Book Review: Against White Feminism

Image: the cover of the book is a cream colored background with the word "against" in orange to pink hombre cascading down the page. In smaller letters of the same style is "white feminism." Below that in black is "Notes on Disruption" and below that in black is Rafia Zakaria.

 Rafia Zakaria's collection, Against White Feminism: Notes on Disruption, undoubtedly ruffled some (white peoples) feathers. The title alone grabbed the attention of the kind of white women that need to read it most. Unfortunately, many of them won't, but there's not much in terms of respectability politics that can be done to sway them anyway. If they did take a moment to turn a few pages, they would find that Zakaria is very clear in both the very beginning and in the conclusion that there is a huge difference between white women who are feminists and women who practice white feminism- the latter being a sort of white supremacist capitalism that uses womens "empowerment" as a tool to gain profit and power at expense of the most marginalized women.

In some sections, Zakaria details her own experiences dealing with white women practicing white feminism. They are painful to read and I can only imagine how painful they were to experience. They show that tokenism, silencing, casual racism, microaggressions, and more problems can have humiliating, demoralizing, and traumatizing effects. Even though some saw this book as divisive or too angry, I noticed Zakaria self criticizing quite a bit. She would discuss her lack of preparation or experience leading her to make certain decisions that honestly, sounded unavoidable because, had she had the experience, they already would have happened to her. 

I am not seen as a white woman in the world much these days, but have most definitely made some mistakes that I thought of, cringing, as I read her experiences. I was luckily not the head of an NGO or a CEO or whatever, but still. I briefly note this to shy away from the thing many people do after their social justice educations- pretend they've always gotten it, eager to show their rage on behalf of others. This book should be read by imperfect white people, too. If you're willing to reckon with that, you will get the most out of it.

I imagine that this book is also quite validating for women of color, though I obviously cannot assume to speak for anyone. Zakaria discusses a lot of international cultural experiences of women throughout the world that aren't often discussed, even when people are discussing the issues with white feminism. There is a toxic tendency for white women practicing white feminism to place themselves in the roles of missionaries to save the women of color from their native cultures. White women often do this without even seeing the colonialist and white supremacist cultures that the white women themselves are coming from and how those affect women across the world.

She also critiques "sex positive" feminism and "choice" feminism at length. Some folks, especially those who think that the only thing produced by the second wave is TERFs, felt this to be too "second wave." But, I will again, disagree. As someone who got involved in feminism during the sex positive wave then later read a ton of radical feminist writings, I found a lot to be gained- and a lot that needed work- from both. I think Zakaria walks this line well. She says something like "if everything is feminist, then nothing is," which really hits to the root of it. Many movements, often started or co-created by the most marginalized of women, are capitalized upon by corporations or highly privileged women who change movements for social change into stories of individual empowerment through climbing ladders and stepping on people below you along the way.

In the end, the message is repeated that has been told time and again, yet not listened to nearly enough: helping women of color will help all women. Helping women at the margins and intersections helps all women. Centering the experiences of white women alone does not. It actively does harm. There is much to be done and much to be learned and this book is part of that.

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: Gang Politics

Image: The cover off the book is a grey fabric textured background with an embroidered patch at the center. The patch is black with a tan border and two orange ribbons inside with the title on them. In the middle are brass knuckles with Kristian Williams name on either side in small letters. Below the second ribbon in small letters is "revolution, repression, and crime." On the bottom of the cover in orange letters is "foreword by Robert Evans."

Kristian Williams' Gang Politics is an interesting collection of three essays discussing some of the intricacies and complexities of behaviors and politics of various gangs, mostly in the USA. The author makes clear that he does not claim to cover all or most of these topics in the short text, but I did learn quite a bit of nuanced information that we don't often hear about gangs and other groups that can behave like gangs. Williams' makes it clear that despite the racist USAmerican (and likely elsewhere) association between the term "gang" and poor/working class Black and Brown communities, there are many gangs of many stripes including the police who often act as a state sponsored gang. 

Robert Evans writes a short foreword for the text that was interesting to read because of how he discusses violence. I have listened to some of his various podcasts and it's well known that he loves guns (I am not a gun person but am not anti-gun either.) So, seeing him talk specifically about how raw force is usually not the answer is important. It's not that he has never acknowledged this on podcasts- he has- but seeing it written in this way here is fitting. I am a little uneasy about a white dude giving a foreword for another white dude's book on gang politics given how much the term gang is weaponized against black and brown folks. I do think they both do their part to focus on white gangs as well including some skinheads, the Proud Boys, and even some iterations of antifa who don't check the toxic masculinity inside their groups.

The first essay- The Other Side of the COIN: Counterinsurgency and Community Policing- is a bit dry at times but still very interesting in its exploration of how gangs threaten state power and some of the ways that states use counterproductive and unethical means to reclaim that power. The next essay is where I was hooked. Gangs, States, and Insurgencies offers many specific examples of gangs roles in their communities. It does not paint a false perfectly rosy picture to combat the stereotypes of all gangs existing purely for violence and clout. It instead describes the complicated and often political nature of gangs for whom drugs and violence may play a part, but also who did a great many constructive things for their neighborhoods that often made them a far bigger threat to the state. I did not know that many gangs of today started "as protective measures against racist violence." I had heard of truces occurring before and during the L.A. Riots in 1992 when another group of truces occurred during the recent uprisings after the murder of George Floyd, but before that I was relatively unaware of the specifics and how truces in order to unite gangs stretched back before either of those. 

It came as no surprise to me that police did as much as possible to sow discord between gangs who cooperated with one another just as they did with more well known social justice movements. The details in this essay show clearly that, if attacking gangs was truly about stopping violence, protecting communities, etc, cops wouldn't have been doing everything in their power to stop gangs from cooperating. There are a great many instances of where gangs were successfully working out their differences and contributing to their communities such as with free breakfast programs, agreed upon principles of nonagression, tangible reductions in homicide and violence rates, involvement in politics, etc, only to be fractured by police infiltration and deliberately reinvigorating of old or fabricated conflicts. There are also examples of how a focus on capitalism and working with police corrupted the gangs core principles, leading to protection rackets.

In Street Fights, Gang Wars, and Insurrections: Proud Boys vs Antifa (vs Police,) Williams discusses these groups' gang politics, their huge differences and occasional similarities, and their histories and tactics. There is also examination of skinhead culture including the stereotypical neonazi and racist skinheads as well as apolitical and antiracist skinheads like SHARPs and RASH. This was a primer to lead into Anti-Racist Action and Anti-Fascist Action (aka Antifa or AntEEfa as everyone now insists on pronouncing it) groups of today. There is also a lot of nuanced discussion here. Williams examines the need to meet fascists with a variety of tactics including force while also discussing how force itself can become the star of the show rather than an occasional tactic. There are discussions of how the decentralized nature of Antifa as an idea rather than a group like the Proud Boys with a very strong hierarchy can be both a strength and a curse. There is great variety between chapters and people who identify as antifa and these can be a great things, especially when they design and use tactics best fitting each event and area. But, if a group bases their organizing around machismo, street fights, and reflecting that dynamic inward, they can end up as an authoritarian structure that does not allow for disagreement, growth, or the safety of marginalized people who are or want to be involved.

There is also a history of the strange dynamics of the proud boys, how white men like Gavin McInnis with clear white supremacist and fascist backgrounds managed to convince people that they were somehow post racial, including men of color in their groups rallying around "Western Culture" and "traditional values" instead of (directly saying) race. Despite some leaders openly denouncing men of color and/or gay men from participating, the group remains multiracial, though skewed white for obvious reasons. Proud boys' targeting of Antifa has ended up resembling some of the street fights of racist skinhead groups and traditional street gangs all the way down to their uniforms. Police have also been shown to be cooperative and/or full members of the Proud Boys, though mistrust of law enforcement came later.

