How to Be a Well Being

How to Be a Well Being - review

My natural inclination on encountering a self-help book is to cringe - but I have to admit I rather enjoyed How to Be a Well Being by Andy Cope, Jim Pouliopoulos and Sanjeev Sandhu. It's amiable, quirky and doesn't take itself too seriously (a common fault of many such books).

Inside we find 22 (a strange number) lessons or rules for life, each getting a short section that gives us some detail, some thoughts on addressing the lesson and often a story of personal experience from one of the authors. Although the authors touch on spirituality occasionally, there is no resorting to woo, mindfulness and other such stuff (despite the dubious term 'wellbeing') but, rather, sensible observations on life.

One way to look at these 22 sections is a series of short sermons for those who don't go to church - little contemplations on something important to our lives. It's interesting how many of the rules are obvious. We all really know them. So we get, for example, things like 'seize the day' (without using those exact words), 'life isn't fair', the benefits of saying 'thank you' and the importance of getting enough sleep and eating well most of the time. Another way of looking at these rules is as the set from which most people choose their New Year resolutions (if they have them). Unfortunately, of course, most who do make New Year resolutions break them pretty quickly, which I suppose is why there needs to be more than one self-help book in the world.

Overall, then, it may be obvious stuff - but it's obvious stuff most of ignore much of the time. And it can't be a bad thing to get occasional reminders of the little things which can genuinely make our life better.

On the downside, I found the authors' relentless jokiness rather wearing. The book has the same tone as something like Horrible Histories, which works well for children, but can feel a bit heavy going for an adult reader. Also, while I'm happy to give the book 3 out of 5 stars, which is probably the most I would ever give a self-help book, I very nearly reduced that to two stars for one reason. One of the authors, Andy Cope, has a PhD. Where the other authors refer to themselves as Sanj and Pouli, Cope calls himself 'Dr Andy'. I'm sorry, that just feels uncomfortable to read - it's hard to trust someone who calls himself Dr Andy.

One other disappointment. The book opens by tell us this is a book for NOW (sic) because the world has changed due to the pandemic. I had hoped that meant the rules would give specific reflection on the impact of coronavirus on our lives and how to deal with it. In practice this seems to have been bolted on at the last minute as the pandemic isn't mentioned again.

Do you need this book? Quite possibly, because we are so bad at picking up on these simple but really helpful points in our life. Will it change the way you live your life? Experience suggests, no. But it's worth having a go.

How to Be a Well Being is available on Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog