What do you think?
Rate this book
Party of One: The Loner's Manifesto
An essential defense of the people the world loves to revile -- the loners -- yet without whom it would be lost
The Buddha. Rene Descartes. Emily Dickinson. Greta Garbo. Bobby Fischer. J. D. Loners, all -- along with as many as 25 percent of the world's population. Loners keep to themselves, and like it that way.
Yet in the press, in films, in folklore, and nearly everywhere one looks, loners are tagged as losers and psychopaths, perverts and pity cases, ogres and mad bombers, elitists and wicked witches. Too often, loners buy into those messages and strive to change, making themselves miserable in the process by hiding their true nature -- and hiding from it. Loners as a group deserve to be reassessed -- to claim their rightful place, rather than be perceived as damaged goods that need to be "fixed."
In Party of One Anneli Rufus--a prize-winning, critically acclaimed writer with talent to burn -- has crafted a morally urgent, historically compelling tour de force -- a long-overdue argument in defense of the loner, then and now. Marshalling a polymath's easy erudition to make her case, assembling evidence from every conceivable arena of culture as well as interviews with experts and loners worldwide and her own acutely calibrated analysis, Rufus rebuts the prevailing notion that aloneness is indistinguishable from loneliness, the fallacy that all of those who are alone don't want to be, and wouldn't be, if only they knew how.
The Buddha. Rene Descartes. Emily Dickinson. Greta Garbo. Bobby Fischer. J. D. Loners, all -- along with as many as 25 percent of the world's population. Loners keep to themselves, and like it that way.
Yet in the press, in films, in folklore, and nearly everywhere one looks, loners are tagged as losers and psychopaths, perverts and pity cases, ogres and mad bombers, elitists and wicked witches. Too often, loners buy into those messages and strive to change, making themselves miserable in the process by hiding their true nature -- and hiding from it. Loners as a group deserve to be reassessed -- to claim their rightful place, rather than be perceived as damaged goods that need to be "fixed."
In Party of One Anneli Rufus--a prize-winning, critically acclaimed writer with talent to burn -- has crafted a morally urgent, historically compelling tour de force -- a long-overdue argument in defense of the loner, then and now. Marshalling a polymath's easy erudition to make her case, assembling evidence from every conceivable arena of culture as well as interviews with experts and loners worldwide and her own acutely calibrated analysis, Rufus rebuts the prevailing notion that aloneness is indistinguishable from loneliness, the fallacy that all of those who are alone don't want to be, and wouldn't be, if only they knew how.
286 pages, Paperback
First published January 6, 2003
221 people are currently reading
5227 people want to read
About the author
Anneli Rufus
15 books59 followersAnneli Rufus is an award-winning American journalist and author.
Born in Los Angeles, California, she first went to college in Santa Barbara, then to the University of California, Berkeley. Rufus earned an English degree and became a journalist. She's written for many publications, including Salon.com, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Boston Globe. Currently she is the literary editor for the East Bay Express, an alternative weekly newspaper. She is now married and resides in Berkeley, California. wikipedia
Born in Los Angeles, California, she first went to college in Santa Barbara, then to the University of California, Berkeley. Rufus earned an English degree and became a journalist. She's written for many publications, including Salon.com, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Boston Globe. Currently she is the literary editor for the East Bay Express, an alternative weekly newspaper. She is now married and resides in Berkeley, California. wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 372 reviews
May 2, 2018
Until I started reading this book, on Monday, I had previously held the misconception that I was defected for not being more social. The book has opened my eyes to some interesting aspects about myself, life, and how my lonerness affects my relationships. I learned that people that I get close to, romantically, feel as if I am being aloof, and stand offish. That they believe that I am not into them, or that I am avoiding them. It is rather an interesting, and new concept for me. The book has made me realise that I am not “alone” in my "perdicament" that I am in fact one of a rather large group of people that will most likely never meet. That, in itself, is comforting. I couple this new found information about myself with a quote by John Green: “Writers: People that want to tell you a story, but do not want to have to look you in the eyes while doing so.”
February 20, 2008
I feel weird when I start a book and don't finish it, even if I hate it. That being said, I have given in to the fact that I am never going to finish this one, and I didn't hate it. I read about 75% of the book, but it got so repetitive I couldn't go any further.
I like her basic premise, and she definitely seems like she has done her research. As I get older, I feel like I'm tending to become more of a loner, but this lady takes it a bit too far. Basically she's telling people to be proud of this personality trait, which I agree with, but then it feels like she spends all this time defending the loner lifestyle. And I'm not sure from whom. It's a bit dramatic at times. And in her mind every creative person, be it an artist, musician, actor, etc., is inherently a loner. I don't buy that.
All in all, it started out very interesting, but drifted towards preachy at times and eventually just repeated itself over and over.
I like her basic premise, and she definitely seems like she has done her research. As I get older, I feel like I'm tending to become more of a loner, but this lady takes it a bit too far. Basically she's telling people to be proud of this personality trait, which I agree with, but then it feels like she spends all this time defending the loner lifestyle. And I'm not sure from whom. It's a bit dramatic at times. And in her mind every creative person, be it an artist, musician, actor, etc., is inherently a loner. I don't buy that.
All in all, it started out very interesting, but drifted towards preachy at times and eventually just repeated itself over and over.
February 26, 2013
This may be my new favourite book ever.
Confession: three weeks into a new job I once burst into tears because the team sprung a suprise shared lunch on me. After having to endlessly talk to people, in a stresful new situation, all I wanted was to be ALONE, with my BOOK, for an hour to find myself again, and realising I was instead going to have to make small talk (gahk!!) and then face a stressful afternoon with more talking was enough to guarantee they had to hold the lunch without me, while I cried in the bathroom for 40 minutes. Anneli would understand this, because "Forced to act like a non-loner for an extended period . . . loners could lose their minds. As deep sea fish die in a shallow tank"
Also, Anneli understands that the internet is the best thing evah!
" . . . the keyboard is a forest, is a meadow, is the open sea, a habitable planet, a pot of gold, an island . . ."
