Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by blueberrybanana
Everything for Everyone: An Oral History of the New York Commune, 2052–2072 by Eman Abdelhadi, M.E. O'Brien
challenging
2.5
Quite possibly the most annoying book I've ever read.
The first two chapters almost made me DNF because I was so furious with the writing style. The book takes itself so seriously which made me take it seriously, and that made me angry because I wanted more hard details about how this was all working! Like tbh if the entire world economy, distribution and political system collapsed idk that you could get it all back up and running in like 15 years? I would love to see how that worked!
Some chapters got to me more than others - the first one especially, but some of the parenting stuff as well. It was interesting to see what set me off/what I resisted lol. I think I was just taking it way too personally, which is on me. I did like the rewilding chapter and the NALF chapter, if only for a difference in perspectives, and thought the concept of a creche was interesting. A few other reviewers mentioned that all the interviewees sounded the same and I kind of agree - I'd be curious to hear from residents who had different views or were less involved, although I get that's not the point of the book.
At the end, the book briefly touched on the idea of getting rid of nostalgia for the old world. I'm curious to hear more about that - how is that actually achieved? Would everyone automatically accept that these ways of living were the best? How do you deal with people with different ideals, values and ways of living in the commune? How do you handle conflict with different ideas? I'm just skeptical that these ideas would work on such a broad scale and it was something I wish the book talked about more! Idk. Sorry to be a hater. I'm getting the guillotine when the revolution comes I guess
Oh PS I did have a favorite of the two interviewers (it was Eman Abdelhadi!) and I thought that was interesting to note! I didn't expect there to be such a difference in tone!
The first two chapters almost made me DNF because I was so furious with the writing style. The book takes itself so seriously which made me take it seriously, and that made me angry because I wanted more hard details about how this was all working! Like tbh if the entire world economy, distribution and political system collapsed idk that you could get it all back up and running in like 15 years? I would love to see how that worked!
Some chapters got to me more than others - the first one especially, but some of the parenting stuff as well. It was interesting to see what set me off/what I resisted lol. I think I was just taking it way too personally, which is on me. I did like the rewilding chapter and the NALF chapter, if only for a difference in perspectives, and thought the concept of a creche was interesting. A few other reviewers mentioned that all the interviewees sounded the same and I kind of agree - I'd be curious to hear from residents who had different views or were less involved, although I get that's not the point of the book.
At the end, the book briefly touched on the idea of getting rid of nostalgia for the old world. I'm curious to hear more about that - how is that actually achieved? Would everyone automatically accept that these ways of living were the best? How do you deal with people with different ideals, values and ways of living in the commune? How do you handle conflict with different ideas? I'm just skeptical that these ideas would work on such a broad scale and it was something I wish the book talked about more! Idk. Sorry to be a hater. I'm getting the guillotine when the revolution comes I guess
Oh PS I did have a favorite of the two interviewers (it was Eman Abdelhadi!) and I thought that was interesting to note! I didn't expect there to be such a difference in tone!