"BECOMING STEVE JOBS"

BECOMING STEVE JOBS” BY BRENT SCHLENDER AND RICK TETZELI

 

This is a wonderful book which presents, I believe, a very balanced portrayal of Steve’s enormous strengths and the “flipsides” that came with them, those being rashness, rudeness and a  sometimes disrespect he felt for those who he believed were “bozos.”

 

It  makes a convincing case that Steve mellowed during the last decade of his life, influenced above all, I believe, by newly formed relationships with his wife Laurene, his children and with individuals, most prominently from my perspective, Jony Ive at Apple, Ed Catmull and John Lasseter at Pixar and Bob Iger at Disney, with whom he had developed tremendous trust, admiration and affection and a recognition of their extraordinary competence in areas critical to achieving the level of excellence he pursued in anything he did.

 

Steve was constantly adapting, as the authors rightly say, “following his nose, learning, trying out new directions.  He was constantly in the act of becoming.”

 

 

Pixar was a blessing to Steve Jobs in many ways.  Most importantly, in my view, in introducing him to the incredibly sound management of Ed Catmull and also the inspiration for and commitment to quality presented by John Lasseter.  It also brought to light his ability to “fight back in times of stress” and his ability to make the most of an innovation that put him ahead of anyone else in that field.  In other words, it taught him how to keep his head and fight back when cornered and how to run like the wind in the open field.  And that became the place where he really learned, albeit slowly and sometimes against his natural instincts, that sometimes the best management technique is to forego micro-management and give good, talented people the room the need to succeed." Pixar also helped him “rediscover his self-respect, made him a billionaire, and align(ed) him with people who would teach him more about management than anyone he had ever worked with.  Without the lessons he learned at Pixar, there would have been no great second act at Apple.”  

 

As John Lasseter put it:  “Watching our collaboration, seeing us make ourselves better by working together, I think that fueled Steve.  I think that was one of the key changes when he went back to Apple.  He was more open to the talent of others, to be inspired by and challenged by that talent, but also to the idea of inspiring them to do amazing things he knew he couldn’t do by himself.”

 

All of this brings to life for me, once again, that the most important things in life are founded in relationships.  

 

Still, it is interesting to note what Steve didn’t say.  As Ed Catmull noted, Steve never quite acknowledged how much he learned from him.  “The closest he got was that he said he valued what I did and knew it was very different from what he did.” For Steve, this was high praise indeed. 

 

Jobs took great pride in what Pixar represented.  “If you do your job right, what you create (a film) can last forever,” and indeed it will.  Movies like “Finding Nemo” and “Toy Story” will be with the world as long as the world exists, in my opinion, and that is a wonderful thing indeed. 

 

I was struck by what Steve did as he re-entered Apple.  He wanted to get an inspiring slogan.  From that came:  “Think Different.”  

Steve’s view of the purpose of a company, the singular role of “product” is striking.  Here is how he said it:  “The only purpose, for me, in building a company is so that that company can make products.  One is a means to another.  Over a period of time, we realize that building a very strong company and a very strong foundation of talent and culture in a company is essential to keep making great products.  The company is one of the most amazing inventions of humans, this abstract construct gets incredibly powerful.  Even so, it’s about the products.  It’s about working together with really fun, smart, creative people and making wonderful things.  It’s not about the money.  What a company is, then, is a group of people who can make more than just the next big thing.  It’s a talent.  It’s a capability.  It’s a culture.  It’s a point of view.  And it’s a way of working together to make the next thing, and the next one, and the next one.” No one has said it better than this. 

 

Jony Ive was a soulmate of Steve’s.  He was totally aligned with Steve on the importance of product:  “We trust if we do a good job, and the products do, people will like it.  And we trust that if they like it, they will buy it.  If we are competent operationally, we will make money.”  It was that simple and straightforward to Jony and Steve. 

 

Steve made this remark about creating the Apple stores.  It referenced Pixar.  “On almost every film they make, something turns out to be not quite right.  And they have an amazing willingness to turn around and do it again, until they do get it right.  It’s not about how fast you do something, it’s about doing your level best.”

 

Jim Collins identified one of the great characteristics of Steve or any great leader as a “deep restlessness.”  Collins believes this to be far more important than simple ambition or raw intelligence.  It is the foundation of resilience and self-motivation.  It is fueled by curiosity, the ache to build something meaningful, and a sense of purpose to make the most of one’s entire life.