Confession: three weeks into a new job I once burst into tears because the team sprung a suprise shared lunch on me. After having to endlessly talk to people, in a stresful new situation, all I wanted was to be ALONE, with my BOOK, for an hour to find myself again, and realising I was instead going to have to make small talk (gahk!!) and then face a stressful afternoon with more talking was enough to guarantee they had to hold the lunch without me, while I cried in the bathroom for 40 minutes. Anneli would understand this, because "Forced to act like a non-loner for an extended period . . . loners could lose their minds. As deep sea fish die in a shallow tank"
Also, Anneli understands that the internet is the best thing evah!
" . . . the keyboard is a forest, is a meadow, is the open sea, a habitable planet, a pot of gold, an island . . ."
February 29, 2008
Pretension oozes out of this book. I picked up this book expecting an interesting examination of what it means to be a loner. Instead, the book reads more like a scattered list of loners with a one- to two-paragraph summary of the randomly chosen loner, maybe peppered with a quotation. When the book isn't rambling about random topics, it's rather defensive and self-righteous about "we loners," what "we're" like. Being a loner myself, I often wished the author would speak for herself.
Not recommended.
Not recommended.
May 5, 2018
Most people who meet me in person have a hard time believing that I self-identify as a loner. They see me as pretty gregarious and comfortable in most social situations, even among total strangers. I'm not terminally shy, as they say.
But, in all honesty, I am very comfortable, MOST comfortable, being alone. Thankfully, my wife understands this about me and knows that there are stretches when I'd rather go down to my writing area and spend time there, writing pen in hand, trying to churn out books and games and books for games, more than anything else in the world. And those times come often. Being around people takes energy away from me. I have to give the energy. It is when I am alone that I recharge, where I find my spiritual/emotional reserve. Again, this doesn't mean I'm anti-social - far from it - but I am very careful about where and how and how often I expend my energy to be in the presence of others for long stretches. As a child, books were among my best friends. And I loved nothing more than to get on my bike, alone, and go exploring. That was the height of pleasure for me as a young one. And as a teenager living in England, I loved taking the train and bus down to London to go explore, again, alone. Of course, I did these things with other friends, as well, but I was often more than comfortable being my own best friend. And I still am.
So when I saw the title: Party of One: The Loners' Manifesto, I felt compelled to read the book. Even loners want to find "kindred souls", to be validated for their feelings, and to enjoy others' lone experiences (from a respectable distance). Note carefully where the apostrophe falls in the title. Loners want to know about other loners. Ironic? You be the judge.
Rufus covers a broad range of topics. One that struck me was the culture or anti-culture of being alone. I had not thought about how my life as a loner is facilitated by the idea of American individualism. I couldn't live as a Japanese person, for example, and be mentally healthy. At least I wouldn't be viewed that way. And I wouldn't have that American ideal to fall back on when my natural state was hedged by the notion of community-above-all. This makes me think about all the places I've lived and how this relates. I was raised in the military, having lived in Germany, the Philippines, Italy, and England, as well as in the south, midwest, east, and west before I had turned 21. And I mean lived in, not just visited. Every few years Dad would get orders and we would move. It's just what we did. People sometimes ask if it was hard, and I reply "I don't think so. It was just life. I didn't know any other way." Partially as a result of these frequent moves, I learned to live with and like myself. Perhaps this was a way of dealing with a life wherein my group of friends was constantly shifting, where I wasn't sure if I would ever see any of my childhood friends again in my lifetime (and I haven't seen most of them. In fact, it's extremely rare for me to see any childhood friends because we are scattered all over the planet and I am enough of a loner to have avoided High School reunions my whole life). Underlying all of this movement, though, was the idea, entrenched in my head, that I was American - my father was a member of the US military, and I was raised with this from day one, how could I not identify with the stars and stripes when it was all that I had known?
These first sections of the book were different than I expected, mostly in a good way. Rufus' insight into the layers of the loner/non-loner dichotomy, especially as they relate to popular culture, are compelling. I had not made the connection that most pop culture worships the loner (because pop culture is created by loners, for the most part), while at the same time being marketed to the non-loner crowd. I had to think about that for a while. But how else do you account for the burgeoning of "geek culture"? Not that all geeks are loners (far from it), but there is, I suspect, a much higher proportion of people who identify as "geeks" who are loners. I don't have any evidence for this, but it seems like a safe supposition.
On the subject of friends, Rufus points out that, yes, loners have friends, some very good friends. But they tend to choose depth over breadth, and their friends need to understand when the loner needs to be alone. My experience, exactly. I never quite understood those who held what I thought were multiple shallow friendships. I always looked for something deeper with the few friends that I had, sometimes at the cost of great heartbreak.
While Rufus did strike some familiar chords in me, the book, by and large, missed the mark. I have to register strong disagreement with p. 107, 1st full para, last sentence. Here, the author speaks of internet usage (which she calls "an absolute and total miracle" for loners). In examining the thoughts of those who criticize the use of the Internet because it keeps children from enjoying the outdoors, Rufus states:
they claim [the Internet] keeps kids from playing healthy games outdoors. They say it is a procurer for perverts, a weapon in hate crimes. Underlying all this, of course, is the real reason for their dismay: The Internet legitimizes solitude. The real problem is not that kids don't play outdoors, but that they do not play with other kids.
I understand the sentiment that led to this, but it's hyperbolic in the extreme. And this hyperbole, along with the assignation of ill-intent to those who don't understand loners, gets really tedious throughout. The book is passionate, but heavily flawed. And the reason for the flaws is that it is over-passionate. There's a lot of catastrophizing on the part of the author, a sensationalist approach that is intended to put non-loners in a bad light for thinking such evil thoughts against loners.
In later chapters, Rufus points out that many criminals, particularly violent criminals, are automatically labeled "loner" when, in fact, their need for social attention drives them to their acts. It is terribly ironic that many who kill do so because they lack meaningful relationships with others. Still, the militant stance against media and police who make the false assumption that every serial killer is a loner is a bit off-putting. The writing here, at times, reminds me of why I hate The Catcher in the Rye so bloody much.
