I have long been frustrated with the self-help movement. To me, all those books out there are saying, "You aren't good enough." And they are written, for the most part, by people who have a limited experience with the wide range of people who might be looking at their book. Writers, in other words, who don't really know what they are talking about.

So I loved finding this book. Although written in the early 1990s it holds true today. Kaminer examines several types of "recovery" movements, then moves into other self-help movements. She examines what the authors are saying and determines that most of them contradict themselves, are not based on clear thinking, and, worst of all, encourage a status of victimhood and dependency. "You can't help it." "You need help." "You can't do it alone".

Kaminer is especially ruthless when she discusses how this movement has muddied the waters of what is really abuse. Now any kind of difficulty can be labeled as abuse, as traumatic, "as bad as being in a concentration camp". The notion is absurd but I happen to know someone who has bought exactly this argument about her own childhood, that it was worse than being in a concentration camp. Come on! It's so ridiculous. And Kaminer is not afraid to say so, often with laugh-out-loud humor.

More people need to read this book. It might shake them loose of that feeling that they need someone else to approve what they do, to tell them what to do. ( )

There are at least two types of eloquence: one is stating the case in a manner that those already in agreement will applaud, and the other is arguing persuasively. Kaminer's book has been hailed for its exhortations and wit by foes of the "self-help" movement, whatever that is exactly. Fans of the books that she criticizes are undoubtably outraged. The skeptical will be unimpressed.

The irony is, one of Kaminer's chief complaints about the somewhat ill-defined self-help movement is that it blunts our critical thinking: she wants a nation of critical thinkers who won't analyze this book too closely. Kaminer doesn't offer any analytical evidence of how the self-help movement actually affects our society, she merely utters extremely vague warnings" "imagine the effect ... ." Nor does she have much evidence as to how people typically use self-help: a reader might gain useful insights without letting the book rule their life or joining a cult around the author. The "self-help movement" is a phrase that is tossed around a great deal, but what is Kaminer actually referring to? Any book that lumps together Norman Vincent Peale, Wicca, Alcoholics Anonymous and M. Scott Peck is covering a lot of ground. (It has never occurred to me to think of Wicca as a "self-help movement"; I guess Kaminer just doesn't like it and decided to throw it in for good measure.) All of philosophy and theology could be thrown into such a broad categorization. It would have been better if Kaminer had stuck to specific criticisms of specific books instead of trying to generalize about such a variety of works.

Kaminer's main arguments are two - one is that if you agree with her, the two of you will share the pleasure of sneering smugly at others. Secondly, she keeps informing us that whatever it is doesn't appeal to her as if we should be just overwhelmed that ***!!!!Wendy Kaminer!!!!*** doesn't approve.

I actually read this a long time ago. It came back to me when I was reading Paul Collins' fascinating The Trouble with Tom: The Strange Afterlife and Times of Thomas Paine, and read the discussion of phrenology in the early 19th century. Kaminer seems to assume that the idea of self-help is a recent phenomenon, falling back, I suppose, on the common tendency to think that things are going to pot these days but were much better at some vague time in the past. Actually, books of advice have been extremely popular since the the printing press made reading materials generally available: they were the best sellers of 16th century England. In her book, Mrs. Lincoln and Mrs. Keckly, Jennifer Fleischner tells us that Abraham Lincoln "bought a copy of The Elements of Character by Mary G. Chandler. One of many of its kind, a popular Victorian genre ... . It was written in the common self-help blend of psychological and moral language." Moreover, most of these books are based, legitimately or otherwise, on psychology and/or religion, both of which predate our time. Kaminer has indicated a respect for psychology in other books, and religion certainly preceded the founding of the Republic that she argues is now endangered by self-help books. So what has happened? She compares, for example, a belief in the 12-step higher power with devotion to a political demagogue. In the first place, a disembodied, individually conceived "higher power" is not capable of running for President-for-Life. In the second place, how does this differ from religion in general (which Kaminer never directly deals with)? Indeed, religious movements seem to me to be far more likely to be used for demagoguery: when was AA a voting bloc?

Some people do get pretty silly over these books, but is that because of the book, or because they're silly? Are their individual lives actually better or worse without the book? I know several people who work professionally with alcoholics who think that AA can be tremendously helpful. Sure, it would be better if no-one was inclined towards alcoholism, but that isn't one of the choices. The members of AA, et al., feel that they are better off with the program than without it. Kaminer gives us no reason to believe that she is a better judge of what is good for them than they are.

Toward the end of her book, she expresses her hope that we will drop all this nonsense and learn to think sharply and insightfully. She doesn't explain how she expects people who are too moronic to read these advice books critically are supposed to effect this transformation. ( )

I really enjoyed this book. Kaminer honestly tells the reader her thoughts and doesn't try to cloud them in some kind of authoritarian mist. She critiques the self help movement without stooping to it's level. Not providing answer but spurring the reader to think for herself by providing questions and insights. ( )

A cutting, and often humorous, analysis of the self help and recovery movement. I read it when it came out, and it seems even more relevant now. After all these years I remember the section where she compares a shopaholics anonymous-like meeting to a meeting of Cambodian refugees. Should be read by anyone who takes themselves too seriously. ( )