possm reviewed All About Love by bell hooks
I know I'll come back to this book again and again
5 stars
All About Love is everything Radikale Zärtlichkeit fails to be. Courageous, risky, introspective. As usual, bell hooks' writing is clear and deep.
silly little guy he/it
My languages in order of proficiency: German French English Chinese. The reason I read so much in English is only because most pirated epubs are in English. I have no consistent grading system, the stars are based on vibes, don't read into it. I am not a critic; my "reviews" simply document what it was like for me to read the book in question.
This link opens in a pop-up window
All About Love is everything Radikale Zärtlichkeit fails to be. Courageous, risky, introspective. As usual, bell hooks' writing is clear and deep.
For the hype this book has gotten among leftists, it is pretty underwhelming. The best way I can think to describe it is: risk-averse. Too cowardly for hot takes, just the mildest, tamest takes, no deep interaction with other texts, only shallow commenting and paraphrasing (of Marx, Fromm, hooks...), no originality. I did like the autobiographical bits; if those had taken up more space, if Kurt had taken the risk of getting more personal, more introspective, that would have made up for the theoretical shallowness of the text.
The author's liberal views are annoying, but besides that this is a good read. She deconstructs the myth that Alice Schwarzer has built around herself. She is good at contextualizing Schwarzer's views in the broader field of feminist theories. The book also offers a fairly detailed and entertaining history of (esp. German) feminism.
This book meant a lot to me when I first read it as a young 20-something coming to understand my lived experience through a feminist lens. Rereading it now, it feels less intimately connected to me but remains an interesting piece of 70s feminist literature.
A small collection of insurrectionalist texts. I found them interesting. One thing I find valuable about insurrectionalist theory is its radical critique of organization. I may not agree with the conclusion they arrive at, but the process of really questioning why we need organization, which aspects of organization are useful and which can be discarded, is valuable in my opinion. The texts are well selected I think. But the form is lacking. Either the translation is really bad, or the texts were badly written to begin with. It's more likely that the problem lies with the translation, since all three texts have this problem.
History of the idea of utopia within (mostly German) leftist thought, from the early socialists to Habermas etc. The focus on German thinkers is justified because the book's target audience is the German Left. I would have liked more connection to political praxis. The intro and the outro reference praxis, but the rest of the book stays within the realm of theory. It's not super fun to read, but pretty good and educative.
I read this little book hoping to patch up my general knowledge about Judaism, and I feel like my expectations have been met. The larger half of the book is a history of Judaism. It does its job quite well and is reasonably well written. The second, shorter half is concerned with religious practice, this part is a little less entertaining, a little more chaotic, it feels like the author was struggling deciding what to include and what to leave out. All in all this book met, but did not exceed, my expectations. Solid 3/5 stars. Also little sidenote: the author is weirdly concerned with demographics and birthrates. You'll find sentences like: "mixed marriages lead to a loss of thousands of Jews every year" like my guy that is some crazy phrasing. Anyway. I'd like to find a similar little book for the other world religions, especially Islam which I …
I read this little book hoping to patch up my general knowledge about Judaism, and I feel like my expectations have been met. The larger half of the book is a history of Judaism. It does its job quite well and is reasonably well written. The second, shorter half is concerned with religious practice, this part is a little less entertaining, a little more chaotic, it feels like the author was struggling deciding what to include and what to leave out. All in all this book met, but did not exceed, my expectations. Solid 3/5 stars. Also little sidenote: the author is weirdly concerned with demographics and birthrates. You'll find sentences like: "mixed marriages lead to a loss of thousands of Jews every year" like my guy that is some crazy phrasing. Anyway. I'd like to find a similar little book for the other world religions, especially Islam which I feel embarrassingly uneducated about.
It's not that short. There's some very early-20th-century theories: for example, one explains the differences between the Greek and Chinese philosophical traditions being the result of geographic and economic conditions (maritime merchants vs landbound farmers). When taken with a big grain of salt these sorts of theories are fun to read, I simply take them as storytelling and not as scientific. The book is geared towards an audience that knows the Western philosophers and is discovering the Chinese.
