What matters to you most? What are you willing to give up to get what you want? Those are the only two important questions that come from The Circle. I mean, I get the main point the book was trying to make. Everyone gets it. We are obsessed with our societal images and care more about pleasing others than ourselves. So what? If being “fake” and superficial is something that a person enjoys doing, and – more importantly –  wants to do, so be it. I did not enjoy this book that much. That may just be my pickiness with books and inherent cynicism speaking, but nevertheless I will avoid talking about what the book pushed forward. Instead I will offer where this took me and highlight a dialectic that is integral in the crux of Egger’s overarching argument and theme.

I again ask, what matters to you and what are you willing to obtain whatever that is? Remove yourself from the book and everything else and ask yourself that question. Is it money? Is it family? Is it power? Is it pleasure? Is it your religion? Is it your country? Is it a deeper purpose in life? Whatever it is, I am going to make the assumption that it derives some sort of satisfaction to you – internal, immediate, spiritual, whatever. Now should you choose a path in life that provides you that satisfaction through what matters to you, how can anyone claim that to be a necessarily bad thing? To each her own, and I would contend that however you choose to perceive another person’s path hinges upon your own value premise – i.e. your chosen path.

If you are still following with me, good! I am now going to relate this quickly back to The Circle. I would ask you take a couple minutes and try to guess what I am going to say about the book, given my thoughts above.

Ok, here’s my issue with Egger’s argument. Egger assigns his own value premise through the book. There’s nothing wrong with that, he is the author of the book. However, this approach is limiting in that we are seeing his perspective and his perspective only. We are forced to see conformity, obsession, and neurosis in a world similar to ours that threatens the very foundation of our privacy. The problem is, a book could have just as easily been written with a polar opposite lens, with a perspective that highlights the efficiency, positive transparency, and reduction in crime in the same world. But I digress. To stay with Egger’s version of The Circle, the negative “caring too much about what people think” cliche is overemphasized but unjustified. Again, I ask, so what? If someone lives their life with a focus on their reputation and how people perceive them that’s fine. We live in a world full of people, and for some it’s the social environment that matters to them most; it’s their chosen path, let them be.

4/10 would not read again.