Ever since I read Outliers the summer of
Sophomore year, Malcolm Gladwell has been one of my favorite, if not my
favorite author. Gladwell has a way of storytelling that can not be reproduce.
One review of David and Goliath and about all of Gladwell's book were that they
were a bit too predictable. What this reviewer meant was that “Malcolm Gladwell is one of those authors who
you remember reading, but may not quite recall which book a particular phrase
came from. They're all pretty similar. But that's the beauty of Gladwell. He's developing a
coherent canon and, really, do you want to be surprised all the time? The world
is disconcerting enough already.”
I think this reviewer makes a
good point, but he is also wrong about some things. While it is true that yes,
his books may be similar, yes you may confuse some quotes between his books,
but his books are very different. Personally, I have read one and a half other
Malcolm Gladwell books, and I would agree that his books are a bit predictable
and similar, but that is only because they follow a distinct pattern that
Gladwell has perfected.
The way Gladwell writes, in
my eyes, goes something like this: First, he picks a topic or thesis, a
debatable, controversial idea or reason. Next, he does TONS of research, and I
mean tons! Each book typically has ten to fifteen chapters, if not more, each
chapter being a different story, each story needing its own varying amount of
research! After he has enough research per chapter/story, he writes an intro.
The intro is usually a topic closely related to the title of the book. The
purpose of the intro is to introduce the book, but more importantly the topic
of the book. In David and Goliath, Gladwell opens up with the biblical story of
David and Goliath. He talks about how Goliath is a massive Philistine warrior,
heavily armed and heavily equipped, who challenges the Israelis to a one on one
for the kingdom. When no Israeli volunteered, David, a little herder boy,
volunteered, King Solomon was skeptical, but he had no other choice. David
stepped out to where Goliath could see him, started running at him with a
stone, chucks it at Goliath’s most vulnerable spot, his forehead between his
eyes, and kills Goliath. After telling the story of David and Goliath, Gladwell
begins to analyze the story to make his point about underdogs and why David
won. What Gladwell likes to do is intertwine stories with analyses of those
stories to fit his thesis. So what Gladwell does is analyze everything about
David and Goliath. When David appears over the ridge with his slingshot and
staff, Goliath sees him and says “ Am I dog, that you should come to me with
sticks?” Sticks. Goliath sees sticks, yet David only has one stick. Gladwell
points out that some research shows that one of the reasons Goliath was so big
was that he had a tumor in his pituitary gland that made him keep growing and
growing, but once the tumor grew too large, it started to affect other
functions, and the most common type of functional loss with this state is
blurred or double vision. Goliath could not see. Goliath had strength, he had
size, but David had speed, accuracy, and most importantly, the act of surprise.
What I really like about
Gladwell is how he weaves the stories into the analyses. He writes in a way
that is coherent, yet does not require the reader to read the book chapter by
chapter, in order. I think Gladwell is a great, one of my favorite authors, and
look forward to continuing this book and reading why underdogs win.
