Pardon me but you rubbed me totally the wrong way with your glib dismissal of Sarah Hepola's problems. I had some problems with the tone of the book but at no point did I think I was reading some punched up attempt to seek sympathy by a privileged white lady with one fault and everything else falling in her favor. I was touched by her honesty but you apparently want to turn it into a human suffering contest where she loses. That's not how recovery works and that goes back to my comment about how it cuts across all walks of life. When I'm in a meeting I'm not comparing my bullshit to whatever brought someone else there. But you're doing that. Or seem to be based on your reply. This person's road to recovery kinda sucks because it's not tragic enough is what I'm hearing from you when it would be accepted as easily as any other by AA or SMART members
You've read a lot into a very mild criticism, at this point your basically making up what I said and arguing with yourself. I don't think "having trouble empathizing with the author" equates to dismissing her road to recovery or her problems. I think it's perfectly valid to say I have trouble liking someone who doesn't appreciate the good she has (before and after recovery). As far as I'm aware, alcoholics can have character flaws not related to their addiction. For her it's selfishness and a bit of shallowness, for you it might be being a bit presumptuous. I'm happy you got a lot out of the book, but I don't agree that it's sacrosanct or that I'm not allowed honest discussion of it, both pros (which you ignore) and cons. If you can't handle a conversation without talking down to me then we shouldn't be talking.