Hugo
This is one of those books that does not miss a beat in its full revealing of history, context and philosophical expertise in analysing the political. Succinctly written, it can be addictive and frustrating to read it as it sinks and sinks into the depths of what we all live yet either not acknowledge or ignore. Whether Technofeudalism really is something new, or a mutation of late stage capitalism due to ICTs is to be seen. But that privacy has a value is daily strongly eroded and replaced with algorithms based on political and social ideologies is the most obvious point of this book. Its tremendous impacts in the industry are visible but I would also like to understand what has been left behind with the introduction of the digital?
This book ended up falling much flatter than I first imagined. It does set itself as more of a history of Marxismis, the time of Marx, how economy has increasingly changed (altough some of the points are not as useful since the sub prime crisis), the Wester Marxism turn and the Frankfurt School turn dueing the 20th century and the possible future roads of marxism. None of this is ever explained in detail on why exactly these turns happened, and what philosophical or political ideas have changed. It is always argued that “due to factor X things changed”.
Quite a bad start for my May Theory reading.
I am not the biggest enjoyer of self help book. (Even tho this year I already read two of them).
With this one it was slightly different, I still felt plenty of the self helpy aspect of accountability, encountering yourself, building yourself and envisioning. Yet there was one aspect about it that garned itself two stars, the understanding. There is plenty of understanding that coming out of trauma, self destructive behaviours or whatever is not easy, it will never be easy and the path going forward or the end goal is uncertain, foggy and nearly impossible to imagine.
Yet the solutions offered were once more based on a reading of psychology and psychological tools that I doubt their methodology.
This book left me with much sadness that it felt like a draft of a better novel. And in reality the planning of it seems rushed and slowed at random times. The beat part is about 200 pages long leaving the remaining 500 to be a slog to read. It is still good, the 200 pages are incredible, Udolpho comes to life in many ways even if the castle is constantly shadowed by the characters.
In here there is probably a real possibility for this to be incredibly enjoyable. That is if you study it, and if you have someone to talk about it. But there is so much left to academic study that by itself makes it a shallow book. If course the written context helps plenty, and is delightful but by initial view stands.
Although it might be useful in some aspects the book is very techy silicon valley driven at times. Mostly about lists, meetings, projects emails. Only some times do you see examples about a house project or dealing with other things. At times it seems like ADHD would never be accommodated for the working class but only the middle class and their work struggles.
Although quite useful in terms of its ideas and concerns regarding the English poetry it comes across very school appropriate and not as so academic. Maybe this is a positive for an introductory way but it tends to build on a lot of assumptions, which once more is useful for introduction. Not the most exciting of readings I have done.
There is a great brouhaha around the reviews of this book. Either people hate it or love it. And that is expected of all literature.
Yet, I think while everyone has extreme opinions of this book, we are still playing into its plot. Those who hate it either do not understand what type of character Ignatius is, or do not want to recognize they have a bit of Ignatius in them. The critic, the revolting, the never satisfied. With the pompous critical opinion to not like a Pulitzer prize book (even if, and I have to agree, maybe it is not a Pulitzer worthy book) that is adored by a generation with its slapstick, and satirical humour.
The prize might not even matter at all, I for sure do not care if a book got a prize or if the author got a Nobel Prize. Those who love the book do not, sometimes, understand that it is not just Ignatius the horrible character, he is surrounded by characters, and horrible ones, all of them with their wrapped ambitions, and their will to survive in such a city where immoral, religion, slavery history and industrialism meets.
In my sincere opinion, Confederacy of Dunces is a book that showcased a future literary career for its author, unfortunately his mental health led him to suicide.
P.S. To those who comment John Kennedy Toole's suicide as a laughable and part of a stock of authors who took their life due to their unrecognition, do understand that mental health is not as simple as failing to be an author. As failed authors who have good supporting families tend to live and reconcile themselves with their failure. It is important to understand that for John Kennedy Toole his failed novel also represented failing to his tyrannical mom who constantly remarked his father as a failure, as someone who threw away their prospective future. Thelma Toole is probably a crucial part to understand John's suicide. But for that, I would recommend the various biographies of the author.
“Fascism and Democracy” de Orwell lê-se essencialmente como escritos dispersos, ao contrário do igualmente curto livro “England, Your England” do mesmo autor que lê-se como um curto ensaio.
