A Message to the "Gifted and Talented"

"The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without work." - Emile Zola

I believe that this quote is relevant to all facets of life. If you want to interpret based on its most literal meaning, it means that an artist must have some sense of natural creativity and talent, but that talent doesn't mean anything if you don't work to develop it. I can think of a hundred different examples that demonstrate this, but for time's sake, I'll only mention a few.

In the realm of academics and learning, a student can be naturally intelligent and have really good analytical skills, but if that particular student is too lazy to apply themselves and work to maintain that intelligence by either not challenging themselves or just not doing work, then the natural intelligence slowly deteriorates, and is no longer a "gift." In theater, an actor can have a natural ability to understand the subtext of their lines, but if they don't do any outside research to apply that understanding to character development, then they can't fully transform into that particular character. Finally, if an athelete is naturally gifted in their respective sport, but fails to do the necessary training or work, they will never reach their full potential.

However, there's something to be said for simply HAVING a natural gift. Thomas Edison once said that genius is "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration," meaning that a genius is a self-creation with almost no gift. I find this interesting because Zola also says that the artist is NOTHING without the gift, meaning that there has to be at least some natural talent to work with. It's hard to say who's opinion is more accurate. Can we truly say that someone with no natural talent can succeed if they work really hard? For instance, some children have learning disabilities, something they can't control. Depending on the severity of the disibilities, those people may never be able to become genuises because they won't have any natural gift to work with. In that sense, I would agree more with Zola, but I would also add that the gift varies based on a combination of genetics and a person's environment.

Fame: The Worst Drug Known to Man

The following is an excerpt from a song by Jay-Z called "Lost One:"

"And I don’t even know how I came to this
Except that fame is
The worst drug known to man
It’s stronger than
Heroin
But you can look in the mirror like ‘there I am”
And still not see what you've become
I know I’m guilty of it too
But not like them
You lost one..."

I really love this particular part of the song because it shows how success or fame can change people. Famous people are constantly in the public eye, constantly receiving some sort of adoration from either their entourage or adoring fans. That type of attention is like a drug, and a drug is something you can become addicted to. What Jay-Z is referring to is an addiction to attention; a craving for the limelight. According to him, this craving for adoration and attention is stronger than a drug-addict's addiction to heroin.

It makes me wonder then, if being famous is all it's cracked up to be. Sure, you have lots of money and attention, but you would have to be naive to believe that obtaining any level of celebrity doesn't change people. I have to admit, when I was a director for my school's senior class play, I let that position of authority get to my head, and it changed how I treated people, and I regret that.

Personally, I would rather live in a middle-class environment with a low profile and maintain my values and beliefs than become some famous millionaire with no morals or empathy for other people. I like how Jay-Z puts it as "looking in a mirror and still not seeing what you've become," because it sums up perfectly how people change. You see yourself as someone who hasn't changed, but your actions have illustrated to other people just how much you have.

When I first heard the song, I didn't quite understand why he called it "Lost One." I now realize that if you allow outside forces to change who you are, you are no longer the same person. You might retain some old qualities, but you lose a part of yourself.

Pain vs. Suffering

The First Noble Truth from Buddhism's Eightfold Path:

"Pain is inevitable; suffering is optional."

I found this quote a few months ago, shortly after my now ex-girlfriend broke up with me. It really lifted my spirits because it gave me a good perspective as to how to handle my emotional pain. Obviously when one goes through a tough break-up, there is inevitably going to be some pain. However, this quote is saying that if you wrap yourself in that pain and never let it go, you're only going to feel worse. Holding on to that pain is a conscious decision. In my situation, I was in control as to whether or not I wanted to move on. I think that when people say "I can't move on," they're really just making a decision to remind themselves of their pain every day and let it consume them. That is truly what suffering is.

Obviously, one could counter by saying that some suffering isn't optional. However, I think that only applies to physical suffering, such as being stabbed to death. I think the type of pain that the quote is referring to is explicitly emotional.

Mayella's Motive

From the book "To Kill a Mockingbird:"

I have nothing but pity in my heart for the Chief Witness for the State. She is the victim of cruel poverty and ignorance. But, my pity does not extend so far as to her putting a man's life at stake, which she has done in an effort to get rid of her own guilt. Now I say "guilt," gentlemen, because it was guilt that motivated her. She's committed no crime. She has merely broken a rigid and time-honored code of our society, a code so severe that whoever breaks it is hounded from our midst as unfit to live with. She must destroy the evidence of her offense. But, what was the evidence of her offense? Tom Robinson, a human being. She must put Tom Robinson away from her. Tom Robison was to her a daily reminder of what she did. Now what did she do? She tempted a negro. She was white and she tempted a negro. She did something that in our society is unspeakable: She kissed a black man. Not an old uncle, but a strong, young negro man. No code mattered to her before she broke it, but it came crashing down on her afterwards.

The passage above is Atticus's closing statement as he is defending Tom Robinson in court. Mayella Ewell has accused Robinson of assualting her. However, Atticus discoveres Mayella's real motive behind bringing Tom Robinson to court. In their society, there is an unwritten law that admonishes those who pursue interracial relations (particularly between whites and blacks). She is bringing Robinson to court to mask her guilt for going against the tacit "law of the land." If she can prove that Robinson pursued her, she won't feel any shame and won't be soically ostracized.

I love the way this argument is written not just because it reveals Mayella's motive and strongly defends Robinson, but because it shows a side of Atticus's character that we don't really expect from a closing statement. With his final words, Atticus not only asks the court to find Robinson innocent, but also to pity Mayella for being a product of ignorance and bigotry. In today's legal system, you hardly ever see a defendant's lawyer show sympathy for the prosecutor. When he outwardly says "she has committed no crime," he is alluding to the fact that society as a whole is guilty of creating an image (Mayella's view of reality) that pursuing a man of color is reprehensible.

However, being Tom's lawyer, he also doesn't let Mayella completely off the hook. While he feels bad for Mayella, he hates how she has to risk another man's life just so she can feel better about what she did. However, you can argue that ignorance caused her to do that as well. It's like today's equivalent of the insanity plea, only in Mayella's case, she can use the "I didn't know any better because I was raised by ignorant parents" plea.