What do you think?
Rate this book
Bad Stories: What the Hell Just Happened to Our Country
Like a lot of Americans, Steve Almond spent the weeks after the 2016 election lying awake, in a state of dread and bewilderment. The problem wasn’t just the election, but the fact that nobody could explain, in any sort of coherent way, why America had elected a cruel, corrupt, and incompetent man to the Presidency. Bad Stories: What the Hell Just Happened to Our Country is Almond’s effort to make sense of our historical moment, to connect certain dots that go unconnected amid the deluge of hot takes and think pieces. Almond looks to literary voices―from Melville to Orwell, from Bradbury to Baldwin―to help explain the roots of our moral erosion as a people.
The book argues that Trumpism is a bad outcome arising directly from the bad stories we tell ourselves. To understand how we got here, we have to confront our cultural delusions: our obsession with entertainment, sports, and political parody, the degeneration of our free press into a for-profit industry, our enduring pathologies of race, class, immigration, and tribalism. Bad Stories is a lamentation aimed at providing clarity. It’s the book you can pass along to an anguished fellow traveler with the promise, This will help you understand what the hell happened to our country.
The book argues that Trumpism is a bad outcome arising directly from the bad stories we tell ourselves. To understand how we got here, we have to confront our cultural delusions: our obsession with entertainment, sports, and political parody, the degeneration of our free press into a for-profit industry, our enduring pathologies of race, class, immigration, and tribalism. Bad Stories is a lamentation aimed at providing clarity. It’s the book you can pass along to an anguished fellow traveler with the promise, This will help you understand what the hell happened to our country.
272 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2018
109 people are currently reading
1506 people want to read
About the author
Steve Almond
89 books464 followersSteve Almond is the author of two story collections, My Life in Heavy Metal and The Evil B.B. Chow, the non-fiction book Candyfreak, and the novel Which Brings Me to You, co-written with Julianna Baggott. He lives outside Boston with his wife and baby daughter Josephine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 148 reviews
May 8, 2018
This is how America feels to me these days: a beautiful song drowned out by shouting.
There's really nothing new here. I read these theories during the year and a half I spent perusing articles on liberal websites (yep - I'm guilty of confirmation bias) during the 2016 campaigns. Almond leaves nothing out in his examination of what went wrong. He discusses the internet's role in disseminating lies, the origins and faults of the Electoral College, and decries the fact that we still hold our elections on Tuesdays. He holds the press accountable for finding Trump's antics amusing, not taking him seriously, false equivalency, and not pushing candidates harder on matters of policy. He attempts to understand extreme partisanship, even coming up with a great sports analogy: No matter what your team does, you find a way to justify your loyalty. No matter what the rival team does, you find a way to demonize them.
Like I said, I've heard this all before - mostly inside my own head, and in the letters-to-the-editor missives I wrote, then never posted. BUT, Almond states it all so eloquently, and brilliantly organizes his thoughts in a way that these essays come out as journalistic compositions, and NOT rants. This book should serve as a fine analytical record of what will hopefully be a brief, subversive blip in our nation's history
There's really nothing new here. I read these theories during the year and a half I spent perusing articles on liberal websites (yep - I'm guilty of confirmation bias) during the 2016 campaigns. Almond leaves nothing out in his examination of what went wrong. He discusses the internet's role in disseminating lies, the origins and faults of the Electoral College, and decries the fact that we still hold our elections on Tuesdays. He holds the press accountable for finding Trump's antics amusing, not taking him seriously, false equivalency, and not pushing candidates harder on matters of policy. He attempts to understand extreme partisanship, even coming up with a great sports analogy: No matter what your team does, you find a way to justify your loyalty. No matter what the rival team does, you find a way to demonize them.
Like I said, I've heard this all before - mostly inside my own head, and in the letters-to-the-editor missives I wrote, then never posted. BUT, Almond states it all so eloquently, and brilliantly organizes his thoughts in a way that these essays come out as journalistic compositions, and NOT rants. This book should serve as a fine analytical record of what will hopefully be a brief, subversive blip in our nation's history
May 7, 2025
5/7/25 Update
I've updated, editorialized on, and republished this review on my Substack column.
Original 2/23/18 review
This book is staggeringly good. I was familiar with Steve Almond from his short stories, but this is straight journalism at its best (which he teaches at Harvard). (It is clear from Almond’s thought processes and messages to students, presented in this volume, that he is a great teacher and seasoned journalist.)
In reviewing, there is a tendency to break down books about politics into bullet-point messages, and I hesitate to do that because it would misrepresent Bad Stories as something much smaller than it is.
So what is it?
Because of Almond’s conversational writing style, it is easily readable and offers up documented mind-blowing insights like hors d’oeuvres. Hence, Bad Stories is a huge, readable 237-page revelation of profound insights gleaned from connecting dots that we-the-people largely prefer not to see.
At its root is the premise that if we tell ourselves, and believe, bad stories, we will inevitably live them—belief creates reality, or more accurately, those beliefs we don’t fully acknowledge, examine, and understand create unconscious actions that create reality. This is not a new idea, but Almond makes it new by spotlighting our shadow (our denied self, per Jung) through the bad stories that we believe so fervently that they have resulted in our current predictable situation—starting with our belief that we are a country founded on the notion that all people are created equal. (That took me-the-reader instantly into the eye of the upset and my body went into such an extreme reaction, I had to put the book down and go for a walk in nature to recover.)
In each chapter, Almond relates stories—from Moby-Dick, to tales of the reasons for the Electoral College, to a magical liberal belief that court jesters like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert can rescue us (even as they erode our urgency to react seriously). The stories vibrate—and sometimes electrocute the unsuspecting reader—with upsetting truth because they are not relegated to Republican or Democratic or Independent or anarchistic belief. They are we-the-people’s stories (and although it seems obvious, I’ll add that the Fourth Estate, which is fiercely examined, is a component of we-the-people). We own these stories and we created our present environment out of them. They are stories written by all of us, but the foundational one is the creation of white American society—the story of people who founded a country via genocide, enslaved people, knew we were doing the wrong thing but justified it, and now function with a legacy of subconscious fear of retribution from “dark people,” resulting in the present paranoia and nationalism. (For a look at the repercussions of this bad story--enduring trauma--from the side of those who were victimized, see Monnica Williams's article.) We are a country who enjoys not knowing; clings to our “unserious” right not to know or care or even vote; deeply enjoys fear, loathing, and anger at “other;” unknowingly cherishes the negative pleasure of being helpless and will twist it into a pretzel-shaped projection if confronted by contradiction; and will defend our beliefs, condemning those who do not agree as “the enemy,” because we believe our life depends on it.
This is a brilliant and deeply upsetting book; the antidote for a denied shadow is illumination, and the shock at seeing a denied part of ourselves can be an identity crisis. But out of that crisis can arise the possibility of “dream[ing] up stories that offer a vision of the American spirit as one of kindness and decency . . . ”
For the brave and curious, here is the book’s website: Bad Stories . It launches April 1, 2018, from Red Hen Press, which was kind enough to send me a review copy.
A contemplation, several days after finishing this book:
I wish everybody would read Bad Stories, but that is a fantasy. My wish stems from the book's "slow-bomb clarity" exploding in my head, concurrent with learning that the Parkland students, survivors of the mass shooting at their high school, essentially trained rigorously for their present activism by researching, amassing a database of facts, and debating both sides of gun control as part of a Broward County debate program, one of the largest in the country, "that teaches extemporaneous speaking from an early age." What's happening is not magic. It is the product of methodical work colliding with horrible trauma.
The revelations of Bad Stories are our secret addictions to feeling angry, scared, helpless, or removed from the current mess. Our addiction to the ENTERTAINMENT of it all. The easiest way to evolve out of that is (1) to acknowledge it, then (2) train, as these students did, and therefore be able to (3) act.
I am a writer who is uncomfortable confronting people about their beliefs, so I would hate knocking on doors to try to persuade people to vote for a certain candidate. But I can write. So I am writing this little contemplation. And I'll look for other venues where writing can be helpful. (Can you guess what my addiction has been? Helplessness.)
If you are out-of-your-mind angry, maybe use that energy to organize people.
If you are crazy scared, maybe join some organization (there are certainly enough of them) being organized by more energetic, confrontational folks, and follow.
Yelling on Facebook or Twitter is no more an action than thoughts and prayers are. Getting out the vote is.
I've updated, editorialized on, and republished this review on my Substack column.
Original 2/23/18 review
This book is staggeringly good. I was familiar with Steve Almond from his short stories, but this is straight journalism at its best (which he teaches at Harvard). (It is clear from Almond’s thought processes and messages to students, presented in this volume, that he is a great teacher and seasoned journalist.)
In reviewing, there is a tendency to break down books about politics into bullet-point messages, and I hesitate to do that because it would misrepresent Bad Stories as something much smaller than it is.
So what is it?
Because of Almond’s conversational writing style, it is easily readable and offers up documented mind-blowing insights like hors d’oeuvres. Hence, Bad Stories is a huge, readable 237-page revelation of profound insights gleaned from connecting dots that we-the-people largely prefer not to see.
