When I cracked open my copy of Bronson and Merryman’s NurtureShock I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. Would it be the equivalent of a condescending lecture on how one should be raising their kids or would it instead be a dry collection of statistics and studies that would better serve as a cure for insomnia? Perhaps a combination of the two?

Thankfully NutureShock is none of the above. Instead I was pleasantly surprised to see Bronson and Merryman had in fact compiled a staggering amount of evidence based on the findings of numerous studies that have helped to disprove numerous long-held beliefs and “truths” when it comes to raising children. In some cases, where an answer is not readily available, Bronson and Merryman help to bring to light glaring errors that are having a detrimental affect. A perfect example of this occurs in chapter 5 of the book and is humorlessly entitled “The Search for Intelligent Life in Kindergarten”.

In the hopes of securing a better future for children, parents race to get their children into private schools and advanced programs for the gifted as soon as possible. A primary requirement for placement in such programs is, of course, a test to determine the child’s IQ level. Millions of kids are competing for seats in gifted programs and private schools. Admissions officers say it’s an art: new science says they’re wrong, 73% of the time – the facts are saddening and the lack of “push” to rectify these errors is just plain frightening.

Gifted children will indeed score high on the IQ tests used by programs and institutions, but sadly, the vast majority of the so-called gifted children who also score so well are just fortunate to have come from good backgrounds. By the third grade an alarming number of “gifted” students are struggling in their advanced classes and yet the schools and programs refuse to drop them. How is this happening and why isn’t anything being done to truly rectify it? The answers to these questions are disturbing to say the least.

That is just one of the many interesting topics that Bronson and Merryman hit upon in this book. Other shocking topics that are brought up are the inverse effects of praise; the astounding effects sleep have on a child’s development and even their weight; even when children begin to lie and the why behind it. Then there is the chapter on race, and that if nothing else, is well worth reading. You will be amazed what studies have shown when it comes to just how early on children notice the race of others, even if they do not yet understand the concept behind it, and the effects not addressing it early on can have.

I strongly recommend and encourage any person who has even the slightest day to day contact with children to pick up a copy of this book. It contains a great deal of insight and provides a banquet-worth of food for thought without a hint of condescension or criticism directed to readers. In fact, Bronson and Merryman readily share several trials and misadventures that they themselves endured while attempting to raise their own children utilizing the information that they had gleaned from the various studies and applying it to their own methods. By no means is this book an instruction manual on how to raise your children. Rather, it is more accurate to say that this book provides is a fountain of information that no parent, teacher, and so forth, should be without.

Joana’s Rating: (4 out of 5 stars)

Pst! Click here to find out how you can win a free copy of NurtureShock by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman in either hardback or audiobook!

Special thanks to Ana Balasi of Hachette Book Group for providing a copy for review.

Politics, abortion, homosexuality, and religion – the four main topics that can turn the most pleasant of conversations into a heated debate. It doesn’t matter if the parties involved all share near-identical views of the topic at hand or they each support a different view, the truth is these topics are sensitive and will always stir up a passionate discussion. As a result, it is not exactly uncommon to see people take one of two routes when it comes to presenting their argument. One, provide an overwhelming amount of rambling points that will stir up the audience’s passions in an attempt to force the “truth” down their throats, or two, speak above the audience in a manner that conveys the speaker’s obvious intellectual “superiority” thereby ensuring that those that disagree will not voice their thoughts for fear of sounding just plain stupid.

If you’ve ever sat through a debate, or even just had the basic Introduction to Philosophy course in college, you’ve seen both of these commonly used methodologies used and subsequently found both parties utterly lacking. There is of course another way to present your argument, and that’s the preferred method of presenting clear key points that are supported by factual information and not circular arguments.

McLeod does not waste the reader’s time by filling the pages with dry and verbose swill that serves no point except to give the reader the impression that the author is a little too full of himself. Nor does the author ramble on in an incoherent manner that leaves readers wondering when the author will get to the point. In short, McLeod is concise and to the point in his delivery. The author takes common preconceptions of religions, with an emphasis on Christianity, merrily points out their idiosyncrasies and fallacies, before spelling it all out in a manner that will make any person with a shred of common sense rethink their positions.

That is not to say that Then Man Created God is not without faults. Truth be told, it’s got several. One aspect that truly irked me was the near-complete lack of sources and citations. I am the sort of person who likes to see arguments and points backed up with data. The author, when pointing out hypocrisies or failings of holy texts, is very careful to cite the passages from the bible and that is the extent of his evidence. McLeod brings up numerous theories, mentions studies and findings in passing and yet he provides no sources to help support his otherwise well-thought out arguments for the behavior of man and the need for a God. For example, in the beginning of the book McLeod opens up by pointing out early man’s need for an explanation for why things are and how the thought of a superior being brought comfort to early man.

