The Unlived Life

“This is the revenge of the unlived life, Ramsay. Suddenly it makes a fool of you. Here you are, twice-born, and nearer your death than your birth, and you have still to make a real life.” (Pg. 216-217)

This is a quote from Liesl, who is Paul Dempster’s assistant. This is a significant part in Dunstan’s life story, as the truth of his life is revealed. Liesl opens Dunstan’s eyes by telling him that he has not truly lived his life. Liesl also explains to Dunstan that his role is “Fifth Business…because he is the odd man out.” Dunstan really takes this thought into consideration as later on in the book, he refers to himself as Fifth Business. I feel this talk with Liesl changed Dunstan’s perspective on life because he goes back to Canada and tells Mrs. Dempster about seeing her son, something he was not willing to do before. He also seems to describe his life differently from that point on. This quote also reiterates the theme of being “twice-born.” This theme appears throughout the novel, as Dunstan, Paul Dempster and Percy Boyd Staunton are all “twice-born” in the sense that they receive new names. Along with their new name each of their lives change as well.

Thank Goodness!

“The next day I made inquiries as to how I could be appointed the guardian of Mary Dempster...I experienced a remarkable rising in my spirits, which I can only attribute to the relief of guilt.” (Pg. 152)

At this point in the novel, Mrs. Dempster’s aunt has died and Dunstan is given permission to be the guardian of Mrs. Dempster, as set out in the will. This is an important time in Dunstan’s life as he feels a sense of relief from the guilt associated with Mrs. Dempster. He feels that restitution for the trouble he caused will be made if he becomes Mrs. Dempster’s guardian and caretaker. The relief of guilt is significant because for his whole life, Dunstan has not be able to forgive himself for what happened to Mrs. Dempster, but now he is finally able to try to put it behind him. Dunstan also feels that if he takes this duty of caring for Mrs. Dempster, she “would be (his) saint.” This further brings up the theme of saints and hagiology. Dunstan is still unsure whether she is a true saint or not but it entices him to study hagiology more in-depth.

Guilty or not?

“I was perfectly sure you see, that the birth of Paul Dempster, so small, so feeble and troublesome, was my fault...I was of the damned.” Pg. 16-17

Guilt is one of the main themes in Fifth Business, and is first introduced through this quote. Dunstan feels that he has done something terrible wrong and is the reason for all the trouble the Dempsters went through. He feels that it was his fault the snowball hit Mrs. Dempster, causing Paul’s early birth and Mrs. Dempster’s “insanity”. Dunstan suffers throughout the entire story as he constantly thinks back and relates to this incident. Dunstan looks after Mrs. Dempster through visiting her and putting her in an old age home, until the day she dies. This is proof of the guilt Dunstan has on his shoulders and how he copes with it. The words “I was of the damned” relate the spiritual theme in the novel. The feeling of being “damned” could possibly be a reason for his adventures to Europe in search of different saints.

A Little Change Goes a Long Way

“But we need to remember that small changes in context can be just as important in tipping epidemics, even though that fact appears to violate some of our most deeply assumptions about human nature.” (Pg. 166)

This is a quote from Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping Point, and explains the third reason as to why social epidemics and certain trends spread. He calls his third theory, “The Power of Context,” which suggests that a specific trend or action can “tip” by changing the smallest detail in the environment. Gladwell feels that social epidemics are responsive to the conditions of the time and place in which they occur. He explains this theory through looking at New York City crime. In this case study, he sets out to justify why crimes dramatically “tipped” in the early 1990’s in New York City. In the 1980’s, New York City was in the midst of one of the worst crime outbreaks but suddenly crime went into a steep decline; murders dropped by two-thirds and felonies dropped by fifty percent. Gladwell believes the crime epidemic “tipped” because of “The Power of Context” and he seems to be correct. A criminologist, George Kelling, was hired by the New York Transit Authority to test his theory called, Broken Windows. This theory was based on the idea that crime was contagious. Crime in New York City was so high due to so much disorder throughout the city. Kelling, along with the help of David Gunn, started to crack down on the subway system. If a train came to the end of the line and had been vandalized, they’d clean it off instantly. Next, with the participation of transit police, they cracked down on fare-beating. These changes to the subway system had a huge impact on the decline of crime. Felonies on the system dropped seventy-five percent from what they were from the beginning of the 1980’s. City officials began focusing on those small goals throughout the whole city in order to reverse the trend of crime. This relates directly to “The Power of Context” because minor and insignificant changes were made to the environment (context) and as a result, the crime epidemic “tipped.”

After reading about all three of Gladwell's theories, I feel I have a better understanding of the world of trends. I come across social epidemics and fads every day of my life and I think Gladwell’s book really helped me to truly see the reasoning behind them.

