I'm not really one for non-fiction self-help. But when we had to vote on this month's Book Club selection, I was intrigued by the write-up about David and Goliath. It said it would blend history and psychology and self-help. I thought, Maybe I'll like this one.
And I wasn't completely disappointed.
First, let's start off with the good--I like the variety of stories that Gladwell highlights. There are the "local interest" types, the ones that might get picked up by a regional new; the "I would have never known", where the person's identity is often changed and their experience is highlighted; and the "historical figures", the ones we might read about in speciality history books. And he breaks down situations really well. In the beginning, he looks at each aspect of the famous Biblical tale of the underdog facing the giant, showing how David actually had every tactical advantage. The book then goes into the various situations, and shoes why what we think of advantages (such as Goliath's size) aren't always the best thing (David's speed allowed Goliath almost no time to react to the sling attack). It also showed that disadvantages can motivate and enable us to act in ways that others would not risk.
I had two major problems with the book. One, he seemed to place a huge emphasis on the way these people approached a situation, casting their thought processes a strategic type light. And while I know that some of these people were specifically thoughtful in their actions, a lot of them I'm sure just acted. It's the same way that when you talk to those that risk their own health and safety to save another person's life and ask why they did what they did, they often respond with a variant of "I don't know-- I just acted." I would have liked for him to acknowledge more that people sometimes unconsciously act, whether they are the underdog or the giant.
The second thing was his writing framework style. His words were easy to understand; his train of thought was not. When focusing on the Troubles in No. Ireland, he referred to an economic report by Nathan Leites and Charles Wolf called Rebellion and Authority, which was written specifically on how to deal with insurgent situation. Gladwell argues their thoughts were wrong, using the Troubles as examples. But he brings up these few lines from the report again later, and again, and again. His ideas are consistent, but he seems repetitive and scatterbrained--it's more like I'm reading the transcript of a speech than an edited book, the way he'll pull in information and stories from the previous chapters at will-nill.
Overall, I'd give it a 3.4/5.