How To Critique 'How To Win Friends & Influence People' Effectively?

If you're chasing that particular sting—where the best friend becomes the worst kind of wound—there are a handful of anime that deliver it like a sucker punch. I love stories where bonds are tested and then shattered, because they force the characters (and you) to reckon with loyalty, ambition, and messy human motives. A few series stand out to me for the way they make betrayal feel personal and inevitable, not just a plot twist for drama's sake. Top of my list is 'Berserk' — specifically the Golden Age arc (the 1997 series or the movie trilogy are the best for this). Griffith's betrayal of the Band of the Hawk is the archetypal “friend turned nightmare” moment: it’s built on years of camaraderie, shared victories, and genuine affection, so when it happens it hits with devastating emotional weight. The show doesn't shy away from the consequences, and the aftermath lingers in the main character's actions for decades of storytelling. If you want a raw, brutal study of how ambition and worship can calcify into betrayal, this one is the benchmark. If you want a more mainstream, long-form take, 'Naruto' gives you Sasuke's arc — a slow burn from teammate to antagonist. What makes it compelling is the emotional fallout for Team 7; Naruto's attempts to bring his friend back are what makes the betrayal so resonant. 'Attack on Titan' is another masterclass: the reveal that Reiner and Bertholdt were undercover devils in uniform is one of those moments that rewires the way you see every earlier scene. Their duplicity looks different once you understand their motives, which adds layers rather than turning them into flat villains. For ideological betrayal tied to revolutionary aims, 'Code Geass' is brilliant — Lelouch's chess game against friends and enemies alike blurs the line between tactical necessity and personal treachery, and Suzaku/Lelouch dynamics are heartbreaking because both believe they’re doing the right thing. I also love picks that twist the expected contours of friendship: 'Vinland Saga' gives you complicated loyalties inside a band of warriors where manipulation and personal codes of honor collide, while '91 Days' explores revenge and the way a found family can be weaponized. For darker, psychological takes, 'Fate/Zero' shows how masters and servants betray one another for ideals and legacy, and the emotional cost is high for the characters who survive. Expect heavy themes, occasionally brutal violence, and moral ambiguity across these shows — that’s the point. Some are more subtle and tragic, others are outright horrific, but all of them make you feel the sting. If I had to name one that still clutches my chest, it’s 'Berserk' for sheer emotional devastation, with 'Attack on Titan' and 'Naruto' tying as the best long-term reckonings with friendship gone wrong. Each series gives you a different flavor of betrayal — selfish ambition, ideological conviction, survival — and I love how they force characters to change, sometimes forever. Personally, moments like Griffith's fall and Reiner's reveal stayed with me for a long time.

The setting often acts like a silent pressure on every choice a character makes, and I love tracing those ripples. In novels like 'Dune' the planet itself—its deserts, scarcity, and spice economy—doesn't just decorate the plot; it sculpts Paul's ambitions, paranoia, and eventual hubris. Similarly, in harsher societies such as the one in 'The Handmaid's Tale', the rules and rituals alter not only actions but inner math: survival strategies, compromises, and tiny rebellions become the default calculus for motivation. Physically, socially, metaphysically—each part of the universe hands the character a toolkit or a set of shackles, and those tools show up in what they desire and how far they'll go to get it. On a smaller, more human scale, ecosystems and economies do this work in deceptively mundane ways. Scarcity changes moral calculus; plentifulness breeds complacency or decadence. A novel set in a collapsing economy will push characters toward opportunism or desperate solidarity, and the author can play that like a constant low drum. But it’s not just material conditions: cultural myth and religious cosmology shape long-term motivations. In 'The Left Hand of Darkness', gender norms tied to worldbuilding lead to different expectations and social incentives; in 'The Road', the ash-choked horizon warps parental love into an almost ritualized mission. And of course hard sci-fi worlds with different physical laws impose different competencies—if survival requires engineering skill rather than cunning, motivation shifts toward problem-solving and community organization. I think the most interesting thing is that the universe can supply both constraint and narrative permission. A tightly governed world reduces choices but intensifies the weight of each one, making small gestures monumental. A chaotic, lawless universe expands the field of possible motivations but demands sharper characterization to make those choices feel meaningful. Writers can weaponize setting: make the world an antagonist, a mentor, or a mirror that reveals hidden wants. As a reader, I love when the world feels earned—when motivations grow organically out of how that universe smells, sounds, and punishes. It makes the characters feel inevitable and surprising at the same time, which is my kind of magic.

