I'm going to create a new category called "Could have been an article," sorta like the literary equivalent of "This meeting could have been an email."I'm going to create a new category called "Could have been an article," sorta like the literary equivalent of "This meeting could have been an email."
That's this book. Only about 1/3 of it is directly related to the title (and that third is valuable). I'm guessing that third started as an article in some magazine. The rest is basically a history of intellectual technology and the tech sector, which I neither wanted nor needed. It takes a full third of the book to even begin the titular discussion.
And ironically, this book is strangely shallow itself, spread out over a huge breadth of subject matter. It really reads like he didn't have enough material to flesh out a book on the topic at hand, so he had to pad it with extraneous background on well-trod ground like the invention of the printing press and other things.
It's a shame because it's an argument that has only become more important in the 15 years since this was published. I'd be interested to see a true 2nd edition that added more data from recent years, since we have been firmly in the Age of the Smartphone for a good decade at this point. And yes, the data here absolutely supports my feeling of shorter attention span and memory these days, as well as things like GPS eroding our innate capability of wayfinding. It's alarming that we as a society don't seem to care all that much, but I guess that's far from the most alarming thing about our society these days...
I can only really recommend this to people who have never spent any time thinking about this topic before. If you're already a choir member you will not need what preaching this book offers.
An extremely important contribution to 21st century Marxism and political theory. Losurdo essentially and effectively asserts that so-called "western An extremely important contribution to 21st century Marxism and political theory. Losurdo essentially and effectively asserts that so-called "western Marxism," or in other words the academic Euro-American additions to Marxist theory since the mid-20th century, is nothing more than racist, imperialist, utopian anti-communism.
It's a stinging rebuke that goes a long way toward explaining the frustration I've long experienced when trying to engage with so-called "radical" academics (and I've taken a class with one of Losurdo's principal villains here, Michael Hardt). They rarely feel like they're talking about anything materially relevant to present-day struggle, and Losurdo highlights why: they've essentially forsaken any current anti-imperialist struggles along with all actually existing socialist states. They always have reasonable sounding justifications for doing so, but they coincidentally never seem to deviate from the pattern of siding with imperialism against poor, non-white nations.
Probably the most memorable passage comes when discussing Hardt and Negri's Empire and their downright weird, anarchist claim that no state deserves any support from Marxists(p.202):
...'from India to Algeria, from Cuba to Vietnam, the state is the poisoned gift of national liberation.' Yes, the Palestinians can count on the sympathy and support of Western Marxism. But, from the moment in which 'the Palestinians are institutionalized,' one can 'no longer be at their side.' The fact is that 'as soon as the nation begins to form as a sovereign state, its progressive functions all but vanish.'
And so, we can be sympathetic to the Chinese, Vietnamese, Palestinians, or any other people only so long as they are oppressed, humiliated, and without any power -- that is, as long as they are in the hands of colonialism and imperialism. We can support their struggle for national liberation only as long as it continues to be defeated! The defeat or the inconclusiveness of a revolutionary movement is the precondition for certain exponents of Western Marxism to celebrate themselves and enjoy being rebels who, in any circumstance, refuse to contaminate themselves with constituted power!
Of the four Losurdo books I've started, this is probably the 3rd most engaging/important (behind Liberalism and Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend). It suffers from being fairly repetitive, and I wish Losurdo had spent more time dissecting the failures of contemporary Marxists. E.g. Hardt, Negri and Zizek come off really poorly here, but they're not the only contemporary Western Marxists, and even in criticizing those three Losurdo stays pretty superficial. For me some of the most compelling arguments would be examining their positions on contemporary events - e.g. Hardt's support of the Yugoslavia bombing, and Zizek's repeated antipathy toward China. Those parts were great and I just wanted more.
In any case, this book is important to read for any Euro-American Marxists, especially white ones and especially university students. If you're studying Marxism at the undergrad or graduate level it is vital that you understand the history and failure of the ideology you're imbibing, and I doubt anyone can elucidate that for you more quickly than Losurdo in this book.
Hay muchas personas que han ya descrito la trama de la novela, y lo impresionante de diseñar un cuento dentro de otro cuento, etc. Sin tener mucho tiempo para entrar en tales detalles, solo digo que los unicos otras novelas que me han envuelto asi en los ultimos 5 años son Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell y The Overstory.
Pero todavÃa muy largo jejeje... si se cortara como 100 páginas habrÃa sido perfecto.
I came across this book on a list of "best" books of the 21st century or some such, and yeah turns out it's pretty great. It's been a while since I've read a book that captivated me like this one, with characters and story that almost force me to keep reading. I literally didn't want to put it down, and even read more than 200 dense pages (in my 2nd language) to finish it yesterday.
Plenty of folks have already described the plot and the impressive construction of a story within a story, etc. I don't have time to get into all those details, but I'll just say that that only other novels that have so engrossed me in the last 5 years were Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell and The Overstory.
All that and it was still too long lol.... cut about 100 pages and it woulda been perfect.
The closing afterword sums up the problem of this book pretty well. Written just after Biden won in 2020 but before we saw much of what his administraThe closing afterword sums up the problem of this book pretty well. Written just after Biden won in 2020 but before we saw much of what his administration would look like, it is very hopeful about all of the progressive policies proposed in the original Build Back Better plan and Green New Deal. McGhee closes on what for her is the shocking progressiveness of Biden's first speech on race, and makes it clear that for her all of these happenings are an indication that we may just finally be turning the corner on race.
Of course in 2025 we know how that all turned out.
Biden couldn't even get all the Democrats on board for any of his progressive policies, and passed a hollowed out shell of what he was originally proposing. He presided over the ending of the Child Tax Credit, sending millions of kids back into poverty. He attempted the weakest version of student loan cancellation possible, just the right amount to make sure literally everyone is pissed off about it. We are now in the very early stages of the most overtly reactionary, racist regime since probably the end of Reconstruction. Biden himself, whose pretty words on equity McGhee "nearly dropped (her) glass" at, has always been one of the most notorious racists in the Democratic party, and a barely reformed segregationist (something even his vice president famously called out on a debate stage). He presided over an extremely racist genocide halfway around the globe, one which probably led directly to Trump's reelection.
So what went wrong in McGhee's analysis, that she could be so wrong about our prospects for improving as a society? Well basically it's the lack of Marxism... i.e. her liberalism. It's the ideology that continues to mistake lofty words for action; that continues to blame predominantly conservatives/Republicans for these unpopular policies; that continues to believe that if we can just have enough difficult conversations with enough people, eventually they'll see the light. It's the ideology that ignores any issues of capitalism and imperialism, except for the occasional mention (I counted maybe 10-12) of "greed," as if it's only certain capitalists that are the problem... the racist ones. It's the ideology that can ask "What is racism without greed?" (p.86) in an effort to show how racism always has financial benefit... yet never stops to examine the reverse question, if greed exists without racism, and if it does what are the implications for addressing it?
I wouldn't say there's a lot McGhee says here that is wrong per se, it's just that it's extremely limited, and not too original. A fairly significant portion of the book is her simply describing the arguments of a half dozen books that are all pretty well known and have already said versions of what she's saying. And her main solution to what ails us, basically a national Truth and Reconciliation Commission, is... well to be nice I'll just call it "utopian." In fact, I'm not recalling a specific mention of "capitalism" in the entire book, and if it's there it's in the single digits.
The crux of my problem with McGhee's approach is in her completely ineffective proposed solution. It's literally more likely that we have a Russian-style revolution than that we institute a meaningful (i.e. not just lofty liberal words) Truth & Reconciliation Commission. You simply can't get there without first addressing end-stage neoliberal capitalism.
That's not to say we shouldn't be working toward racial equality, because we obviously should. But it's not the primary contradiction, as McGhee seems to be arguing. White supremacy is probably the most useful tool of capital, so useful that it's inextricable to the U.S. variety. But because it's such a vital tool of capital the ruling class will never allow it to be resolved -- they'll sooner die.
So yes I guess I've become a "class-first" communist in my older age. I strongly disagree at the efficacy of investing our time/effort/energy into convincing white people that racism hurts them too. Maybe try changing their material conditions first, so that they no longer feel like they live in an environment of scarcity.
