On this my third read thru i’m struck by how good the futurology is, how much it shares in common with Rajaniemi, and of course how paper-thin and silly the characters are.
This historical treatise has a lot of notoriety but I found it unnecessarily dense, and ultimately flawed, in that its focus on states and state power ignores a related discussion of capitalist power, such that altho there is a useful perspective to glean here about how a drive for social legibility can transform a society, I wouldn't recommend the book overall.
Comments
Post a Comment