Scan barcode
aeudaimonia's reviews
62 reviews
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
This is a great book, really well written, and unfortunately not at all to my taste. Decided to give Hemingway another chance with this one (hated The Old Man and the Sea when I read it in high school, but loved For Whom the Bell Tolls). It's not that The Sun Also Rises fell flat for me necessarily; the characters are for the most part 3-dimensional and subtle, and the story, though verging on "no plot, just vibes," serves the characters and themes perfectly well. But the plot is so dependent on the characters, and the characters are so unlikeable, that reading the book became my least favorite chore - though less than 200 pages it took me over three weeks to finish. I'll probably come back to the book in a few years or so, and reread The Old Man as well; maybe I'll see them though new eyes. But for now I am so, so relieved to be done.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Antisemitism
Minor: Homophobia and Violence
The Book of the City of Ladies by Christine de Pizan
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
V. complicated feelings about this book. It's sometimes called "protofeminist," but because feminism has certain political dimensions, and because Pizan avoids political commentary at every opportunity, I think it's better described as broadly pro-woman. Any time she says something legitimately progressive, she walks it back like she's afraid of her own stakes. Elsewhere she touches on what today we'd call the systemic oppression medieval women faced but she's always reluctant to address it openly, or engage with the implications of her staunch essentialist commitments. (However, I understand that life under divinely ordained monarchy leaves less room for political theory and dissent).
While her refusal to engage with her own stakes is frustrating, it makes the book a unique conveyor of the late medieval worldview: its values, its ideological intricacies and inconsistencies. Pizan argues with the misogynists of her day yet doesn't reject their framework and rigidly adheres to accepted conventions. Refusing to cross certain essentialist, patriarchal, and hierarchical boundaries, even in a polemic, she clarifies those boundaries better than another treatise might.
Unfortunately the book isn't just touted for its historical value, but its feminist one. As a woman with a strong historical and feminist bent, I think the protofeminist label set me up for disappointment. I knew, obviously, that Pizan's rhetoric wouldn't be progressive by today's standards. Throughout the book she asserts that a woman's greatest treasure is her virginity, that a woman who rebels against her womanly nature is somehow monstrous, at some points implying that basic safety is a right to be earned, morally, and that unchaste women deserve what's coming to them. All this is pretty par for the course for Christian literature. But whereas Part I focuses on warrior women, queens, and lawgivers, Parts II and III introduce the theme of female suffering (and equate it with female virtue). Pizan devotes Part III to the female saints and martyrs, frequently describing in graphic detail the tortures inflicted upon women and girls as young as 12. Obviously difficult to read. Part III is short but took longer than usual to finish because I became physically nauseous at several points. The anecdotes are designed to elicit some sense of catharsis. They're all formulaic: the misogynists say women are faithless, unchaste, and irrelevant to Christian history; they ignore all these young virgins - children - who endured unimaginable torture rather than sacrifice their virginity. What's more, they all received their heavenly crown. Etc, etc. Unfortunately it wasn't cathartic for me; it was just a bummer.
At the same time I feel very defensive about the book and about Pizan as a writer. Pizan's grief over the plight of woman is genuine and palpable; in that respect, she and I are the same. And in six hundred years the feminism of the 20th and 21st centuries in which I am so invested may well be just as outdated and harmful as Pizan's protofeminism of 1405. Critical as I am of the book (and still reeling from Part III) I actually enjoyed the majority of it. Rosalind Brown-Grant's translation is accessible and her introduction illuminating (pointing out, for example, Pizan's interesting use of pronouns in a way that anticipates modern concerns over gendered language). There's a lot to love and even more to dissect; it'd be a great addition to high school great books programs. It saddens me to see so many lukewarm or unfavorable reviews. I really think the book exists outside of a one-to-five-star scale and doesn't deserve to be penalized for failing modern expectations for narrative and character (or even basic veracity of the information presented). It was, significantly, well received within Pizan's own lifetime and that's an undeniable achievement for Pizan and the pro-woman or protofeminist cause.
