I'd like to see a second edition of this book. Parts of it are rather weak, but Spring's discussion of forgiveness in the last part of the book is brilliant and badly needed as a counter to the general preference for what Spring calls "cheap forgiveness" "a quick and easy pardon with no processing of emotion and no coming to terms with the injury. It's a compulsive, unconditional, unilateral attempt at peacemaking for which you ask nothing in return." I see it as when the injured, milder, more reasonable, or more compromising person takes total responsibility for the situation, digging deep to find their inner martyr, thus relieving everyone else of any need to deal with the more difficult person. After all, it is much safer to nag a mild person to forgive that to tell a more volatile person to shape up.

Spring also insightfully points out that the definition of forgiveness is rather vague: "Often forgiveness is defined in such lofty, absolute terms that people can't grasp it [...] What is missing is a concrete down-to-earth vision of forgiveness--one that is human and attainable."

Spring asserts, in the best part of the book (and I thought it was great), that it takes two to create Genuine Forgiveness. The hurtful party or parties need to acknowledge the wrongs and resolve to work towards improvement. It may be that both or all sides need to do this, but there will be no resolution unless they do. This really isn't, or shouldn't be such a startling idea. It says in the Bible that it is the penitent who receive God's forgiveness, but somehow this has gotten lost in the rush for "cheap forgiveness."

Spring somewhat timidly introduces an important concept, which she calls "acceptance." It is a common fallacy that if one does not forgive another person, one is in a state of stress and tension resulting from active anger. This is the excuse for nagging the injured party to be forgiving, for "their own good." In fact, one may simply have decided to arrange matters to avoid the stress of dealing with a hurtful person and rarely ever think about them. Spring is arguing that it is possible to reach a state of calm and peace without forgiving the offender.

To give an example, a Friend of mine has a friend, call him Foaf, whom she describes as not knowing how to behave around people. After several years of intermittently dealing with ever worsening rudeness, I decided to have not more to do with Foaf. Having turned my anger into a decision that solved the problem, I never thought about him except when Friend would nag me to forgive him. This, and not anger at Foaf caused me stress. I suggested that since she thought Foaf's behavior was inadvertent, that as his good and great friend she have a talk with him and urge him to work on his manners, but she preferred to nag me to take on the stress of experiencing and tolerating his conduct. I was now angry at Friend, not at Foaf. I shocked her by asserting that as an autonomous adult, I have the right to choose my associates.

My problem with Spring's development of her concept of acceptance is that most of the section is filled with advice on weighing all the circumstances, e.g., did the injured party in some way contribute to the situation, are there circumstances in the the hurtful party's past that serve to explain his conduct? In short, all the premises that people use to argue that one never has a right to be angry, or that it is necessary to forgive. Assuming that this needs to be in the book at all, why in this particular section, rather than in a separate section at the beginning? It seems like Spring is putting an enormous burden on the person to justify choosing acceptance. I found it rather intimidating. How about this argument: after a consideration of the consequences in a particular case, and the importance of the relationship, the injured party is free to decide without elaborate justifications that it is best to terminate this relationship, or to make arrangements that lessen the stress rather than attempting to salvage a relationship? In my own example, I don't care what Foaf's childhood was like, he's not important enough to me to put up with his behavior. If he were more important to me, I'd put in more effort to work the situation out.

The section on "not forgiving" is a bit weak. It's not a good choice of terms, since "acceptance" is also not forgiving. She discusses the advantages and disadvantages, but she gives us an odd example. She tells us that the two personalities unlikely to forgive are the narcissistic and the Type-A personality. She give us an example of a Type-A personality. He has waited with his family to be seated in a crowded restaurant. When they are at the head of the line, another couple pushes in. The host seats the intruders (presumably narcissists, although Spring doesn't say so) knowing that it was not their turn. Type-A pitches a fit and is promptly seated. I don't see how this is an example of not forgiving. One might argue that pitching a fit is justified: it led to a fair solution. Perhaps having gotten his turn, Type-A is perfectly happy and the incident recedes from his mind.

I hope that this book has had and will have a lot of influence. A more realistic model of forgiveness is certainly needed. ( )