Mai > Recent Status Updates

Cấu trúc rất thú vị, đan xen giữa những "chương" trong cuộc đời của nhân vật chính và hiện tại của ông. Dù đến giữa cuốn sách rồi và mình vẫn chưa rõ cuốn sách này nói về cái gì, điều này ko phải vấn đề quá lớn.

Living proof that Marxist/critical theory can be clearly written and not condemned to the most obscure convoluted writing styles

j'ai l'impression de ne pas comprendre grand-chose (à part des trucs de base sur le néolibéralisme, quelques notions de Foucault,...) mais c'est sans doute parce que je n'ai pas une formation philo

là ça commence à m'énerver. les auteurs semblent confondre ironie et sarcasme (et peut-être d'autres choses). Pour moi, les exemples étudiés sont plutôt les sarcasmes (ou, ironies sarcastiques) parce que les ironies non-sarcastiques existent aussi ("Quel beau temps, super" quand on voit qu'il pleut). Je commence à trouver que ça part dans tous les sens...

il y a un regard très fraco-centré qui m'a un peu étonnée vu que l'ironie est une pratique langagière existant dans d'autres pays/cultures. Les travaux sur l'ironie mentionnés dans la disons "revue de littérature" sont tous français. Je ne dis pas que les travaux non-français ont forcément d'autres choses à dire mais c'est trèsssss probable, d'où mon incompréhension de cette omission (?)

pour le moment, je trouve que ça reste très général mais normalement c'est voulu, on est au début du livre

The chapter on advertisement is very good

The book is really good so far but omg as a conversation analyst, I hate how he/discourse analysts (?) transcribe real life conversations so much. Like who transcribes like that??? Just use Jeffersonian transcription but with less details! It's really hard trying to like Critical Discourse Analysis as a conversation analysis.

Elliott M. Hoey and Chase Wesley Raymond's chapter is SOOOOO good. I knew it was going to be since they're so good at CA. The preceeding chapter was not as good however. Was very surprised to find CA that is so interpretative (especially the examples involved the second author). I found myself annotating "What a reach" many times while reading.

this should be a banger

bell hooks is so funny: "I say this not to discredit her [Betty Friedan] work. It remains a useful discussion of the impact of sexist discrimination on a select group of women. Examined from a different perspective, it can also be seen as a case study of narcissism, insensitivity, sentimentality, and self-indulgence" => savage and hilarious

Women hate remembering illegal abortions because they almost died, they could have died, they wanted to die, they hoped they would not die, they were afraid of dying before and during and after; they have never again been so afraid of death or so alone. And women hate remembering illegal abortions because their husbands experienced none of this: which no woman forgives.

Women are humiliated by the memory of the fear. Women are humiliated by the memory of the physical intrusion, the penetration, the pain, the violation; countless women were sexually assaulted by the abortionist before or after the abortion; they hate remembering. Women are humiliated because they hated themselves, their sex, their female bodies, they hated being female.

Women keep quiet about abortions they have had, illegal abortions, because they are humiliated by the memory of those abortions; they are humiliated by the memory of their desperation, the panic, finding the money, finding the abortionist, the dirt, the danger, the secrecy. Women are humiliated when they remember asking for help, begging for help, when they remember those who turned away, left them out in the cold.