Take a photo of a barcode or cover
juliette_dunn's reviews
457 reviews
Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics by Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò
4.5
This was a very important read on how politics of deference have taken over left-wing spaces and work to our detriment. "Identity politics" have become such a nebulous buzzword, far from the original definition laid out by the Combahee River Collective.
Táíwò shows how the mainstream establishment has taken identity politics and transformed it into something complacent and anti-revolutionary, in the same manner that it has watered down countless revolutionary moments to absorb them back into a state of complacency.
Táíwò illustrates how seemingly good concepts such as "the most marginalized person should be the one we listen to" end up becoming useless and keeping us in continual circles of all-talk and no action. It is a dead-end to speak of the most marginalized person in the room, given how many don't have the ability to be in the room at all.
Deference to someone based purely on identity, and the inevitable competition to weigh identities against each other to see who is most oppressed, is antithetical to meaningful dialogue and progress.
Activist groups end up spending all their energy and resources making sure their narrow spaces are considered safe, and devote no attention to transforming the world outside. What good is it if the activist space itself practices proper deference, when no networking or action is broadened from it? We are left with isolated safe spaces that do nothing to lift up the marginalized or truly ensure everyone's voices are heard, only servicing those who are able to exist and talk in these small circles.
The book is quite brief and could have gone more in-depth, but it's a great read as an introduction to the problem of what identity politics has become, and how it can be brought back into the original, radical intentions laid out by the Combahee River Collective.
Táíwò shows how the mainstream establishment has taken identity politics and transformed it into something complacent and anti-revolutionary, in the same manner that it has watered down countless revolutionary moments to absorb them back into a state of complacency.
Táíwò illustrates how seemingly good concepts such as "the most marginalized person should be the one we listen to" end up becoming useless and keeping us in continual circles of all-talk and no action. It is a dead-end to speak of the most marginalized person in the room, given how many don't have the ability to be in the room at all.
Deference to someone based purely on identity, and the inevitable competition to weigh identities against each other to see who is most oppressed, is antithetical to meaningful dialogue and progress.
Activist groups end up spending all their energy and resources making sure their narrow spaces are considered safe, and devote no attention to transforming the world outside. What good is it if the activist space itself practices proper deference, when no networking or action is broadened from it? We are left with isolated safe spaces that do nothing to lift up the marginalized or truly ensure everyone's voices are heard, only servicing those who are able to exist and talk in these small circles.
The book is quite brief and could have gone more in-depth, but it's a great read as an introduction to the problem of what identity politics has become, and how it can be brought back into the original, radical intentions laid out by the Combahee River Collective.
Neuroqueer Heresies by Nick Walker
3.0
Very mixed feelings on this book. Its explanation of the neurodiversity paradigm, the double empathy problem, and the like are extremely valuable and necessary. However, in furthering the social model of disability, the author does something that many advocates do which I’ve never felt is the right approach, which is to imply ALL struggles that autistic people face are down to social stigma and lack of accommodations.
That may be true for some, but this kind of advocacy always dismisses the autistic people with very high support needs who are genuinely limited in ways that can’t be fixed with accommodations. People who struggle to perform essential tasks like eating and drinking, and will need lifelong assistance. That is a disability that isn’t just down to social stigma, it will always be a struggle, though it can absolutely be accommodated better with access to resources.
Even in the author’s example of the social model of disability we can see the issue, and the shying away from admitting any inherent disability, which shouldn’t be something shameful at all. She talks about how a wheelchair user will be far less limited in a society that is designed to be wheelchair accessible. Absolutely true. But this doesn’t erase that there are still things a wheelchair user will always be limited in.
Some parts of the social model are illustrated well, such a dyslexia not being the detriment it is in a pre-literate society. Certain limitations only become apparent and therefore are noted as disabilities when a society requires them to be done. This can also work in reverse, such as glasses becoming so common place that poor vision is rarely acknowledged as being a disability at all.
But feels that in insisting on EVERYTHING being down to social stigma, the rhetoric ends up being to the detriment of disability acceptance. Disability can be inherently limiting, and that is okay.
