Malcolm Gladwell gets a lot of complaints for his facile overreaching, and those criticisms are legitimate. Gladwell tends to speak in absolutes, then adds weak caveats before speaking in more absolutes, and in the end he has created an entertaining and convincing narrative that is less convincing to those most familiar with the subjects he covers.

I'd read a number of articles critical of David and Goliath before I read the book itself, and I don't say any of them are wrong. And yet, I'm not as bothered by Gladwell as others are.

Certainly Gladwell overreaches in this book. He tells us that adversity can lead to strength, and offers a lot of anecdotes about successful dyslexics and the like. But it's not always persuasive. Even if it's true that an unusual portion of dyslexics are entrepreneurs, does that really mean their dyslexia helped them? Couldn't it mean that dyslexia makes it difficult for smart, talented people to enter certain fields, so they group in other fields where it's less of a disadvantage.

But while you can argue with a lot of Gladwell's claims and analysis, I feel there is an underlying message that is useful; it's not always clear who the underdog is. This is the point of his David and Goliath story, in which he reframes the story to show that it was actually reasonable, and even predictable, that David would come out on top.

Taken as a collection of stories about people who overcame hardship to succeed, David and Goliath is rather inspiring. Gladwell may be wrong in claiming that adversity may ultimately be a good thing, but he makes a decent case that it may not always be as destructive to success as one might think.

It's not his best book, and yes, the formula is wearing a little thin, but it's still quite entertaining.