Scan barcode
taicantfly's reviews
14 reviews
The Adventures of Tintin: Breaking Free by Hergé
adventurous
hopeful
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
This was fun to read in one sitting - a Tintin that resembles the original in name and appearance only is reimagined as a young working class lad organising for better workplace conditions in a strike that becomes a full blown worker's revolution. Look, I'm a communist, I have no quarrel with the events depicted or the hopeful tone of the story, but the pacing made the escalation from wildcat strike phenomenon to worker's revolution really sudden, the characters served zero purpose in their own right, the dialogue is just too unsubtle in its communication - and I understand that the point of this is that it's lighthearted, distributable, recognisable agitprop, and that not everything has to be the richest work of art on God's green earth, but it just felt a little lacking. I would still recommend this gladly, partly because it's so fast to get through!
Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace
challenging
emotional
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
The Class Nature of Israeli Society by Moshe Machover, Akiva Orr, Haim Hanegbi
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.0
חיבור מעניין. אפשר לראות שזה תוצר של תקופה שונה מההבדלים בישראל המודרנית (נגיד, האוכלוסיה החשובה של עובדים מחו"ל, הפיצוץ ההיי-טק הכלכלי ששם בקונטקסט חדש את הכלכלה הישראלית, חוקי המימון למפלגות פוליטיות שהשתנו באופן רציני מאז '69) אבל רוב הניתוח הוא חזק, מיודע היטב ומראה הבנה עמוקה לא רק בנושא של כלכלת ישראל אבל גם בנושא המטריאליזם ההיסטורי.
סך הכל אהבתי! אני לא יכול לתת לזה יותר כוכבים כי זה היה (בגלל האורך) יותר כמו הקדמה בסיסית מאשר רחבה , אבל אני בטח אקרא ספר רציני בנושא מתי שהוא כי החיבור הזה ממש עניין אותי!
(אפשר לקרוא את זה חינם בmarxists.org, ברוך השם שיש קומוניסטים לפזר אינפורמציה)
סך הכל אהבתי! אני לא יכול לתת לזה יותר כוכבים כי זה היה (בגלל האורך) יותר כמו הקדמה בסיסית מאשר רחבה , אבל אני בטח אקרא ספר רציני בנושא מתי שהוא כי החיבור הזה ממש עניין אותי!
(אפשר לקרוא את זה חינם בmarxists.org, ברוך השם שיש קומוניסטים לפזר אינפורמציה)
The Mezzanine by Nicholson Baker
funny
lighthearted
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
I read this as a precursor to Infinite Jest(having been told that it'd familiarise me with both the footnote structure¹ and the rambling faux-profundity of DFW's writing) and devoured it in my Lisbon hotel room in two evenings.
This book is very whimsical, an over-intellectualising Amélie written with the odd matter-of-factness Bret Easton Ellis used for Patrick Bateman's character. My personal diary includes a section for "musings" daily which really resemble the ramblings of this book; at multiple points throughout I made a self-improving little goal of more regular, more creative, more light-hearted introspection². I found myself, regardless of the substance of the paragraph, personally connecting with the style and casual philosophical exploration (thoughts and observations are like analytic fractals: you can zoom in arbitrarily far and still find conceptual depth, so why should this intellectually masturbatory zooming be saved for topics deemed "profound" like ontology and ethics?) and I think if I were ever to write a novel it'd likely be so structurally influenced by this I'd have to find his home number, call him six times and receive no answer and shy away, fearing the answer of his widow.
The only thing I actively disliked about this was the political passivity - Baker's inability to direct his wonderful wit at anything structural or systemic - but I can't expect every author to tint their works with the ink of a Marxist polemic. Also, the cultural reference points may have missed their marks at times, but that's more attributable to my having been born a few decades too late.
Overall I would really recommend this to anyone who is looking for an inconsequential but also unexpectedly consequential little summer read and I hope it resonates with you as much as it did with me!
