I'm going to start by saying that I agree with the philosophy of this book. He's all about living the theme song to Frozen, whereas I've always been more about the imagery of being made of chain link -- instead of letting the issues be a gust that topples me as I try to fight it, I let it blow through me. Same idea, different metaphors. So, of course I think the concept is good, but it's not new and it's not his. He didn't invent or discover it. He's only trying to explain it. And, that's where I have the issues.
First off, this book is presented with such an overwhelming privileged white, cis, hetero male perspective. Every example (but one, which I'll elaborate on later) is from a man's perspective. And nothing even relatable to my experience, either. He's super hung up on girlfriends dumping the reader or girlfriends cheating on the reader or being jealous because the reader suspects his girlfriend is cheating: Think about that time after your girlfriend dumped you and you were so depressed that you couldn't get out of bed for days and the only evidence that you had eaten was the empty pizza boxes littering your room. Seriously? SERIOUSLY??? Nope. Cannot relate. I've never had the personal luxury of being Bella from Twilight and crumpling into a ball of "depression" (pssst, that's not depression) because someone dumped me. I have, however, had the experience of initiating a divorce to leave an abusive marriage after 20 years, supporting my three kids and myself emotionally and financially through it, which presented some very real hardships, and is the second issue I have with this book...
He never addresses any real trauma or legitimate hardships in the book. His examples, being from such a place of privilege, are trivial and superficial. He doesn't talk about the Muslim woman who endures hate slurs as she walks her daughter to school every day, or the man who works three minimum wage jobs to pay for his disabled son's medical care and is functioning on 3 hours of sleep every night, or the girl with the chemical imbalance in her brain that causes debilitating depression. The lack of even pitting these philosophies against serious problems comes off as offensive.
And, his solutions are shallow. Let it go. Let it go. Let it go. But, he never explains exactly how to let it go, and he proceeds with the assumption that once you choose to let it go, the one time will fix everything, always. That it doesn't take way more practice and coming at it from many different angles to try to find the visualization and the inner mind-space that works for you. He ties it into how easy it is to quit smoking. Quitting smoking is harder than quitting heroin. It's so much more involved that just not putting a cigarette in your mouth. But, the fact that he devoted two paragraphs to how to quit smoking and then tied it to this philosophy was telling. He perceives them both as easy. If you just take ONE STEP, it'll solve it forever. Anyone who has quit smoking (I have, using mindfulness!) or has tried to achieve this kind of consciousness knows that it requires real effort. It's not a switch you flip on and off and then it's all fixed.
Which brings me to my last issue -- he completely left out any sort of introspection. His presentation of this idea seemed to actually oppose introspection, which is very flawed. Here's a scenario to ponder from two perspectives:
Perspective one-- Michael is driving a car and pulls up to a stop sign. On the sidewalk next to the stop sign, a cyclist shakes her fist at him and shouts at him, then rides away on her bike. Michael's heart chakra is momentarily clogged by the repressed memory of a bike-riding girl in third grade who he had a crush on, but she didn't like him back and yelled at him to stop following her home every day, so he has to practice his let it go mantra and it works immediately. He's free forever now.
Next day, he drives his car to the stop sign. The same cyclist is on the sidewalk and she shakes her fist and shouts at him. He doesn't react because he is fixed and he has let it go. The same thing happens day after day until one day, the cyclist stops yelling at him for no apparent reason.
Perspective two -- Rita is driving a car and pulls up to a stop sign. On the sidewalk next to the stop sign, a cyclist shakes her fist at her and shouts at her, then rides away on her bike. Rita's heart chakra is momentarily clogged by a repressed memory of someone else yelling at her at another time, but she also engages in some introspection and asks, "I wonder why THIS cyclist yelled at me," and then notices that the front of her car is over the line for the crosswalk and the cyclist was about to cross the street but became afraid when the car didn't stop where it was supposed to.
The next day, Rita approaches the stop-sign in her car and is careful to stop before the lines for the crosswalk. The cyclist rides her bike across the street and smiles and waves at Rita.
Granted, in the Rita situation, she doesn't get to unclog her chakra by practicing letting it go when she's yelled at, however, she also stops endangering a cyclist with her bad driving, because she considered the cyclist's perspective, matched it to the situation and corrected her behavior. Maybe Michael's psyche is a little bit better in his way of doing things, but he also continues to be a jerk. Introspection is imperative. I know that this philosophy does not oppose introspection, however THIS presentation of the philosophy completely left it out.
Oh, I forgot to bring up the one example he used that wasn't from a male perspective -- once at the beginning and once at the end, he asked the reader to describe who they are, and both times he said, "You might tell me you're a 45 year-old woman..." and I completely believe that he had something else written at first but his editor told him to change it to being a 45-year-old woman because that's the demographic most likely to read this kind of book. Nothing else he says ever matches up to anything a middle-aged woman would have experienced.
I'd have really liked this more if it had been delivered by someone else, in a different way. But, it was this book I read, so it's this book I have to review.