Three Stars

Best for:
People looking for some tools to help them handle challenges of life.

In a nutshell:
Therapist Dr Smith (who is apparently also very popular on social media) offers tips, exercises, and tools to address some of the issues many people face.

Worth quoting:
“We can live a happy and fulfilling life and still experience the full range of emotions that comes along with being human.”

“One of my favourite ways to turn my attention to a compassionate thought process is to ask myself, if I was coaching a friend through this, what would I say and how would I say it?”

Why I chose it:
I’ve picked it up in a few different bookstores but heard others talking about it as well so decided to check it out.

Review:
This is not a bad book, and my rating of three stars is probably closer to 3.5. I think I’ve read enough books like this one that I shouldn’t be surprised when there isn’t a ton of new (to me) information. That said, the information is presented in a way that my brain loved – distinct sections with an introductory overview, then chapters talking through ways to address the different issues.

The book covers low mood, motivation, emotional pain, grief, self-doubt, fear, stress, and living a meaningful life. I keep a little notebook of things I’ve read that I find helpful, and I definitely found some useful things in this book, things I’m trying out to sort through anxiety and stress. And for those who maybe cannot afford therapy or are skeptical of it, I could see making use of the tools in this book as a good middle ground, at least initially.

While reading the book, I got the sense that Dr Smith might have issue with medication – I know that psychologists and psychiatrists can have some strong opinions about other’s professional approach. I did find a quote from her online that says “I am not against medication in general….However, I believe strongly that medication should not be the only tool available.” Which, I agree, and so it feels a bit strawman to me – like, who is saying medication is or should be the only tool available? So, anyway, something to think about when reading this book.

Recommend to a Friend / Keep / Donate it / Toss it:
Donate it

Four Stars

Best for:
People looking for a better, more empathetic, more effective way to communicate.

In a nutshell:
Rosenberg offers guidance for ways to be more effective in communicating and finding common ground.

Worth quoting:
“Most of the time when we use [the word should] with ourselves, we resist learning, because should implies that there is no choice.”

“…emotional liberation entails more than simply asserting our own needs.”

Why I chose it:
My partner read it and wanted me to take a look a well.

Review:
With this book, Rosenberg provides what I find to be a helpful communications structure for more empathetic and constructive engagement. I think it is at times way too stiff, and a bit naive, but I also can see a lot of value in it.

The main component of NVC (nonviolent communication) is a four-part process of communicating:
1 – Observe (but do not judge)
2 – Associate feelings with the observation (and actual feelings, not ‘I feel that you are being a jerk’)
3 – Identify what needs we have that are associated with those feelings
4 – Request what we want from the other person.

The book spends a chapter on each of those components, then looks at how to receive that type of communication, how to communicate that way with ourselves, and also how to provide more effective affirmations. I took quite a few notes, and I can definitely see how this all could work in real life.

Rosenberg shares many sample conversations and examples of its success in seemingly fraught situations (including discussions between Israelis and Palestinians), but some of the language feels like something out of a text book, not like how people really talk. Especially his approach of asking people to repeatedly reflect back what they have heard. I know that’s an ‘active listening’ approach as well, but I could see attempts to guess at what is beneath the language getting a bit annoying.

I do have some issues with the approach. For example, the discussion around anger. He sees anger as useful, but only insofar as identifying what needs of ours are not being met. Which is fine, but he doesn’t go further into what to do if we identify the need, the need is reasonable, and the person who can meet that need refuses. Think racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc. I get that there might be a point where communication just isn’t going to meet the need, but Rosenberg doesn’t seem to acknowledge that possibility.

He also sees no value in applying moralistic judgments (which he separates from value judgments, which for him are fine), and asks us to reframe such judgments into the person not acting in harmony with our needs. Again, I kind of get it – if the goal is to get the needs met, why not try what might work – but also, I do have moralistic judgments about some folks and their actions, and I think that’s reasonable because there are some actions that society should not accept or accommodate.

And as empathy is such a big part of this, he’s essentially asking the oppressed to empathize with their oppressors to the end of getting needs met, and I’m not sure that’s reasonable to ask of oppressed people. He is clear that ‘the process is designed for those of us who would like others to change and respond, but only if they choose to do so willingly and compassionately.’ Which, for some actions, I’d argue that change needs to happen regardless of whether the actor is doing it willingly.

That’s a lot of caveats, I realize, but I do overall like this approach and am looking at incorporating it into the ways I communicate with others (including my partner).

Recommend to a Friend / Keep / Donate it / Toss it:
Keep

Three Stars

Best for:
People interested in an historical perspective on data interception and ‘national security.’

In a nutshell:
Keefe explores the US systems of eavesdropping on allies and enemies alike.

Worth quoting:
“In times of panic, we overreact, we over-legislate. We get it wrong.”

Why I chose it:
I thought I’d read all of Keefe’s books then this popped up. I have thoroughly enjoyed his last two full-length investigations, so figured why not read this?

Review:
Reading a book about national security and intelligence that was released in 2005 is interesting, in that things like smart phones weren’t around, and so much has changed in terms of the data so many of us are willing to share. So this book is almost alike a time capsule, and while reading I mostly caught myself thinking ‘whoa, this is interesting – but what’s happening now?’

Keefe looks at ECHELON, the surveillance program that the UK, US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia all participate in, looking at the information their friends (and foes) share. It’s both super secret but also not really secret at all?

