Once upon a time...

Many are familiar with the story of David and Goliath, where a small Shepard boy defies the odds by defeating a giant. However, Malcolm Gladwell makes the point that the seemingly optimistic theme of overcoming the odds is actually wrong. He explains how it was actually Goliath who was the weaker warrior, because his incredible height of 6' 9" is a symptom of acromegaly. This is a disease which results in abnormal growth, but also causes vision loss and less-acute senses. On the other hand, David was skilled with using a sling to hurtle rocks with the same force as a .45 caliber handgun. This meant he could easily kill Goliath from a distance since the giant could only fight in close combat. By describing these events, the speaker's point was to prove how a person's greatest strength (i.e Goliath's condition) can also be their greatest weakness, and how the powerful giants in our life may be the most unassuming.

Approximately the first five minutes of the Ted Talk is an narration of the original David and Goliath story, namely the Biblical version of the story. Gladwell makes sure to include direct quotes from the Bible, those of which have been considered the most accurate translation. The purpose was to reference them in the future, to show what these quotes prove when combined with historical analysis. In addition, his inclusion of the original story reminds the audience of the generic story, so they are familiarized with the exact details. Once he develops this tale, he begins to describe the events as an underdog story, using pathos as a means to describe David as the victim. Since this is the most common interpretation of the story, it also draws an emotional response from the crowd as they recount on childhood memories and overall familiarity with the story. Yet, despite building up this response, Gladwell quickly develops a more cynical approach and begins to dispute each detail. He says, "Well, let's start there with the phrase, 'all David has is a sling,' because that's the first mistake we make" (6:31). By utilizing this change of tone, he captures the audience's attention by changing focus. He continues to command their attention by using rhetorical questions, such as asking whether the slingshot David wielded was a toy or an actual weapon of war. As an answer, he uses ethos in the form of historical record s found from accredited sources, including details of how "experienced slingers could hit, maim, or even kill at distances of up to 200 yards" (Gladwell 6:40). By including these details, it makes him more credible as an expert since he has provided evidence from factual sources. It makes any ambiguous details with less evidence more believable, since the facts and knowledge presented earlier make his logic seem sound. Lastly, he uses a combination of ethos and pathos to present his final argument. He says, "Well, it turns out there's been a great deal of speculation within the medical community over the years about whether there is something fundamentally wrong with Goliath" (Gladwell 12:15). With his claims that Goliath was suffering from a medical condition, the audience begins to realize the giant was not as much of a threat as they previously assumed; Goliath was fighting a constant battle within himself. The audience thus begins to empathize with the supposed villain of the story, because evidence by the "medical community" deemed it as being highly probable. As a result, the speaker's claim of Goliath being the weaker man becomes more effective, because historical/medical details and the audience's emotions drive the story to reach a new meaning.

While some of the main reasons I chose this TedTalk revolved around the familiar Biblical story and a recommendation from a friend, I continued to watch since its theme of victimization related to several of our past readings. Throughout my time in IB, we have read story after story about people living in oppressive societies. Typically the protagonist is considered the victim, not only because of the narrating perspective but also because of the author's personal views. Yet, sometimes this perspective is never the full story, because no matter if the society is real or fictional, it is still one-sided. I immediately thought of A Handmaid's Tale while watching this video, and how Offred was seemingly oppressed in Gilead as a woman. Though her oppression was extreme and undoubtedly wrong, Offred still may have not been a complete victim as she claimed to be. Margaret Atwood set the society in a time where women were failing to have healthy offspring, and how Gilead was established to remedy this problem. With Offred unwilling to perform this simple task for the sake of humanity, she can come across as somewhat selfish. While this analysis is much more extreme (and not based in fact) than David and Goliath, the same principles of false victimization can still be applied. So, I was drawn to watching this video fully because of the connections I began to see, and the connections I hoped to find to other common stories I have heard throughout my life.

Don't Hyde From Fate

 Analyze, compare and contrast the idea development and voice in the two excerpts in 1-2 paragraphs.

