Anneli Rufus

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. —BERTRAND RUSSELL

I've been reading several books of low self-esteem, but this is the only one that has been written by someone who truly understands what it is to loathe yourself. Author Anneli Rufus has struggled with this all her life. But it's not just the feeling of being understood that makes this book tops. Rufus writes amazingly, and her analogies help show more even those who don't hate themselves (lucky!) understand what those who do struggle with this are going through. She writes as if to the reader alone, as if you're reading a long letter from a friend.

I've also never laughed at loud while reading a book on self-esteem: "Be the first on your block to start a self-loathing support group. Call it SLAG: Self-Loathing All Gone. Or SLOB: Self-Loathing Oblivion-Bound. Hello! My name is Tyler and I hate myself."

Her advice seems simple enough so that you're willing to try, as in this description of releasing negative thoughts: "Imagine the phrase I can’t as a leaf that has flown into your hair on a windy day. Imagine plucking that leaf from your hair, holding it in your palm, and letting the wind take it back, blow it away." Or this one: "But say you had walked with that rock inside your shoe for five blocks. Say you had walked that way for five miles. Say you had walked that way for fifty miles and never shook it out. Because you did not know it was a rock, you believed it was part of you. Because you did not know you could."

Alternatively encouraging and understanding, this book is the ONE you should read if you struggle with self-hatred, or love someone who does. show less

I picked this book up while perusing the "last chance" section at Barnes and Noble. It is not a self-help book, it's a treatise on how and why we're stuck in various arenas of our lives- job, relationships, bad habits, etc. Well-researched and easy to read, a lot of what Rufus has to say makes sense. One of the sections I found very interesting was about the impact capitalism (and it's opposites) have had on monogamy. As the author says, "Companies with goods and services to sell hate happy show more couples." If we are happy and feeling content with our lives, we don't need anything else to fill the void.

I feel, however, she oversimplified a few things and her bias shows. The chapter on trauma, and how our current society has made superstars of victims, feels a little whiney. And she acknowledges her own issues, which sheds light on why it felt that way. She also disparages therapy a bit, which I might take personally ;)

It's a lot of good food for thought. I guess I wish the book offered some hope for getting unstuck, which was hinted at in the introduction, but didn't surface anywhere else. show less

A lot of people have rated this book 5 stars. I was disappointed that I couldn't be one of them. Party of One is written by a very unhappy woman who assumes that anyone else with introverted tendencies is also unhappy. I can't remember when I last read such a bitter, defensive book. I disliked her tone from the first page of the introduction, and it never improved. I'm still not sure why I made myself finish this one.

Even by readers who didn't love the book, Rufus is often lauded for her show more elegant writing. I couldn't disagree more. As I read along and realized the book wasn't going to improve, I started analyzing her writing. Looking at the way she constructed her sentences and paragraphs, I could see why I was unhappy. It wasn't just what she said or didn't say, it was also the way she said it. One example: In chapter 10 "Jesus, Mary, and Jennifer Lopez (Religion)", Rufus surveys loners in various world religions. When she gets to Hinduism, it takes her well into the fifth paragraph before she used the word "Hindu." Now, yes, I could figure out what she was talking about, but isn't a writer supposed to state the topic, um, like right up front? Oh, and by the way, this very long chapter had nothing to do with Jennifer Lopez. I have no idea why she was mentioned in the title.

There WAS one chapter I actually liked--chapter 12 "The L-word," which was about crime. An interesting look at how famous criminals (Mark David Chapman, the Uni-Bomber, Timothy McVae, etc and so on) were not loners at all. She theorizes how the label makes people feel safe. Definitely interesting and thought-provoking.

Recommended for: going by all the rave reviews, I think a lot of people would like this. It may be good for outgoing types who don't "get" introverts. I would think that the subject audience would have enough self-awareness to be comfortable with themselves and have no need for the book. But perhaps I just don't understand.
Edit | More show less

An essential defense of the people the world loves to revile--the loners--yet without whom it would be lostThe Buddha. Rene Descartes. Emily Dickinson. Greta Garbo. Bobby Fischer. J. D. Salinger: Loners, all--along with as many as 25 percent of the world's population. Loners keep to themselves, and like it that way. Yet in the press, in films, in folklore, and nearly everywhere one looks, loners are tagged as losers and psychopaths, perverts and pity cases, ogres and mad bombers, elitists show more and wicked witches. Too often, loners buy into those messages and strive to change, making themselves miserable in the process by hiding their true nature--and hiding from it. Loners as a group deserve to be reassessed--to claim their rightful place, rather than be perceived as damaged goods that need to be "fixed." In Party of One Anneli Rufus--a prize-winning, critically acclaimed writer with talent to burn--has crafted a morally urgent, historically compelling tour de force--a long-overdue argument in defense of the loner, then and now. Marshalling a polymath's easy erudition to make her case, assembling evidence from every conceivable arena of culture as well as interviews with experts and loners worldwide and her own acutely calibrated analysis, Rufus rebuts the prevailing notion that aloneness is indistinguishable from loneliness, the fallacy that all of those who are alone don't want to be, and wouldn't be, if only they knew how. show less