At times it was a bit hard to follow exactly what was being discussed, and how it related to everything else, but overall it was interesting, as it was written in light of the fact that 9-11 happened but all the fancy spying didn’t prevent it. A couple of main themes are that you can capture all the data you want, but you really do need humans to review it and make sense of it, and there aren’t nearly enough humans working in the field to do that; and is it worth giving up so much privacy if it doesn’t even lead to better security?

I would love an update to this book, looking at what’s been happening for the past 15+ years since the book was published, but overall for someone like me with very limited subject knowledge, it was a pretty good read.

Recommend to a Friend / Keep / Donate it / Toss it:
Not likely to recommend, and it’s an audio book so can’t do the rest!

Did Not Rate

Best for:
I’m not quite sure.

In a nutshell:
Author Róisín explores multiple ideas of wellness against the backdrop of Western cultural appropriation.

Worth quoting:
“How can we be individually well if we aren’t well collectively?”

Why I chose it:
The title intrigued me.

Review:
CN for the book: child sexual abuse, physical abuse of a child, emotional abuse, disordered eating.

I’ve not rated this book because I don’t feel comfortable doing so. It reminds me of a very important, very intelligent, very heartfelt independent film that just didn’t work for me. I don’t think I can rate it in a way that feels true to the author’s intention, nor true to how I felt about the book without those being in pretty stark opposition. On another type of book I’d probably rate it and move on, but this one is so personal and intimate that I think it requires an extra bit of care.

Róisín breaks the book into four sections: Mind, Body, Self-Care, and Justice. I did not finish the book as by the time I had gotten through Mind and Body, I knew that this book wasn’t for me. I don’t disagree or take issue with her statements; she’s clearly well-researched the topics she covers, and has a breadth of knowledge far beyond my own. But there was a point where reading this book became less of a challenge (a good thing!) and more of a chore (not such a good thing) for me. And I think part of that is because of the style of the book – it is much more … poetic? Than I was expecting. I’m not in a brain space for having to work that hard for a book.

And to some degree perhaps that’s a cop-out. Like giving up 3/4 of the way through training for a marathon. But also … training for a marathon is a choice? Reading is something I choose, and I love learning about things and places and people and ideas, but for me, this book wasn’t what I was necessarily expecting, nor did I find it making me think about the topic in unexpected ways. And that’s not me saying there wasn’t anything in there for me to learn, or that was new to me – there was LOADS – but it just didn’t work. For me.

That said, my goodness I can absolutely see this being a book that some people will absolutely love, read multiple times, dog-ear, write in, revisit. It has that feel, and I think that content. Just not for me. So I can’t recommend it, but also I can’t not recommend it.

Recommend to a Friend / Keep / Donate it / Toss it:
Donate it

Three Stars

Best for:
Women who are tired of being polite to their own detriment.

In a nutshell:
Author Reid offers tips on how to be ‘rude’ in different life situations as a means to stop putting everyone else’s needs above our own.

Worth Quoting:
“My desire not to be rude made me the absolute worst version of myself.”

“…all of this advice comes with a great honking caveat, and that is to keep yourself safe.”

“However, there is a tendency for women to use ‘sorry’ as a catch-all, often when what they really mean is ‘thank you.’ If you can swap out those sorries you can assert yourself as a more competent person.”

Why I chose it:
It looked pretty interesting. Also, I’ve read books and kindness and niceness this year, so it seemed kind of funny to read one about being rude.

Review:
Reid’s main theory is that most women have been socialized to be polite since we were young (the whole ‘he’s mean because he likes you and you should be flattered’ thing that happens in primary school), and we tend to be judged as ‘rude’ for doing things that should not be considered rude. And that this unwillingness to be rude means we are putting ourselves second when we don’t need to.

By rude, Reid means ‘good’ rude, not ‘bad’ rude. Bad rude would be yelling at the waiter when your food comes out wrong; good rude would be kindly telling the waiter about the error and asking for the correct dish; what many of us do is just pick at the food we didn’t order, pay, and leave.

Obviously, it’s more nuanced than Reid saying we should all be jerks. Instead, it’s more about asserting ourselves in situations where normally we might just grin and bear it. Many are things that we might consider quite small and minor, but her theory is that all those little things add up over time. A really basic example is when we get a haircut we don’t like. Instead of just smiling and thanking the hairdresser and then going home and crying, we should say (kindly, and without being an ass) that it hasn’t turned out as requested and then see what can be done to set things right.

I did see myself in many of the suggestions. I’ve definitely put the comfort of others ahead of myself for no good reason. And that’s the key – this book isn’t about putting one’s self first above all else. She’s saying that our focus shouldn’t be on trying to spare feelings when someone else is wrong and there is a (safe) way to work to make it right. It’s okay to point out a problem or issue and seek to rectify it – the key is to not be ‘bad’ rude about it.

She also operates in the real world, so in the section on dating, for example, she repeatedly points out that while we SHOULD be able to say ‘I’m not interested’ to a man instead of pretending we have a boyfriend to get him to go away, society isn’t there yet, as that can still be a physically dangerous situation for a woman to find herself in.

I also appreciate that Reid caveats what she says by acknowledging that women of color will have a tougher go in situations than a white woman like her, and that they often carry an even greater burden of being judged rude when they are merely being assertive.

Recommend to a Friend / Keep / Donate it / Toss it:
Donate it