How to write a "Malcolm Gladwell Bestseller" | Hacker News Reader

How to write a "Malcolm Gladwell Bestseller"

blog.jgc.org

93 pointsjgrahamc49 comments

Gladwell is a fantastic storyteller.

Unfortunately, this isn't obvious to many people, who seem to think he's a scientist or a journalist, despite no claims on his part for these qualifications or assertions that his work stands up to the rigors of those disciplines. They have decided that he is one or both of these things, and since he isn't, he does not fare well when assessed along those lines.

He writes very well, his books are interesting, his anecdotes are carefully selected and edited. His conclusions are meant to spark conversation, not end them.

Lighten up.

Agreed!

Gladwell's work is entertaining and mildly thought provoking. Sure, his work can be broken down into a pattern or formula but his execution is fantastic.

Just like creating anything else in life:

Starting up a software business = think of a solution, talk to customers, write some code, repeat until you've built something of value.

Writing any essay = brainstorm some ideas, write them down, edit and proof-read, repeat until you've got a polished paper.

I guess success draws a lot of criticism.

I haven't read any of his books, though I got many recommendations from friends. Which one should I start with? (don't care much about relevance to startup/business, as long as its a good book)

Outliers is a good read that correctly represents a lot of new research about its subject.

After edit: I say this because I had read many of the primary and secondary sources cited in Gladwell's notes before his book came out. I still learned new facts from his book.

I enjoyed Outliers. I liked the fact that, while the premise of the book is that the ultra-successful tend to have quite a lot of luck on their side, he never fails to mention that it also takes hard work/talent.

I've read all of them (I think?) but The Tipping Point is still my favorite. Always thought it might be interesting to model the ideas in it using some sort of multi-agent system.

You would probably like Linked by Barabasi -- it is similar, but Barabasi is an academic (my barabasi # would be 2!)

Don't bother. Instead, go to his New Yorker archive.

http://www.gladwell.com/archive.html

Gladwell is best taken in small (or at least syncopated) doses, and he really has managed to write about a variety of interesting things. Go find the ketchup essay. It's awesome.

His conclusions are meant to spark conversation, not end them.

Gladwell has said so explicitly in interviews:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122671211614230261.html

"Q: Do you worry that you extrapolate too much from too little?

"A: No. It's better to err on the side of over-extrapolation. These books are playful in the sense that they regard ideas as things to experiment with. I'm happy if somebody reads my books and reaches a conclusion that is different from mine, as long as the ideas in the book cause them to think. You have to be willing to put pressure on theories, to push the envelope. That's the fun part, the exciting part. If you are writing an intellectual adventure story, why play it safe? I'm not out to convert people. I want to inspire and provoke them."

After edit: On the general issue of easy best-selling nonfiction writing, both Malcolm Gladwell and Michael Lewis are examples of conspicuous success. Both evidently work very hard at crafting their stories. If you think what they do is easy, try writing a book that gains as many willing, paying readers as any of their books.

I find his anecdotes interesting, because I treat them as such. I think the conclusion and original thought that Gladwell wraps around these anecdotes and stories is often off-base or outright wrong.

If you are not familiar with it, here is the original critical review of Gladwell from the NYTimes that caused an ongoing stir (Gladwell responded on his blog):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html...

I despise arguments of this nature. You hear them all the time. "Gladwell isn't a scientist and doesn't claim to be. Glen Beck isn't a politician and doesn't claim to be, he's an entertainer."

It's bullshit. The unstated claim is the basis of their success. Gladwell might not claim to be a scientist, but his success exists entirely because average readers can't tell the difference.

Gladwell uses "science" and "journalism" wherever it suits him and ignores them where it doesn't. He gets lots of professors and data and high quality sources to back up his points, even if the overwhelming majority of them point to the contrary. He tells "stories" that anyone with even a modicum of integrity would discover to be somewhere between tenuous at best and false at worst as if they're scientifically proven facts.

It's not ok to use science selectively. If you want to tell a story, tell a story. If you want to make a point and back it up with in-depth data and expert commentary, do that then. Either is acceptable.

But don't masquerade "stories" as pseudo-science and journalism. It's misleading, and disingenuous. He does write well, but what he writes is nothing more than dangerously convincing pseudo-science.

Pseudo-science or not, Gladwell's work always incites discussion. This is, I believe, the real value of his work. Most people I know don't take his word as truth, but they love to use his anecdote's as seeds for delving into a subject further.

Besides, this type of bullshit is perfectly suited to starting random conversations with strangers. It's rememberable and entertaining and loosely intellectual. It doesn't alienate people based on their personal beliefs like religion or politics would. In the vast spectrum of bullshit out there, I think Gladwell might be the best kind.

