"Gadsden
would say later that he had been raised around dogs and had been taught
how to protect himself. "I automatically threw my knee up in front of
the dog's head," he said. Gadsden wasn't the martyr, passively leaning
forward as if to say, "Take me, here I am." (Gladwell 124)
Halfway
through the book and already Malcolm Gladwell has made my head spin. I
have to say, I am quite tired (and perhaps frustrated!) of his style,
organization skills, and technique, which has been very similar to that
of Outliers. After canvassing the Internet, I found that many
harsh critics agreed with me, and furthermore, called for Gladwell to
adopt a new strategy/gimmick! The New Republic criticized David and Goliath,
saying it was "less insightful than a Chinese fortune cookie". I definitely had a laugh
out of that one.
SPOILER ALERT: The book starts out by telling the biblical story of David and Goliath, then it goes on to Part 1: The Advantages of Disadvantages (and the Disadvantages of Advantages). Gladwell explains how a disadvantageous middle school girls' basketball team uses the "full-court press" to come out on the advantageous side, how a small class of students is actually disadvantageous, and how a big fish in a small pond is more advantageous than a small fish in a big pond. In this section of anecdotes, Gladwell analyzes that Goliath, even though he seemingly has all of the advantages, does not. In fact, it is the underdog who has the advantages. Consider this quote from the middle school basketball story:
"He was an underdog and a misfit, and that gave him the freedom to try things no one else even dreamt of." (Gladwell 27)
Gladwell is referring to the coach of the girls' team, who decides to use the "full-court press" (basically just 100% defense on the basketball court) and make his team better during games. So, because the coach and his team were underdogs, the coach had to think outside of the box for the winning strategy that could transform his girls from losers to winners. This gave him the brilliant idea of the "full-court press". Even though it is a difficult strategy to carry out, the girls were able to climb their way to the championships solely on defense. Therefore, the coach apparently had the advantage all along.
In the "Big Fish, Small Pond" chapter, Gladwell interviewed a college student, Caroline Sacks, who had been incredibly gifted in science during her high school years. When she went to a prestigious college, her iron grip on her grades in scientific subjects started to slip. At the end of his interview with her, Gladwell asked:
SPOILER ALERT: The book starts out by telling the biblical story of David and Goliath, then it goes on to Part 1: The Advantages of Disadvantages (and the Disadvantages of Advantages). Gladwell explains how a disadvantageous middle school girls' basketball team uses the "full-court press" to come out on the advantageous side, how a small class of students is actually disadvantageous, and how a big fish in a small pond is more advantageous than a small fish in a big pond. In this section of anecdotes, Gladwell analyzes that Goliath, even though he seemingly has all of the advantages, does not. In fact, it is the underdog who has the advantages. Consider this quote from the middle school basketball story:
"He was an underdog and a misfit, and that gave him the freedom to try things no one else even dreamt of." (Gladwell 27)
Gladwell is referring to the coach of the girls' team, who decides to use the "full-court press" (basically just 100% defense on the basketball court) and make his team better during games. So, because the coach and his team were underdogs, the coach had to think outside of the box for the winning strategy that could transform his girls from losers to winners. This gave him the brilliant idea of the "full-court press". Even though it is a difficult strategy to carry out, the girls were able to climb their way to the championships solely on defense. Therefore, the coach apparently had the advantage all along.
In the "Big Fish, Small Pond" chapter, Gladwell interviewed a college student, Caroline Sacks, who had been incredibly gifted in science during her high school years. When she went to a prestigious college, her iron grip on her grades in scientific subjects started to slip. At the end of his interview with her, Gladwell asked:
"...would have happened if she had chosen instead to go to the University of Maryland--to be, instead, a Big Fish in a Little Pond. She answered without hesitation, "I'd still be in science."" (Gladwell 63)
In this chapter, Gladwell is saying that going to a smaller college and being an excellent student is better than going to a larger college and being a mediocre student. Sure, this is true, but when these students are in the career world, employers may pay more attention to a resume that says "Harvard" on it than, say, "University of Maryland". I'm not sure I fully agree with Gladwell's argument, because everything depends on the employer (why else do high school students go to college, especially a good college, if not to stand out on their resume?) and the field that the student is planning to work in. The truly brilliant and intelligent will persevere, while the others fall behind. Is that not what life is? Survival of the fittest? Even if Sacks went to the "University of Maryland", who knows if she was going to be the "Big Fish"? She could have gone there and still have been the "Little Fish"! After reading Chapter 3, the only thing I have to say to Caroline Sacks is: "Tough luck."
In Part 2: The Theory of Desirable Difficulty, Gladwell explores how dyslexia is an advantage, and how the underdogs Jay Freireich and Wyatt Walker (in separate chapters) became successful in their career and aspirations. After browsing through Joe Nocera's review of David and Goliath on website, which remarked that the dyslexia chapter was very messy and repetitive of what humans already know, I agree with Nocera's standpoints (refer to the link below to see the other critiques).The dyslexia chapter was not my favorite and it may have possibly been a waste of time. We all know that many underdogs rise during difficult times, and Gladwell just repeats this information once more. I was more pleased with the Freireich chapter, which I believe to be one of the only stories in the novel that were interesting. Long story short, Freireich was a doctor who found a way to save dying children from leukemia. His personality was aggressive and sometimes arrogant, and I found that I could relate to his "ruthlessness".
I have just finished the Wyatt Walker chapter, which is about D-Day during the Civil Rights Movement. D-Day was a successful campaign for the movement, since many historical pictures were taken then published in newspapers across the nation. The "climax" of the day was, perhaps, African Americans being sprayed with pressurized water (these pictures are famous for showing the harsh reality of the South). Not only that, the brutality in which the firefighters and policemen harmed the African Americans was shown in these pictures, which sparked discussions about what should be done in the South. D-Day definitely raised more awareness and gained many more supporters for the cause, but Gladwell explained that one of the pictures taken of that day was a "trick". Gladwell specifically analyzes the picture at the top of this post. At first glance, it may seem like the policeman and his dog are trying to harm the teenager, but in reality, the policeman was trying to pull his dog away from the African American teenager. When I read this chapter, Gladwell's analysis reminded me of the old adage: "A picture is worth a thousand words.
Hopefully the rest of the book will not be as tedious, mundane, and lackluster as the first half. I have not felt like I have gained any insight whatsoever yet, and perhaps that will be turned around as I continue reading. Who knows?
Links:
No comments:
Post a Comment