The Jordan Peterson: The Man in the Arena
By Ruth Anne Amsden
Ever since Dr. Jordan Peterson’s meteoric rise to fame following the Canadian debate on Bill C-16, it has been fashionable for free-lance authors, YouTube commentators, journalists, and Twitter users to predict the downfall of Jordan Peterson, and to ask “What Happened To Jordan Peterson?” If I were a cynical person, I might suggest that some of these content creators, upon finding themselves in need of a quick buck or some traffic on their YouTube channel, might use Dr. Peterson’s name as a way to draw attention to their work. If I were even more cynical, I might suggest that these videos and articles contain a performative aspect. If the creators are in need of a little social capital and standing with their more Left-leaning colleagues, what better way to earn that status than by dashing off a piece critiquing Jordan Peterson?
However, since I am not a cynic but a practical country woman who prefers to think the best of everyone, I trust that much of the criticism leveled at him is made in good faith. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend” is a proverb for a reason. But who watches the watchmen— or the critics? I am concerned that the overwhelming response to those criticisms is either reflexive defense of Dr. Peterson from angry fans, or sycophantic agreement with the critics from readers and listeners with whom Dr. Peterson has fallen out of favor. Neither response involves critical thinking; no one that I can see is pushing back on Dr. Peterson’s critics and asking hard questions: “Are you sure you have correctly understood what he was saying and what he meant by it? Are you certain you have understood the context? Have you considered what is happening in his life and how he may perhaps need grace to be extended to him, as you would wish for grace to be extended to you? Are you really inflicting these wounds on an already embattled heart out of faithful friendship, or out of disappointed fanboy bitterness? Does his rise to fame and fortune and his position as a public figure mean that he is no longer a fellow human being capable of being wounded by your words?”
Now, as Dr. Peterson’s clinical license is at risk, just when he is launching two new great endeavors: an online learning opportunity known as “Peterson Academy,” and an international consortium presenting a vision of a brighter future for our world, it seems an appropriate time to ask those hard questions.
Who am I to critically engage with a few of the criticisms leveled at Jordan Peterson? I am a middle-aged single mum with a B. A. in English whose life has been made immeasurably richer from close acquaintance with Dr. Peterson’s character and his work. I am not an “adoring fan;” I am a fellow pilgrim and kindred spirit, an unmet friend. I do not place Dr. Peterson on a pedestal; I think of him as a man on snowshoes going on ahead breaking trail in the fresh snow. And those of us who are most profoundly influenced by him are following in his footsteps, packing down and “grooming” the trail he has broken.
I became familiar with his work when I was already well established in my vision for the future, but had become discouraged and disheartened about the state of the world and my place in it. His words rekindled the fire in my heart. They didn’t set me on a different path; they instead strengthened and reinforced all that I am in myself. They affirmed that my calling to be a writer and a mother is indeed a worthwhile calling.
Of all the inspiring words that Dr. Peterson has ever said, the ones that moved me most deeply are his heartfelt words to Piers Morgan: “We all make our mistakes as we stumble uphill.” Why, though, should such a flawed and imperfect man be worthy of the calling to be the “Intellectual Internet Dad”? Why should a woman like me, who has suffered at the hands of men, open her heart to such a man?
What prompted me to open my heart to Dr. Peterson more than anything he has said or written is precisely how transparently flawed, imperfect, and utterly human he is. In interview after interview, he has turned himself inside out, interrogating himself as to what he had said and how he could have said it better. He has shared again and again that he has a team of people who know him better than anyone and who work continually to keep him on the straight and narrow, who constantly push back on him, expect him to be his highest self, remind him of his calling here on earth. He constantly course-corrects after engaging with good faith criticisms, stating that he is truly trying to get it right. After returning home from a near-death experience, he showed up to podcast conversations when he was in so much pain he could hardly get his breath. He didn’t have to come back, but he did. And he continued to work and to take from the treasures of his heart to give to his listeners and readers, and the world is immeasurably more beautiful for it.
