On audiobooks and Good Anxiety

[anecdata]

Finished reading "Good Anxiety" by Wendy Suzuki today. Do I still consider it a read book if I consume it via audiobooks? I know purists might disagree that it counts. I used to up until recently.

I struggle with immmense bouts of anxiety and depression, so the title was a definite attention grabber. Although I have encountered strategies to make peace with the two, I've never thought of them as super power. Yet, that's exactly what Suzuki insists.

Anxiety as a super-power? Sounds wrong.

The book demonstrates this by way of viarous stories (the author's included). She introduces Activist Mindset, a state of being helps you steer clear from maladaptive responses to anxiety. To control your flight v. fight response and observe the situation instead.

Yet, it seems just like mindfulness with another name. She even touches on the topic of mindfulness, albeit with no clear differences to be discussed.

This isn't a proper review of the book. Well, this isn't a review at all- much less a proper one. But this book definitely strikes me as more of an emotional read - e.g memoir / biographical, than a pop-sci or even self-help book.

Suzuki attemtps to bring her academic sensities writing but misses the mark. It's halfway there with scientific details and halfway there with emotional connections. You feel the emotional impact of Suzuki's sudden loss of a brother, but then it flips into a literary eye of the tiger training montage. She pulls through and delivers the most amazing speech in the memorial. Her words just don't convey the emotional gravity of the situation. And as a result, it feels cliche.

It takes a very human situation, and instrumentalizes it. Disconnected.

I wish I could say that the suggestions on dealing with anxiety were enough to merit a recommendation or reread. But no. Although based on science, it reads soulless because "sources say" and "studies show" don't exactly scream topical expertise. Not to mention, the little bits of science scattered around the book are overwhelmingly stupefied. Like soggy croutons in your salad, and not enough of it.

That being said, her suggestions of exercise, meditation, sleep, and better eating are solid. This book is obviously geared towards folks new to anxiety - esp this kind of situational anxiety. I object to the repackaging of age-old advice in a shiny new package.

That this is yet another book - in a family of many* - that focus on instrumentalizing you is a problem from my point of view. Use your anxiety so you can cram even more productivity in your life. Not really deal with it.

I wonder what others thought about this.

Comments

[catness]

It sounds interesting! I'm totally into cramming more productivity into my life, no matter what drives it, and if anxiety can be indeed a source of super-power, I can be a superhero, as I have an unlimited supply ;)

However, it's a drawback that this book is mostly a memoir. I prefer learning objective advice, rather than mundane facts about the author's life. But such stuff can be easily skipped.

(IMHO, audiobooks are 100% proper books - they count towards my Goodreads challenge, anyway ;) but it's a serious disadvantage that you have to listen to the whole thing in real time, and can't just browse or skip selected chapters.)

Btw is the full title "Good Anxiety: Harnessing the Power of the Most Misunderstood Emotion", or "Good Anxiety, Bad Anxiety: Harness Your Fears and Make Them Work for You"? I looked it up on Goodreads. She has also "Anxiety is Your Superpower". She certainly found how to harness the power of this topic ;)

[anecdata]

The first title you got is the right one, "Good Anxiety: Harnessing the Power of the Most Misunderstood Emotion".

She's definitely milking the topic, and it's a platform to push her work (NYU/ Startup). So it makes sense that she'd do that.

RE: Productivity, I think the part where a lot of books and methodologies fall short is that they have a very limited and effectively capitalist mindset when it comes to its definition. I don't find a lot of these techniques sustainable. Yes you could cram more into your life, but at what cost?

1. Would you be able to engage each thing as deeply? Doing one thing -deep- instead of offering your time to a multitude of middling interests?
2. Who decides what is productive?
3. How much productivity is good enough?

no.2 is particularly devious because it can turn into an eternal game of cat and mouse. Always chasing to be productive (or better at it), and never really completing anything deep/fulfilling. OR it could flip on its toes and dictate everything as a matter of ROI- which could prevent us from doing anything without a tinge of guilt. See lawyers and the trap of the billable hour