Art of Failure and after thoughts

Juul provides what I thought was an easy read and breaks down and offers the information in a very easy to understand manner. A lot of the questions I wanted to break down and ask my self throughout the book mostly had to do with the answers he supplied and didn’t cover. Is avoiding failure, failure in and of itself? If failure is a paradox, does avoiding failure mean you also stop or exit the paradox? I think he applies the attribution bias theory to this well enough for the book but I would personally like to see it pulled out a bit more. He makes the argument against some that games can and do cause actual torment but that it entirely relies on what we blame the failure on. Was it me or the game? Do I suck at this or am I just bad at everything? And so on. The title of the book is exactly what he is trying to define: The Art of Failure. The last page does tie it up in a cute way but basically meaning that failure like anything else is an artform, and when done correctly (be a good sport, apply the attributions where they objectively deserve to be applied, and utilize the failure as a learning situation) then one could master it as a fantastic skill to have. If I were to attempt to answer my questions utilizing the book Id say that avoiding failure may not necessarily be the failure. If we count the ideas that someone who had failed before, avoids that failure again, then perhaps its not avoiding rather its utilizing its learnings to move forward to ultimately run into more failures to overcome. The book breaks the paradox down into a simple function: we don’t like X, we steer away from X, but we accept X as it inevitably comes with Y (Y being something we like). I really appreciated this book and what it had in it but If I were to change or come up with something to add Id make the function more like: We like X, we involve ourselves in X, we veer from X after having learned Y through X.