All of this history is wrapped up with various analyses that I will leave for the book. But, I liked the nuanced way that Williams discussed the dynamics and tactics of Antifa. I wasn't interested in a book that painted a picture of two one dimensional groups in a perfect war where one side only does bad things and the other is perfect. The book and essays are also well organized and easy to follow even when they get heavy due to William's outlining and summarizing of his points. The postscript offers a telling summary. I normally do not quote from ARCs because they sometimes have text changes, but I think this quote is one that would remain in the book:

"A genuinely anarchist society would likely be, on the whole, pacifist. If we want to eliminate coercion from our social relations, it follows that the role of violence- personal or institutional- would be reduced to infinitesimal levels and likely condemned (or at least regretted) when it does occur. However, to build that world, we must act in this world. The process of change will sometimes entail violence, if only to protect peaceable people from police raids and death squads. This introduces an irresolvable paradox: the means required to build a just society may not be suited to that society...

Violence should, I think, always be understood as morally compromising and politically problematic, as well as physically dangerous and psychologically damaging- even when absolutely necessary. It should therefore only be organized with the utmost care..." 

I had to cut that down for the sake of this review, but the whole section is even better. I think this book could be a very important tool for anyone's organizing, but especially those whose organizing involves violent struggle and a tendency towards toxic masculinity or to attract the toxically masculine. I would like to read more takes like this rather than some of the one dimensional defenses of groups or tactics across all scenarios. 

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: A Guerrilla Guide to Refusal

Image: the cover of the book is a white background with old school typerwriter lettering. Most of the cover is black X's, some of which are covering other black letters. In red in the center is the title, below that is the author's name "Andrew Culp" 

I chose not to give this book a rating because, to be honest, I did not understand enough of it in order to judge the content. I am not a stranger to academic books and knew that this was from an academic institution and that Andrew Culp was an academic. I often note problems with accessibility when reading these texts- especially on topics that are meant to appeal to the masses or the vulnerable- then continue on to review the content. I can't do too much of that with this. I was drawn in by the title and assumed anything called "A Guerrilla Guide to Refusal" would be more on the accessible side of academic. This was reinforced by the blurb stating that the book is, "Poised to reach beyond the academy into activist circles..." but maybe they just meant that the book discusses activism, not that the majority of activists would be able to read and utilize it.

I am not sure if it is just that I don't read a ton of philosophy or if this is truly as over the top as it seemed while I slowly slogged through it. It would have been a DNF early on when I noticed I was out of my depth, but I did want to respect the whole review copy process, so I powered through. Take my ignorant review as you may, I could very well be wrong about everything I did seem to grasp (or so I think.)

First, I can say that the title was likely chosen to draw someone in, not to actually describe the text. There is nothing in this that could be a guide. But, that happens a lot with titles and often the authors don't get the final say. The author's writing style is something I wish I had the education to understand because there is some sort of flare there, I just am lost in a sea of it. The content seems to generally be in the vein of analyzing various kinds of media and history through an academic anarchist lens. There is obviously a specific focus on guerrilla forms of organizing and action. Discussions of things like illegalism, decentralized organizing principles, compromise and "waging politics" used to stifle revolution, Queer liberation, and Black liberation, are present as well as various specific examples of guerrilla organizing groups.

He does do the Queer theory thing I really dislike in that he calls things Queer that are just outside the norm, not actually Queer. There are times where he mentions groups in ways that seemed out of line with how I understand them. For instance, he claims "new anarchists" critique anti-civ groups, insurrectionist groups, Bash Back!, etc because they "resist legibility." Maybe I don't know what resisting legibility actually means but, as a person who has been part of or adjacent to many of those types of groups, there are quite concrete cultures therein. Sometimes decent traits like refusing to be trampled on or to beg for minor concessions, but other times rampant manarchism, ableism, transphobia, etc. He mentions that there are valid critiques of these groups, but gives none, and seems to suggest that those outside these groups are somehow tamer for critiquing them for emulating many of the things we should be fighting against. Earlier in the book though he says he's not claiming everyone should take up armed resistance and that, "...the most decisive victories will not be through military means, only through a battle of intensities."

There are chapters of the book that analyze media, but some of them just seem to be simply describing it rather than analyzing it. I am not sure how some of the chapters fit into the theme. They seem to go off in unrelated directions at times. I didn't dislike all of the chapters though. As the book progressed, there were a few essays that were more accessibly written. Culp also introduced me to some movements and groups I had not heard of. I really liked the chapter called, "We Are Bad, but We Could Be Worse," which included the feminist project "Public Feelings." The idea of combined art, self care, activism, and psychology was very clever. I was sad that when I googled it, their website no longer existed. There were other examples of this where it was just exciting to read about something new (to me.)

Maybe you're a leftist philosophy buff with a PhD in some sort of critical theory and you'll get much more out of this book than I did. Maybe I just couldn't grasp Culp's writing and other people can just fine. I will read your reviews either way because, honestly, the most disappointing thing with this book is that I think great discussions could be had if only they were in a shared language. Maybe you can translate for me, reader.

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: Begin the World Over

 

Image: the cover of the book is a combination of photograph and illustration. The background is a very close up view of part of a fire with the flames concentrated most in the lower eft corner, turning to burning embers as they extend across the dark night of the page. Flying out from the flames are tons of bird silhouettes shifting color from red-orange closest to the flames to teal as they reach the edges of the page. A red rectangle across the top says "emergent strategy series" in white letters. "Begin the world over" is in large teal letters across the center. And, Kung Li Sun's name is in white letters at the bottom.

Kung Li Sun's Begin the World Over is described as a "counterfactual" novel about the insurrection that resulted in the creation of Haiti. I am not a scholar of rebellions enacted by enslaved people throughout USA history, but I am interested in their stories, especially those that so often go untold. I am not sure if it's common to be ignorant about this particular uprising or not, but I was. Since the book is described as "counterfactual," I assumed initially to believe that the story was purely fiction. However, once I started the book, I realized just how much of it was true. The exact minute events and conversations may not be, but the people are very real. Sun tells us as much when they introduce the book, stating: "Characters are, by and large, real people, acting within the bounds of available evidence."

Knowing this, I approached the story as a historical fiction. Yet, as it went along, I still found myself fascinated and surprised by the extremely interesting characters. I eventually started googling them to figure out what parts were real and a hell of a lot of what occurred in this book was recorded throughout history. In particular, I was very excited by the fact that we meet multiple characters who transcend the bounds of gender conformity and heterosexuality. Romaine was the first character I ended up googling, when she is described as being born male but adopting the identity of a woman through inspiration and dedication to the virgin Mary. To call her a trans woman would be making assumptions about this interesting presentation that may be something more complicated and or fantastical, hence my language in the previous sentence. There is also some brief but passionate gay male action going on that I could not find evidence for in my very brief googling. It made sense nonetheless due to assumptions made historically about James Hemings' "fluid" sexuality.

These things among many other are what made this rebellion story stand out to me. Of course, LGBTQ folks have always existed, but they are often erased in these histories or at least these parts of their lives are. We also meet a great many maroons sharing space with Creek indigenous people. There is discussion about divisions among the indigenous between those like Red Eagle and Sehoy who will do anything they can to cooperate with and protect liberated slaves and those who would turn them in or worse in exchange for protection of their tribe from white slavers. This is also a real collaboration that happened throughout many revolutions and also in day to day life- maroons and indigenous people cooperating and living together on the margins of colonized and stolen land.

The story itself is exciting. I sometimes have trouble getting into period pieces and historical fiction simply because it's not my favorite type of fiction, but this book drew me in quite early. Sun manages to navigate the stories of many characters and their histories in ways that are both expansive and easy to follow. I felt as if I was along for the ride. I am keeping this vague to avoid spoilers, but I will say that, from what I gathered in my brief searches, the arc that the author chose to give James Hemings is the one that diverges most from recorded history. James Hemings met a tragic and lonely end in real life and this story gives his legacy redemption and a chance at a different timeline. I almost wish I had not looked him up, but at the same time, find the way his story was rewritten for him to be quite beautiful.

This is Kung Li Sun's first novel and I would definitely read something from them again. It was exciting, creative, engaging, and straight up fun at times despite taking place in such a torturous era full of horrific histories. It is an excellent reminder of what people can achieve together even in the most oppressive circumstances. I also really love the cover design. It combines destruction and liberation in a way that does the story justice.

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: A Profession without Reason

Image: The cover of the book is a white background with a black squiggly lined jumble that ends in an arrow pointing upwards. Below that in black letters is, "A profession without reason." Below that in red letters is, "the crisis of contemporary psychiatry untangled and solved by spinoza, freethinking, and radical enlightenment." Below that in black letters is, "Bruce E. Levine."
 

