Scan barcode
A review by antonio_buehler
Courage Is Calling: Fortune Favors the Brave by Ryan Holiday
4.0
This is the third book I've read by Ryan Holiday after having previously written him off because people who have talked positively of him have also talked positively of Jordan Peterson, and Jordan Peterson is one of the people I have the least respect for in this world. I'm glad I gave Ryan Holiday a chance instead of dismissing him due to guilt by association via third parties.
The first book I read by Holiday was Stillness is the Key, which I thought was fabulous. Then I read The Obstacle is the Way which was good, but not great. And this book left me very disappointed for much of it. I was on the way to giving it two stars.
Courage is a great topic. But most who talk about courage are cowards, and far too many believe that courage in service of oppressive institutions is something to celebrate, but courage in defense of the oppressed is too radical to defend.
I was unimpressed by so many of the examples Holiday references in the book as exemplars of courage. While he was able to point out moments of courage, or even careers of courage, the examples he used were too often of rich white people, often in positions of power, and even if not in positions of power in social positions of privilege, most often serving institutions which have done great harm. I found it silly to call out Bertrand Russell for a stupid statement while putting on a pedestal people who were responsible for the destruction of hundreds of thousands or millions of lives. I also was frustrated with the endless examples of courageous individualism, and the lack of examples of courageous community and courageous movements. Even when it was related to movements, it was about a leader, instead of the whole of the movement.
Of great frustration to me is the use of military leaders and politicians as examples of courage, although they certainly get the coverage and the framing that leads people to identify their work with courage. Just one example is Douglas MacArthur, who was courageous at times, but who was also a moral coward, too eager to do great harm to those with the least power (e.g., foreign nationals, American citizens, and his own men). Over half of the other examples, and the majority of politicians and military leaders, fall into this category (but usually to a lesser degree than MacArthur). Should we highlight people who can be courageous in the moment, but whose life or career is one of cowardice, or worse?
As I continued to read the book I felt like it was borderline fortune teller like--giving everyone something they can identify with or latch onto, thereby making people feel good without much substance. It seemed to be a great book for people who are unwilling to take any courageous positions or change their lives to practice courage on a regular basis a way to imagine that they are. One such line made my eyes roll back in my head: "Be a cop. Be a soldier. Be a philosopher. Be another musician in a long tradition of rock music. Hold somebody's hand. Just make sure that underneath, you are being yourself." Imagine that, be basically anything, even if it is something that is inherently cowardly and abusive.
As opposed to the messaging that everyone can be courageous, by often not being courageous at all, I was hoping to see more meat behind how people can train to be courageous. Perhaps even some frameworks for people to be courageous for noble reasons, as opposed to in service to harmful institutions. I also hoped to read a very strong acknowledgement that living a courageous life is extremely lonely. That one who does will really be in the wilderness, perhaps for life. That it severs friendships and social networks; that it erases job, business, and other economic opportunities; and that for too many people, it means being incarcerated or killed.
But by the end of the book I did pick up his acknowledgements of many of the profiled individuals who acted courageously did not always live a principled, courageous life. I appreciated that he moved beyond just celebrating white men, including stories of courageous Black individuals, women, and queer folks. I would have liked to see more of that, especially far more radical examples. I want to celebrate even more the people who were uncompromising in their courage.
What pushed me to give the book a better rating was the excellent afterword. I loved that he recalled his failures at American Apparel, and how that was not a shining moment for him in terms of courage. That coupled with his examples of people who were courageous, at points, even if they were extremely harmful in other ways, led me to understand that this book is certainly written for an audience that he hopes will seek redemption for their own failures to act courageously (because that is everyone), and that people can start endeavoring to do that today.
I don't know whether many readers of the book will do that, or if they will instead use the book to lie to themselves that they are doing enough and that they would act courageously if the stakes were ever high (or low) enough. But nonetheless, four stars. Good book. Would reread.
The first book I read by Holiday was Stillness is the Key, which I thought was fabulous. Then I read The Obstacle is the Way which was good, but not great. And this book left me very disappointed for much of it. I was on the way to giving it two stars.
Courage is a great topic. But most who talk about courage are cowards, and far too many believe that courage in service of oppressive institutions is something to celebrate, but courage in defense of the oppressed is too radical to defend.
I was unimpressed by so many of the examples Holiday references in the book as exemplars of courage. While he was able to point out moments of courage, or even careers of courage, the examples he used were too often of rich white people, often in positions of power, and even if not in positions of power in social positions of privilege, most often serving institutions which have done great harm. I found it silly to call out Bertrand Russell for a stupid statement while putting on a pedestal people who were responsible for the destruction of hundreds of thousands or millions of lives. I also was frustrated with the endless examples of courageous individualism, and the lack of examples of courageous community and courageous movements. Even when it was related to movements, it was about a leader, instead of the whole of the movement.
Of great frustration to me is the use of military leaders and politicians as examples of courage, although they certainly get the coverage and the framing that leads people to identify their work with courage. Just one example is Douglas MacArthur, who was courageous at times, but who was also a moral coward, too eager to do great harm to those with the least power (e.g., foreign nationals, American citizens, and his own men). Over half of the other examples, and the majority of politicians and military leaders, fall into this category (but usually to a lesser degree than MacArthur). Should we highlight people who can be courageous in the moment, but whose life or career is one of cowardice, or worse?
As I continued to read the book I felt like it was borderline fortune teller like--giving everyone something they can identify with or latch onto, thereby making people feel good without much substance. It seemed to be a great book for people who are unwilling to take any courageous positions or change their lives to practice courage on a regular basis a way to imagine that they are. One such line made my eyes roll back in my head: "Be a cop. Be a soldier. Be a philosopher. Be another musician in a long tradition of rock music. Hold somebody's hand. Just make sure that underneath, you are being yourself." Imagine that, be basically anything, even if it is something that is inherently cowardly and abusive.
As opposed to the messaging that everyone can be courageous, by often not being courageous at all, I was hoping to see more meat behind how people can train to be courageous. Perhaps even some frameworks for people to be courageous for noble reasons, as opposed to in service to harmful institutions. I also hoped to read a very strong acknowledgement that living a courageous life is extremely lonely. That one who does will really be in the wilderness, perhaps for life. That it severs friendships and social networks; that it erases job, business, and other economic opportunities; and that for too many people, it means being incarcerated or killed.
But by the end of the book I did pick up his acknowledgements of many of the profiled individuals who acted courageously did not always live a principled, courageous life. I appreciated that he moved beyond just celebrating white men, including stories of courageous Black individuals, women, and queer folks. I would have liked to see more of that, especially far more radical examples. I want to celebrate even more the people who were uncompromising in their courage.
What pushed me to give the book a better rating was the excellent afterword. I loved that he recalled his failures at American Apparel, and how that was not a shining moment for him in terms of courage. That coupled with his examples of people who were courageous, at points, even if they were extremely harmful in other ways, led me to understand that this book is certainly written for an audience that he hopes will seek redemption for their own failures to act courageously (because that is everyone), and that people can start endeavoring to do that today.
I don't know whether many readers of the book will do that, or if they will instead use the book to lie to themselves that they are doing enough and that they would act courageously if the stakes were ever high (or low) enough. But nonetheless, four stars. Good book. Would reread.