Reviews for Fighting words

The average rating for Fighting words based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-10-21 00:00:00 Larry Berkson The first half of the book was great. It is chock full of provocative critique of "modern" society, right down to our use of language and perceptions of time. This is a sorely needed perspective as we face numerous social and ecological challenges. The second half of the book was a little more difficult to get through, as several chapters consisted almost entirely of lists of book and news article titles in an effort to prognosticate a growing dissatisfaction with society verging on open revolt, which obviously has yet to materialize. I was also expecting a more direct critique of the positivist, techno-industrial utopia put forth by Marx, DeBord, et al. Nevertheless, the book is well worth a read even for just the first few chapters alone. It will force anyone to question the fundamental ways in which they interact with reality and how those interactions are deliberately and maliciously corrupted by the society we live in.

Review # 2 was written on 2006-12-05 00:00:00 Loreta Reis I read this again for a few reasons. One was to continue (re-)exploring the post-70s, pre-'99-WTO anarchy. The second was to see how JZ makes use of the Frankfurt school in light of my current study of Benjamin. The third was to pursue a sort of intellectualism that makes heavy use of quotations to make a point. I ended up thinking that the first section is still spot on. The "big 5" (though I'm not sure I would choose the same 5, or 5 as the amount) cornerstones of civilization are still despicable and JZ's analysis still holds up. The section on unions and mass society, however, seems rather tired and stale. I still think there is potential to excite some audiences, and I recognize what it did for me several years ago, but there was nothing striking this time around. Looking at some of these other reviews, it also seems there are still dimwits spouting out ad hominems and red herrings because they're too... something (they have their own agenda?). A "patchwork of random citations?" Seriously, do you lack reading comprehension? Excessive perhaps, but certainly not random. Yes, this is what is wrong with contemporary anarchist theory, precisely because so many "anarchists" have made "contemporary anarchist theory" such a hodgepodge of ideological garbage. Thank goodness there's been a recent resurgence in astute thinking. It's a bit of a shame that Zerzan isn't much of a component in it.