Sentimentalismo tóxico

by Theodore Dalrymple, Dimitri Fernández Bobrovski (Translator)

Theodore Dalrymple, uno de los comentaristas más incisivos y menos políticamente correctos de nuestros días, desenmascara el sentimentalismo oculto que asfixia la vida pública. Bajo la guisa de esfuerzos encomiables como la correcta educación de los niños, la atención a los desfavorecidos, la ayuda a los menos capacitados y el bien en general, estamos consiguiendo todo lo contrario: el sentimentalismo destruye el sentido de responsabilidad, debilita las relaciones humanas y en realidad está muy cerca de la agresión y la violencia. Al hilo de su perspicaz y en ocasiones incómodo comentario de temas sociales, políticos, populares y literarios muy diversos, Dalrymple nos muestra las consecuencias perversas que tiene abandonar la lógica en favor del culto a los sentimientos.

Genres: Nonfiction, Sociology, Politics, Essays, Cultural, Society, Philosophy

202 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2010

About the author

Anthony Malcolm Daniels, who generally uses the pen name Theodore Dalrymple, is an English writer and retired prison doctor and psychiatrist. He worked in a number of Sub-Saharan African countries as well as in the east end of London. Before his retirement in 2005, he worked in City Hospital, Birmingham and Winson Green Prison in inner-city Birmingham, England.

Daniels is a contributing editor to City Journal, published by the Manhattan Institute, where he is the Dietrich Weismann Fellow. In addition to City Journal, his work has appeared in The British Medical Journal, The Times, The Observer, The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, The Salisbury Review, National Review, and Axess magasin.

In 2011, Dalrymple received the 2011 Freedom Prize from the Flemish think tank Libera!.

Reviews

[Petra X · Rating 2 out of 5]

Update. I did finish it. I was just as pissed off at the end as when I read this. Victim-blaming for men sexually-molesting or even raping underage girls is never the girls fault. Keep it in your pants if you aren't absolutely 100% she's 16 and wants to do it with you! Unless you are in Florida, then she has to be 18. It is a mystery to me why a girl is considered old enough to decide if she wants to have sex at 16 (or less in some States and countries) but in Florida, shock horror, you've committed statutory rape. I know that I knew my own mind at 16.

HE IS WRONG A lot of defences against sexual molestation and rape by men are victim-blaming. The author blames girls for men getting convicted of statutory rape. I'm going to quote it in full.

There is no doubt whatever that many parents connive at the illegal sexual activities of their children. It is true that some men are still convicted of having had sexual intercourse with girls who were under the age of consent, but they often claim, not wholly implausibly, that the girls in question did not look their age and were allowed by their parents out at a time when one would not expect girls of such an age to be allowed out (in the general drunken and drug-fuelled sexual sauve-qui-peut that takes place in the centre of British town and city every Friday and Saturday night it is hardly to be expected that inspection of birth certificates should be demanded and accorded).

Furthermore, the men claim that they are being punished not so much for having had sexual intercourse with such girls, but in effect for stopping having had sexual relations with such girls: the girls being unhappy at the cessation, they run to their parents — who already knew of the relations — and ask that they should go to the police. The convicted men feel aggrieved not because they are innocent of the charge, but because they have only done what many others have done and continue to do, with the knowledge and even approval of the parents of the girls. The age of consent thus becomes not a rule to be obeyed, but a weapon to be wielded."

Since there are almost no convictions for close-in-age statutory rape, especially with 15 year old girls, presuming that the men were at least 19, but more likely in their 20s and they didn't suspect that the girl was 14 or 15 is rubbish. The author is not talking of a one night stand, "stopping having had sexual relations" means it was an ongoing thing if not a relationship. He couldn't tell from her conversation? He didn't care enough to find out? He didn't care for her at all?

And then the girl pissed off because he's screwed her a few times and dumped her goes and tells her parents? Really? What 14 or 15 year old tells their parents they've been having sex? It's not like she's been raped, this is statutory rape the author is talking about, this is consent on both sides, but she is legally not able to. And then what parents, at least in the UK, (nothing like so religious, conservative or freaked about teenage drinking and sex as the US) would actually go to the police?

That is unless it was a much older man like a teacher (who would have known her age exactly), then they would. But the author was talking about a consensual relationship between a 14 or 15 year old (or maybe younger as indicated in a previous paragraph where he says doctors are prescribing contraception to 11 and 12 year olds) and a man she no doubt thinks of as her boyfriend.

