Not to be overly curmudgeonly, but, herewith, in no particular order, some prevalent modern ideas which are, in my opinion, stupid, false, counterproductive, and likely to destroy western civilization:
1. The belief that a government dedicated to promoting equalized outcomes and "social justice" is performing a legitimate governmental function, which will not lead to totalitarianism.
2. The idea that the government's primary function is to promote equality (in outcomes, not in treatment before the law), rather than to preserve liberty and freedom.
3. The idea that the most important thing the founders ever did was to revolt from England, when, in fact, the most important thing they ever did was to thereafter establish a constitutional republic of laws and not of men.
4. The idea that sex, marriage, procreation, and child-rearing need not be integrated concepts, but can all be separated into independent processes bearing no relation to each other, without any adverse effects to society.
5. The single gender lie, which denies the basic biological fact that (with rare medical exceptions insufficiently common to upend society over) human beings come in two genders, chromosomally defined and determinable, and which promotes instead the claim that there are no inherent complementary differences between men and women, but only differences which are the result of unjust social conditioning, such that we should strive for a world in which all gender differences have been collapsed and we all behave and are treated as an undifferentiated unigender.
6. The multiple gender lie, which denies the basic biological fact that human beings come in two genders (with rare medical exceptions insufficently common to upend society over), and which promotes instead the claim that there are a multiplicity of genders, which we must each determine for ourselves regardless of the gender we were (arbitrarily and unjustly) "assigned" at birth.
7. All of the stupid ideas that flow from the single gender lie and from the multiple gender lie, including without limitation, cisgender privilege theory, marriage redefined (out of existence) as meaning whatever you want it to mean with no core constitutive elements, policies which terminate the role of fathers in children's lives, etc.
8. The biggest false promise of the 60's, which nevertheless continues to be pushed today, despite all historical evidence to the contrary: that unregulated and unfettered and government financed access to birth control and abortion, for singles as well as marrieds, for youth as well as adults, will decrease illegitimate births.
9. The "Millenials'" generation's insistence that their children are so unique and special that each one of them must be given a name no one has ever heard before, which must be spelled non-phonetically. This item will seem like a silly, overly-curmudgeonly, addition to this list ("Come on people, there are like 14 ways to make a long e sound in English, can't you use one of them?") But it is in its way symptomatic of the whole. This is, ultimately, a list about ignoring objective sources of wisdom which come from outside oneself (based on nature, or the facts, or the law, or tradition, or God) and replacing it with subjective and personal beliefs. The Millienials' insistence that they can spell their childrens' names one way and require they be pronounced a different way is of a piece with the Millenials' embrace of defining marriage to mean whatever any two or more persons want it to mean.
10. Disparate impact presumptions. The belief that in a socially just society, every single ethnic or racial or gender group will have exactly the same outcomes as every other such group, such that, if any study between whites and non-whites, or between men and women, or between any other two groups, shows any differences in their average incomes, or average test scores, or average loan approval rates, or average graduation rates, etc., invidious discrimination/racism/sexism must be legally and politically presumed to be at fault, and inherent differences in the goals and aspirations and choices of different groups of people from different cultures cannot possibly have anything to do with it.
11. The multiculturalism lie: The belief that no society should be judged as morally superior or inferior to any other society, except that western civilization is presumed to be inferior to all other societies.
12. The female multicultural lie. The belief that multiculturalism is compatible with feminism, despite the fact that no culture on earth treats women as well as western culture.
13. The constitutional inequality lie. The belief that it is constitutionally appropriate for the government to discriminate against Whites and Asians and in favor of other groups, granted preferential treatment in the awarding of public contracts and in public university admissions, and that this does not violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
14. The university diversity lie. The belief that a high quality higher education requires a university student to be exposed to a diversity of ethnic groups and skin colors, but does not require the student to be exposed to any diverse political opinions. Hence, admissions and tenure decisions are to be made on the basis of ensuring ideological conformity by people who all look different but think exactly the same.
15. The higher education as political monastery lie. The redefining of the purpose of higher education, which is no longer to teach students knowledge and how to think, but is, instead, to promote "social justice" via recruiting and converting students as adherents to and missionaries for the causes of the left, such that it is perfectly appropriate for speakers and teachers who do not share in those causes to be kept off of university grounds, since allowing such partisans a voice would be contrary to the purpose of the university, as those purposes are now defined.