The chapter on artists is fantastic. There is an eloquent series of anecdotes about how artists tend to be loners (though not always). And this, on artists, is compelling:
Artists hear what no one else hears. They see what no one else sees. They say what no one else says. They must. And to do this, they traffic in the slippery yield of their own souls. They bring to earth the wrack and lode of depths that only they can reach and still come back alive.
This is the kind of passion I can get behind!
Unfortunately, Rufus falls, yet again, into the trap of making assumptions about how masses of other people feel. The chapter on religion is a train-wreck, full of a whole litany of falsehoods and bad assumptions about loners and religion. At least she had the sense to quote Thomas Merton, but it isn't enough to save that chapter. It's a morass.
In her defense, Rufus does hit on some emotionally tough subjects that hit close to the heart. The whole idea of loners being viewed as crazy is an uncomfortable one to face, especially when one prides himself on being a loner and maybe a touch different, though not altogether insane. This is a deep emotional kernel of self-identity that I had to view through the microscope and am still thinking about, especially with the recent death of my parents, one of whom, my Mother, was clinically depressed and had borderline personality disorder her whole life. Being viewed as a touch crazy doesn't much bother me. In fact, I wear that badge proudly! But being viewed as outright nuts because I prefer to spend time with myself and lock myself away for hours on end (particularly when engaged in creative endeavors), that has the potential to hurt.
Sane or not, is book worth your reading time? Perhaps. For those who self-identify as loners, take this with a big grain of salt. Rufus' militancy might not reflect your own feelings. I know it didn't reflect mine. Maybe if I was still a teenager, I could get behind her rancor a bit more, but I'm over that phase. And for non-loners who read the book: please don't assume that every loner you know feels the same way as Rufus about how you view them. It's simply not true. What is true is that all of us are complex, subtly-shaded individuals, some of whom would rather be in a dark corner for awhile, alone, re-energizing.
So don't be offended when I ask you, maybe quite bluntly, to leave me alone! We'll all be better for it. Ugly caterpillars become beautiful butterflies when they come out of the cocoon. But they have to undergo their marvelous transformation all alone.
But, in all honesty, I am very comfortable, MOST comfortable, being alone. Thankfully, my wife understands this about me and knows that there are stretches when I'd rather go down to my writing area and spend time there, writing pen in hand, trying to churn out books and games and books for games, more than anything else in the world. And those times come often. Being around people takes energy away from me. I have to give the energy. It is when I am alone that I recharge, where I find my spiritual/emotional reserve. Again, this doesn't mean I'm anti-social - far from it - but I am very careful about where and how and how often I expend my energy to be in the presence of others for long stretches. As a child, books were among my best friends. And I loved nothing more than to get on my bike, alone, and go exploring. That was the height of pleasure for me as a young one. And as a teenager living in England, I loved taking the train and bus down to London to go explore, again, alone. Of course, I did these things with other friends, as well, but I was often more than comfortable being my own best friend. And I still am.
So when I saw the title: Party of One: The Loners' Manifesto, I felt compelled to read the book. Even loners want to find "kindred souls", to be validated for their feelings, and to enjoy others' lone experiences (from a respectable distance). Note carefully where the apostrophe falls in the title. Loners want to know about other loners. Ironic? You be the judge.
Rufus covers a broad range of topics. One that struck me was the culture or anti-culture of being alone. I had not thought about how my life as a loner is facilitated by the idea of American individualism. I couldn't live as a Japanese person, for example, and be mentally healthy. At least I wouldn't be viewed that way. And I wouldn't have that American ideal to fall back on when my natural state was hedged by the notion of community-above-all. This makes me think about all the places I've lived and how this relates. I was raised in the military, having lived in Germany, the Philippines, Italy, and England, as well as in the south, midwest, east, and west before I had turned 21. And I mean lived in, not just visited. Every few years Dad would get orders and we would move. It's just what we did. People sometimes ask if it was hard, and I reply "I don't think so. It was just life. I didn't know any other way." Partially as a result of these frequent moves, I learned to live with and like myself. Perhaps this was a way of dealing with a life wherein my group of friends was constantly shifting, where I wasn't sure if I would ever see any of my childhood friends again in my lifetime (and I haven't seen most of them. In fact, it's extremely rare for me to see any childhood friends because we are scattered all over the planet and I am enough of a loner to have avoided High School reunions my whole life). Underlying all of this movement, though, was the idea, entrenched in my head, that I was American - my father was a member of the US military, and I was raised with this from day one, how could I not identify with the stars and stripes when it was all that I had known?
These first sections of the book were different than I expected, mostly in a good way. Rufus' insight into the layers of the loner/non-loner dichotomy, especially as they relate to popular culture, are compelling. I had not made the connection that most pop culture worships the loner (because pop culture is created by loners, for the most part), while at the same time being marketed to the non-loner crowd. I had to think about that for a while. But how else do you account for the burgeoning of "geek culture"? Not that all geeks are loners (far from it), but there is, I suspect, a much higher proportion of people who identify as "geeks" who are loners. I don't have any evidence for this, but it seems like a safe supposition.
On the subject of friends, Rufus points out that, yes, loners have friends, some very good friends. But they tend to choose depth over breadth, and their friends need to understand when the loner needs to be alone. My experience, exactly. I never quite understood those who held what I thought were multiple shallow friendships. I always looked for something deeper with the few friends that I had, sometimes at the cost of great heartbreak.
While Rufus did strike some familiar chords in me, the book, by and large, missed the mark. I have to register strong disagreement with p. 107, 1st full para, last sentence. Here, the author speaks of internet usage (which she calls "an absolute and total miracle" for loners). In examining the thoughts of those who criticize the use of the Internet because it keeps children from enjoying the outdoors, Rufus states:
they claim [the Internet] keeps kids from playing healthy games outdoors. They say it is a procurer for perverts, a weapon in hate crimes. Underlying all this, of course, is the real reason for their dismay: The Internet legitimizes solitude. The real problem is not that kids don't play outdoors, but that they do not play with other kids.