It would be impossible to review Bruce E Levine’s A Profession without Reason without acknowledging my own relevant life experiences. This is going to be a long review not as tailored to the shorter attention span of review sites and blurbs. In an attempt to keep a long and complex history at least mildly reasonable in length, I will try to be as general as I can and keep the personal history in italics in case you want to skip ahead. I am also going to analyze much more of the book in specifics, which also adds length:

I have had a personal relationship with psychiatry since age 9, an educational relationship since age 17, and a professional relationship since age 24. The latter two ended years back due to worsening disabilities, but my personal relationship remains ongoing. I am 39 years old.

Many of my friendships, most of my romantic partnerships, and both sides of my blood-related family are riddled with suffering through drug and other addictions and/or multiple mental health struggles. I have also been part of radical mental health and psychiatry-critical (a term I am using to differentiate from anti-psychiatry like that of scientology) movements in big ways due to abuses and failures I have endured off and on since childhood. In adulthood, I was forced to reexamine my views when my closest family member began suffering from severe psychosis, rife with terrifying delusions, hallucinations, and other hellish experiences, which eventually involved the authorities being called multiple times and forced hospitalization, no matter how hard I personally tried to avoid that. I was previously hard-line against these coercive methods. I was forced to reexamine those reexaminations when the coercion didn’t work either, causing even more fear and mistrust, leading that person to disappear from my life for a period of years. However, I cannot look back and see any other way things could have gone in those moments. Not long after that, unrelated to this, another immediate family member took his own life.

I eventually found the formerly mentioned family member and she is again part of my life, but still suffers today and refuses all medical treatment despite desperately needing it for physical health problems.I remain in various forms of treatment and out of work due to both physical and mental health problems. I cannot take psych meds due to lack of improvement (with every class of drug under the sun) coupled with extreme and often dangerous side effects and usually have to assertively defend this boundary with every clinician. I do not have a solution or answer to any of these problems, but there have been small improvements that have come from both inside and outside mainstream clinical psychology. There is much much more.

I am not super fond of writing all of that on the internet, though it is not the first time. The reason I am doing so is to share an account of something that is real life- not the often touted polar opposites on some ridiculous spectrum of “mainstream psychiatry is the god emperor and you are crazy and ignorant for refusing to go along with it” or “psychiatry is all horrible authoritarians who just want to poison your beautiful freedom and creativity so they can make big pharma money.”

When I first started this book of Levine’s, I worried that it was leaning too hard into the latter. Because I have seen what anti-psychiatry without other solutions in place can do, and how it can often lead to the same places as authoritarian psychiatry in the end or worse, I felt myself resisting hard against Levine’s criticisms and discussions. Because I have read that, for people suffering psychosis in particular, the longer they go without treatment, the poorer their recovery will be, I fear the criticism of psychiatry that I use to hold close and have no trouble agreeing with. While I agree that psychiatry has not made very good progress, that many larger messages about psychiatry and medication’s effectiveness are either myths or sales pitches for drug companies, and that many professionals are afraid (just like I am) to trust their patients or themselves over the system, I also worried at times that he was cherry picking data or being way too general in his claims. He has a ton of citations, but at first they seemed to only come from a few of the same books sharing his message. (This changed later in the text.) I found myself saying, “ah yes, I remember when I saw through rose colored glasses and believed this sort of thing, but what pray tell are you supposed to do when someone is truly in danger, is endangering others, is living in a persecutory hell, and who thinks all of that is real? Is that really freedom?” I dug my nails in and stuck with Levine and I would recommend that any other reader do the same if they end up feeling the same uneasiness that I was. He was pushing the buttons that I would have loved someone to push years ago before life had beaten me down this much. I am glad I held on, because honestly, he won me over by the end. I think this book should be critical reading for pretty much anyone, especially those in educational, clinical, and/or research psych* and neuro* fields. Even if you aren’t persuaded like I was, you should welcome the challenge and exercise in open-mindedness.

I won’t spend much time with the parts about Spinoza in this review, even though they are a huge part of the book. This is in part, because it’s just not that interesting to me aside from saying, yes, this dude had some liberating ideas for SOME European MEN way back in the day. I left myself asking all throughout the book, “yes, but where are the women- especially non-European, white women- in Spinoza’s equation?” only to discover on the last two pages that he did not believe they deserved equality. Levine is a little critical of this glaring flaw, but is also obviously sweet on Spinoza, so he tries to save his #problematicfave by acknowledging the time period and saying that, if Spinoza were to meet his female scholars of today, perhaps he would have changed his mind. I am sorry, did smart women not exist until today? And should a man this apparently brilliant and free thinking only find himself able to see women as human when they praise his own work? Levine definitely speaks to his own blind spots in this, and it honestly irked me , but I will leave it at that because you could easily remove all of the parts about Spinoza from this book and still have an interesting piece on psychiatry and alternative ways of thinking.

Now, onto the nut-meat and potatoes of these arguments: Levine discusses several studies in which treatment outcomes were poorer in wealthier nations with higher hospitalization and psychiatric medication uses than they were in less wealthy nations with less medication use. He also talks about how, even though psychiatry has progressed in its development of many new drugs and treatments, mental illness is on the rise and the DSM continues to be expanded upon to (what I agree is) a ridiculous extent- pathologizing any deviation from the norm. Correlation does not imply causation, he acknowledges. But, this is an interesting thing I have seen brought up regularly by people critiquing psychiatry and medication. When my brain was pushing back, it was saying, “yes, and stigma may have also been reduced, healthcare access increased, and thus due to accessibility more people sought care and increased the amount of illness in statistics even though people have been struggling all along in silence. There are a number of reasons these events could have taken place this way.”

Thankfully, Levine did not make the same mistake others who cited these studies in brief passing have. He told me the same thing a (human) neuroscientist friend of mine did when I asked his thoughts about it. Said friend once worked in a schizophrenia lab and learned that in China there were better outcomes regarding schizophrenia because family and community were more important in the collectivist culture being studied and thus, people took care of their loved ones during psychotic episodes instead of being driven by fear and assuming only psychiatrists and hospitals could deal with them. This resulted in better recovery times and little to no reliance on forced hospitalization and medication.

Levine talks extensively about how community support and financial aid are far more critical in terms of recovery than medication or hospitalization. But, my mind was still pushing back when he seemed to claim that drug companies had a hand in skewing many studies, almost seeming to suggest that no studies existed showing that psych meds work. I think this may have just been poor organization, because as the book progresses, he directly addresses some studies in which antidepressants, antipsychotics, and other drugs are deemed effective. A flaw of many of them that he points out is that the effect is not much more than placebo, even if it is statistically significant. This is relevant because, as anyone who has been on a plethora of psych meds knows, the side effects can be life changing and life threatening at times. Those factors combined with the possibly long term reduction in recovery rates mean that a mildly significant result doesn’t mean much at all in the grander scheme of things. If you’re going to get 10% better from the drug but feel 65% worse physically, that’s not really a success story. When I was told- even by folks on the icarus project boards who had dealt with psychosis- that forced hospitalization and meds were all that worked for them when their symptoms were severe, I took their word for it thinking I had been stupid for trying to find other ways to help my aforementioned family member. In hindsight, was that what worked because in western countries where most of us were from, that’s often all there is aside from wandering the streets alone or ending up in prison?

Further along in the book, he discusses research that reported a favorable drug result. But, the discussion of the results (which are rarely if ever reported in mainstream media or clickbait titles with paywalls) showed a more complex reality. The people achieving success were also receiving housing and other forms of assistance. It is a no brainer (pun maybe intended?) to say that, having stable housing vs houselessness or incarceration is likely going to foster more stability in one’s mental health. Other predicting factors for good mental health outcomes are safety from abuse and violence, financial security, work or other fulfilling responsibilities, friend/family support, and so on. All of these things make perfect sense, but as Levine states, "While psychiatry claims to have a "biological-psychological-social" model, the flow of dollars dictates bio-bio-bio research and treatment. Psychological, social, cultural, and political causes...receive significantly less consideration. By paying scant attention to societal and political causes, the societal status quo is maintained, which benefits those at the top of the societal hierarchy."

