3 ms·
> as they aren't full-on manipulations of reality, I view them as a useful entry point into a subject. But then, this is exactly the critique the article advan
by carbonguy 5y ago
> as they aren't full-on manipulations of reality, I view them as a useful entry point into a subject.
But then, this is exactly the critique the article advances: in this book Gladwell presents a narrative that gives readers (to put it charitably) an incomplete understanding of the nature of American air doctrine in WWII. Omission of facts IS manipulation of reality, and what Gladwell has created seems to be more akin to a third- or fourth-order representation of reality where a heavily biased selection of (to be fair, mostly true) facts is then glossed and presented in a form where one "can read it in the bathtub with a cold beer" and have a good time. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's pretty remarkable to assume that such a work gives you any meaningful grasp of a subject in addition to being entertainment.
- joshuak 5y agoI think by "manipulations" the parent's implication is, manipulation to some purpose, as in to fabricate support for some political or philosophical belief. It's so common to manipulate reality for the purpose of entertainment that we have a fairly benign term for it: poetic license.
- xenophonf 5y agoThen label Gladwell's works as the fictions they are.
- brailsafe 5y agoWho'd assume that though? Reading through a book does not give me a robust understanding of a subject. If that were true, why would people go to school? I read for a perspective and some entertainment, and maybe retaining some details. I read the God Delusion, but I wouldn't presume to know all that much about the intricacies of evolutionary biology. I have at most a cursory understanding of how natural selection works, and a few examples to go on that I didn't know about previously. Why would I care to know everything about "American air doctrine in WWII" when I hadn't previously paid the subject any thought at any level?