I understand the sentiment that led to this, but it's hyperbolic in the extreme. And this hyperbole, along with the assignation of ill-intent to those who don't understand loners, gets really tedious throughout. The book is passionate, but heavily flawed. And the reason for the flaws is that it is over-passionate. There's a lot of catastrophizing on the part of the author, a sensationalist approach that is intended to put non-loners in a bad light for thinking such evil thoughts against loners.
In later chapters, Rufus points out that many criminals, particularly violent criminals, are automatically labeled "loner" when, in fact, their need for social attention drives them to their acts. It is terribly ironic that many who kill do so because they lack meaningful relationships with others. Still, the militant stance against media and police who make the false assumption that every serial killer is a loner is a bit off-putting. The writing here, at times, reminds me of why I hate The Catcher in the Rye so bloody much.
The chapter on artists is fantastic. There is an eloquent series of anecdotes about how artists tend to be loners (though not always). And this, on artists, is compelling:
Artists hear what no one else hears. They see what no one else sees. They say what no one else says. They must. And to do this, they traffic in the slippery yield of their own souls. They bring to earth the wrack and lode of depths that only they can reach and still come back alive.
This is the kind of passion I can get behind!
Unfortunately, Rufus falls, yet again, into the trap of making assumptions about how masses of other people feel. The chapter on religion is a train-wreck, full of a whole litany of falsehoods and bad assumptions about loners and religion. At least she had the sense to quote Thomas Merton, but it isn't enough to save that chapter. It's a morass.
In her defense, Rufus does hit on some emotionally tough subjects that hit close to the heart. The whole idea of loners being viewed as crazy is an uncomfortable one to face, especially when one prides himself on being a loner and maybe a touch different, though not altogether insane. This is a deep emotional kernel of self-identity that I had to view through the microscope and am still thinking about, especially with the recent death of my parents, one of whom, my Mother, was clinically depressed and had borderline personality disorder her whole life. Being viewed as a touch crazy doesn't much bother me. In fact, I wear that badge proudly! But being viewed as outright nuts because I prefer to spend time with myself and lock myself away for hours on end (particularly when engaged in creative endeavors), that has the potential to hurt.
Sane or not, is book worth your reading time? Perhaps. For those who self-identify as loners, take this with a big grain of salt. Rufus' militancy might not reflect your own feelings. I know it didn't reflect mine. Maybe if I was still a teenager, I could get behind her rancor a bit more, but I'm over that phase. And for non-loners who read the book: please don't assume that every loner you know feels the same way as Rufus about how you view them. It's simply not true. What is true is that all of us are complex, subtly-shaded individuals, some of whom would rather be in a dark corner for awhile, alone, re-energizing.
So don't be offended when I ask you, maybe quite bluntly, to leave me alone! We'll all be better for it. Ugly caterpillars become beautiful butterflies when they come out of the cocoon. But they have to undergo their marvelous transformation all alone.
March 31, 2011
I am a loner. Thanks to this book, I'm no longer ashamed to say it. I told a friend that and her response was "awww" as if she was sad for me. I responded (humorously) "that's exactly the type of prejudice this book is trying to fight!"
Loners are very misunderstood, and as Party of One points out, it is a bit the media's fault. Every time someone commits some heinous crime, they immediately call him a loner. Ms. Rufus creates a clear distinction between loners (who wish to be left alone) and outcasts (those who wish they had friends but don't). Crimes are generally committed by those who want to be part of the crowd, but due to mental illness, or poor social skills, etc, just aren't accepted. Serial killers get labeled loners as well, but the book reveals that most had many friends and were well liked.
The thing about being a loner is not that we don't have friends or relationships, it's that we just prefer our own company. In an extremely social society, this simply isn't tolerated. The friends we have usually understand this. We also choose friends very carefully. When telling another friend about this book, she revealed that she is a loner as well, and just got into a relationship with loner. This is one of the many reason she and I are good friends, even if we only talk once a week, or hang out once a month. We're both OK with that.
The moment the book really got me was on page 69 when Anneli Rufus wrote, "Shared time, while not entirely wasted if the sharer is a true friend, must be parceled out with care, like rationed flour ... And time shared, even with true friends, often requires loners to put in extra time alone, overtime, to recharge." This is me. I love going out to drink with friends, but after, I stay up an almost equal amount of time, just to have to myself.
I am not alone (Ha Ha), there are others like me. We are a community that never meets, or meets accidentally. This book is a must read for those who are loners, to see that it is in fact the world that is weird. And a "must gift" book to all our friends who are nonloners, so they will understand us better, and not take it so personally that we are OK talking only once every month.
Loners are very misunderstood, and as Party of One points out, it is a bit the media's fault. Every time someone commits some heinous crime, they immediately call him a loner. Ms. Rufus creates a clear distinction between loners (who wish to be left alone) and outcasts (those who wish they had friends but don't). Crimes are generally committed by those who want to be part of the crowd, but due to mental illness, or poor social skills, etc, just aren't accepted. Serial killers get labeled loners as well, but the book reveals that most had many friends and were well liked.
The thing about being a loner is not that we don't have friends or relationships, it's that we just prefer our own company. In an extremely social society, this simply isn't tolerated. The friends we have usually understand this. We also choose friends very carefully. When telling another friend about this book, she revealed that she is a loner as well, and just got into a relationship with loner. This is one of the many reason she and I are good friends, even if we only talk once a week, or hang out once a month. We're both OK with that.
The moment the book really got me was on page 69 when Anneli Rufus wrote, "Shared time, while not entirely wasted if the sharer is a true friend, must be parceled out with care, like rationed flour ... And time shared, even with true friends, often requires loners to put in extra time alone, overtime, to recharge." This is me. I love going out to drink with friends, but after, I stay up an almost equal amount of time, just to have to myself.
I am not alone (Ha Ha), there are others like me. We are a community that never meets, or meets accidentally. This book is a must read for those who are loners, to see that it is in fact the world that is weird. And a "must gift" book to all our friends who are nonloners, so they will understand us better, and not take it so personally that we are OK talking only once every month.
December 17, 2008
Ultimately, I believe, that all true readers are parties of one. This is why this website is so wonderful. We can share, but we still choose reading over chatting, no?