The title "essayist" would suit almost everything Gladwell sets out to do, so can we just stipulate that that's the right thing to call him?

The problem with Gladwell is he will be read by literally millions of politicians, school administrators and middle management drones. They will read it as science, and because they do not understand science, they will use the easy approximation of science=truth (especially if they can fit it into their worldview (which Gladwell is extremely good at assembling an argument to do)). From the propositions "Gladwell uses science" and "science=truth", they will not "spark conversation" but instead will progress to "Gladwell=truth".

This leads to two bad things:

1. People start spouting crap Gladwell has said at parties because it is "scientifically proven" as if it were the unvarnished truth.

2. Your boss will start new initiatives to find the customer "tipping point," hand out "maven" badges to favoured employees, or think because they have been doing something for years, Blink shows they don't need to learn anything new, listen to others or do any analysis.

These things are negative externalities. I'm not sure you could value them, but it is at least conceivable some CEO of a large company will make a stupid decision based on something he read in a Gladwell book. (Okay, maybe I should lighten up...)

I guess what pisses me off is he is using our work as scientists to generate a large profit for himself at the expense of both the public's understanding of science and the careful use of science in policymaking (e.g. supporting broken windows v.s. abortion as the reason for the '90s drop in crime.)

It is not reasonable to bag on Gladwell because some ignoramus cites him as scientific fact. Your problem is with your boss, not with the "negative externalities" caused by an author who writes something that makes your boss do something else dumb.

It would be a different story if Gladwell wrote an article exhorting bosses to hand out "maven" badges. But he did nothing of the sort.

It depends on your ethical theory I guess. To my mind, Gladwell's actions have predictable negative consequences and he should be held at least somewhat responsible for those consequences. Of course he's free to write what he likes, and I am not arguing for censorship or judicial intervention. But I think he has a negative impact on society and argue against him on that basis. He is the same as the "visualising higher dimensions video" or homeopathy, or any pseudo-science -- using the right words to get the answer you already thought of. I just love jerf's response to the video I mentioned (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1385736) and I'd like to misquote it here:

I can not anti-recommend Gladwell enough. He is anti-knowledge, convincing you that you know something when you actually understand it less well after reading than before.

Reading someone's prose because they are "such good storytellers" is a bit like introducing your sister to this* guy because he's such a charmer.

*http://mysterypua.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/mysterypua....

Well, this may sound obvious to many but I think #1 should be "Become a regular reader of few psychological and social academic journals". I guess this alone can give you few ideas to write essays. Now my question is that, anyone know if journals of repute(related to psychological and social) can be accessed online?

http://ssrn.com/

The Society for Judgement and Decision Making has been publishing an online journal for about 4-5 years now. Very respected Editor and Assoc. Editors and certainly some interesting papers in there. http://journal.sjdm.org/

Also, I've found it useful to build a list of researchers whose work I find interesting, then trawl Google Scholar for them; this usually turns up some free sources that would be otherwise hard to find in the noise.

How to read a "Malcolm Gladwell Bestseller": start in the middle; read 20 pages or so; see sloppy reasoning and general lack of substance; don't read it or any of the author's other books again. You'd save yourself a lot of time if you did that, jgrahamc.

I enjoyed the debate between Gladwell and Steven Pinker after Pinker wrote a negative book review.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html...

http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/malcolm-gladwe...

That's not a debate, that's a Pinker curb-stomping Gladwell, hardly surprising when Steve Sailer is entirely capable of doing it.

Having just read that, I wouldn't characterize it as "Pinker curb-stomping Gladwell"... at all.

For those about to read: It's true, Gladwell gets pwned. If you want feel sophisticated while quoting the tipping point this will not help.

The sloppy reasoning/lack of substance are features, not bugs. He isn't a serious intellectual gladiator, he is a merchant who makes soundbites that educated, upper middle class people can use to sound intelligent and well read.

As long as people view them as such it is not problem. My frustration is when people cite Gladwell's ideas as either 1) the basis for strategic decision making at a business 2) the grounds for a major public policy decisions.

On a side note, I'd love to see this kind of breakdown for a lot of the shows on NPR, especially This American Life

Why are we wasting time on this then? There's nothing new or interesting about making dumb stuff that appeals to dumb people.

As an interesting book countering the "blink" concept is a book called "Think!: Why Crucial Decisions Can't Be Made in the Blink of an Eye" - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416531556?ie=UTF8&tag=...

It probably also helps to be a talented public speaker and he is reputed to be a very good one.

http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2010/02/the-secrets-of-malco...

Generally speaking lot of bestsellers, fiction or non fiction, can be synthesized as:

- give to the reader pre-digested, easy, spoonfuls of information.

