The new introductory material was 21% of the Kindle Edition I’m reading. Then there was yet more Introduction, bringing us to a whopping 39% of the book. It was all too much; where was the editor? I recommend you just read Carlos Santana’s brief intro and then cut to the book. I thought the author’s new Intro (approx pages 22-39% in the Kindle edition) was terrible: it makes big sweeping claims that are offensively not true if you’re not a middle class white man like him, such as only our thoughts can hurt us and each of us has a little bit of Hitler inside. BARF.
In the daily lessons part, the author continues to make sweeping claims that he states as universal truths, but that any decent therapist would know do not apply to all groups. His first one is about giving “To give is to receive—this is the law of Love. Under this law, when we give our Love away to others we gain, and whatever we give we simultaneously receive.” This is a massively dangerous claim to make if the giver is someone in a co-dependent relationship with a narcissist. I am a recovering co-dependent and if I had been told this instead of told how to start practicing boundaries and distancing myself from narcissists, I would be a miserable wreck right now with a completely different life (of unpaid servitude). The brevity of the book when making advice like this is a hindrance. Here he should have taken the time to explain that unconditional love and giving applies when you are receiving unconditional love in return, or when your giving won’t hurt you in any way.
There are nuggets of truth in this book, such as the following “When we expect others to satisfy our desires, and they disappoint us, as they inevitably must, we experience distress. This distress can take the form of frustration, disappointment, anger, depression, or illness. As a result, we are likely to feel trapped, limited, rejected, or attacked.” He is correct that we have to take care of ourselves and not expect someone else to fulfill our needs (that expectation is narcissism). But in such a short book, too much of it is not working for me, as per examples above. It’s great that it has helped so many people, but I am not one of them.
His second lesson was that we can forgive everyone because no one has actually ever hurt us, and he gave an example in which he phoned someone with a $500 unpaid bill and told him he forgave him. Sounds obnoxiously self-righteous and passive-aggressive to call someone and tell them that. And how lucky for him that he could afford to forgive a $500 bill! The idea that no one has ever hurt us is quite a privileged position to take. What if he was a black woman living in the segregated south who lost her house because the lost $500 meant she couldn’t pay her mortgage? Could he really then have said that no one had ever hurt another? I could give more counter-examples, but I won’t belabor the point. He has quite a lack of imagination for someone who has heard so many tragic stories as a therapist. This is when I quit the book.