Just get to the point.
Get to the frickin point.
That has always been the case, but it's way more today.
Morgan Housel is one of the top nonfiction writers in the world.
He is most famous for a book called The Psychology of Money, which has now sold more than eight million copies.
But before he wrote the book, he wrote more than 4000 blog posts for publications like The Wall Street Journal, The Motley Fool, and that's how he honed his craft.
Now, this is my second time having Morgan on the show.
The first time, I just want to talk about, Morgan, how do you go about your work?
But this time, I said, hey, tell me about stories.
How do you find stories?
How do you tell stories?
How do you think about the rhythm of stories?
That's why you've been able to sell millions of books in the world of psychology, investing business because of your ability to tell a really good story.
So tell me about that.
What do you feel like you're looking for in a good story?
You want to understand it instantly.
And I always say like, you know, there's no points awarded for difficulty in writing.
And people will vary on this.
I know a lot of people watching will disagree with this, but I've often felt if you're reading like, particularly for older texts, just because the language was different back then if you have to reread the paragraph four times because it's deep writing, it's not bedtime writing.
That's not on you.
That's the author's fault.
It's supposed to be easy to read.
And you can be deep and insightful and communicate well.
And a lot of the philosophers and whatnot that's been translated over the years and they were not the best writers.
They're very deep thinkers.
You can learn a tremendous amount from them, but you really have to crank the gears in your brain to get it.
I think there's other people who can tell a story that can be equally profound, that you can just get.
One of the great examples of this is the author Eric Larson writes nonfiction stuff.
What he does better than anyone is that in his nonfiction books sometimes there can be 200 chapters in the book.
Each chapter is a page and a half.
The reason he can do that is because he can tell in a page and a half what would take other historians 17 pages or 46 pages.
He can just get to the point and he's not taking out any of the meat.
He's just getting to the point.
And I think I retain and most people retain so much more to that.
Just get to the point.
Get to the freaking point.
That has always been the case, but it's way more today.
Because if you and I were reading a book 50 years ago, that's probably all we had.
You had a book in front of us, nothing else to do.
Now you got a phone in your pocket, a screen over here, an iPad over there.
If the book's boring you, you're out.
You're done.
Open up your phone.
Boom.
I know a lot of people, I started doing this.
I have to put my phone in a different room when I read.
100%.
Because I'll pull it out and check it.
But also to empathize with the person reading.
You usually want to pull out your phone when the author that you are reading is slowly saying doing a good job.
So yes, it is my impatience.
But it's my impatience is being triggered by me being like, what's the point?
What's the point?
Mark Twain wrote about this.
He used to read aloud. to his wife and kids.
And he would watch their facial expressions.
And when they lean forward, he'd be like, oh, I'm on to something.
And when he could see them getting bored, he'd be like, got to cut it, got to cut it, got to cut it.
And that's why some of that writing is so good.
It's very heavily curated to get to the point.
I feel like you collect stories.
I feel like that's sort of if I were to think about what do you do all day?
One thing has to be that you collect stories.
You watch things, you read things, you listen to podcasts.
And then There's this method that you've developed of collecting them, and then they end up in the books.
Yeah, and there's a lot that don't end up in the books.
I've written three or four blog posts titled some variation of several short stories, little short stories that I want.
And those are stories that I've collected over the years.
I couldn't figure out anything to do with that.
I eventually just dumped into that.
And I think a short story like that can make a good anecdote into a book chapter.
But a great story can be three lines and you don't have to do anything.
It's just a good story in itself.
And it's always the case that, A, the best story wins.
We've talked about that before.
But it's always, too, that the person who says the most and the fewest words wins.
And there are so many three-line stories that will stick with you forever.
It doesn't need to be a long, elaborate thing.
Yeah.
As I was reading...
The new book, there must be 140 stories and 210 pages in that book.
That sounds about right.
I mean most nonfiction books, particularly a book about money or business.
If you're only writing about money, even finance professionals, you'll put them to sleep.
You'll bore them.
Even if you are a finance nerd, let alone a layperson.
And so if you're not telling stories, you're out, you're gone.
And so I've always wanted to be a storyteller as an author for two reasons.
One, as a survival technique.
If I wrote about the stock market by saying here's what the Dow Jones did this morning.
You're gone, you're dead.
You're not going to survive one day as an author.
And also I think it gets you closer to the truth, because when you tell a good story, the reader can empathize.
They can contextualize their own life and empathize with it.
Where you read a story about something that happened maybe a thousand years ago.
Maybe even it's nonfiction, it's science fiction.
But if it's a good story, you're like I can imagine myself in those shoes in a way that you cannot come close to if you're just giving a data dump.
So for nonfiction business books, it's absolutely essential.
Yeah, I was thinking a lot about hooks and stories.
And you could say hey, you know, there's a lot of really wealthy families where people end up going broke and you're like yeah yeah david, come on, shut up, like i'm not interested in that.
Or you could say hey, you know what?
The vanderbilt's?
They had the equivalent of 300 billion dollars and within 60 years they basically had no money in the.
Almost all of it was gone.
Which way, you know right read, are you gonna read the first or the second one?
Like that second hook is so much more.
It like like sucks you into the page.
Yeah, And I'd be willing to bet maybe I'm wrong about this, I'm making this up on the spot but I bet TMZ has more page views than a lot of the big news outlets.
Because TMZ is like the celebrity gossip.
And I would propose that it's not because people like the gossip, even though that's true, of course.
It's because a website like TMZ is very, very good at hooking you in.
At just being like, here's what it is.
Now, a good, noble news source will not do that.
They have the morals and the ethics to want to tell the proper story, not the story that's going to sell the most.
But some people are extremely good at being like, what's going to get your attention?
And I think there's a moral way to do that.
There is obviously an immoral way to do that.
And a lot of people on social media and whatnot have found that immoral way of just being so hyperbolic that you've detached yourself from the truth.
But if you can tell an interesting story in a way that is honest and within your own morals you're not trying to fool anybody.
You're not trying to be so hyperbolic that it's false.
But telling a good story that will hook you in and keep you reading is the key.
That Vanderbilt story was nuts.
It's one of the craziest stories of all the Robert Barron families of the late 1800s.
The Rockefellers did a pretty good job and the Carnegie's did a pretty good job at taking a step back and saying we have this unbelievable astronomical fortune.
What do we do?
How can we use it for good, for our own good and for the good of society?
The Rockefellers and the Carnegies did a pretty good job.
The Vanderbilts did by far the worst.
The money told them who they could be, what their personality could be, where they could live, whom they can marry.
It completely controlled everything.
So they had financial independence, but no other form of independence.
Money completely controlled their personality and they're all kind of miserable for it.
And this is now a well-known little nugget, but the first Vanderbilt heir who didn't get any money when all the trust funds were exhausted was Anderson Cooper.
That's the craziest thing, right?
Vanderbilt, yeah.
His mother was Gloria Vanderbilt, who was kind of the last of the big heirs.
And Cooper is not only the most successful Vanderbilt heir in 150 years, I would venture to say he's probably the happiest. having read about many of his ancestors.
His grandfather, a guy named Reggie Vanderbilt was one of the most miserable of just died a drunk and gambled his money away and died a horrific death drunk all the time.
If you read Reggie Vanderbilt's biography, it's horrific.
And he was kind of the last ultra wealthy Vanderbilt.
And you fast forward to Anderson Cooper's life, who I'm sure, has not been perfect is not a perfect life by any means but it's almost like he was mercilessly let go of having money control his personality.