Showing posts with label Psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Psychology. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Saturday, March 9, 2013
How To Improve Humans
In Steven Covey's classic, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, he famously described how the "success" and "self-help" literature of earlier American generations had focused on character (principles for developing us into who we are), where more recent offerings had focused on personality (techniques for developing our image). Seven Habits was an attempt to get back to forgotten ideals about the importance of character.
Tom Wolfe has written of his belief that the 21st Century will be characterized as a time of a "Great Relearning" of principles that had been ejected by 20th Century revolutionaries, who were so anxious to overcome the ills they saw everywhere around them that they sought to "start from zero" in building a new society. In the process they forgot the wisdom of earlier generations on matters which will now have to be "relearned" for the upcoming generation who missed out on their transmission.
Three new "self-help" style books I recently completed would, I think, be met with approval from both Covey and Wolfe, focusing as they do on old-fashioned character traits. But they are also based on the latest psychological evidence on the techniques that can help us develop those traits.
In How Children Succeed, Paul Tough argues that grit and persistence and tenacity are just as important, if not more so, than IQ, for building a solid foundation in life.
He also spends alot of time talking about "character", what it means (the traits which will help a person perform well in life, or is it something higher: the traits which will help a person reach out to others in life?) how it can be taught, and why it matters.
Some compelling ideas and, for the most part, a helpful read. Could have been called "How People Succeed". In addition to being a good source for information on the importance of factors other than IQ (such as grit and persistence and optimism) for success in life the book also contains helpful information on the role played by adverse childhood experiences (such as an unstable home) in preventing the formation of those qualities.
Could have been a much better book though, but for the author's choice to focus most of his attention on opposite ends of the economic spectrum, comparing inner city schools attended by the childen of the very poor to elite private schools, which prevented large swaths of the book from being of much use to the rest of us who live and raise our children somewhere between those two extremes.
I worried, towards the end of Charles Duhigg's The Power of Habit, that it would be one of those books that ultimately argued people have no agency or (therefore) accountability, as he described the travails of a compulsive gambler. But, ultimately, he doesn't go there, suggesting instead that we are responsible for the actions which develop into our habits, good or bad. Better yet, his book is a powerful tool for understanding how habits work, and what is going on psychologically when we find ourselves in their power. Lots of very helpful information, well worth reading, both for individuals and organizations, on how to replace bad habits with good, and our accountability (there's an old fashioned word that needs relearning) for doing so.
That leads to the most practical book in the bunch: The Willpower Instinct by Kelly McGonigal, explains that willpower resides in our prefrontal cortex, which doesn't fully develop until we are adults, but which, like a muscle, can be increased through use. Her insights into how to strengthen that muscle make this a must read for anyone trying to build the good habits discussed in Duhigg's book. I found the information on social viruses and ironic rebound to be especially helpful. This isn't a book to read once and then set aside, it's a reference to go back to again and again for ideas and insights into how we can overcome any willpower challenges we might currently be wrestling with in our life.
Overall, three great books that complement and reinforce each other when read together.
If I had any concern with these three books, it would be the same concern I had with Jonathan Haidt's book on The Righteous Divide, or, indeed, with every book on social or behavioral studies I've read over the past several years. Even diet books. They are all much too eager to offer up theories of human behavior based on "evolutionary psychology." Instead of merely describing what modern psychological tests reveal about the human condition, they insist on explaining how that condition came to be, allegedly based on the course of our ancestors' existence in the primordial savannahs.
I find this absurd.
No, I don't find it absurd because, as a person of faith, I think evolutionary psychology is bad religion. (Questions surrounding the extent to which the Book of Genesis can or cannot be reconciled with modern scientific notions about the age and formation of the earth or the development of the physical body of man have never interested me very much. I assume that someday, as stated in Doctrine and Covenants 101:33, we'll be given more information about how the earth was made, including information that "no man" -scientist or theologian- previously knew, and we'll figure it all out then.)
