I recently learned that Malcolm Gladwell, Susan Cain, Daniel Pink, and Adam Grant have started a book club called the “Next Big Idea Club,” whose goal is to draw attention to new books that are “Groundbreaking, Science-Based, and Life-Changing (Actionable).” The book selections come with “video e-courses” that “highlight key concepts” (in case readers can’t figure them out for themselves), written course materials, exclusive author interviews, and an invite-only Facebook group.
In other words, the club leaders emphasize books that appear to have not only scientific basis, but clear takeaways–immediate applications to life–and then take the additional step of distilling those takeaways for the readers, thus affirming that the books should be put into action right away rather than thought upon, questioned, disputed.
I have no issue with the idea of a book club, no matter who leads it, when it involves selecting books that one loves (or finds especially interesting) and bringing them to the club members. But books deserve time and rumination; instead of being translated immediately into “actionable” takeaways, they should take up residence in the mind for a while. It is the dialogue (an approximate term) between author and reader that makes for memorable reading. The books that influence me the most have nothing immediately “actionable” about them; rather, they get me to think, they provoke me to return to the pages.
So that’s the first problem: the emphasis on the “actionable.” The second lies in the so-called scientific basis. Some of these books may well have strong scientific grounding. But science involves dogged and keen questioning–so the most scientific books will likely have the most uncertainties. With some exceptions, they will be the ones least conducive to takeaways. For a book to be both scientific and actionable at once, the scientific aspect may have to undergo simplification. The book club leaders, apparently, hasten the process of simplification by handing summaries and key points to the readers. This not only reduces the science itself but discourages scientific thinking.
The third problem lies in the priority given to “groundbreaking” books. We often don’t know right away whether a new book is groundbreaking; it takes time to put it in proper context and observe its influence and effects. Sometimes a seemingly new idea has many unknown antecedents; sometimes a seemingly grand solution fails to pan out. Rather than look for “groundbreaking” books, I would seek books that demonstrate intellect, probing, and wit: books that allow the reader to reconsider previous assumptions without latching on to false certainties.
The book club itself is nothing new; Gladwell appears to have been running it in some form for years. Kathryn Schulz wrote of his “Big Idea Club” in 2011 (in New York Magazine):
Big Idea books have been around for a long time; see The Communist Manifesto. But the Big Idea Book Club … is a recent phenomenon. Its accidental founder and president in apparent perpetuity is Malcolm Gladwell. Its membership, like the membership of most powerful groups, is largely male. Its combined sales are stratospheric; whatever these books are hawking, we can’t stop buying it.
And then, toward the end of the article:
There is no rule, process, peer group, leader, or best seller that can absolve us of the responsibility of thinking our way through life on our own two feet. What irks me most about this infinite parade of gigundo solutions isn’t their glibness or even the borderline theology (of some) and borderline Babbitry (of others) involved in promising audiences easy, happy, profitable ideas. Nope. What irks me is that when you rigidly apply grand theories to everybody, sooner or later everybody feels like nobody, whether you’re in Communist Belgrade or the local DMV. There is a reason we call such systems soul-crushing: They ignore or annihilate individual difference and inner life.
There you have it. Some ideas are big by nature, some medium-sized, some small. It would be folly to avoid an idea on account of its size. But it is dangerous to pursue or herald an idea because it is big. The bigness should give some pause. Do we really have room in this idea? Does it hold enough truth? Or has it been swept in, like so many others, only to drift out again later?
Some of the club’s selections may well be worth reading. Of the twenty that Adam Grant listed for 2018, I would be most likely to read Melissa Dahl’s Cringeworthy. I probably would not get to it until 2020 or later; I have many books waiting and generally like to read slowly. In any case, if I do read this book, it will be to consider the ideas and stories, not to apply them directly to my life. In books, it is the indirect applications–the use of words, the gestures of wisdom–that influence my life the most. The big idea? I take it in stride.