¹ "...William Edward Hartpole Lecky's History of European Morals (which I had been attracted to, browsing in the library one Saturday, by the ambitious title and the luxuriant incidentalism of the footnotes)", followed by Baker's explanation of his aesthetic leanings towards the footnote, perfectly mirror my decision to read Infinite Jest and my personal inclinations towards brackets, something that is painfully obvious upon repeated interaction with my writing style and the source of many scoldings from my Philosophy professor.
²Meta-analysis of my thought patterns and flaccid declarations of commitment to their improvement have a periodicity, for me, of about 1500.
This book is very whimsical, an over-intellectualising Amélie written with the odd matter-of-factness Bret Easton Ellis used for Patrick Bateman's character. My personal diary includes a section for "musings" daily which really resemble the ramblings of this book; at multiple points throughout I made a self-improving little goal of more regular, more creative, more light-hearted introspection². I found myself, regardless of the substance of the paragraph, personally connecting with the style and casual philosophical exploration (thoughts and observations are like analytic fractals: you can zoom in arbitrarily far and still find conceptual depth, so why should this intellectually masturbatory zooming be saved for topics deemed "profound" like ontology and ethics?) and I think if I were ever to write a novel it'd likely be so structurally influenced by this I'd have to find his home number, call him six times and receive no answer and shy away, fearing the answer of his widow.
The only thing I actively disliked about this was the political passivity - Baker's inability to direct his wonderful wit at anything structural or systemic - but I can't expect every author to tint their works with the ink of a Marxist polemic. Also, the cultural reference points may have missed their marks at times, but that's more attributable to my having been born a few decades too late.
Overall I would really recommend this to anyone who is looking for an inconsequential but also unexpectedly consequential little summer read and I hope it resonates with you as much as it did with me!
¹ "...William Edward Hartpole Lecky's History of European Morals (which I had been attracted to, browsing in the library one Saturday, by the ambitious title and the luxuriant incidentalism of the footnotes)", followed by Baker's explanation of his aesthetic leanings towards the footnote, perfectly mirror my decision to read Infinite Jest and my personal inclinations towards brackets, something that is painfully obvious upon repeated interaction with my writing style and the source of many scoldings from my Philosophy professor.
²Meta-analysis of my thought patterns and flaccid declarations of commitment to their improvement have a periodicity, for me, of about 1500.
How Nonviolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
3.75
I have mixed feelings about this book. It's largely well researched, well reasoned and well written, explaining the author's proclivity towards militancy in a way that feels both emotionally justified and intellectually pragmatic. But Gelderloos' (self-admitted, as per the last chapter) vitriol towards pacifists sometimes makes this read more like a frustrated polemic than a genuine exploration of how nonviolence protects the state.
Some chapters ("nonviolence is statist", "nonviolence is tactically and strategically inferior", "nonviolence is delusional") do a fairly good job at providing evidence for the fairly assertive claim in the chapter name. Others feel like a bit of a stretch: e.g. "nonviolence is patriarchal" mainly being isolated examples of pacifist movements underrepresenting women or more gender essentialist feminist movements claiming that being violent is an inherently male act. This doesn't really extend to the conclusion given in the chapter name as easily (and I'd be willing to bet a good majority of pacifists would gladly discredit both the misogynistic exclusionism and the gender essentialism spouted by other pacifist movements).
The biggest strength of this book is, I feel, in how well-read its author is. Constant references to the history of organising and direct action, almost excessive quotation of Ward Churchill and Frantz Fanon, citations of random blog posts and newspaper articles, all littering the footnotes (of which there is, on average, more than 1 per short A5 page). As a springboard for further reading, this text is excellent, and I found myself highlighting so many things to add to my reading list to the point where if I were looking for a book to read I could just flip through my copy and look at the green highlighter.