And it's all her fault, the nasty little 14 or 15 year old hussy with her make up to make her look older and no doubt drinking and screwing around with older men who can't resist the temptation and go after someone close to their own age. No it's her, she's wicked, she's just wicked ruining a man's life like that rather than staying home, not wearing make up and going to bed before the 10 o'clock news after a cuppa with a digestive with her parents.

Or as Shakespeare said (and he likes to quote Shakespeare on love) "Get thee to a nunnery".

Gee, I am angry at this. Much as I like having my views challenged by authors (and in comments) I don't know if I can finish this book. I'm just so fucking angry at this.
___________________

Notes on reading Every generation bemoans the lowering of standards of education, the worse behaviour of children, the general degradation of morals and the greater tolerance for bad manners, criminality and slackness since the time they were young. That is the essence that I have read, so far, of Dalyrymple's argument. He might be right.

[Alistair · Rating 4 out of 5]

there is nothing like reading a book which reflects all your worst prejudices . if you think that everyone has gone hopelessly touchy feely and publicly emotional and that if a feeling is not expressed publicly is worthless then this book confirms this view .
when your child dies the first thing you should do is write a book , when your mother dies of cancer the first thing you should do is appear on television , when your husband is killed in a car crash the first thing you should do is set up a charity and run a marathon and dedicate it to his memory . everyone has to get in on the act of excessive manipulation of emotion and self indulgence . the media is full of people who have cottoned on to the use of psychobabble for their own self promotion . what are the normal vagaries of life such as having children , being ill , failure , defeat , losing one's parents etc are now raised to become extraordinary events to be explored and wallowed in publicly . we could all do with a dose of Jo Brand's caustic humour . life is difficult for everyone not just
" YOU "
the author is a psychiatrist . one of his best chapters skewers Bono and his like in their appeal to make poverty history whilst employing lawyers to minimise their tax burden and the failure of western aid to help poor countries .
Harsh but fair !

[Kitty Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unlike his essays, which strike one more as the inner reflections of a widely read, intelligent man, Theodore Dalrymple uses Spoilt Rotten to show off his academic side, which is as refined as his less annotated musings.

Spoilt Rotten connects the fall of civilized behavior and the faults of the current legal system with the rise in sentimental behavior; in this case, not the sweet nostalgia of sentimentalism, but the rampant bad behavior and false outpourings of emotion so revered by reality television and misery literature we see today.

Beginning with the Romantics, he successfully builds a case against the current education system, which relies more on creativity and self-expression than correction and facts, the legal system, which has become so vague as to be useless or abused by those it should be prosecuting, and cultural attitudes to multiculturalism and tolerance (these, I should hasten to say, he does not decry, but points out the numerous problems with stopping at slogans and not thinking things through).

Though I don't always agree with him - though he does mention that there is an appropriate amount of emotion relative to a situation that we, as a society, seem to agree on to some extent, he seems to not outright contradict himself, but certainly skirt it occasionally.

What makes him bearable, however, is that even when disagreeing, his main point is not that sentimentality is bad, but that sentimentality should be matched with reason; he tellingly ends with the Pascal quote that good thinking begets good morals. It's refreshing to see this in an age when political pundits seem to believe that screaming at each other constitutes a "debate".

Dalrymple, who himself wryly acknowledges elsewhere his tendency to wander into "those damn kids" territory, still provides a wealth of evidence to back up his conclusions, as well as demonstrating that a lack of sentimentality does not ipso facto exclude compassion; in fact, it does quite the opposite.

Even if you do not agree, or think you would not agree, with him, do not avoid reading this book: that would be sentimentality interfering with rationality.

[Nigel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Check culture of toxic sentimentality
It is, of course, grossly sentimental; for it involves the presence that one feels deeply, equally, for hundreds of millions and billions of people, no matter how far Removed from one they are. It is a mixture of humbug, grandiose, and condescension. It is humbug because one knows that the first brush with Expediency, it will disappear as the brush of grape to the touch; it is grandiose because of its assumption that Redemptive powers are within his grasp; and it's Condonscending because it's the supposes that the supposed beneficiaries of one largesse are incapable of improving their lives by their own efforts.
Travaillions donc á Bien penser voilaie principe de la morale.
Let us labour, therefore, to think well, that is the principle of morality.

After all the media in peddling words this week I’ll update my review with….

I think the right action is…..

How gun violence, that condescending one of the largesse is incapable of doing it with out them selfs or how ever grandiose a fleeting the situation is to grasp to the many or how ever humbug redemptive powers is.

Some say empathy is to woke….

