Do we need a book that often reminds us of what we think we already know? I believe we do. This work remains a thoughtful contribution, and even the somewhat limited chapters noted are, I think, important. Their presence exemplifies the editor’s inspired call for a democratic process, even more democratic than DSM has been thus far. After all, how else can we adequately develop a system to serve clinical and research needs that inevitably will be used for forensic, reimbursement, and other administrative needs, that will be used cross-culturally, and that will grow with time (and genetic and neuroscientific advances), yet not lose sight of the human being as addressed in the diagnostic process? What other way to address this but with the most comprehensive embrace and consideration for all these perspectives and attention to all stakeholders’ voices? How else can we aim for such an ambitious product, how can we adequately know ourselves, complicated beings "darkly wise and rudely great," but through hovering attention simultaneously applied to all of the above?