I feel like a deeply bitter and mean person for giving a book about hope 2 stars, but I know that I am actually an incredibly kind and brave person for not giving it 1.
LISTEN.
I appreciate the message and theory of this book. I really respect the authors for opening up about their own hardships and dedicating their lives to improving the outcomes of others through hope.
I do NOT think this is a good book. At all.
The subtitle of Hope Rising is "How the *Science of Hope* Can Change Your Life." The fundamental thesis of this book is that hope is a scientific variable—something that influences life outcomes, can be measured, and can be changed.
Unfortunately, the "science" book was almost entirely personal anecdotes, side-quests into beliefs (the power of natural medicine vs. chemo, the importance of a healthy diet, the over-prescribing of mental health drugs), and Christian messaging. I don't even necessarily disagree with all of this! But what is it doing in this book!
Some of the anecdotes that didn't seem personal were later revealed to be personal. I don't know if these were supposed to be, like, touching gotcha moments, but it was so bizarre to read what felt like a case study and then be like... "Wait, Casey's mom has the same life story as the woman from chapter 5?"
There was so little time spent on the actual science, which could've been so much more interesting and persuasive. You get so little insight into how the study was developed, what hope scores actually mean, and how results can be interpreted. This book is riddled with graphs with poorly labeled axises and literally nonsensical stats. (Like, "Over six months, her hope score rose from 54.8 to 55.7!" Is this good?? What is the average?? What do any of these numbers mean??)
You also can't convince me that a single person read this manuscript before it went to press. I don't mean to be a typo snob, but the mistakes were plentiful and egregious. Again, I feel weird tearing apart a book that seems to, at its core, want to do admirable things. I just think that if you're going to declare that everyone's boss and people in the helping industries should read this book, you should take the time to make it worth their time. And, like, not have the same paragraph reprinted twice in a row in multiple places.
Even when the content was fresh, it got sooo repetitive. Tragically this was like 10 pages of science and 280 pages of unscripted TED Talk.
Let's do a close examination of the book's most jaw-dropping chapter to highlight a few of my grievances.
Chapter 10: Sometimes It Is Too Late for Hope
First of all, absolutely insane chapter title to casually throw into the middle of a book, completely arguing against your own thesis. But it gets wilder. This chapter randomly follows the stories of three ultimately incredibly violent men, who experienced problems in childhood and went on to perpetuate the cycle of abuse.
This wouldn't have felt out of place for the book if the point had been, "Maybe early intervention would have helped them." And like... the message is perhaps subtly there. But why the choice to put them in a chapter about hopeless cases? It's not even an interesting observation—two of the men were killed during the commission of their crimes and the other is on death row. Too late for hope indeed!!
Now, for funsies, a few passages from this same chapter.
1. "...Violence against women in adulthood spurred it forward. It also produces virtually every mass shooter in the country.
For many years, Sea World in San Diego hosted the Shamu Show. Children often loved sitting in the front rows because when Shamu jumped the splash would hit everyone in the lower rows. Signs warned viewers of the show to stay back from the pool tank unless they wanted to get soaked by Shamu's actions. Many children of trauma grow up to repeat the generational cycle of violence and, in some cases, the "splash zone" of their rage produces mass murder."
You read that correctly!! We were talking about violence against women and mass murder and then we immediately ventured into an overly long anecdote about Shamu(???) for the sole purpose of setting up the term splash zone(???) which is easily recognizable outside of Sea World(?????)
Also I'm so sorry I really am I am so mean but the writing just kills me. "soaked by Shamu's actions" OOOOOF
2. "We need to focus far more energy on homicide prevention by going after the stranglers in this country. Stranglers are the cop killers of America."
WHAT is happening. I promise context does not make this random policy demand feel more in place in this book about increasing your hope??? Like,,, I don't disagree? But what are we doing?
Later in the book you find out that the authors' foundation also does work in strangulation prevention and, like, prosecution. Again, I don't think that helps explain this? It just contributes to the feeling that this book is a hodge podge manifesto as opposed to its advertised presentation of HOPE as a SCIENCE.
And finally....
3. "Devon Patrick Kelley, Stephen Paddock and Bryon Shepard needed rising hope long before they became killers."
And tragically, Casey Gwinn and Chan Hellman needed editors long before they got published because TWO of those THREE names of public figures are spelled wrong.
Anyway I am truly sorry for being so mean but book reviewing is my passion and I was gifted this book at work when I became a copywriter so we were always destined to end up here.
Truly I respect the mission. Consider this my application to help edit the second edition. If you're curious about the authors' work, I would suggest exploring it via their online resources as opposed to in this book.