Our Shared Shelf discussion

I will preface by saying I think bell hooks did an amazing job of not AT ALL attempting to change anyone's minds or force religion down their throats and maybe I'm just sensitive to it as a Buddhist/atheist but the last few chapters were hard for me. I just couldn't relate. Anyone else?

I'm a non-Christian, so I didn't agree with her on everything either, but I agree that she did a good job of not forcing anything down the readers' throats while showing her sources of strength and love.

As a Buddhist, are you at all curious about the book she cited, Altars in the Street by Melody Ermachild Chavis? I'm trying to get into community activism where I live, and religious differences are a central part of it, so I've ordered the book.

I thought it sounded interesting but then I apparently forgot about it!! Looking it up now!

I am still waiting for my copy to a arrive but I will say this (if I am correct in how I read this)...Christianity (and other religions with large numbers) plays such a huge role in the US (and throughout the world) when it comes to patriarchy and the rules that then are politically created and assigned using "the BIBLE" as a base. So no matter what religion you are or are not, having a context from which to view dominionism and patriarchy is important in feminism.

Sandy wrote: "I am still waiting for my copy to a arrive but I will say this (if I am correct in how I read this)...Christianity (and other religions with large numbers) plays such a huge role in the US (and thr..."

For me, the issue was that she puts down New Age thinking while uplifting her Christian background. I know this is an older book and that was a different time, but I don't think anyone who can report on love should be demeaning others beliefs.

Ahhh...like I said, I haven't read it yet so I was most likely interpreting this wrong. I can't wait to read it though...

Chessaria wrote: "Sandy wrote: "I am still waiting for my copy to a arrive but I will say this (if I am correct in how I read this)...Christianity (and other religions with large numbers) plays such a huge role in t..."

That's kind of how I was reading it, too. I don't think I need to know God to be a good, loving person. I feel like I do an ok job. :)

I've not yet finished the book due to reading another book, but I think that when reading any non-fiction book or one that the author places their opinions in it, the reader has to be aware that this disagreement will come up. I have known individuals that will not read a book simply because the author brings up something they heavily disagree upon.

I personally am not religious so cannot speak, nor will I even attempt to speak on behalf these people similar to myself, but I love reading about religion and spirituality. It is completely riveting how society, throughout history, has taken to religion; it allows people to connect to others as well as themselves, if that makes any sense. With regards to your question Melle, I think it would be odd if you were not sensitive to any religious remarks made by her; luckily, you understand that her writings are not meant to convert or persuade you to her beliefs but only to inform you of them.

Bell Hooks is just brilliant!! I am on chapter six now, and so far it had been a wonderful experience for me.

Unfortunately I can't find the book here, so most likely won't read it, but Elizabeth's comment right above mine brings up disagreement. I think it's very odd here on Goodreads to read review after review, which shoots down a novel simply because the person didn't happen to "like" the topic. Doh. Let's criticise the writing, the literary merits/weaknesses and so on, instead of making the review full of bias. But apparently it seems very difficult to separate the two.

It's interesting, but worth repeating. I don't think I've met two people, who claim to be non-religious, to think exactly the same on religion and spirituality, unless they have been atheists who haven't at all been influenced by Eastern thinking. The rest of us seem to be a merry mix of subjective ideas :)

I am in chapter 3 and so far she has not made any "Christian" comments...and in fact she says on pg 13 "An individual does not havae to be a believer in a religion to embrace the idea that there is an animating principle in the self...a life force (some of us call it soul) that when nurtured enhances our capacity to be more fully self-actualized."

I am just starting chapter 3, so I'll see if my opinion changes :)

Aglaea wrote: "I don't think I've met two people, who claim to be non-religious, to think exactly the same on religion and spirituality."

The same goes for religious people, hence the parable of the blind men and the elephant, adapted by a British poet, but originally from one of the Eastern traditions:

http://www.constitution.org/col/blind...

Elizabeth wrote: "I've not yet finished the book due to reading another book, but I think that when reading any non-fiction book or one that the author places their opinions in it, the reader has to be aware that th..."