 

Laurene Jobs’ remarks at Steve’s memorial were especially poignant.  She related how he “shaped how I came to view the world.  We were both strong-minded, but he had a fully formed aesthetic and I did not.  It is hard enough to see what is already there, to remove the many impediments to a clear view of reality, but Steve’s gift was even greater:  he saw clearly what was not there, what could be there, what had to be there.  His mind was never a tap to the reality.  Quite the contrary.  He imagined what reality lacked and he set out to remedy it.  His ideas were not arguments, but intuitions, born of a true inner freedom…Steve’s love of beauty, and his impatience with ugliness-- marked our lives….he was the most unfettered thinker I’ve ever known.  It was a deep pleasure, and a lot of fun, to think alongside him.”

 

She closed with this:  “Like my children, I lost my father when I was young.  It was not what I wanted for myself; it was not what I wanted for them.  But the sun with set and the sun will rise, and it will shine upon us tomorrow in our grief and our gratitude and we will continue to live with purpose, memory, passion, and love.”

 

*****

 

Steve Jobs’ story is an epic tribute to the power of passion, commitment to excellence, to never giving up, to following one’s nose and, in the end, it is testimony to the power of relationships, which allow one to accomplish far more than one could alone, no matter how strong and important that individual strength is, as it certainly was in the case of Steve Jobs.

 

It is also a reminder that the balance of strengths and weaknesses of individuals vary a lot;  that in the end, there is no one “style” that will accomplish great things.  In many ways, Steve Jobs is a lot like Winston Churchill.  Both made major missteps in their careers.   Both were supremely confident and  strongly opinionated.  Both could be rough on those they considered “fools” or, as Steve would say, “bozos.”  But they grew people, at least those that were strong, and in the end they learned that relationships and teamwork really did matter.  They learned from people who also were passionate about what they did and who had strengths he did not have, strengths and qualities he came to respect.  It’s a story of what makes life so interesting, especially if you are as privileged as I have been to have known people with such strong personalities, passions and character. 

 

 

SOME PERSONAL THOUGHTS ON THE ROLE OF BUSINESS ON SOCIAL AND MORAL ISSUES

THE FOLLOWING PRESENTS SOME PERSONAL THOUGHTS ON THE ROLE BUSINESS LEADERS AND CORPORATIONS SHOULD PLAY ON MORAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES

We were presented with a real drama in the States of Indiana and Arkansas, as legislation was adopted and then quickly modified which threatened to give license to business organizations to refuse service based on their religious principles to gays and lesbians.  A broad array of business and business leaders objected to this, including the nine leading businesses in Indiana, WalMart, Apple, and many others.  New legislation was quickly introduced (or that in Arkansas modified) to explicitly indicate that this “religious freedom” legislation could not be used to discriminate against marriage preference. 

During the same week, Starbuck’s CEO, Howard Schultz, passionately expressed  his and Starbuck’s recognition of same-sex marriage. He based his position primarily based on its being the right and fair action to take for his very diverse group of employees. His statement drew broad support but also criticism, with the latter usually  being couched in terms that said Starbucks should stick to serving coffee.  

This set of events raises some important questions.  To what extent do businesses have the right and indeed the obligation to voice their position on moral or ethical grounds to sway public policy?  How does business strike the right balance between its values and abiding with an existing social policy, imbedded in law and perhaps embraced by a large percentage of the population, including its employees or customers?

Getting down to cases, as CEO in 1998, I reached the position that Procter & Gamble should provide equal benefits to the dependents of individuals in a codified same-sex partnership.  We did this at a time when the majority of Ohioans opposed same-sex marriage.  We were not taking a position that these individuals were wrong in their belief.  We were taking the position that the same-sex partnership as it was codified made it right in the name of fairness to accord our employees in such a partnership the same benefits for their dependents  as a married couple would have.  This decision proved fairly controversial, but I was confident that it was right to do.  We were not making a moral pronouncement on same-sex marriage at this time.  We were saying that in the name of fairness there was no reason to deny individuals in this relationship same-sex benefits.

A related issue being debated at the moment relates to the “personhood” of a corporation.  Is a corporation a “person” or not?  Or, the question can be taken even further:  does a corporation have a “soul?”

Many, perhaps most, would say, no, a corporation is not a “person.”  As one columnist said cryptically, a corporation won’t be a “person” until it is capable of being executed in the State of Texas. 

Where do I stand on this issue?  It depends on what you mean by “person.”

