even. I'd have loved to shout--"this is a watershed moment...I'm overcoming an obstacle"--but instead my actions said, slow, lazy.

But I did finish. I eeked out every last step--hitting the end with perfect form at breakneck slowness. There was no glory in it, I felt awful; worse even than I had in each lap prior. This isn't Forest Gump, and all you've got to do is break free of the leg braces. This is reality, and it's ugly and hard. When I stopped I collapsed into the grass and laid there until I could breathe.

And I sat and stretched; something I hadn't taken the time to do in weeks. As the body contorts, and really pulls closer to itself, the tension dissipates. It's a paradox surely, that when you place it under literal strain, the imaginary kind--the kind your head creates as it races to a flurry--just goes away. I felt the pain flow from my body and into the air. When I rose, my steps were free and unhindered, my mind relaxed and slowed, clear for the first time.

And yet as I walked away, I could not shake the feeling that I wasn't finished. So I stopped and sat on the stairs that look down on the track. There I stayed, and just thought--finally without that self-loathing that so often accompanies my inner monologues. What was that I was running from? Why do I do this, come here and eviscerate my body with such completion and disregard? Can extreme discipline justify the rest of my excessive? Or at least, counterbalance it?

I left with no more answers than I had come with. That's not really how life works. Epiphanies don't come to those who beg, or sit and ponder. They snap at the unexpected, the dismal and the hopeless. Surprisingly, I was none of these, not today at least. Peace at enveloped me as I rested on those stairs, hands clasped atop my head.

The drums of a Rush song, pounded away, beating the rhythm for my thoughts. "We sometimes catch a window, a glimpse of what's beyond..." For once, to be without that hatred, that disappointment was all I needed. Here was my hope. Though my body had all but quit--hit a wall that left it barely able to stand--my mind had granted me a reprieve. There was no twinge of crushing sadness, no reminder of the loneliness or sleepless nights. Just genuine self-reflection and with that, relaxation. And I felt "the push and pull of restless rhythms from afar," which once more brought me to my feet.

And I ran the distance home, with a lighter load than I had come with, than I had woken up with.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 11:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

-Effective PR on a Limited Budget
(Why PR is not shooting for the NYT, it's about smaller, targeted audiences)
-The Rise of the Semantic Web
(A look at where tagging will take the internet and change its organizational structure.)
-Cleaning Messy Message Boards
(The future of internet discussions)
-Bringing Your Art to the Online Market
(How to create brand value from nothing)
-Media Moguls Make Their Move Online
(Established players making their move with professional content on social networks)

Amazingly, all those links are Business Week articles. Which is evidence to the importance of linking relevant articles in all your original content. I clicked on a single article and ended up following a chain of something like nine straight articles--most of which I linked here.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 10:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One thing I'm worried about is getting caught in a bubble--reading too much of the same basic sources until my worldview no longer resembles the actual world. Just because of what I'm actually trying to learn, tech and public relations, I find that I read a disproportionate amount of industry blogs. You should distrust tech people (or at least view their work with some skepticism) for the same reason you shouldn't pay too close attention to the words of actors. Look, you remember how these people were in high school. You well-adjusted friends didn't suddenly get into acting when they turned 25, it's the same basic dorks from the drama club. Just like now, the industry people who pretend they are the cultural gatekeepers of the internet, were in fact, the nerd from high school who didn't have a clue about human interaction. What's changed? Probably not much.

So, I'm looking for new sites to read. I've got a solid 100 blogs in my Reader, and still looking for more. I use del.icio.us regularly too--for those stellar, one-hit-wonder kind of article. What do you guys recommend? Who should I read on culture, politics, sports, comedy, entertainment, law, education, lifestyle, ANYTHING.

Post suggestions on my comments section, drop me an email at ryan.holiday@gmail.com or add me on del.icio.us and tag me worthwhile reads. I'll start doing the same here with good sites I find.

Edit: My del.icio.us ID is ryanholiday

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 01:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

I get emails every once in a while on how I met Tucker. The barebones story is this: I wrote an article about him, emailed it to him, he liked it, and we went from there. I thought I'd post the article, mainly because I look at it periodically to see where I've grown as a writer. But the crucial point here is that ARTISTS LOVE IT WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THEIR WORK. What was the difference between me, the 18 year old kid who at the time didn't have a credential to his name, and the dozens of established reporters who'd interviewed and written about Tucker before? I did some research. I grasped that he was struggling to assert a deeper message. Only the superficial and ignorant would think an artist would be content to simply retell their roaring twenties and nights of blackout-drunkenness. No, he obviously was trying to get something across or he wouldn't bother doing it. Hardly anyone writes to become rich, they do it to spread a message. And if you can find that message, you can develop a truly personal connection. What I did was nothing special. It's right there in plain sight. He's the talent, I just reaffirmed it in print.

