I wrote a long introduction to Jordan Peterson and this book, but I scrapped it. Too long, too boring, too niche. What follows will be part one of a three part review of Peterson's book, 12 Rules for Life. In part I, I will discuss a bird's-eye view of the text, it's general flow, overall success, things I would have liked to see changed. In part II, I want to discuss some of the praises and criticisms this book has received and whether those praises or criticisms are warranted. In part III, I will be offering quick insights about the rules and discussing whether I agree with the individual rules or not as they are expounded in the book. Part III may need to be subdivided depending on the depth I find I need to get into.
Editorial Note: I have since had to split the review into more sections due to length, but the general outline remains the same.
PART I: 12 Rules for Life, a birds-eye view.
Take note that the rule most associated with Jordan Peterson,--Clean you damn room!--is not actually in this book. This is perhaps the biggest disappointment of all and I wanted to get it out of the way.
Peterson's book is separated into distinct chapters, each dedicated to a specific rule. For the uninitiated, the rules are as follows.
1. Stand up straight with your shoulders back.
2. Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping.
3. Make friends with people who want the best for you.
4. Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today.
5. Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them.
6. Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.
7. Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient).
8. Tell the truth--or, at least, don't lie.
9. Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't.
10. Be precise in your speech.
11. Do not bother children when they are skateboarding.
12. Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street.
In the beginning of the book, Peterson states that originally he had a list of 40 rules for life that he had posted on the online board Quora. He had to narrow down the topics, and eventually he chose 12 to write full length essays for. You can still find his original post on Quora here. (You may have to scroll down a little.) His original list includes items such as: "Do not do things you hate", "Imagine who you could be, and then aim single-mindedly at that", "Ask someone to do you a small favour, so that he or she can ask you to do one in the future", and "Write a letter to the government if you see something that needs fixing -- and propose a solution."
Looking over the original list, immediately the book feels incomplete. There is so much more that was left out of the book, and the book may have been very different had he chosen differently. There is something about this list of 40 admonitions that is lost in the book. A rule is usually its strongest when it is stated as a rule. Over my kitchen sink, I placed a sign that says, "No coffee after 4:00 P.M." This is a good rule. It serves a very distinct purpose. It helps remind me to cut off my coffee consumption so that I can sleep better at night. You know what I did not do? I did not write a 2,000 word essay expounding upon this rule. That essay, no matter how well-written and scholarly, would not serve the actual function of the rule. The rule is best stated as a rule and left there.
When people see the list of rules Peterson uses in his book, the general reaction is, "Those sound like really good rules. Why would anybody disagree with this book?" But to say that misses the entire point of both the criticism and the book itself. The Rules themselves are good. (Actually, I do flat out disagree with two of the rules, but that's for a later discussion.) But when you expand upon a rule for thousands of words, the character of the rule can become distorted or lost.
Take the first rule: Stand up straight with your shoulders back. This is a great rule. It is a rule I remind myself of frequently. When I'm feeling sad and depressed, I remind myself to stand up straight with my shoulders back. This is often called a power-pose, and standing in this pose can help improve one's mood. When I'm slouching over my computer, my mind goes to "Sit up straight. Shoulders back." Again, this is a good rule. But do you want to know what I do not need in these moments? A chapter in a book that takes an hour to read where I can learn about lobsters on antidepressants.
Now look, I understand that rules should be explained. It's good to know why you should do one thing and not do the other thing. But there comes a point when you exceed the limits of the rule itself and venture into territory outside the scope of explanation. Peterson constantly exceeds these limits. As a result, the book is meandering, full of tangents, and difficult to follow.
Listening to the audiobook as I did (I bought a physical copy too for reference), I cannot tell you how many times I had to stop the book to look up what the rule was I was supposedly learning about. This is particularly true if I had to stop in the middle of a chapter and then later pick back up where I left off. I'd turn the audiobook back on and Peterson would be talking about about the difference between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God. Wait, what rule am I learning about? I stop and look. Rule 4: "Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today." Well, OK, maybe he'll bring it full circle? A few days later I turn on the audiobook and hear Peterson talking about the crisis a wife goes through when she discovers her husband is having an affair. Wait! What rule is this? Rule 10: "Be precise in your speech." What does this have to do with the rule? I guess he'll eventually bring this full circle.
