5 ms·

Jesus christ. I guess this is the downside of being famous - random crazy people start fixating upon you as their leader/friend/saviour/nemesis/soulmate and rea

• mrtron 18y ago
  I think the downside is easily outweighed by being able to inspire people.
• unalone 18y ago
  I said this in my below comment, but... Don't people do the same thing with any kind of artist? I know that I feel I have a personal relationship with David Lynch that's evolved as I watch his movies. I definitely have that relationship with author Daniel Handler: I'll find an old interview of his and feel slightly wounded, like he didn't tell me about it before. That's natural. We devote ourselves all the times to good things. Do you ever get into web browser fights? Or Mac vs. PC arguments? Hacker News versus Digg? Because that's all devotion.
  • sho 18y ago
    I don't get into any of those arguments. Except Mac vs. PC, which is on very specific technical and aesthetic grounds! Regarding "personal relationships" with cultural authors, all I can offer is Neal Stephenson's Why I Am A Bad Correspondent, which explains better than I ever could: http://web.mac.com/nealstephenson/Neal_Stephensons_Site/Bad_Correspondent.html http://web.mac.com/nealstephenson/Neal_Stephensons_Site/Bad_... By the way, I also like Lynch. And I bet you also like Stephenson. I wonder if there's some ultra-narrow cultural niche we all fit into ; )
    • unalone 18y ago
      I made the mistake of buying Anathem, which is way more involved than I have time for at the moment. I need to find a lighter novel of Stephenson so that I can get used to his style first.
      • byrneseyeview 18y ago
        Zodiac is very light. Sex, drugs, violence, and environmentalism.
        • sho 18y ago
          Ha! I knew it! I'd love to see a Venn diagram of PG fans vs Stephenson fans. My guess is that the union is very large indeed...
          • rglullis 18y ago
            Funny how your original post points out how the author is creepily following PG's life, and now you implicate that members of the forum are "PG Fans".
            • sho 18y ago
              I don't understand. I am unabashedly a fan of PG's writings. That makes me a PG fan, I suppose. There is a pretty wide gap, though, between being a PG fan and writing a blog post entitled "My Love, Hate, Love Again, Affair with Paul Graham". You disagree?
              • rglullis 18y ago
                I don't disagree that there is a difference in the behavior between you and the author. This behavior is not different in quality, though, just in quantity. I think that when you call yourself a "fan" and spend your time "wondering about the intersection between PG's fans and Stephenson's fans", you are expressing the same kind of devotion shown by the author. So yes, there is a gap between you and the author. But it is a relative one. And I happen to think it is funny to see people judging someone else's behavior even when they show the same behavior. It's no different than pill-happy moms worried about their kids using drugs, claiming there is a huge difference between prescription drugs and whatever-kids-take-these-days.
  • calambrac 18y ago
    Some of his work may resonate with you emotionally, and you might look at his name as a signal that the next work will, as well, but to think that means you have a "personal relationship" with him is creepy as hell. Are there people I admire? Of course. That admiration isn't personal, though - it stems from the things they've done and results they've achieved by doing them. The Steve Jobs that I admire, for instance, is not a person to me, he's an idea. Steve Jobs the person? I have zero desire or right to know anything about him. I have no personal relationship with him. I don't want one. It's almost offensive to think that devotion to some famous person you've never met could be considered the same as spending some time on the interwebs arguing PC vs. Mac. You need some help.
    • unalone 18y ago
      I need help? Them's fightin' words. This attitude is not a new one. People naturally find fascination in other people. In the case of public people, sometimes you find that you know a lot about somebody you've never met. I don't have that with anybody, but I recall reading a story about David Foster Wallace that said he felt awkward speaking with people because he was so honest in the stuff that he wrote, he felt that people knew more about him by reading him than they did with talking about him. But then, I've got a different attitude towards this, because I'm a fiction writer, and a part of writing fiction stems from an obsession with people. I'm a gossip hound about people I don't even know. I don't follow celebrities, mind you, but if I read a book I want to find out as much as possible about that writer. I want to know where that book came from. For me, that's a story just as fascinating as the writing of the original book. (And obviously, I don't feel an actual connection to somebody like Daniel Handler. I'd love to meet the guy, because he's a brilliant writer, but the "personal relationship" to which I referred was more the relationship between me and his work than it is between me and him. But it's not between me and one book of his, it's between me and the things that he creates as a whole. Perhaps I'm going a bit overboard because I get offended when people say they get offended by things that I write about. But look: if you're arguing PC versus Mac, you're participating in a pretty fucked-up argument. I used to argue Mac versus Linux with a friend, I still defend my Mac here, and I'm aware more than the people I argue with that when I argue this, I'm doing it because my Mac and I have a relationship. Why the hell do I care if somebody online uses Ubuntu, or Android, or if they think Opera is better than my precious, precious Safari 4 beta? I'm not saying I don't care, because I do, and the people I argue with more often than not care also. It's because human beings become emotionally invested in the things that we use. When somebody insults my computer, they're insulting me and the standards that led me to be using the exact set-up that I do now. That's irrational, and I'm aware that it's irrational, but it's still how the human mind works. That's the exact same as feeling a devotion to a person you don't know. The object doesn't matter: the irrational part is the devotion. (It's what bonds people together as human beings, so it's really not irrational, it's a part of our biological makeup.) So when this guy writes about how he feels this connection with Paul Graham, I understand it, even though I don't have the same connection with the guy. I have connections with other people that I don't know. I'm madly in love with Steve Jobs and Dieter Rams in a way that makes me want to get to know them as people sheerly to know what sort of mind could create the things that I use and love. That's completely normal, in a messed-up sort of way. But as I said before: I read this article as a kind-of-farce. I doubt this guy was being completely honest in his writings. Similarly, do I stalk Daniel Handler? Of course not. I just read his interviews when I find them. But that doesn't stop this from being a relationship between me and a guy that makes things. I've had that relationship in reverse with people who've liked the things that I do. I'll meet people that feel they know me through a crappy Flash video I did a while ago. And while I don't feel that that gives them a good idea of me, that's because it was a bad video. I fully expect that the people who use sites I design or who read stories I write do know me, and when I meet them there's a feeling that I don't have with other people, that in a way this person and I are friends. Because in the process of writing, of creating things, I've shown a part of myself and made it public in a personal way. When I write, a part of the process involves my getting to know myself better. And when those people read my writing, they've taken that in, and they've gotten to know me. Not my story, but me, because everything I write is me, everything I know is a part of me, and the relationship between a person and a piece of art is absolutely, in some non-trivial way, a relationship between that person and the artist. That's natural.
• petercooper 18y ago
  but this search, this willingness to devote himself to something, someone, anything .. this is a serious bug in man's programming. Is it really a bug? Idolation is more common than it's not and I'd be surprised if everyone hadn't felt it to an extent (if only to a non human entity, such as a programming language, a band, or a religion).
  • sho 18y ago
    Ideas and thoughts, and the people who express them, are separate, and ever will be so. Fixating on the originator of an idea is folly and childishness. We are both fans of Ruby, I know that much. But do you love Matz, specifically? Follow everything he writes? Look to him for guidance in your personal life? Of course not, and me either. I can love his ideas seperate from him. Same with PG. I wouldn't be here if I didn't greatly admire his thinking. But personally idolising the guy? Of course not. Yes I have felt that before, when I was younger, when I was a child, and yes about a band. Now I consider it childishness, a wish to abandon one's duty to think for oneself. I may be wrong, of course.
    • petercooper 18y ago
      I agree with all of your points here, as I don't really idolize anyone either, but I raised the question for the perspective of people who do idolize others or need these sorts of faith based crutches to get through the day. Religion and idolatry are prevalent in our species - more so than logic, sadly.
      • rodrigo 18y ago
        Agree. It seems to me that if you dont want to give things a thougth, just adhere to someone elses and call yourself a (insert religion/belief system/school of thougth here) and get on with it. What does that pattern says about our program? is it a bug? a feature?
• kirubakaran 18y ago
  "Jesus Christ" ... "random crazy people start fixating upon you as their leader/friend/saviour/nemesis/soulmate and reading all sorts of crap into every aspect of their life" You may be on to something bigger than what you meant.
