First 9 pages contain praise for the book. Did not read.
Microchapters, each as long as two or three pages, may be inviting to some readers. Nonetheless, each chapter resembles a quick-bite social media post or an ultrashort YT video. It's just like Ryan Holiday’s work — a short quote + a generic statement about what the quote means.
According to the author:
‘As I stepped back and felt into what the book needed to be to have a shot at delivering on those expectations, I realized that I wanted to create a book that is basically The War of Art + War and Peace. Pithy microchapters + dense brick of a book.’
This book is neither 'The war of art' nor 'War and peace.' The microchapters are full of empty words and phrases that resemble Stoic posts on Instagram: ‘You need to take control of what you can take control of. What you cannot take control of, do not take control of. It’s beyond the sphere of your control’. That is superfluous, trivial, and redundant.
The author oscillates between the first-person singular narration (‘Hi, this is Brian’ or ’Before we continue, I’d like to ask you a quick question…’) and first-person plural narration (‘We’re going to help you become a master at creating Masterpiece Days. We’ll start with your AM and PM Bookends and we’ll teach…’). A good editor would have corrected that.
Overall, I am led to believe that an editor has not seen this book.
- There are dozens of exclamation points which do not add any value (within chapter names as well as the actual text). Sometimes three exclamation points are used.
- There are several words written in all-caps. WHY?
- Some words are written in bold (‘FEAR and LAZINESS.’), some are italicised, and I do not see how such formatting leads the reader anywhere.
- The use of ellipsis (…) is unnecessary, distracting, and adds no value to the book.
- There is no extra educational value in such formatting choices. An asterisk was also used ('They’ll give us the *exact* same single-word ANSWER.').
The dialogues of Socrates’ are exceptional. The idea of writing a book as a discourse allows the readers to immerse themselves in the conversation that could have occurred. It’s as if they’re there. Here, on the other hand, the conversation between the author and his children does not add any value to the book (see chapter ‘Explain it like I’m 10’). Infantile and unrewarding.
In terms of creative writing, I do not appreciate sentences like:
'I smile and look at him.
He smiles back.'
Or:
'I look at Emerson.
“Right?”
He looks back and says…
“YES!”'
This is too melodramatic and soapy.
I am unsure what was the purpose of several embedded hyphens and parenthesis and exclamation points, e.g., here:
‘as we turn you into a habit-installing (and -deleting!) ninja’
The use of onomatopoeia and hashtags:
‘Haha. #soulmates’
‘(No pressure no diamonds, right? Hah.)’
is something that should have been pointed out and deleted by the editor (or the alpha/beta readers).
Within the following chapter (‘451° - Activation energy’), a lesson in chemistry is given:
‘Water only boils once it reaches its activation energy point of 212° Fahrenheit. 100° certainly won’t do it. 200° won’t do it. Not even 210° or 211° will do it.’
I am unsure if such convoluted sentences are of any educational value for anyone.
The story continues:
‘400°? Nothing. 449°? Nothing. 450°? Nope. Nothing. 451°?
BAM! Let there be fire.’
I feel both informed and illuminated after reading such in-depth analyses.
Twenty pages later, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius loom in the horizon:
‘He was a former slave who taught (and practiced!) Stoic philosophy in ancient Rome. He trained the guys who trained the emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius. He’s also the primary influence for the guys who created the modern cognitive behavioral therapy movement.’
I am unsure if the use of ‘guys’ is inclusive. What about women? None of this has to do with philosophy.
‘emperor-philosopher’ - I am unsure if Marcus Aurelius was a philosopher, he only wrote one book that he never intended to publish, and never called himself Stoic.
Case in point: ‘It’s time to stand up, put the smartphones down and high five our inner souls as we activate our Heroic potential’.
First, high-fiving someone has little to do with the study of philosophy or self-improvement. I do not recall a single time in my life when I high-fived someone. Also, ‘heroic’ is an adjective and should start with a lower case (‘heroic’, not ‘Heroic’).
This chapter has taught me nothing about Epictetus nor Marcus Aurelius.
The author later explains the Greek etymology of ‘enchiridion’ and two sentences later tells us something about Navy SEAL’s explosive[s]’ and ‘WARRIORS of the mind’. The educational value of such sentences and paragraphs eludes me. The readers would benefit from more Epictetus, Seneca, M. Aurelius, instead we learn about SEALs, WARRIORs, EXPLOSIVEs.
The following chapter mentions a Heroic app:
‘In the Heroic app, we have classes on everything from Purpose 101, Productivity 101, and Confidence 101 to Nutrition 101, Sleep 101, and Love 101.’
The author fails to mention what ‘101’ stands for. I happen to know that it denotes an introductory course in the US. But the US only one of 197 countries/territories in the world, and it would be beneficial to use fewer US-centric phrases. (Another example: ‘A random assortment of fastballs and curveballs that keeps the batter constantly guessing’.) What are fastballs and curveballs, pray tell?
Additionally, since the introduction has claimed that the book content is grand, universal, almost flawless, I would have expected more than just ‘101’. I would have expected more 'in-depth'.
Amirite, mate?
In one of the chapters, ‘P.S.’ and ‘P.P.S.’ are found in the middle of a chapter. A postscript should be placed at the end of a letter (or chapter), not in the middle. Also: an editor should have removed both. Either something belongs in the book (in which case: incorporate it to the narrative), or it doesn't. If it doesn't, do not just use postscript as means to digress/add unnecessary comments or thoughts that do not lead us to a goal.
Let’s move on:
‘In addition to creating a SUPER-readable, open-the-book-up-to-any-page-and-potentially-change-your-life-in-a-few-minutes kinda book’
- ‘kinda’ is not a word (unless we’re communicating using slang terms now);
- ‘open-the-book-up-to-any-page-and-potentially-change-your-life-in-a-few-minutes’ is impossible to read and comprehend (although it is proper English, I must admit).
If you’re looking for an illuminating journey, get a copy of Eat, Pray, Love (or see the movie). If not, the author will give you the following advice (I quote):
‘That’s what we’ll do with our third Objective as we optimize
what we call your Big 3: Energy, Work, and Love.’
Sounds like a sequel: Eat, Pray, Love - Energy, Work, Love.
Neat.
Overall: this book is too conversational. It’s as if it was a transcript of a conversation that somehow, some day, after extensive editing, could become a Ted talk. But it is not.
I do not blame the author, who appears to be nice and friendly (I saw some of his videos on YouTube). It’s the editor’s fault. The author should, however, have more trust in the readers’ intelligence.