I would say that business has a “responsibility” as part of society to advance and act on positions that are consistent with what as a corporate body (leaders, board of directors) represent correct moral values?  I say this because corporations play a major role in forming the cultural and value-based character of a society.

I do believe that corporations need to be humble and circumspect in taking on moral and social issues.  They have to recognize the need to balance the interests of those it serves -- its consumers, employees, shareholders and the community. 

To take an extreme example, consider a corporation's having to contemplate making a value-based decision that might severely weaken, maybe even destroy its current business. Would there ever be occasions where it would have to go this far, to almost literally have to go out of business?  I’d say yes, if its being in business meant threatening the life of consumers or anyone else. In a real sense, this consideration led to P&G’s withdrawing Rely tampons from the market decades ago.

When I say a corporation must be circumspect and humble, I mean that it must avoid becoming sanctimonious or in any way believing that it has a role of being a priest or prophet in its times.  It must speak judicially, and sometimes bravely, and it must avoid failing to do the good it can do at a given point in time because it cannot achieve perfection. 

Take the situation of Procter & Gamble in Saudi Arabia many years ago.  There was a social and perhaps even legal mandate that men and women could not work together in the same office.  P&G might have, given its commitment to gender equality, said that it would not do business in Saudi Arabia at all.  Or, I guess it could have taken the position it would violate the laws, though that would not have lasted long.  What did we do?  We set up separate office locations where women would work and where men would work and they would communicate by phone or other means between the two offices.  We did this on market research and brand work.  At the same time we advocated to change the social norms and the laws.  We believed that was right to do, not only morally (women deserved equal opportunity) but because we were certain it would be better for the business to have women and men working together in that way.  We felt advancing gender equality was right for the business and right morally.  We kept advancing this goal.

This raises another question:  is the test for a company taking a position on a moral or social issue whether it is relevant to the success of the business itself in the long-term?  Put differently, should businesses only weigh in on social and moral issues when they bear directly on having the right (and by “right” I include being morally correct) business and working environment long-term?  My answer is yes, though I’d underscore the importance of taking a long-term view.  For example, I believe the commitment to achieve a sustainable environment is one that businesses should advocate, even beyond the immediate benefit of that for the business itself.   Why?  Because I believe businesses should understand that having a world in which they or any other business could operate successfully long-term requires a sustainable environment.

Said differently, I believe that a business has social and moral obligations that go beyond simply making money in the short- or medium-term. 

THE POWER OF LISTENING, GENUINENESS AND KINDNESS-MR. ROGERS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE

Yesterday, I was moved watching the  movie, "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood". It's message of kindness and respect was particularly meaningful to me at this moment of tribal division in our nation. So I decided to post this edited of my earlier post.

****************************************************************

I cannot recall ever watching testimony more impactful than this which saw Mr. Rogers testifying before Senator Pastore's Committee in 1969 in support of  public funding for public television. 

 I find it almost unique in the utter and transparent genuineness of Mr. Rogers care and love for children and in his commitment to make their lives full.  There is not one false note in the six minutes of his testimony.  Nothing was being said to make a point. It was an expression of Mr. Rogers deepest beliefs and they struck a moral and logical chord and that was why they made the sale. 

It also showcases the mutual trust and respect Mr. Rogers had for the Committee Chair, Senator Pastore, and that Senator Pastore had for Mr. Rogers, evidenced above all by the intensity in the way the Senator listened. It shows the self confidence and humanity of Senator Pastore, a man noted as he rightfully said for his toughness, as he opens his mind to what he is hearing and declares himself on the spot in support of Mr. Rogers request. 

I have often told the story of how I responded to a young P&G employee's question of how she could make a difference in such a big company, filled with so many smart people.

I told her:

-Find an idea which you believe can make a big difference. 

-Learn all you can about it, get help from other experts, seek evidence it will work,.

-Go to whomever has to approve it and present it WITH ALL OF YOUR MIND AND ALL OF YOUR HEART.

-Be prepared even having done that extremely well for the first answer to be, "but we tried that before", or "we can't afford this right now".

-This is the "moment of truth". You need to listen very carefully. With respect and an open miND. Maybe you will conclude the idea isn't as good as you thought, or maybe you've heard something that can make it better, but also MAYBE THIS IS A BIG IDEA. YOU MAY NEED TO KEEP COMING BACK, BENEFITING FOM THE INPUT  WITH MORE EVIDENCE AND MORE HEART. 

For I told the young woman, this is the only way I have seen really big ideas  happen. 

