In her writing about abortion, her hatred towards those who oppose it is bleak and glaring. I could barely get through the chapter where she helps euthanize a friend, and that's when I stopped reading. Confusion and seeking are indeed part of life, especially in cultures wealthy enough to have the luxury of certain kinds of existential angst. I would also agree that there is a certain tender beauty in the ubiquitous inelegance of humanity. But I'm afraid this book is just an echo of Sixties psychology - a gushily warm philosophy, or in some cases, really a religion, of the Self that in practice is completely depressing. To the extent that she escapes this philosophy, her book is beautiful; to the extent that she clings to it, the book is extremely disturbing.
So, it gave me a perhaps useful insight into a politics and morality very different from my own and helped highlight the areas of confluence that can exist. (It might be worth a read for priests and seminarians who want to understand the mindset of the Sixties generation, which is still very much with us.) But in the end, I am somewhat spoiled by the academic approach and find myself setting aside a book with a tinge of disgust that vilifies any politics or morality other than its own while failing to be conscious, or perhaps honest, about its own inner contradictions and problems. I believe that a truly great work should be able to engage with different perspectives and be self-reflective. While Lamott has her moments of brilliance, this book ultimately falls short in my eyes.