And so back to your point, if you can tell a story about that versus saying something bland like having a lot of money doesn't guarantee happiness.
You've hooked people in and you've done it in an honest way.
So how do you use chat GPT?
Do you use it at all?
Do you use it in writing?
Do you use it when you're reading to think through things?
Like virtually everyone else out there, it's become my.
You know, I'd say, 18 months ago I used it once a week.
And now I feel like I use it twice an hour or more.
Like it just exploded out of the middle of nowhere.
That's not a unique story, of course.
I'm still, and I will remain, an old school writer of every word is going to be.
Every letter will be typed by me, of course.
It obviously feels like cheating if you're using it, even if you're taking the text that it wrote and trying to put it in your own voice.
I think it strips away the true meaning of writing, which is the process.
Of writing, is what gets the author thinking.
Like most people when they write a book, they didn't have all that knowledge in their head when they wrote it.
They just started out with one brave sentence and then that taught them something.
And then they wrote a paragraph and they said, oh, that reminds me of this.
If you're using any kind of LLM to do any of the, even the broad structure for you, you're not actually thinking.
And so you stripped out everything that was good about writing.
So I'm always going to remain old school there.
I've noticed that there's sometimes, I've done this a couple of times as an experiment.
I don't actually do this in practice.
But if you upload a manuscript or a chapter and say give me some feedback on this, there's some times where it can actually be decent at like high level stuff about being like oh, your intro was a little rambling.
One of the most interesting things is what I actually want it for is like hunt for typos and grammar and punctuation.
And at least in my experience, it's actually been very poor at that.
It's actually been not that great of it.
I'm sure it'll improve over time.
But I guess my point, everyone's going to be different in this.
But as a research tool, as a Google on steroids, like unbelievable, incredible.
As an actually writing aid, both because I don't want it to be and because I don't think it is that great.
I haven't found much use for it.
When you say Google on steroids, what do you mean?
Well, rather than giving you a data dump of links where you have to go do it for yourself, just giving you the answer.
Now, I can't count how many times everyone has experienced it.
The answer is wrong.
It's hallucinating something.
It's misreading the sources that it's going through.
So you can never use it as a crutch.
But just speeding up.
In the old days, by which I mean like 18 months ago, if you were researching a topic, Google would point you to a PDF that was 387 pages.
And you could spend the afternoon sifting through it, looking what you're looking for.
And now you can get that just instantly.
It just says, here's what you're looking for.
And so the speed at which research has increased in the last 18 months is just profound.
And I've experienced that as someone you know.
Some of the best anecdotes and stories that I found in my book happened because I spent, in some cases weeks researching, looking for these things.
I used to live in Washington DC and spent quite a bit of time in the Library of Congress reading old newspapers and trying to find little anecdotes.
And now all that can be done instantly.
It's just boom, here it is for you.
I do think there's something to be said that when you take that process out, it's going to stifle your creativity as well.
If you just have a machine that can feed you ideas, I think it's integral that those ideas come to you after hard work.
And maybe this is a bad analogy, but if we just had a pill that could just give you muscle, you just swallow the pill and now we're all ripped.
A Zempik for being like Schwarzenegger.
For something like that.
A.
It would not be as meaningful, and I'm sure it wouldn't work as well if you actually just went to the gym and did reps.
And so I think it's true for research as well.
When you're doing the reps of research, it's going to hit you in a different way.
Do you feel the same way as a consumer as you do a producer?
So a thought experiment here would be to say that there's an author you really like and they're like Hey, I use chat GPT a lot for this.
Like I use it to help me rewrite my sentences.
I use it to do research.
I'm probably doing 50, 60 queries a day.
And like honestly, at this point it's hard for me to know what is mine, what is chat GPTs?
But then you read the book and you're like okay, this is really good.
This is really good stuff.
It doesn't feel like it's chat GPT.
And you're like wow, this is This actually feels more Bill Bryson or more Robert Caro than what they were getting to before Chachi Batista.
Are you like, ah, that's annoying?
Or are you like, show me what you got?
So much of what I love about nonfiction and fiction books is this feeling, when you're reading it and enjoying it, that you're like wow, a fellow human wrote this.
I couldn't write this, but somebody else did has this skill to write this and do this research that I don't.
So Robert Caro, turn every page.
He has the patience and the fortitude to do that.
I don't.
And so when I read it, when I come across an amazing nugget that he's written, I'm like I can intuitively feel like the effort that went into it.
And I love it.
And I think if we strip away that, you take away the allure of a good book.
The allure of a good book, whether it's fiction or nonfiction, is like wow, somebody else did something that I can't.
And that makes me feel good as a reader.
It's amazing.
And I think, again, if you just strip all that away.
I think in the same way the original Star Wars movies, where the special effects were the first time they'd ever done it, but also very manually intensive.
They're building small models of spaceships.
And I think that gave people more of a sense of wonder.
I remember reading this review.
I think it was on Amazon.
It was an Amazon review of a Cormac McCarthy book.
And this was a year ago or so, not that long ago.
And the review.
I just went to a random review and they said something along the lines of what I love about reading Cormac McCarthy is almost every sentence.
I stop and I think to myself how is it possible that you came up with that sentence in your head?
And I was like, oh, that's cool.
I like that.
And I think that's the allure of a good book is you have this feeling of how is it possible that another author either did that or came up with that sentence?
And if we come to a point where it's like no, Chad GBT wrote this, then you lose that magic and it's less amazing.
That's how I feel when I read David Foster Wallace.
A little bit different of like this guy's brain is bizarre.
Yeah.
And I'm not sure I would want to live in it.
Yeah.
But I'm. totally down to spend an hour.
Totally.
I get that with fiction a lot too.
When you're reading just an amazing story, an amazing plot line, I'm like how did you come up with this?
How did a fellow human who ostensibly has the same brain that I do, but clearly doesn't?
The brain clearly looks way different than mine.
That's what you love about it.
Same with art.
All art is like that.
I mean, that's why we you know the famous painters and whatnot you know, Chachi B Teagan shook out a picture that is technically better, Technically sharper and more detailed and whatnot.
But yeah, but a human didn't do it.
Like it's amazing when a human does it.
So I think that's one of my worries about ChatGPT or any of the AI models is that they'll just strip the wow out of writing.
As you're writing, because there is an element of teaching in your writing where you're basically saying the art of spending money.
Here's what I've learned.
Like a lot of people, they're not so good at spending money.
They might even be fine at making it, but sometimes even making money is inversely correlated with how well you spend it.
So how do you think about the difference between being teachy and being preachy?
The biggest thing with money is true for a lot of nonfiction topics is that I don't know you, the reader.
And so who am I to tell you how to live your life?
Because I do a lot of things that wouldn't work for you and vice versa.
We're all so different in this element.
So I can't give you advice because I don't know you.
People understand that like with doctors.
Like if a doctor went on TV and said, everybody should take this pill.
You'd be like, what?
You don't know the patient.
You got to know them first.
You can't do that.
Right.
But with money, I think people don't view it that way.
And you're like, just tell me how to do it.
Just tell me what stocks to buy.
And you're like, well, I don't know you.
It's different for everybody.
And so I don't want to be preachy from a practical standpoint, because that's not how this advice works.
I can give you broad ideas about how the psychology of dealing with money works, but then you got to figure it out for yourself and contextualize your own life.
That's one element.
The other is nobody likes a lecture.
Nobody likes someone, particularly with finance, to basically say hey idiot, you've done it wrong the whole time.