(In my case, Chapter 2 for Hyde and Chapter 3 for Jekyll)

               Due to the author’s intentional design of his characters, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are meant to be stark opposites. Not only is Hyde described as grotesque and inhuman compared to Jekyll, but the author chose to use his actions to allude to animalistic behavior. Aside from the obvious descriptions of Hyde “hissing” and withdrawing from conversations, his body language is also telling of his animal qualities. For example, Stevenson mentions twice that Hyde refuses to look Jekyll in the eye. A study of several animals, namely dogs and wolves, found that unfamiliar animals refuse to look in human’s eyes if they are willing to submit to them. Yet, the study also found “Direct eye contact in these canids is often a behavior in establishing or challenging dominance, so staring at a dog or wolf makes them uncomfortable, if not irritated” (Forbes). This challenge for dominance can be seen within the same excerpt of the novella, which stated how Hyde was, “...fronted about with an air of defiance; and the pair stared at each other pretty fixedly for a few seconds” (Stevenson 9). Hyde only partook in this confrontation because he felt threatened by Utterson’s incessant questions. Not only did he answer each inquiry with brevity, but also made sure his answers did not provoke further questioning. Since Utterson did not cease his investigation despite Hyde’s impersonal responses and passive body language, Hyde was forced to challenge Utterson for control of the conversation via eye contact. On the other hand, Jekyll’s primary method of conversing with Utterson was rather humane and individual. Not only did he describe Hyde as possessing “a sincere and warm affection” (with affection being a human trait), but also as being curious about Jekyll’s relationships with others (Stevenson 12). While Hyde wished for his conversation to be brief, Jekyll was genuinely curious in Lanyon and Utterson’s relationship. These are also hints of past memories and topics embedded in Jekyll and Utterson’s conversation, suggesting they are familiar with each other and old friends. As a result, their conversation included a range of emotions from both sides, evident by words such as “kindness”, “distasteful”, and “distressed” (Stevenson 12). Having such complex emotions makes Jekyll more approachable than Hyde, and allows the development of ideas to progress naturally.

               Though the characters of Jekyll and Hyde have more differences than similarities, they do share some of the same tendencies. A clear example is how both characters respond to the will in a similar fashion. After Hyde accuses Utterson of being a liar, the text states, “The other snarled aloud into a savage laugh; and the next moment, with extraordinary quickness, he had unlocked the door and disappeared into the house” (Stevenson 10). Once again, Hyde exhibits primal behavior in the form of snarling and quickness. Yet, the development of his façade is confident to frightful. This phrase begins with dominant behavior, that of a lion defending its territory, but evolves into the behavior of a skittish mouse. It shows how Hyde’s composure is rather fluid since his emotions change so rapidly. In the same measure, Jekyll also fails to remain calm when prompted by the topic of the will. Due to their strong friendship, Jekyll felt betrayed with Utterson “ruthlessly disregarding the fresh topic” of Lanyon in order to discuss the will (Stevenson 12). Jekyll’s sharp response is similar to that of Hyde’s, where he refuses to address the topic further and no longer trusts Utterson. He loses all friendly emotion towards the other in this moment, showing how Jekyll and Hyde share the same inexpressive tendencies when provoked. Thus, in both excerpts the development of ideas is stopped, because concise speech and emotional distance terminates the conversation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/09/20/how-do-animals-perceive-eye-contact-from-other-species/#1eeb957d6847

A Poem with Two Voices: A Collaboration with Rebecca Irene 😁

My inspiration for writing this poem, both collaboratively and with my role as Hyde, was to capture the conflict within the two identities. Although both sides were competing to be the sole identity, they both only embody half of a person. As a result, the conclusion of our poem has both sides acknowledge the importance of the other with the intended effect of showing a balance.

Jekyll I can’t control him He fights to be free, to have his evil power over my whole being I try to resist, but his wild and ruthless nature is too strong Let me out This cruelty is too much, that child deserved better! How can I escape his grasp? These evil deeds torture my kinder nature but appeal to my desire for youthful lawlessness I need him. But at what cost? He gives me respite from the dullness of normalcy, but in the worst ways possible. I can feel the darkness gnawing at my soul, and my worse half conquers my delicate being once more. And I let him in

Hyde I can’t control him I crave power, I cannot contain my vices much longer Let it consume you, feel the fury mounting in your soul. Suppress your thoughts, accept your instincts Let me out How can I make him understand? Necessary evils ensure our survival. My thirst is unquenchable; should I be feeling remorse? Should there be a counterbalance of my deeds, to preserve my anonymity? I need him. But at what cost? He is my provider of resources, the caretaker of my prison. But if this continues, I must become the warden and he the prisoner. A dark oblivion beckons me, and yet the light is ever-present. Morality is alluring, tempting me to be awash with virtue. And I let him in