Oh, I completely agree. It was just something that irked me a little since the book is based on love. If it were a book comparing specific religions, I would have felt very different about those type of comments where she seems to put down New Age thinking.

Another atheist here. I'm in chapter four and, overall, I'm enjoying the book. There have been good points to ponder throughout. I do feel excluded because of the spiritual language. However, I don't think it was the author's intention to make anyone feel excluded. She's just a very spiritual person. I take more issue with the treatment of Adoptees than anything.

I came here just to comment on this. I just finished chapter 5 and I started getting pretty upset at her declarative and generic sentences. Two that stood out to me were: "Spirituality and spiritual life give us the strength to love" (p. 78) and "We recognize divine spirit everywhere" (p. 80). Basically I felt like she was saying that we cannot love without believing in some divine spirit. What I got from my very strict religious upbringing was the same as the abuse she talks about in chapter 4 - that God is love but he is spiteful and angry and his followers hate and judge you. I felt like love was more real and more relevant when I left a spiritual existence and found a thoughtful one.

Audrey wrote: "What I got from my very strict religious upbringing was the same as the abuse she talks about in chapter 4 - that God is love but he is spiteful and angry and his followers hate and judge you. I felt like love was more real and more relevant when I left a spiritual existence and found a thoughtful one."

That is a warning to religious parents everywhere as to the dangers of conveying religious principles to kids in harsh and judgmental ways.

So far, I've only read until chapter 4, but I love it. I am a very spiritual person, so reading about this kind of thing is uplifting for me. I think it could still be beneficial also to those who aren't spiritual or religious though because she gives good tips on self-esteem and self-love.

I just finished the book, and I must say, The religious aspect of it is one of the two only things that disappointed me during my reading. The second aspect that I didn't like is about how profoundly american the book was (although I understand that the author is american).
I am not a religious person, although I would say that I am on the way to become a spiritual one. As I reached adulthood I realized that I did not have to live my life as a christian (I was brought up as a non-practising christian) and I have been looking at various other spiritual speeches and values. I think I wish her talk about the goods and bads of religion had been more open... a bit like I would have wished for her visions of love to be a bit more global and culturally open. There were lots of parts that I didn't really relate to, even if they were very (VERY) interesting.

I also didn't appreciate the religious aspects. She tried to describe nonreligious spirituality, but it feel flat for me and actually made the disconnect greater. I felt like she completely doesn't understand nonreligious people.

I also didn't appreciate how she made declarative statements without justification, or sometimes justifying statements with an appeal to the spiritually that didn't resonate with me (or statements that fly in the face of social science or DV advocacy). It made the book come off as unsubstantiated pontificating to me.

Melle wrote: "I will preface by saying I think bell hooks did an amazing job of not AT ALL attempting to change anyone's minds or force religion down their throats and maybe I'm just sensitive to it as a Buddhis..."

I don't have a problem with the spiritual aspects of the text. One doesn't have to agree with everything an author says in order to appreciate the text as a whole.

Ditto, it really put me off, it was hard for me to see through the religious aspect even though I was interested in what hooks was talking about. It read like a self-help book and I felt she was telling me what to think compared to the way Gloria Steinem writes, which felt like a conversation.

Again I will say that it is VERY much in the style of the late 90's/early 2000's...Back then, it would have seemed much more relevant.
There was enough "religious" in this to turn me off and to skim some pages but then zap...there would be a hard core feminist truth. I was bowled over by the "family" chapter in regards to patriarchy but I almost didn't read it once she defined nuclear family as man/woman/child. But I kept reading and am so glad I did. (Keep in mind that in the late 90's you could be completely LBGT supportive but still view the nuclear family as hetero.

They probably should have chosen a more recent book if they wanted to include Belle Hooks...but I'm still glad I read it, if just for the few nuggets I discovered.

Sandy wrote: "Again I will say that it is VERY much in the style of the late 90's/early 2000's...Back then, it would have seemed much more relevant.
There was enough "religious" in this to turn me off and to sk..."

Assuming I'm thinking of the part that you're referring to, I read her definition of the "nuclear family" as a sort of takedown of the concept... She basically refers to the patriarchal nuclear family as a culturally approved fascist regime, which to me was an awesome revelation. So in that sense, I didn't read it as her saying "this is what the nuclear family is/should be", but rather "the way society conceptualizes the nuclear family is problematic, here's why..."
But there are definitely many ways to interpret that, and I think your point about the differences between the way we discuss these issues now and how acceptable it was back in the 90s is spot on.

I don't know how much of bell hooks's oeuvre Emma has read, but she has stated that she is purposefully choosing books that she herself hasn't read yet, so it's possible that that was a large part in her decision of which book to read, as I think she started with "I think we should read bell hooks this month" after their wonderful interview in Paper magazine. Just a guess, though!

Regarding the religious aspects, so as not to go too far afield of the OP, I'm only a few chapters in, but I mostly see her referencing spirituality in an abstract way, with a few references to Buddhism here and there. It seems that religion becomes a heavier piece of the narrative later on, so I'll have to reconsider my position when I get there. For now, though, even though I don't find spirituality to be particularly relevant to my life, I've been finding that it is easy enough for me to interpret those particular passages in a way that translates "spirituality" into what stands in for that in my own life. Not sure if that makes sense!

Emma wrote: "So I finished this book a little while ago, and I really liked it but wasn't a huge fan of the religious focus at some points (being an atheist). However, the book I am reading right now is "Eat, P..."

Eat, Pray, Love seems to be one of those books that people either love or hate. But if you're into creativity - which I'd imagine most Goodreaders are - her more recent book Big Magic is even better.

Hi all,

I haven't read all of the book yet - have literally 'flipped and read' as I have't the time to do it justice just yet (tres annoying!!!) but I totally understand about the New Age comment.... from a part I have read I was surprised by the specific criticism of one particular life choice ... but then I kept reading (in the chapter on 'Divine Love') and I think I then saw what seemed to me to be a thought that she actually applies to 'all' Organised Religions. Christianity is held to the same criticism in this particular chapter - her citing of Dr King was elegantly done I felt and very to the point. 'Christians stop segregation' - BRILLIANT!

The question of Love and Divine is a question I have often asked myself - John's 1st letter which is also cited says 'Where there is love there is God'. I've often wanted to sky write this over the cities of the world - because I don't think it is saying that only when faith is present is there love - but the opposite. That you love and this is a Divine trait. I know some wise person somewhere said something about there being a 'Divine Spark' in each person - whether we have a faith or non I think linking this 'spark' to 'love' is beautiful - what more 'divine' thing could there be???

OK - sorry I've prattled on - and obviously these are simply my limited opinions/observations.

Take care... Rx

Emma wrote: "So I finished this book a little while ago, and I really liked it but wasn't a huge fan of the religious focus at some points (being an atheist). However, the book I am reading right now is "Eat, P..."

Emma - I also just finished Eat, Pray, Love and I am now reading Elizabeth Gilbert's follow-up non-fiction book Committed along side All About Love. I think they are both interesting commentaries on the modern concepts of love and marriage/commitment...I am only about 1/3 of the way through each book, but it has been cool reading the two perspectives side by side!

I haven't read the book, but I've enjoyed reading the comments! I think it's difficult isn't it? I mean, many people feel really strongly about religion and being preached too isn't something most readers like. I suppose given the context of the book, given that it's not fiction, but a sort of discussion on the importance and perception of love in life - maybe you have to expect some preaching. Hooks, obviously has an opinion on things which she feels the need to convey.

Personally I am an atheist, and a strong one. I get very uncomfortable when I'm forced to humor people with extreme religious views. To a strong atheist, strong theism seems almost like madness. I accept that the same is probably true the other way around!

I'm always a little nervous about writing about religion. Ultimately I end up including it and accepting that - yes, some people will hate it if it disagrees with their religious viewpoint, but if you want anyone to love your writing, you have to accept some people will hate it. You can't please everyone.

Martyn wrote: "I get very uncomfortable when I'm forced to humor people with extreme religious views."

Hasidic Jew, here, and for what it's worth, I don't consider bell hooks' religious point of view as extreme in any way. She grew up in a church community, and now she teaches at the ultra-liberal New School. So don't let everyone's reactions steer you away from the book. It's about love, not religion.