And if you had done it my way, you'd be in a better spot.
Nobody wants to read that.
It's too hard to read.
But if you can be like hey, let me just tell you a little story about psychology and how the weird ways that people think about risk and greed and envy.
And you can figure it out for yourself.
You can do whatever you want with that information.
There was a time I used to write for the Wall Street Journal 10 years ago or so.
And it's true for most traditional journalism.
They want you to finish every article uh with something along the lines of and therefore you should buy this mutual fund they want very concrete advice at the end and my point was always like no you don't you don't need that they could like the reader can figure it out for themselves like i don't know the reader but like they can they can continue they can just take the lesson from this and figure it out in their own lives i don't need to give them any advice on it and so that was always my my philosophy was like nobody likes a lecture nobody likes to be shamed about their mistakes but if you give them enough stories about psychology they'll figure it out for themselves What is the single worst piece of writing advice that you often hear?
I think it's the very common, know your reader.
Because I think the speed at which know your reader becomes pander to your reader, the ease at which you can conflate those two things is astounding.
And I think it's true that virtually everybody everybody in the world if they're writing a diary where they think no one else is going to read, this is a good writer.
In that situation, they would write good prose.
They would write it while they get to the point.
They tell a good story about what happened today and the problems in their life.
It's as soon as you think someone else is going to read this that it clicks in your head.
Well, who's reading this?
Because I'm writing for them.
What do they want to hear?
And in that situation, the good prose in the diary just falls apart.
And then you start getting structure.
You're like oh well, I need to explain that deeper because they probably don't understand it, and whatnot.
I'll tell you a little thing that is a know-nothing thing, and it's obviously fine that they do it.
The Economist magazine, great magazine, and actually very good prose.
Very, very well written.
They will always say, Goldman Sachs, a bank.
Comma, and they keep going.
And I want to be like, how many economist readers don't know that it's a bank?
You don't need to put that there.
But if they were writing a diary for themselves, they would never do that.
There's part of me that's like, don't explain it.
Even if your reader doesn't know this thing, make them look it up.
Make them look it up.
Just write for yourself.
And if they don't know it, that's their problem.
They can just figure it out for themselves.
Naval has another little twist on this.
He's like, don't quote people.
Don't quote – don't say like, oh, as David Perel said, blank, blank, blank, even though I do that.
He was like, just put it into your own words.
Just find what they said and just phrase it yourself and move on, because you get so clunky when you deal with quotes and whatnot and doing it that way.
Why don't you do that?
You love to quote people.
I don't like the idea that I'm pretending to be the smartest person on the page.
I'm clearly not.
I think you actually get more authority as a writer if you defer the wisdom to other people.
I think that can be the case, particularly nonfiction, especially young writers early on.
There's nothing more aggravating than a 22-year-old who thinks they understand how the world works and wants to tell you about it in their blog post.
But it'd actually be a wonderful thing if a 22-year-old was like I did a bunch of research and these are the favorite gems that I've read from other people who have more experience than me.
That's great.
I'll read that.
And so I think you have to be careful about – there's an inherent sense of ego of saying I understand this and I'm the only person worth quoting here.
You were talking about TMZ having a lot of views.
I think People Magazine – maybe not still, but at one point it was the top magazine, the entire world, yeah.
And so that's the other thing.
Most of your stories fundamentally are about a person you know.
Yeah, we could just buff it the vanderbilts boom boom, boom.
And that seems to be in terms of your flavor of stories.
You're really good at kind of finding a person and then we can imagine ourselves through that that person's life.
So maybe it comes down to the Joseph Stalin quote one death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic.
If you're telling individual stories, again, it makes it easier to be like, that could be me.
If you're telling a story about groups of people, then it's almost the opposite.
Then it's them.
It's opposite.
And this is why people in politics and all kinds of endeavors can very easily discriminate against them them, those guys, that group, those people.
But once it's an individual, you're like, I think it becomes easier to be like, that could be me.
I could do that.
And that could be, and so that's.
And anytime that you can allow the reader to, when they're reading a story, realizing that they're actually reading it in the mirror and they're looking at themselves, I think you have a much higher chance of hooking them in.
I'm so interested in this sort of any given Tuesday afternoon question.
You're done with your writing, but then it's still early enough.
We're not playing with your kids.
You don't have meetings.
You're kind of in this kind of chill state.
You're sort of just browsing, looking at stuff, kind of observing.
And there's, you know, maybe there's some data that you're looking at.
There's pieces that you're reading, books, whatever it is.
Like what are some of the things that you're doing to not just collect stories, but also to observe and make sense of the world?
Well, my wife has said this for years.
And she says it half jokingly, but only half jokingly, where she's like I don't think you actually work.
Because what I do all day forget, any given Tuesdays, any given Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday, this is all the time.
Nothing is structured.
For me.
I know other writers will push back on this and think differently about it, but I'm like I can't structure creativity.
I just have to let myself go and trust that it'll hit me eventually.
Good ideas can't be scheduled.
Cannot be scheduled.
And so the two biggest, most important ideas for my career was the titles The Psychology of Money and the title The Art of Spending Money.
And I remember when both of those hit me.
I remember walking down the streets of New York here.
I don't live.
I just happen to be here.
I remember walking down the street.
This would have been 2017.
And it just hit me, The Psychology of Money.
Was that for the article or for the book?
The article.
But I remember The Psychology of Money.
I've talked about this before.
I shamelessly stole it from Charlie Munger's speech, The Psychology of Human Misjudgment.
Right.
And I remember thinking like that format, The Psychology of Money.
And first I was going to call it the psychology of investing, but I realized then it could actually be bigger and broader than that.
But I remember just being like, that's a great form, the psychology of money.
It was like, but I was just, I didn't sit down at my desk and say, I need to come up with a title.
I was just kind of like daydreaming walking down the street.
And I was like, boom, okay, I'm turning this into, I'm going to run with this.
And the art of spending money, I remember I was on the treadmill.
I remember I was on the treadmill just zoning out.
And I was like, oh, the art of spending money, that would make a good piece.
I should run with that.
But also whenever I come up with or thought about stories and hooks to tying in, it's never when I've been trying to do it.
It's in the shower.
It's walking my dog.
It's waking up at 2 a.m. and wrestling around bed.
It's always in the unstructured moments.
And so I go out of my way.
I structure unstructuredness.
If I have a list of things to do, I'm like well, I'm not going to do anything productive today.
I'm going to have my most productive day when I'm in my sweatpants, sitting on the couch hanging out and my wife says what are you doing?
And I can't convince her of this.
It's everything and nothing.
I'm like, this is everything.
I'm doing the most productive thing I can right now.
And I think a lot of why, I think most good writers, there are many of exceptions to this.
This is not black and white, but it's rare that you're going to find I'd say rarer that you will find a really great author who works for a publication and has to go to an office and sit at his or her cubicle and dress up in corporate attire and go to the monday mornings all hands and then go back to their cubicle and their editor says be creative right, like that always never happens again.
We could probably think of a couple yeah, but most great writers i think are just kind of wanderers and they can't.
They have to be independent, unstructured wanderers, because that's when you actually get good thinking done.
Tell me about the idea of setting looking wide but setting tight filters.
I think I got this idea from Patrick O'Shaughnessy where he was like for books, you want a wide funnel and a tight filter.
And when he said that, I was like oh, I hadn't put it into words, but I think that's always how I've read books.
I will start reading any book that looks 1% interesting.
