Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.23 AVERAGE
3.23 AVERAGE
thegoodbook1991's review
challenging
informative
slow-paced
4.0
Nothing makes sense and that’s okay.
titus_hjelm's review against another edition
4.0
Solid introduction with a healthy dose of scepticism--just as there should be. I've alwasy thought that postmodernism in social science has produced some interesting writing, but as a guide to 'real world' (which obviously doesn't exist...) research, it is often useless.
nomadjg's review
2.0
I have already noticed that Butler is skeptical about the value of postmodernism. He appears to loathe Derrida. He's an odd choice for an introductory book. I chose to read it because I was looking for some ideas to share with my students. His disgust with postmodernism might be rhetorically inviting to some. By the way, I also think it is hilarious that this book isn't all that short.
Many examples he provided are quite useful.
For another introduction to pomo, check out the introduction and some of the theoretical excerpts in this book: https://wwnorton.com/college/english/pmaf/
Many examples he provided are quite useful.
For another introduction to pomo, check out the introduction and some of the theoretical excerpts in this book: https://wwnorton.com/college/english/pmaf/
buddhafish's review
3.0
140th book of 2020.
Ah, postmodernism. Before I discuss this book, I want to comment on a TV show I saw a while ago (perhaps on the BBC, but I can’t remember): at one point a number of artists were asked to define postmodernism. The results were humorous, but not helpful; most said things like “it has been explained to me a hundred times and I still don’t understand it” or, more simply, “I don’t know.” One, who had been described as a postmodernist themselves, had no clue either. I’ve spent the last few weeks reading about postmodernism and it does seem to be this elusive, often mischievous, force of nature, sometimes eluding the very people who create it—is postmodernism Frankenstein’s Monster?
Butler is not a postmodernist. His stance is critical in all sense of the word—he attacks postmodernism throughout the book and even partly mocks it. He starts a little lenient perhaps, but by the end, his stance is very much clear. I am by no means a “supporter” of postmodernism, but I have a great deal of interest within it. After many weeks of reading around the subject, this book didn’t reveal a great deal of new information, but there were some “known” things outlined nicely. Butler’s tone did irk me by the end: critical, slightly arrogant and aloof. It did make me wonder why he wanted to write the book, or why anyone wanted him to write the book, considering his scathing views of the movement. Interestingly, he finalised his thoughts by saying I believe that the period of its greatest influence is now over; this is no new claim either. Of course, now, we could be in post-post-modernism, or else post-post-post-modernism and so on… We are forever beyond modernism.
As an introduction it was acceptable, but mostly too much of an attack for an “introduction”—one wanting an entrance into a movement should not be led through lenses of disapproval and derision. All the names one expects to read were there: Derrida, Pynchon, Jencks, Grass, Nabokov, Eco, Rushdie, Rauschenberg.
Overall an interesting read but some articles I have read were more enlightening and less critical. A dissection can be deep, but not wounding—Butler’s incisions were heavy-handed and drew a lot of watery blood without much substance.
Ah, postmodernism. Before I discuss this book, I want to comment on a TV show I saw a while ago (perhaps on the BBC, but I can’t remember): at one point a number of artists were asked to define postmodernism. The results were humorous, but not helpful; most said things like “it has been explained to me a hundred times and I still don’t understand it” or, more simply, “I don’t know.” One, who had been described as a postmodernist themselves, had no clue either. I’ve spent the last few weeks reading about postmodernism and it does seem to be this elusive, often mischievous, force of nature, sometimes eluding the very people who create it—is postmodernism Frankenstein’s Monster?
Butler is not a postmodernist. His stance is critical in all sense of the word—he attacks postmodernism throughout the book and even partly mocks it. He starts a little lenient perhaps, but by the end, his stance is very much clear. I am by no means a “supporter” of postmodernism, but I have a great deal of interest within it. After many weeks of reading around the subject, this book didn’t reveal a great deal of new information, but there were some “known” things outlined nicely. Butler’s tone did irk me by the end: critical, slightly arrogant and aloof. It did make me wonder why he wanted to write the book, or why anyone wanted him to write the book, considering his scathing views of the movement. Interestingly, he finalised his thoughts by saying I believe that the period of its greatest influence is now over; this is no new claim either. Of course, now, we could be in post-post-modernism, or else post-post-post-modernism and so on… We are forever beyond modernism.
As an introduction it was acceptable, but mostly too much of an attack for an “introduction”—one wanting an entrance into a movement should not be led through lenses of disapproval and derision. All the names one expects to read were there: Derrida, Pynchon, Jencks, Grass, Nabokov, Eco, Rushdie, Rauschenberg.
Overall an interesting read but some articles I have read were more enlightening and less critical. A dissection can be deep, but not wounding—Butler’s incisions were heavy-handed and drew a lot of watery blood without much substance.
arymonster's review
2.0
I’m surprised that, for their entry on postmodernism, the “very short introduction” series chose an author so openly hostile to postmodernism. It a quick read, but (not being a philosopher or art historian or semiotician or anything else) I’m not sure if what I was exposed to was an accurate portrayal of the tenets of postmodernism with a piquant rebuttal, or a bad-faith takedown of a straw man.
pearl35's review
4.0
This should be in the hands of every grad student going into a historiography course. Clear, concise, with examples from literature, music, architecture, fine arts and history. Textualizing, Grand Narratives, Discourse and Power, Death of the Author and Politics of Difference will hold no more terror, although the pile of bricks as art will still piss you off (it is supposed to.)