All of these experiences are very nuanced and context-dependent, and differ from individual to individual. Which is my fundamental issue with some of this book. The author is very passionate, and (rightfully) angry at an ableist world. But in some of that anger, she asserts little possibility for nuance. She continually reiterates how everyone who doesn’t adhere to her defined paradigm is an “autisticphobic bigot.”
In some points, it’s true, but when she insists on exact adherence to language and beliefs in all manners, and any differing opinion is chalked up to ableist indoctrination, it leads no room for important discussions. Which is terrible for something as vast and complicated as disability and how people experience it.
A lot of this book has great value, and the author’s work on the neurodiversity paradigm and the concept of neuroqueer are certainly important. I just wish she didn’t get so aggressively rigid and dismissive of any other experience besides what is the experience of lower support needs autistic people, and allowed for the nuance and acceptance of context and opinion she readily grants in her discussions of being neuroqueer, and accomodations people may need.
These discussions and explanations around adapting society around the individual needs of neurodivergent people instead of forcing them to adapt to neurotypical standards is where the book excels. It even includes the acknowledgement of how sometimes accomodations contradict, and people have to find ways to work around it, something I notice a lot of activists fail to acknowledge, as even people with the same neurotype can have vastly different needs.
That may be true for some, but this kind of advocacy always dismisses the autistic people with very high support needs who are genuinely limited in ways that can’t be fixed with accommodations. People who struggle to perform essential tasks like eating and drinking, and will need lifelong assistance. That is a disability that isn’t just down to social stigma, it will always be a struggle, though it can absolutely be accommodated better with access to resources.
Even in the author’s example of the social model of disability we can see the issue, and the shying away from admitting any inherent disability, which shouldn’t be something shameful at all. She talks about how a wheelchair user will be far less limited in a society that is designed to be wheelchair accessible. Absolutely true. But this doesn’t erase that there are still things a wheelchair user will always be limited in.
Some parts of the social model are illustrated well, such a dyslexia not being the detriment it is in a pre-literate society. Certain limitations only become apparent and therefore are noted as disabilities when a society requires them to be done. This can also work in reverse, such as glasses becoming so common place that poor vision is rarely acknowledged as being a disability at all.
But feels that in insisting on EVERYTHING being down to social stigma, the rhetoric ends up being to the detriment of disability acceptance. Disability can be inherently limiting, and that is okay.
All of these experiences are very nuanced and context-dependent, and differ from individual to individual. Which is my fundamental issue with some of this book. The author is very passionate, and (rightfully) angry at an ableist world. But in some of that anger, she asserts little possibility for nuance. She continually reiterates how everyone who doesn’t adhere to her defined paradigm is an “autisticphobic bigot.”
In some points, it’s true, but when she insists on exact adherence to language and beliefs in all manners, and any differing opinion is chalked up to ableist indoctrination, it leads no room for important discussions. Which is terrible for something as vast and complicated as disability and how people experience it.
A lot of this book has great value, and the author’s work on the neurodiversity paradigm and the concept of neuroqueer are certainly important. I just wish she didn’t get so aggressively rigid and dismissive of any other experience besides what is the experience of lower support needs autistic people, and allowed for the nuance and acceptance of context and opinion she readily grants in her discussions of being neuroqueer, and accomodations people may need.
These discussions and explanations around adapting society around the individual needs of neurodivergent people instead of forcing them to adapt to neurotypical standards is where the book excels. It even includes the acknowledgement of how sometimes accomodations contradict, and people have to find ways to work around it, something I notice a lot of activists fail to acknowledge, as even people with the same neurotype can have vastly different needs.
Absolution by Jeff VanderMeer
funny
mysterious
tense
4.25
I was nervous about this follow-up given how incredible the original trilogy is, but this was a worthy addition. I loved that the rabbits from Authority were brought back in a wonderfully creepy way, every time horror utilizes a typically herbivorous prey animal acting predatory I find the uncanny effect chilling.