It doesn't have to be like, oh, that book looks amazing.
Be like, oh, that's kind of a curious topic.
Let's give it a try.
And you can get a free Kindle sample for any book.
Kindle will give you 10% of any book for free.
So you have no excuse not to do this. and start reading it.
But then be merciless about if it's not working for you and the writing style doesn't fit for you, then just slam it shut and go to the next one.
And so I finish a very small percentage of the books that I start.
Single digit percentage points in the books that I start.
And I think most people who say they're not a good reader or they don't like to read, it's because they force themselves to read bad books.
And when i say bad books, i usually mean books that are not right for you.
And if you're right for somebody else, i don't, i think.
I think any author who can get to the end of the page and publish deserves praise.
But a lot of books are not right for me and not right for you.
But if you force yourself to finish, you think you have a moral obligation to finish it, or you think it's your character flaw that you're bored in the middle of the book.
Uh, i think that's a problem, so i just slam it shut, move on to the next one.
Wide funnel, tight filter.
But one of the themes of the art of spending money is that there is a style and a method that works best for you.
And it's the same thing with writing.
Like there's now such a Morgan Housel style.
And what's funny is that now you have figured that out.
And part of what you figured out is I'm just going to kind of chill on the couch.
But for years you're writing what four, five, six pieces a day.
It was a lot.
And how much do you feel that your style emerged from reps versus something else?
That's a good question.
I uh, I think during my rep years, when I was writing multiple pieces per day, the thing that was most helpful for me and it was torturous at the time was this was during the day when blogs had comment sections.
And people, of course, are just absolutely vicious in the comment sections.
And I had worse.
Oh, it's the worst.
My wife would always.
She'd come home from work and she'd take a step in the door and look at my face and she'd be like Bad comment.
You can just tell.
But what it did.
I didn't like it at the time, but what it did is.
In any endeavor, what you need is feedback.
And the blog comment section, as terrible as it was, it was feedback.
And it's true that if you write a bad piece, people will let you know.
Less often, but does happen.
If you write a good piece, they'll let you know.
Like, oh, this is great.
I really liked it.
And I was writing, I wrote 4,000 blog posts.
And so when you write that much, there was so much feedback of like, this worked, this didn't, this worked, this didn't.
And it was just a constant honing of that.
And also wanting to be like, yeah, but I got to figure out my own voice too.
I can't just be taking directions from the barking crowd and doing what they say.
I have to figure out my own voice.
But I thought this was really good, but nobody liked it.
And I thought this was kind of crazy, but a lot of people liked it.
And it was just, if you do that 4,000 times, it pushes you in that direction.
So part of it was, if I look back with a little sense of shame, I had a thin skin.
Just like when people said bad things, I was like, oh, it makes me feel so bad.
Other writers are like, I don't care.
I don't care what other people think.
I was not that.
I cared what people thought.
But in hindsight, looking back, I was like it.
Just the feedback pushed me towards something that I'm proud of now.
And how do you reconcile that with the idea of selfish writing?
I think selfish writing came later.
That was a later insight.
And so I've been a writer for 20 years.
So there have been several different eras, let's say.
And so early on the era of read every comment and take that feedback, that was an important era.
There was also another important era when I realized I can't please everybody.
And no matter what I do, there's always going to be people who say, I didn't like this.
You're wrong about that.
No matter what it is.
So I might as well try to appease.
If I can't appease everybody, I might as well try to appease one person or one group of audience.
And I figured that was me.
I just want to appease myself.
And I thought I did my best work.
When I realized, when I was writing it, I was like I don't, I'm not even thinking about the audience.
I'm not even thinking.
I just like, it's just like, I like this.
And, you know, there's only been a couple of times in my career where I've worked with an editor.
It's actually been very rare.
You know, I bet 1% of what I've written has been edited by somebody else.
And I would go through moments, even with editors who I really liked and were skillful, where an editor would say I don't like this sentence.
And I would be like, but I do.
Like, it's subjective.
And I think it's cool.
I think it's great.
I'm sorry, you don't like it.
But like, it's all subjective.
This is not math.
And so I really had to just lean on the idea that like writing is subjective.
There is no right answer.
And so what's great to one person will be garbage to another.
So I might as well just do what I want.
And I think a lot of other artists think that way.
You know, painters don't have editors.
Most musicians don't have editors or maybe to some degree.
Sculptors usually don't have editors because they know it's subjective.
You just have to do it for yourself.
And when the great painters or the great musicians were doing their work, I guarantee you they were not asking will the audience like this?
They're just, well, they like it.
So I feel like every artist does their best work when they're doing it for themselves.
I was talking to a big YouTuber and he was like, yeah, I don't look at the data.
And like this very big, prominent YouTuber is like yeah, I don't look at the data anymore and i was like anymore, what do you mean?
He's like oh, i spent 10 years and all i did was look at youtube data.
Yeah, like i was in it, in it, in it, in it, and now i can just look at a video and i can tell you instantly, based off the packaging, what's the click-through rate going to be, what's the retention timeline going to be.
And he's like i'm post data.
Yeah, you know what i mean.
I feel i feel like i've gained a little bit of that with books.
I would bet that i can read three pages of a book and tell you how many copies it sold.
I mean not actually, but I bet I can be directionally pretty good with that.
I remember when I read Atomic Habits by James Clear.
I remember reading three pages and being like, that's it.
You can't stop reading that book.
And so it gets pretty clear.
And there's a lot of deep nonfiction history that you read one page and you're like I can tell you this is not going to be a book that people near the end are going to call their friend and say you have to read this.
It just – there's a storytelling cachet that you can pick up.
What do you feel is the value of writing books as opposed to articles?
Obviously, you've written so many of those.
And then also, as opposed to this new world of chat, GBT and AI that we're in now, what makes you be like okay, I'm going to stake my career on this craft of writing books.
I always felt like social media was –
Spring training.
Writing blogs was like a regular season game.
And books are the Super Bowl.
It's just the stakes get so much higher.
For an athlete, if you mess up in spring training, it doesn't matter.
So if you mess up as a writer, you write a bad tweet, it doesn't matter.
And if you lose a regular season game, not great, but the world goes on.
If you fumble the Super Bowl, that's a scar.
Bill Barkman?
You ever seen that clip?
Okay, it's like the Red Sox first baseman.
It's the World Series and he gets this easy-ish ground ball and it goes through his legs and it's just like, oh my goodness, disaster.
Bill Bruckner or something like that.
A little humble brag.
I went to the Super Bowl in 2014.
Okay.
Broncos, Seattle.
And there's a picture of Peyton Manning.
I think it was the first play where the ball snaps and it just hits him in the helmet.
And there's a picture of him being like, ugh.
And that's another thing.
In a regular season game, people would look past that.
Super Bowl, you can't be doing this.
So the analogy is books are the Super Bowl for the author.
The stakes are so much higher.
And if you fumble it, it's going to be a mark on your career.
And that's always how I viewed it.
And I didn't think, you know, most of my career, I thought blogging was where I would end.
I was just going to end as a blogger.
I didn't think I'd ever write books.
And that was true when I was, you know, 15 years in my career.
I didn't think I'd ever write a book.
And so I always thought that was the end and that was the most important thing.
But I also knew that if I wrote a bad blog post and I've written many of them there's always next week.
There's always next week to just come back.
Whereas a book if you write a great book, that can stick with you for life, but if you write a bad book, it won't stick with you for life, but you'll never be remembered for it.
Right.