I'm willing to cut Gelderloos some slack for his shortcomings given his self-awareness. Maybe there needs to be a militant text harshly critical of pacifism to counteract the many pacifist texts harshly critical of militancy. Maybe there need to be personal anecdotes from an author heavily experienced with direct action and organising (with an even wider web of contacts with even more personal anecdotes) that can document cultures of racism and misogyny in the pacifist organising of the intellectual white middle class. And he acknowledges his personal biases and the subjective nature of some of his supporting evidence - while lampshading all the book's flaws doesn't immediately dispel them, it's reassuring that Gelderloos doesn't believe himself to be making some objective and analytic bible but rather just giving some fairly authoritative perspectives that I hadn't had the chance to really explore before.
Overall this book was very interesting! I found myself agreeing with it by the end much more than I had expected to at the start, and I'm sure many others who are hesitant to abandon nonviolence will at least be convinced into a less dogmatic pacifism (if not to, as he puts it, reject the dichotomy of violence and nonviolence). I'm looking forward to reading more of his work - especially the more recent stuff, seeing as he wrote this when he was 24!
Some chapters ("nonviolence is statist", "nonviolence is tactically and strategically inferior", "nonviolence is delusional") do a fairly good job at providing evidence for the fairly assertive claim in the chapter name. Others feel like a bit of a stretch: e.g. "nonviolence is patriarchal" mainly being isolated examples of pacifist movements underrepresenting women or more gender essentialist feminist movements claiming that being violent is an inherently male act. This doesn't really extend to the conclusion given in the chapter name as easily (and I'd be willing to bet a good majority of pacifists would gladly discredit both the misogynistic exclusionism and the gender essentialism spouted by other pacifist movements).
The biggest strength of this book is, I feel, in how well-read its author is. Constant references to the history of organising and direct action, almost excessive quotation of Ward Churchill and Frantz Fanon, citations of random blog posts and newspaper articles, all littering the footnotes (of which there is, on average, more than 1 per short A5 page). As a springboard for further reading, this text is excellent, and I found myself highlighting so many things to add to my reading list to the point where if I were looking for a book to read I could just flip through my copy and look at the green highlighter.
I'm willing to cut Gelderloos some slack for his shortcomings given his self-awareness. Maybe there needs to be a militant text harshly critical of pacifism to counteract the many pacifist texts harshly critical of militancy. Maybe there need to be personal anecdotes from an author heavily experienced with direct action and organising (with an even wider web of contacts with even more personal anecdotes) that can document cultures of racism and misogyny in the pacifist organising of the intellectual white middle class. And he acknowledges his personal biases and the subjective nature of some of his supporting evidence - while lampshading all the book's flaws doesn't immediately dispel them, it's reassuring that Gelderloos doesn't believe himself to be making some objective and analytic bible but rather just giving some fairly authoritative perspectives that I hadn't had the chance to really explore before.
Overall this book was very interesting! I found myself agreeing with it by the end much more than I had expected to at the start, and I'm sure many others who are hesitant to abandon nonviolence will at least be convinced into a less dogmatic pacifism (if not to, as he puts it, reject the dichotomy of violence and nonviolence). I'm looking forward to reading more of his work - especially the more recent stuff, seeing as he wrote this when he was 24!
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.5
This book is undoubtedly very witty in a kind of time capsule way. Very Monty Python-esque (I think Adams mentioned Flying Circus as a big influence in his humour?) and absurd, it doesn't place its environment nor plot within the confines of the suspension of non-belief, which means Adams can explore a huge variety of his ideas in a way that feels like a sketch show but is still linear and cohesive.
I think it is a bit grating after a time, not really exploring a lot of its philosophical ideas in detail - however not all sci-fi has to be high concept and this nicely fulfills the desire for an easy-to-read, fast paced (~2.5h) and silly book. It's also maybe a bit Reddit-y, but not really through any fault of its own; this book pretty much set the precedent for the kind of humour Reddit users would badly duplicate.
My favourite bit was this passage:
One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn't understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid.
My least favourite bit was probably the ending with the cops coming after Zaphod. I forgot about that plot point and, when reminded by the book, realised I didn't care.
