nvrrrdie's reviews
39 reviews

I thought some of these essays were interesting and insightful perspectives. I often appreciated the storytelling. FWIW some essays were occasionally not very subtle about American apologia or endorsements of neoliberalism however. Which is fine but worth considering since this is published by Penguin Random House.

attention span issue. might try again sometime 

I read the Norton Critical Reader with translation by Michael Katz.

As of writing this review I have not yet finished reading all of the (useful) added texts/criticisms appended to the novel. 

Essentially this novel is a response to the utopian ideals presented by rationalist philosophy as it began gaining cultural prominence in 19th ce Russia. Dostoevsky counters the utopian idea with the image of a man who is irrational.  The underground man is vain and obsessed with suffering and torments others while not gaining anything from such behaviour - particularly Liza, the unwitting witness of his shame and misery onto whom he unleashes his aggression. 

The perfect and deterministic rationalism that Notes responds to suggests that prosperity is the only advantageous quality for the improvement of mankind's condition. It will correlate to modernity and achievement. Notes questions this, asking whether suffering may not also have its advantage and whether people would actually behave in such a manner that rationalism suggests - this appears doubtful to Dostoevsky. 

There is also discussion of rationalism + determinism that I have difficulty summarizing right now. I don't know if I would consider this correct upon review but it may read as the anxiety of a culture that is no longer sure of free will and has to reckon for the first time with the suggestion of determinism. Although the novel may argue against it, I don't know if I find it particularly clear or compelling. I would prefer to turn to much later and more contemporary works on the subject for a more satisfying reply.

Overall I did find this of some interest especially because I do also prefer to reject utopias or the supposed linear growth and progress /achievement of civilization - I think those are mistaken and limited in perspective. My understanding of this novel is far from complete right now and I think I kind of get how it is trying to disrupt the questionable basis of the views of his contemporaries. But as for effectively driving that point home in part ii either it's beyond my grasp or it's just not quite there.


Chuckled a lot because I too am a indulgent hermetic freak who is deeply sick from my own consciousness (I think these qualities are important to note as how Dostoevsky intends to present his countermodel to the rational character) but like...... yikes man! glad I'm irrational but not THAT bad << joke but also he is horrible. as intended. 

I thought some of the included essays were very good. Some of her other points were not compelling at all. Eventually some of the essays in the collection were very repetitious which definitely bothered me. 

Overall I think this was a decent introduction to the Indian political realm. In the future I think I will pursue further reading with different authors. I thought her points on the topic nuclear weapons were excellent, nationalism was kind of good but caste could be better. But sure this is an informative place to begin and I look forward to learning more.

😬

Rich storytelling and good characters with emotional depth. Complex intergenerational relationships.

Much to think about. Interesting as a contemporary political allegory.

Textual misogyny is obviously an issue but many other takes on it seem too reductive for me to fully grant. The condition of women in religiously uptight pseudo-historical Salem and their expression of forbidden behaviours as well as who is considered implicated in guilt all make interesting subtext.

Very difficult text for me right now. Definitely something that needs time and study and digestion. Extremely dense not in the sense that it's dry and trudging but it's just so packed with message in every sentence and in a way that's beyond my level right now.

P.S. very relieved after reading these reviews to see I was not the only person fighting for my life to interpret this. I think my issue is that I'm not emerged deeply enough yet in sci-tech and more advanced philosophy.

Was introduced this years ago through a class about media, information, and technology and I'm pretty mad that they mentioned gender as a side note when it was actually the entire point and premise of the text.

Reflections, notes, keywords:
- Human animality, breaching culture/nature boundary
- Innocence of nature - being pure and separate and naturalized, nonconstructed + nonconceived (<<< questionable)
- Naming is an exclusive act and brings consciousness to contradiction and partiality and choice
- Gender, race, class do not have essential unity (they defy to be essentialized and reducible to universal meaning) specifically in light of "the matrix of women's dominations of each other" therefore bring attention to affinities rather than essences
- Identities destabilize as their opposites are deconstructed (orient/occident)
 - Women's non-innocence of dominations
- Consciousness (of identity and location) are achievement and not a natural fact <<< construction and epistemologies
- Subjectivity of postmodern identity rather than objectivity, based on history and a changing world order where the network of connections between people are multiple and complex 
- Polyvocality
- Feminized labour: made vulnerable and exploited 
- Cross-gender, cross-race alliances for survival, new webs of power = new coalitions 
- Changes in world order largely impacted by post-war arms race (human components adapted in cultural machinery towards this purpose?? political economical landscape??)
- Adapt and reconstruct to survive using the tools which marked you as other
- "Recognize oneself as fully implicated in the world"
- Reciprocity, shaping. We make and we are made. In terms of the world network and biotics and stuff. Cyborg.
- Prosthetics. Having social prostheses and containing externalities in our reality
- The machine is us - nuclear weapons and war machinery: not independent objects but in tandem with us and our embodiments