At its root is the premise that if we tell ourselves, and believe, bad stories, we will inevitably live them—belief creates reality, or more accurately, those beliefs we don’t fully acknowledge, examine, and understand create unconscious actions that create reality. This is not a new idea, but Almond makes it new by spotlighting our shadow (our denied self, per Jung) through the bad stories that we believe so fervently that they have resulted in our current predictable situation—starting with our belief that we are a country founded on the notion that all people are created equal. (That took me-the-reader instantly into the eye of the upset and my body went into such an extreme reaction, I had to put the book down and go for a walk in nature to recover.)
In each chapter, Almond relates stories—from Moby-Dick, to tales of the reasons for the Electoral College, to a magical liberal belief that court jesters like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert can rescue us (even as they erode our urgency to react seriously). The stories vibrate—and sometimes electrocute the unsuspecting reader—with upsetting truth because they are not relegated to Republican or Democratic or Independent or anarchistic belief. They are we-the-people’s stories (and although it seems obvious, I’ll add that the Fourth Estate, which is fiercely examined, is a component of we-the-people). We own these stories and we created our present environment out of them. They are stories written by all of us, but the foundational one is the creation of white American society—the story of people who founded a country via genocide, enslaved people, knew we were doing the wrong thing but justified it, and now function with a legacy of subconscious fear of retribution from “dark people,” resulting in the present paranoia and nationalism. (For a look at the repercussions of this bad story--enduring trauma--from the side of those who were victimized, see Monnica Williams's article.) We are a country who enjoys not knowing; clings to our “unserious” right not to know or care or even vote; deeply enjoys fear, loathing, and anger at “other;” unknowingly cherishes the negative pleasure of being helpless and will twist it into a pretzel-shaped projection if confronted by contradiction; and will defend our beliefs, condemning those who do not agree as “the enemy,” because we believe our life depends on it.
This is a brilliant and deeply upsetting book; the antidote for a denied shadow is illumination, and the shock at seeing a denied part of ourselves can be an identity crisis. But out of that crisis can arise the possibility of “dream[ing] up stories that offer a vision of the American spirit as one of kindness and decency . . . ”
For the brave and curious, here is the book’s website: Bad Stories . It launches April 1, 2018, from Red Hen Press, which was kind enough to send me a review copy.
* * *
A contemplation, several days after finishing this book:
I wish everybody would read Bad Stories, but that is a fantasy. My wish stems from the book's "slow-bomb clarity" exploding in my head, concurrent with learning that the Parkland students, survivors of the mass shooting at their high school, essentially trained rigorously for their present activism by researching, amassing a database of facts, and debating both sides of gun control as part of a Broward County debate program, one of the largest in the country, "that teaches extemporaneous speaking from an early age." What's happening is not magic. It is the product of methodical work colliding with horrible trauma.
The revelations of Bad Stories are our secret addictions to feeling angry, scared, helpless, or removed from the current mess. Our addiction to the ENTERTAINMENT of it all. The easiest way to evolve out of that is (1) to acknowledge it, then (2) train, as these students did, and therefore be able to (3) act.
I am a writer who is uncomfortable confronting people about their beliefs, so I would hate knocking on doors to try to persuade people to vote for a certain candidate. But I can write. So I am writing this little contemplation. And I'll look for other venues where writing can be helpful. (Can you guess what my addiction has been? Helplessness.)
If you are out-of-your-mind angry, maybe use that energy to organize people.
If you are crazy scared, maybe join some organization (there are certainly enough of them) being organized by more energetic, confrontational folks, and follow.
Yelling on Facebook or Twitter is no more an action than thoughts and prayers are. Getting out the vote is.
June 12, 2018
Because I’ve been keeping up with the news over the past couple of years, I was as aware as anyone “what the hell just happened to our country.” But this book was particularly recommended by a GR friend and I was curious what Almond knew that I didn’t.
I couldn’t bear to start at the beginning of the already much too-long and painful story so I opened randomly, and think I hit the best essay in the bunch, about the work of Neil Postman, particularly Amusing Ourselves to Death published in 1985, about Americans abdicating their role as democratists by trivializing their political and governmental structures, and indulging their attachment to fear and loathing as a means of connection.
Almond’s essay on this topic, “What Amuses Us Can’t Hurt Us,” explicates Postman’s work and makes him sound prescient and on the level with others whose names we remember better, like Huxley, Orwell, Baldwin. Basically his argument is that in treating democracy as entertainment, we are guilty of being “unserious,” something Obama accused Trump of at the infamous Correspondent’s dinner in 2011 at which Trump was roasted. Almond makes Postman’s work sound indispensable.
Another essay in this collection I enjoyed, “I Do Get A Lot of Honesty on the Internet,” also mentions Postman and his comments about TV journalism and its perhaps inevitable slide into infotainment. It must have reached its apogee at the time of the campaign and after, with reporters citing and talking to other reporters, over and over throughout the day and night. If I am not mistaken, podcasts may have become the more time-efficient means of mainlining real, new news.
In “Sports Brings Us Together As a Nation,” Almond asks, “Has there ever been another nation so eager to present human endeavor as a sport? We have turned everything into a competition: dating, cooking, singing, dancing, scavenging, traveling, even courtship.” It is certainly queasy-making to consider how lo-brow we have become, all while being criticized for being elitist. Really. More instances of the goalposts being moved for the purpose of…what? Certainly the dumbing down of a nation is suiting someone, but not the majority of us.
Almond’s essays can be useful, and help us to form our own opinions about what just happened, but I preferred it when he discussed the work of others. His insights can be amusing and make us feel less alone, but the sharpest insights came from others, whom he credits. It feels second-hand, and therefore quickly goes out of date.
I couldn’t bear to start at the beginning of the already much too-long and painful story so I opened randomly, and think I hit the best essay in the bunch, about the work of Neil Postman, particularly Amusing Ourselves to Death published in 1985, about Americans abdicating their role as democratists by trivializing their political and governmental structures, and indulging their attachment to fear and loathing as a means of connection.
Almond’s essay on this topic, “What Amuses Us Can’t Hurt Us,” explicates Postman’s work and makes him sound prescient and on the level with others whose names we remember better, like Huxley, Orwell, Baldwin. Basically his argument is that in treating democracy as entertainment, we are guilty of being “unserious,” something Obama accused Trump of at the infamous Correspondent’s dinner in 2011 at which Trump was roasted. Almond makes Postman’s work sound indispensable.
Another essay in this collection I enjoyed, “I Do Get A Lot of Honesty on the Internet,” also mentions Postman and his comments about TV journalism and its perhaps inevitable slide into infotainment. It must have reached its apogee at the time of the campaign and after, with reporters citing and talking to other reporters, over and over throughout the day and night. If I am not mistaken, podcasts may have become the more time-efficient means of mainlining real, new news.
In “Sports Brings Us Together As a Nation,” Almond asks, “Has there ever been another nation so eager to present human endeavor as a sport? We have turned everything into a competition: dating, cooking, singing, dancing, scavenging, traveling, even courtship.” It is certainly queasy-making to consider how lo-brow we have become, all while being criticized for being elitist. Really. More instances of the goalposts being moved for the purpose of…what? Certainly the dumbing down of a nation is suiting someone, but not the majority of us.
Almond’s essays can be useful, and help us to form our own opinions about what just happened, but I preferred it when he discussed the work of others. His insights can be amusing and make us feel less alone, but the sharpest insights came from others, whom he credits. It feels second-hand, and therefore quickly goes out of date.
June 5, 2018
Good Stories vs. Bad Stories
The subtitle of Steve Almond’s book, “What the Hell Just Happened to Our Country,” is not a question, but a declaration. And the happening he has in mind is the presidential election of 2016. On the other hand, however, Almond explains that “what just happened” didn’t just happen. It was years in the making.
So, what about the main title? What do “bad stories” have to do with “what the hell just happened to our country?” To answer that question, according to Almond, one must first discuss the importance of “good stories.”
He believes that stories are important, that it is how we make sense of the human condition and our place in the scheme of things. Good stories promote kindness and decency, such as those “that gave birth to the Emancipation Proclamation, the New Deal, and the War on Poverty.” In other words, the good stories we share lead to cooperation in advancing mutual trust and the common good, that emphasize generosity over greed and curiosity instead of blind loyalty or rage.
On the other hand, bad stories threaten to the same degree that good stories benefit. They are flawed, distorted, false narratives that are “fraudulent either by design or negligence” and “arise from an unwillingness to take reality seriously. If bad stories become pervasive enough they create a new and darker reality.”
Thus, Almond’s principal argument is that good stories are being shunted aside and replaced by bad stories that lead to bad outcomes.
Seventeen Bad Stories
The heart of Almond’s book is his discourse on what he views as the bad stories that have led us and our government to a state of alienation, polarization, and dysfunction. He devotes a chapter to each of the “stories”:
WATERGATE WAS ABOUT A CORRUPT PRESIDENT
THE UNITED STATES IS A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
OUR GRIEVANCES MATTER MORE THAN OUR VULNERABILITIES
ECONOMIC ANGUISH FUELED TRUMPISM
TRUMP WAS A CHANGE AGENT
WHAT AMUSES US CAN’T HURT US
JOURNALISM WOULD MAKE A HERO OF ME
NOBODY WOULD VOTE FOR A GUY LIKE THAT
I DO GET A LOT OF HONESTY ON THE INTERNET
SPORTS BRINGS US TOGETHER AS A NATION
AMERICAN WOMEN WILL NEVER EMPOWER A SEXUAL PREDATOR
OUR COURT JESTERS WILL RESCUE THE KINGDOM
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAIR AND BALANCED
THE VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY WAS JUST A CONSPIRACY
GIVE US YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASSES
THE COLD WAR IS OVER (and we won!)
