Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mats Hoefler's avatar

Thanks for sharing ☺️🙏🏼

The jump from Tolkien to modern conflict works because you don’t force the analogy - you let it sit there long enough to become uncomfortable. That line about courage and hope being “vital resources” lands, but what follows is where it actually becomes interesting.

The part that stuck with me is the inversion at the end: questioning whether not participating could be the courageous act. That’s where the piece separates from standard commentary.

One thought: you’re circling something structural but don’t fully name it. There’s a difference between:

• courage inside a shared narrative (LOTR: defend the world)

• and courage in a system where incentives are unclear or misaligned (modern war, economic framing, distance from consequences)

That gap is doing most of the work in your piece.

I’ve been writing about a related idea from a completely different angle how environments quietly dictate behavior and what feels “right” in the moment. In travel it’s benign. In conflict, it becomes dangerous because the same mechanism normalizes things very quickly.

Your piece hints at that, but doesn’t fully push it.

Curious: do you think desertion becomes courage only when the narrative breaks, or was it always that and we just label it differently depending on who wins?

Jorden Cook's avatar

Jay says the same thing every week when we finish Mind the Moss, “He is fucking BRILLIANT!” and I could not agree more, another beauty, Milos, this one will stay with us

No posts

Ready for more?