Comparing Fate In 'Outliers And Fire On The Hills'

Fate: Fact or Fiction?

Numerous choices face our minds and lives every single day. In every choice, we have to make a decision, whether it is good or bad, big or small. Regardless of the nature and impact of the choice, a vital question remains about these decisions: Are we in control of our fates? Two writers, Malcolm Gladwell and Robinson Jeffers, propose antithetical answers to this essential question in “Outliers” and “Fire on the Hills.” In Gladwell’s nonfiction work regarding the impact of practice in music, Gladwell uses research and comparison to suggest that time and preparation will ultimately decide one’s success in a certain activity. Conversely, using paradox and imagery, Jeffers’ poem about a burning forest and its inhabitants

implies that one has no control over fate. To argue their opposing answers towards the nature of fate, each author supports their arguments using varying strategies and devices.
To imply that humans have the ability to shape their futures, Gladwell’s “Outliers” utilizes prediction, comparison, and exemplification in his work analyzing musicians. In two experiments between violin and piano players that examine a correlation between skill and the time one spends developing the talent, the results show that the violinists total “ten thousand hours of practice” (Gladwell 3) before becoming masters. Likewise, the elite pianists also “reached ten thousand hours” of practice (Gladwell 4). Utilizing the results of the observation, Gladwell logically concludes that the careers of these musical geniuses develop through extensive practice, not from natural talent. By comparing the violin virtuosos with the professional pianists, the process of becoming a master is shown to be identical no matter who that person is, meaning that there is no such thing as prodigies and geniuses at birth; once the hard work is put in, results will show. To further illustrate the effect of hard work on these musicians, Gladwell cites further evidence about a deciding factor in admissions to prestigious music schools: “[Ericson and his colleague’s] research suggests that once a musician has enough ability to get into a top music school, the thing that distinguishes one performer from another is how hard he or she works” (Gladwell 5). Regardless of natural ability or talent, Gladwell compares the value of practice over innate ability. Once the musical pinnacle is reached, preparation is more important than natural talent. Since natural talent pales in comparison to hard work, Gladwell predicts that humans govern their destinies, and that inherent aptitude does not exist. Using an anecdote from Mozart’s life, Gladwell takes an excerpt from psychologist Michael Howe’s book stating, “Mozart’s early works are not outstanding… of those concertos that only contain music original to Mozart, the earliest that is now regarded as a masterwork was not composed until he was twenty-one” (Gladwell 9). Famous for his musical prowess at a young age, Mozart is said to be a genius, yet his musical concertos are subpar. This anecdote supports Gladwell’s answer regarding fate by disproving the idea of natural talent at birth and also showing that it takes time for one to become a master. Although Gladwell’s expository strategies support the idea that there is no such thing as fate, “Fire on the Hills” suggests otherwise.
Using paradoxes, imagery, and connotative diction, Robinson Jeffer’s “Fire on the Hills” implies that one has no control over fate.

At the beginning of the poem, the speaker “thought about the smaller lives that were caught” in the forest fire (Jeffers 3). These “smaller” animals literally refers to the squirrels, raccoons, and other animals of shorter size. But “smaller” also connotes the importance and value of the lives of these animals. Born in their insignificant form, the less fortunate inhabitants of the forest are not able to escape their fiery demises quick enough, supporting the idea of an uncontrollable fate in nature. From the moment one is born, life either traps or blesses that person or animal. A talent or comforting lifestyle could grace one’s life, or a terrible disease or circumstance could befall another. Soon after mentioning the small lives, the speaker notes that “beauty is not always lovely” (Jeffers 4). In this paradox, Jeffers delves into the death of the “smaller lives.” Death is the end to life, yet it can also symbolize change and new beginnings. Although a fire devastates a forest and extinguishes the lives of many creatures, the beauty of new life and renewal will bloom in the aftermath. In short, nature will move towards the idea of a fundamental balance between life and death, using the destinies of the inhabitants as the driving force. Every animal has a basic role to play from birth to death that will drive the course nature will take. Additionally, Jeffers backs up this perplexing claim by detailing the return of an eagle to its nest: “Insolent and gorged, cloaked in the folded storms of his shoulders / He had come from far off for the good hunting” (Jeffers 8-9). Jeffers illustrates a yet another paradoxical situation, where death of others can lead to the life of another, to support his argument of fixed fate. Gaining nourishment from the “good hunting” of the fleeing animals, the eagle’s destiny is to kill and to become

“gorged” from the unfortunate prey, who serve no other purpose than to feed the eagle. Jeffers also compares the fate of each animal: The eagle will continue living while the other animals will die. Describing the eagle’s sated and gluttonous appearance, Jeffers further acknowledges the fate of the eagle to feast upon the lesser prey. With seemingly contradictory statements supporting his take on fate, Jeffers’ poem implies the opposite to Gladwell’s answer to the essential question of mankind’s ability to rule destiny.
To present conflicting opinions about fate, each write uses either expository strategies to argue a controllable destiny, or paradoxes and poetic devices to portray a fate set in stone. Asserting his position in a logical and provable fashion, Gladwell applies studies, predictions, comparison, and examples to communicate his point of view. Conversely, Jeffers has a more figurative and shrouded approach, employing paradoxical statements, connotative diction, and symbolism.Of the two genres and styles of argument, the expository strategies of Gladwell appeals to those of logical mindsets, citing additional facts and observations to back his claim. The concrete evidence and results of the experiments provide irrefutable support to the argument. Because of the abstract nature of Jeffers’ strategies, the overall meaning can be lost or differ between person to person. Poems and other similar works are open to interpretation, leading the reader to make his or her own conclusions. To some people, though, it is a mixture of each side of the argument. One can influence certain circumstances, but there is always an unchangeable aspect of life that is forever out of reach. Regardless of all the possible answers, the view on destiny and life can vary between people because of the philosophical concept of fate. Given the differing opinions of fate, is a conclusive answer even possible? Given the differing opinions of fate, would a conclusive answer even be accepted? One thing is certain: The answer is highly subjective and debatable.