AMERICA IS INCAPABLE OF MORAL IMPROVEMENT
No matter one’s philosophical or political persuasion, these are thought-provoking topics. But is he successful in making his case?
First of all, the book is a bit messy. There are meanderings and digressions (most of which are entertaining if not always informative) and he admits that he has no unified theory to explain “how our democracy fell apart,” that he is “working toward a synthesis of theories.”
That is exactly where I find myself and I suspect that many people are in the same position. Almond didn’t help me to package my ideas and neatly tie it all up with a red ribbon, but he sure as hell made me think.
____________________________
Thank you, Betsy.
And thanks to Goodreads, Steve Almond, and Red Hen (love that name!) Press for being responsible for me winning my first giveaway.
The subtitle of Steve Almond’s book, “What the Hell Just Happened to Our Country,” is not a question, but a declaration. And the happening he has in mind is the presidential election of 2016. On the other hand, however, Almond explains that “what just happened” didn’t just happen. It was years in the making.
So, what about the main title? What do “bad stories” have to do with “what the hell just happened to our country?” To answer that question, according to Almond, one must first discuss the importance of “good stories.”
He believes that stories are important, that it is how we make sense of the human condition and our place in the scheme of things. Good stories promote kindness and decency, such as those “that gave birth to the Emancipation Proclamation, the New Deal, and the War on Poverty.” In other words, the good stories we share lead to cooperation in advancing mutual trust and the common good, that emphasize generosity over greed and curiosity instead of blind loyalty or rage.
On the other hand, bad stories threaten to the same degree that good stories benefit. They are flawed, distorted, false narratives that are “fraudulent either by design or negligence” and “arise from an unwillingness to take reality seriously. If bad stories become pervasive enough they create a new and darker reality.”
Thus, Almond’s principal argument is that good stories are being shunted aside and replaced by bad stories that lead to bad outcomes.
Seventeen Bad Stories
The heart of Almond’s book is his discourse on what he views as the bad stories that have led us and our government to a state of alienation, polarization, and dysfunction. He devotes a chapter to each of the “stories”:
WATERGATE WAS ABOUT A CORRUPT PRESIDENT
THE UNITED STATES IS A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
OUR GRIEVANCES MATTER MORE THAN OUR VULNERABILITIES
ECONOMIC ANGUISH FUELED TRUMPISM
TRUMP WAS A CHANGE AGENT
WHAT AMUSES US CAN’T HURT US
JOURNALISM WOULD MAKE A HERO OF ME
NOBODY WOULD VOTE FOR A GUY LIKE THAT
I DO GET A LOT OF HONESTY ON THE INTERNET
SPORTS BRINGS US TOGETHER AS A NATION
AMERICAN WOMEN WILL NEVER EMPOWER A SEXUAL PREDATOR
OUR COURT JESTERS WILL RESCUE THE KINGDOM
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAIR AND BALANCED
THE VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY WAS JUST A CONSPIRACY
GIVE US YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASSES
THE COLD WAR IS OVER (and we won!)
AMERICA IS INCAPABLE OF MORAL IMPROVEMENT
No matter one’s philosophical or political persuasion, these are thought-provoking topics. But is he successful in making his case?
First of all, the book is a bit messy. There are meanderings and digressions (most of which are entertaining if not always informative) and he admits that he has no unified theory to explain “how our democracy fell apart,” that he is “working toward a synthesis of theories.”
That is exactly where I find myself and I suspect that many people are in the same position. Almond didn’t help me to package my ideas and neatly tie it all up with a red ribbon, but he sure as hell made me think.
____________________________
Thank you, Betsy.
And thanks to Goodreads, Steve Almond, and Red Hen (love that name!) Press for being responsible for me winning my first giveaway.
Read
June 20, 2022This is a terrific book. It's also compulsively readable, which is one of the reasons I have it on plane-beach reads as well as other shelves. The author takes 17 "Bad Stories" about the United States--these are essentially ingrained ideas, attitudes, and beliefs--and shows the reader how each of them is not only false but it also a building block in the national situation we find ourselves in today. It's neither liberal nor conservative in its bent. It's thoughtful and historical. Examples are: "The United States is a Representative Democracy" and "Our Grievances Matter More than our Vulnerabilities" and "What Amuses Us Can't Hurt Us" and through his exploration of why each story is false, he unveils its inherent danger. It's a brilliant analysis. I spent much of my reading underlining and highlighting passages that I thought were particularly astute. I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to understand --to use the author's subtitle "What the Hell Just Happened to our Country."
February 9, 2018
Drawing on history, literature, and criticism, Steve Almond of Dear Sugars parses the bad stories that led to the ultimate bad outcome in November of 2016. This book gave me a much greater understanding of the cultural forces that led to the election of Donald Trump, and I feel more informed and empowered because of it. A quick, accessible read that I’ll be thinking about and recommending for a long time to come.
July 16, 2018
I should like this. This should fill my mind with blissful confirmation bias. And he has dozens of cool insights and historical trivia to back up many of those insights.
Even though there is some structure, chapter headings to come, by the time I was finished I had trouble remembering much of anything. Which obviously could be on me, but the whole book seems kind of rambling. To my view he uses the chapters as a starting point for some sort of literary jam session. So it is more of a spontaneous monologue rather than a disciplined book. In short, I am critical not of the substance but the style, when maybe some of the substance too.
He mixes in quotes, anecdotes and his philosophy on politics or culture and also unfortunately tells us some of the stories of his novels...ugh.
“A decade ago, I began drafting a novel ”, I mean we don’t know his novel and it probably didn’t have any cultural effect. Just make the point you think your novel was making without going on about it. I get it, you are a writer.
Part of his shtick is using literature to illuminate a current political point. But that only works when we all know something about the work in question. So yeah, references to Moby Dick or Grapes of Wrath might make point, but his own novels?
He also opines about the failings of popular culture in general, but his most sustained target is Jon Stewart. I just don’t get it...
...by the time he left The Daily Show in 2015, he was widely regarded as a secular prophet Loc. 1317-18
What does that even mean, really? Yeah he was popular but the only people who would label him a “secular prophet” is somebody who doesn’t like him (like Steve Almond and probably all of Fox network)
then this…
The rest of us—the Troubled but Tame Majority, let’s say—chose to embrace Stewart as our spirit guide. Loc. 1325
So I guess he once was a fan of Jon Stewart but feels bad now. But if he regrets his past view because he took him as his "spirit guide". Well if he did that then he is an idiot.
He then knocks Stewart and his march to restore sanity with this...
But his smug tribalism doesn’t advance a progressive agenda. It’s not meant to. Loc. 1377-78
The irony is Almond lards his book with his own thick author smugness, and doesn’t notice it at all. And he is all in a tizzy because Stewart and Colbert didn’t solve all the political division in the country. Like he did I guess.
To make myself feel better here are some of the insights, or just any bon mot that caught my eye
What marked Trump as disruptive was his attitude, not his ideas. He repudiated “politics as usual” by importing a brand of impulsive emotionalism into a milieu loathed for its cautious calculation. He refused to disavow or apologize for offensive statements. He reacted to slights with a defensive rancor most of us recognized from our own lives. It’s important to acknowledge this psychic identification, because it helps explain why Trump proved such an alluring figure, not only to his loyalists but to his critics. Loc. 504-7
Again: it is our national habit to take our grievances seriously, but not our vulnerabilities. Loc. 1887-88
As a former KGB officer, Putin surely recognized our conservative media complex for what it was: an increasingly influential propaganda machine. Loc. 1963-64
Pundits have replaced journalists. Citizens, rebranded as taxpayers Loc. 2007-8
of just how tiresome Trump was. He was capable of pivoting, but only between two poles of action: the pursuit of adulation and the desecration of his critics. Those were literally his only two dance moves. Loc. 519-21
The thing that irks me is he spends all the book pointing out how messed up things are and how nobody has fixed anything and you know what his solutions is?
then citizens must become a lobby, must push for laws that bleed money from politics and unrig our elections. This lobby should consist of nearly every citizen of this country who is not a billionaire, a demagogue, a network executive, a pollster, a consultant, or a politician.
Sooooo..all we need is for every citizen to come together and push for good laws. I mean who’d of thunk it?
Below are the chapters, and predictably each chapter heading is a bad (wrong) story except for the upbeat error of the last one.