While her refusal to engage with her own stakes is frustrating, it makes the book a unique conveyor of the late medieval worldview: its values, its ideological intricacies and inconsistencies. Pizan argues with the misogynists of her day yet doesn't reject their framework and rigidly adheres to accepted conventions. Refusing to cross certain essentialist, patriarchal, and hierarchical boundaries, even in a polemic, she clarifies those boundaries better than another treatise might.
Unfortunately the book isn't just touted for its historical value, but its feminist one. As a woman with a strong historical and feminist bent, I think the protofeminist label set me up for disappointment. I knew, obviously, that Pizan's rhetoric wouldn't be progressive by today's standards. Throughout the book she asserts that a woman's greatest treasure is her virginity, that a woman who rebels against her womanly nature is somehow monstrous, at some points implying that basic safety is a right to be earned, morally, and that unchaste women deserve what's coming to them. All this is pretty par for the course for Christian literature. But whereas Part I focuses on warrior women, queens, and lawgivers, Parts II and III introduce the theme of female suffering (and equate it with female virtue). Pizan devotes Part III to the female saints and martyrs, frequently describing in graphic detail the tortures inflicted upon women and girls as young as 12. Obviously difficult to read. Part III is short but took longer than usual to finish because I became physically nauseous at several points. The anecdotes are designed to elicit some sense of catharsis. They're all formulaic: the misogynists say women are faithless, unchaste, and irrelevant to Christian history; they ignore all these young virgins - children - who endured unimaginable torture rather than sacrifice their virginity. What's more, they all received their heavenly crown. Etc, etc. Unfortunately it wasn't cathartic for me; it was just a bummer.
At the same time I feel very defensive about the book and about Pizan as a writer. Pizan's grief over the plight of woman is genuine and palpable; in that respect, she and I are the same. And in six hundred years the feminism of the 20th and 21st centuries in which I am so invested may well be just as outdated and harmful as Pizan's protofeminism of 1405. Critical as I am of the book (and still reeling from Part III) I actually enjoyed the majority of it. Rosalind Brown-Grant's translation is accessible and her introduction illuminating (pointing out, for example, Pizan's interesting use of pronouns in a way that anticipates modern concerns over gendered language). There's a lot to love and even more to dissect; it'd be a great addition to high school great books programs. It saddens me to see so many lukewarm or unfavorable reviews. I really think the book exists outside of a one-to-five-star scale and doesn't deserve to be penalized for failing modern expectations for narrative and character (or even basic veracity of the information presented). It was, significantly, well received within Pizan's own lifetime and that's an undeniable achievement for Pizan and the pro-woman or protofeminist cause.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Torture, Death, Misogyny, and Suicide
Lavinia by Ursula K. Le Guin
adventurous
emotional
reflective
medium-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
4.0
Demons by Fyodor Dostoevsky
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander
challenging
dark
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.75
Ways of Seeing by John Berger
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
I don't believe, usually, in catalogues of "books everyone should read," but Ways of Seeing is an exception. Absolutely indispensable for our time.
On Palestine by Ilan Pappé, Noam Chomsky
challenging
informative
medium-paced
3.0
Very complicated feelings about this book, and it's a little gutting to post a lukewarm review for it when I care so deeply about the issue. Overall it's still a good read (if anyone wants to read it, consider ordering from shoppalestine.org; it's run by the Middle East Children's Alliance and they're doing really important work for children in Palestine and elsewhere).
Unlike several other reviewers, I really enjoyed the conversation format and found it enlightening in a way straight prose wouldn't manage to be. The book assumes you have a good working knowledge of the situation (and also broadly pro-Palestinian leanings). With the basics out of the way, it's fascinating to see where Chomsky and Pappé agree and disagree, usually on finer points such as the essence of Zionism and the advantages/disadvantages of a single- or two-state solution. (Here I found Pappé slightly more compelling, but Chomsky always gave me a lot to think about).