Rather, I find much of evolutionary psychology to be absurd because it's bad science. Or at least highly dubious, sloppy, and overstated and oversimplified science. Last I checked, the scientific method still required at least two steps: (1) hypothesis; (2) testing. Evolutionary psychology is all hypothesis, and since there's no way to design and run a million year lab experiment, that's all it can ever remain. Nor is there a great deal of evidence from archaelogical conditions with which to fill in that gap. If we were to gather in one place all of the bones and artifacts and other indicia of what life was like for ancient man, . . . we wouldn't need a very big place. We just don't know that much, and so too much of evolutionary psychology remains a pat, just-so story: "Humans happen to have character trait X. Therefore, X must have given them some survival advantage in the distant past. Let's make up a story about what that advantage was and how it worked, the beauty of which story is that it is untestable and therefore no one will ever be able to challenge us on it."
Nevertheless, the science that tells us about how our brains work now (as opposed to how they came to so work) is compelling, and helpful. And these are three good books to learn practical applications of that science, including applications that go beyond technique and can help build character.
Tom Wolfe has written of his belief that the 21st Century will be characterized as a time of a "Great Relearning" of principles that had been ejected by 20th Century revolutionaries, who were so anxious to overcome the ills they saw everywhere around them that they sought to "start from zero" in building a new society. In the process they forgot the wisdom of earlier generations on matters which will now have to be "relearned" for the upcoming generation who missed out on their transmission.
Three new "self-help" style books I recently completed would, I think, be met with approval from both Covey and Wolfe, focusing as they do on old-fashioned character traits. But they are also based on the latest psychological evidence on the techniques that can help us develop those traits.
In How Children Succeed, Paul Tough argues that grit and persistence and tenacity are just as important, if not more so, than IQ, for building a solid foundation in life.
He also spends alot of time talking about "character", what it means (the traits which will help a person perform well in life, or is it something higher: the traits which will help a person reach out to others in life?) how it can be taught, and why it matters.
Some compelling ideas and, for the most part, a helpful read. Could have been called "How People Succeed". In addition to being a good source for information on the importance of factors other than IQ (such as grit and persistence and optimism) for success in life the book also contains helpful information on the role played by adverse childhood experiences (such as an unstable home) in preventing the formation of those qualities.
Could have been a much better book though, but for the author's choice to focus most of his attention on opposite ends of the economic spectrum, comparing inner city schools attended by the childen of the very poor to elite private schools, which prevented large swaths of the book from being of much use to the rest of us who live and raise our children somewhere between those two extremes.
I worried, towards the end of Charles Duhigg's The Power of Habit, that it would be one of those books that ultimately argued people have no agency or (therefore) accountability, as he described the travails of a compulsive gambler. But, ultimately, he doesn't go there, suggesting instead that we are responsible for the actions which develop into our habits, good or bad. Better yet, his book is a powerful tool for understanding how habits work, and what is going on psychologically when we find ourselves in their power. Lots of very helpful information, well worth reading, both for individuals and organizations, on how to replace bad habits with good, and our accountability (there's an old fashioned word that needs relearning) for doing so.
That leads to the most practical book in the bunch: The Willpower Instinct by Kelly McGonigal, explains that willpower resides in our prefrontal cortex, which doesn't fully develop until we are adults, but which, like a muscle, can be increased through use. Her insights into how to strengthen that muscle make this a must read for anyone trying to build the good habits discussed in Duhigg's book. I found the information on social viruses and ironic rebound to be especially helpful. This isn't a book to read once and then set aside, it's a reference to go back to again and again for ideas and insights into how we can overcome any willpower challenges we might currently be wrestling with in our life.
Overall, three great books that complement and reinforce each other when read together.
If I had any concern with these three books, it would be the same concern I had with Jonathan Haidt's book on The Righteous Divide, or, indeed, with every book on social or behavioral studies I've read over the past several years. Even diet books. They are all much too eager to offer up theories of human behavior based on "evolutionary psychology." Instead of merely describing what modern psychological tests reveal about the human condition, they insist on explaining how that condition came to be, allegedly based on the course of our ancestors' existence in the primordial savannahs.
I find this absurd.