I was in a constant state of hope that Peterson would eventually bring his point full circle. There was no way of picking up in the middle of a chapter without feeling completely lost as to what rule I was supposedly learning about. I was constantly looking forward to the end of the chapter, just so I could see whether he made a point related to the rule. Peterson is in no way direct with this thought process, even if one of his rules is to be direct in your speech.
Now, to be fair, there are some chapters I felt Peterson did a really good job bringing full circle. Rule seven, for instance, (do what is meaningful, not expedient) does a really good job at this, despite its very long excursion into philosophy, religion, Western civilization, psychology, Nazism, etc., by the end you get a clear picture of what Peterson means by "meaning." Meaning is something you build towards by taking personal responsibility in the purposeful steps you take to alleviate pain inflicted by tyranny. Even if one is a little skeptical of his philosophical interpretation, he does a good job at arriving at a conclusion that directly addresses the rule.
Other chapters are not so fortunate. I may discuss a few of these in more detail in part III of my review. For now, as an example, rule twelve was particularly unsatisfying. He spends the chapter talking about how rough of a life his daughter has had, how DC comics overpowered Superman, and how Dostoevsky was right when he called the universe unreasonable. And the conclusion of all this is? . . . You should pet a cat when you see one on the street, because life is suffering and you need those little moments of reprieve. But the impression I take away from this chapter is not that life is suffering but that Jordan Peterson's life is suffering. Petting a stray cat helps him. It's unclear why it would help anybody else.
You cannot judge this book based upon the rules it uses as chapter headers, which is precisely what many are inclined to do. That original list of 40 rules has been completely lost. The rules no longer have a "rulelike" character. No matter how much you may agree or disagree with a rule that says you should not drink coffee after 4:00 PM, you don't need 2,000 words for me to explain it to you, even if I could write you an amazing essay on the topic (and I could). If I were to write such and essay, no matter how amazing it is, the original rule could very easily get lost in exposition.
In part II, I will lay out and discuss some of the praises and criticisms directed at this book. As I discussed here, much of this praise or criticism is completely separate from the rules themselves. Long form exposition upon a rule is distinct from an actual rule, and reactions to long form exposition upon a rule are distinct from reactions to that rule. Bear this in mind as we go forward into part II.
As for my overall impressions, the book is mixed. There are parts of it that read very well as a physical book, but there are other parts that read very poorly and are best listened to in audiobook form where you can hear Peterson's conversational style come through. (The audiobook is read by Peterson himself.) Reading about lobsters in chapter one is a little off-putting. Listening to Jordan Peterson talk about lobsters, on the other hand, is actually kind of nice. There's a little spark of excitement in his voice about lobsters that oddly enough makes it worthwhile. He is genuinely captivated by the topic. Throughout the audiobook you can hear Peterson's emotional responses to the text, and this gives the audiobook a depth that you will miss in the written material. Passages of the book that I had heard criticized sudden made lots of sense when he read them. The tone really created the meaning, and I think it is this tone that many people who criticize the book miss.
Unfortunately, listening to the audiobook exacerbated the problem I described earlier. It was much easier to get lost. I was unable to remember what rule I was even on sometimes. I've had to use the physical book for reference for this reason. I feel that the medium this book is consumed in will influence your opinion. The tone of the audiobook is almost essential to avoid misreadings, but the text is necessary to maintain continuity of thought. The logical connections between topics comes through a lot better in the text.
All in all, I walked away from this book liking it more than disliking it, and it made me view Peterson in a more favorable light than previously. (I have very mixed feelings about Peterson in general.) I will get into some of the specifics in parts II and III. Ultimately, my feelings remain mixed. This will become most clear in part III when I discuss the individual rules and expositions I agree with and disagree with.
No comments:
Post a Comment