Levine makes a comparison between the pathologizing of LGBQ people- homosexuality in particular- and people suffering psychosis. I found this offensive. Not because oh psychosis bad, gay good, or because there’s never any overlap, but because comparisons like these do a disservice to the unique experiences of both LGBQ people (we did not even discuss the T, yet) and people dealing with psychosis and related experiences. To be frank, someone I know believing the government is giving them brain damage by projecting microwaves into their head because of the poetry they write on their personal computer is not anything like the experience of someone being attracted to or falling in love with the same gender. The latter is pretty damned simple to figure out and, when acted on with consent of all parties, is not dangerous. The former caused the person I am referencing to be unable to drive safely, have a conversation with a stranger, or even sleep or eat. I understand the drive to make comparisons in order to draw people to one’s side or to make a point, but I can speak from experience making the same mistakes in a variety of ways: it usually obscures the real issues and turns off the reader.


The rest of Levine’s discussions about the pathologization of radical action or normal human variations of thought and behaviors were excellent, not only because they did not rely on false equivalencies. The chapter Tractatus Psychiatrico-Politicus is particularly good. I have a ton of page flags throughout the book, but ended up just flagging this entire chapter when I realized that I wanted to quote the entire thing. It is quite true that all throughout history from the beginning of any sort of attempts to understand human thought and experience, marginalized and oppressed people have been pathologized. These include but are not limited to aforementioned sexuality, “drapetomania” applied to enslaved people who escaped, the increase in diagnoses of schizophrenia among Black activists during the 1960s civil rights movements, experimentation on intellectually disabled people, Jews, and many others during the nazi era holocaust, the forced sterilization of disabled, poor, and/or people of color throughout eugenics movements, and (not mentioned in the book, but added by me,) “zoophil psychosis” applied to people who historically believed in nonhuman animal liberation. These and many other horrific histories of all forms of modern medicine- not solely psychiatry- should always be enough to cause us to keep our minds open to critiques of the system. Even today, shadows of these things remain, even inside people who find themselves horrified by these histories.

A final note: I did not realize until 90% of my way through the book that I had not had to deal with triggers regarding glorified details of nonhuman animal abuse for psych* or neuro* discovery purposes. Despite it being perfectly possible and preferable, to compose a text about human psychology without including animal abuse, many writers do so with cold detachment because they are falling in line with the norm, trying to stay on supportive terms with their colleagues, lack an understanding of human studies or the flaws with translational research, or because they just don’t care about ethics and other animals as much as they care about their citation list. We do read about horribly unethical human experimentation, but this is done in order to further support Levine’s points about how pathologization is used as a tool of oppression by governments, doctors, and scientists in supremacist cultures and movements which is very different. Levine being a “free thinking” psychologist probably served him well in these regards, though I can’t claim to know his intentions regarding a focus on human research (other than to say, because it makes the most damned sense.) I would love to be able to read more books about human (or other animals) minds without having to sit through, “wasn’t it so awesome when this brilliant science man electrocuted dogs or injected acid into rats or separated baby monkeys from their moms or induced horrifying brain injuries, etc? WHAT A GUY.”

All in all, I enjoyed this book, learned a lot, and it changed my mind about quite a few things. It also offered me a little bit of a reprieve from the guilt and pressure caused by systems expecting easy solutions to complex problems. No wonder I did not and often do not know what to do. It takes a village, and all that. I also read Levine’s previous book, Resisting Illegitimate Authority, but liked this one much better. I can see were the author has learned and grown from his last work and that is always a good thing.

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: Manhunt

Image: The hilarious cover of this book is a dark navy blue background. In the center is a netted bag of two apples positioned to resemble testicles. Across the top in scrawled white letters is "Gretchen Felker-Martin." Across the bottom in larger scrawled yellow letters with tinges of red splatter is "Manhunt." Below that in small printed letters is, "the end of the world is nuts."

Manhunt is not necessarily what I would call an “enjoyable” book. It’s hard to apply such a word to any sort of post apocalyptic horror story, especially when so much of it mimics a reality that hits close to home. Of all post apocalypse scenarios, for me, zombies are the least likely and as a result, the least scary. What is appealing and truly scary about post apocalypse stories, is how regular people act. Now, we could think hard about how to truly conceptualize a world like this with an optimistic lens involving room for some sort of utopia. But, most of us alive in the world today know that even if we find a space for utopia, we’re gonna have to fight for it.

The description for Manhunt says, Y the Last Man meets The Girl with all the Gifts and I both agree and dislike this comparison. First off, I think this book is so original and well written in its telling of Trans, Queer, and LGB stories in this unreal post apocalyptic horror landscape that it stands on its own. However, I see how both of those comparisons fit. The differences are first off that both of those books are written by men. In the film version of TGWATG, Melanie is Black making the end of the movie an original fantastical liberation story for the little zombie hybrid children. In the book, Miss Justineau is Black and the little girl is a blonde white girl, so the story isnt quite as subversive though I guess there’s a grey area in who the monster is portrayed as. The YTLM books are full of problematic elements based on chromosomes both because it’s a dated series and Brian K Vaughn (despite my love for may of his works like Saga) has a history of writing broey things sometimes. The TV show tried but could not correct these things and thus only lasted one season (but, I also admit I liked the show and both the book and movie of TGWATG because I’m p r o b l e m a t i c.)

Manhunt is different. Manhunt conceptualizes a scenario that actually makes sense and is as realistic is it could be where a zombie-adjacent plague affects people who are testosterone dominant, allowing for a complex scenario where it is predominantly cis men who die or are turned into ravenous rage zombies and also some hormone deficient trans women and hormonally transitioning trans men and others who don’t stop T in time- mostly before the plague is understood. It is also a scenario where trans men who stop T can survive and remain as authentic male characters, trans women can survive if they are able to supplement hormones (often in a disgusting way mind you far worse than horse urine or synthetics,) and still remain authentic women characters, and cis women TERFs are emboldened in their war against trans people- particularly trans women- with the plague as a convenient pretext. This is the Y the Last Man that today’s world really deserved if we are gonna insist on adding that title to the comparison.

The strengths of the book are not just in it’s creative conception of this scenario, but also in the characters. There are real descriptions of trans fears, loves, experiences, struggles, and comradery. It tells a story of horrors and abuses full of very difficult and often gorey occurrences. I often don’t stick around for things like sexual assault, gorey violence, etc, but I could not step away from this story because of the rich world it created outside of these things. The author creates a world where there is a real and nuanced war between trans women, their accomplices, and TERFs complete with TE radical feminist war cries and complex scenarios where you are both rooting for the trans folks side and also understand the people they are up against and how they came to believe the things they do. There are also moments of dark humor at the ridiculousness of it all. Sometimes all you can do is laugh to survive. Similar to TGWATG, there are monstrous things that are possible, but can be prevented allowing for the humanity of those at risk. But, unlike TGWATG, there is a simple solution to trans women getting to live free of becoming a threat and it’s just one simple chemical. The man zombies don’t need to take over the world. But, neither do trans women or TERFs. 

 I am not going to tell much more of the story than that because I want to avoid spoilers. But, overall this book is a great read if you can stand all of the truly horrific elements including sexual and other violence, trans antagonism, disgusting gore, and lots of dysphoria. 

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: Side Affects - On Being Trans and Feeling Bad

Image: The cover of the book is a white background with black letters at the center. The top, in smaller letters says "side affects," under that, "on being trans and feeling bad," in larger black letters, and under that in smaller letters again, "Hil Matino," below that in even smaller letters, "author of trans care." Circling the edges of the book in large, light blue letters are the words "side affects" repeated approximately 4 times in a clockwise fashion.

 I always have a difficult time knowing how I should review texts written in such a heavily academic fashion as Hil Matino's Side Affects: On Being Trans and Feeling Bad. If I'm reading a biology article, it makes sense to me when I struggle to understand parts of it as I am not a biologist. When the topic regards trans feelings and experiences though, I ask myself if most trans people would be able to read it or if they would want to. A book like this takes twice as long to read and requires a dictionary for me even though I have a somewhat academic background and experience with this subject matter in my own life. Despite my thinking that a ton of trans people from varying backgrounds could benefit from relating to this and a ton of cis people could benefit from better understanding these complexities of human experience, I don't think most will choose or be able to. I decided that I would put this statement at the beginning and review the rest of the book as the scholarly work that it is.

