Most famous for “The Road Less Traveled (1978),” Dr. Peck has a new book out, published by Free Press (Simon & Schuster) 2005. I am curious if anyone else has read it. I will not mention the title unless someone else has read it, because the title will be an open invitation to thread-jacking.
I will say that I found the topic and the book riveting and that is a rare thing for me these days. I recall picking up “The Road Less Traveled” many years ago, but found it to be sleep inducing, so I never got very far into it.
The one I read was an update: “Further Along the Road Less Traveled,” and I enjoyed his analysis of the 4 spiritual stages he suggests that humans go through. I don’t know what his latest book is about, but I saw a recent interview with him on Beliefnet which gives me an inkling–and I’m curious, but also a bit concerned about the subject and his understanding of the phenomena involved.
My husband read People of the Lie and was very impressed by it, because it helped him understand someone he’d been working with for years. I think it really influenced his decision to quit that job. You can make a lot of difference in a bad situation by changing your attitude, but there are also some people who are very unhealthy to be with.
Thankfully, he has a new job in a fully functional workplace and we’re all much happier. I’d recommend People of the Lie to anyone who’s concerned that they’re dealing on a regular basis with someone who has gone to the dark side.
Looks like no one has read the new one (2005 Copyright date) so I’ll let it go. I did look for reviews elsewhere. Some readers that liked his earlier books did not care for this one. Like I said, I am the opposite, I could not get through his first book “The Road Less Traveled,” but found his newest book mesmerizing. Fans of his earlier books might think twice before reading his latest.
Does this guy really stick MD after his name on the title page?
There’s a standing presumption amongst professional authors that only quacks do that. By that I mean that if this had been peer-reviewed by other MDs he wouldn’t have needed to use his qualifications as a form of spurious authentification. And if it wasn’t peer-reviewed, it’s fraudulent to list qualifications that have no relevance to the content.
The fact that someone uses a dishonest marketing strategy doesn’t mean the book is bad of course. But, gee, aren’t you suspicious? That trick of citing qualifictions is one of the oldest cons around.
I think this is a bit strong. Peck is writing for a popular audience, and the fact that he is a psychiatrist with extensive experience in clinical practice is relevant to the subject matter. This seems consistent with the way popular books are labeled. If the author has an advanced degree, and especially if it’s relevant to the subject, it’s usually included with the author’s name. At least that’s how it appears to me, from what books I’ve seen and read.
Bertrand Russell was a peer of the realm and had academic qualifications but none of his books carry any hint of either of these selling points. Neither should they have. Calling himself Lord Russell would have been pure snobbery. His philosophical qualifacations would be obvious to anyone reading the preface to his more academic books. As for his popular potboilers, being a philosopher undubtedly helped him in writing them but since they were popular books it would have been presumptuous and misleading to lead with his letters. Again, peer review is the point at issue. You don’t need a degree in philosophy to write a popular book on sexual morality or religion, even though having a good education would undoubtedly have helped.
If this author’s clinical experience is part of his qualification for writing a book, it is perfectly in order to say where he works and how his work bears on the content in the preface. The qualification-flaunting practice has been long since discredited because too many people use it to trade on irrelevant qualifications or (worse) to give spurious credence to work that has failed to get past the peer review system. This system exists to protect the unwary punter. Since every academically qualified author knows the conventions I’m mentioning here, and also knows their rationale, you would have to wonder why he is flouting them. But, as I suggested, there might be an innocent explanation.
I have mixed feelings about Peck. I met him once and found him to be so thoroughly aloof and unpleasant that I confess it has colored my perception of his work which is, of course, unfair.
People of the Lie was certainly influential. I had no problem with Peck re-introducing the concept of evil into psychiatry, but I think he went pretty far afield with his infatuation with the whole concept of demonic possession, exorcism and, especially, Malachi Martin. It’s understandable, in a way, because Martin’s Hostages to the Devil, which Peck admits was highly influential, is a compelling read. But, I think Martin’s anecdotes of possession and exorcism are highly questionable. The nature of the material made it more or less impossible to verify those accounts–and Malachi Martin had (he’s presently dead) a big agenda that would have been promoted by convincing people that the particularly kind of literal demonic possession is widespread.
For one thing, I think you’re giving too much credit to the peer review system. I have serious misgivings about the idea that a system of “authority” (yes, in quotes) should be imposed on what gets published in the popular press and on how various writers may or may not present their credentials. If the credentials are bogus, someone will out them, and readers can draw their own conclusions about the worthiness of their work.
Your comments, quite frankly, give me the heebeejeebees. Calling the mind police, calling the mind police … Proceed to fifth and main street immediately. Unwary punter is thinking for himself … unwary punter is drawing his own conclusions without peer review screening. Mind police, mind police, please proceed immediately …
I suspect the unwary punters who may be most susceptible to a book about demonic possession may have already been influenced by their particular clergypeople.
Maybe he’d just finished that boring snowflake book and had a tummy ache.
I was heavily influenced by The Road Less Travelled, to the point of playing amateur psychologist to my friends. Deplorable. I still think it’s a good book, although it over-simplifies the issues.
About demonic possession: i think it’s one of those things we need to re-visit from time to time, but it’s a very dark and unpleasant subject.
I’ve read lots of Freud, actually. And Jung, William James, and Carl Rogers. I wish there were more women psychiatrist authors to read. I’ve read a lot of Kübler-Ross’ books, but she’s really the only one.
In The Denial Of Death, Ernest T. Becker puts forth some really interesting thoughts on Freud and his many of his theories as well as more personal stuff about Freud’s life. According to Becker, Freud was wrong on almost all the specific issues he cared about, but right in a more general, over-all way. So most people who dismiss Freud as a lunatic or just plain weird are actually missing out on a lot, because he wasn’t completely wrong. It’s been a while since I read that book, though. It was terribly long and hard to read, but I made myself read it.
One of my favorite psycho-religious topics to read about is death, the psychology of death, how people handle death, how people die, etc.
