Jon makes an interesting distinction in his response to my previous post on the attention that the obsessed have been garnering.

The problem here, I think, is that obsession becomes an easy stand in for meticulousness. It’s an understandable mistake to make, honestly. An artist or craftsman who is meticulous in the details of of their art or craft is generally obsessed; the focus of that obsession is however about something deeper than the number of icons on one’s desktop.

On further thought, my criticism on the praise of obsessives isn’t that obsessiveness—or meticulousness—isn’t a useful tool to the artist, but that the praise is often targeted at the process rather than the outcome.

Gruber and Mann may have meant something else when they discussed obsession, but the message that the blog world at large has taken from it is an idea that, to me, seems both wrong and unhealthy.

We should not be idolizing the journey of the obsessed. It is painful, potentially dangerous, and does not guarantee success. Nor should we imply that it is a prerequisite of success—that does injustice to the innumerable artists who have realized their goals without venturing into the spiraling realms of obsession.

Instead we should appreciate the results of those who are obsessed, and give them praise for their achievements. We should understand obsession. We should not foster it.