, 

I was reminded of my conversation with this young woman as I watched Mr. Rogers...because I don't recall ever seeing a better example of a person presenting what 

they believe in deeply with more of their mind and heart than this-- and with a respect for the listener that made what he said all the more effective. 

There is a message in here for all of us.  

For those many of you who are  too young to know Mr. Rogers here is a brief recap of his career and his children's program.

Fred McFeely Rogers (March 20, 1928 – February 27, 2003) was an American educator,  Presbyterian  minister, songwriter, author, and television host. Rogers was most famous for creating and hosting  Mister Rogers' Neighborhood (1968–2001), which featured his gentle, soft-spoken personality and directness to his audiences. ^[1]

Initially educated to be a minister, Rogers was displeased with the way television addressed children and made an effort to change this when he began to write for and perform on local  Pittsburgh-area shows dedicated to youth.  Over the course of three decades on television, Fred Rogers became an indelible American icon of children's entertainment and education, as well as a symbol of compassion, patience, and morality. ^[2] He was also known for his advocacy of various public causes. 

Rogers received the  Presidential Medal of Freedom, some forty honorary degrees, ^[4] and a  Peabody Award. He was inducted into the  Television Hall of Fame, was recognized by two Congressional resolutions, and was ranked No. 35 among TV Guide's Fifty Greatest TV Stars of All Time. ^[5] Several buildings and artworks in Pennsylvania are dedicated to his memory, and the  Smithsonian Institution displays one of his  trademark sweaters as a "Treasure of American History".

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOW PLEASE WATCH THE SIX MINUTE VIDEO.

Thanks, John

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/05/1140853/-You-WILL-CRY-watching-Mister-Rogers-defend-PBS-in-Congress?detail=emailclassic 

"WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO?"--TWO ARTICLES FROM THE WSJ

March 26, 2015

“WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO?” – TWO ARTICLES IN MARCH 25 WALL STREET JOURNAL

It isn’t often you come across two articles, on the same page in one newspaper that defy intellectual rigor and speak so loudly to a mentality that demeans people of lesser means than these two articles which appeared in the March 25 edition of the WSJ:  “Why the SAT Isn’t a ‘Student Affluence Test’” by Charles Murray and “The Next Welfare Reform:  Food Stamps” by Jason Riley.

First, Charles Murray.  Never one from whom I’d expect cultural sensitivity or recognition that people of lesser income face tough challenges, Murray in this article descends into absurd conclusions from statistics he presents.

The starting point of his article is a fact.  On SAT tests, as one shifts from family incomes of more than $200,000 to incomes of less than $20,000, you find the average student score on the combined math and reading tests drops from the 74th percentile to the 31^st, a drop of 43 percentiles.  Yes, this is income related. 

Then, drawing on a closely related other test, he notes that the movement of family income from $125,000 to $200,000 only results in the score moving up 3 percentage points, from the 76^th percentile to the 73^rd, “a trivial change.”

How does he go on to explain this and what does he make of it?  What he seemingly wants to make of it is that income differences really aren’t that important.  He does it by asserting that although children from families of $125,000 “probably live in an unremarkable home in a middle class neighborhood and send their children to public schools,” they suffer “only a trivial disadvantage when competing with children from families who are far more wealthy.”  Implicit here is the notion that a $125,000 income is “not that well off.”  Fact:  it is two and a half times the average household.  The fact that SAT scores within that income band don’t differ a lot doesn’t strike me as remarkable.  What makes it even less unremarkable is what Murray tells us next:  the comparison has been carried out among families whose mothers have equal IQs.  How about that?  He puts aside entirely the well-established fact that a mother’s IQ, which has been influenced by her family’s structure (including its income) would have an effect on her child.  In other words, we are likely seeing, at least to some degree, a multi-generational effect. 

But that’s only the start, and the lesser, of Murray’s misuse of data.

 

He next talks about a family with an income of $60,000 (without disclosing the SAT results at that level), saying [they] are “likely to be regularly employed, with all the things that regular employment says about a family.  The parents are likely to be conveying advantages other than IQ, such as self-discipline, determination and resilience—‘grit’—as this cluster of hard-to-measure qualities is starting to be called in the technical literature.”  He thereby implies, without stating it, that the difference in SAT scores between a $60,000 income and the previously stated $200,000 income is small (a “non-established fact”) because they share “grit.” 