Lately I’ve been tracing how that old-school marriage plot — you know, the trajectory from courtship to domestic resolution — keeps sneaking into modern romance films, but now it’s wearing a lot of different outfits. The classic novel structure (think Jane Austen’s world in 'Pride and Prejudice') originally treated marriage as the narrative endgame because it meant social stability, economic survival, and identity. Contemporary filmmakers inherited that tidy architecture — meet, fall in love, face obstacles, choose commitment — but they’ve repurposed it. Instead of only validating marriage as an institution, many movies use the marriage plot to ask, challenge, or even dismantle what marriage means today. That makes it less of a fixed finish line and more of a dramatic lens to explore characters’ values, power dynamics, and personal growth. I love how movies riff on that framework. Some stick to a romantic-comedy template where the wedding or a proposal remains the emotional payoff — think echoes of 'When Harry Met Sally' — but lots of indie and mainstream pictures twist expectations. '500 Days of Summer' famously reframes the plot by denying the tidy resolution, making the decision to wed irrelevant and instead centering personal insight and moving-on. 'Marriage Story' flips the marriage plot inside out, treating separation as the central dramatic engine and showing how two people can grow apart without melodramatic villainy. Cross-cultural takes like 'The Big Sick' use the marriage plot to explore family, immigration, and illness, where cultural expectations and medical crises shape a couple’s choices. Meanwhile, films such as 'Monsoon Wedding' show arranged marriage as complex social choreography rather than simply outdated tradition. Even genre-benders like 'La La Land' use the marriage/commitment axis to stage a bittersweet choice between romantic partnership and artistic ambition. On a thematic level, the marriage plot in contemporary film is incredibly useful because it ties the personal to the structural. Directors use weddings, divorces, proposals, and domestic scenes as shorthand to talk about gender roles, economic realities, and emotional labor. Modern rom-coms often depict negotiation — who gives up a job, who moves, who handles parenting — which reflects broader conversations about equality and career. At the same time, the rise of queer cinema and stories about non-traditional relationships have stretched the plot: legal recognition, family acceptance, and alternate forms of commitment become central stakes. Cinematically, weddings and domestic montages are such satisfying visual beats — big ensembles at weddings for spectacle and conflict, or quiet domestic sequences to show the erosion of intimacy — so the marriage plot keeps offering rich set-pieces. Personally, I find this persistent reinvention delightful; it shows that a narrative fossil from centuries ago can still spark fresh questions about love, duty, and what we’re willing to build together.

I get a little giddy talking about picture books, and 'Last Stop on Market Street' is one I never stop recommending. Written by Matt de la Peña and illustrated by Christian Robinson, it went on to collect some of the children’s lit world’s biggest honors. Most notably, the book won the 2016 Newbery Medal, which recognizes the most distinguished contribution to American literature for children. That’s a huge deal because the Newbery usually highlights exceptional writing, and Matt de la Peña’s warm, lyrical prose and the book’s themes of empathy and community clearly resonated with the committee. On top of the Newbery, the book also earned a Caldecott Honor in 2016 for Christian Robinson’s artwork. While the Caldecott Medal goes to the most distinguished American picture book for illustration, Caldecott Honors are awarded to other outstanding illustrated books from the year, and Robinson’s vibrant, expressive collage-style art is a big part of why this story clicks so well with readers. Between the Newbery win for the text and the Caldecott Honor for the pictures, 'Last Stop on Market Street' is a rare picture book that earned top recognition for both its writing and its imagery. Beyond those headline awards, the book picked up a ton of praise and recognition across the board: starred reviews in major journals, spots on year-end “best books” lists, and a steady presence in school and library programming. It became a favorite for read-alouds and classroom discussions because its themes—seeing beauty in everyday life, the importance of community, and intergenerational connection—translate so well to group settings. The story also won the hearts of many regional and state children’s choice awards and was frequently recommended by librarians and educators for its accessibility and depth. What I love most is how the awards reflect what the book actually does on the page: it’s simple but profound, generous without being preachy, and the partnership between text and illustration feels seamless. It’s the kind of book that sticks with you after one read and gets richer the more you revisit it—so the recognition it received feels well deserved to me. If you haven’t read 'Last Stop on Market Street' lately (or ever), it’s still one of those joyful, quietly powerful picture books that rewards both kid readers and grown-ups.

Catherine de' Medici fascinates me because she treated the royal court like a stage, and everything — the food, fashion, art, and even the violence — was part of a carefully choreographed spectacle. Born into the Florentine Medici world and transplanted into the fractured politics of 16th-century France, she didn’t just survive; she reshaped court culture so thoroughly that you can still see its fingerprints in how we imagine Renaissance court life today. I love picturing her commissioning pageants, banquets, and ballets not just for pleasure but as tools — dazzling diversions that pulled nobles into rituals of loyalty and made political negotiation look like elegant performance. What really grabs me is how many different levers she pulled. Catherine nurtured painters, sculptors, and designers, continuing and extending the Italianate influences that defined the School of Fontainebleau; those elongated forms and ornate decorations made court spaces feel exotic and cultured. She staged enormous fêtes and spectacles — one of the most famous being the 'Ballet Comique de la Reine' — which blended music, dance, poetry, and myth to create immersive political theater. Beyond the arts, she brought Italian cooks, new recipes, and a taste for refined dining that helped transform royal banquets into theatrical events where seating, service, and even table decorations were part of status-making. And she didn’t shy away from more esoteric patronage either: astrologers, physicians, writers, and craftsmen all found a place in her orbit, which made the court a buzzing hub of both high art and practical intrigue. The smart, sometimes ruthless part of her influence was how she weaponized culture to stabilize (or manipulate) power. After years of religious wars and factional violence, a court that prioritized spectacle and ritual imposed a kind of social grammar: if you were present at the right ceremonies, wearing the right clothes, playing the right role in a masque, you were morally and politically visible. At the same time, these cultural productions softened Catherine’s image in many circles — even as events like the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre haunted her reputation — and they helped centralize royal authority by turning nobles into participants in a shared narrative. For me, that mix of art-as-soft-power and art-as-image-management feels almost modern: she was staging viral moments in an era of tapestries and torchlight. I love connecting all of this back to how we consume history now — the idea that rulers used spectacle the same way fandom uses conventions and cosplay to build identity makes Catherine feel oddly relatable. She was a patron, a strategist, and a culture-maker who turned every banquet, masque, and painted panel into a political statement, and that blend of glamour and calculation is what keeps me reading about her late into the night.

Growing up, the woman at the center of our household felt like both mapmaker and weather-maker to everyone around her. She had this uncanny ability to steer small daily things—what we ate, who visited, which stories were told at night—into long, slow currents that shaped our lives in ways nobody initially recognized. At first it was trivial: a favored recipe she insisted on, a superstition about travelling on certain days, a polite refusal to give money to a distant cousin. Over the years I started to see how those tiny refusals and private blessings accumulated. They set patterns: who was entrusted with family heirlooms, who got pushed toward a trade or pushed away from a romance, whose pain was named and tended and whose was swept under a rug. That accumulation of tiny acts, repeated every season, became fate more than mere happenstance. Her influence wasn't only practical. She kept the archive of stories and grievances that became our moral ledger. If a child was scolded for a small lie, that scolding became the lesson we all internalized about honesty. If she praised restraint and ridiculed ambition, careers and marriages bent to that tone. She also had secrets—silent agreements and hidden grudges—that worked like subterranean currents. When those secrets surfaced, they could break or bind people. In families I’ve noticed (and in novels like 'The Joy Luck Club' or 'Pachinko'), matriarchs often hold the key to narratives passed down; the way they frame a loss or a triumph defines how generations interpret luck and misfortune. Sometimes her shelters became cages: protection that prevented growth, affection that became control, forgiveness that erased accountability. I think the clearest thing I learned is that a grandmother’s influence feels mystical because it’s patient and layered. It’s not only about a dramatic revelation or a last-minute will; it’s about everyday rituals and the way she allocates attention. Where she invests warmth, people tend to flourish; where she withholds it, people learn to contend with scarcity in multiple forms—emotionally, materially, socially. Even in families with different cultures or in stories like 'One Hundred Years of Solitude', the matriarch’s choices echo through generations. Looking back now, I can trace many of my own instincts—why I defer, why I cling to certain foods or superstitions—to that slow shaping. It makes me both grateful for her care and curious about where I’ll steer my own small, patient influences as time goes on.

Walking into that tiny, dimly lit counter felt like stepping into a masterclass in hospitality. At Attaboy I discovered that a cocktail could be personal — not just a recipe from a page. The bartenders asked questions, listened, and then made something that fit the mood, not the menu. That no-menu, bespoke approach rewired how I thought about cocktails: they became conversations, not just transactions. Over the years I've tried to replicate that feeling at home and at small gatherings, and it changes everything when you mix for a person rather than follow a name. Beyond the romantic side, Attaboy pushed technique and restraint back into the spotlight. Their focus on precise proportions, fresh ingredients, thoughtful bitters and proper ice convinced a generation of bartenders that subtlety could hit harder than showy garnishes. Drinks like the modern riffs on classics — which emphasized balance and spirit-forward profiles — set a new standard. The ripple effect is visible in tiny neighborhood bars and high-end cocktail rooms alike: many now train staff to craft bespoke drinks, to make house components, and to treat drink service as a dialogue. On a more selfish level, Attaboy turned me into a more curious customer. I started asking questions, appreciating small details, and seeking out bars where the bartender knew what to do with a single prompt. The culture it sparked feels friendlier and smarter to me; evenings feel richer when the drink is tailored, and I still get a little thrill tracking down those attaboy-style places in other cities.

Power grabs me because it’s the easiest lever writers pull to make people feel both fascinated and terrified. In political dramas, power is rarely static — it’s a current that drags characters into new shapes. I love tracking those slow shifts: idealists who learn to count votes and compromises, cynics who accidentally become monsters, and quiet players who learn the cost of a single decision. The arc often hinges on that cost. Someone who starts with a public-spirited goal may end their journey protecting their position rather than their principles, and that gradual trade-off keeps me glued to scenes where they weigh one moral loss against a perceived greater good. Stylistically, power affects arcs through relationships and perspective. Alliances and betrayals accelerate transformations; a confidant’s betrayal is more corrosive than a policy defeat because it reframes identity. In 'House of Cards' Frank Underwood’s rise is almost operatic — power amplifies his cruelty and justifies, in his mind, every manipulation. Contrast that with 'The West Wing', where power frequently humanizes characters through service and moral wrestling. In other shows like 'Succession' or 'Game of Thrones' the family or faction becomes a microscope for how power corrupts differently based on background and temperament: one sibling weaponizes charm, another weaponizes restraint. The result is a bouquet of arcs that explore ambition, entitlement, insecurity, and the sometimes-surprising ways power can redeem as much as it ruins. Beyond character-level changes, power dynamics shape plot mechanics. Coup attempts, leaks, and public scandals are external pressures that reveal inner truth; a character’s response to these events is the actual arc. I’m fascinated by how writers use mise-en-scene — closed doors, long corridors, empty Oval Office shots — to show isolation that power brings. Also, pacing matters: slow-burn ascents create tension through incremental compromises, while sudden reversals expose hubris. Ultimately, power is a storytelling tool that asks: who do we become when the rules bend in our favor? I keep rewatching scenes just to see which choices feel like survival and which feel like surrender — and that keeps me hooked.