Jordan
As a biography of Mae West, this book is exhaustively researched, informative, and full of detail. Unfortunately, it is also saddled with many tiresome stretches of strained exegesis that are inordinately preoccupied with race. The constant references to “signification” and “tricksterism” are borderline deranged in their glut - they read like the work of a young person who has just discovered the concepts' existence.
Look, I don't know jackshit about poetry. But I do know that, of the poets I've read, Ellora Sutton is far and away the best, and connects with me in ways for which I don't have adequate descriptors. The precise architecture of her words is astonishing - they move, they churn, they breathe, and they constantly surprise. And having now read all three of her (excellent) pamphlets, this one is my favorite.
I was curious to read descriptions of this being a more “playful” work that introduced direct references to “things that bring [Sutton] joy,” considering how generally heavy All the Shades of Grief and Antonyms for Burial were, but I was delighted to find that the incorporation of such references and tones allows the poetry to twist and reach even further than before, and I often found myself laughing right before a powerful punch to the gut. And, speaking as a millennial, a lot of the references hit home for me and evoked very specific memories of times and places and experiences that feel shared and vivid.
Reading Artisanal Slush made me feel like I do after an intense therapy session. Things inside me were stirred, sometimes ripped open (“Formal Apology to the Teacher Who Tried to Explain Dadaism to Me” legitimately made me sob, complete with rolling tears). Sutton always manages to locate buried emotions and elucidate percolating thoughts. I feel like a more complete person after reading her work. I can't wait to read what she writes next.
Condescending neoliberal junk that obfuscates America's role in South Sudan and geopolitics in general. It's hard to say if it does so out of deliberate dishonesty or ignorant credulity, but I'm not sure which of those would be worse. I should have known better than to read a book by an American diplomat.
This is an amazing book. Wapner uses a unique mixture of history, politics, and neuroscience to reframe how we think about the modern concept of national borders, breaking it down to fundamental terms of humanity and empathy. It is astonishing how much perspective is squeezed into such a slim volume.
“For these, their people, lived under their lords and mistresses with loving submission and loyal devotion, understanding the duties of their station in life, and therewith content. They looked to them for their maintenance in kind consideration and asked for no more. The relation between master and retainer was one of love on both sides, of pure affection for a trusted and faithful vassal, of devotion and desire to please from the man to the master.”-Lili'uokalani (one of the masters)
The colonialist takeover of Hawaii was plainly tragic and despicable, but it seems very odd to me that Lili'uokalani - a rich royal who romanticizes feudalism and blathers on endlessly about her lavish lifestyle while acknowledging that many of her people are poor - has been lionized as some kind of hero of the people.
It is beyond me why anyone would find the interminable sections of this book describing the myriad ways in which Lili'uokalani was feted by American and European elites on various goodwill trips to be remotely interesting. For someone whose own nation was stolen by these very people, she sure loves to warmly rhapsodize about imperialists and nobility (once even ascribing some kind of ludicrous supernatural significance to the crowning of a king). Frankly, I found all of this utterly nauseating.
Colonialism is terrible. What happened to Hawaii is terrible. Lili'uokalani, feudalism, and royalty are also terrible. The formers should not obscure the latter.
Starts off strong, with a riveting opening chapter that very persuasively lays out how the nuclear family is not the “natural” order of humanity but a capitalist construct rife with misery and inequality. Yes, this sounds (and is) radical, but you might be surprised how self-evidently obvious Lewis's assertions read in this chapter. I was instantly compelled by this section, my mind alight, almost reeling from how much sense Lewis was making.
Unfortunately, the rest of the book falls into a familiar trap of leftist literature: wading so deep into prior theory (much of it based in extremely niche identity and sexual politics) that the work becomes hermetic. While the impulse to establish that the concept of family abolition is not new is a good one, surely there are better, more accessible ways to make that point. (Personally, I always prefer my political diatribes to be based on real-world historical events instead of previous theory; the actualized is more interesting than the abstract.)
Ultimately, I couldn't shake that age-old question: for whom is this being written and whom is Lewis trying to convince? That first chapter makes a surprisingly strong case - even for the non-leftist, I think. But what follows is going to, at best, utterly alienate most readers who are not, at least to some degree, already on board with radicalism, which makes me question the ultimate goal of this book.