Then, he moves on to an income level of $15,000 for which we have already learned there is a major differentiation in SAT scores vs. a higher income family.  About this family, he says they are “more likely to be irregularly employed or subsisting on welfare, with negative implications for that same bundle of attributes.  Somewhere near $100,000, the marginal increments in ‘grit’ associated with the greater income taper off and further increases in income make little difference.” 

Here he is suggesting, that lower-income families are in that position importantly because they lack “grit.”  Tell that to somebody who is working for $9/hour, 40 hours a week, doing the best they can with the education they have, and taking home less than $20,000/year before taxes.

Where does Murray end up after this confused presentation of stereotypical thinking and sloppy statistics?  He says: “What we need is an educational system that brings children of all combination of assets and deficits, having identified things they enjoy doing and having learned how to do them well.  What we need is a society that has valued places for people with all combinations of assets and deficits.  Both goals call for completely different agendas than the ones that dominate today’s rhetoric about educational and economic inequality.”

Here he is, making the assumption that children are born with immutable potentialities for success that won’t be influenced decisively by the kind of early childhood support (health, education and much else) in their first five years that would allow them to fulfill their God-given abilities. 

No, he assumes it’s largely given from the start.  Some children are sort of designed for a “middling” life.  How sad; how wrong.

*****

Well, if that weren’t enough, I came next to the column by Jason L. Riley:  “The Next Welfare Reform:  Food Stamps.”  I won’t spend as much time on this.  First, we would all strongly agree that there needs to be a thorough analysis of the sources and causes of the increase in SNAP caseloads from 17.2 million to 47.6 million from 2000 to 2013, as spending quadrupled from $20 billion to $80 billion.  Yes, that requires analysis. 

But the underlying hypotheses in this article are, to put it bluntly, heinous.   

Here are some snapshots.  “The unprecedented jump in food stamp use over the past six years has mostly been driven by manufactured demand.  The Obama Administration has attempted to turn SNAP into a middleclass entitlement by easing eligibility rules and recruiting new food stamp recipients.”  Note those words.  “Recruiting new food stamp recipients”; turning it into a “middleclass entitlement.” 

Going on, he asserts that the President “considers European-style welfare states a model for America.”   Has anyone ever heard the President say this?

He notes that 56% of SNAP users are in the program for longer than five years which “suggests that the assistance is being used by most recipients as a permanent source of income, not as a temporary safety net.”  I’d say it more likely indicates that the level of their income has remained very low, despite the efforts they have made to escape poverty. 

And if that wasn’t enough, get this.  “Instead of hunger being a central nutritional problem facing the poor, the problem is not too little food but rather too much—or at least too many calories.”  Yes, he says, the problem is that people are eating too much.  I’m sure quite a few people are.  Probably even more of those of higher income!  But let’s face it, there are a lot of people, including millions of children, who don’t know where they are going to get their next meal.

I’m not suggesting that there aren’t improvements to be made in this program.  Any expenditure this large demands a careful review.  But the mindset of the author of this article, Jason Riley, is so negative, so unappreciative of the challenges that people of lesser means face, it’s positively maddening.

He concludes the article by sharply criticizing Ohio Congresswoman Marcia Fudge because of her support for immigration reform and more education and, yes, food stamps for those who need it.

I like Ms. Fudge’s platform.

WHY WALLACE STEGNER MEANS SO MUCH TO ME

Why Wallace Stegner Means So Much To Me

While on vacation, I contemplated why the writing of Wallace Stegner, who my daughter-in-law, Kim, had introduced me to through “Crossing to Safety,” had meant so much to me.  Reading a study of Stegner’s “Life and Work” by Jackson Benson helped me to understand why.

Stegner’s childhood was a lot like my own, it turns out.  Maybe that’s why I like his writing so much.  He was lonely.  Out of the loneliness, Wallace found himself “always volunteering to do something.”  His objective, he reflected, “was to belong to something.”  He “went up through the ranks to Eagle like smoke through a chimney.”  Some measure of his desperation to belong and be admired for something was demonstrated in his admission later in life that he cheated in getting two merit badges on his way to Eagle Scout.  That cheating stuck in his craw for decades and that regret is probably in part responsible for producing a grown man who clearly would rather die than lie or cheat anyone for any reason.  

I can recall stealing popsicles from a store when 6 or 7.