1. Watergate was about a corrupt president
2. The United States is a Representative Democracy
3. Our Grievances Matter more than out Vulnerabilities
4. Economic Anguish Fueled Trumpism
5. Trump was a Change Agent
6. What amuses us can't hurt us
7. Journalism would make a hero of me
8. nobody would vote for a guy like that
9. I do get a lot of honesty on the Internet
10. Sports brings us together as a nation
11. American Women will never empower a Sexual predator
12 Our Court jesters will rescue the kingdom
13 Thre is no such thing as fair and balanced
14. The vast right wing conspiracy was jsut a conspiracy
15. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses
16. The Cold war is over (and we won)
Final Bad Story. America is incapable of moral improvement
= = = = = = =
Note to self...he has this quote about Aldous Huxley..I may have to read Brave New World
Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture. . . . In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us. Loc. 616-19
Even though there is some structure, chapter headings to come, by the time I was finished I had trouble remembering much of anything. Which obviously could be on me, but the whole book seems kind of rambling. To my view he uses the chapters as a starting point for some sort of literary jam session. So it is more of a spontaneous monologue rather than a disciplined book. In short, I am critical not of the substance but the style, when maybe some of the substance too.
He mixes in quotes, anecdotes and his philosophy on politics or culture and also unfortunately tells us some of the stories of his novels...ugh.
“A decade ago, I began drafting a novel ”, I mean we don’t know his novel and it probably didn’t have any cultural effect. Just make the point you think your novel was making without going on about it. I get it, you are a writer.
Part of his shtick is using literature to illuminate a current political point. But that only works when we all know something about the work in question. So yeah, references to Moby Dick or Grapes of Wrath might make point, but his own novels?
He also opines about the failings of popular culture in general, but his most sustained target is Jon Stewart. I just don’t get it...
...by the time he left The Daily Show in 2015, he was widely regarded as a secular prophet Loc. 1317-18
What does that even mean, really? Yeah he was popular but the only people who would label him a “secular prophet” is somebody who doesn’t like him (like Steve Almond and probably all of Fox network)
then this…
The rest of us—the Troubled but Tame Majority, let’s say—chose to embrace Stewart as our spirit guide. Loc. 1325
So I guess he once was a fan of Jon Stewart but feels bad now. But if he regrets his past view because he took him as his "spirit guide". Well if he did that then he is an idiot.
He then knocks Stewart and his march to restore sanity with this...
But his smug tribalism doesn’t advance a progressive agenda. It’s not meant to. Loc. 1377-78
The irony is Almond lards his book with his own thick author smugness, and doesn’t notice it at all. And he is all in a tizzy because Stewart and Colbert didn’t solve all the political division in the country. Like he did I guess.
To make myself feel better here are some of the insights, or just any bon mot that caught my eye
What marked Trump as disruptive was his attitude, not his ideas. He repudiated “politics as usual” by importing a brand of impulsive emotionalism into a milieu loathed for its cautious calculation. He refused to disavow or apologize for offensive statements. He reacted to slights with a defensive rancor most of us recognized from our own lives. It’s important to acknowledge this psychic identification, because it helps explain why Trump proved such an alluring figure, not only to his loyalists but to his critics. Loc. 504-7
Again: it is our national habit to take our grievances seriously, but not our vulnerabilities. Loc. 1887-88
As a former KGB officer, Putin surely recognized our conservative media complex for what it was: an increasingly influential propaganda machine. Loc. 1963-64
Pundits have replaced journalists. Citizens, rebranded as taxpayers Loc. 2007-8
of just how tiresome Trump was. He was capable of pivoting, but only between two poles of action: the pursuit of adulation and the desecration of his critics. Those were literally his only two dance moves. Loc. 519-21
The thing that irks me is he spends all the book pointing out how messed up things are and how nobody has fixed anything and you know what his solutions is?
then citizens must become a lobby, must push for laws that bleed money from politics and unrig our elections. This lobby should consist of nearly every citizen of this country who is not a billionaire, a demagogue, a network executive, a pollster, a consultant, or a politician.
Sooooo..all we need is for every citizen to come together and push for good laws. I mean who’d of thunk it?
Below are the chapters, and predictably each chapter heading is a bad (wrong) story except for the upbeat error of the last one.
1. Watergate was about a corrupt president
2. The United States is a Representative Democracy
3. Our Grievances Matter more than out Vulnerabilities
4. Economic Anguish Fueled Trumpism
5. Trump was a Change Agent
6. What amuses us can't hurt us
7. Journalism would make a hero of me
8. nobody would vote for a guy like that
9. I do get a lot of honesty on the Internet
10. Sports brings us together as a nation
11. American Women will never empower a Sexual predator
12 Our Court jesters will rescue the kingdom
13 Thre is no such thing as fair and balanced
14. The vast right wing conspiracy was jsut a conspiracy
15. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses
16. The Cold war is over (and we won)
Final Bad Story. America is incapable of moral improvement
= = = = = = =
Note to self...he has this quote about Aldous Huxley..I may have to read Brave New World
Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture. . . . In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us. Loc. 616-19
August 30, 2018
Ok why am I not hearing more about this fantastic book? Almond puts together the things we're already thinking in such an eloquent and cohesive way, and takes what we're already thinking and then elaborates on it more and brings it to the next level. A- freaking- plus.
December 9, 2018
Not perfect -- other reviewers are right in saying that Almond's digressions about his novels are needlessly distracting and don't add anything to his argument -- but damned good. I folded down a lot of page corners with the thought of quoting from the book here, but in the end there were just too many folded corners. Almond is rightly angry and alarmed about how debased our political culture has become, and his book is a series of searing indictments of Politics as entertainment (Almond quotes TV executive Leslie Moonves whose view of Trump's campaign was "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS... It's a terrible thing to say, but bring it on, Donald. Keep going."), as bread & circus, as zero-sum sport (" Trumpism represented [a] large power unit, something fans could plug into, like a football team, which would go out and kick ass on their behalf." ) Political engagement as rage or snarky jokes and Facebook "likes." Political journalists covering the campaigns with the same focus as a dog detecting the presence of a squirrel ("The networks spent more time on Clinton email stories than all policy issues combined. Please take a long minute to think about that."). Where TV comedians "serve as our leading moralists."
That is the world we now inhabit... While the right reacts to the dysfunction of our civic institutions with delusions of persecution..., the left indulges in clever sketches that convert our anguish into disposable laughs. These are the two dominant responses to the state of our union: America as a horror movie, basically, or a farce. Don't bother looking for the nuanced drama about a liberal democracy struggling to maintain faith in the mechanisms of self-governance. That doesn't sell enough popcorn.
And: Quoting Hunter Thompson's plaint about Richard Nixon, written two years before the Watergate scandal broke -- "Jesus! Where will it end? How low do you have to stoop in this country to be president?', Almond writes, At what point did folks in charge of our major media outlets ask themselves this question? At what point did they know that Trump had stooped too low? They knew all along. But so long as our free press operates as a for-profit enterprise, its managers are duty-bound to sell whatever we're willing to buy.
"Bad Stories" won't change any minds. And it won't -- because it can't -- give readers a map for how to fix our broken political system. I'm pretty confident it won't attract any serious attention on the Right. Does that make reading it nothing more than an exercise in emotional self-flagellation for readers like me on the Left? Maybe. But it does offer a lot to think about. And it does lay out pretty forcefully what it's subtitle promises: an answer to the question, "What the hell just happened to our country?"
That is the world we now inhabit... While the right reacts to the dysfunction of our civic institutions with delusions of persecution..., the left indulges in clever sketches that convert our anguish into disposable laughs. These are the two dominant responses to the state of our union: America as a horror movie, basically, or a farce. Don't bother looking for the nuanced drama about a liberal democracy struggling to maintain faith in the mechanisms of self-governance. That doesn't sell enough popcorn.
And: Quoting Hunter Thompson's plaint about Richard Nixon, written two years before the Watergate scandal broke -- "Jesus! Where will it end? How low do you have to stoop in this country to be president?', Almond writes, At what point did folks in charge of our major media outlets ask themselves this question? At what point did they know that Trump had stooped too low? They knew all along. But so long as our free press operates as a for-profit enterprise, its managers are duty-bound to sell whatever we're willing to buy.
"Bad Stories" won't change any minds. And it won't -- because it can't -- give readers a map for how to fix our broken political system. I'm pretty confident it won't attract any serious attention on the Right. Does that make reading it nothing more than an exercise in emotional self-flagellation for readers like me on the Left? Maybe. But it does offer a lot to think about. And it does lay out pretty forcefully what it's subtitle promises: an answer to the question, "What the hell just happened to our country?"
March 28, 2018
If you have asked your self this question, you'd better grab this book now. It's not just a Monday morning quarterback commentary, it's an incredibly accurate, concise, and lucid explanation of just what has been going on, how, and why it happened. It's a fast read and in a sense humbling, as we can see what part we have played in getting into this fix.
One point that the author makes really sticks in my mind, and has totally changed the lenses in my glasses. Initially I was taken aback, and felt the fur of defensiveness rise on my back. But as he pointed out how our late night comedians play in our 'digestion' of the daily news, I see it so clearly and now am dealing with a bad case of cognitive dissonance. We all love a laugh, especially when faced with this theater of the absurd in which we are living. His point was that by turning it all into a 'joke', we are lightening our load with the laughs, and that by making it all a laughing matter we are treating the symptoms of this crisis rather than dealing with it head on. In other words, this isn't really funny at all. Starting way back with Jon Stewart, whom I adore, and continuing with my other favorites (Colbert, and the others), have turned Trump and his antics into a joke! And if we can laugh and mock him, we are insulating ourselves for the severity of this catastrophe that is growing exponentially every day!
