All About Love: New Visions

Overall it was worth reading. Even though the book is 16 years since publishing, it still addresses many issues that our USA culture is dealing with today. However, this book blames greed fanned by capitalism for much of our culture's problems. It's time to go deeper than blaming greed. There are other compulsions, like gluttony, that feed selfishness. But we need to know the personal causes of greed and gluttony. I have found these answers in studying the personality studies of the Enneagram. I wish more USA leaders knew the real causes so they can come up with real solutions addressing the causes, not just the symptoms.

I really really wanted to like bell hooks and this book. As my introduction to both however I’m quite unmoved. She references twice Bill Clinton’s in office debauchery and it’s immense and still present blantat destruction to our society yet mentions nothing of Dr Kings notorious womanizing or that of any other politico or person of perceived power. For such a learned person it is difficult to digest overall. There are many good things in this book and sadly many unsavory things. Should have checked it out from the library.

I was disappointed with this book's excessive religious themes, beginning with hooks' very definition of love, "the will to extend oneself for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth." hooks insists that the concept of a "spirit" can be taken in a non-religious light; she also calls it a "life force". However, this view reveals her either ignorance, or willful inconsideration of other's personal beliefs or religious perspectives on a matter such as the soul/spirit. (For example, agnosticism or Zen Buddhism's concept "anatman".)

There is also a bit on hooks' personal conversations with "angels", biblical references and hooks' direct or indirect references to a deity, which non-Christian readers may find additionally irrelevant or even alienating in this dialogue about love that was supposed to be collective and inclusive. On the same page (234):

"As a nation, we need to gather our collective courage and face that our society's lovelessness is a wound."

"Angels bring us to the knowledge of how we must journey on the path to love..."

This book should be labeled a Christian book and for hooks to insist that certain concepts which are Judeo-Christian in origin actually apply to everyone overall is dishonest.

I highly agree with hooks' assertion that we should view "love" as a verb rather than a noun. I like hooks' style of writing, fluid and often thought-provoking. I enjoy her use of the personal to flesh out a concept or a point of argument. I enjoyed "Wounds of Passion" and to a lesser extent, "Bone Black".

I came to have a different perspective on hooks' after "All About Love". I like hooks' style but I just heavily disagree with the religious perspective she infused into this book. I resent being told "you do not have to be a believer" to believe x or y, because that kind of thinking divides non-Christians into "good non-Christians" who believe in Christian concepts/teachings and "bad non-Christians" who don't. There is a lot of truth here otherwise.

I do heavily appreciate what she wrote about children's rights. I appreciate hooks' stance against using violence as a means of disciplining a child and her outspokenness on her own childhood abuse. Additionally, her words on patriarchy and white supremacy often ring true...I'll still read bell hooks, but this book should have been labeled a Christian book because her concept of love is heavily grounded in Christianity.

I never finished this book, although I intend to. It was just too much. Once again, bell has hit deeply on a personal level. Unfortunately, I took it a little too personally. The first thing I did after finishing a few chapters is told my wife that I finished the book and then gave it to her to read. She never did, and so I got angry.
It's not much of a surprise to me that hooks would write a book such as this. Knowing her and Cornel West as a reader, I expect them to deal with essential questions of love. I'm not sure that I agree with their approach, however. And quite honestly, I much prefer the way such ethical issues are handled by two other great writers, the Dalai Lama and Stephen L. Carter.
Nevertheless, hooks is quite instructive in her own provocative way, and if nothing else, does justice to my own gut revulsion against 'Mars & Venus'. hooks gets a little too referential, quoting this author and giving credit to that article. It spares her from writing a bit more fluidly and expansively, but that's better than footnotes.
I'll keep the book on the shelf and maybe come back around to it after a while, but I won't use it as a primary source, and I certainly won't push it on other folks, especially not the wife.

bell hooks is one of the most gifted intellectuals of our time and this book is one of her best books. Before reading this book, I was only familiar with bell hooks in the context of her role as a social critic and scholar in terms of her writings on issues such as race, gender, and class; but what this book does is allow people to think critically about a subject so thought provoking but commonly explored and discussed within the commercial confines of popular culture. This book allows the reader to transcend thinking of love in terms of romantic love and love for our families, but also envision love as an emotion of compassion and a foundation for ethics and social change in terms of love for self, humanity, and the environment.