An important and very welcome book written by two of the founders of L.A. Tenants Union (LATU). It's short yet covers a lot of ground, from theoreticaAn important and very welcome book written by two of the founders of L.A. Tenants Union (LATU). It's short yet covers a lot of ground, from theoretical underpinnings of abolishing rent, to the history of real estate and its institutionalized racism, to real-world examples of several successful tenant organizing campaigns.
I came mostly for the last of these and was not disappointed. The examples they gave, ranging from simple community property clean-ups and block parties all the way to prolonged rent strikes and eminent domain campaigns were not only educational but also inspiring. As a housing professional I've definitely left this book with ideas, and some energy to pursue them. If I have one criticism of the book it's that it's a little light on the concrete step-by-step/how-to instructions of building a tenant's association. But the examples the authors cite provide most of the outline, to which a reasonably intelligent person can fill in the color.
I highly recommend this to basically everyone, but it's especially important to anyone in the housing sector whether non-profit, government or volunteer. Leftists of all stripes will certainly get something out of it as well. I think we should all familiarize ourselves with this terrain, as it is arguably the most viable area for mass organization we have available to us in the 21st century.
Like with Pride and Prejudice, I was pleasantly surprised at how much I liked this. I love the feminist aspect as well. Even the annoying coincidencesLike with Pride and Prejudice, I was pleasantly surprised at how much I liked this. I love the feminist aspect as well. Even the annoying coincidences so typical of romanticist literature weren't enough to ruin the experience. A truly excellent novel.
Also highly recommendable is Lucy Hughes-Hallett's introduction from the 1991 Everyman's Library edition. She includes an important and fascinating discussion on Bertha, the "first Mrs. Rochester," and her relation to Jane. Spoiler: she thinks they are two sides of the same coin that are eventually integrated once the purpose of maiming Mr. Rochester... ahem, "making him Jane's equal"... is achieved. Really love that reading of the themes....more
This is about as difficult a book as I can read anymore with my alarmingly deteriorated attention span. It took me awhile but I got through the importThis is about as difficult a book as I can read anymore with my alarmingly deteriorated attention span. It took me awhile but I got through the important bits, and I can see why he's considered foundational to modern Marxism. This is the single best compliation of Gramsci's writing, and a must-read for any Marxist. Certain concepts like "hegemony" and "war of position/maneuver" are vital for any serious political scientist.
There's also quite a timely passage on political crisis (p.217-19):
At a certain point in their historical lives, social groups become detached from their traditional parties... the traditional parties... are no longer recognized by their class as its expression. When such crises occur, the immediate situation becomes delicate and dangerous, because the field is open for violent solutions, for the activities of unknown forces, represented by charismatic 'men of destiny'.
... In every country the process is different, although the content is the same. And the content is the crisis of the ruling class's hegemony, which occurs either because the ruling class has failed in some major political undertaking for which it has requested, or forcibly extracted, the consent of the broad masses (war, for example), or because huge masses... have passed suddenly from a state of political passivity to a certain activity, and put forward demands which... add up to a revolution. A 'crisis of authority' is spoken of: this is precisely the crisis of hegemony, or crisis of the state as a whole.
... the various strata of the population are not all capable of orienting themselves equally swiftly, or of reorganizing with the same rhythm. The traditional ruling class, which has numerous trained cadres, changes men and programs and, with greater speed than is achieved by the subordinate classes, reabsorbs the control that was slipping from its grasp. Perhaps it may make sacrifices, and expose itself to an uncertain future by demagogic promises; but it retains power, reinforces it for the time being, and uses it to crush its adversary and disperse his leading cadres, who cannot be very numerous or highly trained. The passage of the troops of many different parties under the banner of a single party, which better represents and resumes the needs of the entire class, is an organic and normal phenomenon, even if its rhythm is very swift... It represents the fusion of an entire social class under a single leadership, which alone is held to be capable of solving an overriding problem of its existence and of fending off a mortal danger. When the crisis does not find this organic solution, but that of the charismatic leader, it means that a static equilibrium exists... it means that no group, neither the conservatives nor the progressives, has the strength for victory, and that even the conservative group needs a master.
