Fai clic su di un'immagine per andare a Google Ricerca Libri.
Sto caricando le informazioni... Party of One (originale 2003; edizione 2003)di Anneli Rufus (Autore)
Informazioni sull'operaParty of One: The Loner's Manifesto di Anneli Rufus (2003)
Nessuno Sto caricando le informazioni...
Iscriviti per consentire a LibraryThing di scoprire se ti piacerà questo libro. Attualmente non vi sono conversazioni su questo libro. YES. Rufus hits the nail on the head about being a loner: we don’t hate people – we just want to be alone. We have friends. We are not “hiding” in our homes. We are not stuck up, we are not perverts, we are not socially inept. A point she brilliantly hammered home was the the headline “loners” who kill are never loners in the real sense – they are alone, not loners. They don’t want to be alone, but rather have alienated anyone who might have wanted to be around them. The Free Dictionary defines "manifesto" as "A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions...." As a loner and a lover of solitude, I was excited to read this book because I was looking for just that to validate and enhance my lifestyle. I looked for the manifesto, but I didn't find it. What I read were angry recollections by the author and about others and shrill fist-shaking at the "mob" who enjoy being together in groups of 2+. The book's definition of "loner" fits me, and I have known this for most of my life. I choose when to be with people, and it is a special event because usually, I choose to be alone. I work with the public, and so get plenty of face-to-face human interaction, overly so most days when I am relieved to get onto my own patch of desert and loving animal friends and lock the gate against the world. However, I believe in live and let live, which this book appears to not do; there is much condescension against those who want to be en masse. Loners are not superior to those who seek out company. I believe that loners benefit from the community while enjoying the luxury of being alone - particularly in modern times - because the community provides much of the services that loners use (utilities, transportation and roads, food and food services, physical protection of life and property, medical care, etc). I appreciate the community from afar, and value my solitary life made possible by many I'll never (thankfully) meet. This book is not this loner's "manifesto." This book is an absolute godsend for anyone introverted, lonerish, or individualistic who after being constantly subjected to the "Extrovert Ideal" (as Susan Cain calls it) finally - even if only slightly - caves into the notion that there is something wrong with them. Let's face it, after being told "don't be shy", "you're so quiet", "why don't you talk to anyone", "I am worried about you", etc. an uncountable number of times, you begin to question your own sanity a little bit. This kind of badgering is the pressure of the extrovert ideal, which pushes the notion that being social equates to correct behavior, that things are only fun in the presence of others, that being alone and/or turning down invitations to gatherings means you are missing out on something. While these assertions may be true for nonloners and extroverts, they are false for loners and introverts. Admittedly, Susan Cain's Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking is a more diplomatic treatment of this topic, and I would definitely recommend it over "Party of One" to any extroverts/nonloners who are interested in the subject matter. On the other hand, I would recommend both books to introverts/loners, as Party of One will help you to shrug off the constant barrage of anti-loner sentiment (as well as affirm the fact that you are not crazy if you are having doubts), while Quiet will give you a well-researched overview of both of these seemingly diametric personality types. nessuna recensione | aggiungi una recensione
An essential defense of the people the world loves to revile--the loners--yet without whom it would be lost The Buddha. Rene Descartes. Emily Dickinson. Greta Garbo. Bobby Fischer. J. D. Salinger: Loners, all--along with as many as 25 percent of the world's population. Loners keep to themselves, and like it that way. Yet in the press, in films, in folklore, and nearly everywhere one looks, loners are tagged as losers and psychopaths, perverts and pity cases, ogres and mad bombers, elitists and wicked witches. Too often, loners buy into those messages and strive to change, making themselves miserable in the process by hiding their true nature--and hiding from it. Loners as a group deserve to be reassessed--to claim their rightful place, rather than be perceived as damaged goods that need to be "fixed." In Party of One Anneli Rufus--a prize-winning, critically acclaimed writer with talent to burn--has crafted a morally urgent, historically compelling tour de force--a long-overdue argument in defense of the loner, then and now. Marshalling a polymath's easy erudition to make her case, assembling evidence from every conceivable arena of culture as well as interviews with experts and loners worldwide and her own acutely calibrated analysis, Rufus rebuts the prevailing notion that aloneness is indistinguishable from loneliness, the fallacy that all of those who are alone don't want to be, and wouldn't be, if only they knew how. Non sono state trovate descrizioni di biblioteche |
Discussioni correntiNessunoCopertine popolari
Google Books — Sto caricando le informazioni... GeneriSistema Decimale Melvil (DDC)155.232Philosophy and Psychology Psychology Developmental And Differential Psychology Individual Psychology Traits Particular TraitsClassificazione LCVotoMedia:
Sei tu?Diventa un autore di LibraryThing. |
(1) That a loner is a person who prefers to be alone. This is not the same as a person who is forced by circumstances to be alone, such as someone who is excluded from the society they seek or who is afraid of rejection. It is similar to but not the same as an introvert. Whether or not her definition of a loner is definitive, is not clear when you look at the definitions offered on the internet. But I'm not a psychologist, so who knows. Maybe she's right. In any case, she argues long and hard over the difference between a loner and a nonloner forced to be alone
(2) That there is nothing wrong with preferring to be alone. Loners are not ill, are not freaks, and are no more likely to be violent or dangerous than anyone else. Nevertheless, the media always jumps on the loner aspect of a criminal suspect, even when it isn't true. Whereas it was once cool to be a loner (as in the romantic image of the cowboy roaming the range, or the suave Sam Spade type), it is now considered an abomination.
These two points could make for an interesting magazine article. But Rufus has managed to expand it into a highly repetitive 270-page book. In my opinion, this is 260 pages too many. For a much better discussion of, not loners, but introverts, I highly recommend Quiet by Susan Cain. There you'll find a much clearer explanation of how and why some people do not thrive on social interactions, need quiet and time alone, cringe at joining in, cannot engage in small talk, and enjoy their own company.
On the other hand, I liked the cover. ( )