Meritocracy

Social Darwinism--or the idea that those who work hard and are talented will naturally be successful or conversely those who lack success fail due to vices--is an overly simplistic but powerful idea that is ingrained in our society. People like John Edwards and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who go around boasting (to mainstream media) about their stories of working up the latter from poverty to riches,  reinforce the old adage that hard work pays off and perpetuates the idea (rooted in the American dream)  that the individual's work alone is what led them to success. And from that an even more false and detrimental idea is breed: when individuals are not successful, they equate it to them lacking ability and not working hard enough. Lack of success is equated to a lack of worth. 

Of course, people have innate abilities and hard work is important. But success and the factors/casual relationship that lead to it are a a little (okay a lot) more complicated. For example, arbitrary cut-off dates end up having profound effects on students in the educational system. At an early age, students that are born closer to the august cut-off date are more likely to be selected for honors programs, as a result of their teachers "confusing maturity with ability." [In US colleges, it has been found that "students belonging to the relatively youngest group in their class are under represented by 11.6 percent" (29, Malcom Gladwell, Outliers). ]

The students that are selected then get superior schooling (usually for an extended period of time): It allows them to receive more challenging work, more chances to increase self-esteem, and more individual attention. Then they go on to gain even greater advantages that lead to greater abilities that lead to greater opportunities,  just because some small ability/maturity difference was recognized by a teacher at an early age.  

So...

"It is those who are successful, in other words, who are most likely to be given the kinds of special opportunities that lead to further success. It's the rich who get the biggest tax breaks. It's the best students who get the best teaching and most attention. And it's the biggest nine- and ten-year-olds who get the most coaching and practice. Success is the result of what sociologists like to call 'accumulative advantage'" (30). -Malcom Gladwell

It is ludicrous to equate poverty to rampant vices and a life that lacks values. It is ludicrous to blame (or praise the individual) without taking into account circumstances. For example, in Texas  housing taxes are lower in poorer neighborhoods than in more affluent areas (because their houses are appraised at less) and since the city collects less money, their public schools receive less money.  So their quality of education and consequently number of opportunities is less than equal to richer areas. 

Disadvantages are further increased for people in less affluent parts of society, because they are often splitting time between a job that is necessary to survive and time for honing a valuable skill. To contrast, 

 "…America's richest 1% of households own more than half the nation's stocks and control more wealth ($16 trillion) than the bottom 90%" (Geroge F. Will).   Obviously, those  born into America's super rich are more likely to succeed!  And not because of their individual efforts but because they have access to the highest quality of education, the best tutors, superior technology and more expendable amounts of money for other resources. They are more likely to meet other influential people, who control wealth and business, that can provide even more opportunities to success.  

Ability, dedication and hard work are determining factors in survival and success rates. However, in a social context where they are ubiquitous qualities, success also has to be based on the profound effects of surroundings (culture, background, social networks, etc.) ,  luck of avoidance (natural disasters, car crashes, etc,)  and small but open doors of opportunity that were happened upon. 

It isn't hard to think of reasons why our society has decided to directly link success to an individual's hard work and  abilities. If we (those who compose our society) believe in the idea that working hard will lead to success, then we will be more driven and our society will have a better chance at competing in a global market. The idea is one that can provide endless hope to the masses. And of course, those who reach success want the ego stroke of being individually accredited  so that the hard work they did wasn't in vain. 

Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins

Upon my completion of Lolita today, I felt elated. I was able to finish another summer book, the day before the commencement of classes. However in confusing contradiction,  while reading the final climactic passages, I also felt a slight sadness overcome me. I secretly longed for the impossible: A never ending story. Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled to be finished reading about a big brute  who obliviously yanks the innocence out of a small nymphet. 

I  just realize that there are a limited number of books made accessible to the average reader that are true works of art. They are few and far between, and I now have one less work-of-art book waiting to be read with the novelty of an unacquainted mind . 

Not only is the story engrossing but the writing is phenomenal.  I was repeatedly awed by the craftsmanship of Nabokov's writing which led me to better understand, with astounding clairty, why Lolita is a revered classic . To this moment, I am still in disbelief that Nabokov's native language is not English.

Through his meticulous and perfect selection of contrasting adjectives, alliterations and allusions, Nabokov was able to create a poetic and titilating novel  that flows freely and effortlessly from the pages to its eagerly awaiting reader without the use of a single expletive . At moments, the reader is allowed to drift alongside the words and  is even allowed to forget how contrived the writing is. That is not to say that the author's prose never appears pretentious, as there is a hearty portion of french scattered throughout the book. It just doesn't detract from marvel that much, because it camouflages well with the protagonist's pompous personality.  

He is able to make the mundane palatable over and over again. An example of the said craft was pulled from a paragraph where he describes neon light: "Some way further across the street, neon lights flickered twice slower than my heart: the outline of a restaurant sign, a large coffee-pot, kept bursting, every full second or so, into emerald life, and every time it went out, pink letters saying Fine Foods relayed it, but the pot could still be made out as a latent shadow teasing the eye before its next emerald resurrection" (299).   The not-so-vital neon light, the minutiae, is instantly made more memorable. 

The truly amazing thing about Lolita is that Nabokov is able to transform an abominable, heart-wrenching story about a large hairy man, who is obsessed with a utterly vulnerable young girl, into a unique love story. It almost leaves the reader feeling sorry for Humbert, the wretched and detestable protagonist. Inspired. INSPIRED, I am, indeed. (A recommendation seems overtly apparent).