I'd never read Austen before so I decided to stop being sexist. It was surprisingly readable for something two centuries old, and downright affecting I'd never read Austen before so I decided to stop being sexist. It was surprisingly readable for something two centuries old, and downright affecting toward the end. I dislike Austen's choice to relate the climactic profession of love through a narrative paragraph rather than dialogue.
Overall glad to have read it, probably will not read more as I do not like romances. But maybe Jane Eyre just to try a different 19th century female author?...more
I don't know what I thought this would be, but it definitely wasn't what it ended up being. I probably should have paid more attention to the subtitleI don't know what I thought this would be, but it definitely wasn't what it ended up being. I probably should have paid more attention to the subtitle before purchasing....more
As perfect a novel as I've read in a LONG time... and I don't even particularly like the crime/detective/noir genre. Kestrel just did it superbly hereAs perfect a novel as I've read in a LONG time... and I don't even particularly like the crime/detective/noir genre. Kestrel just did it superbly here, simultaneously paying supreme homage to the genre while masterfully updating it. And while making his protagonist a legitimate hero, not the typical anti-hero of the genre. I'll eagerly read his next work....more
Disappointing, and a bit silly, but my displeasure is at least partially a fault of my own expectations. Based on the title I was expecting a reasonedDisappointing, and a bit silly, but my displeasure is at least partially a fault of my own expectations. Based on the title I was expecting a reasoned argument to convince the reader that humanity's demise is imminent. But Lewis somehow fulfills the promise of the title in a totally different (and imo far less interesting) way. He's not here to convince us of his premise, he's here with his premise as a given, and to explain how we arrived at the premise through a review of millions of years of evolution. It's far more a work of history than of sociology or political science, and had I known it I probably would not have read it (i.e. I already know how we got here, and a lot of what Lewis relates strikes me as banal).
Despite having a much less compelling scope than I wanted, and despite being haphazardly organized and/or argued (if you can even call it an argument), there were some interesting passages and takeaways. E.g. he puts an interesting spin on human intelligence, pointing out that our technology, contrary to being a sign of our superior intelligence, was virtually inevitable given the vast number of humans that have existed in history. He also points out that our brains have been diminishing in size and our intelligence likely compares unfavorably to our hunter/gatherer ancestors, who were both more ambulatory and more manipulative with respect to their immediate environment. The book also has interest as a memoir, with him relating his experience in various U.S. governmental departments relating to the environment, and how all of those offices end up complicit in the ongoing degradation of our planet. His experience with the Pando aspen grove in Idaho was especially memorable.
That about ends the positives. As the book goes on you realize he has a probably unhealthy level of romanticization of the hunter/gatherer lifestyle, e.g. on p. 153 by explicitly blaming our current state of affairs on the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago. What he never addresses at all is the resulting implication that we should therefore seek to return to hunter/gatherer behavior. He doesn't really seem to believe that, instead just ignoring it, so it becomes harder to take him seriously as the book goes on. His perspective is not wholly coherent. Another, admittedly more petty piece of incoherence is that after spending a lot of time preaching how animals are just as intelligent and soulful as humans, he admits that one of his favorite pastimes is the torture of animals (i.e. fly-fishing).
There are a couple more major problems that end up being the undoing of the book, even had I been interested in the less-interesting scope. One is his treatment of "overpopulation," which again he presents as a given without actually trying to justify his assertion or grapple with any of its implications. He has a 5-page section on it, but not to prove it's true (which I've read many different perspectives on and find to be a pretty controversial debate), but rather to cite it as just one more reason humanity has screwed up. Nowhere does he acknowledge that such an argument can often lead to eugenicist fascism. His treatment of this highly controversial topic in the most superficial manner is probably the strongest evidence that this book is not really a serious political treatise, it is more a manifesto. And he is not a serious political thinker (i.e. not in any way Marxist), he is a liberal activist. This was already evident, fwiw, by his earlier, ridiculous equation of Mao and Stalin with Attila the Hun and Hitler.