A Sticky Tip

“There is a simple way to package information that, under the right circumstances, can make it irresistible. All you have to do is find it.” (Pg. 132)

This quote, taken from "The Tipping Point," concludes Malcolm Gladwell’s chapter relating to his second theory of the spreading of social epidemics. He calls this theory the “Stickiness Factor.” It is the thought that a message or trend will spread if it is memorable and “sticks” with whoever has been introduced to it. Gladwell feels that making an impact on someone depends on how the ideas are presented and not necessarily on the quality of the ideas. Presentation has a huge effect on how “sticky” an idea is and often it is the smallest changes that can make the difference between a trend “tipping” or not. Malcolm Gladwell explores his theory of “stickiness” through examining the children’s show Blue’s Clues. He argues that Blue’s Clues “may be one of the stickiest television shows ever made.” Each Blue’s Clues episode follows a single story line, making it easier for kids to engage in the show, and therefore making it more memorable. Each episode is half an hour long rather than an hour and there are minimal characters, and each character has a straightforward name. There is one actor, a man named Steve, a blue dog named Blue, a mailbox called Mailbox and two other characters that are a shovel and a pale, named Shovel and Pale. The simplicity has the ability to capture children’s attention which makes the show “stick”. Another small change is that Steve pauses after posing a question, encouraging participation from the audience. The pause is a longer than a regular pause so it gives the child at home a chance to shout out the answer. This small change got the children intellectually involved and helped build on their logic and reasoning. Blue’s Clues “stuck” with children because the creators found the right way to present the information and by making little changes they were able to “tip” their television show epidemic.

The Essential Trio

“The answer is that the success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of gifts.” (Pg.33)

This quote is taken from the book, The Tipping Point, where Malcolm Gladwell introduces the first reason as to why social epidemics and word of mouth spread. He introduces his theory called the “Law of the Few.” At first this theory seems surprisingly simple as it explains that social trends start with only a few number of people and grow from there, making sense of the name “Law of the Few.” As I read further, I realized that the law was much deeper; it meant that a trend begins with a few number of a certain kind of people. This certain group of people have a “rare set of gifts” and are known as connectors, mavens and salesmen. Each one of us has come in contact with one of these kinds of people at one time or another. Throughout the chapter, Gladwell explains what these three kinds of people do. Connectors are the people who link us with the world, introduce us to new social circles and have a special way of “bringing the world together.” (Pg.38) Connectors know a lot of people and therefore can spread an idea very quickly. Mavens are “information specialists” who link us to new information. (Pg.59) Mavens connect people to the marketplace and have a desire to help others. They like to educate people on the latest idea or how to get the most for their money. This also plays a key role in setting a trend. The last group of people Gladwell feels are crucial to starting a social epidemic are salesmen. Salesmen have the ability to persuade people when they are sceptical about an idea. The ability to persuade people is also important in the spreading of a social trend. Together, these three kinds of people have the power to make an idea or social epidemic “tip.”

So does that mean nothing is new?

In Frye’s second lecture, the idea that fascinated me the most was Frye’s idea that “A writer’s desire to write can only have come from previous experience of literature,” (P.19). This part of his lecture caught my attention because it made me ask the question “So then is no literature original?” Here Frye is saying that all literature has a background, a pedigree as he describes it, and I agree with him. Literature was created from experiences but with some imagination involved. But I was shocked when he stated that a writer will imitate whatever he reads which will give him a “convention” and after writing with the convention for some time, he will develop “his own distinctive sense of form.” I was shocked mainly due to the fact that I had never thought about literature in that sense. I never thought of literature as having a general shape that doesn’t change (to an extent) in whatever time period or culture it’s being written in. Initially I disagreed with Frye and couldn’t understand how he thought a writer needed previous literature to have a desire to write and how literature is conventionalized. One could argue that a writer can have a desire to write because of an experience they had but the base of their writing or ideas will come from literature they have read. Or one could say that poems are not all the same or conventionalized, or that mythologies are never alike but the truth is, in a sense they are. Frye has change my opinion and I now feel that the base to most kinds of literature did in fact come from a broad, central idea that already existed.

What's in it for me?

In Frye’s first lecture, titled “The motive for Metaphor”, he declares that “Every child realizes that literature is taking him in a different direction from the immediately useful, and a good many children complain loudly about this.” (p.3) Through this statement, he is suggesting that when children study “English,” it may not seem immediately useful to them and not as sensible as sciences are, for example. They complain about it because they are studying something that is not directly helping them and not answering the question, “why?” He continues to say that Shakespeare and Milton “are not the kind of thing you must know to hold a place in society at all.” (p.3) What Frye is explaining is that literature, and the interpretation of Shakespearian plays, are not necessary to live your everyday life in society, and that is why kids are confused. He believes that you can have a place in society without the knowledge of literature, but knowing literature makes your place more meaningful. I agree with Frye’s opinion, that children are realizing that literature is not immediately useful. Personally, I too have asked the question “Why are we studying Shakespeare when I’m never going to refer to the character development in this play ever again.” I’m sure most students have had similar thoughts. It is a sign of frustration and lack of using one’s imagination, which in Frye’s opinion is “what you use in understanding it” (literature). In David McCullough’s speech “The Love of Learning,” he states that “the books that will mean most to you, books that will change your life, are still to come.” This quote doesn’t directly connect to Frye’s viewpoint that children are drifting away from literature; however, it similar in that McCullough is encouraging the students he is addressing, to stick with literature. He is telling them to persevere and not to "be one of those” people who don’t even read one novel or short story in a year. He also claims that by talking about the books you read and asking others what they’re reading, “You will learn a lot.” I feel this relates to Frye’s point because what you can learn from literature may not be useful right away, but the day may come when you need it.