Sign in with Facebook
Bill Kerwin's Reviews > Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief
Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief
by
by
Not an untypical story of a modern cult: a paranoid narcissist with a few interesting ideas starts a religion, abuses his followers, and nearly implodes a couple of times before a sadomasochistic sociopath takes the reins, summoning dark order out of chaos. Narcissist recedes into background, sociopath assumes complete control, narcissist dies, and everything runs more smoothly and more evilly than before. Until all of a sudden it doesn't.
This is a dreary book, for both these two--the narcissist Hubbard and the sociopath Miscavidge--are sad, vicious, and vile. Sure, they are different--Hubbard is more sad and vile, Miscavidge more vicious and vile--but the reader inevitably wearies of this interminable chronicle of domestic abuse, serial adultery, forced abortion, pathological lying, delusions of grandeur (mostly Hubbard), irrational demands, punching and kicking,merciless retribution for renegades and journalists (mostly Miscavidge) and erratic behavior and abitrary punishments, including the imposition of penitential servitude (both of them, all the time).
Not even the Hollywood types seem interesting. Paul Haggis--one of the book's principal sources and director of "Crash," perhaps the worst of all Oscar-winning "Best Pictures"--is drab and self-serving, Travolta comes off as sweet but scared, and Tom Cruise as arrogant and shallow.
That's about it. I have to admit, though, that if this book were half its length, if it were organized according to theme, I might have given it three stars. But maybe not.
This is a dreary book, for both these two--the narcissist Hubbard and the sociopath Miscavidge--are sad, vicious, and vile. Sure, they are different--Hubbard is more sad and vile, Miscavidge more vicious and vile--but the reader inevitably wearies of this interminable chronicle of domestic abuse, serial adultery, forced abortion, pathological lying, delusions of grandeur (mostly Hubbard), irrational demands, punching and kicking,merciless retribution for renegades and journalists (mostly Miscavidge) and erratic behavior and abitrary punishments, including the imposition of penitential servitude (both of them, all the time).
Not even the Hollywood types seem interesting. Paul Haggis--one of the book's principal sources and director of "Crash," perhaps the worst of all Oscar-winning "Best Pictures"--is drab and self-serving, Travolta comes off as sweet but scared, and Tom Cruise as arrogant and shallow.
That's about it. I have to admit, though, that if this book were half its length, if it were organized according to theme, I might have given it three stars. But maybe not.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Going Clear.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-29 of 29 (29 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Katherine
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Mar 24, 2013 08:04AM
"Dreary" is the perfect word. I've slogged through about a third of this and ended up tabling the rest for later. I just got so tired of having all these dull-but-nasty people in my home and head.
reply
|
flag
"Dull-but-nasty" is right. If I hadn't promised myself that I would finish every book I review, I might have tabled it too.
I have to agree, Bill, that the writing, particularly in relation to time, is disorganised. however, this is very serious stuff! I sincerely hope someone is taking care of it. Vulnerable people need to have someone of ethical character intervene. Even Governments have vested interests in this catastrophe and it is mind boggling where it could lead if it keeps being swept under the carpet.
I don't think it is being swept under the carpet anymore. This book is clear evidence that writers, publishers and media in general have finally decided it is possible to take on this scary, vicious, behemoth of a pseudo-religion.I never meant to minimize the vileness of the cult or the misery it causes.
Thanks for the reply, Bill. I so hope you are right. I know someone who is into this farce and I am afraid for them. I am not against religion, just organised religion which always has suspicious "leaders". My feeling is that "belief" whether spiritual or "when you are dead you are dead" is a very personal thing and needs no intervention by manipulators like that poor sod LHR & his successors who need "power" to believe in themselves. So sad.
The French have it right - cults like this should be prosecuted and broken up just like criminal gangs.
Rob wrote: "The French have it right - cults like this should be prosecuted and broken up just like criminal gangs."You are so right! This is nothing but a criminal syndicate using taxpayers' money into the bargain. How could the Government grive them taxfree status. It is all quite unbelievable what they have gotten away with. Also, that money contributed to them by celebrities could be doing some real good in a world. What a waste! And to think they are purporters of freedom. What a disgusting joke.
