Most of what is useful here is traditional material available elsewhere. The remainder is mostly short anecdotes and musings associated with each emanation of Tara which, in my opinion, are problematic in various ways:
Wooten's social class and ideology mark her authorial choices with supercilious and predictable clichés and narrow reductive interpretations whose relations to the tradition often seem arbitrary or idiosyncratic.
She calls herself a Jungian but I found dozens of instances where I could recall specific material from Jung that would have been extremely illuminating (although it would often have contradicted or attenuated her feminist therapeutic-materialist posture) but is glaringly omitted. She seems completely allergic to the kind of esoteric analysis that fills every volume of Jung and instead resorts to platitudes at every turn. Maybe she sees the Jungian school more as social club or professional society than genuine intellectual tradition worthy of exposition. Or else she is condescending to the reader.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but although Wooten claims her clients are "women and men," every single patient in every clinical anecdote is a woman, and all men mentioned are either troublesome annoyances, oppressors, or passive transmitters. If she had hit the feminist talking points a little less squarely on the nose, this omission might have seemed less freighted. Considering that the misogynist cultures she critiques still managed to create, preserve, and venerate the very heroic female figures she spends the whole book praising, the painstaking exclusion of men from her own book feels blinkered and pandering rather than fearless and inclusive. Like it or not: Tara, the Madonna, and countless other depictions of the divine feminine were conceived and venerated by men in male dominated institutions. From a Jungian perspective they took forms that serve compensatory psychological functions for male ego. Willfully ignoring this context, treating Tara as a feminist totem ripe for repatriation, and playing up the reductive girl power angle seems intellectually dishonest given the author's credentials. (Of course she also chose to compare an "epidemic" of low female self-esteem to AIDS.) It also leaves on the table more interesting and less self indulgent ideas which you aren't going to find in this kind of pop-psy bourgeois Buddhism.