zoracious's review
2.0
Allow me to get on my soapbox for bit: A book's difficulty is not directly proportional to its brilliance. Some difficult books are pure drivel, and some simple looking books are pure genius. This particular book requires a lot of work, and a great deal of patience. For this, it is to be both admired and alternately thrown against a wall.
Part of the unusual nature of the book is the way that it is written. It starts out as a somewhat typical story would - meaning that it contains characters and the semblance of a plot. But once it gets those things out of the way (and discards them almost completely), it proceeds in somewhat essay/manifesto form. There are people mentioned in the rest of the book ('novel' is not the correct word here), but these people are secondary to the elements and ideas the book feels is more important. It takes a kind of HP Lovecraft / Deleuze and Guattari view of communication, and if you aren't familiar with either, then you should take a look at them. Danielewski's House of Leaves (which I was optimistic this would evoke, but it didn't) starts with the dedication page saying "This is not for you." Still, Danielewski can be said to be a bit kinder to the reader (while scaring the wits out of them) than Negarestani is here.
To get an idea of where the author is going, look up stuff on Hyperstition. The book is clever, and it challenges the way we are to read books and regard the world, ideas of capitalism, Islam, monotheism and our dependence on oil (for starters). For these things it should be lauded. But that can only take us so far. This book is oddly immersive in a way I've experienced with other books (many which regarded story as more central than declarative treatise), and its presentation of ideas on oil, the Middle East, desertification, etc. are fascinating - sometimes funny, other times creepy (in the good way). There is amusing word play and a very densely packed set of esoteric ideas. But to suggest that this book is wholly enjoyable to read would be misleading.
One of my friends called this book a "glorified essay that goes on ad infinitum." This book hinges on strict non-fiction that may or may not be fiction, (which I should note is not completely a criticism). I do not want to call this a gimmick, but it is excruciating. If the need to communicate such unique ideas is so important, why do it in a way that alienates readers or makes them work so hard to comprehend them? Those who would revert to the argument that this is a different way of thinking (one that would privilege the Middle East way of thinking) are definitely on the right track, except that this book is written in English and thus his intended audience comes under question (if it hadn't already).
I would suggest that this would best be enjoyed by someone familiar with Deleuze and Guattari, Lovecraft, Koontz (yes, Koontz is thrown in there), Žižek, philosophy (Western philosophy in general would be helpful but Middle Eastern and Iranian philosophy would be better), general knowledge of ideas in Islam and Wahhabism, Middle East politics and history, and the general ideas and background of Western monotheism, not to mention the history of conquest as it relates to Western versus Eastern epistemologies and economies. A little Indo-Iranian linguistic archeology would be nice too if you'd like. That would all help. Well, it wouldn't hurt, anyway. Not that you have to know all these to get the gist of what is going on, but it seems like a lot of the winks that Negarestani makes at the reader - if we are to assume he acknowledges him or her - are done at the assumption of a backbone knowledge of these and other things.
The marketing of the book emphasizes its story elements in a way that the book doesn't deliver on. If the back cover interests you I would suggest you pick a random page in the middle of the book and start reading to see what the book is really like before forming your impressions. It could have had great potential for something else that just isn't quite here.
Part of the unusual nature of the book is the way that it is written. It starts out as a somewhat typical story would - meaning that it contains characters and the semblance of a plot. But once it gets those things out of the way (and discards them almost completely), it proceeds in somewhat essay/manifesto form. There are people mentioned in the rest of the book ('novel' is not the correct word here), but these people are secondary to the elements and ideas the book feels is more important. It takes a kind of HP Lovecraft / Deleuze and Guattari view of communication, and if you aren't familiar with either, then you should take a look at them. Danielewski's House of Leaves (which I was optimistic this would evoke, but it didn't) starts with the dedication page saying "This is not for you." Still, Danielewski can be said to be a bit kinder to the reader (while scaring the wits out of them) than Negarestani is here.
To get an idea of where the author is going, look up stuff on Hyperstition. The book is clever, and it challenges the way we are to read books and regard the world, ideas of capitalism, Islam, monotheism and our dependence on oil (for starters). For these things it should be lauded. But that can only take us so far. This book is oddly immersive in a way I've experienced with other books (many which regarded story as more central than declarative treatise), and its presentation of ideas on oil, the Middle East, desertification, etc. are fascinating - sometimes funny, other times creepy (in the good way). There is amusing word play and a very densely packed set of esoteric ideas. But to suggest that this book is wholly enjoyable to read would be misleading.
One of my friends called this book a "glorified essay that goes on ad infinitum." This book hinges on strict non-fiction that may or may not be fiction, (which I should note is not completely a criticism). I do not want to call this a gimmick, but it is excruciating. If the need to communicate such unique ideas is so important, why do it in a way that alienates readers or makes them work so hard to comprehend them? Those who would revert to the argument that this is a different way of thinking (one that would privilege the Middle East way of thinking) are definitely on the right track, except that this book is written in English and thus his intended audience comes under question (if it hadn't already).
I would suggest that this would best be enjoyed by someone familiar with Deleuze and Guattari, Lovecraft, Koontz (yes, Koontz is thrown in there), Žižek, philosophy (Western philosophy in general would be helpful but Middle Eastern and Iranian philosophy would be better), general knowledge of ideas in Islam and Wahhabism, Middle East politics and history, and the general ideas and background of Western monotheism, not to mention the history of conquest as it relates to Western versus Eastern epistemologies and economies. A little Indo-Iranian linguistic archeology would be nice too if you'd like. That would all help. Well, it wouldn't hurt, anyway. Not that you have to know all these to get the gist of what is going on, but it seems like a lot of the winks that Negarestani makes at the reader - if we are to assume he acknowledges him or her - are done at the assumption of a backbone knowledge of these and other things.
