UB Libraries Book Group discussion

Hello all. Welcome to the discussion of The Culture of Fear.

Since finishing this book I've been thinking about how to start off the discussion, and I can't say that I've come to any epiphanies.

I suggested this book after (I think) hearing it discussed on NPR. An author interview, perhaps? It sounded interesting, and like something I've been interested in since reading Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everythingand The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Both books explain why we fear the wrong things, and I was hoping to learn more with this book.

So, to get things started, let's talk about general impressions of the book, the writing, etc., and go from there.

This had been on my "to read" for a while as well. It's an interesting premise, and I appreciated the examples the author used to prove his point. And I really liked the Michelle Obama quote at the very end about her not wanting to be motivated by fear. Unfortunately, I just found the book as a whole too repetitive. I also would have liked more discussion on why we are so easily swayed by fear.

I think his premise would have been better served by a lengthy expose in the New Yorker or some such journal. I don't think it lent itself well to book length. That being said, I'm not sorry I read it. I've already started to read the news with a more critical eye!

Amy, I agree totally about it being repetitive, to the point where, after the first point was made in a particular chapter, I skimmed the rest of the chapter. Having it as an article in The New Yorker would have been much better. I've been looking more critically at the news since reading Freakonomics; this just confirmed what those authors said much more succinctly.

Nancy, I agree that, other than guns, the author didn't tell us what we should be afraid of. (Not that I want to be afraid of anything, but let's be realistic.) And statistics are good.

Hmmm, I have the 1999 version and did not realize there was an updated version. I am only a couple chapters into it -- should I try to get the updated version instead?

I think that the updates are only a new introduction and one chapter added to the end. Which is to say, I think the new material is good, but you could likely finish the 1st ed. and then read the new bits, which is what I did.

He was succinct in his list of what we should fear: car accidents, too many guns, swimming and biking accidents. Did he need to elaborate on that list? His focus was not to delve deeply into what we should fear, but to make us more aware of how we are manipulated into fearing some things needlessly.

I agree this could have been much shorter.

I didn't see the feminist bashing, or perhaps I breezed over it. He both complimented and criticized Ms. (I think) for debunking certain fears and fueling others. Valid criticism is allowed. :-)

Beth, I totally missed the swimming and biking accidents. Perhaps I skimmed too much. ;)

I know that I keep mentioning Freakonomics, but in there they say that it's more dangerous to let your kid play in a home with a swimming pool than one with a gun.

I think the lack of succinctness (is that a word?) was more in going on and on and on and on about topics. Your point was made, move on. ;)

Personally, I thought that:
"Diverse groups used the ritual-abuse scares to diverse ends. Well-known feminists such as Gloria Steinem and Catharine MacKinnon took up the cause, depicting ritually abused children of living proof of the ravages of patriarchy and the need for fundamental social reform."
"This was far from the only time feminist spokeswomen have mongered fears about sinister breeds of men who exist in nowhere near the high numbers they allege. Another example occurred a few years ago when teen pregnancy was much in the news. Feminists helped popularize the frightful but erroneous statistic that two out of three mothers had been seduced and abandoned by adult men. The true figure is more like one in ten, but some feminists continued to cultivate the scare well after the bogus stat had been definitively debunked."
really over-stated and/or mis-represented some kind of feminist agenda, but of course your mileage may vary.

I just returned from a short vacation. I agree that this would have been an interesting article, but was an incredibly repetitive book. I did the same thing as Stacy - read the first few paragraphs of a chapter and skimmed the rest. It seemed like a book that was written to sell copies, rather than to make many significant points. That said, I missed his point on the feminist agenda also, but I think he was a bit over the top on that one.

I just finished the 1999 version. The author was so critical of the way the media and politicians manipulate the views of the public, which is nothing new in my opinion. But the level of that now given all the changes since 1999 -- growth of Internet, social media, smartphones, etc. -- plus things to really be afraid of -- 9/11, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. -- really depressed me.

One thing kept annoying me. The author used the noun "monger" as a verb constantly. My old dictionary doesn't say that it can be used as a verb. Example: "She could no longer monger precisely the same scares she had been pushing." What?!

All great thoughts. Thanks, everyone. Does anyone have anything else to add before we wrap up this month's discussion?

Sorry for chimimg in late. I agree with all the comments. It was too long and repetitive. I started doing the same as Stacy and Rena. Using fear to gain power or money is an old trick. For example, Hitler. Many groups think they have to make an issue seem big to get action. For good or bad, for example the Cancer fund campaign in the last book.
I definitely think the major news networks are guilty of this. Which is why I take most things I hear with a grain of salt. Each phase of our lives has things that could be dangerous. We have to recognize them and do our best to deal with them. Of course, I was a girl scout. I definitely take that be prepared thing to heart.
The book's premise is a good one. I definitely don't agree with him on what we should fear though. :-)
Good to have a thought provoking book, thanks!