Most damning though is the very end when he presents his actual timeline for human extinction, which is embarrassingly soon. With no supporting evidence or data whatsoever, he literally sets the over/under at 2055, meaning he thinks there's a 50% chance we're all extinct by then. In 30 years.
In doing so, in another sign of incoherence, he seems to completely discard the things he himself has earlier told us about the incredibly long timeline of extinction events, pointing out that the dinosaurs went extinct over thousands of years, and that this current "6th Extinction" event has been going on for tens of thousands of years. But yep, it'll all apparently be wrapped up in the next generation. What timing for all of us!
But seriously, if he had made any effort to support this assertion with anything approaching scientific rigor I would not be mocking him. I don't even need graphs or too many numbers, just present even a short, reasoned argument. What he has given us instead (he even partially admits) is a personal screed against the profession and the bureaucracy that has scorned him. He might be right, but unfortunately he has not presented anything that should convince any rational person of it. In that sense this is a somewhat pathetic effort, and I do feel bad for him. I also appreciate his work as a contrarian in the U.S. government agencies that are ostensibly responsible for stewarding the environment.
FWIW, I agree that we are in biological and civilizational collapse. I do not think it's a given that humanity will go extinct, but I think a mass die-off is likely. Humanity didn't go extinct during the last ice age and it would take a lot for them to go extinct during this. Where I differ most drastically with Lewis is in this uncertainty of total v. partial extinction. I was hoping he would present some compelling evidence for his position on it, but he absolutely did not. Where I also differ with him is in my understanding on the timeline for collapse. The Roman Empire took hundreds of years to collapse. Our collapse started about 20 years ago (I have it pegged to 9/11/01). We are very much in the middle of collapse right now, but it is not a sudden thing, it takes decades or even centuries. Based on this understanding, I find it laughable when someone tells me, completely unsupported by any data, that we will be literally extinct in 30 years. It's preposterous, and I wish Lewis had workshopped this idea with a couple of more rigorous scientists before his final draft.
Overall I don't think I'd strongly recommend this to anyone. It's not boring, especially if you haven't done a lot of thinking/reading on the subject, but neither is there much novel here. Even the people who don't know a lot of the stuff he says should probably start elsewhere in their education, with someone who can provide a more coherent and well-reasoned argument. Here are some places I'd recommend starting before this:
It's preposterous that this is rated higher than Invisible Man. Do better, Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ.
This reads as a much less artful, much more obnoxious impression It's preposterous that this is rated higher than Invisible Man. Do better, Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ.
This reads as a much less artful, much more obnoxious impression of Richard Wright or Ralph Ellison. There are only a few sympathetic characters and the protagonist is definitely not one of them. Yet the ending suggests this odiousness is unintentional by Himes, because he really seems to want us to swallow that the three sympathetic characters see something worth loving in our main guy. Frankly it reads as unintentionally autobiographical, and some of the protagonist's inner musings throughout the book -- e.g. his violent misogyny, his anti-semitism, and his general entitlement -- make me feel very uncomfortable toward Himes himself.
The 3rd person omniscient perspective did not work for me at all. Spending 80% of the book in the mind of our protagonist only to occasionally flit into the heads of the side characters was clumsy and distracting. Also, the armchair psychologizing of each of these characters was both dubious and overexplanatory, never more so when he proceeded to explain to the reader how one of the Jewish characters was actually incredibly anti-semitic. Sorry Mr. Himes, I'm just not convinced you know the inner workings of the Jewish mind as well as you think you do, and definitely not well enough to explain it to me without yourself coming across as anti-semitic.
The plot and pacing is off too. You don't ever really understand where it's going, apart from knowing it can't really end well. But then something insane abruptly occurs with about 50 pages left, something that seems like it's from another genre of story, but the rest of the novel doesn't actually resolve it. It kind of goes back to being the same aimless story it was before the event. It's really weird.
Anyway, I've read three Himes novels at this point, the best being If He Hollers Let Him Go, and I don't feel a desire to read any more. I appreciate what he was going for, and I think there's a lot of value in his perspective, I just think he was a distinctly lower tier of writer than others who were going for the same thing. If you're considering reading this I would just recommend reading (or re-reading) Invisible Man instead.
