User Profile

Anathem leads you down a garden path: The first few chapters happen in a compound that seems a lot like a monastery here on Earth, except that it’s sort of like a university too. The avout who live inside its walls study philosophy and theoretics, having contact with the outside world for only ten days each year.

“Avout”? Stephenson invents words that straddle the two perspectives, like “concent” (the compound isn’t quite a convent; it studies thought, so let’s bring in some of the word “concentrate’) and “saunt” (revered thinkers aren’t saints, but savants, which kind of works if you remember how Latin U and V are the same letter). Indeed, the book title itself is one of these, a cross of “anthem” and “anathema”. The words soon become familiar, and depending on the context, and maybe your prior knowledge of classical languages and religious rituals, you can figure many of them out, but if you don’t want to, there is a glossary at the end of the book.

It all feels very comfortable and familiar. And then Erasmus, the relater of the story, is pulled from this safe environment and thrust into the outside world, which resembles a version of our own in a slow decline. The world needs the help of Erasmus and others from the concent, and from other similar communities across the planet. This is a global crisis, and it has something to do with something in the sky.

From here, the story snowballs alarmingly in ways that would spoil the surprise for me to even hint at. Every step is plausible, but the plot grows exponentially and the climax is out of this world.

All through the story, the characters engage in Dialog, extended discussions covering seemingly random topics like philosophy, geometry, nuclear physics, the many-worlds hypothesis, and consciousness. These topics are very much not random, though, and they play a pivotal role in the plot.

Stephenson borrows heavily from the classics, deliberately, with reasons that turn out to be sensible in terms of the plot. It’s clear that he’s having fun breaking the fourth wall. If you’re not trained in philosophy you’ll probably fail to link the historical characters mentioned in Anathem with their equivalents in Earth history—I certainly did—but it doesn’t matter a lot. There’s plenty of references you will still get.

I’ve read a few Neal Stephenson books, including his classics Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon. I feel compelled to point out that Stephenson is normally terrible at writing endings, but with Anathem he lands a satisfying denouement.

I’ve now borrowed dozens of books from the library, but "No Bad Parts" tested my patience. Every physical copy in my library’s network? Checked out. No digital copies available at all. I even borrowed my mother’s Chicago Public Library card—surely a big city system would have it, right? Nope. Every single copy was checked out, with a 40+ person waitlist for physical books and over 100 people waiting for a digital version.

So I caved and bought the Kindle version for $10. Not a terrible price, but it’s been a while since I actually paid for a book. The question is… was it worth it?

"No Bad Parts" is an introduction to Internal Family Systems (IFS), a therapeutic model developed by Richard Schwartz. The book posits that we all have different “Parts” within us: subpersonalities that take on roles to protect or guide us. At our core is the “Self,” which Schwartz describes as the calm, compassionate leader of these Parts. The goal of IFS is to recognize, understand, and work with these Parts, rather than suppress or exile them.

I went into this book with an open mind, but I struggled to fully “get” it. Schwartz describes these Parts as having distinct identities, voices, and even arguing with each other. Imagine the colorful blobs in the movie "Inside Out."

But I don’t experience my inner world in that fragmented way: I don’t have a perfectionist "Part" that I can sit down and reason with. My perfectionism is just… me. It runs in the background of everything I do.

Schwartz also struggles to define what the Self actually is, which is frustrating given that it's supposed to be the core of this whole system. He describes it in vague, almost spiritual terms, which made parts of the book feel more like philosophy than psychology.

Despite my skepticism, I do think "No Bad Parts" offers an interesting perspective on self-reflection. Some readers might find the IFS model deeply helpful, especially if they relate to the idea of having distinct Parts that take on different roles in their life. As for me, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but IFS feels like an awkward framework. I see my various roles (work, home, social) as aspects of myself, not separate entities with their own voices.

Was the book worth $10? Eh, I’ve spent more on worse. If you’re curious about it, try checking it out from the library… if you can get your hands on a copy.