<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>HTMLGIANT &#187; Maureen Tkacik</title>
	<atom:link href="http://htmlgiant.com/tag/maureen-tkacik/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://htmlgiant.com</link>
	<description>the internet literature magazine blog of the future</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 21:08:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Standing Ovation For Maureen Tkacik&#8217;s &#8220;Gladwell for Dummies&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://htmlgiant.com/mean/standing-ovation-for-maureen-tkaciks-gladwell-for-dummies/</link>
		<comments>http://htmlgiant.com/mean/standing-ovation-for-maureen-tkaciks-gladwell-for-dummies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justin Taylor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Malcolm Gladwell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maureen Tkacik]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the nation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://htmlgiant.com/?p=18524</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tkacik&#8217;s indictment of Gladwell is incisive, epic, merciless, and right. It runs a full seven web pages and is worth reading every word. Now, the next time you see someone reading Blink and reflexively go to slap it out of &#8230; <a href="http://htmlgiant.com/mean/standing-ovation-for-maureen-tkaciks-gladwell-for-dummies/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_18612" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 360px"><img class="size-full wp-image-18612" src="http://htmlgiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/gladwell_smile.jpg" alt="What, me huckster?" width="350" height="233" /><p class="wp-caption-text">What, me huckster?</p></div>
<p>Tkacik&#8217;s indictment of Gladwell is incisive, epic, merciless, and right. It runs a full seven web pages and is worth reading every word. Now, the next time you see someone reading <em>Blink </em>and reflexively go to slap it out of their hand, you&#8217;ll be able to explain why you did it. Here&#8217;s a choice gleaning from fairly late in the piece. Click through to start at the beginning.</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091123/tkacik" target="_blank">And so once again we find Gladwell muckraking in the trenches of banal cliché and thereby reinforcing said cliché&#8211;and, more insidiously, banality itself. In <em>Outliers</em>, as in <em>Blink</em>, he appears to assume that the unexamined life is the only sort his readers could be living, though lessons with titles like &#8220;Demographic Luck&#8221; and &#8220;The Importance of Being Jewish&#8221; suggest that he may have downgraded his expectation of who his readers are from the less savvy to the truly oblivious. <em>Outliers</em> contains a few new terms and morsels of trivia: the 10,000-Hour Rule describes the number of practice hours one must put in to attain true genius; we also learn that fourteen of the seventy-five individuals on Gladwell&#8217;s list of the &#8220;richest people in human history&#8221; were Americans born between 1831 and 1840. (Cleopatra is No. 21.) But for the most part, the book&#8217;s first section, &#8220;Opportunity,&#8221; contains nothing that will enlighten anyone who has given even a small fraction of 10,000 hours of thought to the word&#8217;s meaning.</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Also, it&#8217;s worth looking at this piece in light of this website&#8217;s ongoing discussion of what good criticism can or should look like.  The piece is occasioned by the publication of Gladwell&#8217;s new book, <em>Outliers</em>, but it could hardly be considered a mere &#8220;review&#8221; of that book. And yet, it&#8217;s not a NY/LRB-style essay, where the book(s) provide a sort of anchor for a larger discussion about something else. Tkacik seems completely at ease in Gladwell&#8217;s catalogue, moving with an apparent lack of effort through and between his books. She has a clear thesis that is developed, amplified, and otherwise nuanced over the course of the essay.  A writer who disagrees vehemently with Tkacik&#8217;s thesis and all her supporting arguments&#8211;or a writer who couldn&#8217;t care less about Gladwell one way or the other&#8211;still has a lot to gain from reading this essay. It&#8217;s a stand-out example of a particular kind of long-form criticism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://htmlgiant.com/mean/standing-ovation-for-maureen-tkaciks-gladwell-for-dummies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

