Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Taxonomy of the Modern Mystery Story | Revisionist History | Malcolm Gladwell
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2023
- Today, another episode from the Revisionist History Live universe. It's an old fashioned lecture, recorded at the New Orleans Book Festival at Tulane University. Malcolm talks about a totally real thing he made up-a taxonomy of the modern mystery story-with a focus on murder mysteries and police procedurals. From Dragnet, to John Grisham, to Sherlock Holmes, it's all in there...and all connected to how we view real policing.
Season 8 (2023)
#podcast #revisionisthistory #malcolmgladwell
ABOUT REVISIONIST HISTORY
Revisionist History is Malcolm Gladwell’s journey through the overlooked and the misunderstood. Every podcast episode re-examines something from the past - an event, a person, an idea, even a song - and asks whether we got it right the first time. Because sometimes the past deserves a second chance.
ABOUT MALCOLM GLADWELL
Malcolm Gladwell is president and co-founder of Pushkin Industries. He is a journalist, a speaker, and the author of six New York Times bestsellers including The Tipping Point, Blink, Outliers, David and Goliath, and Talking to Strangers. He has been a staff writer for the New Yorker since 1996. He is a trustee of the Surgo Foundation and currently serves on the board of the RAND Corporation.
ABOUT PUSHKIN INDUSTRIES
Pushkin Industries is an audio production company dedicated to creating premium content in a collaborative environment. Co-founded by Malcolm Gladwell and Jacob Weisberg in 2018, Pushkin has launched seven new shows into the top 10 on Apple Podcasts (Against the Rules, The Happiness Lab, Solvable, Cautionary Tales, Deep Cover, The Last Archive, and Lost Hills), in addition to producing the hugely successful Revisionist History. Pushkin’s growing audiobook catalogue includes includes the bestselling biography “Fauci,” by Michael Specter, “Hasta La Vista, America,” Kurt Andersen’s parody Trump farewell speech performed by Alec Baldwin, "Takeover" by Noah Feldman, and “Talking to Strangers,” from Pushkin co-founder Malcolm Gladwell. Pushkin is dedicated to producing audio in any format that challenges listeners and inspires curiosity and joy.
STAY CONNECTED
Web: www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revis...
Twitter: / gladwell
Facebook: / malcolmgladwellbooks
Instagram: / malcolmgladwell
Newsletter: www.pushkin.fm/newsletter
Thank you Pushkiners for digging out buried history (episode 1), the numbers and the comparisons, in your wonderfully illustrative and entertaining way. And just by the way, I enjoyed your making fun of some of our eminent high court who, as we are learning, exist to listen to money talking.
Gladwell posseses both extraordinary intellectual range and depth. Taxonomy of the Modern Detective Story is a tour de force, insightful and thought provoking. Defending the mainstream media, as required of Gladwell by the terms of Munk debate dictated that he defend his client warts and all. And he did a brilliant job. Of course, he is not a debater by profession. He is a thinker and expositor. That he maintained his equanimity throughout the debate in the face of obvious strategic maneuvers to unsettle him was a privilege to see. We have all had to deal with bullies on the playground, and Malcolm had his that day. He had the better arguments. That's what we rely on intellectuals for. It is unfortunate that he didn't absolutely wallop his opponents. Leave that for showmen. He made the best arguments, and we see evidence of his having been right every day we dip into the muck that today calls itself digital journalism. Ultimately, it's the "process", as Gladwell argues, that protects the public's interest in the truth.
We suffer from this disconnect between police and public in South Africa across all racial lines. No one trusts the police. Your analysis is going to help me for one to approach this fraught subject more thoughtfully. Thank you
I
My forensic scientist friend strongly encourages me to text her anytime I'm watching my fav cop show. It usually leads to some interesting discussions about procedure and reality.
I've never seen anyone lose a debate as badly as Malcolm Gladwell at the Munk Debate. That was a blood bath.
That debate with Murray opened our eyes up to who Gladwell is. An establishment mouth piece of the worst kind. The NY Times refer to him as "the greatest intellectual in Canada"...Lol, oh dear.
@@deckofcards87 Gladwell is a prime example of low resolution thinking. It really is embarrassing to the profession of journalism that he was even on the debate stage.
Actually came here to see if Mr. Gladwell was still drawing viewership after the debate debacle. Just don't know how anyone can recover from something like that.
It was absolutely appalling, I can’t believe he even holds a platform after that disgrace. Made me nauseous listening to him
@@Benboy1980 It was disturbing on so many levels. Aside from the lack of civility, just could not fathom that someone of his intellect and stature could become so unhinged and vitriolic.
Oh Malcolm, how the "mighty" have fallen.. wait, you were never mighty to begin with.