Despite this book being so heavy with gender studies jargon, I found Malatino's writing style to be quite poetic and enjoyable to read. He has a way with blending personal experience as a transmasculine person into a larger narrative of what other transmasc folks may face as well as trans people from many other backgrounds and identities. (Keep in mind, not all AFAB trans people, including trans men, identify as transmasculine, I am using the term specifically here.) During the first half of the book, I was completely immersed in how Malatino conveyed exactly what I have felt and thought so many times throughout my own life and transition. He included things I and trans friends have said in personal conversations that I sometimes fear saying in the larger world. 

The general thesis is that- like all humans- our experiences are very complex and varied. Furthermore, we often feel bad about parts of our transition from dysphoria, desire, envy, disappointment, loneliness, discomfort, betrayal, isolation, and a multitude of other un-fun feelings to deal with. However, in a society full of paradigms and people that would rather we not exist, or worse, we often feel the need to be publicly glued to some simplistic narrative where everything is very clear cut, we have a very clear "before" and "after," and where we are just like cis people only trans. We fear that if we are honest about things, those who seek to invalidate, destroy, or criticize our humanity will gain ground. We fear that we will lose community, lose our history or future, and lose ourselves if we are not in line with the overarching message of x transgender movement or even our trans friends and communities. In this book, Malatino focuses specifically on the feelings fatigue, numbness, envy, rage, and burnout.

I can see why Torrey Peters has a quote listed on the publisher's page for this book. I adored, "Detransition Baby," as did friends of mine. Many other people, trans and not, hated it. It's a messy book full of messy trans feelings and experiences- especially the kinds we're never supposed to say out loud- often because we disagree with ourselves or hate to admit we think or feel a certain way. I like these texts because they allow us all to be truly human. That's the toughest stuff to deal with when we talk about liberation. We're all fucked up. Malatino uses both fiction and non-fiction written by trans people to form his analyses about these emotions and experiences. This blend of sources fits with the book well as both fiction and nonfiction have excellent and differing ways of telling the truth.

I doubt you will find the same cries of oppression that Peters' polarizing novel sometimes invoked in response to Side Affects because academic analysis remains more detached from emotion for many people. But, that doesn't mean he didn't hit on very deep seated thoughts and feelings that many of us grapple with every day. We cannot be forced into the boxes that both cis and trans people try to fit us all into. Hell, most cis people can't fit into the boxes they create. 

There were some very interesting glimpses into history that I had never heard about. Learning about Rupert Raj and Dallas Denny in the sections on burnout were interesting editions to an already critically important topic. The section "On Whiteness and Healing," there are multiple explorations of appropriation, racism, eugenics, colonization, etc. But, what really stuck out to me was learning about how people I would normally associate with hippy, love everybody culture could often be ridiculously fascist in their desire to abolish queerness or gender variance through things like psychedelic drug treatments. What a wild ride.

All in all, this short little academic exercise hit me in much more intimate ways than I initially anticipated. It packs a lot into around 100 pages not including notes and acknowledgements. Malatino used that space efficiently. If you're willing to take your time and google those academic words you've never heard of, I definitely think this book is worth it. It's a great thought exercise even in the spots where I don't entirely agree. I am eager to see what other people think once it's out and reaches a larger audience.

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: Becoming Abolitionists

 

Image: The cover of the book is a black background. At the center is a realistic illustration of a police car. There are stylized flames bursting from the car which turn into vines and multi colored bunches of flowers. Across the top in large white letters is "becoming abolitionists." Below that in smaller yellow letters is, "Police protests, and the pursuit of freedom." Across the bottom in red letters is the author's name, "Derecka Purnell."

 

Becoming Abolitionists is likely the best modern book on prison abolition, as well as dismantling oppression at large, that I have read. I say "best modern book" because it is true that Purnell goes over ground that those who have come before her have as well. The big difference in this book for me is its inclusivity and centering of LGBTQ and Disabled people in these discussions and the poetic descriptions and analogies Purnell uses to examine these issues. It made the book feel fresh, as if I was hearing all of it for the first time.

As is expected, Purnell discusses the myriad of issues with the prison industrial complex as well as how poverty and oppression can mix together and cause our communities to become separated, lack trust, and to look to hierarchy- and agents of hierarchy such as police and prisons- for solutions. The detrimental effects of these things disproportionately affect Black, Brown, Indigenous, Disabled, poor, and LGBTQ populations- especially those who have multiple of these frequently overlapping experiences and identities. Purnell draws upon her experience as both a lawyer and an organizer and offers an extensive amount of suggestions. She addresses all of the big questions about what to do with those who commit violence on others and so forth. She gets down to many root causes of problems and always remains humble about whether or not things will work in all situations or whether or not she has all of the answers. She shares a lot about her own journey in resisting, coming to understand, and eventually believing in and fighting for abolition which helps put the reader at ease with their own challenging thoughts or feelings that may come up while reading the book.

Where this book surprised me was in its sections on LGBTQ folks and disabled folks. These sections are far more thorough than other books I have read about abolition that were not specifically focused on disabled or lgbtq people. There was impressive amount of detail in the section on disability as there should be in these discussions. Purnell also does not draw clear lines in the sand between demographics of people despite these focuses. She instead discusses how all of these overlapping communities can come together in solidarity rather than turning on one another or forcing people to separate out sections of themselves at odds with various communities as those with the most power prefer us to. 

Pittsburgh (my city) also makes an appearance when she interviewed local organizers and studied efforts in the area. She got the history spot on. It's bittersweet to see my city featured because I am both very glad the awareness has been raised and the amazing radical movements here are being noticed. But, there is a reason this city is noticed and it's because of the horrors these organizers are often responding to.

I did have a gripe here or there about how she assessed an institution or particular chunk of data, but that happens in pretty much any book I read. I do think she could have gone easier on social workers and foster parents. The system is flawed and oppressive, but it sort of read like she believes social workers get into it or primarily do their jobs to strengthen the system or for the money which is odd to say about a highly stressful, underpaid job that requires going into a good bit of student debt to qualify for. The discussions about whether or not children should be removed from households made me bristle. Particularly because I did not find the solutions offered for one example she gave to be adequate and also because I have seen severely abused kids be kept with parents who could not have cared less about them, or worse things I won't detail. However, the larger systemic changes offered would likely solve or greatly reduce the issues, so her real life example given still fits into the journey. She also acknowledges that even some abolitionist readers would believe the children should be removed and that she does not have a perfect answer for that. That's, again, a strength of the book. She offers a massive amount of workable, applicable solutions that could be implemented right now. She also acknowledges that these may work, not work, or look different in different communities.

Overall, I really loved this book, how it was written, and the information therein. It can be hard to "enjoy" a book that contains so much suffering. The fact that it features often hidden parts of the story as well as tangible lights at the end of the tunnels is what makes it all worthwhile.

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: The Weight of the Stars

 

Image: The cover of the book is a wood/linocut style image of the backs of two people, sitting on a rocky landscape, staring out into the night sky. The bottom part is in black and white and the sky is an hombre gradient of dirty yellow, brown and black. There are also spots of the yellow on the lower black and white landscape. White spots dot the sky as stars and there is a very large crescent moon low on the horizon. The center of the sky in white letters says, "The Weight of the Stars." Below that in smaller letters is, "The Life of Anarchist Octavio Alberola." At the bottom of the cover is "Agustín Comotto," and below that in smaller letters, "Translated by Paul Sharkey."

It can be difficult to review a biography without reviewing the subject himself. I am not sure what is the best course of action in that regard, but this review will be a mixture of the two. The Weight of the Stars is a biography written in a style that I have not previously encountered, though I am sure has been done before. The author, Agustín Comotto met anarchist Octavio Alberola while Comotto was writing a piece about Simon Radowitzky. He inquired if Octavio would be publishing a biography some day as he had lived a very long and eventful life. Originally Octavio declined but later consulted Agustín about helping him put one together. This partnership resulted in a biography that reads much like an extended interview with the subject where the answers take the form of long story telling sections. Occasionally, Agustín would challenge or debate a point or belief of Octavio, but for the most part, compiled and included the story in much of Octavio's own words.

