The Essence Of The Truth
I think Malcom Gladwell is one of the best journalists we’ve got. Unless I’m missing something, nobody I can think of manages to craft well-researched, illuminating stories as powerful as his these days.
But he’s got his haters. The attacker is typically skeptical of his conclusions, or the methods he used to obtain the data that lead to his conclusions. His methods, it is argued, are not scientific.
While there may be some truth to this criticism (I wouldn’t know, because I haven’t read the primary sources—but how many haters take time to read the primary sources?), criticism focused on the legitimacy of Gladwell’s claims misses a fundamental point:
That Gladwell is interested in telling good stories, not just in publishing verifiable scientific claims. This is not to say he’s negligent of the ‘truth’, though. Rather, I think Gladwell tells the ‘truth’ of his pieces through his characters and the emotional arc of his stories.
In other words, he’s in the business of good writing—in getting to what David Eggers, when talking about his creative non-fiction book What Is The What, has called “the essence of the truth.” And a bit more, in Gladwell’s case.
He says so himself, in his preface to What the Dog Saw:
Nothing frustrates me more than someone who reads something of mine or anyone else’s and says, angrily, “I don’t buy it.” Why are they angry? Good writing does not succeed or fail on the strength of its ability to persuade…
It succeeds or fails on the strength of its ability to engage you, to make you think, to give you a glimpse into someone else’s head—even if in the end you conclude that someone else’s head is not a place you’d really like to be.
Get Into Someone Else’s Head
It’s always surprising to me when someone comes knocking for SEO-optimized writing only. I mean, I get it. We need it. SEO is important. But when it comes to writing for a business on the web, more is required.
Web writing is about more than great localized copy and bullet-pointed, easy to scan lists and links. Because your website is a universe, like a story. If the writing is great but the strategy’s off, you fail. If the strategy’s right but the writing is off, you fail. If you don’t help readers understand what you want them to understand about your business, you’ve failed.
We need to get into people’s heads. That pesky discovery question, “What’s your business all about?” requires getting into someone’s head. Figuring out who a client’s audience is requires getting into someone’s head. Writing anything that resonates, even commercially, requires getting into someone’s—namely, your client and his audience’s—heads.
Like good writing in general, good ‘commercial’ writing is not born only from reams of accurate market research. It is born from a empathetic understanding of the people it’s meant to engage, and a good faith effort to engage them. Not to mention web writing chops.
8 Comments
Totally agree.
In regards to SEO: if it’s engaging, gets people to read, link and keep coming back it’s good for SEO. Strategy, story, clarity, etc. are all a part of that.
Headlines and bullet points are great tactics to help guide a reader and play well with the tech of search, but without something meaningful to say they’re useless.
Word, DKR. Couldn’t have said it better myself, in fact.
Your entry is really two posts.
Part 1, on Gladwell
The best journalist of our time (if we’re talking about well-researched and crafted stories instead of investigative journalism) is Ira Glass and his team at This American Life, IMHO.net
His methods aren’t scientific and it’s important because he presents them like scientific findings/observations. Dave Eggers is talking about a work of fiction, which try to understand or at least relate to human truths: truths of emotion, idealism or faith. They’re not, historically, things that can be measured. The essence of truth is trying to, for me and I think in Eggers case, get as close as we can to understanding human action and reaction.
When Malcom Gladwell says it takes about 10,000 hours to become a seasoned professional at something he’s trying to use data to create a fact without using the scientific method (a reliable tool). Or, in the case of The Tipping Point, he divides the world into three types of people (in terms of consumerism). He’s an excellent writer, his books are easy to read and digest.
Him and in an even more extreme case Friedman (The World Is Flat) aren’t negligent of the truth, but they can twist some known facts to create a false fact. Psuedo-journalist/scientists that present them like findings or discoveries. They succeed in getting people to think, for sure, but they are dangerous in that they create a mythology around facts that people start to believe. It’s the same sort of fact-warping that has been used in politics and in neo-conservatism. It’s deadly, because it’s so convincing but not really backed up. In its satirical form, it’s truthiness.
I suppose now would be the inappropriate time to say I really enjoy Gladwell’s book, I just fear what those kind of books do. It’s like lazy correctness. He hasn’t put the material through stringent scientific methods, but it kind of feels right so let’s go with it. This worries me.
Part II, on emotion in writing on the web and human empathy and understanding.
Totes.
You’re the best!
Kenny
RE: The huge blunder about What is the What.
Eggers was talking about a biography, a work of narrative that tells someone’s life story. It’s a different context then presenting an idea the way Gladwell does.
RE: Above
I meant MY huge blunder about What is the What and poorly understanding it was a work of non-fiction.
*sigh* Sorry for that.
Hey Kenny,
I hear you, and appreciate the thoughtful response. In retrospect I probably should have worked out my argument in more detail instead of posting at 12am in a fit of blogmania.
Still, I have to take issue with one part of your argument. I disagree with your comparison of Gladwell’s style of journalism to the neoconservative tendency to create a “mythology around the facts.”
Whereas political myth-building is often created with the intent to persuade or convert (see the Power of Nightmares documentary), I think the “myth-building” nature of Gladwell’s writing (if it exists) is more the result of how eager folks interpret, employ, and spread (see my blog posts) his ideas.
In other words, I don’t think Gladwell’s intent is of the same ilk as the neocons’, and I think his ideas are far less dangerous. People might work harder if they believe the 10,000-hour rule, but they’re not going to bomb anyone.
Of course, I’m not not excusing Gladwell or anyone from responsible reporting and I hear your concerns, but I think we have to be careful when making comparisons like these.
I’m also not sure I’d put Gladwell in the pseudo-journalist camp of those who “haven’t put the material through stringent scientific methods” or think “it feels right so let’s go with it,” but I hear what you’re saying about the “pop scientific” nature of his writing and will think it through.
I don’t like Thomas Friedman’s writing or agree with his ideas (I could only handle ten pages of The World Is Flat), so I won’t comment on that.
And of course, I agree that Ira Glass is the shit.
Great post on Gladwell. Not only is he great writer, but I found him quite engaging when hearing him speak publicly.
I think Picasso is quoted as saying, “Fiction is a lie that makes you realize the truth.”
By entering into the falsehood of narrative, we’re often able to uncover realities we didn’t notice in the real world, because we were so distracted by everyday details.
So even though I don’t know who Gladwell is (yikes), I identify with what you’re getting at here.
As always, kudos.