Thankfully, bell hooks is always brave enough to tell it like it is. Love is a verb not a feeling. There is an obvious connection between love as experienced within families and abusive romantic relationships. Read and begin to think critically about these core survival issues.
Her observations are wise. Her grasp of history is absolute. Her ideas stimulate intelligent and loving thought, conversation, and action. Read this book.

bell hooks always brings a thought provoking slant to any topic she writes about and this is no different. She brought to light some very poignant points worth exploring in more detail. Most notably in my mind is the way we love. Rather than consciously loving, most people go about it in the same way they have seen others do it repeating old patterns that bring results we hadn't bargained for.

This is a powerful explanation of something so misunderstood and trivialized. Everybody seems to talk about love as if they know what they're talking about without really saying much. Hooks on the other hand has a lot to say. This book is highly inspiring and informative. I will never forget that "Love is as Love does", nor will I be able to babble on about love without being sure it is love I am discussing. Its not about how we feel but what we do and Hooks reminds us that a life filled with love is worth the struggle despite so much lovelessness around us.

I LOVE this book...read through it very quickly and look forward to reading it again. It did more for me than any "self-help" book I've picked up because she explores the issues surrounding love and why we are unable to love ourself. And there is no pressure to "practice" certain healing methods. The book is thought provoking and inspirational. I've struggled with the issue of lovelessness all my life and was on the verge of destroying a very wonderful relationship because of my inability to love myself first. I am better able now to understand where those feelings are coming from and how to deal with them and let them go. This book has helped to liberate me. And now I can learn to love myself and my partner on a much deeper level. Upon finishing the book, I woke up the next morning feeling refreshed and renewed with a new way of looking at love and how we love. From time to time, we do find ourselves discouraged and question whether we will find love in our lives without realizing that love exists in all of us and around us. Bell Hooks is a great writer; I admire her ability to express her thoughts on the issue of love and to be able to share it with the rest of world. She speaks to you in this book. Thank you, Bell Hooks!

bell hooks has written an intelligent and heartfelt treatise on love. The ideas are Brilliant, Creative and New. The book is well written and truly a pleasure to read. Not a "self-help" book, it approaches the subject of love from a scholarly perspective, without losing the emotion needed to delve into the subject thoroughly. If you are in love, or want to be, or hate the very thought of loving anyone, then this book is for you.

Oh my gosh! This book is horrible! It seriously make you think all your relationships are unhealthy and that you don't respect yourself because they're unhealthy and people need to treat you better and you need to treat other people different.

It's horrible. It's idealistic, unfounded and ungrounded. This lady is delusional and will make you think you have problems, when in reality, the relationships you have are probably better than you think.

This book describes different types of love and touches on love's relationship to social justice and feminism. It helped me affirm my conviction that the many forms of love need to be examined more closely and taken more seriously in scholarship and in life itself. Truly eye opening.

In writing this book, the author seems to be airing her ownpersonal difficulties with interpersonal relationships andself-acceptance. Rather than acknowledging that this is her *very personal* take on love and relationships, she becomes a self-appointed expert on love... With amazing self-righteousness, she decides what should be everyone's definition of love, dictates universal goals for interpersonal relationships, and pontificates on how everyone should act, regardless of personal, cultural, or historical backgrounds! The book is covered with a thin coat of psudoacademic style (citing other very good authors, which is the book's saving grace), while the author parades her own personal pain, biases and political agenda. Hooks twists her own definitions and makes exceptions to her own moral dictums in order to fit her political points, ending up with political correctness at its worse, and looking like a caricature of the stereotypical Black feminist leftist man-hating academician... Better to stick to the authors whose works she cites!

WOW I just finished all about love. What an inspiring book. We are are yearning to be loved and to give love. I'm ordering 10 more copies for friends. What better way to say I love you than with this book. A must read.

I wanted to read this book because I noticed some quotes
from people I love, such as Teresa of Avila. I skimmed
before purchasing and should have skimmed closer. Although,
bell hooks has some very beautiful and some true thoughts
on love, it seems that true love is not still a part of
what she is trying to teach us. One example being is I
still see alot of selfishness mentioned when it comes to
bearing children. In the sense that if one does become
pregnant (even though the father will not or is not involved,
that we should not desire to give the child life and do our
best. If one become pregnant for whatever reason and then
decides not to give life, then love is rejected at the
tiniest moment when the child needs love the most from
whomever has the child with them. This is the greatest love
of all. If I were to read a book that would help me to love
more and find new ways to love better, this particular book
would not give complete truth to me. Although she has some
beautiful thoughts, it still seems we are trying to find
love without carrying out responsibilities. I am quite
sure there are many good things within this book, so I
wish to state that as well.