This is just one small segment of his analysis, and I'm sure your initial reaction to that will be the same as mine, but remember please that I am an amateur with these scribbles, and may not be giving it the best representation.
But please, if you care about this situation we are in, grab the book and read it. TODAY! Let me know what you think. We have a situation on our hands that is a nightmare and we need to figure out how to rise to this and stop it before it is too late.
Does that sound dramatic? It is. It is very serious, it should be.
One point that the author makes really sticks in my mind, and has totally changed the lenses in my glasses. Initially I was taken aback, and felt the fur of defensiveness rise on my back. But as he pointed out how our late night comedians play in our 'digestion' of the daily news, I see it so clearly and now am dealing with a bad case of cognitive dissonance. We all love a laugh, especially when faced with this theater of the absurd in which we are living. His point was that by turning it all into a 'joke', we are lightening our load with the laughs, and that by making it all a laughing matter we are treating the symptoms of this crisis rather than dealing with it head on. In other words, this isn't really funny at all. Starting way back with Jon Stewart, whom I adore, and continuing with my other favorites (Colbert, and the others), have turned Trump and his antics into a joke! And if we can laugh and mock him, we are insulating ourselves for the severity of this catastrophe that is growing exponentially every day!
This is just one small segment of his analysis, and I'm sure your initial reaction to that will be the same as mine, but remember please that I am an amateur with these scribbles, and may not be giving it the best representation.
But please, if you care about this situation we are in, grab the book and read it. TODAY! Let me know what you think. We have a situation on our hands that is a nightmare and we need to figure out how to rise to this and stop it before it is too late.
Does that sound dramatic? It is. It is very serious, it should be.
May 16, 2018
4.5 stars -- I won this book as a Goodreads Giveaway.
BAD STORIES is about our current political situation. It’s a small book, but it packs in a lot of information and I read it slowly, taking time to stop and think about what I’d just read. Author Steve Almond invites readers to take a step back from the social media-driven fray and cast a serious look around ourselves, asking us to think about if we like what we’ve become and where we’re headed.
Almond uses numerous examples from history and literature in order to understand our current reality. The election of Donald Trump shocked and bewildered many. However, there’s no one culpable entity at which to point fingers. Rather, the 2016 election was the fault of all of us—from conservatives willing to back Trump against their own stated values and interests to liberals who treated the Trump campaign like a comedy show and refused to accept the possibility of his election until it was too late.
At one point we read, “In the 1950s, only 10 percent of voters had negative feelings toward the opposing party. That number now stands at 90 percent.” Indeed, trying to imagine the political arena as anything other than most people believing that their party is always virtuous and good and the other guys are always scumbag monsters is extremely difficult. We’ve gotten to the point where we’re not just disagreeing with each other, we’re threatening each other’s lives if we don’t like where they stand on an issue. Perhaps most disarmingly, the very nature of reality is being questioned, in which many people simply dismiss any news or information they dislike as false or a conspiracy. The author sums up this phenomenon with the line: “One of my journalism students captured the crisis quite succinctly, in the form of a question: “What do you do if no matter what you write, the reader won’t believe you?”
The author uses examples from his personal life that many readers will be able to relate to. Early on he talks about discussing Trump with a scientist relative. Almond questioned how a man who had dedicated his life to science and had two young daughters could back a candidate who denied global warming and seemed so dismissive of environmental policy. Unsurprisingly, the man became extremely agitated and defensive.
The author observes that our new normal is to “recast cynicism as a form of wisdom, and moral negligence as martyrdom.”
Almond also cites a small business owner whose husband owes his life-saving liver transplant to the Affordable Care Act. “Over the course of the campaign, Trump pledged to repeal Obamacare daily. She voted for him anyway. … She simply chose not to acknowledge his straight talk about killing Obamacare.”
The author profiles a young friend of his named Jon. Like the author, he started the election season as an enthusiastic Bernie Sanders supporter. However, as the election season wore on, Jon became fixated on hating Hillary Clinton, and filled his social media pages with anti-Clinton content, much of it from right wing sites pushing Trump. He had next to nothing to say about the very real possibility of Trump being elected, despite the man’s near polar-opposite positions on every topic Jon presumably cared about as a Sanders supporter. I had mixed feelings about this passage. It’s not as if there aren’t legitimate concerns about Clinton. After all, before she was a politician, she was a corporate lawyer, and her ties with the business world and support for the Iraq War should disturb progressives. She isn’t a challenge to the big money status quo, but she also isn’t a genuinely frightening loose cannon like Donald Trump.
At the same time, Almond’s story of Jon is sadly played out throughout the world of activist campaigns. For many years, advocates for an entire raft of causes have wasted more time attacking each other than they have spent on their actual reasons for being activists in the first place. In-fighting is credited with causing the implosion of the free speech movement of the 1960s, for example.
Parts of BAD STORIES reminded me of another book I read recently, “SHAME NATION,” which criticizes the online culture of flame wars and hate speech. “One of the central revelations of the 2016 campaign was the extent to which Internet culture has forged a new permission structure,” the author writes. He asks readers to try to imagine how voters would have reacted if Reagan would have acted and spoke in the same way Trump did on the campaign trail. (Heck, Howard Dean was taken down spectacularly for making a weird noise during a campaign rally.)
At the same time, it’s clear all sins aren’t forgiven equally. Later in the book, Almond asks his readers what would happen if the roles were reversed. What if Hillary Clinton had mocked a disabled reporter or bragged about grabbing men by the genitals? There’s no arguing that if Clinton would have behaved as viciously and crassly as Trump, no one would have stood for it. In this case, there was a very real double standard, and gender undoubtedly played a role.
An especially interesting chapter discussed the phenomenon of women supporting Trump, despite his long and documented history of boorish, sexist behavior. I recently read a novel in which the conclusion had women across the US electing female politicians and standing up in solidarity for their rights, and I laughed out loud, because in real life I see so many women defending Trump and politicians like him.
The author uses an incident from his own life in trying to understand this phenomenon. Almond hearkens back to a time when he was observing the workings of a cattle ranch as a newspaper reporter. Ranch workers were castrating calves, which like most painful procedures on farm animals is done without anesthetic or painkillers. The animals’ suffering “turned my stomach,” the author admits, “but I pretended like it was no big deal. I wanted to be accepted by these young guys.” Later, he bears witness to another sobering scene when the lone female ranch hand is goaded by her male peers into handing Almond a severed bull’s testicle. The author muses, “She was an interloper, too, trying to negotiate a world ruled by men and she had figured out that the best way to do so, maybe the only way, was to ape the cruelty of this realm, to pass her shame along to someone even more vulnerable.”
I can’t express how refreshing it was to see an author making these connections and expressing compassion for farmed animals in a mainstream political book. It’s an unfortunate trend that too many liberals like to prove their “toughness” by bragging about how little they care about animals. Almond’s insight also had me thinking about my own teenage and college years, in which many of my female classmates would laugh uproariously when the boys talked about animal abuse, or would boast about hurting animals themselves. Decades later, these ugly scenes stick with me, but this book’s succinct words gave me some valuable insight into what was going on here.
And that's what BAD STORIES does for its readers. It gives insight. It puts into words feelings we may be having but can't articulate. It helps us understand what is happening all around us.
BAD STORIES is about our current political situation. It’s a small book, but it packs in a lot of information and I read it slowly, taking time to stop and think about what I’d just read. Author Steve Almond invites readers to take a step back from the social media-driven fray and cast a serious look around ourselves, asking us to think about if we like what we’ve become and where we’re headed.
Almond uses numerous examples from history and literature in order to understand our current reality. The election of Donald Trump shocked and bewildered many. However, there’s no one culpable entity at which to point fingers. Rather, the 2016 election was the fault of all of us—from conservatives willing to back Trump against their own stated values and interests to liberals who treated the Trump campaign like a comedy show and refused to accept the possibility of his election until it was too late.
At one point we read, “In the 1950s, only 10 percent of voters had negative feelings toward the opposing party. That number now stands at 90 percent.” Indeed, trying to imagine the political arena as anything other than most people believing that their party is always virtuous and good and the other guys are always scumbag monsters is extremely difficult. We’ve gotten to the point where we’re not just disagreeing with each other, we’re threatening each other’s lives if we don’t like where they stand on an issue. Perhaps most disarmingly, the very nature of reality is being questioned, in which many people simply dismiss any news or information they dislike as false or a conspiracy. The author sums up this phenomenon with the line: “One of my journalism students captured the crisis quite succinctly, in the form of a question: “What do you do if no matter what you write, the reader won’t believe you?”
The author uses examples from his personal life that many readers will be able to relate to. Early on he talks about discussing Trump with a scientist relative. Almond questioned how a man who had dedicated his life to science and had two young daughters could back a candidate who denied global warming and seemed so dismissive of environmental policy. Unsurprisingly, the man became extremely agitated and defensive.
The author observes that our new normal is to “recast cynicism as a form of wisdom, and moral negligence as martyrdom.”
Almond also cites a small business owner whose husband owes his life-saving liver transplant to the Affordable Care Act. “Over the course of the campaign, Trump pledged to repeal Obamacare daily. She voted for him anyway. … She simply chose not to acknowledge his straight talk about killing Obamacare.”
The author profiles a young friend of his named Jon. Like the author, he started the election season as an enthusiastic Bernie Sanders supporter. However, as the election season wore on, Jon became fixated on hating Hillary Clinton, and filled his social media pages with anti-Clinton content, much of it from right wing sites pushing Trump. He had next to nothing to say about the very real possibility of Trump being elected, despite the man’s near polar-opposite positions on every topic Jon presumably cared about as a Sanders supporter. I had mixed feelings about this passage. It’s not as if there aren’t legitimate concerns about Clinton. After all, before she was a politician, she was a corporate lawyer, and her ties with the business world and support for the Iraq War should disturb progressives. She isn’t a challenge to the big money status quo, but she also isn’t a genuinely frightening loose cannon like Donald Trump.
At the same time, Almond’s story of Jon is sadly played out throughout the world of activist campaigns. For many years, advocates for an entire raft of causes have wasted more time attacking each other than they have spent on their actual reasons for being activists in the first place. In-fighting is credited with causing the implosion of the free speech movement of the 1960s, for example.
Parts of BAD STORIES reminded me of another book I read recently, “SHAME NATION,” which criticizes the online culture of flame wars and hate speech. “One of the central revelations of the 2016 campaign was the extent to which Internet culture has forged a new permission structure,” the author writes. He asks readers to try to imagine how voters would have reacted if Reagan would have acted and spoke in the same way Trump did on the campaign trail. (Heck, Howard Dean was taken down spectacularly for making a weird noise during a campaign rally.)
At the same time, it’s clear all sins aren’t forgiven equally. Later in the book, Almond asks his readers what would happen if the roles were reversed. What if Hillary Clinton had mocked a disabled reporter or bragged about grabbing men by the genitals? There’s no arguing that if Clinton would have behaved as viciously and crassly as Trump, no one would have stood for it. In this case, there was a very real double standard, and gender undoubtedly played a role.
An especially interesting chapter discussed the phenomenon of women supporting Trump, despite his long and documented history of boorish, sexist behavior. I recently read a novel in which the conclusion had women across the US electing female politicians and standing up in solidarity for their rights, and I laughed out loud, because in real life I see so many women defending Trump and politicians like him.
The author uses an incident from his own life in trying to understand this phenomenon. Almond hearkens back to a time when he was observing the workings of a cattle ranch as a newspaper reporter. Ranch workers were castrating calves, which like most painful procedures on farm animals is done without anesthetic or painkillers. The animals’ suffering “turned my stomach,” the author admits, “but I pretended like it was no big deal. I wanted to be accepted by these young guys.” Later, he bears witness to another sobering scene when the lone female ranch hand is goaded by her male peers into handing Almond a severed bull’s testicle. The author muses, “She was an interloper, too, trying to negotiate a world ruled by men and she had figured out that the best way to do so, maybe the only way, was to ape the cruelty of this realm, to pass her shame along to someone even more vulnerable.”
I can’t express how refreshing it was to see an author making these connections and expressing compassion for farmed animals in a mainstream political book. It’s an unfortunate trend that too many liberals like to prove their “toughness” by bragging about how little they care about animals. Almond’s insight also had me thinking about my own teenage and college years, in which many of my female classmates would laugh uproariously when the boys talked about animal abuse, or would boast about hurting animals themselves. Decades later, these ugly scenes stick with me, but this book’s succinct words gave me some valuable insight into what was going on here.
And that's what BAD STORIES does for its readers. It gives insight. It puts into words feelings we may be having but can't articulate. It helps us understand what is happening all around us.
May 3, 2018
Yes, yes, yes. Of course, I’m already in the choir, but Almond here offers a deft cogent piece on whuh happened, why, and how we should think about how to proceed.
April 2, 2018
This. This is the election reaction I've been waiting for. As I cracked open the book my mind provided a soundtrack--Bonnie Tyler's "I Need a Hero"--and I was off. This isn't the work of a pundit rehashing results and studies. This is the journey of a thinker searching out the advice of other thinkers in an attempt to understand not how Trump got elected but how so many Americans were blind to the truth of the events as they unfolded--from conservatives blind to how staggeringly bad it was for their self interest to vote for Trump to liberals who told themselves fairy tales about why Trump's election could never happen.
As a story teller myself, Almond's decision to look at the election through the filter of the power even bad stories hold over us did what great books must do: it made me see my world differently, question what I thought was true, and come to the last page a smarter person than I was on the first page. I'll never be able to see the stories I tell myself--about myself and the world around me--in quite the same light, and in a world where critical discourse feels like an endangered species, that's a very good thing.
As a story teller myself, Almond's decision to look at the election through the filter of the power even bad stories hold over us did what great books must do: it made me see my world differently, question what I thought was true, and come to the last page a smarter person than I was on the first page. I'll never be able to see the stories I tell myself--about myself and the world around me--in quite the same light, and in a world where critical discourse feels like an endangered species, that's a very good thing.
August 10, 2018
This isn’t a long book but it needs to be savored. It isn’t a tirade about Trump but rather an examination of the factors that led to his election. The author names some surprising suspects for someone who was a journalist: the news media, the lack of awareness about their own motives (for money and ratings), the dropping of their responsibility to explain what was really going on. He also blames us for being complacent and for telling ourselves stories that just make things worse. There are no easy answers, but there are hard questions we need to be asking. This is not so much a call to action as it is a call to think.
July 2, 2018
BAD STORIES is an excellent title, in Steve Almond's usual gifted way, o
for sorting out the nut of the matter. "Bad Stories" is a better way of saying "Fake News" or misinformation, that implies an almost mythological origin to the stories we allow ourselves to believe, with little or no research or factual support. This occurs on all sides of the political aisle, is exacerbated by the lack of respect or resources given to modern journalists, by both audience and employers. And ultimately to themselves?
He summarizes types of bad stories into chapter headings. Some examples are(keep in mind these are intended as false statements we take for granted as truisms): "Economic Anguish Fueled Trumpism" , "What Amuses Us Can't Hurt Us", its companion "Our Court Jesters Will Rescue the Kingdom", and one of my favorites, " "Sports Bring Us Together As a Nation".
This last opens with an anecdote about a very compelling, yet I feel highly misleading centerpiece of American life--that playing sports has a moral component that encourages our kids to be team players. The opening anecdote features the Dem's most assuring voice, Obama, who implied sports have played a role in the moral improvement of our nation, concluding there was a direct line between Jackie Robinson's story and his own--hinting at Lincoln's "the better angels of our nature" being worked out in the relaxation of a ball field.
Except, my experiences, like Almond's, prove the opposite, in our modern world. Now once upon a time, my tomboy self had some success in the potential meritocracy of America--me and a few other girls in my neighborhood got to play on our sandlots because we could throw with speed and accuracy, knocked or kicked the shit out of a ball, slid onto home cleats up without crying or whining about our bloodied knees, chipped our teeth taking our turn playing goalie. We became part of the team. Learned how, as the boys did, by figuring out the rules and skills by ourselves.
But these were in the days without adult supervision. Adults ruin the team building aspect of sports by helicoptering and over-managing what kids might learn, more naturally and deeply, on their own. And, I gotta say, even to my fellow teacher/coaches who I generally admire as human beings, something gets lost in the fun and learning --now that sports have taken such a business turn, and this especially if you are coaching your own offspring. My days watching my kids play little league and soccer were some of the most unpleasant experiences of my American life, largely due to the presence of parents who think they are doing a good thing shouting "encouragement" to their kids (and appallingly, others', children) from the sidelines that not infrequently becoming humiliation and demand.
Money is the infection as usual. Parents who believe they are somehow witnessing the birth of a professional ballplayer (at worst) or at the very least, a future leader of America, by constantly shouting a stream of confusing instructions to the kids have to be some of the most delusional folks in mainstream America. I am really hoping this book, or at least this chapter, gets out into the media and we have a wave of self-recognition fueling change.
Almond goes on to connect the tribal team mentality of rabid, team- colors sports fans to the present polarization of Dems vs. Reps , without the "fan's" examination of actual positions or logical thought, and I think this is a brilliant observation of American character, including the ugly rhetoric that sounds like the boos and hisses at sports stadiums, instead of thoughtful conjecture that things as important as improving laws and civil policies deserve.
There was a lot of interesting things to think about in this book. I think what struck me most was the effect of The Fairness Doctrine that the FCC removed from its policy standards in 1987. Those of us old enough will remember a time when the airwaves, and TV in particular, was fairly well regulated to keep opposing political parties in check.
It was not soon after this that you had the rise of extremely partisan and emotion driven talk radio, in particular on dying AM frequencies: one of them being Rush Limbaugh. The popularity of this type of programming seems to have given a green light to entire cable networks and broadcasting companies, like Fox and Sinclair, feeling comfortable pushing the boundaries of how to present news that is decidedly more opinionated, soon to be followed by left of center media platforms doing to same to counterbalance or retaliate, depending on how you want to look at it.
Hence our present media mess--of course, it may have happened anyway with the expansion of our media options via the Internet. How to put the genie back in the bottle? Doesn't seem we can, we just have to make ourselves more disciplined and discerning, voting with our eyes until the media powers catch on that we are catching on. Is there a point to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine in a way that would be more than lip service?
