The Gladwell conundrum.

Years ago, when I first read Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point, I really, really enjoyed it. I talked about it a lot to Mr. CR, and I recommended he read it. I also liked it because it was a bestseller and a big word-of-mouth book that I actually felt good about giving patrons at the library when they asked for it (which they did, for years and years, and were still asking for when I quit, which was several years after its first publication). Sometimes now I think I should re-read it, and see if I still find it so interesting.

So it was always slightly disappointing to me that I was never really able to finish any of Gladwell's subsequent books. I started Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking, and stopped somewhere in the second or third chapter, completely bored. (Mr. CR and I actually picked up an advance copy of it when we spent one vacation at BookExpo in Chicago, but Mr. CR puts a lot of faith in the process of thinking, so it wasn't really for him either.) And then Outliers: The Story of Success came out, and although I brought it home, even the thought of reading it bored me.

So why did I check out his latest book, titled What the Dog Saw? Well, for one thing, it's a collection of journalistic pieces Gladwell has done over the past few years, and I almost always enjoy essays and well-written journalism. For another, I still keep trying to understand why I haven't enjoyed all his books the way I enjoyed The Tipping Point. This book is good; I've read most of the essays (the one on the history of the birth control pill is particularly interesting, even if I don't know that I agree with all he has to say on the subject), and when I'm in the middle of a chapter, I don't particularly want to stop reading. But overall? I won't really tell anyone how much I loved this book, or how much I love Gladwell. It's due today, and I'm not done with it, but I'll be taking it back to the library without too much regret anyway. I just don't get it.

Gladwell's writing is skillful, and I don't mind that his writing is kind of "Gladwellesque"--if you didn't know who the author of this book was initially, if you knew Gladwell at all, you'd probably read a couple of the essays and guess it was him. He also jumps around quite a bit subject-wise, which I enjoy (and which is a favorite hallmark of William Langewiesche, whose style is also very unique to him, and who I never get tired of reading). But I'm just not loving it. It's a conundrum.

Comments

[Yvonne]

I enjoyed this book, though I didn't read it cover to cover. I read the pieces that jumped out at me. I liked the one about the history of the birth control pill. I thought it was typically Gladwellesque which I’m going to go ahead and define as using a kaleidoscope to view something in a new but not necessarily accurate or helpful way. I think Gladwell does a good job of suggesting different ways to view things, that he is maybe bored by the obvious and drawn to outliers which results in engaging but not necessarily objective work.

At the end of the day, I like smart people even if they are glib and I’m happy to have my perceptions and opinions challenged by other thinkers. There were two things from What the Dog Saw that made it into my reading notebook of quotes and curiosities:

1. “Late bloomers’ stories are invariably love stories. . .” Gladwell
referring to the support of family and friends that makes it possible for people to pursue painting (or any excellence) for a lifetime before finding success

2. “It is very much ingrained in me that you do not manage a social wrong. You should be ending it.” Philip Mangano executive director US Interagency Council on Homelessness
YES. YES. YES.

[Marmota]

I read "The Tipping Point" last month and, while I enjoyed it, it really made me want to go out and read something far more in depth on the same subjects. Maybe instead of reading his books I should just read the bibliography?

[Citizen Reader]

Yvonne,
I'm glad you liked it; I do think Gladwell is a skilled writer. But maybe one book of his Gladwellesque style was enough for me? I don't know. I don't mind when journalists turn ideas on their heads or look for unconventional angles, but maybe I don't want to see them make it their only style point?

I find your opinions on smart (even when glib) very interesting, but my mind's all over the place tonight and I don't know if I trust myself to answer. For some reason my gut reaction to that is that smart people shouldn't be glib, because what a waste. All I do know is I'm going to go look up the word "glib," because I never have before.

And I do LOVE that you have a reading notebook, and could quote your favorite bits. I used to do that for movies (and books sometimes) but have recently gotten too lazy. Good for you!

Marmota,
I totally know what you're saying. All I really remember from The Tipping Point is how New York City started cracking down on the petty thieves who would steal subway tokens by sucking them out of the gate slots. (Uck. Who could forget that image?) But the more in-depth look at crime and copys in NYC provided in Stacy Horn's book "The Restless Sleep" was much more interesting and in-depth to me. I LOVE reading bibliographies and have found them to be a great source of nonfiction suggestions...to the point where I am annoyed when nonfiction authors don't provide a bibliography.

[Donna]

I read "What the Dog Saw" a month or so ago and while I thought it was OK while I was reading it, I don't remember much about it now. Sort of like eating puffed wheat for breakfast instead of oatmeal...might satisfy your hunger at the time, but doesn't hold you until lunch.

I did read and remember liking "Outliers" better than this one.

[Rachael]

I used to love seeing Gladwell's name in the index when I opened my New Yorkers (I get the same reaction to Wm. Langewiesche's name on the Atlantic). I couldn't really take him for a full book without losing a bit of that enthusiasm, but his stories are still a pleasure when I come across them in small doses.

I read that birth control essay when it was first published and while it didn't set my world on fire, I did both enjoy it and appreciate a different perspective on the subject (for me, at least).

[Citizen Reader]

Donna,
That's a perfect way to describe this book. Goes down pretty easy, doesn't stay with you very long. And that's okay. Maybe I'm expecting too much in the way of "memorable" out of his latter books, as I still do remember parts of "The Tipping Point."

Rachael,
Yes, I think a little of Gladwell goes a long way. Now that you mention it, I think I do always enjoy Langewiesche's articles even more than I enjoy his books (which are often just edited together or expanded articles). They must just be masters of the short form.

You're right about the "different perspective" on the birth control pill, and I really enjoyed learning about the Catholicism of one of its creators. But I don't know that anything that increases some pretty serious health risks for women can really be called all "natural." I still say someone ought to develop the Pill for men and then we'll see how the whole thing plays out.

[Jessica]

RS and I *loved* "Outliers"! I can rarely get him to read a book any more - I think I overdid it with "Legacy of Ashes" - but this one he dug almost as much as "Traffic." We have been constantly talking about the 10,000 hours concept and I can go so far as to say that it's changed our lives.

I too found "What the Dog Saw" slightly less compelling than Gladwell's three earlier works, but I think that's because it was a group of disparate essays rather than a unified piece. Also it was longer. Regardless, what RS and I like about Gladwell is that he constantly brings up points that set off weeks and months of conversation for us. That's more true of his work than of everything else I read put together.