It is so satisfying to see your character and lack of emotional self control come to full fruition on the Munk Debate stage. You have pulled the veil down and people can now ignore virtually everything you say. Indeed, judging by your abysmal numbers in terms of reach for someone of your (falling) "status", it seems people already are ignoring you.
This is intriguing. How is it you have come to this conclusion, but here you are on HIS channel, commenting on HIS podcast and boosting HIS youtube interactivity index? I mean, why aren't we on your channel discussing it, and all the articles, books, interviews and podcasts that you've been producing?
I appreciate a lot of Malcolm's work as thought-provoking if not enlightening on issues I wouldn't have considered - but hearing Malcolm reduce negative views of policing down to a misunderstanding based on crime media has got to be one of the most embarrassing arguments I've ever heard someone make so confidently. The discussion of fictional narratives is fascinating, but the discussion of real-life attitudes toward police is backward and borderline apologist toward modern policing. It's completely condescending to the activists who recognize and understand the harm our criminal justice system does very well, activists who are working in and around police and the people they harm and do not just have some twisted crime novel misunderstanding about the nature of policing. The idea that policing is broken in this country is not based in any significant part on mystery novels or fictional depictions of police. You don't need fiction AT ALL to be aligned against the modern American policing systems in place. Malcolm truly presents no evidence, and I mean no evidence at all, to support this theory of activists misunderstanding policing beyond essentially just asking us to trust him that that's what's happening.
Many Americans, particularly many Americans of color, aren't just relying on crime novel depictions of policing, they are living out the consequences of police misconduct every single day. This argument he makes also lacks tons of much-needed context regarding the history and present state of police reform activism, as well as the mountains of police misconduct that are largely covered up and ignored by statistics or never fully revealed to the public except by dedicated lawyers, journalists, and activists who refuse to accept the blatant lies we now know so many, if not all, police departments tell us.
He is right in calling this crime novel compass reductive - it seems to imply that hundreds of years of activism can be reduced down to a fundamental misunderstanding about the complexity of police as human beings, rather than the scathing and well-justified rebuke of the criminal justice system that it has always been. It is such a privileged, misguided, apologist shower thought of an argument.
Good lord these commenters have problems! Apparently none of them have ever fallen on their faces. Good for them. Pay no attention and keep up the good work.
In a novel I recently wrote, I have a police officer who inadvertently lets a major crime slip through his fingers. I try to make sure the reader understands why he makes this mistake.
Later, this same police officer inadvertently concocts a scheme to catch a notorious gang of bank robbers.
After thinking about it for a while, he loses all faith in the idea and abandons it.
Then, due to another incident, he half-heartedly puts the plan into effect.
By the end of the novel, and much to his surprise, the plan bears some fruit.
He sounds incompetent, falling and backward into success.
Reading a book by Stuart Kaminsky about Porfiry Rostiknov (who is reading Ed McBain) I realize that I have given more attention to the police even in foreign countries.
If Malcom recalls any of the many dramatisations of the Sherlock Holmes stories he will have heard the unsparlking inspector Lestrade pronounced as Lestrahd 2nd syllable like guard.
I think your depiction of the 87th Precinct stories is little simplistic. Yes, McBain assumes that most cops are good guys but they aren't always happily married (Bert Kling is a character who exists just to be unlucky in love) and a couple of them are Bad Cops though one of the two (Fat Ollie Weeks) does gain a sort of redemption towards the end of the series. (The really interesting schtick is how the series goes off into supervillain territory creating the Deaf Man, a Moriarty without a Holmes who is constantly frustrated by the average bumbling joes of the 87th Precint. )
I haven't read past the first quarter of the first Jack Reacher book (the author got him locked up in a prison with every chance of dying and I though 'Uh oh, this is going to get nasty') but you assume too much describing his killings as 'murder'. Not all killings are murder and some (or, who knows, maybe all) of those two hundred and some killings may have been justified self defence. I am willing to bet that very few (if any) of those deaths are shown as having a judicial enquiry as to their legal status though because the target audience might find the fine points of law boring.
Robert Peel put it even more bluntly than in the passages you read when he said that the only alternative to civilian police living among the public and working with them was to bring in military forces to control the cities which would be unbelievably expensive and immensely destructive to civil society. American police are very much like an occupying military force down to their equipment.
I believe that LAPD was bad on other metrics during the DRAGNET period. Corruption from gangsters and local politicians was rife in parts of the organisation. Which just makes your point about the complexity of reality for you again.
great speech
For a really great speech check out his performance in the 2022 Munk Debates. "Great" doesn't begin to describe his prowess and performance!!!
@@ABC-yt1nq listened to Malcom gladwell podcast on what you suggested me to watch, and again I reiterate this was a great speech
@@soupmeat3363 - cool. What did you think of his performance in the Munk Debate?
Douglas Murray
Malc
wow!
Douglas Murray: taking the "Glad" out of "Gladwell". Wow! Sorry, Mr. Gladwell - your pathetic racism in that debate showed your true colours.
