Isn’t that what a good sentence is supposed to look like? Start with the subject and move swiftly and smoothly to the object. Why the extraneous preposition? Why, oh why, the parenthesis? “For” is an association preposition: Gladwell’s whole point is that you don’t associate this sort of success with Hush Puppies. And it has the sort of effect you get by starting with a conjunction. This is not the only tipping point in the book: this is the one that happed for Hush Puppies. Right from the opening words, Gladwell is using suspense. “Brushed suede” and “lightweight crepe” are setting up the extent of the surprise that these shoes will be popular in Soho, not a very “lightweight crepe” kind of place.
Or maybe he is just describing what a Hush Puppy shoe is. It's possible the reader does not know what it is. I don't think there is any stylistic significance here. I am certain there are plenty of books that use a similar technique that have not sold nearly as well. Gadwell already had significant name recognition, such as writing for The New Yorker, when the book came out. He got a $1.5 million advance to write the book, and this was before 2000. Obviously he was huge name and the book was expected to sell well.
Yeah, when I read the example I didn't get much farther than "Hush Puppies" before laughing out loud. I had to decide whether it was an elaborate bit or the author was a credulous dope. What does "Start with the subject and move swiftly and smoothly to the object" mean, other than "this is the sort of thing I think literary critics do, but I don't want to actually read all the fiction that James Wood did."
I think there's an idea out there that when your faves become (and they always do) Problematic, it's time to defend them with a kind of partisan zeal that approaches the absurd. It's like ok man Gladwell sold a lot of books, no need to create a shadow culture around him.
> Or maybe he is just describing what a Hush Puppy shoe is
To me, this reiterates the point. Perhaps he is just describing a Hush Puppy shoe, and it's just the way his mind chooses to present that information.
The same information packaged in other ways won't be as interesting to read, won't feel as compelling, forces the reader to create their own narrative.
Whether this is a subconscious outcome and the words just flow or a carefully calculated outcome with much poring over the sentence structure doesn't much matter.
What matters is that people eat it up, and there is most likely something to learn from that.
Or maybe he is just describing what a Hush Puppy shoe is. It's possible the reader does not know what it is. I don't think there is any stylistic significance here. I am certain there are plenty of books that use a similar technique that have not sold nearly as well. Gadwell already had significant name recognition, such as writing for The New Yorker, when the book came out. He got a $1.5 million advance to write the book, and this was before 2000. Obviously he was huge name and the book was expected to sell well.