February 24, 2010
Although I am pretty sure people who know me would not peg me as a loner, this books so perfectly describes me in every sense that is has now become one of my favorite books of all time.
Loners are often stereotyped as misanthropic, perverted, creepy, weird and at worst, potential serial killers. The writer goes into a great deal of detail to differentiate the above personality types with normal people who just like to be alone more than in the company of others.
True loners have close friends and family members. True loners are not socially awkward. True loners enjoy being alone and use their time productively. Pseudoloners are outcasts because people can't stand them. Pesudoloners do not do well in isolation--it feeds their crazy. Pseudoloners desperately strive for validation from people but because of ingrained personality disorders, can't get it. There is a major difference between loners and pseudoloners.
I have a lot of close friends and family and enjoy spending time with these people, but I am happiest when I am by myself. I often find that after a week of social calls I must recharge with a few weeks of being as alone as I can be. And there are many more like me out there. This book tells many of their stories and much more. Plus, it is witty in the writing style and some parts are downright brilliantly quotable. A great read for anyone, weather a loner or nonloner.
Loners are often stereotyped as misanthropic, perverted, creepy, weird and at worst, potential serial killers. The writer goes into a great deal of detail to differentiate the above personality types with normal people who just like to be alone more than in the company of others.
True loners have close friends and family members. True loners are not socially awkward. True loners enjoy being alone and use their time productively. Pseudoloners are outcasts because people can't stand them. Pesudoloners do not do well in isolation--it feeds their crazy. Pseudoloners desperately strive for validation from people but because of ingrained personality disorders, can't get it. There is a major difference between loners and pseudoloners.
I have a lot of close friends and family and enjoy spending time with these people, but I am happiest when I am by myself. I often find that after a week of social calls I must recharge with a few weeks of being as alone as I can be. And there are many more like me out there. This book tells many of their stories and much more. Plus, it is witty in the writing style and some parts are downright brilliantly quotable. A great read for anyone, weather a loner or nonloner.
January 3, 2012
started off interesting and i was excited that it was going to be good, but it got old after the first few chapters; and by it i mean her prickly, defensive outlook on everything. too much 'We the tragically misunderstood vs They the mindless zombie mob' (i also find it kind of ironic that she keeps referring to loners as 'we'). i was intrigued in the beginning, tired of her over generalizations by about halfway and sick of her condescending attitude towards sociable people by the end. as a more of a loner type myself i could relate with her, and yes, we loners are easily misunderstood, and yes it does get frustrating. but there's no need to look down on sociable people just because they enjoy company. that does not make them ignorant or un-creative, just as being a loner does not automatically make us geniuses. got progressively bitter and overdramatic towards the end.
there were some really good lines, i was introduced to some new ideas, but a lot of it was ruined by her repetitiveness and defensive tone. she was much too emotional and not logical enough- lots of anecdotes, but not nearly as many factual examples as i would've liked to see. there was barely any reference to psychology and scientific study, i was a bit disappointed. i get that life is hard but she needs to calm down. i feel that this book was more of a long winded rant than anything.
there were some really good lines, i was introduced to some new ideas, but a lot of it was ruined by her repetitiveness and defensive tone. she was much too emotional and not logical enough- lots of anecdotes, but not nearly as many factual examples as i would've liked to see. there was barely any reference to psychology and scientific study, i was a bit disappointed. i get that life is hard but she needs to calm down. i feel that this book was more of a long winded rant than anything.
April 2, 2012
Society consists of individuals moving as one. People who insist on their private space are seen, erroneously, as aloof, stuck-up, psychotic, neurotic, unfriendly, cold, selfish. Self-help books exist by the thousands to help “make friends and influence people”, get laid, find the right man, get married before 30, stay married, keep the home fires burning, have children, talk to anybody about anything, etc., etc., etc. Here, at last, is a book that refutes and rejects such frantic terms of socializing. Given in sharp phrases, concise sentences and unapologetic tones, Ms. Rufus tells what it’s like to move in an autonomous fashion through a world that insists, almost to the point of viciousness, on fraternity. This book isn’t a celebration so much as a frank outlook on what it means to be alone and why it’s a wonderful state of mind—if only the neighbors would quit bugging you to come to their barbecue.
January 5, 2019
1st book for 2019.
A classic introvert in psychology is someone who is relatively sensitive to external stimuli and therefore seeks more peaceful surroundings, in contrast to their more party loving and relatively non-sensitive extrovert cousins who need an extra jolt to get up to speed.
Rufus's book is not about introverts. It's also not about anti-social people. It's not about outcasts. Or misfits who don't have any friends because no one likes them. It's about loners. It's about people who simply love being alone. Who may have close friends, but also need lots of solitude to think, to work, to recharge.
A fair bit of this book resonated with me, and I found the points about raising a loner child in a culture of constant play dates particularly interesting, but I also found the text too defensive (much of it revolving around why loners are not crazy, psychopaths), and ultimately the writing too formulaic, with each chapter covering a separate topic, sex, the Internet, relationships etc. in a fairly perfunctory way.
Still a fun and quick read, especially if you fall on the less social side of the aisle.
3-stars.
A classic introvert in psychology is someone who is relatively sensitive to external stimuli and therefore seeks more peaceful surroundings, in contrast to their more party loving and relatively non-sensitive extrovert cousins who need an extra jolt to get up to speed.
Rufus's book is not about introverts. It's also not about anti-social people. It's not about outcasts. Or misfits who don't have any friends because no one likes them. It's about loners. It's about people who simply love being alone. Who may have close friends, but also need lots of solitude to think, to work, to recharge.
A fair bit of this book resonated with me, and I found the points about raising a loner child in a culture of constant play dates particularly interesting, but I also found the text too defensive (much of it revolving around why loners are not crazy, psychopaths), and ultimately the writing too formulaic, with each chapter covering a separate topic, sex, the Internet, relationships etc. in a fairly perfunctory way.
Still a fun and quick read, especially if you fall on the less social side of the aisle.
3-stars.
