Introverted Bear

This book deserves 3.5-4 stars, in my opinion. It's one of the better books out there on introversion. Cain cites research, personal anecdotes, and historical narratives and mostly creates a compelling case for why introversion is important and should be acknowledged as a valid trait, not one to hide or cover up.

I really, really love the first chapter of the book, and it's what made me stay with it. The first chapter describes how introversion came to be discriminated against in American culture. It's a really unpleasant story, but it helps to know. The chapter reinforces the idea that there's nothing inherently wrong with introversion, and it's society that thinks it's wrong.

If anything, this idea of introversion is too narrow yet too large at the same time. It's too narrow because there seems to be no middle between introversion and extroversion, yet it's too large because she gives traits to introverts that belong to other categories, such as agreeableness and conscientiousness. However, she mentions this towards the end of her book, so she deserves credit for that.

I think, in general, it's difficult to separate introversion from all the other personality traits that exist. Introversion is a part of people, but it's not all that people are.

Cain gives a lot of advice for the workplace, handling conflicts between introverts and extroverts, and also parenting kids with introversion. I really, really, really wish my teachers would have read this book when I was little. That would have saved me a lot pointless critiques that made me feel worthless. Nowadays when people tell me I'm being too quiet or too shy, I just laugh and brush it off. Get in line, bub. You ain't the first one to notice.

I didn't find much of Cain's advice helpful, but I thought perhaps I should coax myself into social situations for work like a parent might coax a child simply because no one ever did that for me. Then again, I didn't have problems making friends when I was little. I'm struggling now more as an adult, and Cain never really address that problem. What happens when you're fine as a kid, but then adolescence hits, and you never get over the pain people put you through? How can introverts get over being consistently told their personality is a pathology? Unfortunately, there's not a miracle that goes off in your head once you accept your introversion. Even if you accept it but society doesn't, it creates cognitive dissonance and causes you to either change your behavior or change your opinions. Having society disapprove of who we fundamentally are will kill our self-esteem faster than anything else, even if we claim that we don't need society's approval.

This book just leaves me with the question of what now? Most of the insights that this book gave, I already knew, but I want the U.S. to know them too. It's things I've been saying, "I'm not shy. I'm quiet. It takes me longer to process things" yet the U.S. refuses to accept that. So what do I do with that? Why, as an introvert, do I have to keep proving my worth with competence over and over again all because America thinks a quiet person is worthless? How do we fix that so that the number of words coming out of someone's mouth isn't the only measure of confidence?

I am ok with who I am, as a non-outgoing person. Now can we please do something to make society realize that?

I think this book is more geared to encouraging people to accept their introversion for what it is, to work with it and not against it. But after we accept it, now what? What does it all mean?! I need more depth for my introverted heart! *dramatic swoon*

Instead of another book popping up, telling introverts that they're ok, I would really love to see a book for extroverts called "No, I Will not Speak Up: Learning How to Respect Someone's Silence."

Would extroverts like it if I asked them, "Why do you talk so much?" No? Ok, then. Respect the quiet.

But in general, this is a good book. It encourages people to accept and work with personality types and also to understand that personality types affect communication styles.

Percy makes everything better.

I did enjoy reading this book and found it hard to put down after Joe came into the picture. However, some of it seems extreme and absurd, especially after the climax came about. I'm really glad I'm not rich, and I don't have rich people problems.

I think readers can relate to Van's problem of loving someone who doesn't love you, or having that person admit she or he feels something for you a little too late. However, I'm not sure if most people can relate to Van. She's not a bad person, but she's the kind of drunk freshman girl I'd see in the dorms and just shake my head at. She does grow towards the end of the book, and there is at least a little bit of redemption.

In general, I enjoyed reading this book. I really loved the random quirks thrown in every now and then, though I can understand how they can become a little grating. The characters seemed kind of flat and the action was sort of ridiculous sometimes, but that's just another day in a demigod's life. It's always a bit ridiculous.

I had problems with Piper's being Jason-crazy. Her portrayal was also kind of stereotypical: beautiful, good with languages, obsessed over Jason--all typical "girl" things, classified as feminine by society. Can we not think outside the domain of society's definition of femininity? There's more to girls than society's expectations. We see a little bit of this with her smarts in Greek mythology and also kind of when she wields her dagger against the earthborn, but I wish she had more oomph. Maybe she'll wow us with her leadership skills in the Aphrodite cabin. Piper has a little bit of growth, but I hope she has more growth later in the series.

