There are many criticisms on Friedman's book "The World is Flat". Many criticisms are based on his writing style and his continuous repetitive metaphors he uses. Yet others are more on the defensive side because they disagree on the world being flat.

Ronald Aronica, one of the authors of The World is Flat? – A Critical Analysis of Thomas L. Friedman's New York Times Bestseller , insists that globalization is one of the best events since the industrial revolution. They believe that the world is not flat because of globalization.

Matt Taibbi, is one of the many critics who were focused more so ont he waste of metaphors and language of Friedman. Taibbi review was quite funny in my opinion. When you look at it, many of his opinions were truthful. I agree with Taibbi on the point that most of the book does repeat itself . Below is an excerpt from Friedman's book in which Taibbi disagress with.

As I left the Infosys campus that evening along the road back to Bangalore, I kept chewing on that phrase: "The playing field is being leveled."

What Nandan is saying, I thought, is that the playing field is being flattened... Flattened? Flattened? My God, he's telling me the world is flat

Taibbi explanation of the difference: The two concepts are completely different. Level is a qualitative idea that implies equality and competitive balance; flat is a physical, geographic concept that Friedman, remember, is openly contrastingironically, as it werewith Columbus's discovery that the world is round.

http://www.nypress.com/article-11419-flathead.html

I disagree with Friedman's thoery that five Americas would be created due to the "flattening" of the earth. I feel that if anything it would make people globally more intouch with other cultures and technology.