The French Art of Not Trying Too Hard

Product Information

According to the rule of 10,000 hours, though, it’s the number of hours spent training that should explain the variations. Now, according to another study (also conducted by Ericsson, this time with darts players rather than violinists), after fifteen years of practice, only 28 percent of the variation in performance can be attributed to training. To put it another way, you can train your whole life without ever catching up on the difference between yourself and the best, or acquiring real expertise. The rule of 10,000 hours, David Epstein concludes, with some humor, would be better called the rule of 10,000 years.

When we say "France," France itself is no more than an idea-une certaine idée-which exists in the collective imagination in its condensed form of "Paris," the international symbol of all forms of freedom, the dream of thinkers and artists. This Paris is evoked in the alluringly titled Le Rendez-vous des Étrangers (Where Strangers Meet) by Elsa Triolet, Louis Aragon's muse-a Paris in which the Spanish Picasso, Russian Chagall, and Italian Giacometti all felt at home, and with good reason: True courage, for him, turned out to be recognizing his limits and his humanity, and renouncing his desire to be all-powerful. He discovered the Stoics’ precept that if we want to be happy, we need to focus on the things we can control, and leave the rest to the gods. In this sense his experiment taught him something, and his failure is a success, because he became aware of his own physical reality, and of reality itself. One point in his favor: it took only 6,000 hours for him to realize this and to become an expert in stoicism; that’s 4,000 hours fewer than predicted. That’s not counting the two years of doubt and denial, which makes 365 a 2 × 24 (since depression is twenty-four hours a day), equaling the 17,500 hours of “purposeful depression” that it took him to realize that the rule of 10,000 hours perhaps didn’t exist or wasn’t valid for him. The rule of 10,000 hours flatters us because it allows us to think that with enough work, we can become whatever we want. That everything depends on individual will and a sense of effort. If performance was only about training, if 10,000 hours really were sufficient to compensate for natural differences, why continue to separate men and women in competitions? Because, as David Epstein shows, just because we want to doesn’t mean we can. To think you didn’t become a golf champion after 10,000 hours because you didn’t work hard enough is as misguided as to believe that a champion doesn’t need to train, that they just have to exist to win. The temptation of 10,000 hours, for all its whiff of egalitarianism, offers an even more dangerous illusion than the inverse temptation to just let it all hang out. You can’t afford to skimp on training, nor to underestimate your limits. We shouldn’t say “if you want to, you can” but “if you can, you’re right to want it.” The most profound aspect of the book is how it starts, with the famous quote and ultimate take away of the work: "The whole doctrine of action can be expressed in two chapters, each of which contains a single word. Chapter one, continue. Chapter two, start. The other which people find surprising, espresso almost the whole idea" (Alain).when it “takes off” it’s like a well-oiled machine that functions to perfection. It’s like when you see someone run one hundred meters in ten seconds. You see the miracle of sentences mounting up, and your mind functions almost outside itself. You become a spectator of yourself. When that happens, I write really easily, and I just can’t stop. And when it works it’s fantastic. They’re really blessed moments. Yes, sometimes, you feel just like the queen of words. It’s extraordinary, it’s paradise. When you believe in what you’re writing it’s an incredible pleasure. You feel like queen of all the earth. Since moving to Paris, I started feeling that I am not trying hard enough to achieve my goals – learning the French language and helping French companies communicate better with their audiences in India. After reading this book, I do believe that I have already taken the first step – without thinking and without hesitating (you will know what that means after you read the book). Grace is also a state of flow. It is a complete merge of the self with action, without the interference of intellect or other factors. The body is barely embodied by knowing and not by thinking. There is no self correction, judgement, or anything else. There is just pure action and the fluid movements of the body doing what it was meant to do. It is effortless and the result of not thinking or trying to escape from the physical state of being into a mental or emotional state of judgement or control.

