Reboot Your Career: 27 Ways to Reinvent Yourself in the Workplace... (If You Still Have a Job!) by P

Mr. Fogel, a motivational speaker and former comic (more on that in a minute), creates a pastiche from the considerable literature of self-help, job search, motivation and entrepreneurial advice to argue that advancement is possible, even in this economy, if one acts as though one’s already promoted.

Right off the bat, I hugely dislike the typesetting in this book. The publisher (I suspect the publisher is also the author) uses a relatively small typeface. Then, each sentence is surrounded by a sea of white: double-spaced breaks. The effect is less than attractive, distracting, and difficult to read.

I understand why the author included the disclaimer “If You Still Have A Job”. For one thing, how-to books on getting a job abound. Yet I found parts of this applicable not only to improving one’s work situation, but to a job search and even (gasp) self-employment. 

Some of Mr. Fogel’s tongue in cheek humor is anything but subtle. “Yes! I am giving YOU the authority to to change your situation! And I must be serious, because I just italicized that last sentence.” (p. 37).    Often it reads as though he’s just re-writing his speech notes. I hope the lame humor works better in person than on the page.

Some of his assertions made me wince. “finding a mentor or Mastermind Group is a lot like dating the right girl” (p.89). Really? And in an anecdote where he describes a woman who is changing careers she is “a stunning woman who was a pediatrician” and “a stunning looking pediatrician” (p. 89) within three sentences. [I have erased five different descriptions of my reaction to that overt sexism. Let’s just say – speechless.]

Mr. Fogel occasionally lapses into circular arguments.   My favorite was “One of the main reasons I reinvented myself was because I wanted to be in control of my destiny. To be in control of my destiny, I knew I had to soak in new specialized knowledge that would allow me to leap over my competition in the quest for clients. [white space redacted] It was my desire for specialized knowledge that allowed me to learn an in-demand, financially viable skill!” (p. 154)

Lapses in grammar (“Is your present situation, like that?” p. 162) also call into question Mr. Fogel’s career as a “editorialist, direct mail copywriter, information marketer”.

Most of the heavy-handed advice seems to be common sense to me, but there are pieces worth keeping, though I might start (and finish) elsewhere. And finally - how couldn’t I love a recommended reading list that *begins* with Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams?

Estate Planning Basics by Denis Clifford Attorney (2011)

This book is precisely as advertised – a simple to read, well organized primer on the basic elements of an estate plan.

Each chapter begins with a short overview of the topic to be covered – beneficiaries, children, and wills for example. The language is relatively simple, yet not patronizing.

Within each topic, more concise subheadings introduce a short discussion of that subtopic. None of these are very long, ranging from a single paragraph to a couple of pages. Specialized related topics are discussed in highlighted boxes. Resources for further information – usually Nolo products - are also lined out. 

Nolo’s underlying philosophy is that consumers usually don’t need attorneys. Instead, through fill-in-the-blank forms and checklists (offered, of course, by Nolo online, for a fee), the consumer is told repeatedly that an attorney is unnecessary for “most” estate plan situations. From time to time, the author will opine that a reader with a certain type of problem or needing a specialized kind of legal document needs to see an attorney.

I’m a huge fan of demystifying the law. I believe that legalese isn’t necessary (and that some attorneys use it to appear learned), and that most people can represent themselves or draw up a simple will.  

On the other hand, law is full of pitfalls, even for those of us who passed the bar exam. A consumer who fails to study this very carefully may make a problem, rather than solve one.  A concern for me is that I don’t believe that the information in this book is always sufficient for a consumer to *identify* an issue that could be problematic.

Otherwise, I have only one little quibble with the content. That was the author’s failure to even mention the existence, let along the effect, of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) on the distribution of retirement funds post-divorce.  

 

[Full disclosure: I am an attorney, at least on my better days. One of the things I really liked about this volume was that it covers the same topics as a first-year law student’s probate class, vastly simplified. I’d forgotten how much ground gets covered!]

The Mistress Contract by Anonymous (2011)

The premise is that two consenting adults, thirty years ago, decided to sign a contract –written by “She”, the reader eventually finds - assigning her the role of mistress, obligated to provide sex, and assigning him the role of financial provider. Concomitantly, they begin recording their conversations.
Very little of this slim paperback is salacious. None of it was erotic. Much of it was offensive. Starting with the tagline:
“He is a successful businessman.
She could be any woman.”
But could this be any woman? Personally, I doubt it. Not because I have any trouble with the title contract. Certainly, it’s rarely brought up during this couple’s conversations, and never as an actual vs. philosophical issue. It was written in the context of a long-term, semi-committed relationship. (One that we’d call poly today – “He” apparently had another woman in Seattle with whom “He” also maintains a relationship.)
Some of these conversations were recorded over meals, some in bed, some over the telephone. The personal isn’t particularly political to these two people. Most of what they talk about is the relations between the sexes and while they use their personal lives as examples, it’s in a casual way. What’s grating and offensive is that “He” is patriarchal, overbearing, and unconsciously sexist - while proclaiming his feminism, in which of course he was earlier and better than “She”. I kept waiting for some sign of personal growth, but that wasn’t forthcoming either, possibly because the conversations may not be in any temporal order.
“She” talks about feminism and feminist authors, but not as if they’ve given her any growth or joy. Instead, “She” seems to blame feminist ideas – as does “He” – as the source of some unhappiness or doubt, not empowerment. I say “seem” because it’s just not easy to piece together a narrative of any kind for either of them.
Overall, I’m just not sure of the authors’ purpose in committing this to paper. Titillation? Falls flat. Character study? Too abstract. Snapshot of 80’s sexism, or feminism? Well, perhaps, but difficult to tell because the “conversations” mostly lack dates. Pure narcissism? Closer.
I think this was an interesting idea, but needs far better execution. Dates? Historical (herstorical) background? Conversations cast in the light of current events, thinking? More conversations, more personal background?