Funny thing. This has been the fall of "not Tipping Point". First, I read Contagious, which was a book that went to long lengths to describe how it *wasn't* Tipping Point (it so wasn't, but not in the way the author meant) and now I read another Gladwell, and can't help feel that it, too, is a pale comparison. It's not that this book is bad -- Gladwell is a terrific writer, and even when you totally disagree with him, you feel "pulled" to his point of view. His writing style is fun, accessible, smooth and convincing. But, in this case, just not quite as compelling as -- well, Tipping Point.
SPOILER ALERT
There are nine chapters arranged into three sections, each trying to tell the story of how a little guy beat a big guy, often by bucking conventional wisdom. Like a true journalist, Malcolm Gladwell doesn't just tell each tale, he introduces you to a person for each non-traditional effort, and shows who they are in the midst of the choices and decision-making. Interestingly enough, some of the people in these vignettes are not successful -- their failures set up the "point" of a given theme. Therein lies the problem, however. By discussing failure as often as success, Gladwell strangely seems to undermine the points he is trying to make. In one chapter, he discusses how two young people failed because these straight-A kids couldn't hack competitive Universities where (gasp) they had hard classes that made them work for "Bs". Okay, my heart wasn't exactly bleeding here, but then in the next chapter, Gladwell highlights how tough times (Dyslexia, the loss of a parent at a young age) can actually create people who are more resilient. So -- what's the point? That the two college kids should have stuck to easier schools to maintain the illusion that they are the smartest people in their sphere? Or that we acheive greatness when we have to fight to get there? Gladwell does the same thing when talking about the Civil Rights movement in Birmingham and the Mother's March in Belfast. He highlights the power of a moment, or a significant image or action, but then undercuts them as manipulated. While he used many scenarios of interest to me (and some not -- such as sports), he was so wishy-washy that in the end I had no idea what he wants the reader to take away here.
I did giggle a bit at his stabbing of sacred cows -- namely, affirmative action and class-size arguments. He even uses Brer Rabbit stories -- oh my ... So, be prepared for a little "discomfort" when reading this. Nonetheless, he is Gladwell, and David did slay Goliath, so maybe a careful reader can parse out some wisdom for the road. Not one of his best, but still better than many who copy him.