I read this first in high school, and reading it multiple decades later I have to say: wow is this wasted on high-schoolers. Maybe start them off withI read this first in high school, and reading it multiple decades later I have to say: wow is this wasted on high-schoolers. Maybe start them off with something more straightforward like Baldwin's If Beale Street Could Talk?
It's a magnificent book, and while I used to get it confused with Richard Wright's Black Boy/Native Son, reading it directly after those two really highlights the authorial differences in story, prose and overall execution. Ellison is able to seamlessly integrate his story with his political ideology in a way that Wright never seems to accomplish. Wright was evidently more passionate about the political manifesto aspect of his stories than his actual plot.
That's not a problem here, and even though the book drags on a little too much for me, the story is consistently compelling and the political/sociological ideas are organically shuffled in, in a wholly poetic manner that leaves little doubt you are in the hands of a master. Interestingly there's a motif introduced toward the end which actually recalls Wright's The Outsider, where Protagonist assumes the identity of this chameleonic Rineheart fellow and ponders how to "make yourself anew" in an anonymous city.
On the downside, there's an unfortunate omission of anything related to Native Americans, obviously a product of the book's time and scope. Still, it's quite ironic that the original oppressed population on this continent goes unmentioned in a book about metaphorical invisibility. There's a specific passage I'm thinking of on p. 577 where he speaks of America "being woven of many strands," which would have been a ripe moment to include Native Americans, however briefly. Oh well, can't expect too much from a 1950s novel.
Overall I think this is one that every North American should read, to understand Black American history and even to a certain extent Black American psychology. It's timeless stuff that Ellison captured here. It certainly meets the hype.
This only really works as a psychological/political/philosophical manifesto, and at 600 pages of length it is far too long for that. And that's beforeThis only really works as a psychological/political/philosophical manifesto, and at 600 pages of length it is far too long for that. And that's before taking into account that its political argument is personally abhorrent to me (and probably not for the reason most would guess).
The novel part works but only before taking into account its extremely dated sanctioning of domestic violence and statutory rape. But then even the intriguing plot gets drowned about halfway through in metaphysical and sociological musings. It's a shame because the premise is super compelling -- a systematically oppressed and downtrodden man gets almost literally a new lease on life -- it's just that Wright uses it toward a very tedious purpose (to explain... and explain... and explain... why a truly free intellectual must reject all systems of hierarchy and law).
And I guess we can circle back to the political argument. I understand the issues with mid-20th century Bolshevism/Stalinism, especially the international offshoots, and I don't begrudge Wright for having been mistreated by CPUSA and resenting them for it. But his portrayal of the movement in this book is hilariously uncharitable, and his equation of CPUSA with all of communism is so absurd as to be borderline offensive (no mention of socialism is made at any point either). Wright is more of a thinker/intellectual than I'll ever be, but in this case his outlook seems weirdly reductive.
Anyway, I wouldn't recommend this except to Wright completists, or maybe Cedric Robinson devotees (Black Marxism, which discusses Wright and this book). It's too long to be really worthwhile for any particular reason you might want to read it. If you do read this you should read either Native Son or Black Boy first. They're shorter and they'll make you feel less guilty about skimming portions of this one.
I thought I had read this already, in either high school or college, but now I'm almost certain I didn't... I must have gotten it confused with Black I thought I had read this already, in either high school or college, but now I'm almost certain I didn't... I must have gotten it confused with Black Boy.
It's a very uncomfortable book to read, mostly as a byproduct of Wright's larger goal for it, but also in part intentionally I suspect, given Wright's documented disappointment in how white readers responded to Uncle Tom's Children. Wright's larger goal is to portray an archetype of the Black lumpenproletariat while working through his ambivalent feelings toward the Communist Party of the USA. And his guiding light for the endeavor is truth/honesty -- he knew he would be alienating a lot of audiences, but knew equally well that he owed it both to himself and to the Black masses of his analysis to be as unflinching as possible.
