Luiz Gonzaga

This is a good biography. Neal Gabler had access to Walt Disney Company files and makes this access worth it by delivering a balanced and detailed biography. Walt Disney inspires a lot of praise and criticism, and I think the author was able to paint a real picture of the man, instead of a rosy or detractive one.

The author's central point is that Walt's main motivation when doing animation (and later theme parks) was a desire for control that he could never have achieved in real life, and he develops a narrative that makes this case compelling. It's not easy to propose a single theme as a main motivator for someone's work, but I think the author manages to pull it of. That being said, Neal also argues that this need for control is a reaction to Walt's childhood (mainly to his father), and I wasn't fully convinced of this causality.

Some chapters really shine on this book, and none brighter than the chapter on the making of Snow White. Following Walt and his animators striving for excellence was by far the best part of this book and it should be read by anyone who enjoys movies, not only animation.

Being a theme park fan though, I was disappointed by the chapter on Disneyland. It seemed to me that a lot of attention was given to the financing and general architecture of the park, but few attention was paid to the attractions themselves, a theme that deeply interests me.

The rating also reflects the fact that biographies are not my favorite reading in general. For example, while I'm really interested in Walt's work, his personal relationships or political involvement are way less interesting to me.

Overall, this is definitely recommended for any Disney fan who wants to know more of the company and its creator.

I didn't like this book. Although I believe it has important ideas, they're presented in such shallow arguments that it harmed the message for me.

The book presents the psychology of Alfred Adler in the form of conversations between a philosopher and a young man. This should not be a problem, but the authors fail to craft a credible conversation, instead forcing some topics to direct the conversation to wherever they need to.

My main issue with this book is not this one, but the choice to present complex arguments with no nuance, often with poor analogies or bad extrapolations.

For example, in one chapter the young man challenges the idea of task separation. In very simple terms, this is the idea that you should focus exclusively on your responsibilities and never interfere with other people's tasks.

So the challenge presented comes at a time when the young man has accepted the value of the idea, but considers it unfeasible in real life.

The philosopher then tells the story of Alexander the Great and the Gordian Knot. Although it can present some visual analogy of what task separation is, how is that a valid counterpoint to the challenge presented? Am I to accept that if a conqueror was able to cut a knot, then I can not interfere with my loved ones' responsibilities? What?

It also seemed to me as if the authors were being intentionally controversial at times. Arguing that getting other people's attention is the sole motivation behind a teenager's suicidal attempt seems shallow at best, irresponsible at worst.

All that being said, it's clear to me why this book is so popular. It presents powerful ideas, most of which resonated with me. The book has sparked my interest in Adlerian psychology.

This last point saved the book from only getting one star. I'll put this one as a 2/5. Hope to find better argued content on the same topics.