- give to the reader something to quote so that he can appear smart to his friends.

- try to be appealling enough to be interviewed on TV.

He also did great at The Moth with a personal story.

http://www.themoth.org/podcast

He's also done one or several Ted talks. I recommend the one on spaghetti sauce.

FWIW, one could argue that many of these elements are also present in a book like Godel Escher Bach.

- Your book is actually going to be a collection of essays drawn together by a loose thread. - "strange loops"

- Each of your essays is going to revolve around a single idea - pretty much every Achilles and Tortoise chapter

- Illustrate the idea with stories about real people - Godel, Escher, Bach

and so on...

I don't know about the rest of you, but I read Gladwell and Hofstadter because they are entertaining in an brain-stimulating way. When I want raw non-embezzled science, I read scientific papers. In both cases, I'll come to my own conclusions.

I don't get all this passive-agressive "holier-than-thou" attitude towards Gladwell being famous I've been seeing lately. Who cares if he's famous?

'I don't get all this passive-agressive "holier-than-thou" attitude towards Gladwell being famous I've been seeing lately. Who cares if he's famous?'

It reminds me of what PG said about this in his "why to not not start a startup" -- he is successful for what he does and they don't think he should be because he writes about things he doesn't do professionally or something.

The way to "read" Gladwell is to get the talking-book and have him read it to you as you commute to work/home. He's a great storyteller - in both word and voice. And he delivers his own material extraordinarily well. I've listened to all 3 of the books mentioned and am currently enjoying his collection of NYer essays "What the Dog Saw". His essay on Ron Popeil was terrific. Word of warning though ... you might find yourself sad to arrive at your destination and just sit in the car an extra few mins to finish a section!

The Long Tail by Chris Anderson seems to fit the criteria extremely well. He must have figured out the MGB method before you.

Getting away from criticizing or praising Mr. Gladwell, many, many authors have noticed that an effective way to write multiple best-sellers is to find a formula that works and stick to it. Michael Crighton is said to have read many best sellers and made notes about their structure so that he could develop his own formula for writing a best-selling novel.

If you are the type of reader that accepts everything you read as fact, then pointing out a formula isn't going to change that now is it?

Most popular TV shows are written on a 3 act formula yet you can still find them engaging, germane, and thought provoking.

In short formulas do not equal thoughtlessness.

So basically, writing a "Malcolm Gladwell Bestseller" requires a shitload of work.

Author misses Gladwell's largest advantage: he became a bestseller because he had laid the groundwork with years of writing magazine articles - built up an audience and alliances with huge, influential publications like the new yorker, NYT, etc.

He missed "get a funky haircut".

Malcom Gladwell cuts his hair?

"grow a funky 'fro"

Fixed that for ya!

books actually contain very few ideas. But these few ideas are chosen to be interesting to a general reader, to be understandable by a layman - take almost any religious books - it is the same collection of short stories for a layman, which illustrate one simple idea at a time, so the formula was a thousands years old. =) Some of them were poetry in original language.

btw, famous books by Dale Carnegie are brilliant adoption of that style.

bbtw, in many cases of such writers (compilators) the first book is the best one. The Tipping Point (and, of course, How To Find Friends) is really enjoying one.

This article is very strange. It's pretty cynical about Gladwell but his details on him aren't all negative are they? Gladwell sure is good at telling stories and proving points! It has to be a formula. A formula of what pretty much equals good writing and research.

Entertaining writing, maybe, but certainly not good/education writing. And certainly not good research.

Side note: He may have solid research, but it doesn't come out in the writing.

Perhaps the sad fact is that being entertaining and being accurate are conflicting goals. Who wants to listen to a complex explanation for why the "fifteen minutes of videotaped conversation" method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gottman )for predicting the likelihood of divorce is flawed due to overfitting issues (see http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2010... for details)

Gladwell doesn't let complex facts get in the way of a good story.

It's not meant to be research. If it were, wouldn't it be published in an academic journal?

And to be frank, most research isn't "good research" either. With that said, much of what he's doing is constructing a framework and then building into it. This is actually similar to what is done in a lot of social science research. And Gladwell, often does it much better, even from a purely academic perspective.

The main issue is that millions of people read and scrutinize Gladwell. No one reads "A Critique of 12th Century Eastern European Poetry and the Relationship to Subsurface Climate Volatility".

Yes, it is strange. It's a scathing put-down couched in a pleasant tone. The author believes Gladwell is a fraud but doesn't have the guts to come right out and say it.

A mistake to say I don't have guts. If I thought he was a fraud I'd say that. My other activities, I'll just cite the Alan Turing campaign as one, are indications of my willingness to speak my mind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com