Scan barcode
tdwightdavis's review against another edition
4.0
Still incredible politically salient, even if I do find the non-violence chapter to be a bit too abstract and idealistic. I think that the framework Butler uses to think through non-violence is helpful and maybe actually demands redefining what non-violence means beyond a sort of idealistic Butlerian “Fuck you” and into a more active sort of survival mechanism.
legsbian's review
Starts by investigating and arguing about the 'frames' through which war — and the lives attacked and lost to it — are presented. Then a rabbit hole of defining "precarious." Overuses the word "ontological." Classic Butler.
paigeb's review
4.0
found the essays to be pretty repetitive at times, but still another absolute banger by JB
yvlie's review
4.0
I think Frames of War is a very important book that is definetely worth engaging with. It gives valuable insight into politics and its connection to aesthetics, with "Torture and Ethics of Photography: Thinking with Sontag" as the strongest chapter in my opinion. Sometimes the connection between the individual chapters is a little bit too forced (as some of the chapters had been published as articles before). However, I advise everyone interested in politics, ethics or the representation strategies of the media in general, to read this book.
andyogm's review
4.0
I took a bit of a break between two of the essays but this was a good book, just as good as Precarious Life and essentially the same topic.
amloiandy's review
3.0
Concepts
There’s no denying there’s some foundational concepts covered in the book. I’ve even applied some of them myself in other contexts. But to say that I understood or even recognized all the concepts in the book would be untrue. Because another thing there’s no denying: Judith Butler’s discourse style is a challenge to penetrate.
Now on the one hand there’s this:
"In terms of access and justice, using plain language is very important. It’s needed to allow the widest variety of people with disabilities to participate in conversations about themselves.
"People with the disabilities called intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities, learning disabilities, and the like, some people with experiences causing them to identify as psychiatric survivors, even people with types of physical or chronic issues which cause fatigue—all of these people may benefit from not having to wade through walls of jargon in order to read about themselves. They would also benefit from not being expected to learn how to write in these ways in order for their voices to be heard.
"This is just the tip of the iceberg. Writing academic scholarship in ways that allow more people to gain access to it is also beneficial when we are talking about economic justice. It is useful in cases of English as a second language, and it is useful when we are talking about people who are brilliant thinkers and organizers but for whatever reason (frequently economic) have not had the time (or money) to learn the language systems of academic jargon."
From a feminist standpoint, I think it is quite clear that we would want more people to have access to the tools and social capital that would enable movements to go forward. I think disability really is just the tip of the iceberg of reasons why people should write using plain language. (I would also, while I’m here, like to point out the irony of this quote coming from The Feminist Wire, since their pieces tend to be the most jargony of all the ism blogs I've read.)
Anyway, on the other hand there is this:
"people hopscotch their way into my mentions expecting me to become some sort of race-Google that answers every question as if they don’t have the same books, websites, blogs, articles, Internet, colleges, and human contact that helps me form opinions. It’s one thing to ask me about my experiences. It is another to expect me to “teach” those who don’t give a damn enough about change to educate themselves in the first place." (Trudy Hamilton at Gradient Lair)
It’s a common enough sentiment in “advanced feminist spaces” that the contributors aren’t responsible for teaching the audience the basics, especially when all the information sought is easily available.
And I agree with both these points. On the one hand, the impenetrable language made me miss out on parts of this book--or so it seems to me--and that completely pisses me off; and on the other hand, I completely recognize Butler’s prerogative to write whatever she wants however she wants to write it. I learned a lot, and I’m thankful for that.
Enjoyment
The reason I can’t score the enjoyment is based in the same frustration with the impenetrable language. But, when I mention how terrible the one serious philosophy course I took was, I’ll always except Kierkegaard, not because I enjoy his particular philosophy--I have no idea what his particular philosophy is--but because his language is so dense and convoluted that trying to extract meaning from it is like a game or a puzzle. At one point I even resorted to sketching diagrams to try to make sense of what he was saying.
And while my first reaction is to be profoundly annoyed by such writing, I also enjoy the challenge, and I’m always quite pleased when I succeed in cracking it, even if it’s only in some small degree.
There’s no denying there’s some foundational concepts covered in the book. I’ve even applied some of them myself in other contexts. But to say that I understood or even recognized all the concepts in the book would be untrue. Because another thing there’s no denying: Judith Butler’s discourse style is a challenge to penetrate.
Now on the one hand there’s this:
"In terms of access and justice, using plain language is very important. It’s needed to allow the widest variety of people with disabilities to participate in conversations about themselves.
"People with the disabilities called intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities, learning disabilities, and the like, some people with experiences causing them to identify as psychiatric survivors, even people with types of physical or chronic issues which cause fatigue—all of these people may benefit from not having to wade through walls of jargon in order to read about themselves. They would also benefit from not being expected to learn how to write in these ways in order for their voices to be heard.
"This is just the tip of the iceberg. Writing academic scholarship in ways that allow more people to gain access to it is also beneficial when we are talking about economic justice. It is useful in cases of English as a second language, and it is useful when we are talking about people who are brilliant thinkers and organizers but for whatever reason (frequently economic) have not had the time (or money) to learn the language systems of academic jargon."
From a feminist standpoint, I think it is quite clear that we would want more people to have access to the tools and social capital that would enable movements to go forward. I think disability really is just the tip of the iceberg of reasons why people should write using plain language. (I would also, while I’m here, like to point out the irony of this quote coming from The Feminist Wire, since their pieces tend to be the most jargony of all the ism blogs I've read.)
Anyway, on the other hand there is this:
"people hopscotch their way into my mentions expecting me to become some sort of race-Google that answers every question as if they don’t have the same books, websites, blogs, articles, Internet, colleges, and human contact that helps me form opinions. It’s one thing to ask me about my experiences. It is another to expect me to “teach” those who don’t give a damn enough about change to educate themselves in the first place." (Trudy Hamilton at Gradient Lair)
It’s a common enough sentiment in “advanced feminist spaces” that the contributors aren’t responsible for teaching the audience the basics, especially when all the information sought is easily available.
And I agree with both these points. On the one hand, the impenetrable language made me miss out on parts of this book--or so it seems to me--and that completely pisses me off; and on the other hand, I completely recognize Butler’s prerogative to write whatever she wants however she wants to write it. I learned a lot, and I’m thankful for that.
Enjoyment
The reason I can’t score the enjoyment is based in the same frustration with the impenetrable language. But, when I mention how terrible the one serious philosophy course I took was, I’ll always except Kierkegaard, not because I enjoy his particular philosophy--I have no idea what his particular philosophy is--but because his language is so dense and convoluted that trying to extract meaning from it is like a game or a puzzle. At one point I even resorted to sketching diagrams to try to make sense of what he was saying.
And while my first reaction is to be profoundly annoyed by such writing, I also enjoy the challenge, and I’m always quite pleased when I succeed in cracking it, even if it’s only in some small degree.
louise96's review
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
Excellent book challenging how we conceptualise what is means to be alive. For an academic book, this is really accessible but bear in mind is not an easy read in non-academic contexts.
lnprad's review
4.0
Why, Butler, why use "irregardless"? I can forgive you for injurability and precarity and grievability, in such instances you are simply manipulating the already tired & ill-treated vocabulary of the social sciences to suit your needs, but "irregardless?" I read and then I reached the lexical miscarriage in question and I blanched. And then I continued reading because you're dynamite.
More...