Like me, “Out of Wallace’s high school years emerges a picture of a boy with incredible energy, determination and ambition.  His life was a living testament to the virtues extolled by the books he devoured.  His goal was never material so much as acceptance and belonging, never acquisition of material goods so much as the gaining of some status beyond scorn.  He seemed to rise to the top of or conquer everything he tackled.  He combined constant reading, heavy schedules of school work (which gave him superior grades throughout), participation in sports and achievement in scouts and ROTC with frequent outings and camping trips, an extremely intelligent, capable boy who had been hurt, frustrated and embarrassed.  He was not defeated, did not withdraw totally into himself or give up and go wrong, but instead took his problems as a challenge.  In a sense, his whole life story became an answer to the insecurities he had felt and the pain he had endured.  Despite the pain, his general discomfort with his family circumstances no doubt contributed to his energy, determination and firing ambition.”  

This describes a source of my ambition with telling accuracy.

Stegner found drama and meaningful conflict in ordinary lives.  Throughout his fiction, he contemplates large questions of purpose:  What is fundamental to being human – can a human being live without love, companionship, interaction or help from others?  Is there any purpose to life other than serving others?  And courage – how do we summon it when we need it?

Just as Stegner was driven in his own life to become resilient and steadfast, he admired toughness in others, but of a particular kind – people with moral backbone, people who were tough in pursuit of constructive ends, people who took what fate had dealt them and made the best of it.

Part of Stegner’s literary genius is that he “understood that part of the tension of being human as found in our desire for, and love affair with both risk and security.  What do we risk in our quest for security?  What do we secure in a life of risk?  And where are the motivations behind creating a life of meaning in the presence of uncertainty?  Stegner shows us again and again that it is love and friendship, the sanctity and celebration of our relationships, that not only support a good life, but create one. In friendship, we spark and inspire one another’s ambitions.”  

I embrace every word of this statement.

Drawing form “Crossing to Safety,” Williams replays the soulful reflections of Larry Morgan:  “Whatever happened to the passion we all had to improve ourselves, live up to our potential, leave a mark on the world?  Our hottest arguments were always about how we could contribute…we made plenty of mistakes, but we never tripped anybody to gain an advantage, or took illegal shortcuts when no judge was around…I didn’t know myself well, and still don’t, but I did know and I know now the few people I loved and trusted. My feelings for them is one part of me I have never quarreled with, even though my relations with them have more than once been abrasive.”

As I reflect on all this, I come back to my concept of service in wanting to live a life “that matters to both the people and the place where I belong.” (JEP)  And in doing this, Stegner lights on what it takes:  “Largeness is a life-long matter…you grow because you are not content not to.  You are like a beaver that chews constantly, because if it doesn’t, its teeth grow long and lock.  You grow because you are a grower; you are large because you can’t stand to be small.”

#          #          #          #

One of the things that draws me to Stegner’s later storytellers – Joe Allston, Lyman Ward and Larry Morgan – is that “their wisdom is certified by their uncertainty, by inner debate and self-examination, by their consciousness that although they have had long lives and a variety of experiences, they don’t know everything.   All of them, at a late stage of life, are trying to learn more about themselves, as well as about other people and the world around them.  While having strong values and carefully nurtured, strong characters, they nevertheless remain open to experience, and it is often in the conflict between their strength and their doubt that we find the central tension of these novels.  With these traits, they often seem younger than the young people around them who are often so very sure of themselves, so frozen in their opinions, so terribly close-minded.”  

I very much identify with this.

I also identify with this from “Shooting Star:”  “I’ll tell you what I believe in.  I believe in human love and human kindness and human responsibility, and that’s just about all I believe in…the political revolutions will blow us all up at last, probably, but I’m not working for any.  The only revolution that interests me is one that will give more people more comprehension of their human possibilities and their human obligations.”  

These words from one of the protagonists in the novel could have come directly from Stegner and they could come from me.

For the most part, Stegner’s fictional protagonists are neither hero or anti-hero, neither conqueror nor victim.  They are usually relatively ordinary people who are trying to find their better selves.  They do good things, if not heroic things, but they also fail, betray themselves in some way, and try to recover.

Stegner was a man who lived under the obligation of trying his best to be a “good man” and his writing was part and parcel of that effort.  For him the individual, insofar as his or her capabilities allow, must not only take charge of his or her own destiny, but take on the responsibility of contributing to the welfare of others and family, community and society.

In all of Stegner’s books which I have read --- “All the Little Live Things,” “Spectator Bird” and “angle of Repose” as well as “Crossing to Safety,” Stegner wants to convince us that the past is always with us, whether we like it or not and he wants to show us that while doing the right thing is seldom easy, in the end we must do it, not for someone else, but for ourselves, to make ourselves whole.