  • sho 18y ago
    Indeed, but I didn't want to get too off topic. Needless to say I agree with what you insinuate.
    • electromagnetic 18y ago
      People compulsively and dangerously obsess over many things, I think in our ancient history it was probably beneficial. I mean when you can catch polio from squatting in the woods, I think it probably kept many people alive by them obsessing over staying clean and doing routines and such. Today, well I think it only hurts people. When no one really has to try to live past 30 obsession is very dangerous. I turned 21 yesterday, I've never had any form of disease or condition (besides psoriasis, which since I moved country the UV light of been more southern has completely removed it) and the only times I've ever been in hospital was once when I visited my dad because he had kidney stones and the other was visiting my mum at work. My wife caught something, probably the influenza B outbreak that happened, and was sick for almost a week. Me? Not a thing, I've never had the flu I'm completely immune. My brother was bed ridden with the flu one time, my entire family had it except me... worst week ever! If I ever became a doctor I'd probably smother people.
  • wensing 18y ago
    Call me crazy.
    • sho 18y ago
      I regret using the perjorative term "crazy". I'd change it if I could, and I apologise for any offense caused. Unfortunately, on a rapid-fire discussion site like this, speed is king, and we (well, I) often say things which, after time to reflect, come across as needlessly judgemental, insulting, or inflammatory. By then it's too late to take back one's words. I've known many religious people, including my own sister, and while I find serious, fundamental flaws in their capacity for logical reasoning, ability to distinguish between reality and unreality, decision making processes, moral worldview and attitude towards others, I wouldn't call them crazy, so I apologise again.
• alecco 18y ago
  Because we are apes, our behavior follows the dictations of the endocrine system. Love, worship, depression, happiness, it's all an evolutionary con job.
• siong1987 18y ago
  He seems to forget to mention that YC is PG next startup after Viaweb. Without referring to this point, the arguments in the second half of the article suddenly become less persuasive.
• gcheong 18y ago
  His About Me page on his blog gives some insight into what he's looking for, or at least become, I think: "My dream is to some day settle in a remote commune in Kenya and raise kids who will be pure in thought, word and deed, devoid of all the ills of modernity and westernization."
• smidwap 18y ago
  You are reading way too much into this blog post. I think much of the post's content can be treated somewhat humorously, e.g. he is using the Love, Hate, Love Again title as more of a metaphor than a description of his real feelings for PG. Some stuff might be a little extreme (like screaming "I Love you, PG!") but do you want to crucify (allusion to your use of JC) him for showing a little emotion? Plus it lightens the reading of the post. Imagine a bland person's post on his love, hate, love again relationship with PG: "His stuff excited me, then it didn't, then it did again." Lame. I get the feeling from your very own comment that you are attempting to unfold a much grander thought of yours by taking this guy's blog post out of context. I won't question the premise that there are overly-obsesses fanatics out there, but not this guy. In the end, this guy is just another critic with a unique writing style. Kudos to him.
  • sho 18y ago
    Well, aren't we all trying to pull our thoughts together into some Grand Unified Theory? I wasn't "attempting to unfold" mine, I was just following a thread. I actually regret writing what I did now, especially using the word "crazy". I sound judgemental and snarky. However, I don't think I misread the post as badly as you imply. I just read it again and still think the guy sounds dangerously fixated upon PG, the person, rather than maintaining an abstracted appreciation of his works. He even says it straight at the end: "You’ve deeply influenced me in many ways and love you, hate you or love you again, you are on my list of Heroes!" I never want to "crucify" anyone for opening their heart or showing a little emotion but if this is heartfelt, and it reads like it to me, he's going too far. Not in his writing but internally. It reads like he's looking for a Guru. Maybe he is writing humourously (the old "it was satire!" defense?) but in the end words have meaning. He could be pretending to be a person with a dangerous tendency to fixate on 3rd parties or he could actually be that person, how can I, or anyone else, tell? Whatever - the person in whose voice that post is written, fictional or not, is not on the path to happiness with this type of thinking.