Thanks for this review, Bill. I wish a wider circle of people than just your Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ friends and those who are going to read the book anyway would listen to your perfectly selected words. I have relatives who were victims of a similar cult, and the results were devastating for them and the rest of our family.
Well I enjoyed your review so much I feel no need to read the book. Thank you. Glad if they are exposed though.
If you are interested in the topic, I wouldn't let this review dissuade you. This is a nonfiction book, so I don't see how you can criticize it because you don't like many of the people in it. When you're dealing with a movement like Scientology, you are going to be reading about some unsavory characters. I agree it's a bit meandering and long winded in places, but it's still interesting and certainly worthy of more than two stars.
I criticized the book, not because I didn't like the people (I've read books about Hitler, Heydrich, Starkweather, and Idi Amin that I thoroughly enjoyed, and I'm not big fans of them either)' but because the author failed to present his material in a manner that interested me. Two stars mean "it's okay," and--given the fact that a partial star rating is impossible--I stick by it. I will not unreservedly label this book as "good".
Fair enough. Interesting, I just noticed that here 2 stars means "ok" but on Netflix, which also uses a 5 star system it means "didn't like it." I'm not finished with the book but I can understand some of your points.
I loved your review Bill.I was sad to see your statement:
"This is a dreary book, for both these two--the narcissist Hubbard and the sociopath Miscavidge--are sad, vicious, and vile."
Simply because I have this book and plan to read it soon. I wonder how I will like it?
This is a book I looked forward to reading but felt in the end that the writing was not strong and the individual chapters felt like journalism intended as feature pieces rather than being part of a compelling narrative. Still, I think its great value is that the need to believe on the part of many is so strong that even the incredibly cynical and crazy founder's saying that making a religion was the way to make money, didn't deter them from belief in a big fiction that Marvel might have sold to kids but rational adults would laugh at. Oh, maybe that's the missing human ingredient, rationality.
I did finish this, including the notes and acknowledgements. The New Yorker is to be applauded for hanging tough in all of this.
I called this cult porn, at one point. I think that is right. "How do the do that, those pliable porn stars; why do the do that, those pliable executives kept in a cave in the west." Hard to put down!
Great review. I just picked this up at the library, but I may pass. I'm still getting over The Master. Years ago I read a great (and much shorter) piece in Time. Here's a link:
My wife read this and told me there was nothing much of interest added beyond what had already been more competently and more thoroughly addressed by Barefaced Messiah. Glad to have the validation, so I know not to bother.
I must say, your review hits the nail on the head. I felt the same way about the book. It details a seemingly unending list of abuse and I often felt lost. It could've been much shorter and still effective.
I tried to read this. Didn't finish bec it started to get very, very repetitive.
Do you find the writing - or the contents - dreary?Igor
Igor wrote: "Do you find the writing - or the contents - dreary?Igor"
Good question. A little of both, I think, but maybe the organization is really the problem. The content become even drearier because of it.
To me, that was a book in need of an editor. The companion documentary felt the same way to me. "Inside Scientology" by Janet Reitman was a much superior read in my experience.
The documentary of this creeped me out a bit. As for the book, I still have to see.
Very interesting review. I wondered about the influence of Tom Cruise. I must read some more books about the cults. I haven't in a few years. Also, I wonder if perhaps an 'open cult' where cult like thinking by people living out in the community is a modern development and is taking over from the old type? This interesting suggestion was made on the blog 'Spirituality is No Excuse'. If so, it is a highly sinister development, and can, I think, fairly be applied to the thinking of the late Louise Hay's followers, who will not engage in any rational discusson of her views, but insist that all criticism is motivated by 'negative thinking' and personality defects. This is surely cult like thinking?
No, you’re wrong. The book was good. Stop being a complainer
Weird. I found it strangely riveting.
Well put...I'm into Chapter 3 and hating evert word. Thought it would be interesting...it's not.
Thank you! Every word.
Completely agree with your review! I had to force myself to finish it. I probably should have tossed it after the first 20 pages.