The marketing of the book emphasizes its story elements in a way that the book doesn't deliver on. If the back cover interests you I would suggest you pick a random page in the middle of the book and start reading to see what the book is really like before forming your impressions. It could have had great potential for something else that just isn't quite here.
toddbert's review
challenging
dark
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5
ratthew86's review
1.0
I really did not like this. By the last 50 pages or so my eyes were so glazed over I might as well not have wasted the time reading it. I wish there were more footnotes from the introduction’s character— they were my life raft drifting across a sea of nonsense.
pattmayne's review
4.0
A monumental piece of horror-philosophy.
This is a strange and beautiful idea-story. It's about a rogue Iranian professor who goes off the deep end researching a complex, ancient demonology. The bulk of the book is pages and pages describing that ancient demonology, which is based on the idea that oil is alive and controls the Earth like a gooey demon. The book references real mythology, fictional demonologies from writers like Lovecraft, obscure philosophical texts, history, and modern social and political phenomena.
So it's mostly a fictional philosophy, but it sort of managed to convince some part of my mind that the idea was valid. By the end of it I almost believed that oil itself was just pushing mankind towards war and wasteland of its own conscious, evil volition.
I admit it was often a difficult read, being so rich in connections between obscure ideas and philosophies. But it was also a stimulating event to experience such a dramatic, ridiculous, well-constructed, mesmerizing picture of inhuman evil, expressed in such an original way. I still can't quite wrap my head around the book. It contains a lot of insight, too.
That being said, most people won't like this book LoL. There's not much storytelling. It's more like an essay and it's incredibly weird (but not at all random). Real fans of horror would like it. It's a completely unique work of art. Philosophy students should also appreciate it. And people who like weird stuff and strange ideas.
This is a strange and beautiful idea-story. It's about a rogue Iranian professor who goes off the deep end researching a complex, ancient demonology. The bulk of the book is pages and pages describing that ancient demonology, which is based on the idea that oil is alive and controls the Earth like a gooey demon. The book references real mythology, fictional demonologies from writers like Lovecraft, obscure philosophical texts, history, and modern social and political phenomena.
So it's mostly a fictional philosophy, but it sort of managed to convince some part of my mind that the idea was valid. By the end of it I almost believed that oil itself was just pushing mankind towards war and wasteland of its own conscious, evil volition.
I admit it was often a difficult read, being so rich in connections between obscure ideas and philosophies. But it was also a stimulating event to experience such a dramatic, ridiculous, well-constructed, mesmerizing picture of inhuman evil, expressed in such an original way. I still can't quite wrap my head around the book. It contains a lot of insight, too.
That being said, most people won't like this book LoL. There's not much storytelling. It's more like an essay and it's incredibly weird (but not at all random). Real fans of horror would like it. It's a completely unique work of art. Philosophy students should also appreciate it. And people who like weird stuff and strange ideas.
steve_brinson's review
adventurous
challenging
dark
informative
mysterious
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
4.0
To paraphrase Brian David Gilbert, "My first reaction was 'wow'. This is an incredible amount of work. To write a full work of academic philosophy and a Lovecraftian novel about the Middle East at the same time is a level of commitment that is genuinely impressive. My second reaction was, 'what the fuck? Hey, Reza Negarestani? What the fuck?'"
schumacher's review
3.0
The greatest /x/ schizopost of all time?
This is a pretty interesting book and a hard one to rate. Certain sections of this were really exciting and thought provoking (I loved the section on anonymous group writing) while others were unconvincing or didn't make any sense. It's inconsistent, but I get the feeling that which parts you love or hate are going to differ a lot depending on the person. And even though they don't all hit, the amount of concepts Negarestani creates in this book is really impressive. The glossary at the end is really fun.
Recommended for fans of A Thousand Plateaus, Jorge Luis Borges, and House of Leaves
This is a pretty interesting book and a hard one to rate. Certain sections of this were really exciting and thought provoking (I loved the section on anonymous group writing) while others were unconvincing or didn't make any sense. It's inconsistent, but I get the feeling that which parts you love or hate are going to differ a lot depending on the person. And even though they don't all hit, the amount of concepts Negarestani creates in this book is really impressive. The glossary at the end is really fun.
Recommended for fans of A Thousand Plateaus, Jorge Luis Borges, and House of Leaves
fishsauce's review
3.0
I can't quite figure this out. Its narrative elements are very, very thin to the point where I have a hard time referring to it as a "novel". It seems more like background writing for a novel, in some ways. It's sometimes captivating, often boring, hugely repetitive, deeply paranoid, and occasionally psychotic. Some excellent imagery with real metaphorical power, but also comes off as the kind of thing you might find hidden under the stairs in Henry Darger's basement as being too darkly weird to keep openly, too singular to destroy. The framing narrative was mostly pointless, and as a production editor I found there were issues with the book unrelated to the writing that made the experience more difficult (poor copyediting, the typesetter often losing track of what level of quotation a page was supposed to be set in, abysmal choice of typeface for such dense text). No doubt this was deliberate. The commitment to the "baffling found manuscript" genre was more complete than in any other work I've read. A friend has told me I should read it the way one listens to black metal, and once I went with the strategy of letting it wash over me rather than trying to understand it, the experience was better, or at least more interesting. Definitely not for everyone. Three stars because I'm still unsure how I feel about it.