And that sympathy is the only response needed.

Je suis m’io du pense as prayers and thoughts for “dvandva” sympathy is similar to chanting and humming of “a”/“the” spoiled rotten….

It’s definitely the culture of toxic sentimentality

So in short all work is short, TL;DR
bullshit is hazardous ⚠️ to your health.

I think the right action is…

It’s definitely the culture of toxic sentimentality

How come politicians aren’t doing what people want and if policy is not able to happen for people is the sickness the system.

I’d say they want sympathy what if the sentiments are toxic and as he said thought 💭 of emotional intelligence is not 😊 good, I heard that Charles Kirk guy say empathy is woke

Incapable of making policy for people….

All Facebook is…. Meandering the weird situation

It's like a train wreck. Can't help but watch

The passage you shared critically examines the prevalent culture of toxic sentimentality, highlighting its underlying flaws and societal implications. It suggests that this culture is characterized by excessive emotional expressions—such as empathy and sympathy—that may serve more as performative gestures rather than meaningful actions.

The text points out that such sentiments are often grandiose, condescending, and disconnected from tangible efforts to improve lives, leading to a cycle of superficial concern that can hinder genuine progress. It also criticizes the tendency for political and media narratives to indulge in these sentiments, creating a distraction from effective policy-making and real solutions.

Ultimately, it advocates for a shift toward thoughtful, pragmatic action over superficial emotional displays, warning that incessant reliance on sentimentality can be hazardous to societal well-being.

[Judith Smulders · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before I read this book I knew I was either going to love it or loathe it. Very early on it really resonated with me. Dalrymple's writing style is witty and sharp. The book is full of unvarnished truths whilst being balanced and surprisingly empathetic. Some of the points he makes:
- The intellectual degradation of generations by the education system
- That the glorification of divorce in today's society leads to child abuse
- The choice of sentimentality over truth in universities and the absence of (general) knowledge
- The futility of victim impact statements in the court of justice
- The misconception that people are naturally good and that those that aren't are mere victims of circumstance

This book is far more true now in 2018 than it already was in 2010: the age of self-proclaimed victims who choose imaginary oppression and their allies. SJW's and the myriad of priviliged kids with pretend victim status. There are now new laws to protect "the oppressed" who can define any and all things as "hatecrimes" such as using the "wrong" pronouns.

The victimized are placed upon a pedestal, the perceived oppressors are demonized and vilified. You can also find this irrational sentimentaly on both sides of the immigration debate in Western Europe, the identitarian left and right, MRA's vs certain parts of the #MeToo-movement and the black vs blue lives matter.

Dalrymple is a rational and reasonable voice in this debate without being callous or cold. There are things I do not fully agree with (mostly the parts on the effects of slavery and colonialism on the continent of Africa) but overall the book is a very strong attack on the cult of sentimentality.

[Karen · Rating 2 out of 5]

The basic premise - that our modern society has let 'feeling' dominate the rational - was good and promising. There are a lot of clear examples cited, although I am not sure whether the named individuals would necessarily consent to, or approve of, their (re)actions being rather ridiculed. As one of the people who kept very quiet when Princess Diana was killed and found the public hysteria rather baffling, this should have been a book which I felt supported my own concerns at a society where emotional intelligence has come to be superior to (rather than a partner with) rational intelligence. Instead as this book progressed I found myself distancing myself from a series of ungenerous, belittling exposures which seemed to set the author over and above so many of his fellow citizens. As chapters progressed the attempts to include other political views where they had no place - climate change denial for instance - just made this book into a vehicle for one man's self-assured opinions. This book left a bad taste.

[Kevin K · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recently read a paper by Richard Rorty called "Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality" in which he writes:

"...the emergence of the human rights culture seems to owe nothing to increased moral knowledge, and everything to hearing sad and sentimental stories..."

This struck me as a sharp, powerful insight. It got me thinking about sentimentality, and by chance I happened to run across this book. I wanted to dig more deeply into Rorty's idea, and I hoped that Dalrymple might develop it further. He definitely does. It's true that Dalrymple is an old-fashioned curmudgeon (as some of the other reviewers have noted). But he does have an interesting personal history (prison psychiatrist, lived in Africa etc.), and he makes many thought-provoking points despite a somewhat rambling style. The book is short and very readable.

Sentimentality is an incredibly powerful force in the world of 2015. It's politically reshaping the world. And yet there is almost no analysis of it (at least within my book and media consumption bubble). On that count alone, this is a valuable book. It at least flags this important issue.

