English Version | From zero to hero

We mean zero as in people paid zero attention to its geniality, not that they were null. Zero as in people thought they were worth nothing – a nonsense, foolish, silly. These inventions could well have been a zero. Except the only zero were the concerns they had to what people thought. In the end, they turned out to be heroes.

It is difficult to be a visionary without gathering some skepticism along the way: after all, progress has to imply a break from the norms and the ordinary to reach the extraordinary and it's only natural that, at first, some ideas may seem absurd. Or, at least, not sustainable long-term – which, for many, is the same as saying a nonsense. For example, in 1879, Henry Morton, president of the Stevens Institute of Technology, characterized Thomas Edison's lamp as a “remarkable failure,” which, as it is known today, could not be further from the truth. The renown scientist's incorrect proclamation is not related to the futility of Edison's invention, but to the inability to foresee the profound changes, in social and technological terms, that this lamp would bring. Morton was not the only skeptic: a committee of the British Parliament in 1878 scorned the lamp as something “good for our transatlantic friends… but unworthy of the attention of pragmatic and scientific men”, and a chief engineer of the English postal service qualified the subdivision of electric lighting as an authentic farce, a fairy tale. Even today, having already witnessed developments that would have been unbelievable centuries ago (which has perhaps made us more believers in seemingly less credible possibilities), we don't need to go so far back in time to realize that we continue to see some incongruity and irrationality in projects that later prove us wrong: in fact, it can, and will, happen to the best. Marian Salzman, a recognized trend forecaster, admitted to Vogue, last March, that once, a long, long time ago, she said in an interview that she didn't believe Amazon could ever be profitable. Fast-forward to 2021 and the retail giant is one of the major global technology companies and one of the most valuable brands in the world. Steve Jobs himself announced that tablets were a dead end – way before having the iPad as one of his biggest successes, of course. Currently, we take for granted some objects and pieces regarded as commonplace and we don't question their success as others did when they materialized. No wonder it's said that "whoever laughs last laughs best." And that's a good thing, because it wouldn't be any fun if the inventions that follow hadn't made it to the present day.

Silly putty, for instance, which delights children and adults alike (no kidding, it's a greater stress reliever than foam balls) arrived by mistake, and stayed by popular demand. In 1943, James Wright, an engineer at General Electric, was trying to develop a synthetic rubber to make up for the shortage of material from natural sources, rare as a result of World War II, but ended up inventing a bouncy putty. Wright's experiments did not meet his expectations, nor those of his colleagues, who for two years studied this clay with bounce properties without achieving any conclusions. A toy store owner saw the fun potential of the project, but the toy didn't immediately catch on, nearly bankrupting those who believed in it. It was an article in a 1950s newspaper that changed the product's destiny from useless to entertainment. It wasn't the only one to go from zero to hero. The bicycle is another example of a breakthrough that many believed was just a fad. But it passed the test of time, even though not immediately: in 1890, the Washington Post ruled that cycling was “on the rise,” namely in the circle of aristocratic ladies, predicting a boom in transportation. However, just over a decade later, the same newspaper declared the vehicle dead, stating that “the wheel's popularity is doomed”, as critics believed it was an unsafe means of transport, impractical for everyday use and impossible to evolve. Wrong: improved tires and a more robust frame proved that the “bike” could indeed be improved, hand in hand with the roads it slides on, reaching our days not as a passing fad, but rather as an environmental requirement. Cars had a similar story: without denying the genius of the invention, many thought that the car would never be affordable enough in terms of pricing. It was The New York Times who affirmed this, in 1902, even making a parallel with the disinterest that the bicycle had aroused in recent years. They believed that, like the two wheeler, their apotheosis would come as quickly as their collapse, complaining that the price of vehicles "will never be low enough to become as popular as bicycles". Henry Ford's response: "Wrong!" (we're paraphrasing). Ford perfected the mass production of the automobile, lowering prices and ensuring that the invention circulated confidently as the dominant mean of transportation of modern times. In fact, his lawyer, Horace Rackham, bought $5,000 worth of shares in the company, even though his closest circle of friends tried at all costs to dissuade him—"the horses are here to stay," they said. True, but in a motor version: about a decade later, Henry bought Rackham's shares for $12 million. From the bicycle and the car to the plane, it's a leap of equal disbelief: but also, let's be honest – talking about flying at a time when all means complied with the law of gravity gives way to some strangeness, so it's natural that the Wright brothers made headlines when they managed to glide over 12 seconds in the first airplane, in 1903. But the feat was not enough to convince the armed forces: "Airplanes are interesting scientific toys, but they have no military value", decreed Ferdinand Foch - French general and commander for the Allies during World War I. These words were carried by the wind – and so was the hidroplane that, just eight years later, crossed the Atlantic to Portugal. A fun fact? Foch's name even baptized such a machine. Oh, and we don't even need to talk about how important this technology was for drones that are now widely used for military purposes, do we? Speaking of moving inventions, did you know Roomba was discredited at the time it was introduced? In its beginnings, this vacuum cleaner, a kind of flying saucer on the floors, engulfed more laughter than fluff: a walking circle that walked on the floor hitting the walls while sucking up the dust did not fit the imagination of the house's tasks. But time came to show that Roomba had the last laugh – and the best. Not that their engineers ever doubted: they had already worked on robot projects in the scope of space exploration and National Defense – what do you mean, they wouldn't be successful in an appliance?