I will admit that part of my interest in this was learning more about a history that is important to understand- international anarchist resistance during and surrounding the fascist dictatorship of Francisco Franco (1938-1975.) I knew little about it before this aside from teachings from friends, podcasts, or online articles. I do think I would have absorbed this book better if I already had a foundation of historical knowledge. The book after all is a translated work that likely was not created purely for an ignorant USAmerican audience like myself. It is also already 348 pages and to properly detail everything one could ever want to know would make the book too heavy to carry. All this is to say that there was a lot going on in this man's life with a vast number of groups, characters, and large and small historical events all blending together in the story. Comotto did offer short snippets of the overall setting at the start of each chapter. But, I did feel overwhelmed and lost at times. This is not a critique of the book's quality as much as it is a description of how one could get the most out of it. If you don't already know about the horrors of the Franco regime and other related events, you may want to brush up on them before reading this in order to get a better picture.

Alberola's dedication to anarchism and the toppling of fascist regimes was immense. He was no doubt shaped by growing up in a militant anarchist household with a well known father- Jose Alberola- who was brutally murdered later in life. It is suspected that his father was murdered by fascists taking revenge for Octavio's actions despite Jose refusing to kill during his activism. I can only imagine what kind of mind-fuck that was for Octavio and how that affected his dedication to the cause. He doesn't speak of it much in the book, we learn this from Comotto. 

Big names pop up throughout this biography in interactions with Octavio- Castro, Che, Durruti, etc- and Alberola has different nuanced opinions on each of them. He spent much of his life bouncing around internationally, avoiding authorities, and consistently participating in a wide variety of direct actions ranging from gentle to violent. Reading a book where someone speaks so openly about militant actions like this, knowing it would be published in his lifetime, is an interesting thing. Overall, Alberola avoided violence when possible, but thought that the assassination of Franco was a necessary measure. They failed in achieving this particular goal but succeeded and grew with many other actions. 

Something that stuck out to me constantly was that this book is about men. This is unfortunate but not entirely unexpected with any book about radical men in these movements. The women in this story are girlfriends, lovers, mothers, children, and overall described as side notes or burdens. I was really disappointed, but again, not surprised that there didn't seem to be any effort on behalf of the men featured throughout the decades of this story to include women in these organizing efforts. Perhaps in a less patriarchal scenario, there would have been ways to balance the tasks of life where women did not feel as if all they could do was leave with their children. Octavio fathered many children with multiple women without all of them even knowing about it. Octavio was of course, off with the revolution that he was dedicated to and could not be bothered with children, so what were these mothers to do? Even when they wanted abortions, the illegality, inaccessibility, and dangers made them near impossible to get. He expresses no regret or remorse and also regularly criticizes anyone who left his style of militant organizing to be with their families or do more academic types of work. He does admit though that certain circumstances allowed him to take more action than others.

I know that if the story was about the life of Irene or Gloria, it would not have been so readily accepted by everyone that they leave their children behind for the revolution, expecting the fathers to raise them. I wonder what the function of women would look like in a truly anarchist society to Alberola and his kin. I get it, though. I get what it is like to be so dedicated to destroying something so vile and destructive that one develops tunnel vision and the inability to do anything else. I have certainly been there. Nonetheless, I cannot help but imagine the way the movement could have expanded if the other half of the population were more involved. I know that they were there and that Alberola's history is only one of many. I kept waiting for Octavio to come around and see this, but he does not. He reunites with many children later in life and has some relationships with them. He has interesting views on things with his current partner (for lack of a better term) where they did not want to formalize anything to avoid playing into the system of ownership of each other created by laws around marriage. We still never know much about Irene, Gloria, and Ariane by the end. I wish the author would have asked more about them, but I understand why he did not. The book is technically about Octavio and we get a good sense of how Octavio saw women playing parts in his life and the struggle.

The last sections of the book are more of a Q & A style in which Comotto asks Alberola about his views on various things and how they have evolved over time. We learn here that despite being in his 90s, Octavio still participates as much as possible in the evolving social and technological tools of time. He has continued educating himself and growing in order to adapt and thrive. Despite my critiques about how he and the men of these generations treated women, Alberola led a truly courageous existence and dedicated himself to what he believed in without compromise.

The book is finished off by an illustrated comic of a short conversation between Alberola and Comotto that was a lovely closing. This is something I really enjoy about many print books from AK Press- there is great care taken to create and design an immersive experience that goes along with the text. The translation of this book by Paul Sharkey also seems to be quite good. My Spanish is awful and I have not read the original, but it is one of those texts that flows well enough that the reader forgets it was translated from another language. This book was an immersive glimpse into the life of a man organizing as part of an inspiring revolutionary history. It left me curious about it all and motivated to read more about this tumultuous and inspiring time.

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: Dangerous Visions and New Worlds

 

Image: The cover of the book is a purple background with a mosaic of vintage scifi book covers on top. Andra, damnation alley, The stepford wives, four dimensional nightmare, the word for world is forest are across the top. Below that is purple paint cutting across with the book's title in black stenciled letters. Below that in white letters is, Radical science fiction, 1950-1985. Below that in smaller white letters is "edited by andrew nette and iain mcintyre." Below is the rest of the mosaic showing the covers of afro-6, mind of my mind, que, motherlines, false dawn, the unicorn girl, ice, alien, and shockwave rider.

I discovered the existence of Dangerous Visions and New Worlds when a friend of mine forwarded me an email for the related "all star radical science fiction symposium" of the same name. I have loved the multitude of ways that countless science fiction authors have used their craft to raise awareness, create understanding, envision newer better (or worse) worlds, or to just shake up the status quo. I am less familiar with older science fiction of the era highlighted in this book than I would like to be, so this seemed like a great place to find ways to include more of it.

Part of my reasoning for being less familiar is that I often associated older popular scifi with random (white straight) dudes fighting mythical monsters and rescuing damsels in distress which to me was too much like a lot of older (and current) fantasy as well. This is referred to by authors in the book as the "golden age/old guard" of science fiction. While there were definitely authors creating works outside of those tropes, they were not as common, popular, or given much attention due to heavy censorship from conservative pulp magazines among other things. Following this was the "new wave" which is the focus of this book. The new wave was full of talented authors seeking to honor or motivate people to participate in or support leftist political movements along with the entertainment that comes from enjoying their stories. I was hoping to discover some new names and titles from this book and it definitely delivered (which you can likely see in my goodreads feed full of recent to-read list editions.)

It is a strange task to review literary criticism and analysis when the texts are discussing books and stories that I have not read. I was born in '82 and grew up with SF reading parents- especially my dad- and books throughout the house, but didn't get into SF heavily myself much until college. I would say I have read about 5% of the stuff included in this book, if that. Some entries managed discussion without spoilers while others had to include the whole story in order for their analysis to make the most sense. I found it interesting that another reviewer disliked some of the entries that I liked most- though I see his point that focusing on obscure texts with little influence on wider society may not have been what some readers were looking for. This fits into the whole hit or miss world of anthologies where one person's hit is another's miss. That can be a weakness or strength, but I think it works for this book. 

One of the lovely things about this book that really sets it apart from many academic and adjacent anthologies is its inclusion of vintage book covers of the books and stories discussed. It was a great choice to add this visual element and draw the reader into the time period. Some entries are more academic in style than others, so fantastical illustrations breaking that up was nice. It also reminded me of when I was a child artist and one of the jobs I wanted was to draw book covers or comic book cards because, at the time, that and museum art were the only jobs I thought the fine arts provided.

My favorite entries in the book were (without subtitles for brevity:) Flying Saucers and Black Power, 'We Change and the Whole World Changes,' Speculative Fuckbooks, Eco-Death, Stepford Wives and Supercomputers, The Stars my Destination, A New Wave in the East, Performative Gender and SF, The Moons of Leguin and Heinlein, and Black Star. There's a tie for first place between Performative Gender and SF: The Strange but True Case of Alice Sheldon and James Tiptree Jr and The Moons of Leguin and Heinlein which have both kept me thinking since I put the book down days ago. I actually did my high school senior reading project on Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land because it was the only SF book on the school's list that I hadn't heard of an my mom told me it had weird sexuality in it. My only other exposure to him was the Starship Troopers movie that I saw as a parody of militaristic authoritarianism. I actually didn't know how conservative he was until a class in college.