I didn't like Jason. He might have knowledge, skills, and be conventionally attractive, but he seems to be missing authenticity and a self. Maybe that's because he lacks his memories and doesn't know who he is. I hope he grows in the series.

Leo is cool, if a little bit, well, a good bit eccentric, and I can use some more Festus in my life.

The feels have broken the flood gates. Clean up may take a while.

Also, this book completely makes me feel good about my decisions to avoid parties and avoid alcohol. I'm really glad I made those choices in both my high school and college careers. Thank God I was a prude. Though I'm sure that's not what I was supposed to get out of this book.

The beginning was kind of meh for me, and about halfway through the book, I had decided the book was about 4 stars, but then the ending came and I felt compelled to give the book 5 stars.

I'm not sure what to think about this book. On one hand, it's rather small and easy to read as well as accurate to an extent. However, I wonder just how strong the science actually is.

For instance, when I did the attachment quiz in the book, it said I had anxious attachment with slight avoidant characteristics. On the other hand, when I did the quiz to figure out my partner's attachment style, I did it for myself and found I have anxious attachment style with both avoidant and secure tendencies. When I took the longer quiz online, I got dismissive avoidant twice, fearful avoidant once, and then preoccupied anxious once. Unfortunately, I have the same thought patterns as both anxious and avoidant attachment styles and use both styles to relate to people. Wonderful, isn't it? Either I'm anxious-avoidant yet have the potential to be secure or these attachment styles aren't as stable as the authors say they are.

While the authors did use lots of peer reviewed articles, I noticed that a lot of the articles focused on just attachment. They barely looked at variables that may correlate with attachment styles, such as self-esteem, self-confidence, and personality traits. How do we know if it's actually an attachment style or low self-esteem that's being activated? How do we know if people who are more conscientious are more likely to have secure attachment patterns, and therefore, your personality traits determine how you attach to others? We don't! If psychology has shown anything about humans, it's that one label does not apply to all because of so many confounding variables. In fact, looking at the traits of anxious attachment, a lot of those traits seem to belong to someone with low self-esteem. I am not fully convinced that just finding someone with an attachment style compatible with yours will be the end all and be all of happiness and will make connecting with someone easier. Although I think the authors hint at the idea that attachment styles aren't the end of it, I don't think they mention it enough.

I don't mean to dismiss their research. While their research is important (and it described the problems with my interactions), I think without talking about other variables, the book seems weak. It may be a good book if you're just beginning to date someone, and it may give you some insight into yourself.

The authors seem to give a slight bias towards anxious attachment styles, but they say they do so with a good reason. Often people with anxious attachment styles tend to have socially undesirable characteristics, like a longing for more dependency. Therefore, the authors wrote this book to say that it's okay to want more intimacy and that our society's cultural bias only hurts people in the long run. I believe that's a very important point, but I admit I have a hard time believing it. The avoidant comes out in me when people suggest more intimacy is a good thing. Though I believe I've learned to become avoidant because I'm afraid of I'm wanting too much since my friends and family have rejected me in the past. Enough with the TMI about me!

Overall, I believe this book will make a positive impact on people who want more intimacy in their relationships. It encourages people to believe that it's okay to want more. Most of all, it encourages effective communication, which as someone who doesn't speak much, I cannot overstress how important effective communication is. Speaking up about your needs helps to reduce misreading between the lines and also helps satisfy your needs (that one should be a duh-y). It is difficult to do? Yes. Sorry. There's no escaping that, but it does become easier overtime if the person you're communicating with reciprocates. And here we come to the one of the most important points of the book, that how you interact with people affects all aspects of your health, and although our culture romanticizes about being self-sufficient in every single way, that self-sufficiency is a lie that reduces our ability to connect to others and also our ability to be happy.

Even though this book was published back in the 1980s before I was born, I could still relate to some of the issues in this book. It's very well researched, and a great starting point for women who want to improve their self-esteem. One can read through the chapters and then go to the notes section for more information. They quote a substantial amount of material, and sometimes the quotes can be a little overbearing. That being said most of their research comes from the humanities and lacks hard science articles. I mean that there is a lack of research articles from peer reviewed journals. Rather most quotes come from books, magazine/newspaper articles, and their own self-esteem groups.

