I've just finished 12 Rules, and I have to say (as surprising as it may sound), I found it really interesting.
I especially enjoyed his personal and professional anecdotes, and how he fits them in with the theme of each essay. What his daughter and the family have gone through sounds horrific.
I still don't agree with everything he says, but I'd say I have a better appreciation for where he's coming from now. The book allows him to flesh out some of his ideas that don't come across as easily online, even in the longer interviews and YouTube videos that I've seen.
He certainly references more faiths in 12 Rules, but he acknowledges in the forward that his primary interest is Christianity and the Bible, which is the clear focus of the book. I don't know why he didn't just say that in the interview with Sam Harris, but that's what my original comment was based on.
I found the book a bit preachy, and perhaps this is what puts some people off. Without wanting to sound arrogant, I believe that I do take a lot of self-responsibility; I work hard at both my professional and personal life, I try to help others, and when things go wrong I usually look to myself as the cause before outside influences or other people. I’m also fortunate that I haven’t had to face much adversity in my life. As such, I don’t feel as though a lot of his rules are that relevant to me personally, or I was already following them anyway. Beyond the obvious messages of ‘take responsibility for yourself’, his exploration of the various themes are interesting enough, I just don’t find it as profound as some people clearly do.
In a way, it’s a sad reflection on the world that so many people find his messages so groundbreaking, but I guess he would argue that those people are a product of the society that he’s trying to remedy.
One final thought, and it's purely stylistic, is that his repetitive use of the binary 'good' and 'not good' when describing things became a bit tiring — and that is not a good thing.