[Dierregi · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the second Dalrymple's book I read, after "Anything goes". I totally agree about the toxicity of the cult of sentimentality, but I did not like much the book's structure. The six essays exploring different aspects of sentimentality are loosely connected, while I was expecting a single, articulated essay.

However, Dalrymple is spot on when he mentions the Romantic movement as the source of many wrong ideas that are still plaguing society nowadays. One of the most pernicious ideas was the emphasis on the "innocence and inherent goodness of children"...hence, to ensure no adult moral degradation taking place "the right education became the prevention of education". This idiotic idea goes hand in hand with the myth of the "good savage".

Dalrymple proceeds to explore the sorry state of modern British society and the nefarious influence of tabloid press. He mentions some cringe-worth events, such as the mass hysterics following Diana's death and the disappearance of the McCann child. Then he moves to the "cult of the victim". This noteworthy chapter starts with a clever analysis of Sylvia Plath, the patron saint of self dramatization. Elsewhere, Dalrymple mentions also Virginia Woolf, who suffered from a similar illness. Despite both women being close to "untouchable", in the area of great female writers, I tend to agree with Dalrymple on both counts, especially about Plath.

Finally, I was particularly interested in his consideration about the disappearance of "traditional families" which in low classes fosters overindulgence and neglect for the children of countless couplings, left to the care of a never-ending string of careless (or downright hostile) step-parents.

[Willow · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the 3rd book by this author I have read, and he frequently challenges my views. That is a good thing. However, he is much more adept at pointing out ailments than in providing remedies. Doubtless the first step is recognizing the problem, but as G.K. Chesterton noted some 100 years ago, "This is the arresting and dominant fact about modern social discussion; that the quarrel is not merely about the difficulties, but about the aim. We agree about the evil; it is about the good that we should tear each other’s eyes out."
As far as making me scrutinize my own views goes, this was a good book. It is sometimes hard to read criticisms and realize they apply to myself, but I enjoy the author's British grumpiness.

[Nancy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I don't necessarily agree with Dalrymple's politics, I respect him as a writer and intellectual and there were a lot of points in this book which I fully agreed with. Britain is caught in the throes of the cult of sentimentality - its something which irritates me no end living here. I can't stand the demand to publicly vent all of your emotions and if you don't you are shunned or worse, seen as un-British. It is driven for the most part (in my opinion) by the tabloid media, a point which I don't think Dalrymple emphasises enough, but it is also driven by politicians (on both sides) and worst of all, 'the mob'.

This was a simple book to read and a really interesting sociological study of Britain as it is today. Sadly, I can't see it turning around very soon - not with the power still wielded by the media, and the complete apathy and inability to think critically or a large portion of the population.

[Howard · Rating 4 out of 5]

this is the third book that I have read by Dalrymple and I expect to read more. The book is a difficult read at times, hence the 4 star rating, but the concepts are very important and overall, clearly explained. His premise is that our "sentimental" approach to life in general, and particularly childhood, has led to all sorts of negative results: inability to educate our children, rampant crime, and more. Dalrymple backs up his arguments with both anecdotes and statistics. He highlights some of the problems in using statistics, however, by making sure people know what is being measured.

The author knows of what he writes, as a psychiatrist who has worked at prisons and hospitals in some of the poorer parts of the UK. His examples include how the McCanns and the disappearance of their child while on holiday was judged by their lack of a public display of grief. He discusses the reaction in Britain to princess Diane's death, and the public demand that the queen mourn her in public, despite Royal traditions. One of the most disheartening things for me was the statistics on the number of teachers assaulted by students and/or their parents, and likewise the number of health care works assaulted on the job. The worse part is that the teachers and healthcare workers modify their behavior, while the establishment does nothing to curb the violence.

[Mathijs Beaujean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Theodore Dalrymple makes a good argument against the encroaching disease of sentimentality. The book would have gotten five stars, if not for the overly elaborate prose of the author and the highly annoying fact that the notes at the back of the book are actually small stories in themselves (as opposed to the references I had expected). Personally I find it a good custom to put comments like that in the actual text, not put them at the end of the book.

The argument itself is well made and the author tries his best to refrain from expressing a strong opinion on matters that are not related, which is nice (for example: he points out that combining loose sexual morals with strict monogamy inherently doesn't work, without voicing his opinion on people who just practice the first or the latter alone).

I haven't tried it out yet, but I guess this book has given me plenty of extra fodder for countering the excessively emotional.

