What I liked: I enjoyed her prelude into Freud's fallacies and that she did not cling onto Freud as the bee all and end all. Instead she held a very critical yet nuanced approach. I enjoyed how she discussed the overuse of the word 'trauma' and how the word is losing it's meaning. She said it can neither be tied to objective external events defined in a specific level of threat (as in DSM), nor be completely subjective (the "everything can be traumatic"). Instead, she defines trauma as what causes dissociation (in a more extreme form than daydreaming etc). So it causes a deficit in affect regulation and our ability to make sense of things. This is why someone who might be under ongoing trauma might seem to be functioning well, because the other part is dissocated/suppressed/compartmentalised in some moments.
I liked that she explained the importance of taking meaning from traumatic experiences, and that not everyone develops PTSD. She writes a lot about attachment styles, and how interestingly people in attachment bonds of various kinds can paradoxically develop stronger bonds with an abuser (e.g., trauma bonding) when they feel in danger. She shares case vignettes and talks about the importance of compassion in growing from trauma.
What I disliked: I felt it was lacking a more critical view on repression, which is a very controversial topic. Also, a lot of research highlights how memory of traumatic events is often STRONGER rather than weaker, not in the sense of a video-recorder and accuracy, but people are more likely to remember difficult experiences. However, people might have different attentional focus and if they dissociate may not be present in the moment to actual encode other important information - hence it might seem like details have been repressed when in actuality they might not have been encoded in the first place. I wish she wrote more about these issues.