Yea, this ended up being a pretty objective read for me. The religious aspects didn't resonate with me but it was presented well so it was still palatable, just not relatable for me personally. There were many pages that I earmarked because there were some great nuggets of insight worth noting.

I'm finishing the book, and I have to say it doesn't seem to me that bell hooks is trying to convey extreme religious points of view... When she talks about God, she talks about the meaning Love gives to our lives. She really talks about Love, not about "some divine spirit". The spirituality she mentions is in fact a return to the core values of humanity, in order to better understand our deeper purposes in life and react to a market oriented society.
I would quote some passages that made me state that, but unfortunately I can't, because I'm reading the Italian translation since I couldn't get my hands on the original version.

I absolutely relate to this. The Christian spirituality of the book is turning me off.

I'm having mixed feelings as I read this book. She makes a lot of awesome points, and there I'm enjoying a great deal of it. I can even get behind the idea that spirituality can be understood as the interconnectedness of us all, but when she says that our problems all seem to have begun when organized religion's role was lessened, I completely disagree.

I read these comments before I was able to read the book, and felt a little wary. I have sometimes felt like religion has been forced down my throat when I have read a book where a character is so religious that it seems to seep into all parts of the book.

So, it was really interesting to finally be able to read the book these past few days and find, that for me it wasn't really an issue. I say that as someone who is not a Christian, who is not religious, who often does not feel comfortable with organized religion and is puzzled by how so many people who claim to be religious can be so hateful.

Based on a lot of the comments in these feed, I was expecting the religious aspects to be EVERYWHERE. I will admit, the last chapter was difficult, because it really WAS about religious aspects. But, I get that she included it, because to her, her religion and her relationship with angels, both divine, and in human form, were what helped save her when she was at very low points in her life.

A lot of the other times when she referenced spirit, to me it seemed like she was referencing more of just that feeling of something bigger than yourself, the feeling that we're all interconnected- which is something I related to. I don't believe in God, but when I am in nature, I feel connected to something that is bigger than myself. I can't quantify what, but I do feel that pull. So, because I already have that on my radar, I guess that is how I interpreted a lot of things that maybe could have been religious, but didn't directly reference God.

I of course, respect everyone's opinions and feelings. I guess I'm just saying that I was actually kind of relieved that there wasn't as much as I thought there would be, and that it really only bothered me in the last chapter.

Jason wrote: "... when she says that our problems all seem to have begun when organized religion's role was lessened, I completely disagree."

Hello Jason!
I must have inadvertently skipped that part or at least I can't remember reading it. Could you tell me please where in the book she writes that? I would like to read that chapter again and contemplate it, because I would also completely disagree.

I did find that her being a very religious and spiritual person comes across strongly throughout the whole book, but as other people have already written, not in a negative way where she's trying to convert others. It has always made me really mad when people tried to convert me and I didn't feel that way at all while reading the book.
I thought that she expressed her faith and spirituality in a very general way so that it could apply to all kinds of belief or attitudes towards life. That way I could usually find myself in there somewhere/somehow. It was only the last chapter about destiny/angels that I absolutely couldn't relate to.

I'm really happy though that I read this book! There were chapters like the one about honesty that mirrored my own thoughts. And then there were chapters and passages like her definition of love that were a bit of a revelation for me because I had never really thought about it before or at least not to such an extent.

I finally finished the book and I'm going to revamp my prior opinion. Reading this was a chore I forced myself to complete. I'd call this a "nugget" book. The text was punctuated every so often with a golden nugget of an idea to ponder. Otherwise, the chapters seemed to run together and at times rambled on rather aimlessly. I think with some editing and chapter consolidation it would have been a less painful read, but doing so wouldn't negate the author's statement in chapter five that atheists aren't capable of love. Or something to that effect. That's some pretty exclusionary language and really turned me off.

I'm glad I read it because it's written from a perspective I don't typically seek out and about a topic that could be interesting. However, I won't be recommending the book to anyone.

Emma wrote: "I disagree with you on the book (I liked this one), but I absolute..."