No, I don't find it absurd because, as a person of faith, I think evolutionary psychology is bad religion. (Questions surrounding the extent to which the Book of Genesis can or cannot be reconciled with modern scientific notions about the age and formation of the earth or the development of the physical body of man have never interested me very much. I assume that someday, as stated in Doctrine and Covenants 101:33, we'll be given more information about how the earth was made, including information that "no man" -scientist or theologian- previously knew, and we'll figure it all out then.)
Rather, I find much of evolutionary psychology to be absurd because it's bad science. Or at least highly dubious, sloppy, and overstated and oversimplified science. Last I checked, the scientific method still required at least two steps: (1) hypothesis; (2) testing. Evolutionary psychology is all hypothesis, and since there's no way to design and run a million year lab experiment, that's all it can ever remain. Nor is there a great deal of evidence from archaelogical conditions with which to fill in that gap. If we were to gather in one place all of the bones and artifacts and other indicia of what life was like for ancient man, . . . we wouldn't need a very big place. We just don't know that much, and so too much of evolutionary psychology remains a pat, just-so story: "Humans happen to have character trait X. Therefore, X must have given them some survival advantage in the distant past. Let's make up a story about what that advantage was and how it worked, the beauty of which story is that it is untestable and therefore no one will ever be able to challenge us on it."
Nevertheless, the science that tells us about how our brains work now (as opposed to how they came to so work) is compelling, and helpful. And these are three good books to learn practical applications of that science, including applications that go beyond technique and can help build character.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Jonathan Haidt
"A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life." John Stuart Mill (as quoted by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind).
"Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers: ossification through too much discipline and reverence for tradition, on the one hand; on the other hand, dissolution, or subjection to foreign conuest, through the growth of an individualism and personal independence that makes cooperation impossible." Bertrand Russell (as quoted by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind).
This book attempts to explain the moral psychology which motivates liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Haidt claims to be a former liberal whose studies of different political philosophies eventually turned him into a moderate. Certain of his asides, however, reveal that he's still largely liberal at heart. (For a conservative like myself, there is something extremely humorous but bittersweet about Haidt's descriptions of his astonished reactions to his first readings in conservative philosophy, which he had managed to arrive at well-educated adulthood without ever being exposed to from an actual conservative writer. It certainly reinforces the common conservative complaint that liberalism has so taken over the universities and the media that it is possible for liberals to live their lives simply and completely unaware of what conservatives believe, beyond the standard liberal caricatures of those beliefs.) As such, this book can be seen as a mostly liberal writer's take on much of the same territory covered in conservative Thomas Sowell's book, A Conflict of Visions.
Haidt's focus, unlike Sowell's, however, isn't on differing visions of how the world works, as the source of different political philosophies. Rather, Haidt's focus is on the underlying moral intuitions (think of what, intuitively, makes you angry, or disgusted, or feel a sense of reverence) which compel us to see the world a certain way. According to Haidt, these emotional intuitions (the elephant) come first, and the arguments and reasoning we come up with to justify those feelings (the rider on the elephant), come second, as post hoc justifications. Liberals' intuitions are largely based on caring and fairness. Conservatives rely on these moral intuitions as well, but also rely on additional moral intuitions which liberals often reject: loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty.
Haidt is a gifted writer and this engaging book is fascinating reading for anyone interested in politics and the culture wars, from either side of the aisle. I never felt I was reading a polemic, and felt my own moral feelings and political beliefs from my side of the aisle were, for the most part, fairly represented. As an explanation for differing political viewpoints, this could be, for many readers, a paradigm-shifting book, that can enlighten every political story we read.
I do have two criticisms: I didn't care for Haidt's treatment of religion, and, as a person of faith, found his football game metaphor offensive. I also didn't care for how much of the book was spent discussing how humans evolved to develop the moral intuitions Haidt examines. On these questions (of how things came to be), Haidt's arguments are not nearly as convincing as his descriptions of the much more interesting and relevant descriptions of how things are. As Haidt himself notes, "theories are cheap. Anyone can invent one. Progress happens when theories are tested, supported, and corrected by empirical evidence." The problem with Haidt's theories of evolutionary psychology is that they are only theories, or more properly just hypotheses, which, absent a time machine or a million year long lab experiment are untestable and therefore pat and unhelpful. Nevertheless, this book was otherwise completely worth the read.
