The Conference Board Review, a magazine by the folks who create the U.S. Consumer Confidence Index, have re-published a short essay of mine, that originally appeared here as How to call bullshit on a guru.
It’s up now, in edited form, on the Conference Board Review site as Keep me honest :)
I’ve got two new posts up about the new book:
The first draft of my next book, about an insider’s view of public speaking, is done!
Yay for me.
If you haven’t checked out speakerconfessions.com, you should. There’s some good material there and it gives a flavor for the questions I’m asking and answering in the book. Spread the word if you can.
I’ll be taking a break for a couple of weeks so don’t expect much to happen here until I’m back.
I’m speaking at BusinessToButtons in Malmo, Sweden next week and wrapping some R&R on both ends. And I’ll be posting again come mid June.
I’m self aware enough to know that I’m fond of picking on things. Why X sucks, The myths about Y, etc. Lots of other people do this too and the thing I wonder about is why.
It’s much easier to critique and criticize than it is to make things. There’s no doubt about that.
For example, lets say we have two essays:
A) What makes managers great
B) Why managers make us miserable
Somehow the confession, by writer B, that there is something wrong and they’re going to talk about it strikes me as more honest than writer A. Writer A sounds like an idiot. A Pollyanna. He sounds like someone who thinks everything is great and wonderful and probably has no insight as to why. Whereas Writer B, although he might describe some horror stories, there is a chance she will turn the misery around and explain how you can avoid the misery, and become a good or great manager.
I’m from NYC, and people from NYC are prone to this sort of cynical bias. Simply put, if I don’t see you call bullshit on something, I fear you don’t know how. Or you don’t ever smell it anywhere.
I do realize this is kind of strange and can get in the way, so I do my best to prevent this. But since you folks are here and read the things I write, I wonder what you think. So let me know.
In doing research for writing books you notice funny things.
Sometimes you discover a saying attributed to two different people, and the right attribution is actually less popular than the wrong one (In my case I misattributed a quote to Goethe, as many authors have). Other times people snip a quote in such a way that it is divorced from the context in which the writer intended.
One case in point is this famous saying from Emerson:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
The quote is from his essay called self-reliance, an essay about learning about yourself. Which is a good thing to do.
The problem is it’s easy to lob off those first two words and have an entirely different quote.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Same sentence, different meaning. A meaning that Emerson never intended and clearly disagreed with. But by using this well worn phrase in a different way, some kind of violation of intention has taken place. It’s not what the author meant. The writer using the quote is co-opting the work of the other guy to suit his own purposes.
This problem can be minimized, but it’s hard to avoid entirely. There are too many misquotings in too many good or popular books, to either verify quotes before using them, or get secondary references for all sources. The web does help catch these things, but preventing them is another matter.
The problems get worse with fiction.
There is a Stephen King quote bouncing around the web that goes like this:
God is cruel, sometimes he makes you live.
As best I can tell, the quote comes from a novel he wrote called Desperation. However another version of the quote is listed this way:
Do you know how cruel your God can be, David. How fantastically cruel? …Sometimes he makes us live.
Which version would you use? Probably the one that’s shorter. This sort of thing happens all the time, such as in the story of the quote known as Murphy’s law. Sometimes the quote gets better over time, even as it distances itself from what the attributed author actually wrote or said.
The surprise is that both versions can be found at the same source, wikiquote. Here’s the first and here’s the second. At least wikiquote attributes quotes to their sources, which many quote books and websites do not.
In any case the quote is from a work of fiction. King, the author, may have written this sentence for purposes that serve the book. He may not actually believe this sentence. Or maybe he does. Only he knows. You can find similar quoting issues where an author gets attributed for something one of his character says, which is really quite a different thing than saying it themselves.
For the writers out there, it’s worth taking a moment to find out where a quote comes before you use it. Even just to know what book it’s from, and if it’s fiction or non-fiction. If you’re using a quote as the main anchor to support your major point, dig up the reference and read the paragraph before and after the quote – it will make a huge difference in respecting what the writer intended. And hopefully writers in the future will do the same with your work.
Sadly few quote compendiums bother to provide any references at all.
Krishna makes an interesting point on his thought clusters blog about professions that involve getting paid for talking about the profession itself.
Historically most professions made this impossible. You can’t make a building about making a building, or prepare a meal that’s about preparing a meal. It’d be a real stretch if you tried (“The mashed potatoes represent the mashing of my mind in trying to decide what to make…”). Most kinds of work don’t create a narrative that’s easy for people to follow. But speaking and writing are based on narrative, this happens and then that happens, and on it goes. And you can tell a story about anything, including telling stories. Or telling stories about telling stories. Or blogging about speaking about telling stories about blogging.
The problem of course is that this gets annoying fast. People who hate Wallace’s Infinite Jest or Dave Egger’s A heartbreaking work of staggering genius, hate it because these works are self aware and self involved in a way narratives traditionally are not. But other people love these works for exactly the same reasons. Any kind of story can be made interesting if told well. Master storytellers can get away with a lot of things the rest of us can’t.
Personally I’m interested in writing and speaking for the same singular reason. It’s about making connections between people and ideas. That’s really all I care about. If I thought I could do that better with oil paints or interpretive dance I would. But since I’m pretty sure I can’t, so I’ll stick with things involving words.