Yeah, it's definitely something that I've come to see the light on over the years.
I think at the beginning I was like well, books are going to go out of style, like everyone can write online now and that's free.
Why is everyone going to have a book?
And There's just a cultural significance to a book, in the same way that there's a cultural significance to a Tarantino movie.
That doesn't apply to a YouTube video.
You know what I mean?
And like, It'll go viral, but you're not going to move because of that piece.
You're not going to be able to move houses because it's so successful.
You know what I mean?
Totally.
But I also think from the reader's perspective, if you write a dull blog post, people will give you three seconds and they're like, I'm done.
And if you don't catch their attention in three seconds, I do think the reader will give you a little bit more patience in a book.
If you paid 25 bucks for it and you're holding something physical, you will have a higher chance of the reader sticking with it.
I think it's about as long as the Kindle sample rate.
Now it would be short and shorter than it was, but I do think there is something to be said that you do have a little bit more flexibility as an author to stretch your legs and tell a little bit of a deeper story, because you're going to have a little a marginally higher patience, tolerance.
I jigger had Mitch Albom on the show who wrote Tuesdays with Maury.
And it's so funny that the two of you are so similar.
Like he is, the two of you guys are so similar.
You guys will be great friends.
And that's exactly what he said.
He was a columnist at one of the big Detroit newspapers.
And being a columnist there, he just got to the point, got to the point, got to the point.
And he was writing his first book trying to do that.
And someone said to him exactly that, dude, they'll give you eight to 10 pages, no problem.
And he was just like, But it's true.
In a tweet, they'll give you three words.
In an article, they'll give you a line or two.
In a book, they might give you eight pages.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So you just have a higher patient threshold, which allows you to tell a deeper story.
And I always, whenever I write, even though it is selfish writing, I'm writing for myself.
I still have a little bird in my head being like got to get to the point.
You got to go.
You're stumbling here.
You got to wrap this up.
I think that little bird is still there in my head when I'm writing a book.
But I also know like, yeah, but this is a book and I think I can – I'm not rambling.
This is a good story, but I think I can go a little bit deeper than I would have in a blog.
With The Psychology of Money, you had written for 14 years before you published that book.
And a lot of that book is stuff that you had written about that.
Then you repurpose, you repackage and stuff like that.
So now when you publish the book – a much higher percentage is things that you haven't written.
Yeah, yeah.
How has that changed your process?
A, you know, I think it's unavoidable that that's a problem.
It was great when I could write 4000 blog posts and then go back and be like what were the best ideas.
That was great.
I do think there's something to be said that you get better.
I don't want to say you get good, but you get better at knowing what's going to work and what's not.
And again, I would not say I'm good at that, but I'm better than I was 10 years ago.
And 10 or 15 years ago I would write something that I really thought was good and nobody else thought it was good.
And I think I have a lower risk of doing that today.
It's not zero, but it's lower.
What do you think you learned?
Uh, the power of storytelling, how to tell a good story, what's going to capture.
And also I think this is where I came into my selfish writing era of like I'm not trying to impress other people anymore.
I'm not trying to write for other people.
I'm definitely not going to try to pander to other people.
Do I like this story?
Does that joke make me laugh?
Okay, then it's good enough.
Let's just go with it.
Let's just go with it.
Right.
The other thing that you've definitely developed is And I've noticed this as your writing has gotten more popular, and maybe it's just part of it is people share what they read in your books, but you've become the king of the maxim.
I think social media turned a lot of people in a very good, healthy way into maxim writers because it was hey, you've got 240 characters, whatever it was, to make your point.
And it was the exact opposite of how most people learn to write.
Historically, which was their fifth grade teacher saying five pages minimum, that you had a minimum.
You have to fill five pages where social media was like 240 characters maximum.
So it forced people to be like, what's your point?
Give it to me very brief.
You could say that turned people impatient and that turned writers into just you know, kind of fluffy little tidbits versus long.
But I think in general, it was a good thing.
I think one of the terrible ways that we've taught writing is the page minimum.
It's done with good intentions to keep kids from being lazy, but it taught them to just expand expand expand, expand.
Yeah, really what we should do is it's fine to get them to expand, because really what you're you're protecting against is the lazy people who are just like you know four words and whatnot.
But really what we're writing education becomes to life is compression.
Like, if you could, we used to do an exercise when I was teaching writing was we would give people this long page horribly written about the Concord.
And we would basically say, this is a poorly written paragraph about the history of the Concord.
And here's a bunch of data points.
And now what you need to do is you need to make the same point.
First of all, figure out what is the point that's trying to be made.
And then you have 200 words.
And then you can pull from these data points.
What you're teaching is just compression, compression, compression, compression.
And what's true too is that it's true that social media has taught people how to be short.
And a lot of times when it's short, there's no insight.
Like they've stripped away the meat.
Like more than the fluff, they took away the meat.
So concise doesn't necessarily mean short.
The best example of this I come across is Doris Kern Goodwin's book, No Ordinary Time.
It's a biography of FDR during World War II.
And the book is like 800 pages.
Maybe it's 750.
It's a gigantic brick of a book.
And not a single word can be stripped from that book.
To me, like every word needs to be there.
There's not a single wasted sentence anywhere.
There's not a single paragraph of fluff anywhere.
And so concise doesn't mean short.
You can be a great length – you can write an 800-page book, but it's just lack of fluff.
And the opposite of that is there's plenty of 500-word essays or 450 of the words.
495 of the words didn't need to be there.
You could have summed it up with a little blurb, a little quote.
Yeah, because even when you think of short, you might think oh, short is like 60 seconds, two minutes.
Seinfeld has a great bit where he says you can go to a comedy – stand up and someone can go for an hour and an hour.
You're just nodding your head, you're looking at your partner, you're like man, this is so good, this is so good.
But then, if you go to 90 minutes and they're a little bit bored by the end, the walkout, they'll say eh, it was all right right.
And I think that, as a, what this is really about is that, as a creator, it's less about trying to make it as short as possible, but much more about having a deep, intuitive sense of awareness for when you've lost the audience, both in the micro of whatever story that you're telling, but also in the macro, in terms of when have I lost their attention?
Yeah.
I do a lot of speaking at conferences and historically, most event planners are will say can you do a 60-minute keynote?
That's always been the standard is the 60-minute keynote.
And it took me a while to realize and to start pushing back on event planners and be like it's too long.
It's too long.
People will like this much more if it's 30 minutes.
And I'm not doing that to be lazy or get out of work.
It's just better if it's 30 minutes.
And sometimes a conversation like this can be long because we're going back and forth.
But to listen to one person talk for 60 minutes, even if it's good, can be exhausting.
And so sometimes to your point, you just have to know where the exhaustion point is with your own material and for the audience and cut it off right there.
When I think of your writing, I almost think of what you're doing is you're making a collage.
The way that you write is you're sort of collecting stories and quotes and ideas and you sort of start off making collage and you have all these things.
But then what you're so good at is the removal process, especially with the distillation.
We're like this story I read in this book. but the writer took like 23 pages to do it.
And summarize it for you.
And like, oh my goodness guys, I could have done this in two and a half pages and it would be freaking awesome.
And you do that.
And then you're really good at having these maxims to basically describe things.
That's how I think about your writing process.
And you're kind of doing that over and over and over.
I have a huge, thank you.
I have a huge character flaw as a husband where it it bothers me when people are telling stories not getting to the point.
And my wife love her to death, best friend forever.
