Scan barcode
margaret45678's reviews
45 reviews
Heritage of Our Times by Neville Plaice, Ernst Bloch, Stephen Plaice
More review-like thoughts: this is an extremely difficult text, not helped by the fact that I read most of it on the subway on my way to work and I don't know very much about German literature, philosophy, or art. The syntax is completely insane, and it becomes clear that Bloch has his own vocabulary which can be sort of difficult to grasp at times. I think the translators/editors could have done a bit more to make the book comprehensible. There are a fair number of footnotes but most of them didn't really help me understand what Bloch was talking about, though to be fair they probably thought this book would mostly be read by academics with a dictionary of German national biography close at hand, and not by me falling asleep on the 2 train.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
This isn't really a review, more of a place for me to collect my thoughts, in preparation for hopefully eventually coming back to this book.
Some things that stood out to me:
Some things that stood out to me:
- fascist appropriation of communist aesthetics and rhetoric
- fascistic mythology, superstition, neopaganism (highly relevant in the age of QAnon)
- montage, surrealism, distorted childhood memories
- the idea that we don't yet know what it is to be human, we have never lived fully human lives
- closedness, mustiness, dust vs openness, cracks, hollows, splinters
More review-like thoughts: this is an extremely difficult text, not helped by the fact that I read most of it on the subway on my way to work and I don't know very much about German literature, philosophy, or art. The syntax is completely insane, and it becomes clear that Bloch has his own vocabulary which can be sort of difficult to grasp at times. I think the translators/editors could have done a bit more to make the book comprehensible. There are a fair number of footnotes but most of them didn't really help me understand what Bloch was talking about, though to be fair they probably thought this book would mostly be read by academics with a dictionary of German national biography close at hand, and not by me falling asleep on the 2 train.
Filth by Irvine Welsh
dark
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
A bit heavy handed but effective satire. The twist at the end was sort of cheap though, relying on some overused tropes.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Suicide, Racism, Misogyny, Lesbophobia, Body horror, Alcoholism, Outing, Classism, Schizophrenia/Psychosis , Sexual assault, Racial slurs, Homophobia, Hate crime, Domestic abuse, Violence, Toxic relationship, Sexual harassment, Sexual violence, Mental illness, Excrement, Death, Police brutality, Murder, Gaslighting, Drug use, Gore, and Bullying
Red International and Black Caribbean: Communists in New York City, Mexico and the West Indies, 1919-1939 by Margaret Stevens
2.0
This book had a lot of major issues, but I think the core problem is that it presents itself as something which it is not. This is primarily a study of Anglophone (mostly US-based) Communist newspapers, supplemented with other archival (again, entirely Anglophone) sources. At the same time, Stevens often takes these sources - not only Communist publications but also US State Department reports (?!) - at face value, as if they accurately represent events that occurred, rather than certain groups' or individuals' perspectives on those events. Only occasionally does she acknowledge that things may have been (literally or figuratively) lost in translation, not to mention the fact that both pro- and anti-communist sources may well have intentionally distorted facts in significant ways.
It is clear that Stevens doesn't know Spanish or French, or at least not enough to conduct serious research in those languages, which is basically fine, but it's very disingenuous to present this book as if it's a study of Communist groups in French- and Spanish-speaking countries when you've done little or no research into what those groups produced themselves in their own languages. It's particularly egregious since Stevens claims she wants to challenge the dominant center-periphery framing (and on multiple occasions criticizes US Communist groups for not translating texts into Spanish). The book really should have been framed as primarily an investigation into US/Anglophone perspectives on communist, anti-racist/imperialist and labor movements.
Stevens also could have drawn on secondary research published in English to supplement her understanding of these countries, but she only cites one or two secondary sources in the entire book. Partially due to the lack of secondary sources, the book feels very disjointed, just hopping from one primary source to the next with little context. For instance, she doesn't discuss (or even mention?) the Mexican Revolution which had just finished (or was arguably still going on) in this period. She throws in a few statistics (ex. membership figures for various organizations) without citing any sources at all. She also vaguely refers to "revisionist" accounts, without providing any specific examples. There's no guidance for further reading on this topic, which sort of makes it seem like Stevens is trying to pass herself off as the only person who has ever written about it.
I read a few reviews published in academic journals that pointed out minor factual errors. The book is also pretty poorly written (to be fair, I feel like a lot of historians these days are not good stylists), with lots of run-on sentences and words being used in incorrect, confusing ways. At one point (p. 220 in the edition I read) Stevens writes that a radical group was a "bulwark to" finance capital, which would literally mean they supported finance capital - I have to assume that this was a mistake. Stevens also throws around the word "objective/objectively" a lot (for instance, in describing Marcus Garvey's attitude to the KKK - huh!?) without really getting into what that means (maybe I'm just too postmodern for this book). Conversely, she can also be very vague - the book is littered with "apparently," "presumably," "it seems," etc. - maybe doing some secondary research would have helped to establish what did and didn't happen!
