| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« exciting, modern, and a little vague | Main | Being old and carefree works on grass »

July 03, 2008

My Apologies to Malcolm

Gladwell_malcolm_f

I posted a Monday column this week entitled "Down, I say, Down with Malcolm Gladwell." I was having a little fun with the invective. I started out calling him a fraud and ended with the question of whether he is salvageable as a human being. As one of our readers, Pete Chapman, noted in the comments section, the post was not in my usual style. Chapman mentioned that he appreciated in my essays "trying to balance out your judgements and show your reader that you're also aware of the counterpoints to whatever position you take." That is generally my approach. Sometimes I flub it and sometimes it works but mostly I think of criticism as a process of getting inside other positions, cherry picking through the world of infinite subjectivities. I'm a Pyrrhonian pragmatist, or something like that. No position feels entirely satisfying to me and thus I try to keep moving.

All this is a preface to saying that I've had an email exchange with Malcolm Gladwell and he's a decent guy. I like him. And now I feel bad that I went directly for the ad hominem. I think my substantive critique of Blink is basically right, by the way, but there was no need for the gratuitous meanness. I did it, I suppose, to generate a little buzz for the piece and that's not a particularly honorable way to go about it. My real point about Blink, without all the bells and whistles, would be the following: the relationship between judgment and knowledge is a mysterious and fascinating thing. Specifically, the way that judgments can be seen to precede and to 'ground' knowledge is both an important and unsettling thought. Blink is a work in this tradition but one that falls apart and gets tangled up in its desire to provide practical advice, to give people access to the "magic" of judgment.

So, since I am an editor here at 3QD, I'm taking up one posting today to say, publicly, sorry, Malcolm, you're not a fraud and I was pushing the boundaries of jerkitude to wonder whether you are salvageable as a human being. I look forward to your next book, which I hereby pledge to review in these pages and without all the personal nastiness. I just hope it's a lot better than Blink :)

morgan meis

Posted by Morgan Meis at 10:47 AM | Permalink

Comments

Hmmm, interesting. I thought there was a very clear tone of facetiousness to your more truculent comments. Even the title of your piece had that traditional, repetitive phrasing that has come to indicate some measure of acknowledged parody or sensationalism.

It'd be interested in reading your email exchange, not that I expect you to post it. I just find it interesting, and not at all promising, that personal correspondence and a personal apology would follow from one of your articles. Certainly this blog is not the "press" or the "media" in the traditional sense. However, I think many of the same issues apply as concerns getting buddybuddy-chummychummy with the 'newsmakers'. Or perhaps that doesn't apply at all, as this is just a semi-personal blog, and you felt bad about criticizing someone you later came into contact with.

All this is to say that, I think this apology is weird.

Posted by: S. Gollin Barund | Jul 3, 2008 11:11:59 AM

Morgan,

I must admit I was surprised by the ad hominem parts of your article (and commented on that to Margit this morning), but then I became sure that you were just throwing in those things with a sense of humor (comments about the guy's hair? you couldn't have been serious!), as a joke, as an obviously silly and sarcastic way of emphasizing your dislike of the book.

I, too, liked The Tipping Point (which I even used and wrote about in a report I wrote in my capacity as a research consultant for Nokia!), but like you, didn't care for Blink.

When's your apology to Adam Gopnik coming? Word on the street is that David Remnick has put a hit out on you! :-)

I thought your apology is even funnier than your review! Heh, heh...

Malcolm, don't worry, we love you (just do a search on your name at our site and you'll see...); even your hair, man!

Posted by: Abbas Raza | Jul 3, 2008 11:25:30 AM

Jeez, now I have to apologize for my apology :)

I think you're overanalyzing things a bit, S. But you are right about one thing. I am of the philosophical and critical approach that doesn't accept that firm distinction you're making between private and public. I.e., the fact that Gladwell impressed me in our private correspondence matters to me and has something to do with approach to his work. It doesn't change my opinions on Blink, but it HAS to change my opinions on the kind of person that he is and his motivations.

morgan

Posted by: morgan meis | Jul 3, 2008 11:27:21 AM

Aww. I was hoping for a massive online fight, a la Hitchens-Galloway or Dennett-Fodor. Rats.

Posted by: Nick Smyth | Jul 3, 2008 12:11:38 PM

FWIW, Gladwell's recent new Yorker piece on the relative abundance and non-uniqueness of "big ideas" was probably the best thing I've read of his, and certainly worth checking out: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all.

Posted by: Alex | Jul 3, 2008 12:15:26 PM

Morgan, I too am waiting for you to take it back about Adam Gopnik. As well, you have not given Damien Hirst what he deserves in the way of highbrow odium. There are others... Correspond with me privately to find out more.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 3, 2008 1:57:43 PM

Graciously done. Bravo.

Posted by: Monte Davis | Jul 3, 2008 2:17:36 PM

Don't be sorry. Your first instinct was correct. Gladwell is a huckster. The man is all image, all surface. Blink is for people who find Virlio "pretentious." Blink is deep thoughts for shallow people.

Posted by: Chris | Jul 3, 2008 3:54:48 PM

I would agree that Gladwell offers more in terms of slick presentation than he does in terms of precision and thoroughness. But, very significantly, that slickness permits him to communicate to a much broader audience, and by so doing, to inspire that audience to reflect upon, question, and refine concepts that, for them, otherwise may have remained static.