I have criticized the American emphasis on the Big Idea many times, in many places. (See, for instance, “The Folly of the Big Idea: How a Liberal Arts Education Puts Fads in Perspective,” American Educator, Winter 2012-2013). But I now come upon a new point: no matter what the size of an idea, I expect to be able to consider it in my own terms, on my own time–and not to accept someone else’s summaries or rush it into action.
Well, then, don’t join the club! someone might retort. No one is making you join. True, true, but that’s a moot point; I don’t join book clubs in general. Through my teaching, I have many opportunities to read with others; outside of work and projects, my time for reading is so scarce that I like to choose books on my own, often old books that I have read years ago or that I have been wanting to read for years. No, my own non-membership is not the point here. Rather, I argue and long for a different kind of reading: a kind that allows for liberty of thought, judges an idea by its merits, delights in verbal courage, and suspends summary and action.
I took the photo in Szeged in May.
I made a few edits to this piece after posting it. In addition, I learned long afterward that, according to Publishers Weekly, the club was founded by the entrepreneur Rufus Griscom and that it grew out of his earlier venture, Heleo, which started in 2015.
Take Away the Takeaway 
Susan
/ June 13, 2018Thank you for this thoughtful, important post. You have ‘unpacked’, in my opinion, the essence of a very critical problem in schooling specifically and society at large – the unwillingness to do the hard but incredibly gratifying work of reading and thinking through one’s own perspective. As a teacher, retired from schools and working in another capacity in education, the ‘unwillingness’ has deeper roots. One of those deep roots is the lack of opportunity, space, and the emotional safety to speak one’s thoughts in the classroom, “to consider it in my own terms, on my own time–and not to accept someone else’s summaries or rush it into action”. I suspect you are in a minority.
The lack of opportunity, space and safety in schools to consider and speak on one’s own terms leaves children and youth vulnerable to being controlled by others. So the idea of this book club would be very appealing for many – someone else has done the thinking for me, I do not have to reveal myself nor do I have to do the hard work of organizing my thinking into words and then supporting my thinking. Besides, I do not have the skills to do this.
The ‘action’ piece in the book club ‘hits the mark’ in a society that values action over thinking. This is a source of deep sadness for me. Along with the points you and Ms. Schulz make, there is the issue of brain development, specifically in the area of action before/instead of thinking. Neuroscience has revealed that the mature brain thinks before it acts more often than it acts before it thinks. Our brains reach this level of maturity between 20-24 years old. However, the brain does not mature automatically. It requires from our early years a model, for most of us some instruction, for all of us practice with ongoing feedback contextualized in multiple opportunities – reading and suspending summary and action being one of those contexts.
Thank you again.
Susan
Diana Senechal
/ June 13, 2018Thank you, Susan, for everything that you said in this comment. When reading it, I realized that I had been seeing “book summaries” even in book form. I don’t know when this trend began, but often when a bestselling book in the social sciences is published, someone else comes along with a book or booklet that lists and the key points of the first and translates them into simple language. I enjoy and learn from companion books, such as concordances, annotated editions, and so forth: reference works that give insight into a book’s details or structure. But summaries pull in the opposite direction: away from the details of the text, away from the difficulties and ambiguities, and toward some kind of takeaway.
oddodddodo
/ August 9, 2018I’ll share a little story. I had not heard of the Next Big Idea Club until the publicist for the book I have co-written (“The Book of Why,” you’re welcome to look it up) informed my co-author and me with considerable excitement that our book was a finalist for this summer’s list. (There are six finalists and two are chosen.) At first I was pretty skeptical but then I saw that Malcolm Gladwell and Susan Cain were involved and I thought, “Okay, the premise seems a little bit over the top, but I’m glad to be in the cool kids’ club.”
Your post puts a finger directly on the things about the N.B.I.C. that I was ambivalent about. I think we *do* have some big ideas in our book, but the idea that they should be “actionable” is slightly alarming. I’m worried about people misappropriating them, leaping to embrace them as the latest fad without thinking about their substance. I would be much happier if people said ten years from now that our book was a turning point in how they think about cause and effect. But two months after publication, who can tell? Actual “big ideas” take time.