She tells long stories and sometimes this is the huge character flaw that you should never do as a husband.
We'll be at like a dinner party with friends and she'll be telling a story and i'll interrupt her in a bit.
Can i, can i speed this up for you, because you're just going down some rabbit holes here?
Not not, not a good thing to do, but i i, i get, i get aggravated at stories that are longer than they need to be.
Yeah yeah, Not a good thing.
Isn't it funny, though, how – first of all, that's funny.
And a comedian once told me that part of the key to good humor is just extreme opinions.
Like extreme opinions are funny.
Like the fact that you feel that way, like, oh, you know, it's like that.
It's just funny to hear.
But the other thing is how much of –
Good writing.
If you were to fundamentally get to the core of what makes a writer great, would be something that really, really aggravates them, because it'll either be the content for whatever it is that you share.
Like there's this thing in the world that was driving me nuts.
But then for you it's.
I just can't stand when somebody takes way too long to tell a story like that bothers me.
Yeah, it clearly does not bother me like it bothers you.
But also you read your writing.
You're like, no wonder Morgan's writing is like that.
I think if you spend 20 years online, as a lot of people have, it just pushes you to do that.
My wife, a huge character credit of hers in what she's good at, she spends no time on social media.
So she has not been honed by fire of trying to get to the point as people online have.
Yeah.
How has writing these books changed how you read?
I have a great sense of appreciation for good writing.
And there are a number of books that I love.
I'm like, oh, that was a great book.
And I'll tell a friend that and they're like, really, that book sucked.
The author has no idea what he's talking about.
And there's part of me that's like, yeah, I know, but it's really good writing.
And so I think I enjoy good writing so much that I'm willing to look past flawed arguments and bad thinking if i'm like yeah, but it was beautiful prose.
I haven't read it, but that's what a lot of people have told me about gibbons declining the fall of the roman empire.
Haven't read it well, which i've heard.
It's like he got a lot of things wrong, like there's a lot of things that we know about what happened with ancient rome, but also it.
It's kind of cool that maybe his writing was just so good.
Yeah, you were like i.
I mean, there was a book that I read many years ago and I'm drawing a blank on the title of the book.
So I'm giving the author a lot of discredit here.
But it was a book about World War II and his book about D-Day.
And the sentence was talking about a platoon of troops going in on one of the boats.
And it said, all of the men were willing to give their life that day, period.
Next sentence, all of the men gave their life that day.
And that's one of those things of just like a sentence like that.
I'm like, it's so hard to do that.
It's so hard to write with that much punchiness and to make a point so profoundly in so few words that when I see it I'm like oh, I love it.
And the fact that I do it and I know how hard it is makes it so when I see it, I just have a different level of respect for it.
Yeah.
I've started just memorizing just stuff that I like.
I mean this is so cliche, so forgive me, but I was at dinner and a friend quoted a line from macbeth and he quoted it and i was like dude, i need to remember that goes like this tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow creeps in this petty pace from day to day to the last syllable of recorded time, and all these yesterdays have blighted fools the way to dusty death out out brief candle.
Life is but a walking shadow, a poor tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
It's good, And I heard that at the end like full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
And you're just like, oh my goodness, what is going on with the rhythm?
And sometimes it's like the rhythm of the way that it's written or whatnot.
And then sometimes it's just that simplicity.
But I think that as you write, as you think about the craft, you just develop this extreme awe for elegance that's not fancy, but elegance that's just has what it needs and no more.
Yeah.
And I think when you ask what I do as a reader, there are bloggers whose substance I disagree with.
Either their politics I disagree with or their writing about things that I don't actually – that I disagree with them on.
But I know they are such good writers and I'm like, oh, I'm reading them.
And so I think you only get to that point when you're an author.
I definitely was not that before I was an author.
If I disagreed with someone, it would be like well, the point of writing is for me to learn, and whatnot?
Whereas I think I have a lot more tolerance for flawed thinking. if it's wrapped in good prose.
It's interesting because I feel like your respect for the craft of writing relative to good ideas has gone up.
Like, I still think that, obviously, you really appreciate good ideas.
But I think, if we're having this conversation five years ago, it's the ideas that you would have been focused on a little bit more.
And now I'm just really feeling this, like, deep admiration for beautiful language.
One of the things that I... didn't really understand at the time when I wrote Psychology of Money.
I think I probably could have expressed this when I wrote it, but I didn't believe it as much as I do now is when I turned in the manuscript for Psychology of Money.
I had a deep sense of shame when I turned it in because I knew the truth, which is the truth, which is that there's nothing original in there.
There's no new ideas.
There's nothing in there that a million people before me haven't said, and then a million people already know.
And so I kind of felt bad.
I didn't break any new ground with this book.
There's really no original concepts in here.
I did my best.
But I think why it worked is because I think I said it in a different way.
And hopefully I said it in a good way that people enjoyed.
And so that just instilled in me of just like, you don't need to say something new.
You just need to say it well.
You just need to do a good job telling a good story about it and with good words.
That's been true for a you all know, Harari Nassim Taleb.
A lot of these people have been accused of not breaking new ground.
And sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not.
But to the extent it's true, it's like, it doesn't matter.
They said it really well.
They said it really well.
And even if what they said was flawed, like, yeah, but it's beautiful, isn't it?
And so I think So much of that is a subjective thing.
And it's just like if someone listened to the Beatles and said like oh, it's technically not good music.
Like what the hell does that mean?
It's good.
Like they liked it.
They enjoyed it.
So they get one.
And so I think I have a newfound appreciation for stories over substance.
Even if that sounds kind of like, of course I want the substance to be good.
Of course I want it to do.
But what matters more than anything else is how you say it.
Yeah, the word that I would add to that is just fun. like I read your writing.
It's just fun to read.
Like I got to devote a few hours today to just like reading your writing.
And it's just your writing is easy to read.
It's it's it's like drinking a really delicious smoothie, you know, like I like it's definitely not like cut up my broccolis, you know, really got to chew the steak kind of writing.
It's like really fun to read.
And there's a nice cadence and all that.
And it's the same thing with Nassim Taleb.
Like all those scenes where he has fat Tony.
Right.
I just started laughing and I'm like I get to go read about fat Tony and every book is going to have some new, you know, update to the fat Tony character.
And I'm like, boom, I'm here for it.
And one of the things that's interesting about writing too, is that you never know which whole chapter just flowed out of the author's brain and which sentence took a month of agony to get right.
But as a reader, you usually have no idea which one is which.
And so there's a lot of times if you're reading an author, whoever it might be, and you're like oh, it just flows.
There's part of me that's like, yeah, you didn't see the behind the scenes.
There were a lot of dams here.
This was not flowing.
There were a lot of forks in the road here.
So once again, reconcile that with that good ideas tend to be easier to write.
I don't know how to reconcile it because I believe that as well.
And every time I got writer's block, what actually happened was the idea sucked.
The idea was wrong.
And the reason I couldn't get the words on paper is because I knew it was a dumb idea.
I knew it was bad.
And so I don't know how to reconcile that other than maybe like macro micro, where if your idea is good, you can get the point on the page, but you still are going to grapple with a couple of sentences here and there, a couple of transitions here and there.
Whereas if the idea is bad, the whole thing's going to be aggravating for you.
Yeah.
Then that's what it tends to be.
But so if you ask me which blog posts I'm proudest of, it's by and large the ones that took me a couple of hours.
Not that long a time to write.
It just kind of sat down and just kind of got it out there and hit, publish and hope for the best.