Overall, I found much of the analysis quite shallow. Often Stevens simply restates the sources she's drawing on. She had some overarching ideas about the interaction between anti-racist/anti-imperialist and communist/labor movements (cross-class race/nation-based movements and cross-race/nation class-based movements) which were interesting but never really led anywhere (perhaps having a conclusion chapter would have resolved this). I think her argument is that these two tendencies were sometimes in tension, but not as much as you might think...well, ok, sure.
She also seems to be arguing that, on the one hand, the Comintern and explicitly Communist groups/individuals were more involved in anti-racist/imperialist struggles than unnamed "revisionist historians" will admit, but at the same time, these movements were not puppets of Moscow and/or the CPUSA and actually were able to influence them in turn - which I'm sure is true, but which wasn't explained clearly enough here to really be convincing.
It did seem to me like she was bringing new sources and subjects into the field, which is definitely a good thing, but then again it's hard to say because she barely cites any secondary sources, so there may well be a wealth of literature on this topic already. Honestly it just felt very sloppy, which is particularly disappointing because there is already a perception that politically engaged historians cannot do serious scholarly work, and I think in many ways this book just provides ammunition to reactionaries (throwing in some random Stalin apologism doesn't help either).
If you don't have any background knowledge about any of the regions this book purports to discuss, don't read it, you will be very confused and probably misled on a few points. You might get more out of it if you already know a bit about the social and political history of the region and are able to critically evaluate Stevens' claims.
It is clear that Stevens doesn't know Spanish or French, or at least not enough to conduct serious research in those languages, which is basically fine, but it's very disingenuous to present this book as if it's a study of Communist groups in French- and Spanish-speaking countries when you've done little or no research into what those groups produced themselves in their own languages. It's particularly egregious since Stevens claims she wants to challenge the dominant center-periphery framing (and on multiple occasions criticizes US Communist groups for not translating texts into Spanish). The book really should have been framed as primarily an investigation into US/Anglophone perspectives on communist, anti-racist/imperialist and labor movements.
Stevens also could have drawn on secondary research published in English to supplement her understanding of these countries, but she only cites one or two secondary sources in the entire book. Partially due to the lack of secondary sources, the book feels very disjointed, just hopping from one primary source to the next with little context. For instance, she doesn't discuss (or even mention?) the Mexican Revolution which had just finished (or was arguably still going on) in this period. She throws in a few statistics (ex. membership figures for various organizations) without citing any sources at all. She also vaguely refers to "revisionist" accounts, without providing any specific examples. There's no guidance for further reading on this topic, which sort of makes it seem like Stevens is trying to pass herself off as the only person who has ever written about it.
I read a few reviews published in academic journals that pointed out minor factual errors. The book is also pretty poorly written (to be fair, I feel like a lot of historians these days are not good stylists), with lots of run-on sentences and words being used in incorrect, confusing ways. At one point (p. 220 in the edition I read) Stevens writes that a radical group was a "bulwark to" finance capital, which would literally mean they supported finance capital - I have to assume that this was a mistake. Stevens also throws around the word "objective/objectively" a lot (for instance, in describing Marcus Garvey's attitude to the KKK - huh!?) without really getting into what that means (maybe I'm just too postmodern for this book). Conversely, she can also be very vague - the book is littered with "apparently," "presumably," "it seems," etc. - maybe doing some secondary research would have helped to establish what did and didn't happen!
Overall, I found much of the analysis quite shallow. Often Stevens simply restates the sources she's drawing on. She had some overarching ideas about the interaction between anti-racist/anti-imperialist and communist/labor movements (cross-class race/nation-based movements and cross-race/nation class-based movements) which were interesting but never really led anywhere (perhaps having a conclusion chapter would have resolved this). I think her argument is that these two tendencies were sometimes in tension, but not as much as you might think...well, ok, sure.
She also seems to be arguing that, on the one hand, the Comintern and explicitly Communist groups/individuals were more involved in anti-racist/imperialist struggles than unnamed "revisionist historians" will admit, but at the same time, these movements were not puppets of Moscow and/or the CPUSA and actually were able to influence them in turn - which I'm sure is true, but which wasn't explained clearly enough here to really be convincing.
It did seem to me like she was bringing new sources and subjects into the field, which is definitely a good thing, but then again it's hard to say because she barely cites any secondary sources, so there may well be a wealth of literature on this topic already. Honestly it just felt very sloppy, which is particularly disappointing because there is already a perception that politically engaged historians cannot do serious scholarly work, and I think in many ways this book just provides ammunition to reactionaries (throwing in some random Stalin apologism doesn't help either).
If you don't have any background knowledge about any of the regions this book purports to discuss, don't read it, you will be very confused and probably misled on a few points. You might get more out of it if you already know a bit about the social and political history of the region and are able to critically evaluate Stevens' claims.