To end the story: We didn’t get chosen. And it’s actually a bit of a relief. I don’t want to take anything away from Gladwell and Cain; I think that their hearts are in the right place and I admire them for trying to put good readers together with good literature. But I never fit in with the cool kids’ club anyway; I’m glad to be an outsider looking in.
Diana Senechal
/ August 9, 2018Thank you for this story! I am eager to read your book; I ordered it just now. From your comment here and from the short excerpt that I read, it seems that the book will provoke many thoughts and questions while also informing me of the Causal Revolution, about which I would say, quoting Tom Lehrer, “This I know from nothing.” Already I am thinking about a “mathematical language of causation” and look forward to more.
oddodddodo
/ August 9, 2018Thanks, Diana. I’ve just pre-ordered your book on Amazon, too. Judging from what I’ve seen on your blog, I’m sure to like it. Good luck! – DM
Gail Ritchie
/ October 17, 2019Your hostility confuses me, perhaps because your claims are unfounded. As a member of the NBIC, I have complete freedom to read (or not read) the book selections at my own pace. I can choose to watch (or not watch) the videos. I can choose (or not choose) to interact virtually or f2f with other members. Through this group, I have met so many thoughtful, brilliant people! Our common thread: we love learning! What’s hateful about that?
Diana Senechal
/ October 17, 2019This isn’t a matter of hostility. I am skeptical of big ideas, especially the latest ones (because they haven’t had time to assume their proper size and shape yet) and especially their “takeaways.” I read works from a long range of times, from ancient to present, and would not sign up for a book club that focused on the new, no matter what the genre. But beyond my own preferences, I object to the general cultural emphasis on the latest new thing. The book club, by its self-description, endorses this cultural emphasis.
Barbara Bentley
/ October 19, 2019I have been a member of NBIC since it launched and have found great value in this community. Rest assured that receiving these book selections and added materials (exec summary, videos, e-courses, live, interactive video interviews with authors) does not limit me in any way to debate these ideas, read other works, or engage (or not) at whatever level I choose. This isn’t a group that stays on the surface; we question, challenge, and share how we think and feel about a range of topics, using the book selection(s) as prompts. I’m glad that you get to read and converse widely through your teaching. As a fellow member commented, we are lifelong learners and I especially enjoy the opportunity to connect with people from many professions, locations, and walks of life that only this book club has been able to provide for me. This book club is not gimmicky. It’s also not elitist. It is thought-provoking and engaging. In a world where too many people jump to conclusions based on headlines, sound bites, and video clips, the Next Big Idea Club promotes reading, critical thinking, and discourse.
Popsy Kanagaratnam
/ October 19, 2019Other than book clubs I joined (briefly) at work where we read fiction, this was the first non-fiction book club I’ve joined. My purpose in joining the group was to become aware of current non-fiction titles, however, I’ve found so much more. I don’t read the summaries or watch the videos until after I’ve read the book, and then not always, time permitting. I’ve found from our face-to-face discussion group that we have thoughtful, informative conversations and tend to dig deeper into the books than we might otherwise. As with many things, the group is what you make of it, what you contribute to it, and what you take away from it. Although I might not have selected all the titles we’ve read, I’ve derived a great deal from each one – and for that I am grateful. I also enjoy our face-to-face meetings.
Diana Senechal
/ October 19, 2019Thanks to the NBIC members who have posted comments here. I am honored that you visited my blog to describe your experiences with the book club. I have no doubt that the club is valuable, interesting, and thought-provoking for many people. I also recognize your points about it bringing people together and allowing freedom of perspective and approach. My objections have to do with the club’s underlying, self-defining choices: the emphasis on the new, the big, and the actionable. I recognize that for the individuals involved, this is not all that they read, nor does it circumscribe them intellectually. I may have overestimated the role of the summaries and videos in the club’s activities; I see your point that the club and the books are what you make of them.
