Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.91 AVERAGE
3.91 AVERAGE
challenging
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
medium-paced
i love words and (like amanda montell & many others) am fascinated by cults and the way they work. i thought this book was super well researched, interesting, and engaging throughout. i love non-fiction, but i think this would be a fun read even if that isn’t typically your thing. it was my first amanda montell book, but it certainly won’t be my last! i love her voice and sense of humor, and like…she’s a feminist linguist and author…so duh
funny
hopeful
informative
lighthearted
fast-paced
Lacked focus, disorganized structue, and surface level analysis. Author inserts too many personal anecdotes.
Most of the first 2 sections of the book was book-report-style summaries of well known cult stories rather than a discussion of the language and how its used by cults. Talking about the actual language used, how that language appears in cults, and why that language works in manipulating people took a back seat to every thing else. Sometimes it just seemed like an after thought rather than being the focus of the book. The main thesis of the book is repeated often, but without additional meaningful analysis.
Also, the author's tone was exceptionally casual for a serious topic. Efforts to be wry and quippy come off as insensitive and annoying. Far too many instances of "more on that later" throughout, often with that exact phrasing.
Most of the first 2 sections of the book was book-report-style summaries of well known cult stories rather than a discussion of the language and how its used by cults. Talking about the actual language used, how that language appears in cults, and why that language works in manipulating people took a back seat to every thing else. Sometimes it just seemed like an after thought rather than being the focus of the book. The main thesis of the book is repeated often, but without additional meaningful analysis.
Also, the author's tone was exceptionally casual for a serious topic. Efforts to be wry and quippy come off as insensitive and annoying. Far too many instances of "more on that later" throughout, often with that exact phrasing.
informative
medium-paced
Very good analysis of cults and cultish behavior by brands and socio-political movements. Author gives readers good vocabulary to name some of the most common practices like “thought terminating metaphors.”
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
dark
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
fast-paced
Super fascinating!
An eye opening read that had me reflecting on the religion I was raised in. Many cultish red flags.
I loved leaning about different cults, cultish language and what makes an organization cultish.
An eye opening read that had me reflecting on the religion I was raised in. Many cultish red flags.
I loved leaning about different cults, cultish language and what makes an organization cultish.
If you are expecting an academic argument or a well-researched piece, I would not suggest this book. It was a series of anecdotes and personal stories, with some surface level analysis of some cults: why the author chose these particular “cults” and not others was either unexplained or I didn’t catch it. While I don’t think it’s inherently wrong for non-fiction writers to write about their personal experiences, in this book the authors self-insertion felt heavy-handed and didn’t really relate to the thesis in any meaningful way.
The premise feels like something you’d learn in an intro to philosophy of language class and/or intro to psych class: language has the capacity to influence thinking and shapes people’s reality, it can create an in-group out-group, individuals can wield language as a tool to manipulate others.
The style did make it really easy to read and breeze through, but at times it felt very, very repetitive. The tone was very casual and sometimes tongue-in-cheek. At times, it felt like the author was leaning over and whispering something in your ear as a friend — it didn’t really land with me, but I could see it adding to others’ experience.
The beginning of each chapter was a bit cheesy, in my opinion — it felt like the sort of “hook” that I would shoehorn into an intro simply because I was told the hook is what makes the reader interested. But when the hook doesn’t really relate to the substance of the chapter, the writing feels clunky. Also, I don’t know why Montell chooses to break up the chapters the way she does? I don’t understand why some things were in the footnotes; the information in the footnotes seemed of equal import to the body of the text, so it seemed random and non-discriminatory to use the footnotes so widely. The organization was weird. There was a lot of awkward signposting. Montell litters her chapters with “(more on this later),” and similarly annoying parentheticals, which was distracting and unnecessary. Overall I feel like there should have a few more rounds of editing for organization.
The book handles politics poorly. There are references to politics with smug quips — isn’t Trump kinda a cult leader? wink wink, nudge nudge! you and I are on the same page, aren’t we reader?! To be clear, my problem wasn’t that Montell talks about politics. It’s that the references to politics are not accompanied by arguments, but suggestions of them. There are many references to Trump, but Montell did not do any meaningful work actually fleshing out any of those arguments (or many of her other claims, really.) I probably agree with Montell on her conclusions, but the book doesn’t do enough to support/warrant those conclusions.The coverage of QAnon also felt shallow, even though I personally think more research and work on that would be way more interesting than all the depth and research Montell gives MLMs.
I started this review anticipating giving the book three stars, but as I write this review I’m realizing I probably wouldn’t recommend it. I did breeze through it, and did look forward to picking it up, but it was ultimately a shallow experience for me. Again, I think maybe I’m asking for too much. This is not an academic piece. Perhaps if I had managed my expectations going in, I wouldn’t be so frustrated with the book now. The cover is very pretty, though.
The premise feels like something you’d learn in an intro to philosophy of language class and/or intro to psych class: language has the capacity to influence thinking and shapes people’s reality, it can create an in-group out-group, individuals can wield language as a tool to manipulate others.
The style did make it really easy to read and breeze through, but at times it felt very, very repetitive. The tone was very casual and sometimes tongue-in-cheek. At times, it felt like the author was leaning over and whispering something in your ear as a friend — it didn’t really land with me, but I could see it adding to others’ experience.
The beginning of each chapter was a bit cheesy, in my opinion — it felt like the sort of “hook” that I would shoehorn into an intro simply because I was told the hook is what makes the reader interested. But when the hook doesn’t really relate to the substance of the chapter, the writing feels clunky. Also, I don’t know why Montell chooses to break up the chapters the way she does? I don’t understand why some things were in the footnotes; the information in the footnotes seemed of equal import to the body of the text, so it seemed random and non-discriminatory to use the footnotes so widely. The organization was weird. There was a lot of awkward signposting. Montell litters her chapters with “(more on this later),” and similarly annoying parentheticals, which was distracting and unnecessary. Overall I feel like there should have a few more rounds of editing for organization.
The book handles politics poorly. There are references to politics with smug quips — isn’t Trump kinda a cult leader? wink wink, nudge nudge! you and I are on the same page, aren’t we reader?! To be clear, my problem wasn’t that Montell talks about politics. It’s that the references to politics are not accompanied by arguments, but suggestions of them. There are many references to Trump, but Montell did not do any meaningful work actually fleshing out any of those arguments (or many of her other claims, really.) I probably agree with Montell on her conclusions, but the book doesn’t do enough to support/warrant those conclusions.The coverage of QAnon also felt shallow, even though I personally think more research and work on that would be way more interesting than all the depth and research Montell gives MLMs.
I started this review anticipating giving the book three stars, but as I write this review I’m realizing I probably wouldn’t recommend it. I did breeze through it, and did look forward to picking it up, but it was ultimately a shallow experience for me. Again, I think maybe I’m asking for too much. This is not an academic piece. Perhaps if I had managed my expectations going in, I wouldn’t be so frustrated with the book now. The cover is very pretty, though.