I've always felt that Malcolm Gladwell was the Soldier Boy of non-fiction literature - wildly successful due to the simple, accessible and formulaic nature of his work rather than superlative skills or talent.
Gladwell's writing places me in an uncomfortable position. On the one hand I know that my caustic criticism of him is as driven by his astronomical success as much as by his pedestrian analysis. In other words, my attitude towards this modern-day scribe seems to border on hateration, which I hold to be a most loathsome enterprise. On top of that, I see Gladwell as a pseudointellectual, who tries to deconstruct everyday phenomena using watered-down versions of complex theories he hasn't fully grasped. I hate to sound like an elitist, but I've yet to come across a true thinker (i.e. an academic) who thinks this guy is bright.
Steven Pinker, the renowned Harvard psychologist distilled my sentiments exactly in this recent book review from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html?_r=2&nl=books&emc=booksupdateema1
He is really populist actually and I had to read that Pinker essay to properly see it. I just read one his essays called "How David Beats Goliath" and it reads like a militia manifesto. Whether it's true or not, it's deceptively easy to start believing it. I think his true gift is figuring out what people believe (wrongly or otherwise) and telling them how right they are and how wrong "the man" is. Dude should be a politician
gladwell himself never characterizes himself as a scientist or intellectual... by his own admission all he does his take other people's social-science work, synthesize it, and try to make it more accessible... that in and of itself will always lend itself to leaps in assumption that can be picked apart...
the atlantic ran a story quoting academics who all had problems with gladwell's science/reasoning (fair enough), but all had to begrudgingly admit that he was a brilliant writer for being able to take such dense source material, and make any sort of narrative out of it whatsoever, not to mention ones that are so entertaining and readable.
which is why i appreciate gladwell for what he is... not a professor, but a provocateur... not someone who delivers the definitive statement on any topic, but someone who can poke and prod someone into thinking about it in a different way.
(although pinker wasn't a fan of any of gladwell's books, he's stated that he's a big fan of his articles within the context of the new yorker magazine...)