I really like his review—even though it’s much more critical than mine.
The book is getting snarky reviews but if it were by an unknown, rather than by the famous Malcolm Gladwell, many people would be saying how interesting it is. The main point, in economic language, is that human talent is heterogeneous and that the talent of a particular person must mesh with the capital structure of his or her time if major success is to result.
…
Gladwell descends into the swamp of contingency but he is unwilling to really live in it and take it seriously or, alternatively, to find a way out.
…
It’s still a good book and a fun book.
The Times review Tyler refers to concludes, “Such assessments turn individuals into pawns of their cultural heritage, just as Mr. Gladwell’s emphasis on class and accidents of historical timing plays down the role of individual grit and talent to the point where he seems to be sketching a kind of theory of social predestination, determining who gets ahead and who does not — and all based not on persuasive, broadband research, but on a flimsy selection of colorful anecdotes and stories.” And this after admitting that Gladwell’s two previous (highly successful) books were pretty much of the same formula—and seriously, he is not alone in pop nonfiction.
But anyway, I agree with everything Tyler says; his critical points make a good counterpoint to my more positive ones. I told a friend yesterday that while I really enjoyed Outliers I started to feel like I really wasn’t used to reading nonfiction that was so nonscholarly, and I feel like the funness going in gives me a totally different mindset of “this is supposed to be ‘colorful anecdotes and case studies that read like entertaining little stories.’” So I am more likely to evaluate it on that basis and only get annoyed about the anecdotes that don’t pass the smell test at all for me—like the Chinese math one.
Recent Comments