Scan barcode
pauloandre's review against another edition
4.0
A great introduction to Chomsky's ideas based on conversations, talks and radio debates. Starts off with a bang, denouncing the US foreign policy after WW2 that goes on the present day but it does get a little repetitive - this actually being four books compiled into one probably helps as well. Nevertheless, the reason why Chomsky has been such a respected intellectual for decades on end is very well displayed in these pages.
samboymebob's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
3.25
wrengaia's review against another edition
3.0
I'm going to review this book on two separate grounds: its content and argument, and the way that the book itself is constructed - the strengths, and weaknesses, of each aspect are connected but I don't think that they should be conflated.
Quite predictably, my qualms with this book do not differ from those I generally have with Chomsky. Coming to this book, I already knew that I generally agree with Chomsky's political theory (I think that his writing on anarchism is absolutely brilliant, for example) and believe that his linguistic theory is tantamount to absolute waffle. Nonetheless, I was surprised to find myself shocked at several of the points that are made throughout the course of the book. These pieces certainly aren't recent, and it shows. Aside from being predominantly concerned with issues that do appear slightly dated to the modern reader, though are undoubtedly interesting historically, Chomsky's tendency to overstate the importance of class at the expense of a critical or comprehensive analysis along the lines of gender or ethnicity does definitely reek of the kind of leftist political theory that I associate with the late twentieth century. Moreover, at several points Chomsky did slip towards the kind of essentialist argument that completely leaves me unconvinced by his linguistic theory, but thankfully these moments were fleeting. Overall, though, I thought that this comprehensive, whistle-stop tour of Chomsky's opinions on the state of the world was fascinating, if frustratingly lacking depth (though it is marketed as an accessible tome, so perhaps I shouldn't complain too much about the fast paced nature of this text).
However, I think that the overall content of this book is severely impeded by the form that this work takes. This book comprises basically a long series of interviews that have been edited such that they more or less resemble essays; this is perhaps why they are so accessible. Paragraphs are short, language is clear and, at times, colloquial, and the text lacks any sort of dense academic analysis. In fact, the conversational nature of the short pieces is, at times, very refreshing and makes for rather compelling reading. However, I found the lack of academic or rigorous scholarship to be immensely frustrating at times (surely footnotes could have been added in editing?) and I think that two hundred plus pages of interviews was slightly too much. Though novel for a while, by around the half-way point I was longing for a clear essay that didn't meander and dawdle in the way that the interviews comprised in this collection normally do. I don't think that this should necessarily be taken as a criticism of Chomsky, though; when I've read his own writing, I've found it to be both rigorous and accessible. Rather, I think that this volume has suffered from the lack of a really excellent editor, who would have cut the extremely brief sections and then saved the reader an immense amount of frustration by adding some footnotes, even if only to the overtly quoted sources.
Overall, though, I did find this to be rather interesting. I am fairly familiar with Chomsky, so the merit of this introductory volume was perhaps lost on me, but nonetheless I found several valuable snippets of theory and information.
Quite predictably, my qualms with this book do not differ from those I generally have with Chomsky. Coming to this book, I already knew that I generally agree with Chomsky's political theory (I think that his writing on anarchism is absolutely brilliant, for example) and believe that his linguistic theory is tantamount to absolute waffle. Nonetheless, I was surprised to find myself shocked at several of the points that are made throughout the course of the book. These pieces certainly aren't recent, and it shows. Aside from being predominantly concerned with issues that do appear slightly dated to the modern reader, though are undoubtedly interesting historically, Chomsky's tendency to overstate the importance of class at the expense of a critical or comprehensive analysis along the lines of gender or ethnicity does definitely reek of the kind of leftist political theory that I associate with the late twentieth century. Moreover, at several points Chomsky did slip towards the kind of essentialist argument that completely leaves me unconvinced by his linguistic theory, but thankfully these moments were fleeting. Overall, though, I thought that this comprehensive, whistle-stop tour of Chomsky's opinions on the state of the world was fascinating, if frustratingly lacking depth (though it is marketed as an accessible tome, so perhaps I shouldn't complain too much about the fast paced nature of this text).
However, I think that the overall content of this book is severely impeded by the form that this work takes. This book comprises basically a long series of interviews that have been edited such that they more or less resemble essays; this is perhaps why they are so accessible. Paragraphs are short, language is clear and, at times, colloquial, and the text lacks any sort of dense academic analysis. In fact, the conversational nature of the short pieces is, at times, very refreshing and makes for rather compelling reading. However, I found the lack of academic or rigorous scholarship to be immensely frustrating at times (surely footnotes could have been added in editing?) and I think that two hundred plus pages of interviews was slightly too much. Though novel for a while, by around the half-way point I was longing for a clear essay that didn't meander and dawdle in the way that the interviews comprised in this collection normally do. I don't think that this should necessarily be taken as a criticism of Chomsky, though; when I've read his own writing, I've found it to be both rigorous and accessible. Rather, I think that this volume has suffered from the lack of a really excellent editor, who would have cut the extremely brief sections and then saved the reader an immense amount of frustration by adding some footnotes, even if only to the overtly quoted sources.
Overall, though, I did find this to be rather interesting. I am fairly familiar with Chomsky, so the merit of this introductory volume was perhaps lost on me, but nonetheless I found several valuable snippets of theory and information.
neuro_chef's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
4.0
lizzie_bobbins's review against another edition
5.0
This book has absolutely done my head in, and possibly my family's as well from the number of conversations I have started with the words "Noam Chomsky says..."
"The future can be changed. But we can't change things unless we at least begin to understand them. ... Nobody ever said it was going to be easy."
"The future can be changed. But we can't change things unless we at least begin to understand them. ... Nobody ever said it was going to be easy."
epictetsocrate's review against another edition
4.0
În 1949, spionajul american din Europa de Est fusese pus sub controlul unei rețele conduse de Reinhard Gehlen, care se aflase la conducerea serviciului militar de inforrnatii al naziștilor pe Frontul de Est. Aceasta rețea, care avea ramificații până în America Latina, era o parte a alianței dintre SUA și naziștii germani, în care și-au găsit foarte repede locul mulți dintre cei mai răi criminali de război.
Operațiunile desfășurate în cadrul acescei rețele includeau alcătuirea unei ,,armate secrete" americano-naziste, care avea scopul de a susține gruparile militare inființate de Hitler care mai activau încă în interiorul Uniunii Sovietice și Europei de Est in prima parte a anilor '50. (Acest lucru este cunoscut în SUA, însa este considerat lipsit de importanță - deși lucrurile ar sta cu totul altfel dacă situația s-ar inversa și dacă am descoperi, să zicem, că Uniunea Sovietică ar fi susținut grupări rnilitare inființate de Hider, care ar fi operat în Munții Stâncoși.)
Operațiunile desfășurate în cadrul acescei rețele includeau alcătuirea unei ,,armate secrete" americano-naziste, care avea scopul de a susține gruparile militare inființate de Hitler care mai activau încă în interiorul Uniunii Sovietice și Europei de Est in prima parte a anilor '50. (Acest lucru este cunoscut în SUA, însa este considerat lipsit de importanță - deși lucrurile ar sta cu totul altfel dacă situația s-ar inversa și dacă am descoperi, să zicem, că Uniunea Sovietică ar fi susținut grupări rnilitare inființate de Hider, care ar fi operat în Munții Stâncoși.)