The authors have addressed major aspects of women's life where they suffer the most in their self-esteem, including immediate families, relationships, religion, school, jobs, and sexuality. Some women may have more concern with one or two topics rather than all of them. After each chapter, there are Blueprints for Change" sections that have questions designed to encourage one to think about where her low self-esteem pattern comes from.

I think this book could have been framed in a better way. The first 3 sections talk about where women have historically had low self-esteem, and section 4 discusses how to deal with low self-esteem in a more detailed way. If the authors had framed the first 3 sections on the history of low self-esteem in women, it may have more relevance. Instead, they seem to make generalizations and assume that women are still going through these issues. They may or may not be. It depends on their life experiences.

The authors do their best to breach race, class, religious, and sexual orientation lines, which is probably why the book is so huge. However, most of the information probably pertains to heterosexual, middle-class, white women. Please don't misunderstand me though. They still do talk about race, religion, and sexuality, but they discuss how those things are different from the norm and there is less information on these things probably because there is less research on these topics. The authors do talk more about these topics than other books tend to do.

I don't think this book is particularly helpful in improving self-esteem and one's life, but I do think it's a good starting point to get one's thinking jumpstarted into gear.

I really do like this book. It started off strong, sort of leveled out in the middle, and I'm not sure what to make of the ending. The ending was left open, and I'm not sure if the character ever resolved the concept of her whiteness vs. colorness. I suppose that's for the reader to decide.

I also really like the concept of whiteness vs. colorness. It shows white privilege and brings race to our awareness. I wouldn't doubt people who look white but are colored are treated different. I know a girl who looked white in high school but claimed her black heritage, and to be honest, I remember being surprised that she said she was black when she looked white. It's a strange bias that's hard to put in words. I give kudos to the author for trying to put it into words, but I also hoped that she could have resolved the issue but she didn't. Maybe she didn't because the issue still goes on in this day.

Even though we don't know a lot about all the characters, I feel connected to them, especially Ida Mae and Lily. I wouldn't mind being friends with someone like Ida Mae even though she sounds anxious sometimes. Mama and Grandy are also fun, and I wouldn't mind being in their family. However, sometimes it felt like the stories of the other characters were just dropped off. I think you could write some really cool fanfiction about the other characters, especially expanding on Jolene's story. However, it may be better left to the author to write those stories.

Although it's very realistic what happen to the women of the WASP, I wish something different would have happened to Patsy and Lily. I guess we can't always win though.

As I read the book, I had a suspicion that it was written by a Northerner and not someone native to New Orleans. What gave it away were the comments about the weather and calling the August weather cool. It is never cool in August, especially since August is usually the hottest month of the year. I'm not sure that the dialect used in the novel is accurate, but I'm going to assume some of it is accurate. There were no "making groceries" or "neutral ground" phrases though.

There were some good funny lines though.

I'm honestly not even sure I understood it. I really liked Christophine because she seemed like the only sane one there. Everyone else just seemed mad.

The story jumped a bit and didn't explicitly name the narrator. I felt like I was missing something, but maybe that's because I hadn't read Jane Eyre.

The way that Rhys set up Antoinette's oppression was interesting. She shows how patriarchary leads women to madness, like the woman in "The Yellow Wallpaper."

Yet I'm a bit confused about the husband. He cheated because....he could? But then his character turns completely around and he becomes possessive and obsessive. But I wonder if he cheated because of Sandi, and who the heck is Sandi and when did he enter the story again? I think we were told about him, but we didn't witness a scene with him in it. Nope, I don't get it.

I don't want a "man" anymore. This makes me want to stay away from relationships. I'm not here to feed a man's ego.

In general, he does have one or two tidbits of good things, such as having standards and sticking up for them, asking for what you want, and giving compliments. Otherwise, it's pretty sexist.

And if this is what it takes to get a man, then count me out. I can remain single and feel more fulfilled and happy.

"What did you think?" asked Goodreads. I answered, "I don't know."

The depictions of Cuban culture keeps me enthralled. That is definitely the most intriguing part of the book for me. I have no idea if it's accurate, but it does paint Cuba as lively and vibrant and also sad. On the other hand, the plot of the story makes me want to turn my kindle to the side and also slowly turn my head. Maybe a different angle will give me a better perspective.