All of this showed me a man of good character. This was a man whose example I could follow. I concluded that, as Matthew Arnold said of Sophocles, Dr. Peterson “saw life steadily and saw it whole.” Through his lectures, his podcasts, and his books, he has become a dear traveling companion to me, stumbling uphill just ahead of me, and holding out a hand to help me scramble up.
Dr. Peterson shows us through his lived example that although we don’t always get it right in every fine detail, we can be a force for good in the world. When all is said and done perhaps, as Jane Austen’s Mr. Knightley said to Emma, “It is our imperfections that make us so perfect for one another.”
Let’s take a closer look at some of those criticisms.
He is being investigated by the Ontario College of Psychology. Where there is so much smoke, there must be a fire. He wouldn’t be under investigation if he were following the rules, would he?
I have familiarized myself with the accusations. Rather than retreading familiar ground, I would like to respond briefly to a few of them.
First, Dr. Peterson is under investigation for criticizing Prime Minister Trudeau. The word “fascism” is used far too lightly in the media; it has become a catch-all phrase for “anything political that I don’t agree with.” But the Britannica Dictionary defines fascism simply as “a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.”
People are not allowed to disagree with the government of Canada without threat of public disgrace and loss of credibility, eh?
Let that sink in.
Secondly, Dr. Peterson is under investigation for “deadnaming” Elliot Page, a famous transgender actor. I fail to understand why it is that in our current culture, “deadnaming” and “misgendering” are far more serious crimes than those, for example, forbidden under the Geneva conventions and condemned by the Nuremberg Trials. Furthermore, I would like to be informed why it is acceptable in Canada for a teacher to show up for
work wearing fetish gear, but it is not acceptable for a nurse to state her love for J. K. Rowling. Nice simple language, please, I’m an English major.
But why should Dr. Peterson risk his clinical license and his hard-earned reputation to call out an actor who has only become their “true self” (for the third or fourth time in their career). Was he deliberately being “mean” for clicks? Or has he been warning the world about the dangers of social contagion since Bill C-16 and is heartsick that the very social epidemic he warned about is coming to pass? I recently watched a YouTube video of a young woman who, directly influenced by the aforementioned famous trans actor, “transitioned.” She has since come to regret her decisions and is detransitioning, but the damage inflicted upon her person is permanent. This is exactly what Dr. Peterson was warning us about. But it would seem that in our current discourse, “deadnaming” is felt to cause a good deal more harm than irreversible surgeries and hormone treatments.
Thirdly, Dr. Peterson is under investigation for expressing that he found a rather obese swimsuit model “not beautiful.” Now, as a woman of size myself, a woman whose body has changed forever due to pregnancy, breastfeeding, and life-saving medication, I confess this tweet touched a sore spot in me. It was more difficult to be objective about this criticism. But I value Dr. Peterson’s words too much to let one irritated tweet cause me to discount everything he has ever said. Context is for kings, after all, and so I considered this tweet in a broader context of social discourse that is going on in our world right now. There is a powerful anti “fat phobia” and “body positivity” movement that is steamrolling the entertainment industry today; and it is that movement, and not the young woman herself, that Dr. Peterson was criticizing. The movement is putting “fat” models on magazine covers, thereby promoting the idea of “health at any size.” The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition might have been the last fashion magazine to hold out against promoting the unhealthy lifestyle, but even they caved in to the social pressures. By saying “Sorry, not beautiful,” Dr. Peterson was criticizing, not the young woman on the cover, but the industry that used her to virtue-signal.
Now mind you, I don’t agree with the manner in which Dr. Peterson expressed his concern with the body positivity movement. I think the situation deserves a far more nuanced and serious discussion, such as the one conducted here: https://youtu.be/yXnp-rUWn8w and here: https://youtu.be/YaZOvH5dXDI. But taking Dr. Peterson’s words out of context and twisting them does not equate to good faith criticism. It is not fair play. If you are going to criticize him to gain social currency among your peers, give him the respect of criticizing what he actually said in context rather than what you think he said.
