How to Lose Friends and Alienate People

by Toby Young

Youngs's title implies he is a bit of a failure, but in fact it is his english self deprecating way of telling you that he is actually quite sucessful. After Oxford, Harvard and Cambridge, Young returns to America as Social Affairs editor of Vanity Fair. His comic misadventures - inviting a stripper on bring your daughter to work day for example - are genuinely quite amusing and entertaining.

His description of his fathers work is genuinely touching. Young's father coined the term meritocracy and had a large hand in the post war poliical consensus by among other things drafting the 1945 Labour manifesto, and Young has great admiration for his father.

The God Delusion

by Richard Dawkins

Dawkins can at times be a great writer - his 'Selfish Gene' was a joy to read. The God Delusion is an interesting and thought provoking discussion on god, religion and the effects they have on our politics and culture.

He makes the point that he has been dismissed as a fundamentalist atheist, and replies this is not so, being as he is confident but not entirely sure that there is no god. Dawkins argues that the worst he does is argue using words, wheras religious believers use suicide bombing, rocket launchers and all kind of other methods to kill and maim people who they disagree with.

He rightly points out the huge gap between contemporary morality and the morality in the Bible. How many people today regard it as acceptable for children to be executed if the dishonour their mother or father? Yet this is what it states in the Bible. Many contemprary christians would argue that not all such things apply today or should be interpreted litearlly. So, Dawkins reasons, if we are to ignore sections of the bible, and rely on our own inner morality and common sense, what need do we have for the Bible at all?

My own view is that it is indeed true that Religion generally can be very harmful, and the world would be a better place if there was noone to fight to the death for their religious beliefs. Are not the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland; Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir; Jews and Muslims in the middle east ample enough evidence for situations where religous differences have been a factor in divides that have caused violence? Yet I also feel that evangelising for atheism is not a good idea. I think Dawkins strays clear of this, and I can only commend his book.

Affluenza

by Oliver James

This book diagnoses a new disorder: Affluenza. This, argues the author is a 'virus' infecting the mind, making people want to be richer and more beautiful than they are or can ever possibly be.

Although I agree with some of the points James makes, I felt that on the whole the smug mates tone combined with pseudo science irritated me greatly. His statement that "Russian women are beautiful" is typical of the way he generalises attributes to a whole nation on the basis of the few encounters he has made. He reminds me of 'Dr' Gillian McKeith in this respect, the nutritionist who gained her doctorate from an unaccreditted online university, and makes statements like "chlorophyll oxygenates your blood".

With chapter titles such as "Be Beautiful (Not Attractive)" and "Wakey Wakey!" he echoes the language of piss-poor self help books, and this undermines his arguments. And the following line pretty much sums up everything that grates about his overly matey style: "You may still dismiss me as a high-falutin, patriarchal tosser ... but ignore me at your peril". 'High falutin'? 'Patriarchal tosser'? What sort of language is this? He then tries to ingratiate himself by telling his readers he isnt that highbrow because he watches the Bill. It's this badly thought through intermeshing of popular culture references and pseudo science that are at the root of the flaws of this book. He also recommends if we have any concerns about our emotional well being that we consider going into therapy with a colleague he recommends - a snip at just under £2,000 per treatment.

James does make some valid comments about being overly driven by money, about trying to live up to the dream life shown by pictures in magazines, that only a tiny fraction of the population could possibly attain. He argues correctly, that we should try and value emotional and social interaction, that the pursuit of profit above all else is harmful and that we should try and be happy with what we have.

But it is grating style, his mawkish sentiments and the awful way he expresses himself that failed to endear him to me.

Is That It

Bob Geldof's authobiography is a searingly honest account of his early life, the recklessness and gaucheness of his teenage years and his determination to further himself. He makes much of his the poverty that was so trapping people in Ireland when he was a teenager - poverty of ambition as much as anything else. His first sexual encounter as a schoolboy with a woman from his street, and his first job as a labourer in a slaughter house are described in graphic detail.

But then another side of him emerges as he decides he wants to get on. He travels to Canada, and carves a niche for himself as a music journalist, before coming back to Ireland. He charts the succeses and lows of a pop career with real honesty, and makes clear his own views on how facile pop music is.

The success of Live Aid has made him almost a saintly figure in the media. Critics such as John Pilger rightly point out that money raised in the concert is equivalent to only a days dent repayment by Third World to First world nations. And yet, for a small group of individuals, of which Geldof was a key part, to have achieved all they did was astonishing. It was the first ever live global event on this scale.

This is a gripping account not least because of its ability not to shy away from the rough edges that exist in the world: the blandness of poverty in Ireland, the temporal nature of fame, the daily grind of poverty in Africa.