[Felipe Sabino · Rating 5 out of 5]

Um dos melhores livros que li em 2015! Dalrymple é de fato um dos maiores ensaístas dos nossos dias!

[Doug Thompson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm embarrassed that this book is in my list. I've only given it a star because I can't give it zero and I will be donating £8.99 to the National Literacy Trust as an apology for spending money on it.
I don't know why I bought it. It has been on my shelves for around 10 years and I can only imagine that when I did, I mistakenly thought it was a book on education/ self-development.

What is terrifying, aside from the fact that someone would publish this book, is the fact that Theodore Dalrymple is a working psychiatrist. He often provides reference to 'experimental' evidence which is somewhat reminiscent of the recent right-wing aversion to the opinions of experts.

The quite simply disgusting opinions and ideas in this book include: shaming victims of sexual abuse, shaming the disabled ('If a 15 year old who is laboriously learning to do up his buttons is a student, what are we to call a young man learning physics or classics at university? If he too is a student, what will the word student actually convey?'), outright classism ('When as a doctor I saw men with the names of their children tattooed on their arms, I could be virtually certain that they were separated from the mother or mothers of their children, and rarely, if ever, saw them.)

I could go on. I never fold the pages of my books, but here I folded them at every moment of utter disgust (of which there were many). Luckily, I wouldn't pass this book on to my worst enemy.

Other cameos in the book include questioning the validity of Stephen Lawrence's mother's feelings of victimisation and the racial nature of her son's murder, and the suggestion that the harsh trial of the two boys who killed Jamie Bulger led to them 'turning out well' and that 'it was a great pity that they had to kill Jamie Bulger in order to get a good education'. It makes my skin crawl to even type it.
He clearly spoke too soon as one of the killers went on to serve two more sentences for possessing indecent images of children.

Evidently this book has made me irate. It has been said that you should read the opposite opinions to yours and if strong enough it will only confirm your views. That couldn't be truer in this case.

[Anatolikon · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Them durned kids these days need to be more rational, just like me!" Half of this book (which is really just a series of interconnected essays) comes off as the rantings of an old curmudgeon, and half of it comes off as well-reasoned. While I found myself agreeing with Dalrymple more than I expected to, this book cannot be salvaged. Do not write a book that bemoans a lack of rationality in society and then base your findings off of your personal experience and statistics that appear, even in the notes, to be little more than the invention of the author. This is a cardinal sin and cannot be forgiven.

[Kitty Red-Eye · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting observations. I too have my doubts about the relative power and influence of reason vs. emotion, argument vs. emoting, the trend of labeling people and groups as "victims" and what implications that carries. I'm not sure I agree with the author completely, but that's another thing which annoys me - the "completely right or wholly wrong" demand - I don't need to swallow it whole or to agree 100% to find "Book X" or "Thought Y" interesting. I'll try to read some more books by Dalrymple, and see where it's heading.

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will touch a lot of nerves so it is not surprising to see people reacting to it strongly, pro or con. Whatever the case, it's hard to deny that the cult of sentimentality Dalrymple describes has taken hold of the West. His examples are drawn from public life in the UK, but readers in other countries will be able to conjure up their own without too much effort. It is good to have empathy for our neighbours, but it is risky business when fleeting and subjective feelings become the standard in public discourse, government and law. In this respect, I think that the author's warnings about the links between sentimentality and violence are particularly important.

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 2 out of 5]

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 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.

[Jacob · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great book. I'm always surprised by some of his arguments.

It's a strange coincidence that I read this book as I finished up Camus' The Stranger. Because Meursault didn't cry when his Mother died, he is a monster capable of the most cold-hearted murder. Much as the McCanns, the Queen (following the death of Princess Diana), and a number of others, were reproached as monsters for not showing a sufficient level of emotion (as though displaying something equates to actually feeling it). I didn't realize how common it is for people to turn against victims who don't behave as the viewers believe they should.

"In other words, because the McCanns did not cry or sob in front of the cameras, as the multitudes have a right to expect and demand, as if the world were a giant gladiatorial amphitheatre for their amusement, it follows that they accidentally killed their own child and buried her to save their careers. This monstrous inference, published for several millions to read, is based upon the assumption that those who do not weep do not feel, and that those who do not feel must be guilty of the most heinous crimes."

[Jerry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dalrymple defines sentimentalism as emotion without judgment, and quotes Oscar Wilde: '... a sentimentalist is simply one who desires to have the luxury of an emotion without paying for it." But someone pays. He demonstrates how sentimentality ruins families, results in awful public policy, drives the sale of Che Guevara merchandise, keeps the poor a goldmine, and cripples real compassion.

