The moral calculus was a slog, and the case studies a bit less so, the latter due to what felt like going on too long. (But then again, doesn't perpetual violence always feel like—and isn't it really—too long?) Most of the rest of the book, though, was fascinating in a way I can't fully describe, which in addition to actually being a good thing for reading purposes, may also get at why we can't just make neat categories or judgments about violence and call it a day. ( )

I'm not through...it's 7000 pages. ( )

highly recommended.

I really could not get into this. Actually it seems to be a grab bag of ideas. ( )

I almost never do this, but I am going to set this one aside without finishing it. It is a 700 page abbreviated version of a much longer work (which, believe it or not, was actually published) that sets out to use detailed case studies and inductive reasoning to develop a comprehensive moral calculus on the use of violence. It's an audacious idea, and the writer is very talented, but I decided about a hundred pages in that finishing it would just not be worth the effort. The first big hint that ...more I almost never do this, but I am going to set this one aside without finishing it. It is a 700 page abbreviated version of a much longer work (which, believe it or not, was actually published) that sets out to use detailed case studies and inductive reasoning to develop a comprehensive moral calculus on the use of violence. It's an audacious idea, and the writer is very talented, but I decided about a hundred pages in that finishing it would just not be worth the effort. The first big hint that such might be the case was an early example that he intended as an illustration that social context plays a big role in determining the impact of a given action -- a point I agree with, in general -- that amounted to him dismissing the trauma experienced by a female friend from an instance of sexual assault. Yuck. He has thought hard and read broadly, and he includes serious engagement with important figures from the left, but...well, he proclaims a project grounded in examples and attention to intent and respect for cotnext, but at least what I read before I set it aside did not feel like it tried to enact those things at all like I would. And there are ways where he includes himself very visibly and openly in the text, which I approve of, but more in a way that allows him to include lots of colourful (and well written) detail and texture than as an act of taking responsibility for one's place in social relations as one acts and makes judgments. The very act of trying to construct a comprehensive moral calculus of violence is an indulgence in a kind of liberal-democratic hubris, a kind of unilateral declaration of how "I" relates to all the rest of humanity, a kind of claim that certain kinds of judgment can ultimately be reduced to reason alone provided a sufficiently clever and hardworking privileged man makes the effort. So, yeah...no thanks