Truth be told, stranger things had already happened. Nail varnish left doubts about its longevity. At first it was a “London craze”, and even in Vogue it was written that “there seems to be doubts in the minds of very good women whether this nail polish is in any way harmful or at least not as good for the nails as powder or paste” that was used at the time. Cutex, responsible for inventing, in 1917, the closest relative of this commonplace liquid for painting nails, endured some negativity over the years – in 1932, for example, an Atlanta newspaper questioned how much longer could colored nails be in vogue. Much longer, dear Atlanta Daily World. Much longer. The truth is, they weren't seeing it properly. Neither they, nor those who questioned the “talkies”, which came to replace silent movies, introducing sound and speech in films. “Talking has no place in the film”, critics defended at the time. In 1928, United Artists President Joseph Schenck was confident that this new fad would fade out as soon as possible, and even actors believed that the “noise” would drive audiences away. Ooops - can we put a sound effect for the epic fail here? There was, after all, no “That's all, folks” for the talkies – just “The End” for the mute versions. Speaking of talking (no, it's not a pleonasm) there were many who wanted to silence answering machines, especially telephone companies, who felt their services threatened with the arrival of this technology. They argued that this device, when installed illegally, constituted a risk for workers who repaired telephone lines and the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) even placed them on the border of illegality, in the 70s. But it was not the only nuance that left this icon marinating for decades: adjectived as bourgeois, even The New York Times had some reluctance to advertise it with the claim “For yuppies, now plain folks too”. Now and forevermore – improved and multiplied in modern versions such as voices -, the machine may have become a relic, but its essence continues to confirm its usefulness. Even more unbelievable in the area of ​​technology was how little the population believed in laptops when they were presented as an asset to everyday life. Some publications proclaimed their tragic end, arguing that they were too heavy, expensive and limited by a relatively low battery, but the improvements resulting from these criticisms have made them one of the most valuable modern amenities – just walk into a Starbucks or McDonald's to see them occupy the tables of attentive telecommuters, accompanied by a soy latte or a hamburger and fries.

By the way, did you know the cheeseburger made a lot of faces frown? This idea of ​​a marriage between cheese and meat was not widely accepted amongst the gastronomic community, being considered a California eccentricity when it appeared in the 1930s. The New York Times placed it in the Top 3 of bizarre hamburgers, next to the dried fruit and turkey hamburger, but in 1947, when they decided to give it a real try, the editorial team updated the opinion as something "sense, gastronomically speaking." Fast food chains then prompted their massification. And speaking of coffee as well, the drink had more or less the same reaction: throughout the 16th century, different schools of thought despised coffee because they considered it a source of drunkenness – there were even those who suggested it was responsible for some common diseases at the time – and cafes were seen as meeting places for reactionaries. Fallacies, all fallacies, we can see it now, all these people needed was a good espresso on a rainy day. A reference that doesn't drip in by chance: the first man who used an umbrella had to put up with several insults and littering for using the said accessory on the streets of London, circa 1750. Jonas Hanway had brought this waterproof version of the then-popular-among-women's parasol who did not yet have its genderless orientation well defined, which is why he were ridiculed for using such a feminine piece. It was not until the end of the 18th century that its usefulness was widely recognized. Speaking of atmospheric conditions, let's go to the sun: the energy crisis of 1970 largely affected the United States, so President Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House, but they were much ridiculed by the American people, who could not see feasibility in solar energy. So much so that when Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, he had them removed. Blessed Obama who, in another context, realized its importance and reinstalled solar cells on the roof of the building.

We have yet to see the oddities that are contemporary to us and that, in a while, will tell similar stories. Let's not forget that the first news of the cryptocurrencies generated some suspicious smiles; today, smiles are more of the envious kind. After all, even before The Buggles sang Video Killed The Radio Star, The New York Times (apparently prodigal in jumping to conclusions) claimed in 1939 that TV would never be a serious competitor to radio “because people have to be seated and keep their eyes glued to the television; the American family doesn't have time for that”. Little did they know that the problem would be exactly the opposite – taking your eyes off the device… The truth is that many absurd ideas we come across are just misunderstood by those who are too used to the rules. And criticism is just as important to your success as the visionary component itself: much of the criticism, if we learned anything from this text, has helped to smooth out some crucial rough edges for further success. For example, the announced death of paper: it's great to see that this nonsense is being thrown to the ground because it reached you in these lines printed in a magazine.

Translated from the original on Vogue Portugal's The Nonsense Issue, from july/august 2021.