I think the close reading is insightful both of Dickens and Gladwell. I have the impressions Dickens worked quite hard at the allusions, although they probably came more easily with practice. Do you think Gladwell plans his paragraphs in such detail or is it more an instinctive flow and how much can he gain in the edit ? My instinct is that maybe the edit shapes the syntax a lot. But possibly it’s more naturally his flow of writing. I’m not sure you can easily copy either style though you can analyse it. What do you think ? Thanks.
Edits bring a lot, I think, if you believe what writers tell you, which in this case you probably should. Both passages are mid-career, of course. Gladwell having done a lot of writing at this point, albeit not for books. You may or may not be able to copy the style, but you can learn the constructions. For example, "For name --- telling information --- x was/was not a good/bad y" is more or less the structure of the opening. So you could write, "For Charles Dickens --- a man famous for his depictions of domestic harmony and loving family --- the turning point came in a train crash when he was travelling with his mistress." Writers do learn and imitate such structures, whether the knowledge is tacit or explicit. (Knowledge of the phrase associative preposition is incidental to that.) Copywriters learn headline structures, at last the good ones do; poets learn like this, see Auden's account of his apprenticeship in The Dyer's Hand. And if you write for the New Yorker, I imagine the editing process (tight control of house style) helps embed certain modes of writing. There's a good book called Syntax as Style by Virginia Tufte which is very useful for this. I wrote about it here: https://commonreader.substack.com/p/syntax-is-the-secret-to-good-writing
I don't have my links for all that since I left my job. Many excellent online articles/compilations about it, though. How to X like Y, which I used in this post, is one example. Reading old copies of newspapers is a good way to learn.
I like the comparison too. You can read and enjoy Tipping Point without thinking about the fact that you are reading non fiction and enjoy it. Sometimes it feels like non-fiction is food for the brain and as such does not need to be enjoyable. Whether it is the content or the delivery style, you finish feeling a bit inspired, just as you do with a good work of fiction. Maybe it comes down to quality and good storytelling. Maybe it comes down to storytelling. Most good stories follow a formula, don't they?
Fascinating explanation. As you hint, the actual content of Gladwell’s books is not without its critics. I find the hosts of the podcast ‘If Books Could Kill’ quite annoying but they did what seemed to me to do a pretty good hatchet job!
Thank you for this piece. Great quotes and great insights.
Slight nitpick. The use of "for" in the sentence by Proust should be ascribed to his translator. The sentence in the French is simply: "Longtemps, je me suis couché de bonne heure.” There is no "for" and no preposition, unless it is implied. For that matter, and for what it's worth, the translator's "for" is doing different work than the "for + proper noun" formula you notice in Gladwell, since it is used as a complement of time, an adverbial phrase.
I know the French sentence; it seemed unnecessary to point out it is the translation. It's a prepositional phrase acting as an adverb. Almost all prepositions can be used to refer to time. Although it is a different use of a preposition, it amounts to the same effect. The fact that Proust's original achieved that effect with an adverb is somewhat incidental, I think, when that adverb will often be translated as a prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial construction.
1) The effect is not Proust's effect, since Longtemps reads very different than "For Hush Puppies..." Maybe I'm reading both wrong? In each, we get a slight pause at the beginning of the sentence before entering into the SVO chain. But with both "For Hush Puppies" and "For Nancy Pelosi", the initial prepositional phrase focuses our attention on the real actor in the sentence, whereas neither Proust nor his translation do that. That would be my argument that the effect, the way our attention is steered, is quite different.
2) The prepositional echo we hear in the English phrase seems contingent on the accident of the translator's choice, which might have easily settled on other phrasings.
Pedantry very welcome! In English the "for" is often implied, and the fact that she chose that phrasing is significant and has a specific effect. "Time and again, I have gone to bed early" is similar in that it is left branching, but to start with a preposition is a specific choice with a different impact. Yes it's a time preposition not an association preposition but I don't think that changes the basic point, does it? Imagine it read, "For architectural pleasure, Paddington is London's best train station." Same effect. Gladwell could have written, "For a long time, Hush Puppies—the classic American brushed-suede shoes with the lightweight crepe sole—simply weren't cool; the Tipping Point came somewhere between late 1994 and early 1995." Same effect. We are by now arguing a very narrow part of what was already a rather narrow point however!
