I once wrote a review in an academic journal and soon afterwards (soon after the acceptance, but well before the publication which took ages, as these things go) I started receiving these mails from an academic reviews site that proposes tones of books. Here comes the 'some background' part. I studied philosophy (which goes on to explain my current professional occupation discussed in the previous post and has a weird but small and expected role in explaining my current official status according to the República del Ecuador re occupation, as also discussed in the previous post, but I digress). As I was saying, I studied philosophy and I really like politics (if liking sth can be equated with being mostly angry and bitter about it) and I was living in Burundi until about six months ago, so I was intrigued by the following title,
After Evil: A Politics of Human Rights
which was described as a book in political philosophy critically discussing transitional justice (which is a big subject in Burundi). This really sounded like fun to me so I proposed to write the review and a couple of weeks later (a week or so ago) I got the book, which is when I realized the extent of my mistake.
Most awkward quote: (describing what the author does on chapter 6) "Here I focus on the analogy between Crucifixion denial and Holocaust denial and whether giving universal value to past (Jewish) suffering brings the need for prophecy to an end." (sic, p.16)
That doesn't seem to me to be a very good analogy to focus on. I'll return to this book, which is ruining otherwise perfectly standard holidays, once I have read all of it. And no, I still haven't read chapter 6 and if there is some way to make perfect decent sense of that quote I will be apologizing profusely.
After Evil: A Politics of Human Rights
which was described as a book in political philosophy critically discussing transitional justice (which is a big subject in Burundi). This really sounded like fun to me so I proposed to write the review and a couple of weeks later (a week or so ago) I got the book, which is when I realized the extent of my mistake.
Most awkward quote: (describing what the author does on chapter 6) "Here I focus on the analogy between Crucifixion denial and Holocaust denial and whether giving universal value to past (Jewish) suffering brings the need for prophecy to an end." (sic, p.16)
That doesn't seem to me to be a very good analogy to focus on. I'll return to this book, which is ruining otherwise perfectly standard holidays, once I have read all of it. And no, I still haven't read chapter 6 and if there is some way to make perfect decent sense of that quote I will be apologizing profusely.
No comments:
Post a Comment