That I think that I'm proudest of.
And if you ask me which ones I was like the most disappointed in, it was the ones that I labored over relentlessly for a week.
And the reason that it didn't do well is because the idea sucked.
The idea was clearly wrong.
Yeah, uh.
So when i was in high school i played pretty competitive golf and every saturday, every sunday, i just watched golf all day, usually in the morning, and what i'd do is i'd go out and play golf in the afternoon.
And there were so many times man would i be watching you know tiger woods and his heyday and whatever i'd be like oh, i'm gonna go out there and shoot three under par, i'm not gonna miss a shot.
And you develop this like false sense of confidence.
That's basically borrowed confidence from the tour guys that you're watching.
You go out there and and you just start hacking the ball around you remember oh my goodness, this is so hard.
That's how I feel when I read your writing.
It's like watching the freaking PGA Tour golfer.
It's like right now, I haven't written since I read your writing.
I'm like, dude, it's going to be so easy.
But there's just that flow that somehow, that I think is one of your core skills.
It's that and the storytelling.
Another thing that comes to mind here though, is when I write.
I write truly, one sentence at a time, in terms of I will write a sentence and then get up And do the dishes and come back and write another sentence and then go talk to my wife for a couple.
And like I, I really can't.
I have a hard time writing at length.
I really can't do it.
I think I feel like it's just one sentence at a time.
And I think part of why that is is, I think, like when I get up to go do the dishes, like I'm thinking about the next sentence.
But I have a hard time connecting them in real time.
And so I bring that up because you say it flows, which is great to hear.
Thank you.
But when I'm writing it, there's no flow.
It tends to be when I'm writing it is very just truly line by line.
Every line is a little bit of a battle.
Wow.
What do you feel like is going through your head as you're in the early stages of a chapter?
Like at what level do you feel like you have fidelity and at what level do you feel like ah, you know a little more clueless.
I think one thing that I and a lot of writers will get better at over time is I have.
I think I'm much better at not starting a blog or a chapter because if it's not going to work.
Just being able to very quickly, before I've typed a single letter, being like there's no way that's ever going to work.
Or the opposite of before I've typed a single letter, being like the psychology of money.
I don't even know what's going to be in it.
I don't even know what I'm going to say.
The psychology of money, that's going to work.
Let's go with this.
I would say that almost without exception.
When a non-writer comes to me and says you should write about X, Y and Z, it's always a bad idea.
I mean, maybe a couple exceptions.
What do you think that they miss?
I think you have to have done it a billion times to hone the sense of like oh, that's not going to work for me.
Maybe that topic would have worked for you or somebody else.
But how I write and how I write stories, never in a million years would that work.
And that's why I've worked with so few editors over time.
It's because they will, in a very well-meaning... professional sense, do that.
You should write about this.
I'm like, what?
No, that sounds terrible.
I'd never do that.
And so I think you just have to figure that out for yourself, but you get better at it over time.
And so in a much higher degree today than it was 15 or 20 years ago.
If I start writing something, it's probably going to work out to the end.
But that's not because I'm better at just at figuring it out.
It's because I'm better at not writing the thing that's not going to work.
The other thing that you've been so deliberate about is i love how, as you've gotten more successful, you've gotten more free um, in the sense of you just feel less busy now than you used to be.
You know, like you haven't let your schedule pile up, and obviously that's been a super deliberate choice.
But it's pretty obvious that you talk about the book like from a lifestyle perspective, But also from the perspective of a writer, like part of the reason that you become successful can be so that you can just have more time to just putz around and think of ideas.
I remember reading this thing that at least part of the reason that Jerry Seinfeld stopped his show in 1998 was that he realized that what made the show great is that he and Larry David could go observe society and come up with funny observations.
So they would go to a deli and watch how people ordered and make jokes out of that.
But then they became so famous and recognizable that they couldn't do that anymore.
They couldn't go sit in Central Park and watch.
They'd be mobbed.
They can't do it.
And so at least part of the reason that he quit was he was like the thing that made the show so great.
We can't do anymore.
It's been cut out.
And I think – so I really admire people who come to that realization.
It also happens to a lot of CEOs who are like you are really good at starting companies, but now it's a big company.
And the thing that made you great, it doesn't exist anymore.
Like the crazy risk that you used to take, you can't do that anymore.
So like you have to recognize that and move on.
And so –
To me it was just a recognition of like, what makes good writing.
I think for everybody, for every author, is just like tons and tons of observation and thinking.
I think every great writer spends 1% of their time writing and the rest just reading and thinking.
And so if it was like oh, as I got a little bit more successful as a writer, if I was going to fill my schedule with tasks – and then i'm not, i'm not, i'm not reading, i'm not thinking, i'm not doing that anymore and it takes away from the thing that actually made it good to begin with.
You know, it's been really good for me.
A friend told me to do this.
She was like if you want to be better at observing the world, here's what you do just go somewhere and just play.
I spy yeah, i'm like what are you talking about?
And so you'll just be an italian sandwich shop.
I spy the waitress behind the counter with a big, thick accent.
I spy the cheap looking photos of italy on the walls and you just, I'm making this up.
Now go to 20.
Just I spy 20 things.
And if you do that, all of a sudden you're like, Wait, OK, now I'm seeing things.
And then if you try to communicate that to somebody else, they're like, you are so observant.
You are.
No, I'm not.
I just stand there and I just look and I just look at 20 things.
And if you do that a few times a day, you all of a sudden things just pop into mind.
And it's it's like so simple.
Three year old could do it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Just being a little bit more observant with it.
I spot.
And so I've gotten I've gotten in the habit of just constantly taking notes of things people said and constantly interrupting conversations.
I'm sorry, I have to write that down.
More recently?
Yeah, in the last five or 10 years.
I feel like whenever I have a conversation or a dinner with a friend, I interrupt it every five minutes to take a note of something that you just said.
But because A, I would instantly forget it if I didn't.
And B.
If you do that enough over time, you come up with a ton of different insights and different anecdotes that you can use as a writer.
So a lot of people are not writers, but I think it's still a worthwhile endeavor of just being more observant and taking notes of what you do over time.
That adds up to something fantastic.
How do you feel like all the time that you spent learning from Ken Burns like washed over your creative process?
I have more respect for him as a content creator and just as a thinker. than almost anybody.
I think he's just done an unbelievable job at what he's produced.
The humility at which he's done it with the business model that he did it through the storytelling ability, is unparalleled.
It's one of those, there'll never be another Warren Buffett, there'll never be another Ken Burns.
That is a once in a generation talent, once in a multi-generation talent.
And so I just think he's done a better job at taking things that by and large people already know.
People know how the Civil War ended.
People know how World War II ended.
So much ink has been spilled on every topic that he's covered.
And he added – he said it in a way that no one else has ever said before.
And doing so added more value than anybody else has done.
And I've watched, I think, all of his documentaries, at least the vast majority of them, multiple times.
And you learn something different every time because they're stories.
It's not just statistics.
You can remember, memorize statistics, but stories hit you in a different way at different times.
So I think he's the absolute greatest at what he does.
What do you think you've pulled from him?
I think he was one of the first where I recognized the Civil War documentary.
There's not a lot of new information in there.
People know how the battles played out and whatnot.
If you're talking about statistics and information, there's virtually nothing new in there.
But the stories are just absolutely sensational.
They're the best stories that hadn't been told before.
And the music that's in it, the transitions that are in it, the things that you might completely overlook.
The voice of the narrator is very well thought out.
