![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bedlamsbardI just read a book on...gods, I don't know, some kind of archaeological theory, the author seriously did not need an entire book to make his point, which he didn't do very well anyway. The first four-fifths of the book was just irritating, and then the last chapter got seriously condescending and then he pulled out GODWIN'S LAW. I could not make this up. "The assertion that we are in no position to assess the 'truth claims' of different historical accounts means that fascists, racists and Nazis can peddle their obscenities while we play games with style." Because postmodernism is BAD.
I really, really hate archaeological theory. Like, hardcore. I even went looking for scathing academic reviews of the book, I was that pissed off at it. I think there might be an interesting argument somewhere in there? But the guy is so much of a dick (as a writer, at least) that it's hard to get past that. I mean, he spends the entire book talking about "the Word," "the Voice," "Objects," and "History." With the caps, I might add. Like this: "As I argued in Chapter 3, it was only in recent times that the Word eclipsed the Object and reduced the Voice to a whisper." Or this: "In Bradbourne, as in many rural parishes of England, both reformers and recusants still (if differently) lived in and through Voice, Word, and Object. However, as I have already remarked, there can be little doubt that, in terms of their role in the writing of History, the relationship between these discourses had dramatically changed."
The really sad thing is that I didn't read this book for any specific class, just as general course background reading. Maybe I'll just go back to my nice book on Athenian courtesans now.
I really, really hate archaeological theory. Like, hardcore. I even went looking for scathing academic reviews of the book, I was that pissed off at it. I think there might be an interesting argument somewhere in there? But the guy is so much of a dick (as a writer, at least) that it's hard to get past that. I mean, he spends the entire book talking about "the Word," "the Voice," "Objects," and "History." With the caps, I might add. Like this: "As I argued in Chapter 3, it was only in recent times that the Word eclipsed the Object and reduced the Voice to a whisper." Or this: "In Bradbourne, as in many rural parishes of England, both reformers and recusants still (if differently) lived in and through Voice, Word, and Object. However, as I have already remarked, there can be little doubt that, in terms of their role in the writing of History, the relationship between these discourses had dramatically changed."
The really sad thing is that I didn't read this book for any specific class, just as general course background reading. Maybe I'll just go back to my nice book on Athenian courtesans now.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-31 06:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-31 06:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-31 06:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-31 06:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-31 06:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-31 06:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-31 06:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-31 06:57 pm (UTC)