This is a story written by an anarchist, set in a near-ish future where assisted suicide is legal. The protagonist is spending her last few days alive in an enclosed facility where everyone gets to wait three days for the date of their assisted suicide. The facility is described as a utopian space where social relations are kind and free, with the protagonist wondering why society outside can't be the same way. Bergstedt obviously wrote this story for the purpose of describing his ideas about how society should and shouldn't be. It's a very 18th century kind of approach but ok, why not. The problem is that Bergstedt isn't Voltaire and his prose is pretty bad. His dialogues suck because he gives all his characters the same voice, they all talk the same. His worldbuilding is muddled: the world outside the suicide space serves as its negative counterpart because the …
This is a story written by an anarchist, set in a near-ish future where assisted suicide is legal. The protagonist is spending her last few days alive in an enclosed facility where everyone gets to wait three days for the date of their assisted suicide. The facility is described as a utopian space where social relations are kind and free, with the protagonist wondering why society outside can't be the same way. Bergstedt obviously wrote this story for the purpose of describing his ideas about how society should and shouldn't be. It's a very 18th century kind of approach but ok, why not. The problem is that Bergstedt isn't Voltaire and his prose is pretty bad. His dialogues suck because he gives all his characters the same voice, they all talk the same. His worldbuilding is muddled: the world outside the suicide space serves as its negative counterpart because the suicide space is supposed to be this anarchist utopia, but the time where the story is set is contrasted to our time, which is described as a darker past. So the outside world is described in contradictory terms and the entire worldbuilding is incoherent. Long sections of the book are just characters explaining to each other how the world used to work, describing our present time, and expressing shock at how bad it was. They go through several topics in this manner, for example the prison system. Again, this is just an 18th century stylistic device, Lettres Persanes style. Using an old stylistic device isn't a crime, I guess you could still pull it off in a modern novel if you were being clever about it and subverting the genre somehow. Bergstedt just plays it completely straight with no subtlety, creating a text that is just unbearably preachy.
Bergstedt tries his hand at gender deconstruction but he hasn't thought it through. The characters still think in gender categories. Some characters are painstakingly non-gendered by the narration, others are gendered, sometimes with a justification ("the protagonist thought that this character looked like a man"), sometimes without. It reads like Bergstedt has come across some community practices of gender deconstruction, has decided they were cool, put them into his story without thinking them through to their logical conclusion, and is now explaining them to you, the reader, like he invented them. (this is another problem with Bergstedt's writing - he sounds conceited (to me)) The issue with how Bergstedt writes gender is: he wants to write a world where gender categories are obsolete, because he wants to demonstrate to his readers that gender doesn't have to be important. But he himself still feels like gender is important, he still thinks in these categories, and he can't hide it. Bergstedt runs into a similar issue with disability, where he needs to include the subject but hasn't properly thought it through. Disabled people are nominally included, one character is in a wheelchair. But the entire suicide space as it is described is full of barriers. Characters sit in circles on the ground, sleep on mattresses on the ground, all cook together communally. The entire suicide space is premised on Bergstedt's individualist-anarchist idea of self-sufficiency and responsibility, which runs counter to the lived reality of a LOT of disabled or chronically ill people. Everyone is roaming around the suicide space freely and alone. No one is accompanied by a caretaker, no one is plugged to a machine... To state the obvious, a facility for assisted suicide would attract a huge number of disabled, chronically ill and terminally ill people. That would be the overwhelming majority of guests. Bergstedt would realize this if he actually engaged with the real-life people who are politically demanding assisted suicide now, instead of his own ideas about how philosophically interesting the concept is.
All in all the text is bad as a story because Bergstedt is a bad writer. It is also bad as a political manifesto because it offers no groundbreaking ideas, just commonplace leftist ideas (gender deconstruction, relationship anarchy, prison abolition, free association) presented as groundbreaking - and in many cases, not even presented correctly because the author didn't think them through or research them enough. I did find interesting the part about arguing and argumentative culture, because the method presented was genuinely new to me, but it would have been just as interesting without the framing device and the entire rest of the text. Waste of time.
Reading this right after the Kohn one, it's impossible not to compare. This one covers much of the same ground but in more detail, it is less didactic and more centered on texts. I enjoyed it well enough but did find some passages tedious. I think it is more interesting for people deeper in the material; less beginner friendly.
Fascinating seeing how the academic research and writing process worked before personal computers and the internet. Even if much of the more specific advice in this book is obsolete in the digital age, it is still worth knowing e.g. the logic behind a bibliographical entry (even if nowadays you'll get Zotero to generate it for you). The more general, broad advice on how to write, how to find a topic, what attitude to have towards your work and others' works that you cite, etc, is still applicable today. Eco uses tons of examples, real and fictional, that really help get an idea of what a dissertation in the humanities actually is. They help make the whole book tangible and entertaining. Good book all in all, would recommend to pretty much every humanities student.
I read this book as research for a class. It serves as a good thorough intro to the history and contents of Daoism viewed as a still-ongoing current of religious practice. The editing is pretty bad in this edition, there's a lot of typos. I didn't find that too distracting though.