Scan barcode
shimmeringice's review
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.5
Unfortunately, the premise was more interesting than the execution in this book. I wish that the author went more into comparison of a time/format where people relied less on narrative to argue. I agreed on the premise that 'our story' had taken over every form of other casual rhetoric, but it was hard for me to imagine what exactly the alternative was. Brooks consistently mentions that argument and rhetoric used to be different before the narrative turn, but he doesn't go in depth into how.
On the other hand, I did actually quite enjoy the discussion about 18th century French literature's preoccupation with the origins and 'truth' of a story, and I think that the last section about narrative in the legal context was interesting, if a bit underdeveloped.
On the other hand, I did actually quite enjoy the discussion about 18th century French literature's preoccupation with the origins and 'truth' of a story, and I think that the last section about narrative in the legal context was interesting, if a bit underdeveloped.
jennarebekah's review
None of this had to be written as pompously as it was. Describing Russian formalists in language akin to olde english is obnoxious and that made me stop reading it lmao
what_anna_reads's review
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.0
Considering my field of study I did get something out of this book, and I do overall really stand by what this book argues. However, I wish this book went way further in its analysis and that it was better at tying its evidence back to the point. I left this book feeling like I wanted it to have done more than it did.
taliaissmart's review
This one is for the philosophy heads and/or people who have read all of Diderot/Henry James/Faulkner...I am neither of these.
mcatsambas's review
3.0
I thought this book was going to talk more about the real-life consequences of the "abuse of narrative" like people falling prey to dangerous totalitarian narratives. It did not. It mentioned that at the beginning and at the end, but it was mostly a lofty literary analysis of narrative and novels. I did like the point that novels help us understand truths about life that are hard to glean from real-life living, particularly through experiencing the subjectivity of a fictional character which is impossible to do with other people IRL. There was also a discussion at the end about narrative in law which at first I thought was dumb because it seemed to ignore the fact that students are taught about crafting their side's "story" of the case in LRW class, but it made the interesting point that the whole legal system is buttressed by a narrative that the Constitution is the end-all be-all, so SCOTUS opinions have to say things like "this outcome inevitably came from the Constitution" (even if it didn't) in order to be credible. Overall narratology seems like an interesting but narrow discipline.
bub_9's review
1.0
I was sorely disappointed by this. The introduction is promising, if a little self-satisfied, as the author discusses how the world, power relations, and various cultural areas have shifted ever more towards narrativisation in recent decades. In fact, in the next few chapters, which are strangely incoherent with little sense of a common thread holding them together, the author proceeds to spend inordinate amounts of time on 18th-century French literature and late-19th-century/early-20th-century American literature, explaining how these works exemplify the power and dangers of narrative. But that's not what we were promised! To make things worse, a random chapter on legal issues is tacked on at the end, which the author purports is because the legal system has "unique importance" in the sphere of narratology, but which is clearly just an outgrowth of the author's frustration with the Supreme Court.
Skip.
Skip.