Comments on: No, What You Feel Isn’t Important.

By: Ryan Holiday

Ryan Holiday — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:58:13 +0000

Why? What if that’s all it takes? You’d advocate a dunk over a layup when a layup was all that was needed?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:44:21 +0000

I agree with you that the factors I listed are meaningless of they don’t add up to anything. But I also think that a work that evokes strong feelings without any complexity, structure, or creativity is equally meaningless.

By: Ryan Holiday

Ryan Holiday — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:11:37 +0000

But ultimately, isn’t Gatsby good because it makes you feel? For Gatsby and for Nick and for that longing at the green light?

Those things you listed are MEANINGLESS if they don’t add up to anything. What the affection fallacy says is that they are inherently good–that they are good for their own sake. That complexity is not a tool for meaning but an end in itself.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 08:59:52 +0000

After I first read this post, my first reaction was to agree with you entirely. But after a few weeks of mulling this over, I think there is room for a middle ground regarding the affection fallacy. You and Tucker both enjoy sneering at academics (often with good reason) but I believe that many ideas coming from academia have practical utility when they are not whole-heartedly adhered to. The affection fallacy strikes me as one such idea.

Objectively judging the quality of art is extremely difficult, and is in many ways a fundamentally flawed process. It seems to me that the affection fallacy could prove useful in this endeavor. For instance, a sex scene from a trashy romance novel may evoke incredibly strong emotions, but most will agree that this is not the same calibur writing as The Great Gatsby. The feelings that a work of art evokes are important, but I don’t think they are of absolute importance. We don’t judge work “on its grammar and nothing more,” but the affection fallacy can remind us to consider other factors–complexity, creativity, structure, etc.

I would hypothesize that much of the poor-quality content which the publishing industry has generated in the past decade can be partially attributed, in separate cases, to too strong or too weak of an adherence to the affection fallacy.

Sorry if this post was too long.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:06:04 +0000

This is one of your best posts. I like the Hobbes and Locke allusion.

By: Ryan Holiday

Ryan Holiday — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:28:43 +0000

Dropped you an email. Hope you have time to discuss.

By: dano

dano — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 06:11:48 +0000

Thanks for responding, and yes I do. There’s been less writing as of late and a whole lot more editing, but as far as jobs go, I can’t really complain.

By: Ryan Holiday

Ryan Holiday — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:59:34 +0000

Dude, you are totally right. That book is awful and the only reason I haven’t mentioned it is I didn’t want to give the book any more publicity…it is that bad. Here is what I wrote down when I read it:

s a very contrarian, snooty book. If web 2.0 is Locke then he is Hobbes..but not that eloquent.

Its not that UGC is hurtful, its that it can never really replace professional content. He doesn’t understand that we are sort of in a limbo right now–where professional content isn’t that spectacular either. Like you said, a lot of bloated execs with no skills are producing stuff. The whole thing is probably going to turn over a few more times before it settles, but ultimately the best stuff will rise to the top–whoever made it.

The book should be about how do you nurture talent in this new age. How do you go from UGC to pro without losing the authenticity that has drawn people there to begin with? Instead its mostly about how we’re losing our culture and our class and all that hysteria. But you know what? I watch tv and movies and most of them fucking suck. The NYT isn’t that awesome either.

He’s basically out there screaming that corporate raiders like milken are ruining the ‘history’ of corporate america type thing. Things change, generations die. Its not always for the worse…

Do you write for Cracked?

By: dano

dano — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:34:09 +0000

Did you read “The Cult of the Amateur” yet? Your post really reminded me of how I felt reading that elitist, delusional piece of shit. I suggest you check it out.