Everyone these days has an opinion on Malcolm Gladwell, author of the wildly successful books The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers. If I had this bibliography to my name, I don't think I'd care about the general opinions of me and my writing.
So if you bring him up in conversation at a fancy dinner party you'll cause a wicked divide. On the one side, you'll hear from an enamored crew who admire Gladwell's ability to bring cultural theory to the masses. You could argue the same thing about Oprah Winfrey. Or worse: Dan Brown. Hmmm. That may or may not be significant. I don't want to insult my readers, so I'll leave that up to you*. I am channeling a choose-your-own-adventure book here.
At the other end of the platter of vol au vents sit the naysayers. "The Flipping Obvious Point!", they'll cackle. Are they genuinely not impressed with Gladwell's insight or merely jealous of his presumably fat wallet? Read his books, if you're of three people in the continental USA that hasn't, and get back to me.
Brandweek.com brings us a tantalizing headline this week proclaiming SCIENTIST: INFLUENCER THEORY IS BOGUS. Ouch. Take that, Mal. Duncan Watts (yes, the scientist in question) proceeds to rip poor Gladwell to shreds apparently because the influencer theory is too vague, too subjective, and not actually capable of predicting anything useful.
Read more here.
* By reading this footnote, you've risked offence. However, I can't not say it. The Da Vinci Code was beyond terrible. There, I said it.