Taking a new perspective

“Bad is so bad that we cannot but think good an accident; good is so good that we feel certain evil cannot be explained.” (Pg 102)

The detectives’ impression of their President Sunday changes dramatically through out the course of the book. Syme comes to the realization that he has only been looking at him from his back, and not seeing him for what he truly is-by his face. When they see Sunday only for his back, in his great monstrous form, it is assumed that his face will be just as horrid. This is Chesterton’s optimistic view of the whole universe summed up into one fictional character. He is suggesting we are not seeing the world for what it truly is, and all the mysteries can be answered by taking this new perspective. We are only seeing the evil, and not looking any further. By taking this new perspective Chesterton believes we will see the good side, and see that it is no accident but a purposeful pattern. The Man Who Was Thursday challenges anarchist views that the world was ruled by chaos and any good is an exception. Through each member represented by a different day of the week, Chesterton proves his argument that there is an order in which we live our lives.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer

Syme is trapped in this nightmare, where nothing is what it seems. The book is like a nightmare in so many ways, except when the unexpected does strike; it takes a turn for the better. All assumed foes are in fact friends. “As a man in an evil dream strains himself to scream and wake, Syme strove with a sudden effort to fling off this last and worse of his fancies.” (Pg 46) I believe The Man Who Was Thursday is what the subtitle suggests, a nightmare. Syme struggles with his loneliness and his mind plays tricks on him as if in a bad dream. Whether dreams have meaning, that’s a personal opinion, but this nightmare certainly carries something that can be applied universally. What is psychologically thrilling about Chesterton’s book is that there is no escaping the order and hidden patterns. In the end Chesterton shows order and purpose as something that is valued, but I find the way in which he writes it to be suffocating. The book invokes a claustrophobic sensation because there is no escaping the inevitable structure of the book. When Sunday announces that he was the one that recruited all of his own council members as police, it illustrates an ultimate power and everyone else was just a puppet in a show. To me this made the council’s whole struggle futile. The only enemies they had were themselves.

The Man Who Was Thursday

Gabriel Syme, is the man who was Thursday. As well as being a day of the week, he is also a poet, and a newly recruited detective for the Scotland Yard. Being the only police amongst a council of seven anarchists, he can trust no one but himself. Syme stumbles upon the role of detective much like he did the role of Thursday. He accepted both roles with ease, which suggests that his character had no prior commitments like another job or connections with family. Chesterton builds his character through his speech and dialogue. From this we can assume that Syme is, independent, poetic, and quick on his feet. These qualities come to good use as he comes to realize he is in fact, amongst friends. The way in which he finds out each member of the council is also in the special police force, tests his mind. Syme is thrown into a number of situations where he has to prove himself. As the story develops, so does the character of Syme.

Positive Thinking, Positive Results.

So far in Blink, Malcolm Gladwell has discussed how the adaptive unconscious is powerful in making the right decisions. I was beginning to wonder if these quick judgments could ever be wrong. Then I read the chapter called the "Warren Harding Error". This chapter addresses how rapid cognition can go awry. It is entitled the "Warren Harding Error" after the US president Warren Harding. In the beginning everyone thought Harding would make an excellent president. Why? Just because he looked like one. Society put all of their trust in their snap judgments and elected him as a president. Evidently, according to historians, he ended up being one of the worst presidents. For the rest of the chapter Gladwell explains why these snap judgments can be so wrong.

Gladwell tells of a scientist who conducted an experiment and was able to prove that people can be “primed”-they could be subconsciously taught to think something. Through a series of tests these scientists discovered that with subtle hints, they could program the brain to subconsciously enter a stream of thought. I think this theory relates directly to the Harding Error. These unconscious biases influence peoples' decisions and the experiments of priming prove this.

When people thin slice, they take in little information and make assumptions about the situation. What can get in the way of this are negative first impressions. The cars salesmen is a significant example Gladwell used of how to control snap judgments. The successful cars salesmen Bob Golomb, has learned to master his thin slicing by not letting his subconscious biases get in the way of his decisions. He does not try to spot the sucker, or “lay-down” as most cars salesmen do. He treats everyone equally, and with this positive outlook he actually achieves a more consistent result rather than gaining one big sale by forsaking the minor ones.

“…outside of awareness, does not mean outside of control.” (pg 96)

I think what Gladwell is trying to convey is rapid cognition or snap judgments, are influenced by what we are exposed to. However, we can control them by exposing ourselves to positive things. With the great power of snap judgments comes great consequences if not properly managed.

