While engaging in her customary sport of poking fun at Dubya and gang in her February 17 Op-Ed piece, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd managed to get in some well-aimed digs at The Secret. Although the thought of the nominal leader of the free world actually embracing The Secret is somewhat frightening, I found the piece hilarious, and my thanks to Chris Locke at Mystic Bourgeoisie for first bringing it to my attention.Though it could be argued that The Secret was just collateral damage for Ms. Dowd, LA Times editorial writer Karin Klein went straight for the jugular.
I imagine Law of Attraction fans are going to be very busy now, since they’re going to have to fight on so many fronts, pop-psychoanalyzing everyone who expresses the opinion that The Secret is a glorified infomercial for the conspicuously enlightened and the hopelessly gullible. It’s clearer now than ever that disdain for The Secret is no longer restricted to the blogosphere (by the way, see Steve Salerno's SHAMblog post today); it has broken out all over. Of course, fans of Rhonda Byrne’s most successful commercial and companion book now have Oprah on their side, but, appearances to the contrary, not quite everyone accepts everything Oprah says as the unconditional truth.
The Secretrons do have another option besides their psychobabble interventions: they can always try simply ignoring the growing number of vocal non-Secret fans, hoping we’ll just go away. For many of them, though, it is altogether too tempting to jump in and declare us all to be weak, jealous, negative, rude, bitchy, ignorant, hate-mongering, and worse.
They can ignore us, abhor us, or try to floor us with their LOA logic or their declarations of our abject ignorance. But as long as The Secret franchise continues to spew out its preposterous product, we are not going away.
6 comments:
I think David Portney has a good take on the Secret and the LoA in general.
In short, it's only half the equation. When viewed in those terms it makes perfect sense why people are swallowing this hook line and sinker. Like every "melt away pounds while you sleep" and "Cliff's Notes" advertisement, people want the most return for the least effort. This is the rule behind gambling, the lottery and most dishonest / questionable behavior.
I do not fault folks for wanting it easy. Once in a while, some knucklehead stumbles across something and then gets fabulously wealthy convincing everyone else that they can have it too.
CD, Mr. Portney has some good points of course, but in all fairness, I need to point out that he's also selling his own stuff. So I'm afraid some of his arguments might be lost on those who focus on the fact that he has an obvious agenda.
In any case, criticisms against "The Secret" are growing, and not surprisingly, defenders are claiming that the critics are misinterpreting the material on the DVD (and in the book), or that they're taking it out of context.
On his blog entry today (Feb. 20), Joe "Mr. Fire" Vitale addresses the criticism of "The Secret," implying that said criticism is a recent phenomenon. He speaks of the critics as if they're just now coming out of "their dark hiding places," when actually, some have been criticizing "The Secret" for months now. (But I guess that'll be our little secret, eh? :-)). To his credit, he does admit that maybe "The Secret" left a few things out, such as the law of Right Action.
Yet Joe himself appeared in "The Secret" saying that using the Law of Attraction is just like flipping through the pages of a catalog and ordering what you want from the Universe. "It's really that easy!"
His main point on today's blog seems to be that it's easier to be a critic than to be a creator. To me that seems to be a clever way to deflect criticism and discourage critical thinking where "The Secret" is concerned.
And actually, it's not all that easy to be a critic when you're swimming against the tide. It would be much easier to subscribe to the magical thinking as presented in "The Secret."
In real life, though, it more often works the way you summarized it in your last sentence, CD: "Once in a while, some knucklehead stumbles across something and then gets fabulously wealthy convincing everyone else that they can have it too."
Portney has a claim, to be sure, but he is a little more up front about his stuff.
Thanks for the nod.
By the way, why are all your images blue?
You have a point, CD -- at least Portney doesn't couch his stuff in a thin cloak of mysticism and altruism as so many of the others do.
Now, if you really want to see a Netrepreneur who pulls no punches, take a look at http://www.therichjerk.com
All of the images look this way because this blog is illuminated by a mysterious blue light. I like it that way. Actually, the blue look just seems to go with the template. It's a cheap trick that I do in a preview program called ThumbsPlus. I click the "swap red and blue" option, and voila! It's night in here. (Well, this is the "dark side," after all. :-))
Sweet! I thought Vishnu was doing your artwork...
"I thought Vishnu was doing your artwork..."
Come to think of it, does anyone know why some of those Hindu deities are blue? Is it some kind of cardiovascular issue or something?
Post a Comment