A Contrarian View on "Think and Grow Rich"

[Robert Blake]

There's a lot of hype on this book, but having so far read through to Chapter 4 I'm just not getting it. To start, I appreciate that there are in principle 13 fairly simple ideas in the book, some of which are important, useful, and some are neither of those things, or more likely opposite. Having read a summary, and THEN started the book, it seems like Hill inflated a bunch of obvious ideas and characteristics and coated them in a syrup of mystical thinking and excessive, sugary words. It gets a lot of good mentions here on BP, but ironically to me it seems like 1930s self-help guru BS that's primarily fluff. I think a lot of the claims are also probably simply untrue.

Beginning reading, I see that he refers to a secret, but never says what it is...though yes, he does parcel out useful stuff in dribs and drabs. This is a hook. My BS meter was alarming mere paragraphs in. Is he a guru-type promoter, or did they just pay close attention to his methods?

He promotes lying to yourself and others for at least good reason. He lied to his son because he wanted him to be able to hear and claimed this gave his son special advantages. He says that his son acquired his useful hearing aid (after another didn't work...and he claims the doctor says he hasn't the physical equipment to hear anything at all in the first place) by some magical manifestation of his son's DESIRE to do so, and not any mention at all that maybe others were familiar with his problem and a network of connections makes solutions much more available.

He either makes up other stories or passes them along uncritically. 1937 was a different time so I'm not going to hit him with the racist card, but the "Chinaman" story? For those who don't know, supposedly a high level university or college administrator asks a Chinese student what he's noticed most about Americans since he's been there. The claim is made that the response was that Americans' eyes are slanted the wrong way. That sounds like the kind of thing said when you're having a character respond how you want to stereotypically imagine them. I imagine the story being retold with bucked teeth, squinty eyes and goofy accent.

The mumbo jumbo pseudoscience BS makes the book hard to read. The CAPITALIZATION of words designed to SEEM important DIDN'T HELP, either. So much is EXPLAINED by VAGUE, ANECDOTAL stories that it's just NOT BELIEVABLE.

I appreciate the value of perseverance, motivation and enthusiasm, but I'm finding that it seems like there's only a few nuggets in a sea of pap. It seems like the 5 pages of actual value in the book (I'm extrapolating) would be a much better read and more useful, but I don't suppose Hill could have teased out so many sales from something so basic.

Am I wrong? Does it get better further in, or more of the same? I was kind of surprised, as it gets generally positive mention here on BP but gurus in general are so looked down upon for doing really the exact same thing.