Dr. Peterson has made the argument that the Sports Illustrated cover is yet another example of ideology that is causing real harm to flesh and blood people, and after some soul-searching, I cannot find it in myself to disagree with him. The body positivity movement is shockingly short-sighted. I have worked as a CNA (certified nurses aid), giving the most intimate care to the most vulnerable and needy people, and I can tell you that when you get older and you need help with the most basic care, you will not find it so easy to be “body positive” and “proud” of your size. Love the future you and don’t listen to the lies about “fat phobia.” Lose the weight while you are young and healthy and can still move.
“Why are you speaking in defense of a man who doesn’t like fat woman when you are a woman of size yourself?” A Leftist friend asked me when I tried to expain all this. Quite simply, because I’m not trying to put my matronly form on the cover of a fitness magazine, because I know full well it doesn’t belong there.
He doesn’t even practice any longer, why should his clinical license be so important to him?
Why, indeed, is Dr. Peterson so upset about the threat to his clinical license if he never expects to use it? https://youtu.be/gQYCJIDHGnQ Because what is happening to him is happening to professionals all over Canada, and not a single one of them have the means or the influence to fight back as Dr. Peterson does. If someone of his standing is able to stand up to the College and say, “The line must be drawn here,” he may be able to turn the tide of cancel culture and save countless careers from being destroyed. He isn’t facing down the College for his own reputation; he has, as Joe Rogan noted, “achieved breakaway velocity.” But countless others of his lesser known colleagues have not, and he is fighting for them. So instead of pointing fingers at him, we might consider standing with him. Because if we don’t, we’re next.
“Dr. Peterson is dangerous.”
Before we dismiss Dr. Peterson as “dangerous,” we might, as he taught us to do, consider some of the archetypes of literature. Think of Aslan, the embodiment of sacrificial love in “The Chronicles of Narnia.” In discussing him in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, Susan asked if he was “quite safe.”
“Safe?” said Beaver. “Who said anything about safe? Course he isn’t safe. … But he’s good.”
Another character said of Aslan, “He’s not a tame lion.”
Neither is Jordan Peterson.
Dr. Peterson is often referred to amongst his listeners as “Gandalf the White.” We refer, of course, to the wise and gentle warrior wizard of The Lord of the Rings. Gandalf once described himself as “very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.” And yet Gandalf is one of the most universally beloved figures in literature.
Dr. Peterson has often explained that a man should be possessed of the ability to be dangerous. He explains that a truly meek man is a man in possession of a weapon, who knows how to wield that weapon, but whose strength is in keeping it sheathed and judging the proper time to draw it. A man who has a family whom he loves more than life itself is a very dangerous man should anyone touch those dear ones to their hurt.
“Dangerous” does not always equate to “evil.”
“Dr. Peterson is angry, irascible, strident in his online discourse.”
Since when did expressing anger become the Unpardonable Sin? (Spoiler alert: in the Christian tradition, the Unpardonable Sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.) Anger in and of itself is not inherently evil. If I may be permitted to invoke the Judao-Christian discourse as Dr. Peterson himself so often does, I will quote St. Paul, who exhorted, “In your anger, do not sin.” I daresay that if Jesus Christ, St. Peter, St. Paul, and Moses the Old Testament prophets, were alive today, you would find them even more angry, irascible, and strident than you find Dr. Peterson. Perhaps you would discredit the Sermon on the Mount if you heard Jesus denouncing the Pharisees with the words “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” Perhaps you would refuse His healing gifts if you had seen him overthrow the tables of the money changers. Perhaps you would think him “mean” when he told St. Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan.” Perhaps you would think St. Paul’s sufferings of shipwreck, imprisonments, beatings, and starvation after all not quite as painful as your hurt feelings if he told you, as he told the church in Rome, to quit judging your brother. Perhaps you would refuse Moses’ offer to lead you out of Egypt, through the desert, and into the Promised Land after you saw him smite the rock, with harsh words, when he had been instructed to speak to the rock. And today, perhaps you will discredit Dr. Peterson’s world-changing and life-saving body of work because you’re offended that he used the F word and doesn’t like the way a woman looks in a swimsuit.