A verdade é que todos estes curtos escritos são muito dependentes de contexto do início da Segunda Guerra mundial e o momento político que se vivia no Reino Unido e as visões futuras do autor. “Fascism and Democracy” passa então a ser um livro dependente do contexto, e um pronuncio das ideias futuras de Orwell que serão empregues mais famosamente em “1984”, mais nomeadamente é nestes escritos que vimos as ideias do controlo da História e da narrativa, e também certas incongruências entre os Socialistas.
Em todo o caso é um livro fraco sem o contexto, sem conhecimento da obra do autor e, a cima de tudo, é um livro que podia facilmente sido um anexo em “England, Your England”
Reading this book, and reading Nietzsche as an author, was something requiered of me this last academic semester. I first did not understand how or where the classes were going to lead to. I did not understand why we we kept focussing on the same text and the same few pages of Nietzsche's Genealogo of Morality.
It was only when a different professor called Nietzsche's style as a “shotgun style” of philosophy. It was at this point that I started to understand the appeal of Nietzsche. Nietzsche, in my opinion, is not an author widely read and cited because of his overarching ideas and theories, but rather for his quick insights and digressions on side topics that highlight his opinions on more varied topics such as art, artists, philosophers, civilization. It is due to these small insights that I think of Nietzsche as the profressor and philosopher of close reading. As Nietzsche says “I admit that you need one thing above all in order to practise the requisite art of reading (...) rumination”.
This book was not as helpful as the first 50 pages seemed. There probably is a way of reinventing the bibliography card thing on laptops, but I have also seen someone doing a bibliography on a Tumblr blog so I think it is more of a whatever floats your boat type of thing.
Also there is a crazy scholastic emphasis on reading originals and stuff like that, I can understand some of that but it just makes it harder for books out of print and stuff like that. It does feel a lot like a book written by the bourgeois reality that academic living was, and as much as I would like for academic work to be done with more time and ease as it was done in the past it seems like in the past people just wanted time in some aspects (I do take in consideration that internet and computers have made everything much faster)
In the end I guess writing theses is a personal question and a type of routine building that you will only get the hang of it by doing it.
A primeira banda desenhada que deu-me vontade de simplesmente olhar para uma página e admirar cada detalhe, cada pequeno detalhe desde a cultura à ironia passando pelo prólogo em pauta musical, ao diálogos cruzados, ao marcável uso de música que aparentam ser completas narrações dos acontecimentos.
Sempre vejo pessoas a criticarem V for Vendetta por suas opiniões políticas ou falta das mesmas, eu não acredito que o forte desta novela gráfica esta na política, mas sim na sua escrita desregulada e planeada. Em vários aspectos o leitor é o equivalente à personagem Eve, e por isso mesmo V leva-nos a questionar não a política mas a escrita e a narrativa.
Este livro foi incrivelmente desapontante.
Tendo lido os dois primeiros livros desta mesma trilogia o fim algo amargo. Amargo pois o último livro não só revela uma natureza triste dos humanos que vivem num metro de um mundo pós apocalíptico nuclear, tal como o fim desta trilogia revela um autor desgastado de uma ideia.
Eu sou da opinião que Glukhovsky para lá de não dar espaço para o seu mundo pós apocalíptico respirar, também não deixou o mundo expandir-se no fim da trilogia. É claramente um livro político, uma fraca analogia ao sistema russo, e tudo usando uma ideia que tão bem tinha sido descrita no primeiro livro.
O meu conselho é ler os dois primeiros livros. O primeiro trata muito bem os temas da relação do humano com o mundo estranho do metro em que se encontra. O segundo revela como a natureza humana perde-se num mundo selvagem. O terceiro é apenas político e fraco com várias incoerências.
Por mais infantil e ridículo que pareça aprender a ler é algo que não é feito corretamente.
Quando somos levados à escola e aprendemos a juntam letras e a formar sílabas aprendemos uma forma de ler, aprendemos a ler concretamente.
Os seguintes anos de educação são feitos de uma tentativa de ensinar a ler mais profundamente quando a maioria dos alunos não estão interessados. Um livro como “How to Read” tem todas as técnicas e questões mais as milhas notas e considerações por e para leitores. Porém o livro é extremamente minucioso o que o poder tornar difícil de digerir.
A defesa de Sócrates demonstra-se como um grande ensaio de mestria na técnica socrática deixando ainda as ideias de justiça e excelência mais tarde desenvolvidas por Platão e Aristóteles. Nesta obra o leitor depara-se com temas como julgamento, justiça, lógica e morte vistos pelo o “corruptor das mentes jovens” de Atenas.