In a few places Bell Hooks offers mostly good advice to her readers and at a few moments she talks about experiences in her personal life. I felt this would have been better if it were a very personal book instead of one attempting a grand overview of the subject, love, or if written as a letter of advice to a friend. My review is going to be mostly about the content.

Her main influence seems to be the work 'The Art of Loving' by psychologist Erich Fromm. I haven't read The Art of Loving. All About Love reminds me of a work titled, 'The Art of Abundance' that I do give 5 stars. There's a rich texture or a slow, careful, pace in the writing. I read All About Love very slowly and carefully. Perhaps I was spellbound by it's similarity to this other work, perhaps there's a 'technique' of some kind being used by the author, or this is the essence of love on the written page.

Hooks claims God is love and also that there's an all encompassing, universal love, completely independent of race or creed. Hooks does her best to sell or describe this notion of love. There are professional racists out there (I'm not referring to Hooks, actually). Professional racists say we should love all Gods creatures, but we should love those who look more like us, most. Racism and racial activism are natural, they say. An extension of the 'You have to love yourself or do for yourself before you can love others', argument, perhaps. You should love your own children more than those of others. I'm not sold on the racist version of love. In my opinion, professional racists, those being paid to hate on a smaller, more hidden stage, are also in play for team-diversity. They're simply guarding the back door. All the exists must be covered. Escape from the death camps will not be an option.

I thought about Hooks ideas for awhile. I had to think of my own ideas about love, perhaps. Had to go old school. In that school the argument is that love is fear of God, or fear of a higher power. At least there can be no morality without fear of a higher power. Hooks has a more benevolent view of human nature. Perhaps if all of our needs are met, we can be simple and loving creatures, and we won't need the protection of a higher authority. Hook's is arguing that our needs can be met without so much selfishness and competition. This may be where Hook's stands on the strongest ground (although I do wonder if this work goes too far into a kind of victimology) and where her ideas on things like work-sharing hold greater interest. Unfortunately, in a world run by moral relativism it becomes irrelevant if her ideas are right or not.

Bell Hook's often is wrong. When she criticizes the mass media (which was Ok by me) her diagnosis was so far off it was simply amusing. To me anyway. She must use the word 'patriarchy' literally well over 100 times in All About Love. It's spoken as if this is all she has to say, 'patriarchy', as if this says it all. Perhaps we should, however, examine this evil more closely? Patriarchy is when fathers have an undue influence in the home. The specific literal definition being when inheritance is passed down from father to eldest son. This isn't the way things work in this Century. This isn't even how things have worked during this millennium. Men's rights activists claim family inheritance and finances are likely to be controlled by women, because women live on average 10 years longer than men (and have likely married someone older than them in the first place. These activists also claim women gain custody of children in about 93% of cases. Women own children, more or less. This is closer to matriarchy than patriarchy.

Men are, on average, stronger than women. Perhaps this is the root cause of evil (and black women really are oppressed) but every woman in the nation could choose a man as a partner who is weaker and smaller than her. The number of children born outside of marriage in this fight-against-patriarch might even go down. The number of marriages might even go up. As a man who is not that strong, ladies, feel free to begin this struggle now.

Hooks claims America is very conservative. In college we had to read an essay by Hooks, about these Women's Studies courses, entitled "The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Masters House" - perhaps the master himself, then you can live in his house. Another essay we were assigned to written by Hooks was something like, 'There is a Hierarchy of Oppression'. It was about how some groups are oppressed more than others. These are important ideas but could some perspectives be missing? A reviewer on my friends page claims the America public has been subjected to a kind of 'self-inflicted lobotomy'. Personally, I notice, in a nation obsessed with race and sex, 80% of the suicides in this country are white men, and we've had over 700,000 Americas die of the disease AIDS and yet we've never, ever, learned the race of those who've died. For every other malady this information would seemingly be the most important information we would need to know, and it is for AIDS too, only 'projected infection rates' and then 'new infection rates' has been the constant focal point of the discussion. The media in some Southern states are listing current death rates by race. It's impossible to find this information for other states, on the national level, or a total. In the states that are releasing this information 30 years later it's impossible to find this information for any previous year. It's likely the number of white men who have died of AIDS has never been tallied. So, sometimes the racial breakdown is seemingly the most important information we need to know over decades of coverage of the issue; other times we don't need to know, and the information is a secret more closely guarded than the making of weapons of mass destruction. Sometimes we need to know as part of being an informed citizen; other times we don't need to know anything - we may never know. Wanting to know is probably some kind or racism. In another essay we had to read, Hooks says she's very tired of having to reassure her liberal friends that they are hip, and not racist. Burdens are best eased by sharing and this reviewer is willing to help out. I suppose that's what my not-required-reading review is about, helping ease this unfair burden. A thank you note is all I ask for.