Once again, the biggest problem with this book is the editing. I'm sure, given Chomsky's schedule, that he wasn't the one who stitched his "chapters" together (the chapters being simple reconfigurations of his previous essays; occasionally the same sentences appeared almost verbatim across two or three chapters). The result is a repetitive jumble, Frankenstein meets Groundhog Day, of information that manages to be both vague and hyper-specific to the early 2010s. Tldr; the editing did Chomsky very dirty here, and for a book that presupposes its reader's familiarity with the topic there's no excuse for such vapid repetition in the whole last third.
My other bone to pick is the lack of meaningful Palestinian representation. Chomsky and Pappé are American Jewish and Israeli Jewish respectively, and their cultural backgrounds provide crucial insight into both American and Israeli domestic/foreign policy and culture. At multiple points, however, they allude to "what the Palestinians will decide" and "how the Palestinians will react." Not, of course, that Palestinians will all feel the same way, but could you maybe ask one??? Phone a friend? There are so many great Palestinian academics out there, and their absence is notable throughout the whole of the book.
I got a lot out of On Palestine, but would have preferred that Barat, with Pappé's and Chomsky's permission, had just made these recorded conversations publicly available. The book is at its best when they're free to argue with and elaborate on each other's positions.
Unlike several other reviewers, I really enjoyed the conversation format and found it enlightening in a way straight prose wouldn't manage to be. The book assumes you have a good working knowledge of the situation (and also broadly pro-Palestinian leanings). With the basics out of the way, it's fascinating to see where Chomsky and Pappé agree and disagree, usually on finer points such as the essence of Zionism and the advantages/disadvantages of a single- or two-state solution. (Here I found Pappé slightly more compelling, but Chomsky always gave me a lot to think about).
Once again, the biggest problem with this book is the editing. I'm sure, given Chomsky's schedule, that he wasn't the one who stitched his "chapters" together (the chapters being simple reconfigurations of his previous essays; occasionally the same sentences appeared almost verbatim across two or three chapters). The result is a repetitive jumble, Frankenstein meets Groundhog Day, of information that manages to be both vague and hyper-specific to the early 2010s. Tldr; the editing did Chomsky very dirty here, and for a book that presupposes its reader's familiarity with the topic there's no excuse for such vapid repetition in the whole last third.
My other bone to pick is the lack of meaningful Palestinian representation. Chomsky and Pappé are American Jewish and Israeli Jewish respectively, and their cultural backgrounds provide crucial insight into both American and Israeli domestic/foreign policy and culture. At multiple points, however, they allude to "what the Palestinians will decide" and "how the Palestinians will react." Not, of course, that Palestinians will all feel the same way, but could you maybe ask one??? Phone a friend? There are so many great Palestinian academics out there, and their absence is notable throughout the whole of the book.
I got a lot out of On Palestine, but would have preferred that Barat, with Pappé's and Chomsky's permission, had just made these recorded conversations publicly available. The book is at its best when they're free to argue with and elaborate on each other's positions.
Provocations by Søren Kierkegaard
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
Kierkegaard has always been one of my favorites and this book is a great reintroduction to his works and philosophy. Especially good for beginners, as Moore not only selects but abridges Kierkegaard's notoriously difficult style. As much as I love the man himself, this book hovers at a 3.5-3.75 for me, all to do with the editing. The first 200 pages consist of larger (4-5 page) selections, but the latter 200 are mostly aphorisms and extended analogies, closer to 4-5 sentences. Their topical arrangement, on one hand, made for a much more boring, tedious reading experience; on the other, such small selections render it impossible to maintain a dialogue with Kierkegaard as a writer. How can you meaningfully disagree with a page of short quotes that have all been taken out of context? Provocations is great for consuming Kierkegaard, but not for interpreting him. On the bright side I am compelled to return again to his original, complete works.