Theodore Dalrymple

Sentimentality:

expression of emotion without judgement (...). Perhaps it is worse than that: it is the expression of emotion without an acknowledgement that judgement should enter into how we should react to what we see and hear.'

Yes! Oh yes! From pervasive victimisation (e.g. our compensation culture up to everybody being now 'survivor' or 'victim' of some sort of 'trauma') up to a toxic political correctness imposed upon us all in order 'to don't hurt sensibilities' (seriously?! Since show more when should sentiments have a role in public debates and policy making?!) we live in a day and age when feelings took over. Reason is subdued. Logic off the window. Common sense more often than not completely ignored. In a word, as Theodore Dalrymple rightly points in the quotation above: judgement nowadays became, well, irrelevant. Feel, don't think.

'Spoilt Rotten -The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality'... Gosh! Just the title says it all and, gosh! How I was so looking forward to read and love that book! Well, there's some good points but, all in all, the whole thing crumbles pretty quickly because of poor or irrelevant arguments, misguided stances and, sadly, unwelcome rants. I was very, very disappointed.

It started well, though. Focusing on nowadays children, their appalling behaviour and educational level at a bottom low (getting worst by generations) I agree with him that, we should hang our heads in shame for having created such bad generations... and let's fear for the future!
The thing is, looking for the cause of such decline (both in terms of discipline and literacy and numeracy levels) he is throwing his darts at the wrong target namely, 'romantic educationists' (Rousseau, Montessori, Froebel, Dewey...) he accuses of having a massive influence on our educational system. Well, I have experience working and volunteering in Primary schools, and I don't know what he is on about!
Rousseau has absolutely no influence on teaching ethos. As for Montessori and co., their full impact is felt only in specific settings and, even in mainstream schools, quite limited to Early Years only that is, up to five years old. Beyond that, the problem is one of poor standards, low level and irrelevant curriculum fostering ignorance and, true to a certain extent, some poorly applied practices (e.g. cooperative learning...). Yet, none of these last issues are being addressed here, so focused the author is at blazing his guns at child-centred philosophies which, he doesn't understand and therefore misrepresent -No! 'learning through play' doesn't mean playing for the sake of playing! It still is all about learning. Such widespread prejudices could be understandable coming from people having no clue or experience of how children learn; but in a book targeted in part at modern educational philosophies and policies, they show a poor understanding of complex issues.

Education is not the only topic where I thought he went completely off track. A whole chapter dedicated to the relevance or not of Family Impact Statements in British courts was, in my opinion, as misguided.
Here, it was indeed baffling to see him racks his brain trying to understand why such impact statements have been implemented in the first place since, they are given after the jury has returned its verdict, and so have no impact on sentencing. So, he assumes. To him, either it is 'to give suffering people the opportunity to vent their emotion in public' or, as if courts were intended to have some sorts of therapeutic virtue, 'restore psychological equilibrium to victims or to close relatives of victims.' In both cases then, misplaced sentimentality. He assumes... and so again fires his guns at straw man arguments. This was baffling because, it seems that at no point did it crossed his mind that Family Impact Statements were implemented for the reason then given to implement them that is, involved families of murdered people in courts' proceedings whereas before they felt excluded.
There is a line between denouncing sentimentality and, defending a cold judicial system leaving victims out. I felt here he crossed that line by not seeing the point in allowing families and relatives to express themselves in courts through such statements.

Another issue I had was scapegoating. He indeed personally attacks some individuals in rants that I found either misplaced or, plain out of order. I will just give two examples: Steven Pinker and Sylvia Plath.
Trying to dismiss Steven Pinker (tellingly, criticising only one of all his books -namely, 'The Language Instinct') he just comes across as with educational philosophies, as having an over-simplistic and prejudiced view of complex academic debates (here, prescriptivism vs descriptivism). So, he then just jumps on bandwagons, firing guns using nothing more than straw man argument... Yet again.
As for his dealing with Sylvia Plath, I found him insensitive. She was what she was, but let's not forget that she dealt with clinical depression so severe she was treated with EST, until finally committing suicide. To therefore call her 'the patron saint of self-dramatisation' is, I think, crossing a line if not being vile.

