I read the first section of this and skimmed the rest. There is some good information, but I can't see how better mental health can be implemented without a spiritual revolution. And there was zero acknowledgement of the role of families in people developing mental illness. I'm not in favor of blaming parents, especially mothers, as in the old Freudian way, but they cannot be completely left out of the equation either. The theory I would like to test is that unhealed, unacknowledged psychological hurts in one generation come out as mental illness in a later one.

I applaud the idea behind this book, but it was just too general for me. Not anything special that I've not encountered in some form elsewhere.

This book was not what I expected. I thought it would go into how trauma in past generations affects the present. It glanced at that idea but didn't go deeply into it. In the first story seemed like a missed opportunity -- the main client was a man who found out the father who'd raised him was not his biological father, but the mother was too much lost in her own world to become part of the conversation, and once the man found out who his father was, it was just left at that. The next two stories were not around crises, which was refreshing, but some troubling elements came up that were not addressed. I stopped reading at this point.

Overall, the book could have been called "Every Therapist Has a Story," because it was so much about Samuel's own experiences and impressions rather than those of the actual families. She was constantly making assumptions and interpretations, which of course one does when meeting and assessing people, but she never bothered to check whether her notions were true. This, along with the missed opportunities to go deeper, made the whole process seem quite superficial.

A quote that stood out: "From my own experience and what I have learnt from the families in this book, when comparing non-biologically and biologically related families, the stories we tell ourselves become who we are. When we are told truthful stories, we trust that we are loved and belong. And we thrive, whatever our genetic inheritance or connection." (Introduction)

Also interesting was the "Do you know" scale - developed by Dr Marshall Duke and Dr Robyn Fivush to ask adolescents about their family. "They found those who knew more of their family history showed higher levels of self-esteem, lower levels of behavior problems and more self-efficacy -- they trusted they could influence their world." (The Wynne Family)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-stories-our-lives/201611/the-do-you-know-20-questions-about-family-stories

Really fascinating theories, but I think I need to read this book on paper. I need to cross-reference and see the charts, which do not show on my e-reader.

Some interesting information, but I would have much more appreciated a version that acknowledged Discworld was a literary creation, and straightforwardly talked about its sources and influences in folklore, rather than the pretense that it is a real place and the similarities are "amazing coincidences."

I picked this up because of the gorgeous cover art by the Balbusso sisters. Dark whimsy is a difficult tone to manage, and I was not finding it worked here. Comparisons to my beloved Diana Wynne Jones were derailed by the overly elaborate and flowery language, something she is not at all prone to. The world and castle felt resolutely like an invention, not a discovery, which is fatal in a fantasy.

Something about this book made me uncomfortable. Even though I agree mind and body should be seen as a unity, it seemed to be suggesting that there is no physical reality apart from our thoughts and feelings, a kind of gnostic denial of matter. I am concerned about the "toxic positivity" that can result when we believe we can think ourselves out of all illnesses and troubles.

I looked up Ellen Langer and found that there has been some criticism of some of the studies that made her famous and that she continues to cite in this book; they were discredited or never published in peer-reviewed journals.

I am also skeptical about the placebo effect. I have struggled with health issues for many years. I have taken many remedies and tried many therapies. I really wanted to believe these would work, and for a time some seemed to be working. Then my symptoms would come back. Do placebos not work on me? What about the remedies that do seem to work better? What is the difference, when my attitude has not changed? 

Again, I fully agree that the mind has an effect on bodily health, and vice versa. And I'm not a fan of conventional medicine, either. But the claims here seem extreme.

Langer's painful experience with her mother, who experienced a spontaneous remission of cancer but then was treated as if she was still sick, and subsequently died,, may have clouded her judgment. She seems to so strongly wish that we could overcome our illnesses with the power of the mind, that she is finding evidence to show that it is true. But I don't feel as though I can trust her. Something is out of balance in her work, which is a shame, because it could be so valuable.

Stopped reading a bit over halfway through when my trust in the author failed. Although it would be important to read as an example of current thinking on the topic, I decided not to spend my time on that.

I am taking a break from this long travelogue of Twain's journeys in Europe and the holy land. to be continued at some point, I hope.

Started this for the Around the World challenge, and it sounded so good, but I just could not get into it. May try again later.

I read the first half of this and skimmed the rest. Having read an earlier craft book by Gutkind, there wasn't that much new information. He likes to use the same examples (I think I've heard enough about "Frank SInatra Has a Cold").