Somewhere in his book “Originals,” Adam Grant writes that critical book reviewers were thought to be more intelligent than those who left positive reviews. Apparently, not many people are taking his advice.
While many of the anecdotes were fun and interesting, Grant also mixed in stale information about birth order and platitudes regarding business approaches. The number and length of footnotes was distracting. They could have been blended into the narrative. Grant also had the annoying habit of announcing what he was going to write about, and then writing about it. This is a well-worn technique and hardly “original.” It feels like a method taken from academia, circa 1975. Do universities still recommend doing this? For me, repetition brings everything to a standstill, and is therefore not suitable for popular nonfiction.
Now I’m wondering if I sound smart or am merely a critical jackass. Thank you for the suggestion, Adam Grant. “Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World” is worth reading. I recommend it.
Jeffrey Penn May, author of Roobala Take Me Home, Where the River Splits, Cynthia and the Blue Cat’s Last Meow, No Teacher Left Standing, Eight Billion Steps: My Impossible Quest for Cancer Comedy, Finding Your Fiction, and more.
