Flowers For Algernon

Flowers For Algernon:

I wanted to write about this story because it is a literature piece for two of my secondary school students and it has got me thinking about what exactly is intelligence, how much people have been craving for it, and how much of it is considered enough for people. The topic may sound a little heavy for those looking for a light-hearted post on my blog but I hope it wil interest those readers who are keen to probe the very same topic themselves.

For those who have never heard of the story, it is about a man named Charlie Gordon who had volunteered for an surgical experiment to artificially increase his intelligence by threefold because he wanted to be "as smart as his friends". Algernon was a white laboratory mouse, which went through the same surgical enhancement. However, the surgical experiment's initial success was not permanent and after Algernon died from neuro-complications from the experiment, Charlie himself also experienced an equally rapid decline of his mental capacity a few weeks after the surgery.

Charlie struggled in futility to keep his intelligence and his new-found knowledge and the story ended with him leaving the town in the hope of leaving the memories of the experiement and the consequent experiences behind him. Charlie's final wish in his journal was to get his language school teacher, Miss Kinnian, to put flowers on Algernon's cheesebox grave because he considered Algernon as his only compatriot in his meteorite-like life.

What is Intelligence?

The ability to score high marks for IQ and academic tests or examinations? The ability to read pages of information and transform what one has read to knowledge? The ability to wise-crack with everyone in sight and impress them with witty jokes? The ability to solve problems in a spontaneous and creative way? The ability to gain acceptance from people and ensure one's continual survival in the highly competitive world today?

There are so many competing definitions for intelligence right now that it is really hard to say. But for the story of "Flowers for Algernon", it was definitely about social acceptance. Charlie Gordon simply wanted to be smart so that he could better enjoy the company of his friends around him and make himself more useful to the people around him. However, the harder he tried, the further those very people shrunk away from him. And as Charlie gained knowledge and understanding of the people and events around him, he realized how he had been made use of as a walking target for jokes and mass beatings.

What do people crave to have intelligence?

Social acceptance? Self-acceptance? Positive advantage over others in life? Multiplier factor in enjoying life to the fullest? I have asked many people in my life the same question above and the answers often vary. I am inclinced to believe that each and everyone of us have a slightly different answer in our minds and hearts but most of us agree that a higher level of intelligence is a good thing. Yet how much is enough? Do we ourselves know how much intelligence can we fit into our minds without risking some sort of "mental overload"?

How much intelligence is considered enough?

Charlie Gordon in the story "Flowers For Algernon" , though had thrice his original intelligence, had not only problems in trying to integrate himself into his immediate social circle but the very human society as both tried to alienate from him because he was being considered as "abnormal" now (on the other end of the intelligenece spectrum). The story never really discussed how much intelligence is considered enough but it did mention that the human world may not yet be ready to be friendly towards highly-intellectual people.

I personally feel that intelligence is considered enough if it is able to establish an integrative, stable, and contented connection with the world. If the level of intelligence cannot integrate with the existing knowledge of the world and society around that intellectual, it may only serve to destroy, not build the foundations of the world and the society. When that happens, such levels of intelligence may be met with hostility, alienation and even abandonment. If the level of intelligence cannot be sustained on a stable basis for a purpose (hopefully for contructive ones), it may only be disintegrated either through procastination, distraction or negligence. If the level of intelligence cannot fulfil an achievable contentment level within the individual who possesses it, it may ignite an uncontrollable ambition to attempt to amplify the intelligence level through whatever means possible and thus simultaneously putting the previous two conditions mentioned at risk.

Simply put, it's like balancing a see-saw with three conditions atop of it. So what is my verdict? Intelligence cannot stand alone because it is a multiplier, needing many other skills to work its magic.

It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival
value.

By:Arthur C. Clarke English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )

(Image source:lemon drop, 03 Oct 2004, stock.xchng)
(Quote source: http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/777.html)