Completed: 2012
Rating: 9/10
"Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers: ossification through too much discipline and reverence for tradition, on the one hand; on the other hand, dissolution, or subjection to foreign conuest, through the growth of an individualism and personal independence that makes cooperation impossible." Bertrand Russell (as quoted by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind).
This book attempts to explain the moral psychology which motivates liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Haidt claims to be a former liberal whose studies of different political philosophies eventually turned him into a moderate. Certain of his asides, however, reveal that he's still largely liberal at heart. (For a conservative like myself, there is something extremely humorous but bittersweet about Haidt's descriptions of his astonished reactions to his first readings in conservative philosophy, which he had managed to arrive at well-educated adulthood without ever being exposed to from an actual conservative writer. It certainly reinforces the common conservative complaint that liberalism has so taken over the universities and the media that it is possible for liberals to live their lives simply and completely unaware of what conservatives believe, beyond the standard liberal caricatures of those beliefs.) As such, this book can be seen as a mostly liberal writer's take on much of the same territory covered in conservative Thomas Sowell's book, A Conflict of Visions.
Haidt's focus, unlike Sowell's, however, isn't on differing visions of how the world works, as the source of different political philosophies. Rather, Haidt's focus is on the underlying moral intuitions (think of what, intuitively, makes you angry, or disgusted, or feel a sense of reverence) which compel us to see the world a certain way. According to Haidt, these emotional intuitions (the elephant) come first, and the arguments and reasoning we come up with to justify those feelings (the rider on the elephant), come second, as post hoc justifications. Liberals' intuitions are largely based on caring and fairness. Conservatives rely on these moral intuitions as well, but also rely on additional moral intuitions which liberals often reject: loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty.
Haidt is a gifted writer and this engaging book is fascinating reading for anyone interested in politics and the culture wars, from either side of the aisle. I never felt I was reading a polemic, and felt my own moral feelings and political beliefs from my side of the aisle were, for the most part, fairly represented. As an explanation for differing political viewpoints, this could be, for many readers, a paradigm-shifting book, that can enlighten every political story we read.
I do have two criticisms: I didn't care for Haidt's treatment of religion, and, as a person of faith, found his football game metaphor offensive. I also didn't care for how much of the book was spent discussing how humans evolved to develop the moral intuitions Haidt examines. On these questions (of how things came to be), Haidt's arguments are not nearly as convincing as his descriptions of the much more interesting and relevant descriptions of how things are. As Haidt himself notes, "theories are cheap. Anyone can invent one. Progress happens when theories are tested, supported, and corrected by empirical evidence." The problem with Haidt's theories of evolutionary psychology is that they are only theories, or more properly just hypotheses, which, absent a time machine or a million year long lab experiment are untestable and therefore pat and unhelpful. Nevertheless, this book was otherwise completely worth the read.
Completed: 2012
Rating: 9/10
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Social Animal by David Brooks
This book, the story of married couple Harold and Erica, is supposedly "the happiest story you've ever read." Harold and Erica are not real people, they are fictional constructs David Brooks has created as the framing device for a book about social and psychological research, much of it truly fascinating.
Thus, we are first introduced to Harold's parents, and as they meet one another, and their attraction develops, we are told what "studies have shown" (the book's most frequent phrase) is going on beneath the surface, in the brain, the psyche, the personality, of each of Harold's parents, which causes them to react to each other the way they do. As Harold is born and develops, we are told what various studies have shown is going on in his cognitive and character development, and how his genes and his environment are affecting that development, etc. We meet Erica a little later in life, and follow her and Harold through adolescence, adulthood, and old-age. Along the way, we are introduced to various personality and psychological studies and theories helping us to understand their lives.
Harold and Erica don't live in real time. Rather, it is roughly 2010 when Harold's parents meet, 2010 when Harold and Erica go to High School, 2010 when Harold and Erica marry each other, and still 2010 when Harold dies. Putting Harold and Erica in real history would apparently distract from the purpose of the book, which is not interested in how people's lives have been affected by the actual events of real history, living through the Korean war or the Carter-era recession, say, but is interested in how people's lives are affected by their own psychological and personality traits.