I think it's one of the better mystery books I've read, but at the same time it was a little strange. Perhaps I am just unacquainted with this genre. I also feel like I missed a lot of the character's development because the author made references to previous events, which I assume happened in previous books. I think that if I had read the previous books and actually followed the character on his adventures, I'd be more likely to empathize with him more and like the book more also.

Now I am just going on a rant, but it seems that a lot of female characters in mystery novels with males as main characters are just there for sex appeal. I find Ofelia was sort of depicted in that way, but she was also depicted as a strong badass, for the lack of better words. I definitely found that to be an improvement. She might've gotten locked in a trunk, but she does some sharp shooting after that. The author should be applauded for combining femininity and strength in Ofelia.

I first have to say that this woman is someone I would want at my dinner table. Her work sounds awesome and fantastic, and she does a great service to the state of Louisiana and to the victims and their families. This book makes me want to get a degree in forensic anthropology so I can do this kind of work. It makes me squeal on the inside with delight because it's about solving mysteries...yet I probably shouldn't feel any joy about dealing with dead people.

Now for the bad part:
I did enjoy reading the book, but sometimes things were repeated in multiple chapters or they felt out of place. It's along the lines of "Here I am creating an emotional story--and here's some scientific information that disrupts the building of pathos." Sometimes Manhein does a great job explaining the scientific terms, but at other times, I have no idea what she's talking about. Considering it's a book aimed at a general audience, I think it would have benefited from more layman's terms.

In general, each chapter focuses on a specific case study or set of specific case studies that have similarities. The stories reminded me a lot of Bones the TV series even though the author said that her job wasn't like what people see on TV. I liked the stories, but it would've been nice to have the last few stories fleshed out. When she discusses the serial killer cases, it feels like she rushes through it. Perhaps she did that because serial killers are gruesome and she didn't want to freak out her audience, or perhaps she did it because she didn't have all of the story but only some of it.

This book was particularly cool for me since I went to LSU, and I used to drive by the lakes and Nicholson often. I lived close to those areas. I even worked by the lakes, which, by the way, the sorority houses and the freshmen sorority dorm are right by those lakes. Scary, really. My brain is slightly amazed and yet grossed out that a serial killer was attacking women in my community (but that was before I moved there). Students actually somewhat talk about the serial killer on campus. We just know that there was one and that's why you shouldn't run the lakes at night or so the advice goes. A lot of people say "Oh, the killer was caught. It's safe now, but you should still use the buddy system." Manhein names the women that the serial killers attacked, so it feels more personal than the warning people gave us on campus.

The Louisiana aspect of the book was also cool for me. It felt like a piece of home, but I wish she had explained more about the way Louisiana's climate affects body decomposition--though that may be an entirely different book.

I would recommend this book if you like to watch Bones and/or have an interest in Louisiana.

I don't really know much about religion theology and religious identity formation, but this book was very informative. Most of the information was about Christians, especially Protestants. The chapters on Protestants, especially evangelists, focused on Korean religious identity formation. Most of it focuses on the idea that Koreans are minorities, and so they form their identities in a different way than the dominant group (which I am not convinced that they do form their identities in a different manner from the dominant group. I just think they have different cultural practices, but everyone goes through similar stages. Yes, even people of the dominant culture can be marginalized and realize they don't fit in. White people sometimes don't belong in the "dominant" culture. It's not just minorities who don't belong). There's one chapter on women, one chapter on psychology (which psychologists might take with some truth but it's otherwise outdated), and no chapter on class (because most Koreans are middle and upper class, according to the book). Most of the chapters explore the differences between first generation immigrant Koreans and second generation Korean Americans.

The chapters on Buddhism focused on the history of Buddhism in America rather than the individuals that practice Buddhism. I wanted to know more about Buddhist individuals rather than just a history, but a history was good too.

In both the Protestants' and Buddhists' cases, it was important for Koreans and Korean Americans to have an ethnic church so that they could form social bonds. The book explores this idea a good bit, especially through a male perspective. The authors claim that the male bias is due to Korean cultural ideals that males have power and women are the ones in the backgrounds raising families.