Now, having said all that not everything in this book is misplaced. On the contrary, there are also some sharps and relevant points being made, not least the core of the book that is, emotional responses devoid of judgement are toxic.

I indeed agree with him to the effect that, 'like all currencies, that of emotional expression can be inflated or debased' and, sentimentality, by encouraging public display of pathos, more often than not reflects all the symptoms of our egotistic societies . One may not (unlike I and the author) long for the time when self-restreint, fortitude, and dignity meant that some emotions belonged to the private sphere. No one can denied however the damaging impact such misplaced displays can have.
Alluding to the commercial success of books in the Life Tragedy genre, what he deliciously refers to as 'psychobabble' ('the means by which people talk about themselves without revealing anything, and certainly without having undergone the painful process of genuine self-examination') he shows that sentimentality feeds narcissism and self-pity. Mocking some sensationalists' newspapers headlines, he also shows how substituting reason for emotions can have dangerous and unhealthy consequences for public debates. More importantly though, he goes further by demonstrating how sentimentality can be linked to brutality and, mask counter-productive policies behind a sickening do-gooders attitude -sickening not because such attitudes are philanthropic but, but because they are hypocrite and self -interested (e.g. throwing money with big ooh ha! at the Third World, not to solve Third World's problems but, to feel good about throwing money at the Third World...).
In fact, he sums it all up in a killing paragraph:

'It is no longer enough to shed an unseen tear in private over the death of Little Nell; it is necessary to do so, or do the modern equivalent, in full public view (...) The public expression of sentimentality has important consequences. In the first place, it demands a response from those who witness it. This response has generally to be sympathetic or affirmatory, unless the witness is prepared to risk a confrontation with the sentimental person and be accused of hardness of heart or outright cruelty. There is therefore something coercive or bullying about public displays of sentimentality. Join in, or at least refrain from criticism. (...) In the second place, displays of public sentimentality do not coerce only casual passers-by, sucking them, as it were, into a foetid emotional swamp, but when they are sufficiently strong or widespread they begin to affect public policy.'

And here it goes! Discussing then in whole chapters topics like the reactions to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the death of Princess Diana and, foreign aid policies, I must say he can be brilliant and, on these points at last, clearly demonstrates the, yes, toxic impact of sentimentality. I just regret that, he uses only Gordon Brown's policies to argue his point against foreign aids. Why him especially? Why him only when, all PMs before and after him, royals, and even celebrities have been guilty of the same sins? Again, he is here scapegoating -worst, falling victim of political bias- which is sad because, I think, it undermines an otherwise powerful argument.

All in all then , because of the misguided, prejudiced, simplistic views of the author on too many topics, 'Spoilt Rotten' fails to deliver. There is indeed a need for a book to address the zeitgeist of nowadays that is, the triumph of sentimentality; that sickening 'cult of feelings' serving nothing but the taking over of reason (with all its damaging consequences) and the self-service of a narcissism so typical of our societies. Unfortunately this book is not the one to do so. High expectations being thus unmet, it felt flat.

A big disappointment. show less

If you want a collection of dyspeptic essays, here it is. The educated elite have destroyed the culture within the cities of Britain. Also, Paris is fucked, no one can state difficult truths, Islam is to rigid an ideology to support free inquiry and progress (the same progress elsewhere derided.
His observations are undoubtedly accurate, and worth some of the time reading them, but by no means all the book requires. Dalrymple's conclusions are not as convincing but should be considered.

Vivid description of a cross-continent trek overland. While much has changed, the conditions described go a long way towards explaining why much has not. Biggest mistake...thinking genocide would occur in Burundi, not Rwanda.

Nothing I write here is going to do this book justice. It's one of the best collections of essays I've ever read, and one that I forced myself to read slowly so as not to glut on them. It's also the most depressing book ever written. Its subject: "the baleful influence of bad ideas." One can perform the random page test and find perfect sentences one after the other. Dalrymple also demonstrates, over and over, his genuine compassion for those whom the intelligentsia claim to defend, as well show more as those whose lives have been ruined by policies and cultural trends. This makes the book sound like a political-science, wonkish collection, but it's not: almost every essay begins with a scene in a hospital or prison from which Dalrymple extrapolates an observation about the contemporary scene. Don't even listen to me: it's just great writing, period.

Have I mentioned that this really impressed me? show less