September 22, 2011
Every 'loner' has to have three copies of this book (not in a Catcher in the Rye sorta way) so the next time someone in your family or friend asks "why are you that way" you can just lend him this book. Since loners get that question a lot, you will need the extra copies. I loved the way Anneli showed how society has changed the loner from a revered pioneer, cowboy, or Batman hero figure to the loner who shoots up work places or schools. Never noticed it before but it does seem every news report about shooting involves a 'loner' who when you dig deeper is a outcast looking to fit in. Every aspect of lonerism is covered, and the whole Anchorism chapter was totally new to me. Great stuff!
January 5, 2013
What an awesome book. It was so refreshing to get a positive, affirming perspective on the preference for solitude. Alone does not necessarily mean lonely! I certainly found this book refreshing given the negative spin the media likes to put on loners, and the tendency to lump angry outcasts who actually want but are denied social connection, in with those whose natural temperament is just not comfortable in the herd/team connectedness that society wants to stamp as "normal". She asserts compellingly that they are not the same thing, and that we do a disservice to true loners (who are actually capable of deep friendships, just much more selective therein) in trying to force them to be more social. Some pretty significant food for thought in there for educators and how we deal with kids.
December 8, 2011
Well, after all these years, I realize this is why my idea of a great time is to sit by my fire and read or knit -- alone! I'm a loner, and I got those genes from my dad, who is going to get this book in his stocking this year, as is one of my brothers. And mind you, LONER is not a bad thing, it just is. Very interesting commentary for those of us who aren't party animals and don't tolerate mass culture very well. And being a loner doesn't mean you don't like people, which I do -- but only in interesting, engaging doses with friends. Small talk with strangers is NOT my idea of a good time. Which probably explains why I DESPISE the idea of dating . . .
January 26, 2009
This would have made a fine essay, but there isn't enough substance here for a book. It feels padded. I like her attitude. Her premise is that loners don't have to apologize for being who we are, and that being a loner in itself doesn't constitute pathology. But the listings of loner tech geniuses, movie characters, novelists, etc. became tedious. Fewer examples in greater depth would work better.
October 8, 2015
I prefer not to give this one a rating. I could not get past the first few chapters. Although I consider myself an introvert and a loner because I like solitude, I find the arguments too one-sided. I thought this would be a book I could relate to and learn something from (like Susan Cain's Quiet) but it's not. It turned my mind to mush while I read. I can't continue.
September 3, 2011
Apparently Leonardo Da Vinci once said in company ‘only half of you will belong to yourself’. As he swore by solitude as the road to wisdom and artistic perfection, he would say that of course. But uncannily, this axiom seems to have been time tried, tested an asserted by a horde of artistes, philosophers, painters and other noticeables (all catalogued with great trivial pursuit soundbites). Obviously the motto of a book titled ‘the loner’ manifesto’ is only ever going to validate the axis of ‘me, myself and I’, but the anecdotal amuse-bouches served up make it palatable
February 6, 2012
Not great. It certainly is a manifesto, and not really the non-fiction book I was expecting. I wanted there to be more than anecdotal evidence and strangely-drawn conclusions. There was too much "Us vs. Them" for me to take it seriously, let alone enjoy it.
May 9, 2009
This book defines, and celebrates, the loner. A loner is not just a person who is alone; a loner is someone who enjoys being alone. Someone who is alone, yet lonely, is not a loner; that person is a non-loner, and an unhappy one at that. Loners are happy when alone, and more than happy -- they thrive when given their own alone space. Rufus also describes loners who can be loners in a crowd, because the vast anonymity of a large group renders them all-nigh invisible. Personally, I’m more of the loner-way-off-alone type; crowds hem me in, raise my blood pressure, overwhelm me with crush of others and the lack of breathing room.
The writing is engaging and peppered with vivid metaphors. For any loner reading this book (like me), the delightful rush of recognition and agreement with line after line and point after point is pure pleasure. Of course, Rufus cannot help but paint both the loner and the non-loner with a very wide brush; any generalizations about so many people at once is bound to be ill-fitting in some (or even many) cases. The overall negative tone towards the non-loner is perhaps a little unfair; and yet, the book unabashedly describes itself as a manifesto, and as such it adopts a strong, sometimes strident tone. It is heavy-handed because it feels such a strong need to show that loners exist and that they have real value to society just as they are, thank you very much. The “mob” of non-loners, which presses its social expectations upon everyone, is a strong force and requires a strong response -- if only to bring attention to what the mob did not realize it was doing, in trying to force the loners to abide by its rules.
Many of the chapters in this book are devoted to showing where loners appear in our society and culture, and the contributions they make in art, science, music, technology, literature, etc. This was mildly interesting to me, although the logic with which the examples were presented sometimes faltered or even turned on itself. Our culture lionizes the loner (Superman, Tarzan, Batman, Spider-Man, Davy Crockett, etc.). Our culture demonizes the loner (Psycho, Harold and Maude, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, One Hour Photo, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas). Well, which is it? Or could it be that there’s a mixture of both? The field of advertising is in a weird position with respect to this issue. Each product wants to distinguish itself from its competitors, and many therefore cultivate an image of “different” or “unique” or “exceptional” or even “loner” (“I’m a Pepper.” [as in, a loner compared to Coke or Pepsi:]). But success for sales means mass conformity (“Wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper too?”), with many many people buying into that unique/loner/exceptional image being sold. At which point its reality directly contradicts its image -- yet the image persists.
But the chapter on explorers (Chapter 16) was absolutely fantastic. Solo travel has its challenges and rewards (and I’ve certainly enjoyed both!), but here Rufus focuses on expeditions: solo travel that doesn’t just mean hostel-hopping in Europe but actually being out in the wilderness, completely and utterly alone, compelled onward by some quest, “traveling beyond reach.“ Each of the anecdotes, about sailors, castaways, and Antarctic explorers, is enthralling and attractive and admirable.
