This article in The New Yorker describes the importance of what it exactly means to "choke." Gladwell describes what happens when you choke, as well as distinguish it from panicking. Through his use of allusion, specifically in sports, Gladwell is able to relate the idea of choking with near perfect scenarios. The rookie Jana Novotna about to utterly dominate her match against the longstanding veteran, Steffi Graf, loses 5 sets in a row, being one away from victory. He also uses the example of Greg Norman and Nick Faldo. Norman ahead several strokes by hole 9, is down 4 by hole 18. Gladwell also utilizes a well varied sentence structure. This allows him to add more impact to his writing. Statements like, "The two men began to cry" and "Graff gave her two kisses" are extremely short phrases surrounded by tension built, wordy exposition, thus by comparison, making these dramatic and climactic conclusions to his allusions all the more powerful. Gladwell overall does an excellent job at making his writing exciting as well as meaningful.
However, there is one part that requires addressing as to what may have been improved in this essay. Gladwell does not have the most optimal way of organizing his essay. He goes from an example of choking, to an example of panic, to the implications of panic, to the implications of choking, to a more granular form of choking, to his conclusion. Though the flow on paper may not sound too atrocious, when actually reading it had made it difficult to understand exactly what the essay was about. I felt like I was being led in circles rather than be led to some climax or "So what?" I had assumed the paper was meant to distinguish between choking and panic, but in reality, the whole thing was about choking.
Overall, Gladwell does well writing his paper's details, always conscious of sentence structure and detail, but on the whole, he fails to flow things properly to convey his message consistently throughout.
No comments:
Post a Comment