I was originally planning to give this book a 1. Not because it’s of an objectively poor quality - it absolutely isn’t - but simply because I found the experience of reading it to be such a slog. This is not a breezy, pop-politics read. It’s an extremely academic book that reads like a philosophy thesis, and you need to go into it prepared for that. I don’t exactly recall how this book wound up on my reading list, but suffice it to say, I was not prepared.
If you’re at all familiar with the territory here, like I was, the first half of the book really drags because it’s essentially a dense historical review and you don’t immediately get a sense of where any of it is going or if the author’s ideas are going to be worth the time investment required to adequately preface them.
Ultimately, I’d say they were worth the investment. Had I started this book beginning with Chapter 3 - just 79 pages in, sure, but the complete book is only 183 long! - I’d have surely rated it a 4. There are some really interesting and novel ideas in here, and when the author hits his stride the book becomes much more readable. The author’s conception of futility (and semio-futility in particular) will absolutely stick with me.
If you decide to tackle this and feel like tapping out early on, I’d say skip ahead to Chapter 3 or 4 (or really any subsequent chapter with an appealing title) and see how you fare.