The writing is engaging and peppered with vivid metaphors. For any loner reading this book (like me), the delightful rush of recognition and agreement with line after line and point after point is pure pleasure. Of course, Rufus cannot help but paint both the loner and the non-loner with a very wide brush; any generalizations about so many people at once is bound to be ill-fitting in some (or even many) cases. The overall negative tone towards the non-loner is perhaps a little unfair; and yet, the book unabashedly describes itself as a manifesto, and as such it adopts a strong, sometimes strident tone. It is heavy-handed because it feels such a strong need to show that loners exist and that they have real value to society just as they are, thank you very much. The “mob” of non-loners, which presses its social expectations upon everyone, is a strong force and requires a strong response -- if only to bring attention to what the mob did not realize it was doing, in trying to force the loners to abide by its rules.
Many of the chapters in this book are devoted to showing where loners appear in our society and culture, and the contributions they make in art, science, music, technology, literature, etc. This was mildly interesting to me, although the logic with which the examples were presented sometimes faltered or even turned on itself. Our culture lionizes the loner (Superman, Tarzan, Batman, Spider-Man, Davy Crockett, etc.). Our culture demonizes the loner (Psycho, Harold and Maude, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, One Hour Photo, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas). Well, which is it? Or could it be that there’s a mixture of both? The field of advertising is in a weird position with respect to this issue. Each product wants to distinguish itself from its competitors, and many therefore cultivate an image of “different” or “unique” or “exceptional” or even “loner” (“I’m a Pepper.” [as in, a loner compared to Coke or Pepsi:]). But success for sales means mass conformity (“Wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper too?”), with many many people buying into that unique/loner/exceptional image being sold. At which point its reality directly contradicts its image -- yet the image persists.
But the chapter on explorers (Chapter 16) was absolutely fantastic. Solo travel has its challenges and rewards (and I’ve certainly enjoyed both!), but here Rufus focuses on expeditions: solo travel that doesn’t just mean hostel-hopping in Europe but actually being out in the wilderness, completely and utterly alone, compelled onward by some quest, “traveling beyond reach.“ Each of the anecdotes, about sailors, castaways, and Antarctic explorers, is enthralling and attractive and admirable.
June 15, 2009
For a self-proclaimed loner, Anneli Rufus seems to care an awful lot about what other people seem to think of herself and her fellow loners. Beyond the introduction, however, she offers a thoughtful insight into the lives of people that just don't care to spend lots of time with other people. "Groupthink" she calls it, evolved as a survival mechanism, when it really did take a village; hunting, gathering, and child-rearing couldn't all be done by one person - the help of all was needed. Now we are very self-sufficient, but artifacts of that ancient lifestyle remain, leading to the misunderstanding, disdain, and pity of those that don't want to be part of the group anymore.
She is careful to make the distinction between a true loner who prefers
solitary endeavors to the outcasts forcefully alone because of their rejection by their peers. She bristles rightly when discussing how, when
discovered to have uncomfortable mannerisms or to have done something terrible, one is branding a loner as a means of isolating that person from "the rest of us." Understandably she's bothered by the fact that it is no longer acceptable to laugh at the physical differences of others, but common place to ridicule, talk-about and otherwise degenerate those that stand outside of society.
In discussing the broader themes, each chapter deals individually with a
different aspect of modern culture (not just western) and how these solitary individuals are perceived and what affect they have on that field. Popular culture, community, film, literature, advertising, friendship, love and sex, technology, religion, sanity, crime, clothes and environment are some of the many areas she touches on. Her discussion of art and the process of the artist was in particular very interesting; herself an artist, she muses on the act of creating and the isolation that such a personal and intense experience brings on the creator.
In reading about her life, and the lives of people like her, I felt comforted, realizing that I really am OK. That my disinclination to spend all of my free time with others may not be the norm, but that it's no less valid and that I'm certainly in good company. She has a good understanding that loners are different. Not better. Not worse. Just different. I truly thoughtful read.
She is careful to make the distinction between a true loner who prefers
solitary endeavors to the outcasts forcefully alone because of their rejection by their peers. She bristles rightly when discussing how, when
discovered to have uncomfortable mannerisms or to have done something terrible, one is branding a loner as a means of isolating that person from "the rest of us." Understandably she's bothered by the fact that it is no longer acceptable to laugh at the physical differences of others, but common place to ridicule, talk-about and otherwise degenerate those that stand outside of society.
In discussing the broader themes, each chapter deals individually with a
different aspect of modern culture (not just western) and how these solitary individuals are perceived and what affect they have on that field. Popular culture, community, film, literature, advertising, friendship, love and sex, technology, religion, sanity, crime, clothes and environment are some of the many areas she touches on. Her discussion of art and the process of the artist was in particular very interesting; herself an artist, she muses on the act of creating and the isolation that such a personal and intense experience brings on the creator.
In reading about her life, and the lives of people like her, I felt comforted, realizing that I really am OK. That my disinclination to spend all of my free time with others may not be the norm, but that it's no less valid and that I'm certainly in good company. She has a good understanding that loners are different. Not better. Not worse. Just different. I truly thoughtful read.
March 4, 2010
i don't know if i'd call myself a loner exactly, but i'm definitely comfortable in my own company and spend a fair amount of time alone, willingly and with pleasure. this book looked like it might have some interesting or amusing insights, but instead it was rather boring, its tone wavered between defensive and pretentious, and i don't think she had anything interesting to say on the subject.
oh, except that if you are a loner with no friends, you are obviously deeper, smarter and cooler than all those moronic losers who have a pathological need to "connect" with other "human beings." somebody is still getting over high school. move on, anneli.
oh, except that if you are a loner with no friends, you are obviously deeper, smarter and cooler than all those moronic losers who have a pathological need to "connect" with other "human beings." somebody is still getting over high school. move on, anneli.
July 22, 2007
I picked up this book because, in the past, I have often identified myself with this group ("loners") and so I thought this would be an interesting read. It was, although I believe it was meant for the absolute extreme definition of the word "loner", and not the watered-down, almost villainous version that appears in society today. This book was very amusing while still staying informative, which I liked, however, the author could sometimes be a bit too sarcastic and so it came off a little stuck-up and arrogant. There were several parts that I could identify with but I felt she was a bit too harsh on those who are not loners, almost making them seem like the bad guys instead of trying to have them understand us (if they were to read this book).