There were a couple things I was disappointed with. One is that Harlan Ellison is spoken about with great praise and no criticism by many authors. I admit, there were a few sections I skipped over either due to lack of interest or because there was a novel I didn't want spoiled, but for the majority that I read, this was the case. Ellison's legacy includes great creativity and strides in SF, but also misconduct and abuse. The other thing that bothered me was a section on animals. I was excited by the premise then disappointed by the length and content. I'm left wondering why it was even included. The worst part is that the author discusses animals as "space explorers" creating the same narrative of those who abused them that makes them seem like willing participants. There are a lot of heinous things about animal exploitation that haunt me, but one of the ones that does the most is the idea of someone being sent into infinite terrifying blackness through massive horrifying explosions, left alone to die surrounded by nothing but space. We should never discuss these abuses of dogs, rats, chimps, guinea pigs, and even fishes in ways that make them seem like a Disney fairytales or heroic space faring legends- especially not in a book about the liberatory nature of science fiction.

This book (and the rad online symposium) did a good job of combining interests in artistic entertainment, analysis, and social justice. I was introduced to some great history and now I have a whole new intimidating reading list that I will never complete in my lifetime. But, it's still fun to try.

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: Animal Revolution

Image: the cover of the book has a tan background with mostly muted red letters in the foreground. The letters are capitalized and vary in width randomly throughout each word. Between each line of the title is a red line. Across the top is "animal" below that is the first half of "revolution" and below that the second half, below that is the author's name- Ron Broglio. In small black letters underneath is "illustrations by marina zurkow" and below that in red letters again, "afterword by Eugene Thacker. The N in animal, V and U in revolution, R in Ron, G in Broglio are black. The N has a drawing of a bird on top, the V a rabbit in a boat, the U a frog holding a flag, and the R has a narwahl. There is also a boar's face with a radiation symbol on in on the second O in revolution.
 

Ron Broglio and Marina Zurkow's Animal Revolution is a truly strange book. I went into it expecting something similar to Jason Hribal's Fear of the Animal Planet (which I adored,) but ended up with something more creative. The book sort of mixes poetic story telling with factual histories and philosophical analysis. I ended up rereading the back after a while to be reminded of what the blurb was. I had not heard of "speculative nonfiction" before this as I always assumed that the "speculative" in "speculative fiction" was part of what made it fiction. Apparently, there is a whole genre which takes information from real historical facts and imagines or predicts a story. I am still unsure where the line is between the nonfiction and fiction methods of writing (as they sound pretty similar to me.) A good speculative fiction story uses reality is a catalyst for creation. Either way, I understand what the book is going for.

I do wish that Broglio would have fleshed out his understanding of other animals' behavior, consciousness, experiences, and desires just a little bit more before writing this book. There were many times that I was left thinking, "you are almost there." That said, I am coming from a pretty radical place in terms of how I see other-than-human animals (as an ethical, collective liberation style, vegan who believes in reducing or eliminating my harm and exploitation of others as far as is possible and practicable in all areas of my life.) Many other readers may find themselves at a different place, which may make this book a good jumping off point if the writing style works for you.

I found some of the speculative nonfiction to feel more fictional than actual fiction- often to the point of anthropomorphism. I do not use that word the way many people intent on excusing harm towards other animals misuse it (such as claiming any assumption that another animal is anything other than a thoughtless meat machine is "anthropomorphism.") Real anthropomorphism for instance is a barbecue place with a sign depicting a pig in human clothes happily grilling her own dismembered body parts. But, I digress. What I mean is that the way he writes nonhuman animals' stories seems not to take their experiences that we are able to predict and understand into account enough. Along with the speculative nonfiction part, the book moves through different styles which at times are quite academic.

The reason I say that Broglio is "almost there" is that he is obviously excited and fascinated by various accounts of nonhuman animals resisting their exploitation by humans. But, the ideas and ways of expressing them feel unfinished at times. There is a lot of binary language and referring to other animals with objectifying or disparaging words such as "it" or "invasive." These are common mistakes made by people who have not fully integrated their understanding of other animals as more than objects. However, I was left wondering at times if this was intentional. Many of the sections in the book seem to take the reader on an adventure, ultimately having a better respect for or understanding of other animals in the end. We begin with a story about "vermin" and end with a declaration that there are these rad creatures just living life who deserve as much.

The philosophical musings are interesting at times and brought up important points often left out of discourse around the lives and cultures of other animals. Often, in order to persuade people to have respect for them, people will describe animals as "innocent" or "babies" or "just like us," none of which is inherently true. People who seek to exploit animals will use the opposite arguments as their reasoning- that nature is savage or that animals are inferior in x way. Broglio does neither. He acknowledges that there are differences between species that mean there are things that other animals experience that we will never truly understand as we are not them (and vice versa.) But, instead of using this as a way to reduce animals to the few things humans can wrap our heads around, he uses this reality to call attention to the countless things we never could imagine that will often exceed the abilities, sensations, etc that humans are limited to. He acknowledges animal revolution, language, and culture- as those are the best human words we have- and also acknowledges that humans' exploitation and oppression of other animals is a big part of what has prevented these things from being centered or even noticed in human fields of view. Nonetheless, other animals are integral parts of our cultures and story telling. Rather than telling the reader to see other animals differently, he urges us to integrate them and who they truly are (outside of what can be taken from them by us) more into our realities.

Marina Zurkow's illustrations throughout the book were also strange and interesting. Some of them can be seen on the cover above, but there are more inside. Combining her artistic talent with Broglio's creative writing styles makes the book an almost avant-garde art project and I mean that positively. Overall, I don't know if I "love" this book or not. I am still chewing on it. But, I am glad I read it, if only for the experience of something very different. I have read many books on human and other animal liberation and have never read one quite like this.

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: Boys, Beasts, & Men

Image: The cover of the book is red with monochrome black illustrations of several dogs. There are 4 heads in total shown in a range from the neck forward to only showing half of their face. The dog in the center faces left and has a long, pointed, curvy tongue. Other dogs have several extra eyes on their head or embedded in their bodies. There are also eyes peeking out of the red background and splotches of black all over. Curving in and out of the illustration is the title of the book in large, capital yellow letters, one word on each line. Across the bottom in white is Sam J Miller's name. Below that in small black letters is "author of Blackfish and The Art of Starving."

I was actually introduced to Sam J. Miller via an excellent short story of his that I read in an anthology long ago. Thus, I was excited to learn that his new short story collection, "Boys, Beasts, & Men," was due out this year. Like most collections of stories, I found this to be a bit of a mixed bag. This makes it hard to rate. Overall, though, there are some great stories in here. 

As usual, Miller exhibits a ton of creativity. There are elements of horror and fantasy woven throughout the book in different ways. There are multiple stories where he takes real and major historical events (often from gay history such as the stonewall uprising and the HIV/AIDS plague) and adds supernatural elements to them. There are multiple stories where life is given to nonliving, inanimate objects in bizarre ways. As I hoped, there was regular exploration of gay mens lives and psyches in a variety of ways from the throes of love to the despair of self hatred and fear. There is a story set in the King Kong universe, told from a different perspective than I have ever seen. There is a soviet era story I enjoyed and wondered, as a USAmerican, what Russian readers would think of it. I thought "Calved" was probably the best story, though I have mixed feelings about the ending. "Angel Monster Man," is a very creative way of exploring gay culture, art, and propaganda with a horror element I have never seen before. 

Between each story is a snippet of a larger story tying things together. This was my first experience with this narrative tool. This spooky gay cruising journey was an interesting connecting thread with unexpected turns. I also loved the graphic design of this book. The fantastic illustrations that move beyond the front cover and throughout the pages really added to my reading experience. The end of the book tells us more about how old some of the stories are and even includes notes from Miller on each story, why and how he came up with the ideas, and so on. He also confirmed my nagging suspicion that some of the characters were familiar to me- there were a couple of Easter Egg cameos with characters from Blackfish City and The Blade Between.