I think it is a bit grating after a time, not really exploring a lot of its philosophical ideas in detail - however not all sci-fi has to be high concept and this nicely fulfills the desire for an easy-to-read, fast paced (~2.5h) and silly book. It's also maybe a bit Reddit-y, but not really through any fault of its own; this book pretty much set the precedent for the kind of humour Reddit users would badly duplicate.
My favourite bit was this passage:
One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn't understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid.
My least favourite bit was probably the ending with the cops coming after Zaphod. I forgot about that plot point and, when reminded by the book, realised I didn't care.
The Foundations of Arithmetic: A Logico-Mathematical Enquiry into the Concept of Number by Gottlob Frege
challenging
informative
medium-paced
3.25
From an objective standpoint this book is one of the most influential in all of modern philosophy. It's the catalyst for the linguistic turn, it's (arguably) one of the most novel and impressive philosophical inquiries into the epistemology and ontology of mathematics, it's the standard reference point for many students of the philosophy of mathematics (myself included, which is why I read it).
I recognise the risk of turning this review into simply an essay in which I disagree with the book. Fair enough. But genuinely it astounds me despite how innovative Frege's ideas were that a lot of the time he was just plain wrong, and when he wasn't plain wrong he was just unconvincing. Frege says that the axioms of geometry are synthetic and the axioms of arithmetic are analytic, but doesn't apply the methodology used to find the syntheticity of the axioms of geometry when it comes to analysing arithmetic. Frege says that Mill is wrong for his agglomerative account of number, but then radically misunderstands the Millian view in a way that is almost embarassing. Frege says that Hume's Principle is not a sound starting point for derivation but then picks something not only similar in nature but (as later shown) just paradoxical! Frege says that number is not a property of objects (like colour is), but doesn't recognise the intricacies of the application of colour terms function with the same complexities as the application of number terms!
The writing is at times clunky; I understand that I read a translation and that some of the flow is likely to be lost, but his Grundgesetze (at the time of writing this review I have only read the Grundgesetze partially) is much more elegant with symbolism and able to express his points in less ambiguous ways. It seems like this book was written more as a polemic, aimed at convincing those with some philosophical background that the Fregean view of mathematics was correct. But if this is the case and he wished to avoid overly technical content, Frege could have easily avoided clunky sections such as the section on parallel lines and the one on the infinitude of the naturals. If it was aimed as, to some extent, a genuine logical manual, then it just gets outshined by the Grundgesetze he writes later. And no work exists in a vacuum, so the fact he was able to express his ideas so much more effectively just makes this seem a little disappointing in comparison. But there would be no Grundgesetze without this - so it holds up as a titan even with its flaws.
This was a very frustrating read as someone who aligns themself more with empiricism. However the fact it found ways to annoy me in about ten different related topics is probably a sign of its wide-ranging merit as a text. Overall I have very mixed feelings; I would recommend it, but I would recommend it largely because a) it's very necessary context for the modern discussion and b) it gives you free reign to be a hater.
I recognise the risk of turning this review into simply an essay in which I disagree with the book. Fair enough. But genuinely it astounds me despite how innovative Frege's ideas were that a lot of the time he was just plain wrong, and when he wasn't plain wrong he was just unconvincing. Frege says that the axioms of geometry are synthetic and the axioms of arithmetic are analytic, but doesn't apply the methodology used to find the syntheticity of the axioms of geometry when it comes to analysing arithmetic. Frege says that Mill is wrong for his agglomerative account of number, but then radically misunderstands the Millian view in a way that is almost embarassing. Frege says that Hume's Principle is not a sound starting point for derivation but then picks something not only similar in nature but (as later shown) just paradoxical! Frege says that number is not a property of objects (like colour is), but doesn't recognise the intricacies of the application of colour terms function with the same complexities as the application of number terms!