Perhaps Hook's was pushed to the forefront on campus because she was the most radical, authentic, voice. Perhaps Hook's was part of an effort to frighten white students at university with her radical pamphlets. Trying to make us afraid. . . ? If Hooks was helping set the stage for us to be afraid on some kind of unconscious level in her earlier works this one is quite interesting. There's quite, quite a bit of material on how fear keeps us from love. The nerve! I felt this repeat emphasis on fear keeping us from love may have been a kind of reverse psychology. It borders on being a kind of hatred tho (and not the kind I mention earlier in regards to the celebration).

The last chapter of the book is about how love requires us to embrace death. I had a friend when I was in college (and I didn't go along with the Bell Hooks line) suggest I use a pen name on one of my papers, pretending to be a black woman, so I would at least get some sympathy. I'm not sure Hooks is going for sympathy here in parts of the book. There was more to what my friend suggested, about using a pen name, perhaps. I had just finished reading black feminist Michele Wallace's book 'Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman'. Arguably, that was what Wallace had done in her book - present a disgruntled white male viewpoint. Not surprisingly I give that book 5 stars. Author Michele Wallace may appear in this book. In the chapter on forgiveness, Hooks notes a colleague of hers who she respected making a vile attack on her work. At one point Michele Wallace is said to have criticized Hooks. I've never read the essay in question, but why does one have to be forgiven for having a different opinion? Perhaps Hooks views on love don't stray too far from those of the reactionaries after all? Perhaps my comparison is unfair, to reactionaries.

At one point Hooks suggests men stop being so demanding about sex. It struck me the wrong way. There's another author, Esther Vilar, who claims men live in a state of sexual slavery to women. As evidence of that? O magazine reports that only 3% of stay at home spouses are men. Esther Vilar says the only thing men require in exchange for their servitude is 'the periodic use of a woman's vagina'. According to Hooks, tho, even this is too much. The forces of darkness have it all sewn up, I guess. Even direct prostitution, where men, pay women, for an equal or consensual act. . . when the public perception is that even this, exploits, women. Sometimes it's the last bit of food money! I talk about sex, but I kinda wonder if it would be best if partners remain celibate until marriage. At least lots of men used to feel this way. When they used to feel? When they were allowed to have at least some feelings?

A few years ago, I had a friend, a middle aged black woman, who claimed she had recently lost her virginity to a white man. Describing him she said, "Sex was his thing". It was very important to him. I suspect we do buy it all, the deadly demon poison, because on some level we're at least hopeful for sex one day. . .

My review is mostly a negative one, to say the least, but All About Love gets three stars from me because I suspect, despite some wrong turns, Bell Hooks is on to something.

For Hooks, love is defined as an action.

I could definitely see a possible confluence in this area. . . For me, love is sex/the availability of sex (with a preferred sexual partner and the preferred sexual act).

I've been close to other kinds of love before tho. In this case, I felt I loved someone because I needed them, I think. Codependency, maybe. According to Hooks (and quite a few others) we can't experience real love until all our needs are met, and we've become 'self-actualized'. Love is a need, yet we can't be loving unless all our needs are met. An iron paradox? for sure. A paradox that love can surely and easily master and conquer.

Some say love is a flower. . The most interesting definition of love that I've heard, and perhaps the most accurate one, comes from someone I was once in love with. According to my love, "Love and hate are the same thing".

If love and hate are the same thing it's clear Bell Hooks doesn't truly believe her own rhetoric.

Perhaps Hooks should be glad we live in world that's isn't quite the 'patriarchy' she repeatedly says it is. At least she should be glad when she's considering a man. It's the only reason we love you.