LOL You're welcome. :)

Cryptic wrote: "I finally finished the book and I'm going to revamp my prior opinion. Reading this was a chore I forced myself to complete. I'd call this a "nugget" book. The text was punctuated every so often wit..."

This was really interesting to me, in that when you commented on Chapter 5 and that she said that atheists couldn't love, I had a, "Wait, did we read the same book?" moment. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way, but that's not what I took away from the book at all. I remember thinking, hmmm, I'm going to have to go back and reread Chapter 5. I am an atheist and I didn't get that message from the book.. So, I found that so interesting, because it just goes to show how differently we all interpret books as we read them- and I think some of that is because of what we bring to a book. So, even if we read the same book, we don't read the same book because we all bring different experiences and insights with us and that colors our reading of the book. I haven't had a chance to reread Chapter 5 yet (just finished reading a different book tonight). But I'm looking forward to doing so, with your idea as a lense and seeing if that changes my reading of it.

Danielle wrote: "This was really interesting to me, in that when you commented on Chapter 5 and that she said that atheists couldn't love, I had a, "Wait, did we read the same book?" ..."

I felt exactly the same when I read through the comments in the different threads and I was often surprised about other people's interpretations of the book because I didn't see it that way at all. That's what I love about being in this group and discussing books together. It's so fascinating to read all these different opinions, interpretations and the messages people got from the book and to see how everyone's personal background and experiences influence the perspective from which they read a book.

Danielle wrote: "Cryptic wrote: "I finally finished the book and I'm going to revamp my prior opinion. Reading this was a chore I forced myself to complete. I'd call this a "nugget" book. The text was punctuated ev..."

So, I went back tonight and skimmed Chapter 5. Going back and looking at it with your comments in mind, I could see why you interpreted things that way. Especially when I read the quote "Let us love one another, for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God."

But I also found something that I underlined on page 81, "Spiritual practice does not need to be connected to organized religion in order to be meaningful." Besides it I wrote- so many so-called Christians don't get this. So I think, that was so important to me, that it really affected how I remembered that chapter. I thought yes, yes yes!

Anyway, it was interesting to go back and see some of the things that you had pointed out.

Thank you everyone for the perspectives!
I decided to skip this book, mostly because I still haven't finished The Color Purple, I'm reading a bunch of other books, and because I only recently left Christianity, so I think it could be unsettling for me.
I was told to read this thread elsewhere, and it seems to me that this book may sometimes be jarring but not quite the same way as "how to be a woman" is. if anything, it can encourage a religious person to accept LGBTQ+ people (at least that's my impression) so that's awesome.

almost finished with the book, a half chapter left... so far the hardest book for me because it felt like reading some text book for school rather than for fun. I agree with the title: It really is all about love. The different kinds of love were interesting and how can influence our daily life. Nonetheless, I was wondering at which good old times she refers to in a couple of chapters. A time when people were not as focused on material possessions as they are today. Is this true? I read a lot about history and it seemed as if it is just like today, all about power and money, not about love.
In some way, her book appears to create some idyllic life some hundred years ago that she wishes back although it has never really existed. The book in general seems to be a little bit far off reality and naive...
Since there is a lot of criticism on April's book, I must also add that this book has a very strong American perspective. Isn't this a little bit contradictory to love is the answer to everything?
What do you think?

Yeah I think it's common to think that people used to be better, more religious etc. If anything they still had to worry about various material things we take for granted.
Maybe someday access to the Internet/information will be seen as a human right comparable to food and shelter...

I must say that this book was both for me. Some paragraphs I hated, some I loved.

I wasn't turned off by the religious aspects since for me, they weren't that big in the book and I have to say that I am christian, so a lot of the issues she spoke about I am familiar with. But I can see that people are turned off by the religious aspects.

For me, this book was a book in which I learned much. Not in the same way I did with Gloria's, but All About Love taught me, that's for sure. I have underlined lots in this book, and plan to file all those sentences I underlined.

Clarissa,

It's so interesting to read your story because I am an Orthodox Jewish mother, and my son has left the path. Like you, his siblings are still religious (and may G-d will it to continue that way), but they are all good friends. I hope you and your sister are still close to your brothers who have remained in the church.