Enough has already been written about the protagonist, Bigger Thomas, his motivation and what he represents. To me (admittedly someone who can have no full comprehension of the adversity this character/archetype has faced), it is a compelling and authentic portrayal. His motivations were logical to me, and I could read between the lines of his inarticulate stream-of-consciousness to understand where he was coming from. His inarticulateness was a key trait as well, and solidly executed. If anything Wright's authorial voice showed through too often and detracted from the authenticity of the portrayal, but overall it's a remarkable feat of characterization.
In any such book, with an intellectual author attempting to portray an ignorant character, there is a tension between the effort to capture an authentic portrayal and the need to keep the portrayal from becoming too polished by the author's own intellect and artfulness. Too much polish detracts from the authenticity, and imo it's important in this genre to err on the side of authenticity. Wright does not and I think the book could have benefited from less authorial insertion/explanation. There were passages where I had known pages before exactly what Wright was trying to say with Bigger's thoughts/actions, but then he took a few paragraphs to spell it out in Wright's voice. The book would have been much stronger to keep it less explained and more abstract.
This tendency became much more distracting toward the end of the novel, when Wright inserted a few long political theses through the voice of his Jewish communist lawyer avatar, Boris Max. It was interesting to see Wright try to work through these ideas in real time, ideas that would almost immediately alienate him from the party for which he had toiled selflessly for over a decade. However, this theoretical discussion was out of place in a novel. Had it been scaled back the novel would have worked a lot better, and overall that general bloat was one of the main problems of the book.
I came to this book after re-reading Black Marxism, and in addition to Wright's own introductory essay ("How Bigger Was Born") I recommend Robinson's discussion of Wright as a companion to this book. Robinson does a great job of giving ideological context to Wright's efforts with both this book and The Outsider, which I will be reading next.
Overall, this is a good and arguably vital book to read for anyone interested in African-American history, North American leftism, anti-racism, or Black Liberation/Nationalism/Power movements in North America. Especially for North Americans. As I said, it's not a pleasant read, and it can likely be skimmed in parts, but it's definitely helpful for those individuals to be familiar with it and its themes/arguments.
A very valuable tome for Newton's ideas, mostly his early ideas in the first 2/3 of the book. His clarity and theoretical development are remarkable fA very valuable tome for Newton's ideas, mostly his early ideas in the first 2/3 of the book. His clarity and theoretical development are remarkable for someone who could barely even read as a teenager. His writings are a great companion to someone like George Jackson (Blood in My Eye). I can appreciate both of them although Jackson's raw passion is more relatable for me. Read Newton for the theoretical framework backing the U.S.'s most compelling socialist program ever... read Jackson for the raw analysis and uncompromising conviction of what must be done.
This is not 5 stars for me because Newton's more philosophical musings as he became more academic in his later years are simply not as interesting. Also, I feel like there's significant context missing by the editor David Hilliard in omitting Newton's more controversial biographical details, such as his drug addiction, mental health issues, and alleged abusive behavior toward female comrades. I understand that this book probably needed the blessing of Newton's surviving family, but any collection of his writings that doesn't take into account how he failed to live up to his ideals does not strike me as a totally honest volume.
Really good though not as good as two of her other novels: Ride the Pink Horse and In a Lonely Place. This is the only of the three that has come acroReally good though not as good as two of her other novels: Ride the Pink Horse and In a Lonely Place. This is the only of the three that has come across as super-dated, not because of the setting and goings-on, but just due to Hughes's retrograde views on abortion. It's the only cause I've ever had to think Hughes was anything other than super progressive for her era (esp. on race and feminism)....more
Damn this is good. Hughes deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Chandler, Hammett, Cain and Jim Thompson, and that she's not is probably baseDamn this is good. Hughes deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Chandler, Hammett, Cain and Jim Thompson, and that she's not is probably base sexism. I haven't read Pop. 1280 in years but this strikes me as a much more substantial, intelligent version of that from-the-mind-of-the-psycho noir subgenre.
I don't think I liked this more than Hughes's Ride the Pink Horse, but they're so different that it's hard to compare both reading experiences. I don't give this full stars just because its premise inherently prevents a significant emotional impact. But in terms of executing what Hughes set out for it's flawless. I'm really excited for The Expendable Man next, and probably a bunch more of her stuff after that....more
Loading...
