This is a profound and scary book, at least for me, because it is convicting of the evil, the manipulation, the narcissism, and the lies that lie within me Read it with a repentant heart and it will transform your life and your relationships.

It's been a while since a book has riled me up as much.

The author attempts to ascertain the differences between a scientific and a religious approach to the investigation of human illnesses. In so doing he makes the claim that science contents itself with "little mysteries" while religion embraces "bigger mysteries" and it is this aspect of religion that he believes lends it more competency in studying and dealing with human evil. I disagree with his evaluation of science, and more so find his statement itself proof that religion is too vague and accepting an approach to truly tackle whatever human evil he purports. It would seem that the author's own opinion of evil is itself muddled and such uncertainty would not be entertained by any scientific approach and hence the imprecise nature of a religious approach is his best resort in exploring his claims.

Despite my qualms with his statements on science and religion I trudged on in the belief that perhaps I could focus on the psychology aspect of the book and skip the religious tidbits. Following an interesting account of a teenage boy on the throes of depression, the author makes noteworthy observations on the psychology of children. He then attempts to prove that the boy's parents are 'evil'. He explains how he was repulsed by the parents and did not offer them psychiatric help. He further attempts to justify his behaviour by claiming that such evil people are truly lost and no help can be useful to them. They are beyond our help and can only be dealt with by evasion. The problem with these statements is that a mere dozen pages ago the author had impressed on the importance of the study of evil being a "healing" one, one that is compassionate and understanding, which is in stark contrast to his actions with the parents. Clearly the author plays hard and fast with his attitudes with evil. This level of hypocrisy cannot possibly be entertained.

Ultimately I find his whole theory of evil a highly subjective one. "Evil" is too archaic a concept to truly serve a meaningful purpose in human psychology, atleast in the manner that the author describes it. The parents of the child can hardly be called evil, I believe, not least because it is a highly reductionist attitude; they are definitely ignorant and foolish, misguided and aloof to their responsibilities, this however does not makes them 'evil'. Furthermore, the authors believes that the repulsion that a non-evil person feels at encountering an evil person is a God given ability to differentiate good from bad. All of these views are highly counterproductive in actually advancing human psychology.

With all the pretentiousness and hypocrisy that pervades the book I left it unfinished. It's unfortunate that the different psychological segments are undermined by religious preaching.

Dated and terrible. Equating mental illness or personality disorders with evil is disheartening. Jibberish about neurosis start with traumatic toilet training. I read three chapters and could not go on. These days, Peck’s style of speaking to his patients would be considered unprofessional.

The case of evil and human evil is a hard one. This book was filled with a lot of hard concepts, ways of thinking and things to consider on the topic of evil. Peck did such a good job of putting evil into perspective and getting to the many roots of it in our culture, in our world and in us as human beings. I hope this isn’t a spoiler but my biggest takeaway from this book was love being at the center of conquering evil. That’s incredibly encouraging!

This is a meaty book, but definitely worth the read. I think this is a book that would never be published today, but is so necessary for today, that I would definitely pick up a copy to hold onto while you still can.

The basic theory of this book is that evil should be a recognized psychiatric diagnosis and an examination of whether or not evil could be treated as a psychological disorder. The author gives several, very in-depth studies of cases he's come across as people he would identify as evil. One such couple gave their son the gun his brother used to kill himself as a Christmas present. Can those type of people be helped? The book isn't clear on that end of it.

In this book, the author begins to discuss his belief in the devil (that he is real) and that exorcism is likely the only way to cure these people. He does have another book on this issue which I've yet to read but is on my TBR list.

If you're intrigued by this topic-- highly recommended.

So, I'm definitely uncomfortable saying that I believe in "evil" exactly, but everything that Peck says makes sense. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around the concept as something different from other personality disorders. It might just be that the word "evil" has been so manipulated and co-opted for misaligned purposes that it has lost its true meaning.

This is an easy book to read (as far as reading about evil goes), and I really enjoyed reading each of the case studies that Peck presents. For sure, it's a controversial book, but I think the importance lies in the fact that Peck does not use "evil" as a way of dehumanizing a person in the same way that people often do with truly evil people. For example, we often call people "crazy" or "monsters," and, in doing so, I think we divorce off from the reality from which that cruelty grew. The danger lies in seeing "evil" as an outlying phenomenon, as if it is something extraordinary instead of being common and far more ordinary than we would like to admit.

Here are three of my favorite quotes from the book:

"The words 'image,' 'appearance,' and 'outwardly' are crucial to understanding the morality of the evil. While they seem to lack any motivation to BE good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their 'goodness' is all on a level of pretense. It is, in effect, a lie. This is why they are the 'people of the lie.'" (p. 75)

"...there are a sufficient number of men and women in all culture and at all times who have achieved in their full adulthood a kind of gracefulness of existence so that we can generally say of them: 'They have become truly human.' By which we mean their lives seem almost to touch on the divine." (p. 125)

"If one ever has the good fortune to meet a living saint, one will have then met someone absolutely unique. Though their visions may be remarkably similar, the personhood of saints is remarkably different. This is because they have become utterly themselves. God creates each soul differently, so that when all the mud is finally cleared away, His light will shine through it in a beautiful, colorful, totally new pattern. Keats described this world as 'the vale of soul-making,' and whether they know it or not, when they help their patients clean away the mud, psychotherapists are engaged in the activity of saint-making. Certainly psychotherapists know it is their task routinely to free their patients to be themselves." (p. 264)

What a huge disappointment. Immediately, from the introduction Dr. Peck's ideas are off putting; "...about my use of masculine pronouns in relation to God....first of all, God, is not neuter. He is exploding with life and love- even sexuality of a sort. ...I subjectively experience His reality as more masculine than feminine. While He nurtures us, He also desires to penetrate us, and while we more often than not flee from His love like a reluctant virgin, He chases after us with a vigor in the hunt that we most typically associate with males." I find that statement revulsive.

For me, Dr. Peck misses the mark.

Peck became famous for his book on psychology and the human journey The Road Less Traveled. In this volume, using case histories, he deals with the uncomfortable region of the human capacity for evil. There was a sequel as well. Significant.

Excellent book...but definitely deep. M. Scott Peck was a world renowned psychiatrist best known for his work The Road Less Traveled. People of the Lie could be deeply disturbing to some so read with caution. It gives great insight into human evil. The pseudo case histories he gives gave me chills. It was a hard book to read for sure. But I feel as if I have walked away with a better understanding of some things that troubled me. I feel lighter somehow, as if I laid down a burden I have carried a long time at the feet of Jesus. I have been changed by reading this book and isn't that what a good book is supposed to do?

I can't give any higher than 1 star to a book I could not force myself to finish. I disagreed with his basic premise, and yet, I still kept reading. I sat through his case studies of "evil" people who seemed more like people lacking basic functioning and parenting skills and less like any sort of "evil." I read it solidly, continuing on because I kept thinking there was a pay off sooner or later. For two weeks, I forced myself to read it just 20 minutes before bed, and then just 10, every other day. I just realized this morning that it's been over a week since I've even looked at it, and I've simply given up.

I think that his arguments were illogically posited, and, although no specific examples spring to mind, I kept thinking that his if/then statements were in continuous breakdown.

Ugh. I'll gladly be handing this one back unfinished.

This book started out interesting, talking about the author's definition of evil as it applies to his therapy caseload, but I have to say it went downhill fast. It degenerates into a religious tract about the need for evil people to embrace Christ in order to be healed. Give me a break! He even talks about obvious cases of repression and obsessive-compulsive disorder in terms of demonic possession, as if he had learned about them in Jesuit school instead of in an accredited psychology program.

This was the first book about evil people I read and ten years later I decided to read it again. It doesn't fare well a second time. What I've understood about evil is that it is related to the condition of psychopathy or sociopathy or antisocial personality disorder. These are scientific terms describing a whole host of 'evil' traits listed by Dr Robert Hare: lack of conscience, empathy, grandiosity, scapegoating, lying etc. There are a number of far better reads like The Sociopath Next Door, Snakes In Suits, Without Conscience, etc which give a more scientific understanding of the problem. This book by contrast is subjective while pretending to be objective and I found myself disliking the author quite a bit. In his sessions with 'Charlene' I began rooting somewhat for his patient in their contest and felt her frustration with dealing with such a dork! Why did he continue therapy for so many years with her? Sorry, not for ethical reasons and helping a patient but because he was getting paid. The chapter on posession was where I bailed out this time around.