Merit, Popularity and Wages

If you read these three words, merit, popularity and wages together, you probably will connect them with this logic; High merit will get you high popularity and thereby get you high wages. Agreed, that’s mostly how it works in the times we live in. But life has more unpredictable circumstances which makes smarter choices, a rarity.

An online dictionary defines merit as a) a superior quality or worth b) a quality deserving praise. Going by that definition a lot of names pop up in my mind which don’t fit that bill, yet are widely popular. So, would it be okay to conclude that popularity has got little to do with merit? Probably yes. Let’s try it out. Among these names which ones you recollect without much effort and which ones you are hearing for the first time. Limba Ram, Murli Karthik, S Ramesh Babu. Though Limba Ram is far more meritorious an archer (he represented India in three Olympics) compared to Murli Karthik as a cricketer, I know whom you recognized. I bet you haven’t even heard of Dr S Ramesh Babu from Bangalore. He is credited to some world records and his name features in the Guinness Book of World Record.

Then, let’s try to find the connection between merit and wages. One of the best example I can cite, which certainly will not make me popular amongst some of my friends, is the earnings of a typical techie and a typical journo. At different points in my life, I have had the chance of working for technology companies as well as a freelance writer. I made far less money as a freelance writer. Having seen both the sides, I can safely conclude that the job of a journo/writer is far more intellectually challenging than that of an average techie. Also, I have the privilege of having friends from both fractions. Trust me; the journos seem more knowledgeable and wiser as well. Leaving aside a few exceptions, a journo, though more deserving, earns much lesser than a techie.

Why do you think such irrationality exists? Maybe the phrase, “being in the right place, at the right time”, gives a better explanation to this counter-intuitive nature of the relation between merit, popularity and wages. To me, the true measure of merit will always remain in one’s ability to inspire. If you do agree with me on this, the next time it would be inevitable for you to throw that sarcastic smile at those who attribute high wages only to high merit.

Skepticism Spares None

"Let every eye negotiate for itself
And trust no agent; for beauty is a witch
Against whose charms faith melteth in blood."
- William Shakespeare

I’m way too ordinary to critique William Shakespeare. As I have never been a student of literature, I have never had an opportunity to read some of his master pieces (which I regret quite often than not). The only work of Shakespeare which I fully appreciate (read as understood) is a poem called “A Lover’s Complaint” This is a short narrative poem which talks about a young woman at the riverside weeping, destroying the love tokens such as letters, rings etc. It wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to guess about her breakup. What astonishes readers is the last part. As she describes how she fell for his fake charm earlier, she also reveals that she would fall for him once again. Well, love can prompt you make counterintuitive choices.

Anyway, my point of focus is not the above poem. It’s about a few people challenging the authorship of this poem. The basis on which few felt that it wasn’t Shakespeare’s original work is the words that are used in the poem are not the ones found in Shakespearean. I was a little shattered to know an allegation made against one of the greatest playwright in English language. Call it ironical, the poem seen as contentious for its authorship, turns out to be my favorite one. This prompted me to look up for substance in this matter. As I spent long hours on the Internet, I came across a term, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. This theory developed by scholars gives rise to belief that all the work which we attribute to Shakespeare was original work of Edward de Vere. However the coincidences that have been cited by these pundits cannot be used as core evidence. In such matters it’s a matter of belief. Yes, skepticism spares none, especially the greats.

Still a majority of scholars don’t pay much heed to the Oxfordian theory. In this case, I opine same as the scholars. Back in India, almost every year there is some sort of controversy picks up the heat on Gandhi’s life-style, ideas, sexuality, to name a few. Again there is a majority that rejects the controversy while the minority supports it. Probably, greater you are, the more you need to stand test of skepticism. What convinces me to reject the Oxfordian theory is the question, how the hell did Shakespeare manage to deceive so many people, across the globe. And, if plagiarism was the way, why haven’t other plagiarist gone on to become half as popular as the great William Shakespeare?

PS: If you liked this post, watch out for this forthcoming movie called Anonymous