The comparison to Dickens seems incredibly premature and unlikely to prove true in the long run. Dickens is not a phenomenon in the current world because one or more intellectuals compared him to the 19th century Fitzgerald or declared his works important. Dickens is important and still talked about generally because he found a way to reach the emotional centers of an enormous readership spread over various continents and this has continued for over 150 years. To expect that The Tipping Point will have even the slightest shadow of this influence even 10 years from now is highly suspect. Whatever the article's point may be about the relation of current thought to non-fiction is hard to judge as it seems based on a completely specious comparison. Dickens is melodramatic and often lacks nuance but he has created characters that continue to live in our imaginations in ways that urge us to be better than we are. I see none of this in Malcolm Gladwell's writing.
The Tipping Point and other books were interesting at first blush but have proved shallow and glib as the initial impact has faded. The conclusions seem to be stripped of nearly all nuance in the rush to make a broad saleable conclusion. Perhaps Dickens' all good/all bad characters similarly lacked nuance, but I will happily wager that people will be discussing even lesser known characters like Noddy Boffin and Mr. MiCawber long after the remembrance of all Gladwell's writing is dead.
Henry, this is a startling comparison: Dickens and Gladwell, illustrating and illuminating the powerful effect of each.
I would not--in a million years--have come up with this comparison!
It does great justice to both writers.
Thanks for this brilliant insight and analysis.
It's time for me to revisit Gladwell! (I'm already immersed in Dickens via the "Dickens Chronological Reading Club"!)
Daniel
I need to catch up with the DCRC. Hoping to read MC over Christmas!
I think the close reading is insightful both of Dickens and Gladwell. I have the impressions Dickens worked quite hard at the allusions, although they probably came more easily with practice. Do you think Gladwell plans his paragraphs in such detail or is it more an instinctive flow and how much can he gain in the edit ? My instinct is that maybe the edit shapes the syntax a lot. But possibly it’s more naturally his flow of writing. I’m not sure you can easily copy either style though you can analyse it. What do you think ? Thanks.
Edits bring a lot, I think, if you believe what writers tell you, which in this case you probably should. Both passages are mid-career, of course. Gladwell having done a lot of writing at this point, albeit not for books. You may or may not be able to copy the style, but you can learn the constructions. For example, "For name --- telling information --- x was/was not a good/bad y" is more or less the structure of the opening. So you could write, "For Charles Dickens --- a man famous for his depictions of domestic harmony and loving family --- the turning point came in a train crash when he was travelling with his mistress." Writers do learn and imitate such structures, whether the knowledge is tacit or explicit. (Knowledge of the phrase associative preposition is incidental to that.) Copywriters learn headline structures, at last the good ones do; poets learn like this, see Auden's account of his apprenticeship in The Dyer's Hand. And if you write for the New Yorker, I imagine the editing process (tight control of house style) helps embed certain modes of writing. There's a good book called Syntax as Style by Virginia Tufte which is very useful for this. I wrote about it here: https://commonreader.substack.com/p/syntax-is-the-secret-to-good-writing
What good structures are there for headlines? Is there a book or a blog ?
I don't have my links for all that since I left my job. Many excellent online articles/compilations about it, though. How to X like Y, which I used in this post, is one example. Reading old copies of newspapers is a good way to learn.
Thanks! Hope your salon went well.
I think it did thank you. The NYT the day Roosevelt died is a good example of headlines. The most popular tweets also.
I like the comparison too. You can read and enjoy Tipping Point without thinking about the fact that you are reading non fiction and enjoy it. Sometimes it feels like non-fiction is food for the brain and as such does not need to be enjoyable. Whether it is the content or the delivery style, you finish feeling a bit inspired, just as you do with a good work of fiction. Maybe it comes down to quality and good storytelling. Maybe it comes down to storytelling. Most good stories follow a formula, don't they?