I think I've talked about this before that the background music.
He will literally edit the script so that a beat in the music will hit at a powerful word.
And like no other historians doing that.
And that's why a lot of history books are just dry and tedious.
But at Ken Burns documentary, like, hey, they can make you cry.
You know, they're so powerful.
Yeah.
Yeah, it really is such a lesson from our conversation so far is you just don't need new ideas.
You just got to find what is the way to tell this story, either more eloquently or in some sort of way that hasn't been told sometimes, just finding the person out of the out of the spotlight who'll give you a different perspective on whatever's going on.
Yeah, you don't.
You don't have to say new things, you just have to say them better.
Yeah, tell me about this john grisham line of the slow build-up followed by the sudden shocks.
Oh yeah, i mean so many john grisham book he's.
I love john grisham.
I know some people kind of think it's kind of this trash fiction, but i love it, can't get enough of it and uh, What's interesting about John Grisham is that a lot of his chapters are very slow and grinding.
And you're like, what, what?
And all of a sudden, like, boom, he just hits you out of the middle of nowhere.
And you're like, oh, gosh, I didn't even see that coming.
And it's more powerful when it happens because he pulled you in with tedium and boredom.
And then he just slaps you across the face with something big.
And so the buildup to it is so incredibly powerful.
It happens in a lot of movies, too.
It doesn't seem like something that you do as much of, though.
No, I think it works in fiction, where you're just kind of being dragged through what is truly just a storyline, probably less well in nonfiction, where you really got to keep the person engaged because you're trying to teach them something.
So I think it works in that element.
A lot of movies are like that as well.
And John Grisham too, like there are like huge plot twists that he'll explain in one sentence.
He's not going to take 10 pages.
He'll just be like, and then Joe was shot in the head.
And it's just, and you're like, whoa, where did this come from?
I mean, I remember when I watched Parasite, people were like oh, this movie's so good, this movie's so good.
And i was watching the movie and i was like raising an eyebrow, like this is what everyone said was so good.
And over time you're like okay, there's this story that's unfolding.
There's this story that's unfolding.
There's this story that's unfolding and i'm like come on, what's going on here?
And then boom, It's like plot twist.
And now it's just one of my favorite movies.
And it just took that time.
And there's the cadence, the tempo, the the tension, the suspense that builds.
And I agree with you in a movie and in a fiction book.
That's kind of what you're there for.
But nonfiction. stories are kind of in service of some other things.
They're less of the end in themselves.
I mean, it's very often in fiction that you'll be reading and you're like why does he keep talking about the cat on the couch?
You keep bringing this up and it just seems like it's just fluff.
And then in chapter 18- I like that pun, by the way.
It's just fluff, the cat.
But then in chapter 18 the cat on the couch is like is like the game changer in the story, whatever it might be.
So there's a lot of times where like, they'll keep talking about little things that you you're like, why do you keep saying this?
And you're like, Oh, now I got why you did that.
Okay.
Totally.
How do you think about one of the things that I've also noticed you do more and more is develop a kind of frame for the book.
So this is the art of spending money.
And I noticed a few things like this sentence in school.
Finance is taught as a science with clean formulas and logical conclusions.
But in the real world, money is an art.
And then you say this book is about how spending money has little to do with spreadsheets and numbers and a lot to do with psychology envy, social aspirations identity, insecurity and other topics that are too often ignored in finance.
And it's interesting to trace your work where psychology of money was basically a collection of something like 21 essays.
And then this is very much kind of I have almost like an integrated way of thinking about the book that I'm trying to write, the problem that I'm trying to solve.
And for lack of better word. it feels like in that way you've matured as a writer.
I think Psychology of Money was a little bit more disparate, but it was really.
The psychology of building wealth was the common denominator there.
That wasn't really the intention, but that's kind of how it turned up.
There was a common denominator there is the psychology of building wealth.
And this is the psychology of spending wealth.
And there's a lot in here that's disparate.
I go in all sorts of different directions and whatnot, because everybody knows the classic nonfiction book that could have been an article.
You just made one point and then you just repeated yourself for 300 pages.
I want to avoid that as much as I can.
I mean here's a broad theme, but now I'm going to go in 47 different directions to make sure I'm not repeating myself and the same ideas over and over again.
So that's always been the case.
But I think there needs to be a common theme within there.
Otherwise, it's just a hodgepodge of random ideas.
Do you feel like we need more books to be written or fewer?
Oh, I think there's room for as many ideas as possible, because there are countless authors and books that the author was effectively a nobody when they wrote it.
You have to have the chance to do it.
I'll tell you one of my favorite stories.
I use this in the book.
It's one of those stories I heard in the last couple of years where I was like, oh, this is the one.
A story told by Kevin Costner.
Okay.
And this is back in the 1980s when he was still kind of a budding actor.
He was a famous actor, but kind of, let's say he was like a B-less actor at the time.
And he had a friend who was homeless.
And because he was homeless, Kevin Costner and his wife invited him.
Hey, you can come stay in our basement, come live in our basement.
The homeless friend was a writer.
He wrote manuscripts for books.
And as he's living with the Costners, this homeless guy in their basement, he's constantly telling Kevin and his wife, I'm writing this thing.
It's the best thing I've ever written.
Please read it.
Please read it.
No, I'm not going to read.
It's my homeless friend in the basement.
I'm not going to read your thing.
So he's living with the Costners for several months.
And eventually, Kevin Costner's wife says, he's got to go.
He's been here too long.
He's got to go.
So they kick him out.
And now he's back on the streets.
He's homeless.
As he's homeless, he's calling kevin every day being like have you read the manuscript yet?
Have you read it yet?
Please read it.
Kevin's like stop, i don't care about, i'm not gonna read it.
Finally, after a after a call one day, kevin says fine, i'll read your damn manuscript, send it over, i'll read it.
And he reads it.
And the manuscript is titled dances with wolves, which became his biggest movie, kind of thing, and his point was like you never know where talent's going to come from.
You never know where it's going to come from.
You got to give everybody a chance and um, And so I think about that.
A lot of like you know.
I mean, I think people are.
The system is pretty meritocratic today of people like Nick Maggiuli and whatnot, who were talented from day one and pretty much got credit on day one.
Not quite.
Maybe he got credit on day 60 or whatnot, but pretty much he started as a blogger and he was really good.
And instantly people are like, that's a good blogger.
You should pay attention to him over here.
The system is pretty meritocratic, but you got to give everyone a chance because writing is an art.
It's not a science where the person who graduates from the school with a PhD in creative writing is going to be the best creative.
It's not that at all.
J.K.
Rowling was like a broke single mother.
I think that was her backstory and became the greatest fiction writer of all time.
And so I think in anything that is art-driven, not objectively driven, like how fast you can run or the quality of your engineering, this is purely subjective.
And so everyone deserves a chance.
Wasn't psychology and money kind of rejected?
By every U.S. publisher.
Yes, all of them.
It was published by Harriman House, which is a British publisher.
They're wonderful, wonderful people.
I've admired them for life.
They're good friends of mine now, but the truth is they were the only publisher in the world that even gave it a chance.
And I don't look back at that experience of every US publisher rejecting it with any sense of like you idiots.
There's none of that because it's all very subjective and you really don't know what's going to hit.
You really have no idea what's going to work and what's not going to work.
And so I don't have any ill feelings to that.
It's a really hard thing to figure out what makes a book tick.
Thanks, dude.
Thanks, buddy.
Always good to see you.
