May 10, 2010
It's always dangerous to hear a good author speak. Some extremely concise writers turn out to be sprawling and chaotic in speech. Obviously the editing process is tremendously helpful for this type of person, and after seeing them live you won't be able to read their writing in quite the same way. Of course that's not true of everyone - sometimes what you read is what you get. And, very rarely, meeting someone in the flesh is an even richer experience than you expected from the page.
Malcolm Gladwell is a very good speaker. He knows how to set up details in a story so when he comes back to them you know what he means. He knows how to speak in chapters, how to set a scene in a specific time and place, how to introduce you to characters efficiently and how, if the human dimension of the story makes sense, anyone can understand the complexities of drug trials and scientific concepts.
But I'd done him a disservice: from his books I'd imagined someone who got excited and leapt around the stage, and he's not like that. He's much more measured. Yes, he's fascinated by people and wants to know how they tick, but he doesn't just observe, he actually cares.
The topic for the evening was Serendipity in Science, focusing on a particular biotech company investigating a cancer cure, but it also took in what makes a good teacher, the human drama of medical research, and other obliquely related details.
Like a good gospel musician, Gladwell knows how to involve an audience emotionally as well as academically in his story and how, in order to get his point across, to manipulate the mood of his listeners.
One other note - for English audiences rather than cosmopolitan Manhattanites, the first time I heard this accent was from Tom Lehrer, which makes for a slightly ironic edge to whatever Gladwell says! Of course these resonances for me are not under his control, but Gladwell's flashes of humour might well come from the same vein as Lehrer's.
I came away thinking of all the other things I'd like Gladwell to write about. I'm well aware that he uses the human element in quite a deliberate way, and that he doesn't always stick to the central point of his topic, and that the element of moral encouragement isn't to everyone's taste, but all the same I think he's a good man. And whichever strange idea he's going to define and then explore next, I'll take it from him that it's worth looking into.
Malcolm Gladwell is a very good speaker. He knows how to set up details in a story so when he comes back to them you know what he means. He knows how to speak in chapters, how to set a scene in a specific time and place, how to introduce you to characters efficiently and how, if the human dimension of the story makes sense, anyone can understand the complexities of drug trials and scientific concepts.
But I'd done him a disservice: from his books I'd imagined someone who got excited and leapt around the stage, and he's not like that. He's much more measured. Yes, he's fascinated by people and wants to know how they tick, but he doesn't just observe, he actually cares.
The topic for the evening was Serendipity in Science, focusing on a particular biotech company investigating a cancer cure, but it also took in what makes a good teacher, the human drama of medical research, and other obliquely related details.
Like a good gospel musician, Gladwell knows how to involve an audience emotionally as well as academically in his story and how, in order to get his point across, to manipulate the mood of his listeners.
One other note - for English audiences rather than cosmopolitan Manhattanites, the first time I heard this accent was from Tom Lehrer, which makes for a slightly ironic edge to whatever Gladwell says! Of course these resonances for me are not under his control, but Gladwell's flashes of humour might well come from the same vein as Lehrer's.
I came away thinking of all the other things I'd like Gladwell to write about. I'm well aware that he uses the human element in quite a deliberate way, and that he doesn't always stick to the central point of his topic, and that the element of moral encouragement isn't to everyone's taste, but all the same I think he's a good man. And whichever strange idea he's going to define and then explore next, I'll take it from him that it's worth looking into.