I suspect I gave this 4 instead of 5 stars just because I'm so sick of the subject matter, and the present state of politics. It really is worth a read, and has some refreshing insights.
for sorting out the nut of the matter. "Bad Stories" is a better way of saying "Fake News" or misinformation, that implies an almost mythological origin to the stories we allow ourselves to believe, with little or no research or factual support. This occurs on all sides of the political aisle, is exacerbated by the lack of respect or resources given to modern journalists, by both audience and employers. And ultimately to themselves?
He summarizes types of bad stories into chapter headings. Some examples are(keep in mind these are intended as false statements we take for granted as truisms): "Economic Anguish Fueled Trumpism" , "What Amuses Us Can't Hurt Us", its companion "Our Court Jesters Will Rescue the Kingdom", and one of my favorites, " "Sports Bring Us Together As a Nation".
This last opens with an anecdote about a very compelling, yet I feel highly misleading centerpiece of American life--that playing sports has a moral component that encourages our kids to be team players. The opening anecdote features the Dem's most assuring voice, Obama, who implied sports have played a role in the moral improvement of our nation, concluding there was a direct line between Jackie Robinson's story and his own--hinting at Lincoln's "the better angels of our nature" being worked out in the relaxation of a ball field.
Except, my experiences, like Almond's, prove the opposite, in our modern world. Now once upon a time, my tomboy self had some success in the potential meritocracy of America--me and a few other girls in my neighborhood got to play on our sandlots because we could throw with speed and accuracy, knocked or kicked the shit out of a ball, slid onto home cleats up without crying or whining about our bloodied knees, chipped our teeth taking our turn playing goalie. We became part of the team. Learned how, as the boys did, by figuring out the rules and skills by ourselves.
But these were in the days without adult supervision. Adults ruin the team building aspect of sports by helicoptering and over-managing what kids might learn, more naturally and deeply, on their own. And, I gotta say, even to my fellow teacher/coaches who I generally admire as human beings, something gets lost in the fun and learning --now that sports have taken such a business turn, and this especially if you are coaching your own offspring. My days watching my kids play little league and soccer were some of the most unpleasant experiences of my American life, largely due to the presence of parents who think they are doing a good thing shouting "encouragement" to their kids (and appallingly, others', children) from the sidelines that not infrequently becoming humiliation and demand.
Money is the infection as usual. Parents who believe they are somehow witnessing the birth of a professional ballplayer (at worst) or at the very least, a future leader of America, by constantly shouting a stream of confusing instructions to the kids have to be some of the most delusional folks in mainstream America. I am really hoping this book, or at least this chapter, gets out into the media and we have a wave of self-recognition fueling change.
Almond goes on to connect the tribal team mentality of rabid, team- colors sports fans to the present polarization of Dems vs. Reps , without the "fan's" examination of actual positions or logical thought, and I think this is a brilliant observation of American character, including the ugly rhetoric that sounds like the boos and hisses at sports stadiums, instead of thoughtful conjecture that things as important as improving laws and civil policies deserve.
There was a lot of interesting things to think about in this book. I think what struck me most was the effect of The Fairness Doctrine that the FCC removed from its policy standards in 1987. Those of us old enough will remember a time when the airwaves, and TV in particular, was fairly well regulated to keep opposing political parties in check.
It was not soon after this that you had the rise of extremely partisan and emotion driven talk radio, in particular on dying AM frequencies: one of them being Rush Limbaugh. The popularity of this type of programming seems to have given a green light to entire cable networks and broadcasting companies, like Fox and Sinclair, feeling comfortable pushing the boundaries of how to present news that is decidedly more opinionated, soon to be followed by left of center media platforms doing to same to counterbalance or retaliate, depending on how you want to look at it.
Hence our present media mess--of course, it may have happened anyway with the expansion of our media options via the Internet. How to put the genie back in the bottle? Doesn't seem we can, we just have to make ourselves more disciplined and discerning, voting with our eyes until the media powers catch on that we are catching on. Is there a point to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine in a way that would be more than lip service?
I suspect I gave this 4 instead of 5 stars just because I'm so sick of the subject matter, and the present state of politics. It really is worth a read, and has some refreshing insights.
Read
November 19, 2018Well-written. I appreciated the allusions to literature. Definitely told through a white lens, though. I don’t think many people from marginalized backgrounds would express astonishment that discrimination and prejudice are fueled by social, not economic factors.
July 1, 2018
|This book was won from a Goodreads giveaway|
I was actually very pleasantly surprised by this one. I didn't think I would enjoy it; I thought it'd be a three star at best. I thought it would be an ultra-liberal-can-do-no-wrong kind of book. Don't get me wrong--on the political spectrum, I tend to lean more liberal than conservative, but no group of people is perfect.
This book was relatively balanced. Of course, it was anti-current-administration (which I agreed with), but it didn't purport the "Obama was perfect! Clinton would have been perfect!" thing, which I did appreciate. I can appreciate some equal-opportunity criticism.
It was well-written, too, which was a plus. This is a set of essays, and it was a well-written, entertaining set of essays. Nonfiction, and especially political nonfiction, can get really preachy really quickly, but this didn't, and I appreciated it. It gave the facts and it tried to stay relatively unbiased and I could appreciate it. It was a good time. Would recommend.
I was actually very pleasantly surprised by this one. I didn't think I would enjoy it; I thought it'd be a three star at best. I thought it would be an ultra-liberal-can-do-no-wrong kind of book. Don't get me wrong--on the political spectrum, I tend to lean more liberal than conservative, but no group of people is perfect.
This book was relatively balanced. Of course, it was anti-current-administration (which I agreed with), but it didn't purport the "Obama was perfect! Clinton would have been perfect!" thing, which I did appreciate. I can appreciate some equal-opportunity criticism.
It was well-written, too, which was a plus. This is a set of essays, and it was a well-written, entertaining set of essays. Nonfiction, and especially political nonfiction, can get really preachy really quickly, but this didn't, and I appreciated it. It gave the facts and it tried to stay relatively unbiased and I could appreciate it. It was a good time. Would recommend.
January 3, 2018
In Bad Stories Steve Almond takes an even-handed and well considered approach to trying to understand what caused the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election.
We live and learn through stories, narrative is how we make sense of the world. Even facts that come to us as isolated and without any apparent narrative surrounding them become part of our knowledge when we work them into our existing narrative, perhaps changing it a bit, perhaps supporting it. So when Almond chose to look at the election result as a collection of stories it makes perfect sense.
The idea of these stories as bad is less about a good/bad dichotomy and more about stories being skewed, semi-accurate, selectively supported or just plain lies disseminated to mislead. While Almond certainly gives strong opinions about what is wrong with these stories he does a good job of avoiding, for the most part, making disparaging comments about those who may have fallen under the spell of these stories. This is a good thing since, depending on the bad story, it was not just Trump supporters who believed some of the stories. Different stories affected different people and the result was the fiasco we are now living under: the administration of an incompetent narcissist with the emotional stability of a three year old. There is plenty of responsibility for the situation to go around, not just those who supported him.
I think all of Almond's bad stories are valid though I think he over-stated a couple and missed the mark on a couple. That said, he never missed the mark by so much as to make what he was saying pointless or wrong, just, to me, overstated.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via Edelweiss.
We live and learn through stories, narrative is how we make sense of the world. Even facts that come to us as isolated and without any apparent narrative surrounding them become part of our knowledge when we work them into our existing narrative, perhaps changing it a bit, perhaps supporting it. So when Almond chose to look at the election result as a collection of stories it makes perfect sense.
The idea of these stories as bad is less about a good/bad dichotomy and more about stories being skewed, semi-accurate, selectively supported or just plain lies disseminated to mislead. While Almond certainly gives strong opinions about what is wrong with these stories he does a good job of avoiding, for the most part, making disparaging comments about those who may have fallen under the spell of these stories. This is a good thing since, depending on the bad story, it was not just Trump supporters who believed some of the stories. Different stories affected different people and the result was the fiasco we are now living under: the administration of an incompetent narcissist with the emotional stability of a three year old. There is plenty of responsibility for the situation to go around, not just those who supported him.
I think all of Almond's bad stories are valid though I think he over-stated a couple and missed the mark on a couple. That said, he never missed the mark by so much as to make what he was saying pointless or wrong, just, to me, overstated.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via Edelweiss.
January 12, 2018
I've read a number of books by Steve Almond, most notably Candy Freak, Rock 'n Roll Will Save Your Life, and Against Football. He writes about a variety of subjects but always does his due diligence with regard to research. He also is quite adept at integrating his personal experience with the topic at hand.
This is a brilliant, thought provoking analysis of the last election and how we got to where we are today. Although an admitted lefty - he did give up a professor position at BC to protest the school's invitation of Condoleeza Rice as commencement speaker - this is not a one sided rant against Trump. It's a thoughtful, and frightening, discussion of the evolution of talk radio, the internet, and journalism and how they influenced the election. I almost don't want to think about future elections, as we may not be able to undo the damage we have wreaked upon ourselves.
This is a brilliant, thought provoking analysis of the last election and how we got to where we are today. Although an admitted lefty - he did give up a professor position at BC to protest the school's invitation of Condoleeza Rice as commencement speaker - this is not a one sided rant against Trump. It's a thoughtful, and frightening, discussion of the evolution of talk radio, the internet, and journalism and how they influenced the election. I almost don't want to think about future elections, as we may not be able to undo the damage we have wreaked upon ourselves.