My favorite sections were the first and last. The middle isn't bad, but I've always been more intrigued by the surreal nature of Area X in these stories than anything else. So of course, Lowry's section was the greatest in the book. Lowry drugged out of his mind experiencing both the surreal brain alteration of a trip AND the cosmic horror of his surroundings was so perfectly written and exactly the sort of reason I love VanderMeer. He manages to make pages and pages of f-bombs every other word work without feeling tedious.
And the ending to the book was pulled off perfectly. Area X works best when it's only grasped in the vaguest of ways, and that's how the resolution is brought about. Never knowing if what's happening is a hallucination or real, coupled with a hilarious and forceful personality, this section showcases VanderMeer at his trippy best.
My favorite sections were the first and last. The middle isn't bad, but I've always been more intrigued by the surreal nature of Area X in these stories than anything else. So of course, Lowry's section was the greatest in the book. Lowry drugged out of his mind experiencing both the surreal brain alteration of a trip AND the cosmic horror of his surroundings was so perfectly written and exactly the sort of reason I love VanderMeer. He manages to make pages and pages of f-bombs every other word work without feeling tedious.
And the ending to the book was pulled off perfectly. Area X works best when it's only grasped in the vaguest of ways, and that's how the resolution is brought about. Never knowing if what's happening is a hallucination or real, coupled with a hilarious and forceful personality, this section showcases VanderMeer at his trippy best.
Wrath by Daniel Kraus, Sharon Moalem
dark
sad
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I came into this expecting uninspired camp, but it was better than I thought, though still not stellar. It's unoriginal (the plot is a mash of NIMH and Ben) but for a "swarm of killer animals taking vengeance" story it's fairly well-done. The first bit was hard to get through. The main characters are workers at the lab who torture the rats, immediately unlikable. Which is fine, but the story's attempts to make them unlikable in an interesting way fell flat for me. I didn't find their backstories or motivations compelling at all.
The most potentially interesting was one of the character's beliefs in uplifting other animals, but this isn't explored deeply or how she justifies the constant murders of the rats if she believes animals deserve to be given uplifted abilities for their own sakes. I only got invested when it switched to Sammy, the rat, as protagonist.
There's long sections written in his first-person perspective, and these are by far the best parts of the novel. He grows in intelligence throughout, and we see it from the way his syntax and thoughts evolve, in a similar style to Flowers for Algernon. His arc was the only truly interesting one, so it's good he was the main character. He isn't an evil rat, but rather someone who cares so deeply about others he sees a violent uprising as the only way to put a stop to humanity's oppression of other animals, though he also violently uses non-sapient rats achieve these ends. He is a "revolutionary gone too far" more than a "crazed evil murderer," and I appreciate the book took animal liberation seriously, as well as used the rats as actual characters rather than a horror plot device.
A rat staging an organized rebellion after browsing footage from vegan hashtags, and this plot being taken sympathetically and seriously by the narrative has got to count for something. Again I don't think this book was all that impressive, the characters mostly fall very flat, but for whatever reason I really loved Sammy. Maybe I was only so interested in him bc he's a rat, or bc animal liberation is such a core issue to me. But it did have me staying up late hooked to see what happened to him, so I've got to give credit. I think this is a "that one character from an otherwise forgettable media" case.
The most potentially interesting was one of the character's beliefs in uplifting other animals, but this isn't explored deeply or how she justifies the constant murders of the rats if she believes animals deserve to be given uplifted abilities for their own sakes. I only got invested when it switched to Sammy, the rat, as protagonist.
There's long sections written in his first-person perspective, and these are by far the best parts of the novel. He grows in intelligence throughout, and we see it from the way his syntax and thoughts evolve, in a similar style to Flowers for Algernon. His arc was the only truly interesting one, so it's good he was the main character. He isn't an evil rat, but rather someone who cares so deeply about others he sees a violent uprising as the only way to put a stop to humanity's oppression of other animals, though he also violently uses non-sapient rats achieve these ends. He is a "revolutionary gone too far" more than a "crazed evil murderer," and I appreciate the book took animal liberation seriously, as well as used the rats as actual characters rather than a horror plot device.
