Entry 2:

Dear John,

For two people who see the same assets--and problems--in a book, we couldn't disagree more about its value. You find it a "vapid" social-science counterpart to the nonlinear mathematics and physics that you questioned in The End of Science. You see mainly "fatuousness" in his quest for simple, counterintuitive solutions to complex problems. And you seem to regard The Tipping Point as a waste of the reader's time.

I don't think you've missed anything, John. You've pointed to real drawbacks in the author's mix of scientific findings and anecdotes. You're right that Gladwell's own idea of the power of context means that lessons can't be easily transferred. I'd like to return to this issue later. But I think you're expecting the book to do more than it reasonably can.

To me, The Tipping Point is a superbly narrated tour of a side of behavioral science largely unknown to lay readers. You admit that Gladwell is good at this. I'd say he's more than good. He's exceptional. Yes, I'm biased: Gladwell once wrote a New Yorker piece drawing on a concept of mine. But I think we agree that he has a gift for turning a theory into a story, and as the producers of Blue's Clues discovered, we respond to stories. At least I did. He can take a complex idea and show how natural it really is--for example the sociologist Mark Granovetter's studies of why casual acquaintances matter more in people's careers than close friends. He's chosen narratives that are absorbing in their own right yet mesh beautifully with the book's theoretical side.

Even when I question his conclusions, I admire his ingenuity in putting ideas together. His chapter on preventing teen-age smoking concludes with the idea (proposed by two leading nicotine researchers) that since it's impossible to prevent kids from following their cool peers in experimenting with forbidden substances, why not reduce nicotine levels below a tipping point at which few will become addicted even at a pack and a half a day? This might of course promote unintended consequences: Smoking might become socially more widespread if it had a lesser risk of addiction. But Gladwell's account of a suicide epidemic in Micronesia and its connection to youthful smoking in North America has wonderfully revealing detail, especially the accounts he elicited from young adults about how they started to smoke.

If Gladwell's examples seem self-evident in retrospect, that's a feature, not a bug. Paradoxically, the appeal of his "counterintuitive" findings is that they do ring true. With a little thought, they're no surprise. At a lecture at Princeton last month, Charles Townes, one of the inventors of the laser, recalled the tongue-in-cheek definition of a great idea with which Richard Feynman had once congratulated him: a concept he could have thought of. Many readers will recognize parts of their own lives. Consider the role of Connectors, people who have unusually large numbers of acquaintances and a knack for bringing them together. When I was a science-book editor I saw that some researchers didn't know what was happening in the lab next door, while others had amazing personal networks. My competitors and I were constantly looking for these Connectors. If you take a Connector who's a terrific judge of other people's work (a Maven, in Gladwell's terms) and a skilled persuader (Gladwell's Salesman), you have a potentially great series editor. Whole industries--literary agencies and speakers' bureaus--are based on these skills.

Ideas can be evident yet original. That's part of the charm of this book. It displays a Higher Obviousness. It's a wonderful toolkit. I think you indirectly recognize this when you say that Gladwell could have written a more substantive book. Where do you think he should have taken his argument?

Best wishes,
Ed

Editor's note: This discussion will continue on Wednesday.