A very misleadingly titled book, since only the first chapter is about the killing of Osama bin Laden. Which is unfortunate, because it's a fascinating and illuminating chapter that debunks the official story and clarifies what really happened and the motives behind it.
The other chapters, which feel jarringly unrelated, are bout America's dealings with Syria during the Obama administration. I found this material rather dull and labyrinthine, and Hersh doesn't do much to provide insight or understanding.
I wanted to read this because a true story about a man-eating tiger in the Taiga sounded compelling, but I didn't expect that the author would use this framework to smuggle in an exhausting amount of anticommunist propaganda based on dubious historical claims and egregious false equivalencies. Sigh. Western authors just can't help themselves.
I'm a bit shocked to say that I found this to be a dull, interminable, irritating slog. I came expecting political radicalism, but instead found repugnant misogyny, ludicrous religious zealotry, and even some odious antisemitism for good measure! Yuck.
X occasionally flirts with insight, particularly regarding the insidious nature of liberalism and non-violence, and I don't doubt that some of what's on offer here was earth-rattling stuff at the time it was published, but ultimately I found most of his points half-baked and rudimentary, and the book as a whole utterly unilluminating.
This might seem like a strange complaint about a book with “Critical Theory” in its title, but this was way too academic and, well, theoretical for my liking. I prefer my political harangues couched in a framework of supporting historical exposé (like Domenico Losurdo, for example) instead of insular references to previous works of philosophy and theory, which cause this book to become rather stuffy and abstract, in my opinion.
I also found it to be, frankly, poorly written. It often lapsed into redundant, self-referential breaks in argument (“I will argue,” “to which I will return later in this chapter,” etc.), which is a huge pet peeve of mine. You don't need to tell me what you're arguing or what will be explored when - just argue and explore!
Forget the Alamo: The True Story of the Myth That Made Texas
As a work of muckraking, revisionist history, FORGET THE ALAMO offers a ton of good - even important - information, and provides eye-opening perspective. It competently explains how slavery and land were the underlying causes of the Texas Revolt, and how the Battle of the Alamo was later distorted and weaponized by forces with ulterior motives. (It also touches on how some Mexican historians believe the whole thing was a US government ploy to steal Mexican land, and, frankly, I wish it delved into this theory much more deeply.)
Later chapters are devoted to the resultant tug-of-war in recent decades between traditionalist and revisionist proponents, and I must say I found this section, with its straightforward red-versus-blue narrative, far less compelling and comparatively less illuminating, especially considering its air of preaching-to-the-choir sanctimony. (Bits detailing Twitter exchanges are perhaps the nadir of the book, in my opinion.)
But the biggest problem is that, as a work of literature, I found FORGET THE ALAMO nearly unbearable. The flip, affected, almost Marvel Cinematic Universe-esque humor and slang phrases peppered throughout the writing (“Yeah, no.”, “fist-bumper of the bros”, “man oh man”, “This was real. This was happening.”, “pretty much”, “you know”, “apparently that's a thing”, “crazy shit”, “facepalming”, etc.) utterly destroyed my enjoyment of it as prose, and I suspect will cause the book to age very quickly and very poorly.
These hyper-contemporary interjections are, at best, jarringly inappropriate and, at worst, an insult to the reader's intelligence. And in the early sections of the book when the historical events in question are being examined, they also have the effect of ripping the reader out of any immersion in the time period being explored. This is a real shame, since I often find that to be one of the most enjoyable aspects of reading historical non-fiction.
It's also worth noting that there are some rather gossipy, even catty, digressions about Phil Collins's Alamo memorabilia (this one becomes quite lengthy), Ozzy Osbourne, and drama on the set of John Wayne's THE ALAMO. (There's also a bizarre moment of deeply off-putting Puritanism when the authors describe someone as a “syphilitic lech.”) This is stuff that, while tangentially related to the main subject matter, really isn't necessary and only furthers the impression that the authors are straining to find a wider audience via a glib appeal to the lowest common denominator.
I appreciate what the authors are trying to do here, but this book would be so much better if they didn't feel the need to stoop to such embarrassing degradations of the craft to do it.