The places that I think Miller could have done better were the way he wrote Black characters and his use of the r-slur. He needs to work on the whole show-don't-tell thing regarding Black characters. Any time we met one, it was as if his writing skill went downhill, relying on telling you someone was Black for you to know, but still never making me believe it. I did not have this experience with other characters of his. I also object to his use of the r-slur in multiple stories. I understand that sometimes, ugly words are written to show someone's character or what a disabled character has gone through. But, I found the prevalence of it to be unnecessary and felt that there were other ways he could have gone about it.

I did enjoy this collection overall. Even when I hit a spot in Miller's writing where I didn't exactly love the story, there was always a depth of creative risk-taking that makes me happy that he went for it. It's this sort of thing that brings new and visionary fiction into being.

This was also posted to my goodreads.

Book Review: Once Upon a Time We Ate Animals

 

Image: The cover of the book is a navy blue background with illustrated green leaves coating it. In large white letters is the title of the book, 1 or 2 words each forming a new line. In between these lines, in smaller orange letters with horizontal lines extending on both sides of each word is, "the future of food." Inside the "o" of "once" and "upon" is a bird and apple silhouette. Inside the "a" of "ate" and "animals" are two more bird silhouettes. Across the bottom in small white letters is the author's name: Roanne Van Voorst.

 

Once Upon a Time We Ate Animals is Roanne Van Voorst's exercise in applying her field of "futures anthropology" to the topic of the exploitation of nonhuman animals. I was expecting something different from this book. My repeated confusion about what in this book counts as anthropology led me to google the field, where I found that there is a substudy called "sociocultural anthropology" which I assume this closely resembled. I expected a book that described the past, present, and hopeful future of nonhuman animal and human interactions using the science of anthropology. This book is more a collection of disorganized thoughts on a variety of issues related to human mistreatment of other animals, often referencing fields she is not an expert in. That is not to say that this book offers nothing or has no value. It's just very scattered and if you have any knowledge on any of these topics, you may not learn much. There are better sources on these topics. 

 

I read the ARC, so I am unsure if citations within the text are supposed to be added to the final version. I have never encountered an ARC referencing a scientific topic that lacks citations. There is a bibliography at the end of the book, but sorting through it all without knowing which claims the sources are referencing in makes it even more tedious than validating a properly cited text. If she is going to choose to speak on issues outside of her field- nutrition, cosmology, climate science, etc- and make some of the sweeping claims that she does, those citations need to be there.

 

The book begins in a way that is a constant pet peeve of mine when people write about a single issue struggle. She introduces her text and multiple points and chapters by repeatedly mentioning slavery suffrage, gay rights, etc. There is a way to do this properly by discussing collective liberation, the connections between struggles, and overal authoritarian structures that seek to oppress. She does not do this well if at all. It's the same old trope of throwing out a few (very Western focused) victories and making it seem like now those struggles are over and we can wake up to the struggle against the oppression of other animals. This is incredibly flawed as a motivational tool for anyone who isn't of her demographic (which she seems to be writing solely to an audience of.) It's also unhelpful as I could say something like, "In XXXX year the Animal Welfare Act began protecting animals, in XXXX year killing endangered species became illegal in some places," and that would not at all mean animals are liberated. I let the introduction go, but then she just repeated it over and over, only once mentioning that animal oppression is not to be compared to chattel slavery. I get what she was trying to do- show us that horrific things that were once normalized are now seen as unacceptable. But, the point is not made well.

 

The next section drew me back in with her discussion of those who formerly farmed and exploited other animals for profit. The in depth stories of their journeys, their honesty, and their growth were truly inspiring and interesting. It is one thing for someone growing up in the middle of a suburb to choose veganism, it is another for someone who was raised on an animal farm- taught from birth that it was 100% necessary to abuse animals- to wake up and change. It was also a good section dispelling the myths around "humane" animal abuse and slaughter and the suffering of fishes on farms. Many of the farmers were dealing with immense trauma due to what they did to countless animals in these places. This was a very important discussion that could benefit a wide range of people to read. There are a few rude and unnecessary descriptions of interviewees appearances- I don't know why writers do this- but otherwise a great section.

 

Another thing the author did well was to discuss the ingrained nature of eating animals in peoples lives without shaming them. At first. She has decent discussions about sociocultural attitudes and how difficult they can be to overcome. That said, she seems to be duped by some of the marketing tactics for mainstream white veganism that involve health shaming and focus on a false binary of animal consumers being unhealthy and vegans being fit. She leaves no room whatsoever for disabled, fat, etc vegans. On he contrary, she maligns the image of vegans being anything other than "fit" and "sexy." Marginalized vegans exist in large numbers within vegans as a whole, but are often silenced by those who think selling plant based diets as a cure all will work. It doesn't. Studies show that the people who go and stay vegan do it for ethical reasons, not health. Yes, plant based diets can be healthier, but they aren't cures for everything. It's fine and dandy to be unhealthy, fat, and/or disabled regardless of your diet and regardless of if you take an imperfect action that contributes to ill health- we all do. 

 

These blind spots lead to cringey advice like, "...never ever let yourself be put into a retirement home and fed pre-made meals..." I don't know if being Dutch has clouded what healthcare and elder care access is for people elsewhere, but no one wants to "let" themselves be institutionalized, regardless of if it's the only (extremely shitty) option in an already bad situation. She does acknowledge places where plant based diets can be imperfect, but again, since she's not a dietician, many things are poorly organized or not well explained and citations were needed when I wanted to look up a source for a claim she made.

 

She does well to dispell the myth that veganism is a rich people thing. Historically we know that plant based diets were often practiced by the poor because animal products are extremely expensive and resource intensive and indigenous communities accross the globe have shown histories of caring for other animals (not as a noble savage trope, their are exceptions, but overall.)  She also acknowledges that due to subsidies and lobbying, in some neighborhoods, buying a pound of animal flesh at a fast food restaurant is the cheapest and only option. I was really hoping for more stuff like this- discussions of anthropological relationships with nonhuman animals- but, it only made up small chunks of the book. There are a lot of pop culture references and so on which seem more like sociology than anthropology, but to be honest, I am not educated enough on either topic to say.

 

There are a couple sections in the book where she goes off on a speculative fiction story of a post-animal consumption world, but the stories are poorly written. I would much rather have liked to see her discuss what these realities would look like rather than present them in fiction form. I really wanted more focus from her field of study.

 

Her discussion of domestication was interesting and well argued. In talking about the long history of many humans forcing nonhuman animals to change for human needs and criteria rather than changing themselves, it has strengthened oppressive systems in general. This would have been a good opportunity to discuss collective liberation, but her focus remained on other animals. Nonetheless, it was still a good section. 

 

Her section on climate change was a mixed bag. There was a lot of pertinent and correct information about both the urgency of the climate crisis as well as the massive contribution that animal agriculure adds to climate change- more than many other big sources such as transportation. Again, citations here are critical for a skeptical reader. Her solution though- that the "most effective" way to combat climate change is to go vegan- once again misses the mark and the bigger picture of authoritarianism, capitalism, and the people with the most power. The US government for instance has repeatedly bailed out the cow dairy industry here time and again when their sales tanked due to people (not just vegans) boycotting or avoiding animal dairy. Just going vegan will not be enough to stop climate change and to explain in depth why would add even more to this already long review.

 

I've been an ethical vegan for about 16 years. I've had chronic illnesses and disability since I was a child (I am now 39 and eat healthier as a vegan but it did not cure me.) I am marginalized in multiple other ways. I have also made a ton of ignorant white person mistakes that Roanne Van Voorst did in this book. That is why I am being hard on her in this review. She seems to be a little newer to veganism and animal rights. For many of us, the awakening and acceptance of what other animals can go through on such massive scales can be so overwhelming and traumatizing that we desperately grasp onto any glimmer of a solution- including non-solutions or bad ones. Human and other animal liberation is intimately connected. This book could have offered much more if the author gave us more from her anthropology background and imagined an audience that was much larger than normative, middle+ class, white, attractive westerners. Even the resources section at the end- which is a good idea, but poorly executed- is mostly a collection of mainstream white single issue vegans. If you "want to learn" about Black veganism, there are two books listed at the end. If you want animal liberation, you NEED to educate yourself about Black veganism, disabled peoples' veganism, veganarchism, etc. Single issue topics are always ok to highlight and focus on. What is not ok is to erase, neglect, or do harm to interconnected struggles. We need each other if we are ever going to get anywhere.

 

This was also posted to my goodreads.