It's a little hard to figure out where Brooks is going with all this, or what larger point he is trying to make. Apparently it's something about the need to better understand what modern science is telling us about the psyche if we want to make better political choices. Or perhaps the need to understand the "social" nature of man in order to make better personal choices. Despite initial headings on Brooks' "Purpose" the overall point is never made very explicit.
But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that introductory idea that Harold and Erica's lives are "the happiest story you've ever read." The thing is, Harold and Erica's lives don't actually seem that happy, and Brooks' insistence that we see their lives as an example of what we should strive for to live a happy life rings awfully hollow: Harold and Erica have no children. They belong to no church. They seem to have no real moral code. They (and their author) use vulgar and crude language. Harold's high school years are promiscuous, and after their marriage Erica cheats on her husband so Brooks can talk about the psychology of shame. Although Erica becomes involved in a Presidential administration, and Harold takes up his creator's Hamiltonian political ideas, you never get the sense that either have become adherents of some larger social or political cause that gives their lives great meaning. It is true that Harold and Erica both become extremely successful and prominent, but one never gets the feeling that their lives have been lived for some purpose beyond their own success and prominence. For "social animals" Harold and Erica have ultimately led pretty lonely lives. When they die, their existence doesn't seem to have meant anything for anyone but themselves.
The subject matter of this book, what we believe we've learned about the unconscious mind in the last 30 years, was fascinating, and I had a hard time putting it down. Some of Brooks' satirical social observations about modern life are hilarious and spot-on. But in the end the book left me with a bad taste in my mouth. This is not the happiest story I've ever read. It's not even a particularly happy story at all. And the claim that I should see it as such left me cold.
Thus, we are first introduced to Harold's parents, and as they meet one another, and their attraction develops, we are told what "studies have shown" (the book's most frequent phrase) is going on beneath the surface, in the brain, the psyche, the personality, of each of Harold's parents, which causes them to react to each other the way they do. As Harold is born and develops, we are told what various studies have shown is going on in his cognitive and character development, and how his genes and his environment are affecting that development, etc. We meet Erica a little later in life, and follow her and Harold through adolescence, adulthood, and old-age. Along the way, we are introduced to various personality and psychological studies and theories helping us to understand their lives.
Harold and Erica don't live in real time. Rather, it is roughly 2010 when Harold's parents meet, 2010 when Harold and Erica go to High School, 2010 when Harold and Erica marry each other, and still 2010 when Harold dies. Putting Harold and Erica in real history would apparently distract from the purpose of the book, which is not interested in how people's lives have been affected by the actual events of real history, living through the Korean war or the Carter-era recession, say, but is interested in how people's lives are affected by their own psychological and personality traits.
It's a little hard to figure out where Brooks is going with all this, or what larger point he is trying to make. Apparently it's something about the need to better understand what modern science is telling us about the psyche if we want to make better political choices. Or perhaps the need to understand the "social" nature of man in order to make better personal choices. Despite initial headings on Brooks' "Purpose" the overall point is never made very explicit.
But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that introductory idea that Harold and Erica's lives are "the happiest story you've ever read." The thing is, Harold and Erica's lives don't actually seem that happy, and Brooks' insistence that we see their lives as an example of what we should strive for to live a happy life rings awfully hollow: Harold and Erica have no children. They belong to no church. They seem to have no real moral code. They (and their author) use vulgar and crude language. Harold's high school years are promiscuous, and after their marriage Erica cheats on her husband so Brooks can talk about the psychology of shame. Although Erica becomes involved in a Presidential administration, and Harold takes up his creator's Hamiltonian political ideas, you never get the sense that either have become adherents of some larger social or political cause that gives their lives great meaning. It is true that Harold and Erica both become extremely successful and prominent, but one never gets the feeling that their lives have been lived for some purpose beyond their own success and prominence. For "social animals" Harold and Erica have ultimately led pretty lonely lives. When they die, their existence doesn't seem to have meant anything for anyone but themselves.
The subject matter of this book, what we believe we've learned about the unconscious mind in the last 30 years, was fascinating, and I had a hard time putting it down. Some of Brooks' satirical social observations about modern life are hilarious and spot-on. But in the end the book left me with a bad taste in my mouth. This is not the happiest story I've ever read. It's not even a particularly happy story at all. And the claim that I should see it as such left me cold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)