[Mliccione · Rating 4 out of 5]

This guy is one of the best chroniclers of the decline of the West

[Anouk Felicia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wanneer iemand waarmee je het in de basis zo fundamenteel oneens bent je uitdaagt een van diens boeken te lezen, dan zeg ik daar natuurlijk geen nee tegen.
Drie sterren: het boek heeft me aan het denken gezet over de mate waarin emotie wordt ingezet op plekken waar het niet per se thuishoort. Maar, daar houdt het voor mij ook wel weer op. De delen waar je het meest mee kunt instemmen zijn doorgaans enorm laaghangend fruit: ja de media kan grote groepen mensen op een perverse manier meeslepen door het inspelen op emoties, oké misschien is de wijze waarop we emoties een rol laten spelen in het rechtssysteem maar toch ook niet echt voelt nou ook niet helemaal nuttig en ja ik ben jet eens met het feit dat we kinderen op een veel respectvollere manier kunnen opvoeden in het westen.
Echter, benoemen waar je het niet mee eens bent is makkelijk. Te makkelijk zelfs. Waar dit boek voor mij tekort schoot waren de aannames op aannames van de auteur die niet verder gecheckt waren dan: ik heb het zo ervaren. Ook de richting geven waar we volgens de auteur wel naartoe zouden moeten liet enorm te wensen over. Het conservatisme van de beste man vloeide als een stilzwijgende rode draad door het boek, maar werd voor mijn gevoel nergens écht geanalyseerd. Jammer, dan hadden we nog een leuke discussie gehad ook. Dit laatste punt gaat niet op op de momenten dat misplaatste meningen hun weg in het verhaal vinden (lees: klimaatscepticisme en victim blaming).
In het kort: drie sterren; ik mag wel eens wat kritischer naar mijzelf en mijn houding kijken als progressief linkse ambtenaar in het sociale domein (hoe durf ik), maar de diepere laag in dit boek miste op alle vlakken.

[E.G.D.Tuddenham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Five stars is too few

I have been an admirer of Dalrymple since first chancing on Life At the Bottom - his incomparable series of essays on the ever more dysfunctional lifestyle of the less well off section of the British population. Since retiring from the prison psychiatric service he has widened his scope to diagnose the ills of a whole way society, skewering the folly that gives rise to our debased pubic and private morals with devastating outcomes for all.

[Rose]

A rather forgettable book, although notable for Dalrymple's defence of Roy Meadow's views on child abuse in the endnotes - apparently he and David Southall "became victims...of a concerted and vengeful campaign to ruin them. So effective was this campaign that, for a time at least, British paediatricians would not testify as experts in court cases involving child abuse."

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

A spectacular tirade against sentimentalism in British culture - this is Dalrymple at his best.
From the rise of modern education theory, play-centred, child-led, with it's denigration of language, cultural relativism and spiraling standards, to the mediafest of sentimentalism, hyper-emotionalism and general shallowness.

[César · Rating 4 out of 5]

3'5

El autor británico no es muy conocido en España y hay poco traducido a nuestro idioma. Fiel partidario de la razón como guía de políticas públicas frente al sentimentalismo imperante, desnuda en este libro lo pernicioso de dicho fenómeno en la esfera pública.

Ejemplos en castellano de su prosa y tesis: http://www.revistadelibros.com/autore...

[Tiago Sousa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Com certeza um dos maiores ensaístas de nosso tempo. Seu bagagem empirica agrega um enorme valor prático à sua escrita. Enfatizo sua capacidade de analisar fatos de forma lógica, fazendo uma suspensão emocional e, por vezes, atuando propositalmente como um "advogado do diabo". Realmente um crítico cultural urgente, como bem definiu Pondé.

[Alexandre Santos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Livro excepcional que por meio de exemplos que abrangem diversas áreas tais como educação, segurança, justiça assistência social, etc, demonstra como o sentimentalismo afeta as relações interpessoais, permitindo também ao estado, na maior parte das vezes em seu próprio interesse (daqueles que detém o poder), aproveitar-se desse ambiente para aumentar seu poder em detrimento da individualidade.

[Barry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommended. Dalrymple touches a nerve here. The section on Di's death and the outpouring of sentimentality that followed is incendiary.

[AR Devine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic read. I don't agree with everything Dalrymple says, but he challenges and debunks some of western society's most precious beliefs. Very, very witty and thought provoking.