Sign in with Facebook
Nick's Reviews > The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
by Malcolm Gladwell
by Malcolm Gladwell
This book is fascinating and I was disappointed to read that many other readers didn't think so. So here's my response.
I think those readers are approaching this book the wrong the way when they critisize Gladwell for his inability to prove his points thoroughly. Sure, Gladwell could have dotted every i and crossed every t and shown every counter-example to the theories he's proposing. There's a word for the books that accomplish that: BORING. Gladwell is a storyteller and he knows how to keep the reader involved. By going into too much detail, he would lose his audience. Hopefully the reader who isn't convinced entirely can go into further detail by reading Gladwell's sources which are exhaustively referenced in the back of the book.
Another criticism is that Gladwell doesn't come to a specific point or that his points are hazy (this was probably more true with "Blink"). I almost want to say "who cares?" This book and "Blink" are veritable digests of the latest advances in psychology and sociology. So what if the overarching idea of the book is loose? You have now understood countless fascinating anecdotes which you can reconstruct in your own way. It is Gladwell's loose structure that allows him to connect these disparate dots in a story that you can digest, and despite the accusations that he is not precise about his overall thesis, the individual incidents are very well explained.
I love knowing the differences between Sesame Street and Blue's Clues and the differences between an adult's and a child's cognitive capabilities. Would I have read an entire book devoted solely to that? Probably not, but I was happy to read a chapter devoted to it, and a very well-written one at that.
Perhaps I approach non-fiction in a different way than most--and I will admit that I'm fascinated by almost any new, dramatically different idea about any subject, regardless of whether or not I believe it to be true--but I think that people who go into this book seeking a different way of thinking about the world around us, macro & microcosmically, will enjoy themselves. Those who go into the book seeking to be convinced beyond doubt that that way of thinking is the correct way, will not.
I think those readers are approaching this book the wrong the way when they critisize Gladwell for his inability to prove his points thoroughly. Sure, Gladwell could have dotted every i and crossed every t and shown every counter-example to the theories he's proposing. There's a word for the books that accomplish that: BORING. Gladwell is a storyteller and he knows how to keep the reader involved. By going into too much detail, he would lose his audience. Hopefully the reader who isn't convinced entirely can go into further detail by reading Gladwell's sources which are exhaustively referenced in the back of the book.
Another criticism is that Gladwell doesn't come to a specific point or that his points are hazy (this was probably more true with "Blink"). I almost want to say "who cares?" This book and "Blink" are veritable digests of the latest advances in psychology and sociology. So what if the overarching idea of the book is loose? You have now understood countless fascinating anecdotes which you can reconstruct in your own way. It is Gladwell's loose structure that allows him to connect these disparate dots in a story that you can digest, and despite the accusations that he is not precise about his overall thesis, the individual incidents are very well explained.
I love knowing the differences between Sesame Street and Blue's Clues and the differences between an adult's and a child's cognitive capabilities. Would I have read an entire book devoted solely to that? Probably not, but I was happy to read a chapter devoted to it, and a very well-written one at that.
Perhaps I approach non-fiction in a different way than most--and I will admit that I'm fascinated by almost any new, dramatically different idea about any subject, regardless of whether or not I believe it to be true--but I think that people who go into this book seeking a different way of thinking about the world around us, macro & microcosmically, will enjoy themselves. Those who go into the book seeking to be convinced beyond doubt that that way of thinking is the correct way, will not.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Tipping Point.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-8 of 8) (8 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Bjbernis
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Mar 10, 2010 08:18pm
? This is a non-fiction book. If you want a fantastical story, go look somewhere else. The point of a non-fiction book in the field of political science is to put forth a new applicable concept and explain how it can be used. He fails at both. I just can't understand why anyone would defend an academic book by claiming that it isn't meant to provide any new knowledge but instead be entertaining. That just is contrary to the whole idea of science entirely.
reply
|
flag
*
It seems clear from your reaction that you are not the intended audience of this book. This book is neither academic nor scientific. It is an extended New Yorker article. And if you think non-fiction books shouldn't be entertaining, well, then maybe you should go back to reading Kant's Prolegomena.
I really like your review. When I started reading, I was skeptical about his ideas and studies because I didn't see all the proof. Then I realized what you said- it would be boring if he had included all that stuff.
Absolutely loved your review. As I was reading the book I felt grateful that Gladwell had waded through all the research; I certainly wouldn't have had the patience. I also agree that his role isn't to prove a thesis; it's to present alternative ways of looking at things. He's one of my favorite writers, and I always read his NEW YORKER articles. I was pleased to find this felt like a book, and not just a padded magazine article.
well written review i couldnt have said it better myself. I'm interested to hear more how you would you describe your approach to non-fiction books.
Boring? No, ROBUST. Your strange defense of the guy only reinforces why some of us might take him slightingly. Heck, any hack writer can pull a wifty theory out of his rear these days..the difference is, research. Good research IS a little boring. 'Slick' and 'neato' ideas are cheap.
