I think the close reading is insightful both of Dickens and Gladwell. I have the impressions Dickens worked quite hard at the allusions, although they probably came more easily with practice. Do you think Gladwell plans his paragraphs in such detail or is it more an instinctive flow and how much can he gain in the edit ? My instinct is that maybe the edit shapes the syntax a lot. But possibly it’s more naturally his flow of writing. I’m not sure you can easily copy either style though you can analyse it. What do you think ? Thanks.
I like the comparison too. You can read and enjoy Tipping Point without thinking about the fact that you are reading non fiction and enjoy it. Sometimes it feels like non-fiction is food for the brain and as such does not need to be enjoyable. Whether it is the content or the delivery style, you finish feeling a bit inspired, just as you do with a good work of fiction. Maybe it comes down to quality and good storytelling. Maybe it comes down to storytelling. Most good stories follow a formula, don't they?
Fascinating explanation. As you hint, the actual content of Gladwell’s books is not without its critics. I find the hosts of the podcast ‘If Books Could Kill’ quite annoying but they did what seemed to me to do a pretty good hatchet job!
Thank you for this piece. Great quotes and great insights.
Slight nitpick. The use of "for" in the sentence by Proust should be ascribed to his translator. The sentence in the French is simply: "Longtemps, je me suis couché de bonne heure.” There is no "for" and no preposition, unless it is implied. For that matter, and for what it's worth, the translator's "for" is doing different work than the "for + proper noun" formula you notice in Gladwell, since it is used as a complement of time, an adverbial phrase.
The comparison to Dickens seems incredibly premature and unlikely to prove true in the long run. Dickens is not a phenomenon in the current world because one or more intellectuals compared him to the 19th century Fitzgerald or declared his works important. Dickens is important and still talked about generally because he found a way to reach the emotional centers of an enormous readership spread over various continents and this has continued for over 150 years. To expect that The Tipping Point will have even the slightest shadow of this influence even 10 years from now is highly suspect. Whatever the article's point may be about the relation of current thought to non-fiction is hard to judge as it seems based on a completely specious comparison. Dickens is melodramatic and often lacks nuance but he has created characters that continue to live in our imaginations in ways that urge us to be better than we are. I see none of this in Malcolm Gladwell's writing.
The Tipping Point and other books were interesting at first blush but have proved shallow and glib as the initial impact has faded. The conclusions seem to be stripped of nearly all nuance in the rush to make a broad saleable conclusion. Perhaps Dickens' all good/all bad characters similarly lacked nuance, but I will happily wager that people will be discussing even lesser known characters like Noddy Boffin and Mr. MiCawber long after the remembrance of all Gladwell's writing is dead.
Henry, this is a startling comparison: Dickens and Gladwell, illustrating and illuminating the powerful effect of each.
I would not--in a million years--have come up with this comparison!
It does great justice to both writers.
Thanks for this brilliant insight and analysis.
It's time for me to revisit Gladwell! (I'm already immersed in Dickens via the "Dickens Chronological Reading Club"!)
Daniel
I think the close reading is insightful both of Dickens and Gladwell. I have the impressions Dickens worked quite hard at the allusions, although they probably came more easily with practice. Do you think Gladwell plans his paragraphs in such detail or is it more an instinctive flow and how much can he gain in the edit ? My instinct is that maybe the edit shapes the syntax a lot. But possibly it’s more naturally his flow of writing. I’m not sure you can easily copy either style though you can analyse it. What do you think ? Thanks.
I like the comparison too. You can read and enjoy Tipping Point without thinking about the fact that you are reading non fiction and enjoy it. Sometimes it feels like non-fiction is food for the brain and as such does not need to be enjoyable. Whether it is the content or the delivery style, you finish feeling a bit inspired, just as you do with a good work of fiction. Maybe it comes down to quality and good storytelling. Maybe it comes down to storytelling. Most good stories follow a formula, don't they?
Fascinating explanation. As you hint, the actual content of Gladwell’s books is not without its critics. I find the hosts of the podcast ‘If Books Could Kill’ quite annoying but they did what seemed to me to do a pretty good hatchet job!
Certainly an interesting read, MC, Henry. Pecksniff is worth the price of admission!
Very very interesting comparison. Well justified.
Before one rushes to raise Mr. Gladwell quite so high I would suggest a listen to his exposition on the recent Munk Debate on mainstream media.
Chris
Thank you for this piece. Great quotes and great insights.
Slight nitpick. The use of "for" in the sentence by Proust should be ascribed to his translator. The sentence in the French is simply: "Longtemps, je me suis couché de bonne heure.” There is no "for" and no preposition, unless it is implied. For that matter, and for what it's worth, the translator's "for" is doing different work than the "for + proper noun" formula you notice in Gladwell, since it is used as a complement of time, an adverbial phrase.
Why would one want to wite like Malcom Gladwell when I can write like this?
https://les7eb.substack.com
The comparison to Dickens seems incredibly premature and unlikely to prove true in the long run. Dickens is not a phenomenon in the current world because one or more intellectuals compared him to the 19th century Fitzgerald or declared his works important. Dickens is important and still talked about generally because he found a way to reach the emotional centers of an enormous readership spread over various continents and this has continued for over 150 years. To expect that The Tipping Point will have even the slightest shadow of this influence even 10 years from now is highly suspect. Whatever the article's point may be about the relation of current thought to non-fiction is hard to judge as it seems based on a completely specious comparison. Dickens is melodramatic and often lacks nuance but he has created characters that continue to live in our imaginations in ways that urge us to be better than we are. I see none of this in Malcolm Gladwell's writing.
The Tipping Point and other books were interesting at first blush but have proved shallow and glib as the initial impact has faded. The conclusions seem to be stripped of nearly all nuance in the rush to make a broad saleable conclusion. Perhaps Dickens' all good/all bad characters similarly lacked nuance, but I will happily wager that people will be discussing even lesser known characters like Noddy Boffin and Mr. MiCawber long after the remembrance of all Gladwell's writing is dead.
I’m sorry... WHO wrote The Great Gatsby?!
I believe this sums up why I dislike reading Malcolm Gladwell so much.