Fascinating explanation. As you hint, the actual content of Gladwell’s books is not without its critics. I find the hosts of the podcast ‘If Books Could Kill’ quite annoying but they did what seemed to me to do a pretty good hatchet job!
Certainly an interesting read, MC, Henry. Pecksniff is worth the price of admission!
Oh I can't wait!
Very very interesting comparison. Well justified.
Before one rushes to raise Mr. Gladwell quite so high I would suggest a listen to his exposition on the recent Munk Debate on mainstream media.
Chris
Does this change his prose style…?
Thank you for this piece. Great quotes and great insights.
Slight nitpick. The use of "for" in the sentence by Proust should be ascribed to his translator. The sentence in the French is simply: "Longtemps, je me suis couché de bonne heure.” There is no "for" and no preposition, unless it is implied. For that matter, and for what it's worth, the translator's "for" is doing different work than the "for + proper noun" formula you notice in Gladwell, since it is used as a complement of time, an adverbial phrase.
I know the French sentence; it seemed unnecessary to point out it is the translation. It's a prepositional phrase acting as an adverb. Almost all prepositions can be used to refer to time. Although it is a different use of a preposition, it amounts to the same effect. The fact that Proust's original achieved that effect with an adverb is somewhat incidental, I think, when that adverb will often be translated as a prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial construction.
Great. Sorry if I seemed pedantic.
I guess my point was:
1) The effect is not Proust's effect, since Longtemps reads very different than "For Hush Puppies..." Maybe I'm reading both wrong? In each, we get a slight pause at the beginning of the sentence before entering into the SVO chain. But with both "For Hush Puppies" and "For Nancy Pelosi", the initial prepositional phrase focuses our attention on the real actor in the sentence, whereas neither Proust nor his translation do that. That would be my argument that the effect, the way our attention is steered, is quite different.
2) The prepositional echo we hear in the English phrase seems contingent on the accident of the translator's choice, which might have easily settled on other phrasings.
Just my two bits!
Pedantry very welcome! In English the "for" is often implied, and the fact that she chose that phrasing is significant and has a specific effect. "Time and again, I have gone to bed early" is similar in that it is left branching, but to start with a preposition is a specific choice with a different impact. Yes it's a time preposition not an association preposition but I don't think that changes the basic point, does it? Imagine it read, "For architectural pleasure, Paddington is London's best train station." Same effect. Gladwell could have written, "For a long time, Hush Puppies—the classic American brushed-suede shoes with the lightweight crepe sole—simply weren't cool; the Tipping Point came somewhere between late 1994 and early 1995." Same effect. We are by now arguing a very narrow part of what was already a rather narrow point however!
Why would one want to wite like Malcom Gladwell when I can write like this?
https://les7eb.substack.com
The comparison to Dickens seems incredibly premature and unlikely to prove true in the long run. Dickens is not a phenomenon in the current world because one or more intellectuals compared him to the 19th century Fitzgerald or declared his works important. Dickens is important and still talked about generally because he found a way to reach the emotional centers of an enormous readership spread over various continents and this has continued for over 150 years. To expect that The Tipping Point will have even the slightest shadow of this influence even 10 years from now is highly suspect. Whatever the article's point may be about the relation of current thought to non-fiction is hard to judge as it seems based on a completely specious comparison. Dickens is melodramatic and often lacks nuance but he has created characters that continue to live in our imaginations in ways that urge us to be better than we are. I see none of this in Malcolm Gladwell's writing.
The Tipping Point and other books were interesting at first blush but have proved shallow and glib as the initial impact has faded. The conclusions seem to be stripped of nearly all nuance in the rush to make a broad saleable conclusion. Perhaps Dickens' all good/all bad characters similarly lacked nuance, but I will happily wager that people will be discussing even lesser known characters like Noddy Boffin and Mr. MiCawber long after the remembrance of all Gladwell's writing is dead.
You sound like the highbrow critics who used to dismiss Dickens. And in fact I made no claim that Gladwell would last. Nor does Dickens lack nuance!
I’m sorry... WHO wrote The Great Gatsby?!
I didn’t say…
I believe this sums up why I dislike reading Malcolm Gladwell so much.