I remain skeptical of the cultural emphasis on the latest new thing. This is not particular to the book club; it stretches much farther. I find something kindred in G. K. Chesterton’s essays, such as “The Fallacy of Success” and “On Turnpikes and Medievalism.” This piece isn’t witty like those essays, but it shares part of their outlook. Other skeptical authors (whom I have admired over time, in various ways) include Plato, Shakespeare, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Ionesco, O’Connor, Carver, Krasznahorkai, Saunders, and many more.
Barbara Bentley
/ October 20, 2019Thank you for taking time to read and respond so thoughtfully to our (NBIC member) comments. I think skepticism is healthy. I selfishly wish I could take more time to read more, across many disciplines and world views. Thanks, too, for suggesting those essays. I’ll check them out.
Diana Senechal
/ October 20, 2019And thank you for your generous reply. I agree that skepticism is healthy, and I too wish I could take more time to read across many disciplines and views. It would be great to have more dialogue between the social sciences (such as psychology, sociology, and economics) and humanities (such as literature, philosophy, and history). They can differ greatly in their approach to human problems, and for that reason they can learn from each other.
John
/ October 29, 2019You are obviously a much better reader than me. I find this club useful. I typically read 15-20 nonfiction books a year. I find this club serves me books I wouldn’t typically pick out on my own. The robust online discussions, live discussions with the authors, local meetups, and, yes, ”e-learning” component force new to go much deeper than I usually go on a typical book. This club has surfaced my biases, questioned my career priorities, and expanded my horizons. Note that I specifically called out the club, not the books. It was the structured and consistent dialogue that made it happen for me…since I’m apparently not one of those readers you mention capable of doing it on my own. On several occasions, I was initially disappointed in a book selection only to later buy additional copies to give to friends and colleagues. Now I wonder if I should feel embarrassed of my lack of reading comprehension and intellectual ability. You’ve challenged my respect and love for a club that is meaningful to me. I challenge you to check it out before you slam it. Contact me and I will give you the free trial gift code I was holding for a friend.
Diana Senechal
/ October 29, 2019This piece somehow got a lot of attention recently, almost a year and a half after I wrote and posted it. At that time, the club had barely started; I was writing not about the members, not about the discussions, but about the club’s underlying premises as reflected in its name and description. That is all.
Kat
/ May 23, 2021I just ended up on the NBIC site a little while ago, and was looking for some honest (and not marketing motivated) reviews of the site. The idea seemed overall appealing, but there was this feeling in the back of my mind. It felt “culty.”
I put that word in quotes because I didn’t use it arbitrarily. Sarah Edmonson and her husband, Nippy Ames – noted survivors of the NXIVM cult – recently started a podcast title, “A Little Bit Culty.” They wanted a forum to discuss not just actual cults, but things which tickle the edges of cult mindset and expectations, such as MLMs and self-help groups. Because there’s a lot of manipulation in this world that is on a much smaller scale than something like NXIVM or Scientology, but which is using similar verbal and psychological traps to get and hold people’s attention – and all of it is potentially dangerous without transparency.
Having read over the various comments on this article, I can’t help but feel that the “A Little Bit Culty” concept is precisely what I’m looking at, with NBIC. Not just a community to absorb and discuss new ideas, but one which tries to insist that it has the answers people need, or its on the verge of discovering them. And one which – in the exact same way as a cult – will lash out at any criticism, even the most respectful and constructive. Even to the point of some people calling your post here hostile, when there’s nothing remotely hostile about it.
Thanks for calling out the concerns you have, because they not only mirrored some of mine, but they also brought to light details about the community which might’ve been harder to unearth – without first joining the club.
Diana Senechal
/ May 24, 2021Thank you, Kat, for this fascinating comment. I will have to check out the podcast. I agree that it’s important to point out tendencies that are “a little bit culty.” The internet itself is full of them; for instance, the tendency to “pile on” someone who voices an unwelcome view, the notion that if you just crush them with numbers, they will finally either disappear or cry out and confess to the wrongness of their ways. The comments here are rather polite compared to other things I’ve seen. But still it’s interesting, as you point out, that any of the commenters would have taken the piece as “hostile.” It’s as though any criticism were perceived as a mood-spoiler, which in turn is taken as a threat, since the pumped-up mood is part of the whole package.