Not really. I was looking forward to learning about theory of mind, particulary as it relates to fiction, but the presentation of the book was so monotone, and so clinical in its delivery, that I frequently lost interest in the direction it was moving. Ironically, you would think a book about deciphering what another person is thinking/perceiving would do a better job of reaching out to the reader.
This book is very entertaining, and high quality neuroscience. it is fairly easy to follow, considering its topic. i would put it in the top five books of its type. i think in some ways it is better than David Eaglemen's Incognito, but would put it slightly behind Steven Pinker or Leonard Mlodniow. My only reason for giving four starts, instead of 5, is because the book feels a little light or incomplete, like Dr. R has stopped short, perhaps there is still science to be made. All that said, i would definitely buy his next book.
I love neuroscience books and love dogs, too, so i thought this would be a good read. The author tells some great anecdotes, and can bring a tear to your eye, but there is not a lot of structure or definitive conclusions in the book. About half way through, i started wondering if maybe there was not enough research to dig deeper into the subject matter, or if maybe it could be updated with more studies (it is about 8 years old). i enjoyed parts of it, but left wishing there was more to it.
The book is a classic, and it does seem to ramble at times, but several of the sequences - Pillar's story about how Pablo sent the fascists through a gauntlet, Robert Jordan's experience with the leaders in Madrid, What death smells like, and Andress' race to Goetz - are so technically perfect and well-delivered, that it is hard to argue with the obvious - that Hemingway truly was one of the greatest storytellers of all time.
Scott did a great job. His narrator was even and stark, his Spaniards were accented, but not overly so. Much better than John Slattery's reading of "A Farewell to Arms" (who, despite being a great actor, cannot pull off a waoman's (e.g., Catherine Barkely's) voice.
that would be hard, because it was 16 hours. but i was motivated to listen to it in fewer days than i normally would take.
Overall, an entertaining treatment of the subject matter, but some of the anecdotes/science tidbits i had read in other books (e.g., David Eagleman's "Incognito"), and the total read was not as cohesive or wow-ing as Mlodinow's "Drunkard's Walk" (which i really enjoyed).
"theory of mind" - very interesting. i look forward to learning more about it.
Gladwell demystifies the myth of Horatio Alger success by tellling anecdotes and relaying studies to show that many factors - good timing, technical repetition, cultural factors and community support - all contribute to our greatest success stories. As with other Gladwell works, there is some hyperbole and embellishment, but there is no denying that the man can grab your attention and keep you engaged. The man can tell a story.
Yes - I have listened to "Blink", "The Tipping Point" and "What the Dog Saw". I think this work is the most unified and compelling.
Lots of tidbits. The stuff of party conversations.
As noted above, while ever engaged, there are times when you feel Mr. Gladwell is making a big to-do out of factors that may not have contributed, or contributed only a little, to a historic success. So enjoy - but take it with a grain of salt.
Report Inappropriate Content