This is the first book I have read about Jung, specifically, so my comments are those of a neophyte. Forewarned is forearmed. Anyway, I thought this was a very well thought out, cogent presentation of a rather slippery topic. Storr, in my opinion, does a good job of sifting Jungian wheat from chaff; although he is an admirer of Jung, he can be pretty critical. Overall, I thought Storr did a very good job of presenting Jung's thoughts and contributions to theories of divided self, the positive role of myth, etc. The book does raise many questions which it leaves unanswered, but I suspect that is a function of Jung's eclectic philosophy, not Storr's writing style, which I thought was very clear. Overall, a good presentation, in the opinion of this highly unknowledgeable reader (although there are some pre-feminist comments that had me cringing).

This book is a typical example of what one of its subjects (Gurdjieff) would have described as armchair philosophy, i.e. someone with no practical experience of what they're writing about dreams up an idea in the comfort of their own home, creates an extremely shallow thesis and finds "victims" to fit into it, be they they Jesus Christ, Gurdjieff or Jim Jones.
The chapter on Gurdjieff in particular is utterly awful, using the cheap journalistic trick of taking things so wildly out of context that Storr presents a case for Gurdjieff being almost the opposite of what he was. An in-depth study of the wide range of literature about Gurdjieff would not only counter Storr's rather feeble arguments, but utterly decimate them. Storr simply does not understand Gurdjieff. This is not an opinion based on reading, but on practical experience of Gurdjieff's methods as taught by some of Gurdjieff's former pupils, now extremely elderly and still displaying a perspicacity, intelligence and understanding which, in no small part, has been developed as a result of their contact with Gurdjieff when young.

Anthony Storr examines the lives of an odd assortment of nine "gurus" (with reference to others along the way): Jones, Koresh, Gurdjieff, Rajneesh, Rudolf Steiner, Jung, Freud, Loyola, and Jesus. He argues that gurus tends to share a number of characteristics, he argues: isolation as children, mental distress followed by "revelation," intolerance of criticism, elitism, hatred of rules, love of speaking and travel, charisma, narcisism, and a delusional worldview. Other religious leaders who fit this pattern -- Buddha, Krishnamurti, Mohammed, Hong Xiuquan -- do come to mind. But Storr does not clearly list all these characteristics in one place or clarify which are necessary. This makes his argument fuzzy around the edges.

The most interesting part of the book for me was the account of the lives of individual gurus. Gurdjieff believed the moon controlled human action: he was literally a "lunatic." Jung and Freud didn't entirely fit Storr's profile, but his take on them was fair enough, I think.

Storr's discussion of my guru, Jesus, seemed contrived. He did not seem too familiar with primary sources, but appeared to filter perception through modern skeptics, respected (Sanders) and dubious (A.N. Wilson). (Nothing from good opposing opinions like N.T. Wright.) Neglect of primary documents may be what Storr calls "science" (a word of which he is fond), but is not good historical method. Thus, he quoted a couple Gospel passages (one very misleadingly) to argue that Jesus was hostile to families. But the Gospels show Jesus was obedient to his parents as a child, had frequent contact with mother and siblings during his ministry (even helping Mom at a wedding) and took thought for her during his death. And Jesus' disciples married. Storr ignores all that: he has a theory to prove. It is plausible, (though not, in my view, reasonable) to dismiss the Gospels as unreliable. But to conjecture about Jesus' psychological state based on second-hand "facts" that are explicitly denied by the primary documents -- that's not scholarship, it's witch-doctory.

Storr takes a similarly tunnel-visioned approach to other aspects of the Jesus question. He lamely ascribes the power of the Gospels to their position in the Western tradition. If that were so, why do many non-Westerners seem to agree with Lin Yutang, the Chinese scholar who anthologized Chinese and Indian literature, and concluded at the end of his life that "no one has ever taught as Jesus?" Storr misses what is most obvious about the Gospels, whether because of over-familiarity, or a pandering, patronizing scientism, I'm not sure. Storr is like a 3rd Grade grammar teacher who corrects the errors of his third graders, William Shakespeare, and Dostoevsky, all with the same confident frown on her face.

Belief in a transcendent calling is delusional, hence a sign of psychic disturbance, only if one is wrong. Confucius believed he had a call from God to preserve the best in Chinese culture and teach China kindness, and that God would preserve his life in the meanwhile. Was he wrong? I would be seriously delusional to see myself as the greatest painter who ever lived. Would Rembrandt? Storr claims to be an agnostic, but he dismisses all evidence for the supernatural without even considering it. He assumes, without argument, that anyone who thinks he has a revelation from God must be deluded, and that miracles are impossible. Then he bases a large part of his diagnosis of the most influential man in history on that assumption. It seems to me for a person claiming to be an agnostic such questions should not be considered settled apart from some mention of the evidence.

The book ends on two more odd notes. First, Storr repeats one of his themes: "morally superior individuals influence others by their private behavior rather than haranguing crowds." Yet the book itself is more a harangue than private behavior. That's all right, were Storr being consistent. Good people have in fact often changed the world for the better by preaching. Secondly, Storr reminds us that "the wish to help is not confined to believers." Of course not. But then, bizarrely, he ends by quoting Nietzche, who despised kind deeds, to support his point.

In the end, this is a difficult book to evaluate. Storr is bright, though not as bright as he obviously thinks, often sympathetic, and appears well-read in psychological literature. I found some of his ideas helpful. But somehow it seems rather tinny. Storr's level of insight is not nearly as deep as C.S.Lewis, (Four Loves and Trasposition are especially relevent), Rene Girard, or Lin Yutang. I suspect the Gnostic science vs. pre-science view from which he works is holding him back. He seems to view people from the outside, as a "scientist," rather than from the inside, as a human being.

Other readers may also find Vishal Mangalwadi's The World of the Gurus interesting.

author, Jesus and the Religions of Man

I do not agree with the other reviewer's comments; I think Starr does quite a thorough analysis of the 'gurus', whom he has chosen from a large scope of times and nations. I agree that it is not very scholarly; and furthermore it has a 'conversating' atmosphere to it. But I personally like it that way. It's clear and intelligible. Why make it seem profound, for the sake of looking more important?

The book has eleven chapters. Anthony Starr describes a couple of gurus, whom he identifies as people who declare themselves the experts of life. Gurddjieff, Rajneeh, Rudolf Steiner, and the two leading psychologists Jung and Freud are among these. It becomes interesting when there's seemingly different people.

Starr has a degree in psychiatry, and he's been a professor at Oxford, a distinguished psychiatrist in the English society, as well as honor members of the Royal College of Physicians and Royal College of Psychiatrists. To deny his achievements and knowledge, would simply be not right.

His writing is flowing. The whole book is like a long story, but definitely not a long and boring story. His writing consists of his presentation of the gurus with references from other writers and his personal comments in between, which I find quite logical.

The book changed my view over prophets and beliefs. Now I know the reasons why we have major religions, and why some are the only figures in religion. I now recognise the other gurus.

It was also interesting to know about the secrets of Jung's psychological sickness at his late age, in addition to how Freud was driven to become the Freud we know of him.

This book is worth reading every single page. It's a good analysis, and a good story.