How many of you have read the book, and then gone to see the film only to be disappointed - even incensed if you really loved the book?  The story had been tampered with, big chunks have been left out, and the characters distorted.  Something you had prized had been diluted or debased.

Alternatively, the film itself is excellent, but nothing like the book.  Still you have the pleasure of knowing both, and enjoying the distinctions between them. 

So what about the scenario where you have read the book – a book that you love; which touched your heart - seen the film, know the distinctions between them, and you are aware that the vast majority only saw the film?  Whilst some might seek the source, most will be totally unaware of what they might be missing – and not care.  They have been sufficiently entertained, maybe even moved by the film.  They might spread the word until this ‘must-see film of the year’ becomes rooted as the definitive version.  Interest in the source is only for the purists.

When writers sell the screen rights of their work, they are already braced for this bastardisation.  Some put up a fight but are unlikely to win in the long run.  They finally accept that popularisation automatically reduces the message to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Does any of this matter?  Is it merely just a purist’s moan?  Isn’t it important that people seek experience irrespective of quality?  And who is to say which version is better?  Surely it is in the eye of the beholder?  And of course, it may be foolish to even expect a connection – the media are so totally different, appealing to very different audiences, operating on distinctly different levels of appreciation.  Surely there is room for both, without the need to constantly refer to the source?

There is a lot to be said about this liberal approach – non prescriptive, open and permissive.  But what if the dilutions degenerate into something insubstantial and meaningless?  We remember the Chinese whisper where “Send reinforcements, we are going to advance.”, becomes “Send three and fourpence, we’re going to a dance.” (for the pre-decimal among us.)    What if in the original, there was something magical, something special that spoke to the heart of us, that paved a way to us to move forward, that hinted and revealed a way of being that was beyond the expectations of most people?  Wouldn’t it matter then, that increasing numbers of people were totally unaware of the power and the potential of the source?  Wouldn’t it be disastrous if this gem became just a memory for a few?

We are in a precarious place with NLP.  There are so many people out there who have experienced NLP who have no idea of the source – seen the film but didn’t realise that it was based on a book.  Over the years both Bandler and Grinder have warned us of the consequences and expressed their individual frustration and disappointment.  The screenplay writers are in charge of the script.

As an example of this, one of our students emailed in with this account.

“I went to a talk on NLP last night at a ……. meeting.  I was very disappointed with the speaker.  I didn't feel comfortable with him from very early on - my waters were talking! 

I just wanted you to know that I really appreciate the wonderful training you both provide there.  The training is presented in such a warm manner that I'm sure we as the practitioners could not but help but pass this on to any explorers we work with. 

The speaker used eye calibration as his demonstrative exercise.  Everyone at the meeting took part. He didn't explain it very well and then his only explanation was to say that the CIA, MI6 etc use this in interrogation techniques.  He did not think to explain how it might be used in a therapeutic context.  I am so grateful that you showed us this tool was the not be all and end all to NLP.

He also started to put most of the group in a trance and with this I have no idea where he was going or how it was relevant.  ….  It demonstrated how not to give a talk!  Oh but he did keep saying  'at the end of the day' - I hate that phrase and cringe when I hear myself saying it.

Anyway - this talk just made me appreciate my training and my trainers even more so thank you and a big fish to you both”

Worse still, there are many well-meaning trainers out there who have been trained by those who are removed from the source.  NLP is being sold as techniques, with some skill development required to manage the techniques.

I was also at an evening seminar, presented by a published trainer, titled ‘NLP in Business’.  About 40% of the audience had had no formal NLP training.  We were then regaled with how vital ‘Swish’ was in removing resistance – put the problems up on the flip chart, then with one magnificent sweep of the hand rip the page off and start with a clean sheet.  Apart from being technically dubious, there was no consideration to ecology, no sense of rapport, no mention of outcome setting.  Ah well.

The basic point of NLP is being missed.  The Source of NLP keeps getting lost on the way.  The simple question “How do they do that?” causes all techniques to fall away in that moment of wonderment.  As Bandler said, “NLP is an Attitude, of curiosity, a sense of adventure and a desire to learn…. followed by a methodology (skills) ….resulting in a range of techniques.” 

"To be on a quest is nothing more or less than to become an asker of questions."
Sam Keen

The trouble is that inquiry is harder work than merely churning out set techniques, without much thought.  Inquiry needs to support the discomfort of confusion.  It has to withstand the call to resettle with snatched answers.  Inquiry needs to sustain the certainty that there will always be more to be found, “in, beyond, within and way beyond*” the obvious.  With inquiry, everything else becomes possible.

If we want to get good at NLP, if we want to become expert NLPers, we could be well served by cutting to the chase.  Fast track to the Attitude.  Become Inquirers before anything else.  This way our skills will naturally develop, and any reliance on techniques becomes a distant memory.  We don’t have to put ourselves through that laborious learning curve.

I, and many others, know that NLP is so much more.  We need to make a stand to redress the balance.  The rot will not be stopped, since people naturally gravitate to the easy and the sensational.  It might be able to be arrested.  We might be able to redirect attention to the source for a new, more inquiring, generation of learners.  This means producing more and more students who do have a working understanding of the original modelling intentions and motivations of the developers.  These voices will counterbalance the nonsense that is being offered.

However if our voices are not raised, and we don’t express the simple message of the source, then we will be denying the spirit which ignited us originally.  We will also be denying future generations the enormous potential that can be open to them as well.

Fran Burgess
May 2006