*** "If Hunter S. Thompson had found this site, he probably wouldn't have killed himself. I say this about TuckerMax.com because there is little else that so fully embodies the Good Doctor's message of self-destruction and indulgence.

The design and utility of the site, along with the subtle insertion of truly skilled artistry is impressive but in the end, totally irrelevant. His enormous traffic (some 10 million visitors a year), popular messageboard and eclectic collection of like-minded writers all pales in comparison to the stellar content.

Hunter S. Thompson often wrote of man's descent into primal behavior as an escape from both internal pain and the crushing pressure of a mundane external world. Tucker Max embraces this ethic to hilarious extremes and like his gonzo predecessors, contributes to the society from which he takes so much by writing of his experiences.

You can dismiss him as a joke, an internet fad or a pompous jackass, but sooner or later, you'll come around. The stories are long and they are addictive to the point of causing dangerously low productivity. One story leads to two and three leads to hours in front of the computer.

Let's face it: text has never looked very kindly on humor, but this collection of youthful indiscretions and drunken angst stands as a bright exception.

Try it and believe me, you'll find that the story about the time you and your buddy "got totally trashed and were pretty sure the cashier at Wendy's was on to you" or when you "got high and ate 6 bags of Cheetos" aren't as funny when you write them down.

Stories about drinking, vandalism, and women have always screamed "you had to be there" but somehow Max's are different. Both the overall quality of the experience and the prose that describes it combine to ward off the juvenile nature that tales of debauchery so often fall victim to.

Context and style are certainly integral to the success of his writing, but that's not to say his exploits wouldn't stand on their own. One would be hard-pressed to find anything more rife with comedic potential than a drunk fighting a hockey mascot or Duke law graduate vomiting on a dog. Nor is there a more qualified person to relay such a message than a man who, out of necessity, carries a tape-recorder to accurately recall the belligerence that flows from his toxic stupor.

Humor, like his patented Tucker Max Death Mix (Red Bull, Gatorade and Everclear), flows seamlessly through the bloodstream of his work. If you can't remember the last time you actually "laughed out loud" it's probably because little on the internet actually justifies it. Max, however, earns each and every laugh with bulimia inducing fat-jokes, shameless sexual conquests and general psychosis.

He doesn't just do what you wish you could do, he does what you wouldn't even begin dream of and says what you wouldn't dare think.

It is from this that his message becomes so universally relatable, even if your life doesn't resemble his at all. A love of alcohol isn't required to respect a man who lives life on his own terms and is wildly successful at it. A steady girlfriend or a hatred of college-whores doesn't prevent the inevitable entertainment that stems from dangerous overindulgence and megalomania.

Again, there is the tie to Thompson, who too achieved the cult-status that comes from a life of excess and intelligence:

"Myths and legends die hard in America. We love them for the extra dimension they provide, the illusion of near-infinite possibility to erase the narrow confines of most men's reality. Weird heroes and mold-breaking champions exist as living proof to those who need it that the tyranny of 'the rat race' is not yet final," Thompson once wrote.

Max's site and success stands as inspiration to those who've grown wary of a system that rewards stagnation and embraces the unoriginal. He's a self-absorbed asshole, but at least he's himself. Unlike musicians or actors who stand apart rather than behind their work, his life and his craft are one, creating a single refreshingly genuine character.

Despite its propensity for ignoring quality and promoting garbage, Hollywood has begun to take notice. With a looming book release and a screenplay under his belt along with an infamous profile on MTV, Max doesn't appear to be all talk.

His site rests comfortably among the top 15,000 most visited places on the web, and is the keynote attraction in the "FesteringAss.com" network of bloggers and artists. All of which generates a self-estimated "six-figure income" from ads and merchandise sales.

As an internet writer he belongs to an elite class who have shied away from imitation and in the process created an entirely new genre of media. His delivery is superb--he sits on the cusp of a revolution--but it would be nothing without content.

In this rare instance, he stands apart as both a literary and business genius. Success on a massive scale isn't likely for Tucker Max it's impending, so you might as well become a fan before its cliché."

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 06:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Got into a huge argument a few days ago with a friend over the academic acceptability of Wikipedia. It started because the UC system--or at least my school--is considering a complete and permanent ban on Wikipedia as a research tool and a possible citation. My guess is that in 5 years, you'll be able to quote it in papers. Perhaps it's because I remember how not too long who the ENTIRE internet was off limits as far as academic research was concerned. Why? Ignorance. Now of course, that stance has been recanted, and every college student knows how to use to the web for scholarly research. So why do I think it will be allowed?