As a former Anthropology student this makes complete sense to me. I’ve honestly lost track of the texts I’ve read discussing early man’s behaviors, the tools they made, the effigies they worshiped, and so forth. I don’t need to see a source because I don’t need to see the evidence for myself. But what about those who do not have such a background? What about those who have doubts and would like to conduct further research themselves? The difference between science and religion is simple; religion is based on a suspension of logic where as science is built upon hypothesis, experimentation, and building data. As a result, by not providing the very basic of sources, McLeod leaves plenty wiggle room for those looking desperately to poke holes in an otherwise solid argument.

Another aspect that detracts from the value of McLeod’s argument is the unmitigated zeal with which he delivers his argument and attacks religion. It is always a thrill to read the work of a writer who truly believes in his or her subject and who writes with passion. However, a good deal of McLeod’s jabs and humorous comments toe the line between witty repartee and the insult slinging of a schoolyard bully and he never truly reigns himself in. Now, had the author delivered his stance in a more (dare I say it?) mature fashion, then his argument would have carried a great deal more weight. As it is, because author broadly generalizes all religious followers and their religions instead of tackling it by section a great deal of credibility is lost. It becomes very hard to take McLeod seriously when one gets a mental image of the author sticking his tongue out at the religious and calling them names while reading the book.

I have little doubt that a good deal of people will find this book to be highly insulting. This amusing book provides no valuable content for religious proponents looking to build counter-arguments nor does it provide credible material for opponents to back up their stance either. In short, it’s an amusing read to be taken with a grain of salt, and is the equivalent of watching an episode of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. It’s bound to offend half of its audience, amuse the other half, and can never be taken seriously.

Joana’s Review: (2 out of 5 stars)

I was rather fortunate enough to be gifted with a copy of this book, and I am exceptionally grateful for this. Until that very moment I had not even heard about this book let alone contemplated reading it and after having finished reading this book I can honestly say it would have been my loss.

Now, Sundays with Vlad, despite what the cover might make you think, is not a horror book, nor is it a comedic-horror novel. It is however one author’s attempt to walk in the footsteps of billions of Dracula fans the world wide, his attempt to separate fact from fiction, to learn about the historical Vlad Dracul and the Dracula that has become embedded in pop culture of thousands of nations. Now, while this isn’t exactly a completely new and revolutionary project (After all how many other authors have gone off searching not just for Dracula, but for Nessie and Big Foot as well?) Bibeau does approach this from a unique stand point and proceeds to take a look at the culture that has sprung up as a result of Dracula.

I was rather pleased to see that he [Bibeau] attempted to take a look at cultures that people normally avoid, mock and ridicule to the extreme, or just pretend they don’t exist. By this I mean the vampire religion, the clubbing, and even Vampire RPG. I might as well flash my geek-credentials for the world to see when I admit that I got excited and rather pleased to see Bibeau talk about live action role playing and the White Wolf game Vampires. Truth be told, after reading Bibeau’s account of his first live action game I was sorely tempted to dig up my dice and my old Vampire the Masquerade books and characters. Sad no?

As someone who has read numerous accounts on both the fictional and historical Dracula, as well as other sources for the Vampire myth and accounts that “prove” the existence, I expected to find a lot of information regurgitated in the book. In reality, while there were quite a few things I did already know, there were also quite a few kernels of knowledge that were news to me. The Dracula attraction on the board walk, the fact that the coat of arms featured were actually from the British Royal family? News to me! What was truly refreshing however, was the manner in which the information and adventure were conveyed. Bibeau allowed the reader to experiance it from his point of view without allowing his own opinions and views to color the moment and bias the reader.

Don’t assume though that Bibeau took a meek and mild stance when immersing himself in this subculture, far from it in fact. Bibeau’s thoughts, witty humor, and light digs shine through even while he’s stepping back and looking at something objectively for the reader’s benefit. A talent I would expect from a former writer for the Washington Post, Mademoiselle, New York Observer, Cosmopolitan, New York Post, and Maxim. Any writer who can write pieces for that wide range of outlets has an undeniable skill.

For an example of the wit and snark that will have you laughing like an idiot, and subsequently scaring the hell out of anyone around to witness the event, I present to you this passage taken from chapter two, when the author and an acquaintance visit the Rosenbach Museum and Library in Philidelphia. At the end of the tour they and their tour group are at long last able to see what they had come to see, Bram Stoker’s notes for the book Dracula. Unfortunately for Paul Bibeau, he’s mixed up with a interesting crowd:

I scan their faces-earnest, articulate-the type who make C-SPAN lectures last twice as long as they need to. They’re the bane of the NPR call-in show. They don’t ask questions. They give speeches disguised as questions. I scan the crowd, and I realize that everybody, absolutely everybody in this room has a little something to add. And one by one, we will hear them all. The tour group are like Joy Division fans or Star Trek fans or bloggers. They’re smart and educated and they just can’t shut the fuck up. (p59)

Rather ironic that this book is being reviewed on a blog isn’t it? I can’t take offense to the passage because it is so true. I’m certain there will be points where people take offense at some of the things the author says, but over all I found Sundays with Vlad to be a light, enjoyable, and hilarious read. My only real complaint was that the book was a little on the short side. There were some subjects that I felt warranted a little more detail, that instead, got glossed over. That was the only thing that kept this book from getting a 5 star rating.

Joana’s rating: