No, not after hearing the way the author writes.
Nope. This was a frustrating chore.
This book is ironic since he indicts the academic world for using flowery language just to hear their own voice, while doing that very thing throughout the entire book. He can never just say what he means, he has to hide it in this heady, convoluted, quasi-poetic language. He throws out ambiguous statements that hint at a political point, then offers little to no illustration of those points, leaving the listener trying to guess at the point while trying to listen to the next point and drive their car. I had to keep backing up the recording over and over and over in order to try to decipher the intended meaning, and I ain't stupid.
Then when I could decipher the meaning, it seems like the author is advocating disruptive, non-peaceful, illegal protests; the abolishment of capitalism; and that reporters never currently do reporting of human issues and should be generally biased.
After eating these sandy brussel sprouts for a week, I'm cutting my losses and stopping after listening to 2/3 of the book.
Report Inappropriate Content