-The argument that Glenn Reynolds puts forth in Army of Davids is worth repeating. Let's say Encyclopedia Britannica has a 100 total articles and Wikipedia has a 1000 (more like a trillion, but let's keep it simple). And the scale of accuracy is 0 to 10. Due to Wikipedia's lack of certification, the accuracy of each article is 7, and with Britannica's more strenuous process is a 9. The problem however, is that for each topic that Britannica neglects to address, it gets a zero. So when you stretch the timeline out--you'll see that Wikipedia is overwhelmingly more accurate on average because it actually covers more material.

-The average error correction time on Wikipedia is incredibly fast. I can't track the numbers down right now, but I remember it being something like under 10 minutes.

-A large group on semi-informed people is statistically more accurate than an incredibly small group of experts. Read Wisdom of Crowds, or anything on "Future Games." And those are normally applied to things that haven't even happened yet. So to assert that a crowd is better at predicting the future than they are at simply recording the past is ridiculous.

-The majority of information on Wikipedia isn't even up for dispute. It's dates, birthplaces, timelines, etc; which, if anyone stopped to think for a minute, they would realize are the ONLY things people quote encyclopedias for anyway. Only the especially juvenile use secondary sources for the crucial parts of their research papers anyway. As a general rule, in the meat of a paper you never quote dictionaries, encyclopedias or textbooks. There is no reason a student shouldn't be able to say "Wikipedia places his birth in France during the mid-14th century.

The problem here is essentially a conflict of interest. Professors--as per maintaining their livelihood--have a vested interest in preventing the mass proliferation of knowledge. At its core, Wikipedia renders the average professor obsolete. It removes the human limitations of the middleman and replaces it with an infinitely large and more accurate source of information. Of course, they're going to fight it. Students too are biased. They'd like to utilize the ease of Wikipedia--letting others collect and synthesize the vastness of academia for them.

So the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Professors--CollegeBoard perhaps--should get together and, either with the help of Wikipedia or independently, and begin to certify articles that meet their collective burden. Out of the millions of entries, some are obviously unacceptable. But the majority of them are detailed and helpful. With a seal of approval, students should be able to incorporate this wealth of human experience into their journey.

The university system is supposed to be a collection of the world's greatest minds that've come together for one purpose--to teach and educate. It's terrible ironic then, that when a computer database comes alone and automates the works of those greatest minds, that they'd fight it tooth and nail. It is simply too easy to dismiss Wikipedia as inaccurate or unscholarly. Statistically, that assertion is flat wrong. It defies the massive advancements we've made in psychology, economics, politics, and mathematics. A larger selectorate is smarter than a smaller one. Fact.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Sorry, I'm so heavy on this. But I just added to the Book Quotes and Passages Thread.

HERE are some absolutely stellar pieces from Gavin De Becker, who wrote The Gift of Fear.

"The way circus elephants are trained demonstrates this dynamic well: When young, they are attached by heavy chains to large stakes driven deep into the ground. They pull and yank and strain and struggle, but the chain is too strong, the stake too rooted. One day they give up, having learned they cannot pull free, and from that day forward they can be "chained" with a slender rope. When this enormous animal feels any resistance, thought it has the strength to pull the whole circus tent over, it stops trying. Because it believes it cannot, it cannot.
This opera is being sung in homes all over America right, the stakes driven in to the ground, the heavy chains attached, the children reaching the point they believe they cannot pull free. And at that point, they cannot. "
De Becker, Gavin

....
The Gift of Fear

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I can't take the original credit for catching the applicability and transcendence of such an anecdote, but I can expand on it. Tucker pointed me towards Vincent Bugliosi--the man who tried Manson (Helter Skelter is the #1 crime bestseller of all time) and the Palliko-Stockton murders, and said I could learn from Bugliosi's rhetorical strategy. And that his method of pre-emption was particularly clever.