I suppose I am a bit bias since my view is coming from a white Catholic perspective, and I hate the idea of people going on missions to evangelize others; hence, I agreed more with the Korean Student Association's perspective than the Christian ministries' perspectives. I mostly read this book because I wanted to learn more about Korean culture. I think I learned more about the changes that occur when Koreans move to America; Korean culture and American culture come together to form a new culture, something in the middle yet neither Korean nor American. It was interesting to read about how Koreans and Korean Americans adapted to the changes. If you're interested in identity formation, this may be a good book for you.

I think this book deserves 3.5 stars, 4 stars if rounded up. This story has a lot going on. It's a classic story of a man controlling a woman's life and the friendzone.

The narrator tells us a story about a Greek slave, Theophe, who he rescued from a harem. He finds the slave's charms as well as her virtues alluring. As she rejects the love of other suitors, the narrator thinks he has a chance with Theophe. However, she rejects the narrator too. Theophe claims that she just wants to live a quiet life, but the narrator denies her this desire.

Feminists would have a field day with this novel. I think psychologists would too. The story basically shows how easy it is to misinterpret someone's actions and words. It also shows that someone can manipulate you by telling you what you want to hear. The reader must decide if Theophe was just playing hard to get or if she was sincerely living up to the values that she was taught. I honestly think Theophe just doesn't like the narrator in a romantic way, and the narrator indulges himself too much in a one-sided love. However, Theophe's actions can be interpreted in multiple ways. She's not that innocent, but she's not as guilty as the narrator thinks.

The Greek Girl's Story makes me think about the times I had a one-sided love for a person and thought the person had wronged me. In reality, they weren't wrong. They just had other plans for themselves.

I feel sorry for Theophe. Men pursue her relentlessly because of her beauty. It's as if her beauty is a curse because it prevents her from living the life she wants.

This story was a fun read. Sometimes it's hard to follow what's going on in the story since the antecedents for the pronouns aren't easily found. Sometimes the wording of the story can be hard to follow. However, that style is typical of older books. The translation of the book is new, but it reads like an older story. Despite the age of the story, I think it's still relevant to women's problems concerning love, beauty, and relationships with men. Some men think just because a woman is attractive, the woman should give them attention, as if the men's desires matter more than a woman's opinion. It's unfortunate that some men still think that way, but I think there are fewer men like that nowadays.

I'm just gonna sit here and cry because it was sad yet beautiful.

Perhaps I didn't read closely enough, but it took me a few chapters to realize that the gods Alcestis spoke of were actually real and not metaphorical. A lot of things described in the book were hard for me to imagine for some reason. Not a lot of action happens, but Alcestis thinks a lot about the things going on around her and has a strange obsession with her sister.

I didn't know the myth of Alcestis, so about 2/3s through the book, I thought Whoa, this can't be right. When I looked up the myth, I noticed that the author did take some liberties with Alcestis's myth, especially the underworld part. And it was at the underworld part that my brain reacted with "WTF just happened. Nope. NOPE. NOPE. NOPE. NOPE. NOPE. NOPE."

This is the type of book that you read to people and then discuss with them afterwards. You make it very clear that Persephone behavior is unacceptable. She is an abuser and should be left and/or sent to therapy. I don't care if she is a goddess. I don't care if she is a woman. Persephone's behavior is unacceptable.

Some people may think, "Oh, it's so sweet that she wanted to show her love before Alcestis turned into a shade. Oh, it's so touching Persephone will always remember even though Alcestis forgets." Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Can we go back to the part where Persephone pretty much rapes her and abuses her power to take advantage of Alcestis and keeps secrets from her? 'Cause I really just can't deal with that part. That's the absolute reason why I rated this book as a one-star book. There is nothing romantic about someone who violates your will. There is nothing loving about someone holding her power over your head. This is just not ok.

Alcestis even claims that she could've refused Persephone. Yeah, but I don't think Persephone would've stopped if Alcestis refused. I think the fact that Persephone pins down Alcestis arms shows that Persephone didn't plan to stop.

The fact that Alcestis calls this "love" is what makes me really angry. When someone nearly rapes you, that's not love. That's oppression and a violation of your self. I don't care if it's man-man, man-female, or female-female, rape is rape, and it's not ok. It's really unfortunate that Alcestis couldn't find someone better than Persephone. Whether they're dating men or other women, women need healthier relationships than those displayed in this book.