Despite the flaws, it was a well-written book, and wasn't too dragging like non-fiction can often be.
Despite the flaws, it was a well-written book, and wasn't too dragging like non-fiction can often be.
June 11, 2014
I wanted to like this book more than I did. As an inveterate loner myself, in some ways it was as much a relief as a pleasure, to read the thoughts of someone who knows how I feel. But lonerhood, like any other aspect of life, is an individual lived experience, so there were times when Anneli Rufus used the pronoun 'we' when I felt she should have said 'I'. (This, I'll admit, is a totally lonerish complaint. Deal with it.) I did really enjoy the sense of camaraderie-from-a-distance. And I think she has an excellent point with regard to the media's tendency to label anyone who commits a heinous crime as a 'loner'. Social outcasts and loners, as she eloquently points out, are not the same thing at all. And trust me when I say we creative types do not need to be any more the objects of societal suspicion than we already are.
February 7, 2017
The author goes through the common misconceptions of what a true loner is and means. she goes into the difference of what a loner is and a pseudo-loner is and how the media, law enforcement and other legal bodies have misconstrued the difference. Individuals like the Uni-bomber and the teenagers that shot up Columbine are actually pseudo-loners who are seeking attention. True loner don't seek attention and tend to like being left alone. I really enjoyed this book and was happy to see someone discuss the differences between loner and pseudo-loner. I will admit that the author was a little repetitive, but I still enjoyed the book and the topic.
September 13, 2007
Interesting premise, but ultimately annoying. Could have been an in-depth analysis of the solitary sort of person, but instead it's a bunch of laundry lists of loners in various jobs, loners who are unfairly maligned, loners who ought to be recognized and honored for their specialness, rather than excoriated by the great touchy-feely mob. This book made me weary and irritable, and want to be alone forever.
May 18, 2008
Dare I admit that I read this to justify my own existence. A fun read.
January 10, 2011
If you're a loner, this is definitely a must read. It's flippin' fantastic.
June 26, 2022
Would have given a 5 but some things written were not necessary.
February 13, 2020
I'd hoped to enjoy this book more, but upon finishing realize there are better books out there on introversion. This one came with enough baggage and snark in its delivery it's no wonder "loners" get a bad name and reputation and are left being misunderstood.
One can happily maintain one's need for solitude, unapologetically, while not so angrily.
One can happily maintain one's need for solitude, unapologetically, while not so angrily.
December 18, 2011
I appreciate this book for its defense of loners like me, and I'm going to keep the book on my (physical) shelf as a talking point if nothing else, but I felt like the book was a little over-the-top.
I wish it had gone into more detail about the psychology of introversion. It's not the same as shyness, it's not the same as depression, and it's not the same as misanthropy. We simply spend our "social energy" when we're among people, and recharge it by being alone. For most people, it's the other way around. This book covers that, and for that insight alone I thought this was a worthwhile read. This was my first book on the topic, despite having lived nearly thirty years as one of those this book describes, so that was sort of an important self-realization for me.
However, the book goes a little too far in its judgement of extroverts. Sure, I've met some of the type the book talks about: they are simply incapable of grasping why someone could possibly prefer to be alone without necessarily being depressed or upset or angry or whatever, so they jump to conclusions, stereotype, discriminate, and insensitively assume they can and should try to "fix" the introvert. But most are reasonable people who, though they may not entirely grasp the concept themselves, will respect an introvert's desire for privacy and solitude.
On the other side of the coin, we introverts are all apparently quirky, artistic geniuses. Example after example of someone who is inordinately successful in the real world but retreats to her private world to work passionately on a sculpture or something is given as what introverts are like. Believe me, I appreciate the need to present us as something other than Ted Kaczynski-types, but some of us are just normal people. She points to an introvert who is a sports star and says "See? He scored the winning goal and he's a loner!" Well good for him, but I don't see what that has to do with me or any other loner.
I don't want to be too harsh on the author, because I really do appreciate where she's coming from. When I do encounter those people who think all loners are perverts or future serial killers, I kind of want to rant at them too. But I'd rather read a book that goes into more depth on the psychology of introversion, rather than simply wanting to "strike back." One that is less about anecdotes and comebacks, and more about learning and understanding. Although she does call it a "manifesto" right on the cover, so it's not like she was being deceptive.
I wish it had gone into more detail about the psychology of introversion. It's not the same as shyness, it's not the same as depression, and it's not the same as misanthropy. We simply spend our "social energy" when we're among people, and recharge it by being alone. For most people, it's the other way around. This book covers that, and for that insight alone I thought this was a worthwhile read. This was my first book on the topic, despite having lived nearly thirty years as one of those this book describes, so that was sort of an important self-realization for me.
However, the book goes a little too far in its judgement of extroverts. Sure, I've met some of the type the book talks about: they are simply incapable of grasping why someone could possibly prefer to be alone without necessarily being depressed or upset or angry or whatever, so they jump to conclusions, stereotype, discriminate, and insensitively assume they can and should try to "fix" the introvert. But most are reasonable people who, though they may not entirely grasp the concept themselves, will respect an introvert's desire for privacy and solitude.
On the other side of the coin, we introverts are all apparently quirky, artistic geniuses. Example after example of someone who is inordinately successful in the real world but retreats to her private world to work passionately on a sculpture or something is given as what introverts are like. Believe me, I appreciate the need to present us as something other than Ted Kaczynski-types, but some of us are just normal people. She points to an introvert who is a sports star and says "See? He scored the winning goal and he's a loner!" Well good for him, but I don't see what that has to do with me or any other loner.
I don't want to be too harsh on the author, because I really do appreciate where she's coming from. When I do encounter those people who think all loners are perverts or future serial killers, I kind of want to rant at them too. But I'd rather read a book that goes into more depth on the psychology of introversion, rather than simply wanting to "strike back." One that is less about anecdotes and comebacks, and more about learning and understanding. Although she does call it a "manifesto" right on the cover, so it's not like she was being deceptive.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 372 reviews