An] amusing and interesting read; even Pourriol’s description of his approach to the material is a lesson in the laissez-faire outlook. Is this likely to change readers’ lives? Peut être pas, but it is fun to think that it might.”― Booklist When we say “France,” France itself is no more than an idea—une certaine idée—which exists in the collective imagination in its condensed form of “Paris,” the international symbol of all forms of freedom, the dream of thinkers and artists. This Paris is evoked in the alluringly titled Le Rendez-vous des étrangers (Where Strangers Meet) by Elsa Triolet, Louis Aragon’s muse—a Paris in which the Spanish Picasso, Russian Chagall, and Italian Giacometti all felt at home, and with good reason: This book came about as the result of a conversation with my publisher and friend, Elsa Lafon. It’s important to specify “friend” because we weren’t working at the time, we were just having dinner. It wasn’t a professional discussion; I wasn’t there to outline a project or negotiate a contract. It was just a conversation for conversation’s sake, over a simple family meal and a good bottle of wine. In fact, I can’t even remember what we were talking about—maybe about the children, who were still running around and should have been in bed. What effort we expended—to no avail—trying to get them to do what we wanted! Maybe it would have been best just to ignore them and wait for them to tire themselves out. Sooner or later they’d go to sleep. After all, that night was slightly special: there was no school the next day. What greater pleasure, for a child, than to end up falling asleep on the sofa, lulled by the adults’ conversation? Late to bed, happy to bed—it makes for sweet memories. “How right you are,” Elsa said. “Why struggle? Let’s have another glass of wine.”Read the first two chapters and then save yourself! This book could have been a great 3000 word essay. But as it stands as a whole is shit. It is wordy and repetitive, the same point being made in each chapter with different sporting analogies. Also there are some misogynistic undertones. I know nothing of the sports men talked about in this novel, so can't offer an opinion there, however, I can speak on the two artists that we're mentioned. Ollivier (who claimes to be well versed) idolises the lifestyles of both Rodin and Picasso who are known to have actively abused women and children in their lifetimes. It is one thing to talk about their art and talent, it is another to uphold them as great men whose way of life and philosophies are what we should strive to achieve in our own lives, completely ignoring the harm their actions and lifestyles had on those around them. There is no excuse for this. Ollivier later goes on to spend a whole chapter diminishing a teen girl he tutored to make himself look intelligent. It has the exact same vibe of those Tumblr stories that end with 'everybody clapped'. This chapter may be based on a real interaction but the dialogue definitely is not real, I feel so bad for the girl he was writing about, she was reduced to a 'sexy lampshade'.

Whenever I’m able do something without any effort I start to think it is inherently easy, that anyone should be able to do it. This is called the expert’s illusion. The minute you find yourself on the other side of expertise you realize it is an illusion, and that what is easy for one person isn’t necessarily easy for another. You find the illusion of the expert with literature teachers who think everyone must love reading. Or with math teachers who can’t understand why you don’t understand. This is the only thing they find difficult: understanding that what is easy for them is difficult for others. It’s exactly the same with living. There is no preparation for life. So you need to skip the warm-up. Watch your attitude. If you set off without a safety net, proudly, you learn how to live just as you learn how to ride a bike or a horse: by accepting the propulsion offered by life itself. Living like this is constantly surprising . . . OK, but in a good way or in a bad way? Nothing’s ever exactly what you thought it was going to be. You’re never adequately prepared. But the longer you hesitate, the harder it will be. Don’t wait until you’re sure before you act. What’s going to happen in the future? You’ll have to get there to find out.Understanding can't be focused. Distraction can make the work easier, it builds momentum. Distraction helps you to not think about what you are doing, so you are content with doing it. There are two ways to clean a burnt pan: taking considerable time and effort to scrub it, or to simply let it soak and return to it later. The first is based on effort, and the second on ease. Postponing action and letting things look after themselves is a win-win. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Hyper specialization can cause a sort of blindness to the broader picture of what is, based on the view we have of the world and how we operate within it. Don't think about solutions, think about the problem as if the problem were a person, let it speak for itself. Do not confuse preparation with practice. Excessive practice makes you stale. In any case, putting in your 10,000 hours in your given area absolutely does not guarantee that you will reach expert level. You need both the innate “hardware” (the “cables,” the computer), which comes from nature, and the acquired “software,” which comes from training. To achieve greatness there is no magic number of hours that will allow you to substitute work for being gifted. You need both: the gift and hard work. The gift without the work will go uncultivated, the work without the gift will be sterile. In both cases, it’s a waste. It’s a pity not to train if you’re gifted, but training when you have no gift can be harmful. You may incur needless harm to your physique and to your ego, and tenacity or denial can turn into blindness and useless obstinacy. When the Chinese painter Zao Wou-Ki first set foot in Paris in 1948, he knew only one word of French, one open-sesame that he gave to the taxi driver: “Montparnasse.” He didn’t mean the train station, he meant the mythical place that all aspiring painters dream of. He spent the rest of his life there in a studio very close to Giacometti’s. Chinese by chance, but French by the dictate of his heart. OK. Place your left foot delicately on the rope. Your weight should remain on your supporting leg, the straight one, that’s still planted on the solid ground of the south tower, safely on the building. Now you have to shift the weight of this leg onto the other one, taking the first step onto the rope. There comes a moment where you have to decide. The first step is a point of no return.