The 10,000-Hour Rule

Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell

"The idea that excellence at performing a complex task requires a critical minimum level of practice surfaces again and again in studies of expertise. In fact, researchers have settled on what they believe is the magic number for true expertise: ten thousand hours" (Gladwell, pg 39-40).

According to the 10,000-hour rule, no one becomes an expert without practice. Ten thousand hours, or approximately 3 hours of practice everyday for 10 years, is required to gain an expertise in any field.

Even though the "Matthew Effect" theory talks about that those who are born earlier get better opportunities of being success, the 10,000-hour rule gives an impression that anyone can succeed as long as they put the 10,000 hours of efforts in it.

I found this to be true from my own experience. Few years ago, I and my friend were at the same level of playing guitar. As time went on, he practiced every morning and I didn't. After few years, I could see the gap of level between me and him. He became able to play this pro technique called "sweep picking" that I wanted to play but had given up because it was too difficult.

This demonstrates that effort leads to the positive outcome. Perhaps by practicing something for more than 10,000 hours, we can rival the people who were given better opportunities.

The Matthew Effect

Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell

"'For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance. But from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.' 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" (Gladwell, pg. 30).

The socialogist Robert Merton came up with this theory called the "Matthew Effect." A Canadian psychologist Roger Barnsley has analyzed the rosters of hockey teams and discovered that the players born between January to March were typically the most successful. Merton based his theory on this idea that some people are just born to be successful.

I found that Merton's theory also applies to my life. Friends of mine who are born earlier in the year are often better physically, academically and socially than those who are born later in the year. They may not be more talented than those born in December, but they are given more opportunities to help them advance. In that way, our society perhaps makes them seem more talented.

This doesn't seem fair, because I was born in October and did not get these chances. If I had been born in January, I might have gotten some special opportunities that led to my success.

Imitation is the Mother of Creation

In chapter 2, Frye said, “A writer’s desire to write can only have come from previous experience of literature, and he’ll start by imitating whatever he’s read” (p.19). I have never thought of a literature in this way before, but it literally makes sense. Even if, let’s say, Frye hadn’t read as much literature as he has read, he would not have been able to write what he has written. Possibly he wouldn’t have become a writer. Definitely Frye has also started by imitating whatever he’s read like he said, whether it is done consciously or not.

It’s like a baby learning a language by imitating what the parents say.

Frye gave an example of painting. And I think it’s same with the music. I took a bit of vocal lesson, and once you get in a certain level, they make you do something over and over. It’s copying. Copying the songs of old famous singers like Stevie Wonder or Brian McKnight. Copying really means literally copying, which even includes their breathing sound, shape of mouth, and facial expression. Then it would become a convention and eventually become completely yours.

Why study literature? I think Frye is giving one of the reasons here. It’s to develop your own distinctive sense by imitating whatever you have read and to eventually create something out of it.

Literature does not Evolve or Improve or Progress

“Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.” (p.9)

In the context, Frye contrasts science and literature; one that does evolves and improves and one that doesn’t. Frye supports with his specific examples for each of them. He states that physicist today knows more than Newton did because scientists these days learn more about the world as they discover new stuffs out every day. On the other hand, Frye insists that literature does not evolve or progress explaining that even if an author nowadays can write plays as good as Shakespeare or Sophocles did, those pieces can never be better than any of their plays like King Lear or Oedipus Rex. It’s also like if someone asks, “Who is better? Shakespeare or Sophocles?” there is no answer to the question. As long as the writers are in the certain range in writing skill, you just can’t say one’s better than the other. As each one of us is different, we all have different point of view, imagination, or dream. And you cannot say something in your mind is better than that of others. So does the literature, as it is coming from there, it cannot be better than others. In other words, literature does not evolve or improve or progress, each one of them is just different. To phrase it in other way that was stated in The Love of Learning by McCullough, “even the oldest book is brand new book for the readers who open it for the first time.”