"Whenever I know the defense is going to present evidence damaging to the prosecution, I try to introduce the evidence myself. That strategy tends to shave a few decibels off the defense's trumpets, and it conveys to the jury my willingness to see that all evidence, unfavorable to the prosecution as well as favorable, comes out--that I am not trying to suppress it back in the judge's chambers or in open court."-Vincent Bugliosi, "Till Death Do Us Part"

And so the above passage is the one I really latched on to. Remember that the prosecution goes first in closing arguments, which can indeed leave them open to attacks on context or interpretation. But Bugliosi turned this curse into an asset. Instead of waiting for criticism from the defense, he criticized himself--pointing out the prosecution's own weakness, or at least acknowledging the jury's potential to see one. And thusly, when it comes time for the defense to mouth the same words, they appear shill or redundant. Like he says, it doesn't eliminate the validity of the critique, rather the volume at which it is said. You frame the debate on your terms, and then the response, at least to some degree, is under your control. Of course, no one is arguing complete transparency of strategy. Machiavelli would roll over in his grave at that. In this case, you're simply using the appearance of nobility or truth to your benefit--and the cost is slight illumination of a few specifically chosen faults. After all, if someone is willing to talk openly of something, it can't really be that bad, right? That is the impression you want to give.

The implications of this is twofold. One, realize that when you see transparency or seemingly self-deprecating honesty, be suspicious. Realize that there may be ulterior motives. That perhaps your attention is being directed at something with the hope of a superficial glance at the present instead of an investigative one on your own recognizance. Two, see how rarely our leaders or businesses use this to their advantage. How often is the Bush administration secretive about things that we would have likely dismissed had then been forthcoming. And how this repeated mistake has lead to almost a universal mistrust of the government and thus a strategic crippling. There is an abundance of political theorists who think Clinton could have avoided his historical scarlet letter had he addressed the accusations openly and in advance--much in the same manner that Gavin Newsome recently has.

Accordingly, this will become something I'd like to incorporate into my daily strategy. Putting forth--in open court--the manageable weaknesses that I have, and think that if attacked I could sustain. Mark Cuban said something recently to the effect of "lies in sunlight are less dangerous than ones that live in the shadows." People are very much aware of this fact; so when you put debatable issues out for all to see, their ominous nature disappears. From this, their potential to harm you is lessened. What Bugliosi did was take criticisms off the table, ironically, by pushing them closer towards the center. So for instance, in some sort of political discussion, look three or four arguments ahead and bring them up yourself. Tacking on a "but I still don't think that changes the fact that..." blocks a check or even a checkmate from occurring. Then, that you seem more honest than your counterparts is an added benefit.

When you look at your own actions, or that of your company, or of your friends, ask "How could I defeat myself?" Play devil's advocate, always. And then incorporate those opposing strategies into your own. Turn the counterargument into collieries of the original--and by default the counterargument is no longer an effective one. As John Boyd advocated, you're simply getting inside their loop and making it your own. As with all strategies, there are exceptions, but I think the applications of this one, in both business, war and life are pretty large.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 03:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I've been mulling over The Strategy Paradox for the last few days, and found it to be super interesting. The theory has two assumptions:

1) A successful strategy requires full commitment
2) Full commitment, in light of unpredictable futures, can mean catastrophic failure

And thus, the more you strategize, the more likely you are to be both massively successful and massively unsuccessful. The only middle ground--and often the most commonly taken--is mediocrity, where the company is neither successful or driven out of business.

Raynor, the author of the book, poses a conclusion we often find ourselves also coming to:

"The only way [Company X] could have managed the situation any better is to have predicted the future...and that of course, is impossible. The future never gets here."

He sees strategies as equity or stock. You're purchasing the stock, and if you guessed right, you make money and if you guess wrong, you lose. The real way to succeed then, is to buy options on stocks. Essentially, to set up multiple, concurrent strategy options, from which you can then "agree to buy" the winners. These options then make your chosen strategy mobile in the face on an unpredictable future. This gives you strategic flexibility.

The book is solid, but of course, almost 100% applied to business. I think it'd be interesting to see it applied to life. Too often, people my age are fully dedicated to a single career path--which in turn would likely insure success in that field. The only problem then, is that if they hate the job (which in all likelihood they will) they have no where to turn. It seems to me that the key to strategic flexibility in life is to sow the seeds to a renaissance existence. Foster your interests in multiple fields, so that in light of the future, you have the ability to quickly ramp up one to dedicate your life around.

In other words, create options instead of commitments. Let's say I want to be a writer (which, to some extent I do) how can I dedicate myself to a single path, when it's clear that the distribution habits of publishers and reading habits of the audience are going to drastically change? I think the key is to focus where Rudius authors are focusing: creating quality content that is easily adaptable to multiple mediums. By investing in each medium, I (as well as anyone else with foresight) can then ramp up production in the ones with audiences and stop altogether in the ones that fail.

But the main message of his book--above anything else--is that an option is not an option if you cannot abandon it. Because then, it's not an option but an obligation. He warns against our "propensity to view any retreat as a sign of weakness rather than prudence." And I think that's wise.

Posted by Ryan Clark Holiday at 05:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)