Scan barcode
A review by kdkemp
Courage Is Calling: Fortune Favors the Brave by Ryan Holiday
2.0
I’m a longtime reader of Ryan Holiday and typically a fan of his writing, but this one fell flat for me for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the entire book is based on the idea that courage is required in order to achieve greatness. This presupposes that the goal is greatness, which contradicts Ryan’s earlier works, including Ego is the Enemy. The goal should not be greatness, it should be goodness. Virtue, not glory, is supposed to be the highest aim of life. Given our current political climate, it’s easy to see how this book could be misconstrued and misused as a call to bold and violent action. Using the Oklahoma City Bomber’s final words (Invictus by William Ernest Henley) in the introduction didn’t do much to assuage this fear. I think Ryan should have pressed early on that courage must stem from, and be in pursuit of, virtue; it must come from a place of selflessness and be done in service of others or the greater good. Otherwise, by Ryan’s own definitions, blowing up a Federal building could be seen as a courageous act.
Secondly, the book carries on Ryan’s earlier trends of relying predominantly on war and sports and sports and war as examples for his argument. I get that his target audience is comprised of those referenced in the blurb for this book - “professional athletes, CEOs, politicians, and entrepreneurs” but I think that boxes him in to an increasingly narrow perspective. I was so excited to see a reference to a courageous woman in history, Florence Nightingale, thinking that Ryan was finally going to start including more stories of strong women in his works. Unfortunately, it pretty much ended with her. Margaret Thatcher got a brief call out, but the few other women mentioned were done so in reference to the men whose stories Ryan focused on - Frederick Douglass and an enslaved woman named Nelly who inspired him, and Harry Burn, who voted to ratify the 19th Amendment giving American women the right to vote after he received an impassioned letter from his mother urging him to do so. In the case of the 19th Amendment, womens’ contribution to this effort is literally a footnote. Similarly, Ryan’s inclusion of Frederick’s Douglass’s and Martin Luther King Jr.’s courage felt more like it was pandering to his woke readership than genuinely striving to include minority voices. Given how widely and well-read Ryan is, his perspective still just seems so narrow.
Finally, I just think this book misses the mark in what courage really means. So much of the writing felt more like Ryan’s mentor, Robert Greene, and his 48 Laws of Power than it did the person who wrote that “Success is peace of mind, which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you made the effort to do your best to become the best that you are capable of becoming.” Courage isn’t just about achieving greatness or doing bold things. It isn’t about relentlessly taking the offensive and never backing down. Courage can be quiet. It can be calm. I think the book would have benefitted greatly from this perspective; from stories of everyday average courage, because most of us aren’t professional athletes, CEOs, politicians, or entrepreneurs. Most of us are just trying to make it through our day and build a good life for ourselves and our loved ones. Courage is taking bold action, sure, but it’s also sitting with a loved one while they wait to hear whether or not their cancer has returned. It’s choosing to come out to your conservative family without knowing whether or not they will support you. It’s leaving a violent relationship and facing the paralyzing uncertainty of the unknown. In my humble opinion, the greatest courage is found in these ordinary moments of everyday life, and I really wish we had seen more of that in this book.
It’s ironic that Ryan said he almost didn’t include the afterword, because I think it’s the strongest (and most down-to-earth) part of the book. Had it set the tone in the introduction, or if Ryan had chosen to start this series with Wisdom or Temperance, I think I’d have a very different opinion.
Firstly, the entire book is based on the idea that courage is required in order to achieve greatness. This presupposes that the goal is greatness, which contradicts Ryan’s earlier works, including Ego is the Enemy. The goal should not be greatness, it should be goodness. Virtue, not glory, is supposed to be the highest aim of life. Given our current political climate, it’s easy to see how this book could be misconstrued and misused as a call to bold and violent action. Using the Oklahoma City Bomber’s final words (Invictus by William Ernest Henley) in the introduction didn’t do much to assuage this fear. I think Ryan should have pressed early on that courage must stem from, and be in pursuit of, virtue; it must come from a place of selflessness and be done in service of others or the greater good. Otherwise, by Ryan’s own definitions, blowing up a Federal building could be seen as a courageous act.
Secondly, the book carries on Ryan’s earlier trends of relying predominantly on war and sports and sports and war as examples for his argument. I get that his target audience is comprised of those referenced in the blurb for this book - “professional athletes, CEOs, politicians, and entrepreneurs” but I think that boxes him in to an increasingly narrow perspective. I was so excited to see a reference to a courageous woman in history, Florence Nightingale, thinking that Ryan was finally going to start including more stories of strong women in his works. Unfortunately, it pretty much ended with her. Margaret Thatcher got a brief call out, but the few other women mentioned were done so in reference to the men whose stories Ryan focused on - Frederick Douglass and an enslaved woman named Nelly who inspired him, and Harry Burn, who voted to ratify the 19th Amendment giving American women the right to vote after he received an impassioned letter from his mother urging him to do so. In the case of the 19th Amendment, womens’ contribution to this effort is literally a footnote. Similarly, Ryan’s inclusion of Frederick’s Douglass’s and Martin Luther King Jr.’s courage felt more like it was pandering to his woke readership than genuinely striving to include minority voices. Given how widely and well-read Ryan is, his perspective still just seems so narrow.
Finally, I just think this book misses the mark in what courage really means. So much of the writing felt more like Ryan’s mentor, Robert Greene, and his 48 Laws of Power than it did the person who wrote that “Success is peace of mind, which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you made the effort to do your best to become the best that you are capable of becoming.” Courage isn’t just about achieving greatness or doing bold things. It isn’t about relentlessly taking the offensive and never backing down. Courage can be quiet. It can be calm. I think the book would have benefitted greatly from this perspective; from stories of everyday average courage, because most of us aren’t professional athletes, CEOs, politicians, or entrepreneurs. Most of us are just trying to make it through our day and build a good life for ourselves and our loved ones. Courage is taking bold action, sure, but it’s also sitting with a loved one while they wait to hear whether or not their cancer has returned. It’s choosing to come out to your conservative family without knowing whether or not they will support you. It’s leaving a violent relationship and facing the paralyzing uncertainty of the unknown. In my humble opinion, the greatest courage is found in these ordinary moments of everyday life, and I really wish we had seen more of that in this book.
It’s ironic that Ryan said he almost didn’t include the afterword, because I think it’s the strongest (and most down-to-earth) part of the book. Had it set the tone in the introduction, or if Ryan had chosen to start this series with Wisdom or Temperance, I think I’d have a very different opinion.