I generally agree with DeNora's effort to expand the mundanity of argument, although she attributes to me a purpose (a general explanation of stratification) I didn't intend. I wanted to show, through both logical and empirical arguments, that there need be no mystery to becoming successful in Olympic swimming, or in anything else, for that matter. At the same time, I certainly acknowledge DeNora's point that standards for success are socially defined, not naturally given. Also, perhaps explaining how standards are created and maintained is more sociologically interesting than how individuals meet already established standards. But I find no tension in saying simultaneously that 1) no inherent personal qualities are required for achieving excellence (my message), and that 2) larger social dynamics shape stratification systems as well as an individual's life chances. Certainly excellence is socially constructed, as DeNora says. Standards of performance are conventional. But being socially constructed does not render excellence (or or achievement) meaningless. The basic argument of Mundanity, derived from a field study of world-class competitive swimmers, falls into three parts: 1) Excellence, defined as consistent superiority of performance, is a qualitative phenomenon; different levels of achievement result from very different ways of behaving. In a sense, world-class athletes are not in the same sport as local-level participants. 2) Talent is useless in explaining varying degrees of achievement; it is simply a reification of the performances it purports to explain. 3) Excellence is mundane; it is accomplished through the doing of actions, ordinary in themselves, performed consistently and carefully, habitualized, compounded together, added up over time (p. 85). There is no magic to becoming an Olympic gold medalist; in the colloquial phrase, anyone can do it. This argument can be generalized to other fields of endeavor, including academic life. DeNora objects to this argument on at least three grounds. First, she takes it to be the position of a quintessential American and says, Chambliss tells us, one can take responsibility for one's outcomes and thereby can succeed. Not quite. I certainly don't say that taking responsibility per se leads to success; it doesn't. Nor do I underestimate the importance of certain material prerequisites for success-in swimming, for instance, the availability of a coach to teach the necessary skills, of a pool to swim in, of money to pay for travel and entry fees, of other swimmers to compete with, and so on. Instead I was noting that a belief in talent seems to reduce one's own sense of responsibility for outcomes and lowers motivation to strive for success. This may have an effect on one's results. It does not mean that success is worth having, or that people who don't succeed are blameworthy. Second, DeNora rightly says that the production of excellence is different in different fields, and that I don't address this point in Mundanity. She holds that my argument, derived from sports, does not apply to the arts, where standards and performances are coproduced. She makes an important point, but I think DeNora too easily accepts a