A rat staging an organized rebellion after browsing footage from vegan hashtags, and this plot being taken sympathetically and seriously by the narrative has got to count for something. Again I don't think this book was all that impressive, the characters mostly fall very flat, but for whatever reason I really loved Sammy. Maybe I was only so interested in him bc he's a rat, or bc animal liberation is such a core issue to me. But it did have me staying up late hooked to see what happened to him, so I've got to give credit. I think this is a "that one character from an otherwise forgettable media" case.
Tailchaser's Song by Tad Williams
adventurous
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
4.0
Tailchaser's Song is often compared to Warriors, but aside from the fact they are both about feral cats, it comes off much more like Watership Down, from the thought-out animal language to the frequent pauses in plot for myths and storytelling. Even the plot of escape from slavery in an authoritarian underground society is comparable to Watership Down.
The story was entertaining enough, but it did lack a certain quality that would make it compelling beyond casual entertainment. It's an adventure, with likable enough characters, but the conclusion felt unsatisfying, lacking anything that was truly earned.
The best parts were the cat mythology, as I always love when writers come up with ways different animals would think about the world and center themselves in it. And it had a fun tie-in to the plot and climax.
I can't make a true critique of it other than a certain attachment was missing in the characters. While there is an arc to Tailchaser's Story, he still feels flat and distant by the end, and the other characters more so. And if I can't get attached to the characters, I can't get fully invested.
The story was entertaining enough, but it did lack a certain quality that would make it compelling beyond casual entertainment. It's an adventure, with likable enough characters, but the conclusion felt unsatisfying, lacking anything that was truly earned.
The best parts were the cat mythology, as I always love when writers come up with ways different animals would think about the world and center themselves in it. And it had a fun tie-in to the plot and climax.
I can't make a true critique of it other than a certain attachment was missing in the characters. While there is an arc to Tailchaser's Story, he still feels flat and distant by the end, and the other characters more so. And if I can't get attached to the characters, I can't get fully invested.
シメジ シミュレーション 1 [Shimeji Simulation 1] by Tsukumizu
funny
lighthearted
reflective
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
I, Robot by Isaac Asimov
4.0
A science fiction classic, I liked this better than I thought I would, and a lot better than Asimov's other big classic Foundation.
I, Robot is a collection of short stories, something I didn't know ahead of time. The stories vary in interest and quality, but overall are good. This book is the source of the Three Laws of Robotics, and each story, excepting the first, explores different ways robots interpret these laws and can go wrong from them.
I enjoyed this pattern and trying to figure out why the robots behave a certain way before the mystery is solved in the narrative, as it always stems from some form of logic of the laws. There's also slow development of the world as the technology progresses and the laws begin to be expanded on or altered in certain ways.
The story is also notable in that it doesn't involve robots turning upon their creators in a sinister uprising. The threat of a rogue robot is used only once, and for the rest the First Law of never harming humans isn't threatened. The concluding story had a rare optimistic viewpoint on robots surpassing humans and running everything better, and the book was a novelty simply for having such a viewpoint.
I, Robot is a collection of short stories, something I didn't know ahead of time. The stories vary in interest and quality, but overall are good. This book is the source of the Three Laws of Robotics, and each story, excepting the first, explores different ways robots interpret these laws and can go wrong from them.
I enjoyed this pattern and trying to figure out why the robots behave a certain way before the mystery is solved in the narrative, as it always stems from some form of logic of the laws. There's also slow development of the world as the technology progresses and the laws begin to be expanded on or altered in certain ways.
The story is also notable in that it doesn't involve robots turning upon their creators in a sinister uprising. The threat of a rogue robot is used only once, and for the rest the First Law of never harming humans isn't threatened. The concluding story had a rare optimistic viewpoint on robots surpassing humans and running everything better, and the book was a novelty simply for having such a viewpoint.