My weekend review
After reading spectacular reviews of both Blink and Freakonomics, I was expecting to be dazzled by the innovative approach to thinking and economics that the reviewers suggested the books offered. But while both books were interesting, neither struck me as the riveting reads the reviewers led me to expect. The books were very similar in that they were basically a compilation of suggestive studies, accounts, statistics, and the like, unified with commentary by the authors — well, in theory at least. The commentary offered by Malcolm Gladwell in Blink was often weak, and resulted in a book that didn’t seem very well integrated. And Stephen Dubner begins Freakonomics saying that the Levitt’s theories lack a unifying theme. But as a whole, I thought both Blink and Freakonomics made for
5 Comments:
If it's economics you're in to, might I suggest Eat the Rich for next weeks bookathon?
Actually, economics bores me to death. Freakonomics is not really about economics at all: Dubner explains Freakonomics as an approach that “employs the best analytical tools that economics can offer, but it also allows us to follow whatever freakish curiosities may occur to us.”
Note, I wrote quality reading material, not quality writing. I thought Blink was interesting, enjoyable to read, and hence overall, I would recommend it. I agree with you that Gladwell’s analysis was ineffective, and that the book generally lacked consistency, but in terms of my enjoying the book, those were only minor points. I thought Gladwell did a good job gathering interesting information (regardless of whether there was any common thread). And I didn’t think his actual writing style was terrible (it was clear and easy to read).
Alright, I’ve reconsidered, you do have a point, quality reading material was a bad choice of words; I should have just said Blink made for interesting reading material.
Bella,
Nope, I actually recommend it. For you too.
We miss your gues posting. Any chance you'll start your own blog?
Post a Comment
<< Home