“Oh,” some critics have responded, “but he is alienating those who might have listened to and benefited from his message, had he used a more diplomatic and conciliatory manner of speaking.” Fair enough. In my Judaeo-Christian tradition, we often equate this manner of speaking to St. Peter. When defending Jesus against the military people who had come to take Him away for trial, St. Peter cut off the ear of the high priest with his sword. We don’t want to cut off anyone’s ear, so to speak, so that they cannot hear our message. There is also a Proverb that tells us that “A soft answer turns away wrath.”
But as a parent, I can tell you that there comes a time when the nice, conciliatory, calm voice no longer gets through to your kids, and you need to put your foot down and let your kids know that you aren’t doing stand-up comedy. When my children are in clear and present danger, I don’t patiently and kindly reason with them. I raise my voice at them and try to get them out of harm’s way as quickly as possible. There simply is no time for me to get down on their level and explain why they must not run out into the road or touch that hot stove. My children can and do “tone police” me, as many critics “tone police” Dr. Peterson. But briefly hurt feelings from being warned of clear and present danger are not to be compared to the pain that would result from refusing to heed warnings. Whether or not those warnings are delivered in a pleasant tone of voice is quite simply beside the point.
When we dismiss his words as “angry and irascible,” we excuse ourselves from the responsibility to engage with them, to ask ourselves a frightening question: what is happening in our world to make such a gentle, tender-hearted, fatherly, polite man so angry? Perhaps the answers are in the “frequent, angry tweets” his critics complain of. Is a brief 280 character tweet really a good vehicle for him to express his deep and complicated thoughts?
This is a question I have struggled with. As a novelist, one of the most difficult challenges I face is “pitching” my book: that is, describing the essence of my book in a sentence or two that piques the interest of literary agents. Perhaps Dr. Peterson’s 280 character tweets serve in the same way that my pitches do: as “hooks” that might pique your interest, and encourage you to pursue those answers for yourself.
When I investigated some of the issues that Dr. Peterson has been most outspoken about, I came to the conclusion that the problem is not that Dr. Peterson is too angry. The problem is that he is not angry enough. Remember what Mrs. Whatsit said to Meg in A Wrinkle in Time, when the young people were facing down world-destroying evil: “Stay angry, little Meg. … You will need all your anger now.” Or to put it another way, there is a time and a place to rock out to a little Alice Cooper: “No More Mr. Nice Guy!” Come on, sing it with me, I know you know it.
“Dr. Peterson’s online Twitter behavior risks destroying his legacy, his soul, and the souls of his followers. His behavior is causing him to lose credibility, which will drive his followers away from him and toward more dangerous influencers.”
Let’s think critically about that oft-repeated and rather hyperbolic claim. Consider what Dr. Peterson has taught us, again and again: “You must learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.” He is counting on us to do just that with his own words, and in lecture after lecture, he has taught us how.
What happens to those irritated tweets, those cross words, those missteps, then? I suggest an alternative to the “wheat and chaff” metaphor. Consider the imagery St. Paul uses in Second Corinthians to describe the fruits of our labor. Some of us who build upon the foundation that was laid by the apostles and prophets add gold, silver, precious stones. Others add to that foundation wood, hay, and stubble. Perhaps every one of us builds a bit of each of those substances. When the refiner's fire comes through, the wood, hay, and stubble will be burned up, and only the gold, silver, and precious stones will remain. The worthy work that all of us have done will stand the fire of time and judgment, and all that was unworthy will not.
So the good work remains; but what about the reputation? Anyone familiar with Dr. Peterson’s work has doubtless become familiar with his series of lectures on Genesis. In Genesis, and in Exodus, the flaws and foolishness and mistakes of the great patriarchs and matriarchs are drawn with an unsparing hand. And yet the New Testament book of Hebrews, the Old Testament worthies are remembered in Hebrews chapter 11, sometimes called the “Hall of Faith,” by their acts of faith. Their flaws, mistakes, and foolishness are long forgotten, and all that remains are the great acts of faith. The author of Hebrews doesn’t write about Noah’s drunken nakedness or Sarah’s laughter or Abraham’s cowardice; he writes only of their great acts of courage and faith. Dr. Peterson’s acts of courage and faith will be remembered long after the hit pieces, “concern porn” articles asking what has happened to him, and “mean tweets” have disintegrated into meaninglessness.
