Scan barcode
roseofmay's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
1.0
Sigh. I don't know where to start with this one. I had so many problems with this. Some og his takes are just so weird and problematic that I have honestly no idea how he came up with them. While I think that his main thesis of mimetic envy makes sense, I don't think it's a good idea to force his idea on almost every single play and try to make sense of it this way. Because his way turns everything a character does into envy and trying to imitate the other in their desire. Especially with the female characters I think this view is immensely problematic. They are being reduced from full characters to simly pining, envious women and that honestly doesn't sit right with me. Women and female character do have other motivations than just being envious? Girard's thesis takes away their agency!?
I must also confess that I absolutely despise the idea that he thinks that his mimetic theory, with the focus on envy (and desire), is a good framework for human behaviour and and human conflicts. Yes, some feelings and desires are shaped by the desires of others but, once again, this reduces everything a human ever did or felt to this mimetic envy, which I feel like is not true at all. Humans have so many more emotions that are not just solely shaped by envy and imitating desires of other people.
And I also think that Girard knows that but he thinks he's so smart and special and said something intelligent that he refuses to acknowledge that his thesis isn't applicable to every single play that he just glosses over it and, instead, says something even dumber. I sometimes even wondered if a) he has even read the plays, b) had read any critical theory, and c) has ever felt any emotion or was empathtic towards another person.
The thesis is just simplifies everything. Girard puts a focus on social, cultural and religious factors for the mimetic desire which makes me think, okay, what about other cultures and societies? What about the individual experience of people/characters? Is the religious belief not just one (highly individual !!!) aspect of a human? His scapegoat mechanism is so overly reductionist.
I must also confess that I absolutely despise the idea that he thinks that his mimetic theory, with the focus on envy (and desire), is a good framework for human behaviour and and human conflicts. Yes, some feelings and desires are shaped by the desires of others but, once again, this reduces everything a human ever did or felt to this mimetic envy, which I feel like is not true at all. Humans have so many more emotions that are not just solely shaped by envy and imitating desires of other people.
And I also think that Girard knows that but he thinks he's so smart and special and said something intelligent that he refuses to acknowledge that his thesis isn't applicable to every single play that he just glosses over it and, instead, says something even dumber. I sometimes even wondered if a) he has even read the plays, b) had read any critical theory, and c) has ever felt any emotion or was empathtic towards another person.
The thesis is just simplifies everything. Girard puts a focus on social, cultural and religious factors for the mimetic desire which makes me think, okay, what about other cultures and societies? What about the individual experience of people/characters? Is the religious belief not just one (highly individual !!!) aspect of a human? His scapegoat mechanism is so overly reductionist.
gojonah's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
More...