I think that Kirkus Reviews said it best when they wrote, "Her scathing criticism, some of which stems from her writing on privilege for the Atlantic and the New Republic, is often on-point, but it is swamped by the detail in which she enfolds her arguments, which often get lost in the shuffle." That and the fact that she was writing with a Mary Roach approach to non-fiction. That's to say, trying to be funny and to throw in the occasional joke.

The author stated that she wanted to use Rader's own words with almost no editing to tell his story. She should have edited and she should have used more of her own words because this was an awful read. Between the man's bad grasp of the English language and his irritating code words one would think he's trying to use the written word to torture poor and unsuspecting readers.

While I agree with Mr. Lilla about the perils of identity politics, I think he unknowingly demonstrates why his prescriptions will never happen. He seems to think that the American trait of self-centeredness began with Reagan. I'm sure that Mr. Lilla would say that Trump didn't create the polarized atmosphere in which we currently live but merely exploited it. Therefore, it isn't a stretch to say that Reagan did the same thing with self-centeredness/individualism and yet he came back to it so often that one could be forgiven for having the impression that Mr. Lilla thinks the Reagan-revolution was the genesis of American narcissism.

Another reason I think his hopes are doomed to failure is that the vision he puts forth of present day America is one that a centrist like me disagrees with. To top it all off, he has a go at the people who voted for Trump, I'm not among them, by saying that even though they know that they're being ignored by the Democrat Party there is no excuse for voting for Trump. Why not just call them a basket of deplorables for good measure? It would have the same effect as listing what they're reasons were for voting Trump and then saying they had no excuse to do so.

Full disclosure, I have seen what a high-functioning addict looks like up close and I am for ending the war on drugs. But as far as books go, this one was tedious to read and sanctimonious to its core.

The fervor with which Mr. Hari checks off as many intersectional items as he can is hard to overlook. When the victims of Harry Anslinger's (a.k.a. the devil) war on drugs are written about, they are virtuous and unfortunate souls and, oh, by the way, they are, black, transgender, Jewish, female, etc., etc. When it comes to the evil people who want to continue the war on drugs and hold these people down, the frequent descriptors that Mr. Hari uses are white, conservative, male, and privileged. I find it just as repulsive when someone assumes the motives of ALL addicts are evil and the same, as when the assumption that ALL anti-drug people are racists.

One could be forgiven if, after reading the previous paragraph, they thought that I was oversimplifying the author's work. But I feel that with his use of rhetorical devices, straw man arguments, and a near complete disregard for context has done the same thing for a complex societal problem.

So if I agree that ending the war on drugs is a good thing then why do I raise these issues. Because this book is preaching to the choir. It is not going to reach the people that need to be reached. Given its heavy-handed and tedious nature, it will not change hearts and minds the way that this author would like.

On a final note, I think show more that this books signals an uncomfortable truth for identity politics. When we divide ourselves into aggrieved groups of people and then continually atomize these groups further and further we eventually come to the individual, which should be the goal of any society. Assuming a person's motives or usefulness based on race, sex, or any other immutable characteristic is as tired and tedious as this book. show less

The first 80 to 100 pages had me intrigued but the stream of consciousness writing style was tedious by the end. I read this book because I dig Mingus’s music. Too bad he spent more time writing about fucking instead of music. It’s like reading a pimp’s bio who writes about music.

There are so many other books out there on this topic that are so much better and that don’t read like a memoir punctuated by virtue signaling and non sequiters.

With out a doubt, this is the dumbest book I ever read.

I’m an atheist when it comes to religion and an agnostic for the general life after death questions. That being said, I found this book to have several myopic value judgements.

There’s one area where this book succeeded, in being a failure. I mean, this book sucked out loud. The only interesting thing about the author is his voice over work and he barely mentions it. And another thing, even if I agree with most of your political views, keep them to yourself, dickhead. Your voicing of Archer is why I know you. Not because of your work in politics.

An afternoon of my life that I’ll never get back.

I couldn’t get past 50 pages. The writing was clunky and had little to no flow. I couldn’t care less about the characters and was rooting for their destruction. Just bad writing.

Ugh, two weeks of my life that I’ll never get back. I would usually make it through a book like this in days but this was a slog to get through. In a nutshell, the book is an author’s myopic view of what’s wrong with our world and then he writes a crappy book about it. What a turd.

Two thoughts came to mind while reading this cliche and trope filled book. That David Baldacci is a squalid little bigot and the following quote, “Racism isn’t dead but it’s on life support. Kept there by race hustlers, politicians, and those who get a sense of moral superiority by denouncing others as racist.”

I was rooting for everyone to die. Who knew the end of the world would be so boring. The author’s misandry shines through. Or should I say darkens this book. People with such a myopic view of the world make me wish for the end of the world.

For such an important problem, the coverage by this book was a mile wide and and inch deep. I sure know the author’s political views, which should tell any thinking person what a shame that is.

I felt like I was reading a children’s book.

My problem with this book from the beginning is that I could tell what the author’s opinion was, what his politics are, and that he’s a bit of a social justice fundamentalist. The problem with his framing and word choices is that now I’m distracted from an important story because I cannot help but wonder what he’s not telling me and why is he omitting some information?

If I ever read anything from this author again, it will be with a huge grain of salt.

What an asshole. That’s my only thought about the author’s meditations on his near murder. It really takes a myopic, head-up-his-own-ass kind of fellow to make someone feel no sympathy for them and continually induced eye rolling. Ugh, avoid this book.

For a book that is supposed to be a scenario of what nuclear war would look like, she sure spends a lot of time whimpering and whining about how evil nuclear weapons are. No kidding, nuclear weapons are BAD. Now spell out the scenario contained in the title and stop moralizing.

I couldn't make it past the introduction. When writing about such a tragic and unimaginably inhuman and horrific event as October 7, 2023, I can't believe the unbelievably poor judgement by the author in wedging her political views into the story. Not only are the wedged in there, but framed in such a way that if you disagree with these "holy" views, you're the one who is wrong. What an asshole. Oh, and, surprise, she's an environmentalist that divides her time between New York and Tel Aviv. Hmm, I wonder what her carbon-footprint looks like.

Someone this befuddled or full of shit, take your pick, is someone that I can't take seriously on any topic.

Too many footnotes, poorly written, author keeps attempting and failing at humor, author is a bit contemptuous of scientists who have gone before, and the author really seems to have an agenda in this book. And that agenda isn’t science for laypeople. Not worth reading.