For those of my readers who are not so comfortable with the Judeo-Christian imagery I am invoking here, I share my observations as a country woman. Out in the woods where we live, we see a good many owls. The owl catches field mice for his supper and swallows them whole. He then “casts” the skin, bones, and fur that he cannot digest. The “owl pellets” become fertilizer for the forest floor.
Perhaps we can see from these images that some of Dr. Peterson’s words are nourishment, and some are indigestible refuse, and we need to use discernment as to what to digest and what to “cast.” Consider that gold, which has already been tried in the fire to remove the impurities, cannot be destroyed as flammable stubble can. No amount of F bombs on the blue bird app are going to take away from the value of the Genesis lectures, the Exodus seminar, the podcast conversations with brilliant minds, and the lecture tours, and it is the envious embittered spirit of Cain to suggest otherwise.
But won’t disillusioned fanboys turn away from Jordan Peterson in disgust and look instead to role models like Andrew Tate? I argue that an individual who equates Jordan Peterson to Andrew Tate has understood neither. Frankly, it is a sign of the times that followers can “strain at a gnat” (Dr. Peterson’s human missteps) and “swallow a camel” (Andrew Tate’s activities). It is not a sign that Dr. Peterson has “lost credibility” that Andrew Tate has amassed the following that he has; it is a symptom of a desperate sickness in a culture in which masculinity is despised and demeaned. If the culture were healthier in its attitudes toward men, Tate would have been a flash in the pan, and young men would have looked instead to men like Jocko Willink and Joe Rogan for role models. But that is a conversation for another time.
So if he isn’t endeavoring to destroy his own soul and legacy, what exactly is Jordan Peterson doing on Twitter?
Remember a cheesy old 1980’s Star Trek movie, “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home”? Remember Admiral Kirk confronting Captain Spock at the whale tank, asking him just what the hell he thought he was doing swimming with the whales? Remember Mr. Spock’s inimitable response?
“I was attempting the hell to communicate.”
Dr. Peterson is attempting the hell to communicate.
That’s what he’s doing on Twitter.
Of course he has no idea what he is doing. Do you? Do I? Do we always get it right? If we don’t, why do we expect Dr. Peterson to? We are all exploring strange new worlds in social media. But after the bombshells dropped in the form of the Twitter files, you cannot argue that Twitter is not an important or influential platform, a platform that has the potential to shape world events. And it is sheer hubris on your part to declare that since you do not like the way Dr. Peterson engages on the platform, he should not be a part of the Twitter public square. Twitter 2.0 under Elon Musk is a completely different world. Let’s navigate it together.
Dr. Peterson has publicly denounced “anonymous troll demons.” Doesn’t he understand that some of us can’t speak our thoughts under our own name because we could lose everything?
If you truly believe that anonymity will protect you from confrontation and disgrace, I ask you to consider with me the story of a science professor from the University of New Hampshire. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/10/06/university-new-hampshire-suspends-professor-amid-investigation-online-persona He was apparently concerned about the postmodern neo-Marxist ideology pervading his work place, and he decided to do something about it. He created an anonymous Twitter troll account for the purpose of expressing his views. How could anyone connect this unassuming Professor of science with the WOC, underprivileged avatar of the anonymous account? To make a very long story short, he was found out, publicly disgraced, publicly denounced, and put on administrative leave. That Professor will never set foot in a classroom as an instructor again. He thought he got away with it, and he thought wrong. When Solzhenitsyn famously wrote, “Live not by lies,” he could have been addressing this same Professor.
The prophet Isaiah’s words over two thousand years ago serve as a solemn warning for those “scornful men” who boast that they have “made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:”
“The hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.”
This is exactly what has happened to everyone who has “lived by lies.” And one might suggest that speaking one’s thoughts anonymously is a lie. Let us learn from the science Professor’s story: lies and anonymity do not protect us. And his story is not unique; there are many similar stories. As technology advances, the chances that we will be able to hide our identity under anonymity become slimmer and slimmer.