Less vs. More

Thin Slicing: taking a single glance, and having that instinctive gut feeling. Gladwell suggests this is how we all operate, baseball players, birdwatchers, or psychologists. Something that all of these have in common, is the ability to quickly make sense of a complicated situation.

“Thin Slicing refers to the ability of our unconscious to find patterns in situations based on very narrow slices of experience.” (pg. 23) In this chapter Gladwell deals with the idea that distinctive signatures are apparent within situations form the get-go.

I think the expression “less is more” applies to Gladwell’s theory. With a little bit of information (a thin slice), you can pinpoint the significance. With a lot of information (a thick slice), the main idea can be lost. Gladwell uses several examples to support his theory. One example is the analysis of a short conversation between couples to determine whether or not their marriage will survive. A psychologist, John Gottman, was able to sum up a marriage in a matter of minutes with high accuracy. His theory is “If couples aren’t aware of how they sound, how much value can there be in asking them direct questions?” He puts this theory to the test by looking for a signature that naturally arises. This indirect method proves to be more effective than the direct.

Again, Gladwell demonstrates how powerful the adaptive unconscious is and how much we can learn from the unconscious thought process. You cannot take everything in thick slices, you must be more selective.

The First Two Seconds

We are taught to never judge a book by its cover, that the more information we gather the better the outcome of our analysis.

Malcolm Gladwell uses this example of the different impressions art historians had on a piece of art. This certain statue did not have the similarities that the others did in the collection. The museum that purchased this statue overlooked this fact because it was such an extraordinary find. One art historian however, took one glance at the statue and knew it did not look right.

I found it interesting how a two second glance could beat out a conclusion made from months of careful research. It does not seem logical that snap judgments can be more effective than well thought out decisions.

In my two second judgment, this is what Blink is all about. It’s about our adaptive unconscious and the power it holds. What Gladwell is saying with the statue example is our conscience judgment can be thrown off track by what we want to believe. The museum wanted the statue to be real, so they looked only for evidence that supported this point. But just because you want it to be true does not make it so.

Gladwell takes this theory and explains further that our internal computer can be disabled by emotions, but just like thinking logically and deliberately, we can learn to make better snap judgments. Gladwell states, “The power of knowing, in that first two seconds, is not a gift given magically to a fortunate few. It is an ability that we can cultivate for ourselves.” (pg. 16)

I completely agree with Gladwell that more attention should be paid to the details that make up the big picture. However, I do not think we should throw away the old ways of generalizing and analyzing; we should incorporate the new in with the old to produce a happy medium that satisfies both extremes.

Just a pile of books...

"Is it possible to get, in however crude and sketchy a way, some bird's eye view of what literature as a whole is about: considered, that is, as a coherent subject of study and not just a pile of books?" (pg. 26)

I only think some parts of this quote hold true. I do not think it’s possible to fully understand what literature as a whole is about. However, I do think it is possible to have some “crude and sketchy” birds eye view, but then again, not as a coherent subject of study. As much as we may try to completely understand literature, we cannot. It is too vast of an area to cover. You can sail the seven seas, but you will never know every inch of its waters. Meaning, yes we can crudely take a birds eye view on the whole matter, but that doesn't teach us anything. I believe you have only truly understood something when you can relate it to a bigger idea. To begin to understand literature we must go back to the basics. Maybe if we understand how literature started we can then better understand it on a whole.

Throughout the book, “The Educated Imagination”, Frye often comes back to the deserted island metaphor. I think what he is trying to do here is explain things in simple terms. What’s simpler than being stranded on an island? But if we do go back to the beginning, there’s no guarantee we’ll get to the end. In conclusion, I do not think it is possible to have an absolute understanding of literature, as much as we may try.

It's what you make of it.

“One person by himself is not a complete human being…” (p.6)

We can only learn so much by ourselves. We can try and gain as much information as possible and store it in our memories, but what good are facts when there are no experiences to apply them to? To be a “complete” human being, one must learn from the journeys of others and their accomplishments-even their failures. By yourself you will live a standard life, but if you take in your surroundings you will live an exceptional life. I think Frye also means that through literature we become complete human beings. Of course two people can read the same book but both may get something completely different from out of it, meaning it’s all about how you interpret it. This point is also supported in McCullough’s speech when he says, “Information can save your life. The value of information, facts, figures, and the like, depends on what we make of it-on judgment.” Frye and McCullough both have similar messages. Life presents us with opportunities, some people grasp them and some people don’t.