Skip to main content

Book Review: Graceful by Seth Godin

Seth Godin is a publishing machine.  He deserves credit for (to use Tom Peter’s term) re-imagining publishing.  I’m not aware of anyone else close to his skills at channel- linking: Kindle books, hardcover books, free books, blogs, Twitter.  And most recently with Kickstarter.  Very inventive indeed.

Graceful follows the style of many of his books, that is, very short chapters, each making a single point to support and develop the theme of the book.

One of George Gilder’s recommendations in the early days of the Internet and the PC explosion was to determine which resources are scarce and which are abundant.  Then design to exploit the abundant resource.  Mr. Godin updates that concept with gracefulness being in short supply, along with leadership.  In his view, in the new economy is based on abundance.   I would label that a network effect.   From his chapter on Abundance and scarcity: “If I benefit when everyone knows my idea, then the more people I give the idea to, the better off we all are”.

Mr. Godin’s books are always encouraging.  He encourages the reader to think, create and most of all to act.  Again, in his view, the digital economy and network effects have altered the course of the economy.  In the new economy, “…safe is risky”.  His recommendation to the reader is to avoid anxiety, face fears and take risks.  Only by moving to the edge of one’s risk profile will one do his best work.
One of the shortest chapters - Deniability – particularly caught my attention.  In it he notes that it isn’t difficult to take or assume responsibility.  Once you’ve asked for it – people are more than willing to hand it off to you.  A different way of looking at it.

At an Internet business I’m involved with, we say large networks win.  Mr. Godin notes “ideas that spread win”.
Nice little book.  Quick read.  As always, some provocative material.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Reasons We Think America is On the Wrong Course

I was listening to the Michael Medved show yesterday. He does a nice job at talk radio. But he was worked up because the CBS News Poll showed that 72% of Americans surveyed think the U.S. is on the wrong track. (When I went to CBS' site, it looks to me like the number is 69%, but that's an insignicant difference). Medved's view is that income for the poorest citizens are rising (recent government data), unemployment is low, stock market is high, no cold war, so why so pessimistic? Here are my answers: Several of our young men and women are being killed every day in a war that we are getting sick of. The deficit is some unimaginable, staggering number that my generation is imposing on my children. Social Security is bankrupt and both Congress and the Administration (both previous and current, and both Republican and Democratic) are unwilling to face the issue. There are virulent infectious agents in hospitals that are resistent to essentially all antibiotics, and the drug co...

Stimulus Plan

Mr. President: The House stimulus bill is awful. Dangerous. Counter-productive. It has a very high probability of making things worse!. Your man Rahm Emanuel is supposed to be a tough guy: turn him loose on the House Dems - they are selling you down the river. Some simple tests: the spending will improve long-term productivity; the spending will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the spending will happen fast; very, very fast. There may need to be some legislation to enable spending without years of environmental review. For example, spending on wind farms would improve long-run productivity and reduce dependence on foreign oil. But let's say the wind farm is a couple of miles offshore. You can't have environmental groups stopping the development to see if some fish will be harmed. This spending has to happen now. And, no tax cuts with the possible exception of AMT. People aren't going to spend any tax savings; they are going to pay their credit card bills or r...

Romney/Thompson dream ticket?

The role of Fred Thompson in yesterday's SC primary is as murky as his next step. Did he divide the religious vote and thereby hand Huckabee a loss? Or would those votes, had he not been there, have gone elsewhere? My instinct is that more of those votes would have gone to Romney or McCain than to Huckabee. Fred comes across to me as the thinking person's conservative: thoughtful on positions, a sense of history, a Federalist, serious about the war on terror and prepared to take the long view on it. His addresses have content, not sound bites - which may, unfortunately, be a drawback in 2008. Mitt is quickly seizing the stage as the most knowledgeable in the field on economics, growth and job creation. With a war still consuming dozens of billions, it isn't clear that the race will be won on voters' views of candidates job creation prowess. However, he gives off as much energy as Fred seems to absorb - Mitt's electron shell could power Fred. So, Mitt may be drawi...