“But Dr. Peterson can afford to speak out,” his critics will argue. “He has the support of the Daily Wire and he is financially equipped to do so.”
When Dr. Peterson first took a stand and opposed Bill C-16 in Canada, he had three forms of livelihood: his professorship at the University of Toronto, his clinical practice, and his business. He lost two of those forms of livelihood as a result of his stand, and just as he was rebuilding, he and his wife, Tammy, became so ill that they nearly lost their lives. They are only now rebuilding. They both know what it is to lose everything because they have taken a stand for they believe. Dr. Peterson has the fame and fortune he has today precisely because he risked everything. There are worse examples to follow.
Doesn’t Dr. Peterson understand that he is wasting his precious time and energy engaging with bad faith actors? Isn’t it best to ignore the so-called anonymous troll demons?
Every day, we hear another tragic story about a young person who has harmed themselves due to anonymous trolls and bullies on the internet. What if, by publicly denouncing “anonymous troll demons,” Dr. Peterson is sending a very public message, not to the trolls, but to those vulnerable ones who may lack the sophistication to recognize those taunting voices for what they are?
Could he convey to those vulnerable young people, by calling out those accounts, that the jeering, sneering, sexually perverted, scatalogical, loathsome words are not worth dying for? Bullies like those anonymous trolls don’t stop because we ignore them. They scatter like cockroaches when we shine the light on them. Perhaps Dr. Peterson is drawing upon his years of clinical experience and psychological research to confront a serious problem in online discourse, and perhaps we ought to give heed to what he is trying to tell us.
Jordan Peterson cries all the time. How can I respect someone who is always dissolving into tears?
If Dr. Peterson had the intellect that he has but without the heart that is as big as all outdoors, he would be one of the most dangerous individuals on Earth. The tears he sheds are not for himself; they are for others whose pain he has taken into his own heart. Jordan Peterson has taught an entire generation of young men to stand up straight, to tell the truth, to clean their rooms, and to get their lives together. Now, it is his privilege and his responsibility to teach that generation
of young men how to weep unabashedly, because no one else is teaching them.
The cultural more that expects men to be tearless is historically rather a recent development: https://aeon.co/essays/whatever-happened-to-the-noble-art-of-the-manly-weep. It is also a cultural more that our First Nations brothers and sisters find absurd. I was surprised to find, in reading Linda Hogan’s Mean Spirit, that great warrior leaders like the legendary Crazy Horse and Black Elk viewed tears as a strong, heroic, manly expression of sorrow from good men. Like Dr. Peterson.
You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Can we, for the love of all things holy, please stop using this overworked trope as Gospel truth, and recognize it for the distillation of postmodern thought that it truly is? I trust that I need not remind my readers that Dr. Peterson is not wild about postmodern thought. Nor am I. As an English major, lover of literature and poetry and music, postmodernism is antithetical to every fiber of my being. It is by no means obvious that this hackneyed phrase is a prophecy that Dr. Peterson will ever fulfill. If you do see him as a villain, I invite you to consider the day and age we live in, in which we shamelessly “call evil good, and good evil; put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20).
Not every hero of history lived long enough to see himself become a villain. St. Paul offers us “a more excellent way.” May Jordan Peterson one day say, with St. Paul, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.” May he one day, many years from now, finish his course with joy, and hear the longed-for words, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”
Shakespeare wrote, “Do not fear greatness. Some were born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” Perhaps Dr. Peterson is one of those who had greatness thrust upon him. Perhaps it is time to to stop putting him on the pedestal upon which he never asked to be placed, and to stop the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth when he steps, falls, or is pushed off. Perhaps it is better to view him instead as “the man in the arena,” as described in the great words of Theodore Roosevelt from which I derived the title for this piece:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who
points out how the strong man stumbles, or where
the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in
the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat
and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who
comes short again and again, because there is no
effort without error and shortcoming; but who
does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows
great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who
spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best
knows in the end the triumph of high
achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at
least fails while daring greatly, so that his place
shall never be with those cold and timid souls
who neither know victory nor defeat.
I will leave my readers with the question: which would you rather be? The critic, or the man in the arena?