The Everlasting Story of Nory by Nicholson Baker
funny
hopeful
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
I can't quite explain why I love this book so much. I wouldn't consider myself someone who is endlessly charmed by kids in real life, but I find this book so funny and sweet, without being overly cutesy. I've wanted to read it since I was a child myself and saw the cover when my mom was reading it, and it definitely lived up to my expectations. I did end up asking my mom, "Why did he write this book?" (to which she replied "I don't know"), but like, in a good way.
Generally it felt very real, although it bothered me slightly that the third-person narration would sometimes make Nory-esque mistakes/wordplay ("crucifiction") but not always. I loved the malapropisms ("what in the Blue Blazers" etc) but the occasional misspelling of individual words was a bit distracting (it might have been different if he'd just gone full Riddley Walker with it).
Generally it felt very real, although it bothered me slightly that the third-person narration would sometimes make Nory-esque mistakes/wordplay ("crucifiction") but not always. I loved the malapropisms ("what in the Blue Blazers" etc) but the occasional misspelling of individual words was a bit distracting (it might have been different if he'd just gone full Riddley Walker with it).
Remain in Love: Talking Heads, Tom Tom Club, Tina by Chris Frantz
medium-paced
It's hard to really rate this book because obviously Chris Frantz is not a professional writer. It pretty much had the same weak points you'd get in any other musician's memoirs, but if you're interested in the subject matter it's worth putting up with it. I liked the detail but I can see how some people would find it boring, and to be fair it did seem like he glossed over some important-seeming things really quickly (like his substance abuse problem) while going into minute detail about minor things like meals and hotels. On the other hand, I feel like by this point you should expect a member of Talking Heads to defy expectations.
As other reviewers have said, I found his criticisms of David Byrne sort of petty after a certain point - the stuff about the songwriting credits and the breakup of the band are totally understandable, but I feel like Frantz should have let go of the more mundane stuff like not making eye contact and being socially awkward. It especially felt weird because Frantz was otherwise almost too positive throughout the book. Apparently every woman and girl (and a good portion of the men and boys) he's ever met in his life have been cute and/or sweet. He came across as a bit oblivious at times (gushing about going to a fancy all-boys boarding school where he learned to be a "southern gentleman" - uhh okay) but he didn't exactly shy away from the fact that he and the rest of the band had quite privileged upbringings and were really lucky in a lot of other ways.
I did think it was nice that he was super complimentary about people he knew who aren't celebrities (relatives, childhood/RISD friends, road crew, etc.) and he definitely seems to love his wife a whole lot.
I hope Tina Weymouth also ends up writing a memoir (Frantz mentions at one point that she's working on a book) because it would be interesting to hear her perspective as well. One thing I wanted from this book (and didn't get) was an explanation for why every Tom Tom Club is about her "boyfriend" even though she's been married the whole time.
As other reviewers have said, I found his criticisms of David Byrne sort of petty after a certain point - the stuff about the songwriting credits and the breakup of the band are totally understandable, but I feel like Frantz should have let go of the more mundane stuff like not making eye contact and being socially awkward. It especially felt weird because Frantz was otherwise almost too positive throughout the book. Apparently every woman and girl (and a good portion of the men and boys) he's ever met in his life have been cute and/or sweet. He came across as a bit oblivious at times (gushing about going to a fancy all-boys boarding school where he learned to be a "southern gentleman" - uhh okay) but he didn't exactly shy away from the fact that he and the rest of the band had quite privileged upbringings and were really lucky in a lot of other ways.
I did think it was nice that he was super complimentary about people he knew who aren't celebrities (relatives, childhood/RISD friends, road crew, etc.) and he definitely seems to love his wife a whole lot.
I hope Tina Weymouth also ends up writing a memoir (Frantz mentions at one point that she's working on a book) because it would be interesting to hear her perspective as well. One thing I wanted from this book (and didn't get) was an explanation for why every Tom Tom Club is about her "boyfriend" even though she's been married the whole time.
The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman by Laurence Sterne
challenging
funny
informative
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
History of Libraries in the Western World by Michael H. Harris
Did not finish book. Stopped at 44%.
Did not finish book. Stopped at 44%.
Assigned for a class, didn't really feel like finishing it. The chapters are quite dense but I feel like they didn't actually contain much information.
Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts (Archival Fundamentals Series III) by Dennis Meissner
Did not finish book. Stopped at 60%.
Did not finish book. Stopped at 60%.
Textbook for a class, I might finish it at some point but to be honest it's quite difficult to get through. I'm still mad at the SAA for making the ebook the same price as a print copy, plus you can't print out any of the pages and the e-reader interface is horrible.
Troy Chimneys by Anita Brookner, Margaret Kennedy
funny
reflective
sad
medium-paced
5.0
Reminded me a lot of Pushkin and Turgenev. A very "archival" novel.