The writing is at times clunky; I understand that I read a translation and that some of the flow is likely to be lost, but his Grundgesetze (at the time of writing this review I have only read the Grundgesetze partially) is much more elegant with symbolism and able to express his points in less ambiguous ways. It seems like this book was written more as a polemic, aimed at convincing those with some philosophical background that the Fregean view of mathematics was correct. But if this is the case and he wished to avoid overly technical content, Frege could have easily avoided clunky sections such as the section on parallel lines and the one on the infinitude of the naturals. If it was aimed as, to some extent, a genuine logical manual, then it just gets outshined by the Grundgesetze he writes later. And no work exists in a vacuum, so the fact he was able to express his ideas so much more effectively just makes this seem a little disappointing in comparison. But there would be no Grundgesetze without this - so it holds up as a titan even with its flaws.
This was a very frustrating read as someone who aligns themself more with empiricism. However the fact it found ways to annoy me in about ten different related topics is probably a sign of its wide-ranging merit as a text. Overall I have very mixed feelings; I would recommend it, but I would recommend it largely because a) it's very necessary context for the modern discussion and b) it gives you free reign to be a hater.
A Jewdas Haggadah by Jewdas
funny
hopeful
lighthearted
fast-paced
4.0
Thank you Jewdas for keeping me sane. Baruch hashem, happy Pesach.
How to Spot a Fascist by Umberto Eco, Richard Dixon, Alastair McEwen
informative
reflective
fast-paced
3.0
Really weird. Starts off well and poignantly, characterising fascism fairly explicitly. Continues to a slightly meandering and off-topic discussion of noise and media over-saturation as a form of political control (which has its gems but at one point he complains about people with iPods and having TVs at restaurants - what??), then ends on a discussion of the European cultural identity which felt like it was saying absolutely nothing. This is the first Eco I've read, so I won't judge the guy at pointblank on a 50-page essay, but I can't say I loved it.
Also, what the fuck was that about Romanians?
Also, what the fuck was that about Romanians?
Blindness by José Saramago
One of my favourite books of all time. Deserves every piece of praise it gets.
Rarely does a book evoke such strong emotions of genuine empathy and willingness to change. The society in Blindness breaks down so completely and so swiftly that all that our characters are left with are the most fundamental and necessary of human traits. It shows that, in the end, it all boils down to love - the love the doctor's wife has for her husband, the love the woman with the dark shades has for the child, the love the man with the eyepatch has for her. Through so much pain and dehumanisation our community unites us, and when you strip away all the unnecessary vices and distractions, it is love that keeps us going. It was love and it always has been. This book makes me want to be a better version of myself.
In contrast to love, the other main thematic portrayal is the nature of violence. The violence of soldier against inmate stems from fear of blindness. The violence of inmate against inmate stems from fear that this delivery of food may be the last, and the knowledge that if the other wing eats you might not. These roots of violence gnaw at the hearts of those they occupy, and it grows a mind of its own - massacres, sexual violence.
In the end, Blindness' themes are simple. Love and violence, violence and love. But that's because the world is simple! Love and violence, violence and love.
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Rarely does a book evoke such strong emotions of genuine empathy and willingness to change. The society in Blindness breaks down so completely and so swiftly that all that our characters are left with are the most fundamental and necessary of human traits. It shows that, in the end, it all boils down to love - the love the doctor's wife has for her husband, the love the woman with the dark shades has for the child, the love the man with the eyepatch has for her. Through so much pain and dehumanisation our community unites us, and when you strip away all the unnecessary vices and distractions, it is love that keeps us going. It was love and it always has been. This book makes me want to be a better version of myself.
In contrast to love, the other main thematic portrayal is the nature of violence. The violence of soldier against inmate stems from fear of blindness. The violence of inmate against inmate stems from fear that this delivery of food may be the last, and the knowledge that if the other wing eats you might not. These roots of violence gnaw at the hearts of those they occupy, and it grows a mind of its own - massacres, sexual violence.
In the end, Blindness' themes are simple. Love and violence, violence and love. But that's because the world is simple! Love and violence, violence and love.