Reviews - Tout pour tout le monde

438 reviews for:

Tout pour tout le monde

Xavier Collette, Eman Abdelhadi, M.E. O'Brien

4.2 AVERAGE

sknechte's review against another edition

4.0

hopeful inspiring fast-paced

Loveable characters: Yes

Diverse cast of characters: Yes

Even a pure pessimist like myself can’t stove off the pulsating energy of optimism in this dystopian depiction of the future through the lens of interviews with revolutionaries

samngablum's review against another edition

5.0

Diverse cast of characters: Yes

still_loitering's review against another edition

3.5

challenging inspiring medium-paced

Worth reading. Embrace the cringe.

adrianwhitetx's review against another edition

4.5

Absolutely flabbergasting concept and beautifully executed. It makes me want to dream, do, and be toward a world where we really take care of each other.

abhi17's review against another edition

4.25

hopeful inspiring medium-paced

Plot or Character Driven: Plot

Strong character development: No

Loveable characters: Yes

Diverse cast of characters: Yes

Flaws of characters a main focus: No

I had some mixed feelings about this one, especially having gone in with high expectations. I really struggled at the beginning to get through some of the gratuitous/excessively self-indulgent/just I think not great writing? But ultimately I ended up liking it more than enough to finish, and the most important thing is that this book is incredibly thought-provoking and inspiring. I had a library copy but may buy it so that I can come back to certain chapters to restore my hope. A better world is possible and hopefully within reach in the near future.

zabo's review against another edition

3.25

emotional hopeful inspiring reflective medium-paced

Plot or Character Driven: Character

Strong character development: No

Loveable characters: Yes

Diverse cast of characters: Yes

Flaws of characters a main focus: Complicated

By no means do i think this is a bad book, necessarily. but something about it feels saccharine and Pointed in a way that made me roll my eyes. the interviews that felt distinct felt distinct, but some felt too identical or lacked a distinction i would hope for from a range of people interviewed. especially for participants not from the region originally or those passing through. it’s explained away in the introduction but…i would’ve imagined a future with sentient algae AI to also explore more of a rejection of Proper English. or maybe those are the conditions in which the participants would feel compelled to speak for an oral history project. in this world, is an oral history conducted by those trained in academia a way of historiography that’s embedded with the practices of the Bad Old World?

the book also chooses a very particular note to end on that caught me off guard.

Sanchez: Nostalgia is a toxin for that expansive visioning that needs to happen. We need to be done with nostalgia
O’Brien: Wise words, from one historian to another

this exemplifies the entire thing of “yes, i understand from a theoretical perspective nostalgia is a violent tool and this oral history is an entire exercise in contradictions” but it makes me question whether the books handles its own contradictions well, particularly between grieving the past and a rejection of nostalgia, especially when framing that grief as manifesting from trauma. even the introduction describes a paper bound book as a “nostalgic extravagance” despite the reality of paper being one of the most effective/lasting mediums for archival work. Like you could argue the meta-contradictions of the book itself make it more compelling or interesting to engage with. sometimes, i’m sold. other times? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To a more forgivable degree, Sanchez’s own interview is contradictory re: nostalgia vs futurity. sometimes the contradictions feel fun to explore and other times annoying.

parts of the book makes it hard to suspend belief. it’s still an ecotopian fictional historiography that has picked specific interviews, regardless of the choice of putting them chronologically. it makes me itch a little bit but never in a way where i feel it’s crossed a line.

also, nitpicky, but there were so many points where i would have loved more precise follow-up questions from the interviewers. in some ways, stylistic choice? ethical obligation to our fictionally real participants? idk! but i
also think this book could’ve been a lot messier. it gently hints at infighting and political disagreements. i would’ve loved more…pettiness? more of the unsavory but endearing aspects of Haterism that are also part of being human, especially in a post-market anarcho-communist world. girl i KNOW the discourse is still messy. i wanted more of the messy.

overall, i think this book is an incredibly lovely journey and a self-aware experiment envisioning collective liberation through speculative fiction. not a hard read on paper, but challenging in its own existence. absolutely worth the time.