I find it doubtful that this same breadth of audience would otherwise be reading other, more rigorous, works. It might be true, that regular readers of 3QD, are unlikely to benefit much from reading "Blink". However, for many, less widely studied and read, the recognition of the utility, influence and impact of pattern recognition and non-rational "knowledge" can be more revelatory. As such it can open the minds to deeper exploration. Gladwell makes starting on that type of path seem easy, fun, and rewarding. While "Blink" provides no great new revelations, and its promo over-states its significance, I also think its text and the hype does little damage. I do not recall it promoting or leading toward falsehoods or or otherwise leading its readers far astray. If Gladwell's readers in some way have their understanding of consciousness expanded, and feel empowered by a couple new insights, then perhaps they might yearn for more.

Could Gladwell he choose a more "noble mission" in his writing? Perhaps, but I'm inclined to think what he's now doing is having mostly positive effect on society, and is thus more deserving of thanks than derision.

Posted by: Mark | Jul 3, 2008 5:42:51 PM

Delicious tension in the apology between grovelling humility and feisty intractability. Loved it. Thanks.

Your original rant was a genre of journalism we see too little of now : in bygone days Gore Vidal and Kenneth Tynan were masters of that art. I hope you'll continue to keep it alive.

It spices up the often bland commentary that passes for discourse, and adds, rather than reduces, interest in the person and work discussed. Malcolm should be thanking you for the publicity, not trying to bring you to heel like a wayward mutt. Because we all know your bark is worse than your bite.

Posted by: oliviab | Jul 3, 2008 8:39:36 PM

nicely said, oliviab.
bark bark :)

PS for the record, he really is a nice guy. Who fuckin' knew?

morgan

Posted by: morgan meis | Jul 3, 2008 9:26:15 PM

I think the apology is feeble and far too willingly given - I don't really care if Gladwell's a nice guy or even if he's actually got some degree of personal/professional insight.

The short and unanswerable point is that his first two books are, frankly, ethically/morally convenient dreck for a fearful and fretfully repressive age. Gladwell is either an idiot savant who's lucked on to a market niche or, and I suggest much more probably, a professional cynic who has consciously chosen to pursue an easily digested brand of "insight" that is about as well-supported (but, of course, far more pretentious) as "The Gift" or "Mars and Venus".

If implicit (or at least inferrable) support for racial profiling and countless other current laxities doesn't warrant the spite that you originally directed, I don't know what does.

Posted by: Max | Jul 3, 2008 11:55:25 PM

I think the apology was gracious and well-done. Bravo.

SF

Posted by: Stephen Frug | Jul 4, 2008 2:06:42 AM

I am with Max above. I actually enjoy Gladwell's writing and am sure he's a smart dude, and nice to boot, but his books are full of crap and even he must know that. Which is fine, I guess, because we've all gotta pay the bills, right? But Blink certainly does read as an apology for the hysterical rejection of reason that has gripped our country lo these many years, and he ought to be taken to task for the cover he's providing to the fascists.

Posted by: Picador | Jul 4, 2008 2:32:57 PM

Thanks morgan.

I'm seeing your tail wagging, too! (Just my luck!!!)

o b

Posted by: oliviab | Jul 4, 2008 10:17:24 PM

As a fellow blogger who has "been there done that," and a big fan of this blog, I applaud you for having the guts to admit a mistake.

Posted by: Dan | Jul 5, 2008 12:20:47 PM

I told you, Morgan. I told you.

Posted by: jason | Jul 8, 2008 9:11:41 PM

Morgan,

I think you were right the first time, proving Malcolm's "Blink" thesis. Wait, that can't be right...

Posted by: Tony | Jul 11, 2008 7:13:08 AM

Morgan,

I think you were right the first time, proving Malcolm's "Blink" thesis. Wait, that can't be right...

Posted by: Tony | Jul 11, 2008 7:15:02 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD Science Prize

Logo designed by Vicki Winters

Iran Twitter News

Andrew Covers Iran

The Lede on Iran

HuffPo Liveblogging

Help 3 Quarks Daily

3QD on Twitter

Search Using Lijit

Lijit Search

Bookmark This Page

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

3QD FEED FOR GOOGLE


Add to Google

3QD ADVERTISING


Compare prices

  • Canada (French)
  • Australia
  • New Zealand
  • South Africa
  • Brazil
  • Recent Comments

    Carlos on Sex, Evolution and the Secrets of Consumerism

    Jonathan on Sex, Evolution and the Secrets of Consumerism

    Chris Horner on Sex, Evolution and the Secrets of Consumerism

    Pete Chapman on Saturday Poem

    Jonathan on Sex, Evolution and the Secrets of Consumerism

    Lambness on Sex, Evolution and the Secrets of Consumerism

    Billie Mintz on The Ponzi Avenger

    fred lapides on The History of Jazz, by Darcy James Argue

    Louise Gordon on Everyone Should See "Torturing Democracy"

    Louise Gordon on The Swedish dream is no more

    atomburke on Will Europe’s Economies Regain Their Footing?

    aguy109 on my ten favorite fetishes

    Elatia Harris on my ten favorite fetishes

    Elatia Harris on my ten favorite fetishes

    Elatia Harris on crowds, clowns, contempt, and cacophony

    maniza on Friday Poem

    Jesse on crowds, clowns, contempt, and cacophony

    David Schneider on Friday Poem

    Dave Ranning on Friday Poem

    maniza on The Improbable American

    Ruchira on Friday Poem

    D on Philosophy as Complementary Science

    Dave Ranning on The resignation speech of Sarah Palin: a deconstruction

    bill on Ah the singing, ah the delight, the passion!

    Fill on The resignation speech of Sarah Palin: a deconstruction

    Acclaim For 3QD

    ------XXX------

    "I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

    "I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

    "Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

    Subscribe to this blog's feed