So Cute😂
No mention of the LAWYERS. Yes, they can confound any Policing situation.
Caught holding a smoking gun?
"Someone suddenly threw it at me and I didn't know the hurtling metal was a gun."😝
Otherwise a fun talk. Yes. Bad neighborhoods exist. Does a witness there want to talk? Ha.. pin a target on me, please😝
saw Munk debate. Very creepy.
Virgil Flowers enlists the public to help.
I so appreciate your work, but book burning is beyond your cultural standard
Our concept of police officers is different than our concept of other professions because policing is a unique profession. It’s completely reasonable that those with a monopoly on sanctioned violence are viewed differently. It’s completely reasonable that those granted with “qualified immunity” are viewed as a monolithic class and not as individuals.
This is a good point, but I’m curious why you think this doesn’t apply to the military? It certainly seems that we have as many stories about military members as we do the police, and I think the clearest difference is their portrayal in media.
Sorry I didn’t make it clear that we should abolish both the police and the military.
@@Nigel-McMagmus Because the military doesn't engage in lethal force on their native soil?
War crimes are a totally different era and these days it's all about the private military industrial complex that Malc would gladly defend.
Haha Douglas Murray whipped you so hard you ended up on youtube. Poor little Malc
Welcome to the lecture of mindless technobabble I've never met a longer word salad where more was said and less was thought and this is coming from a guy who doesn't know how to turn off Star Trek
Intel reached me about your herd's assault; the debate. Darkness descends with complete faculty at the opposition. Deliberate accounts for a double portion should be appropriate towards an audience. I always play the cards without faults. I never doubt the heart of the cards! Racism is cultivated. It's their platform. You'd do well to never debase yourself from stating the obvious. Vulture fans roam your comments because an assertion is certain.
Bravo Malcolm. BTW youre my cognitive crush.
Gross.
Check out Malc's performance in the 2022 Munk Debates. If you still find him to be your cognitive crush after watching that you probably have the IQ of a potato. Maybe.
Watch his last Munk debate in November of 2022, you will soon lose all respect for him.
Thats not true. He investigates his dismal performance thoroughly in a later podcast.
I don't understand that need to troll. He performed badly in a format he had no training for. But the question is what value you create in the world by harping on long old news? I invite you to create something of positive value in the world.
How appropriate! Revisionist history. Bet Malc wishes he could revise the history of the Munk Debates!
I watched the Munk debate you took part in. It was embarrassing to watch. I think you lost a lot of fans in less than 2 hours.
Listen to his reflections on it - he got mugged by a master of debate
@@dexstewart2450 and I found that a very useful reflection! I have been in court where my stance was totally derailed and it is a function of another person's ability to take charge of the narrative, which is a honed skill.
@@dexstewart2450he got ‘mugged’ because he basically evaded every question and basically called the others racists. And deliberately mispronounced their names, like a child would. To say he was beaten because someone is better at ‘debating’ is to try and evade taking responsibility for the fact he had nothing meaningful to contribute and they (quite rightly) wiped the floor with him. He was shown up to be entitled and bigoted, thank goodness Murray showed him up for what he really is
@@dexstewart2450 - He didn't get mugged. He showed himself to be a petty, racist idiot - a turnip with a learning disorder would have crushed him, although not with the awesome panache of Murray.
This fool lost all credibility after Douglas Murray debate in Toronto.
Before everyone gets too excited about this towering intellectual you should probably look up his debate performance. It shows not only his character by the kiddie pool depth of his intellect. There, I just saved you 46 minutes of your life you'll never get back.
Wow. That was the biggest own I have ever seen in my life. I had liked Gladwell previously... but that debate proved he's an intellectual gnat.
He is truly a charlatan hack
@@user-bb7ur3ls6ysame, I read his book Outliers and now I question everything I thought I learned in his work. I threw it away.
@nudenut1916 the way he tried to "investigate" it was utterly damning on his own credibility. Shows Gladwell totally lacks insight as to how atrociously bad his arguments are, and what a horrible person he is all round. Doesn't even have the courtesy to pronounce or say the names of his opponents correctly, even after being repeatedly corrected. What a pathetic little man he is. Astonishing you're trying to defend him and deflect for him.
Yes, Malcolm responded to the debate in the form of a 45 minute podcast rebuttal loaded with logical fallacies and worth hearing because the REAL Malcolm is exposed.
He thinks he lost because he was not a skilled debater and that Douglas was. That’s part of it. The real reason is he presented no intelligent arguments to defend his position, Trust In Media.
In fact he presented evidence to NOT trust media. He race-baited, constructed straw men, threw out ad hominems and couldn’t course correct when he got called out on it.
The REAL Malcolm is a smooth brained intellectual that will be soon be shut out of his polite society. I empathize for what he must be going through.