Sonic Warfare – Sound, Affect, and the Ecology of Fear (Anglais) Broché – 4 septembre 2012
Rentrée scolaire 2017 : découvrez notre boutique de livres, fournitures, cartables, ordinateurs, vêtements ... Voir plus.
- Choisissez parmi 17 000 points de collecte en France
- Les membres du programme Amazon Prime bénéficient de livraison gratuites illimitées
- Trouvez votre point de collecte et ajoutez-le à votre carnet d’adresses
- Sélectionnez cette adresse lors de votre commande
Description du produit
Aucun appareil Kindle n'est requis. Téléchargez l'une des applis Kindle gratuites et commencez à lire les livres Kindle sur votre smartphone, tablette ou ordinateur.
Pour obtenir l'appli gratuite, saisissez votre numéro de téléphone mobile.
Détails sur le produit
Si vous vendez ce produit, souhaitez-vous suggérer des mises à jour par l'intermédiaire du support vendeur ?
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com
First of all, it is useful for trying to better understand "affect theory," which is actually a reaction against 'post-modernism'. As such, it is actually trying to go beyond the circular semantic arguments that post-modernism seemed to constantly produce and look for concrete ways to understand a variety of things through inter-disciplinary studies that bridge the sciences and humanities. For those interested in 'affect', this book draws on the main sources for this theory, which come mainly from the subjects of philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and anthropology. Affect theory certainly has its critics (who probably outnumber its proponents), but Goodman puts his two cents into the debate in favor of it as a useful framework for understanding things that affect the mind and body at the same time.
Secondly, Goodman tries to explore noise and its effects on the human body and mind from several angles, trying to bridge the psycho and physical by arguing (if I understood correctly) that a lot of factors come into play when sound is used as a non-lethal weapon to control populations and individuals. His ideas on "bass materialism" seem to be original, at least to me, and they help you conceive of sonic warfare as a use of noise that can be considered deeply unsettling, if not painful in some contexts, while in other contexts, deeply pleasurable and stimulating. Thus, his notion of noise as a potential (problematic) force for creating an "ecology of fear" is worth considering.
Thirdly, the subject of sonic warfare itself is a fascination topic to many, I assume, and while it take a lot of active reading to understand what Goodman is trying to say here, I think it is possibly because he doesn't want to be accused of being a proponent of the use of noise to kill or injure other humans. If you want to learn more about this subject, some interesting cases can be found in the book "Sound Targets" by Jonathan Pieslak.
Goodman's interdisciplinary agenda means that he doesn't fully explain any particular element he's putting into the mix, which can be frustrating. And yes, the writing is convoluted at times. A better introduction to all of the theory he is planning to use, followed by clear applications of the theory would have been better than the sort of random uses and reuses of theories that seem always incomplete and unresolved, and rarely fully applicable to the examples at hand.
Finally, some of the sources he uses are more obscure than he would seem to make them, and I couldn't always follow up on them or find them in a good university library.
Goodman does not know what he is saying. He has an idea and occasionally among the clauses, modifiers, made up words, and needless complication of language I can sense a directive.
Please don't delude yourself into thinking this is in any way academic or that the author is occupying a tier of intellectual existence you're incapable of reaching. When thinking is clear writing is clear and this book is filled with nothing but confusion - or as Goodman would probably put it: an incendiary quagmire of not yet clarity interpenetrating at the vibrational level with supersonic frequencies of unclearness sublimating into absolute depths of cerebral lack.
Cultural criticism can be written clear. Consider Neil Postman. This, however, is replete with:
1. Convoluted sentences, some of which approach comedy in their pretentiousness.
2. Adjectival overload
3. Adjectival meaninglessness
4. Over use of adjectives such as "deployed," which is also misused.
5. Compound words without hyphens, mot of which are unintelligible.
6. Over use of other sources. The author seems to have no original ideas. Or, if he does, I have no idea what they are, given the maddening opacity of the writing.
One could go on, but why bother with this execrable exercise in ugliness?