June 16, 2018
Almost surreal in its importance. Read it, please. It's also a page-turner, and absurdly erudite, with very à propos excerpts from other writers ranging from Melville to Theodore Roosevelt to Neil Postman.
December 28, 2019
I won this book in a giveaway. I thought that this book offered a good look at the factors leading up to the election of Donald Trump. I really found the discussions of the erosion of fair and balanced journalism to be thought-provoking and scary.
July 15, 2018
Every American should read this book. The author takes on the daunting task of answering the question in his subtitle: What the hell just happened to our country? Each chapter takes on a "bad story" or myth, addresses our collective misconceptions or conventional wisdom, and tries to get at the truth. He distills down much of our political discord and corruption into something we can all understand, using both historical and psychological analysis. I'm telling you, it's good.
And he does not hold back. He is upfront about being a progressive who voted for Bernie Sanders, but he is unflinching in spreading the blame for where America is now: the Reagan Administration for eliminating the Fairness Doctrine, giving birth to the toxic media environment we now find ourselves in. The media for telling itself it's merely reporting on the circus, when in fact they are the ones creating it. Yes, that includes the so-called "liberal" media. Us, the American People, for being cynical and jaded and not turning up to vote when it matters. James Comey and President Obama, for being so sure that Trump could never win, they decided to withhold from the voters the very relevant information that Trump and his campaign were under an FBI investigation for colluding with Russia. Meanwhile, voters could not pick up a copy of The New York Times without reading a story about Hillary's emails. He even takes a hard look at the Progressives' (and my beloved) sacred cow, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. (He didn't comment on the current iteration, hosted by my also-beloved Trevor Noah.)
To go a bit further on his critique of the media and its coverage of the 2016 election: he cites a post-election study, conducted by Harvard's Shorenstein Center, which revealed that just ten percent of the 2016 election coverage focused on policy. TEN PERCENT. He quotes CBS Chairman Les Moonves, who said, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." Moonves went on to characterize the campaign as a "circus" but insisted "Donald's place in this election is a good thing. Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now?...The money's rolling in and this is fun. I've never seen anything like this, and this is going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going."
This should outrage us all. It should also give us a moment of self-reflection. What were we more likely to tune in to, to click on and repost? News reports that highlighted how crazy those GOP primaries were, and then the hours of "analysis" that discussed the crazy while ignoring any discussion of policy? Articles that stoked our sense of how right we are (and how wrong the other side is)? Memes that mocked how idiotic Trump and his supporters looked? Our country has some serious soul-searching to do.
One of my favorite quotes from the book is when Almond quotes American journalist and culture critic H.L. Mencken, who died in 1956: "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
I believe that great and glorious day has come to pass.
And he does not hold back. He is upfront about being a progressive who voted for Bernie Sanders, but he is unflinching in spreading the blame for where America is now: the Reagan Administration for eliminating the Fairness Doctrine, giving birth to the toxic media environment we now find ourselves in. The media for telling itself it's merely reporting on the circus, when in fact they are the ones creating it. Yes, that includes the so-called "liberal" media. Us, the American People, for being cynical and jaded and not turning up to vote when it matters. James Comey and President Obama, for being so sure that Trump could never win, they decided to withhold from the voters the very relevant information that Trump and his campaign were under an FBI investigation for colluding with Russia. Meanwhile, voters could not pick up a copy of The New York Times without reading a story about Hillary's emails. He even takes a hard look at the Progressives' (and my beloved) sacred cow, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. (He didn't comment on the current iteration, hosted by my also-beloved Trevor Noah.)
To go a bit further on his critique of the media and its coverage of the 2016 election: he cites a post-election study, conducted by Harvard's Shorenstein Center, which revealed that just ten percent of the 2016 election coverage focused on policy. TEN PERCENT. He quotes CBS Chairman Les Moonves, who said, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." Moonves went on to characterize the campaign as a "circus" but insisted "Donald's place in this election is a good thing. Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now?...The money's rolling in and this is fun. I've never seen anything like this, and this is going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going."
This should outrage us all. It should also give us a moment of self-reflection. What were we more likely to tune in to, to click on and repost? News reports that highlighted how crazy those GOP primaries were, and then the hours of "analysis" that discussed the crazy while ignoring any discussion of policy? Articles that stoked our sense of how right we are (and how wrong the other side is)? Memes that mocked how idiotic Trump and his supporters looked? Our country has some serious soul-searching to do.
One of my favorite quotes from the book is when Almond quotes American journalist and culture critic H.L. Mencken, who died in 1956: "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
I believe that great and glorious day has come to pass.
May 14, 2018
The subtitle of Steve Almond's 2016 election postmortem makes it sound like something bad only recently happened to our country. The premise of his book, however, is that Trumpism has deep roots, but some of us only recently became aware of it. In Almond's (retrospective) view, the election of Donald Trump was almost inevitable: a kind of perfect storm resulting from years of talk radio conspiracy theorists undermining truth, the overturning of campaign finance laws, the transformation of news into entertainment, and the unfolding scandal of Russian meddling. Nothing in Almond's assessment is new; his explanation of What Happened pretty much mirrors what Hillary Clinton said in her book of that same name. But the fact that Almond isn't a Clinton, isn't a woman, and initially wasn't a Hillary supporter makes his book seem more objective than hers, and less aggrieved. That isn't to say, however, that Almond isn't angry with the constellation of forces that put an inept, mentally and morally unfit plutocrat in the White House. Instead, Almond rightly (and righteously) rages against the voter apathy that allowed the essential work of democracy to be transformed into a bad reality show.
January 10, 2019
I think sadly I have to give this book a two, which is my "do not recommend reading" rating. The problem with the book is that as a reader you have to already be beyond the book to get anything out of it. The author is only seeing the bad stories hazily as *the author is still in them.*
The author's lack of perspective leads to errors, such as his review of women's concerns about Hillary Clinton where he ends with a story of family sexual abuse that is EXACTLY the model for the concern that he cannot even imagine existing. Literally he is telling the exact story that he cannot see. It is FASCINATING.
The book is likeable. It has some things in it that are not wrong. And yet... it is too wrong to recommend.
The author's lack of perspective leads to errors, such as his review of women's concerns about Hillary Clinton where he ends with a story of family sexual abuse that is EXACTLY the model for the concern that he cannot even imagine existing. Literally he is telling the exact story that he cannot see. It is FASCINATING.
The book is likeable. It has some things in it that are not wrong. And yet... it is too wrong to recommend.
April 18, 2018
I’d read Steve Almond’s NFL book and found him to be a very persuasive polemicist who digs pretty deep in his diagnosis of what drives human nature and why we enjoy the often-rotten spectacles that we do. No surprise then that when he applies this skill to the “bad stories” Americans told themselves that led to Trump’s election, the result is just as illuminating.
This sort of wholesale questioning of the foundational assumptions we Americans have about the nature of democracy, capitalism, immigration, gender relations, race and more is already going on everywhere, yet Almond helps the process along very well, in clear and sharply-written prose that also calls upon literature to help underscore his points. Really strong book, and one best read right now.
This sort of wholesale questioning of the foundational assumptions we Americans have about the nature of democracy, capitalism, immigration, gender relations, race and more is already going on everywhere, yet Almond helps the process along very well, in clear and sharply-written prose that also calls upon literature to help underscore his points. Really strong book, and one best read right now.
December 22, 2018
I avoided reading this book for months because I thought I couldn’t handle the bad stories. But I could. I learned so much about the relationships between where we are now and our attitudes, the media, the past—how many other writers wrote about similar ideas so easily applicable to today. We’ve been on this path forever it seems. We need to do the real work to roadblock it and carve a new one. Almond makes a powerful plea. I hope people read this book.
May 15, 2018
This is a very interesting book on the take of what happened to our country in 2016. Fake news seems to be in the headlines daily. Where has good journalism gone? We seemed to lost faith in the media to inform us. This is an interesting read whether you are on the left or right. We all need to think about what is happening in our country.
July 19, 2020
This might have felt more prescient and insightful when it was written in 2018. Today a lot of these observations feel obvious. Also I am a little confused about the poor quality of the writing (eg using “insured” instead of “ensured”) given a) I read a book of Almond’s essays (“Not That You Asked”) previously and found the writing excellent and b) he is a professor of journalism.
September 26, 2018
I found Bad Stories to be a readable and engaging account of what just happened in the US. Yes, I knew a lot of the details but Steve Almond sheds light on some truths that were a bit foggy for me. I appreciate his comments about the "Fourth Estate" and the impact of media (including social media) on the populace. I also appreciate the way he weaves literature and history into the narrative. There is a lot to think about here abut I will warn the reader that there wasn't a lot here to make me feel better about the future. Corporate greed is the underlying element that seems to be shaping America this years and Almond doesn't mince words with his disappointment and anger at that situation. The final chapter offers some hope but it feels pretty slender.
October 19, 2018
Almond posits that we are a country in thrall.tk bad stories, untrue and harmful ones that are kicking all of our butts. Instead, he lobbies for truth, action, empathy, and the generation of good stories that point us toward betterment. A tonic read in today's strident arena.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 148 reviews