By Almond,
Appleby, and Sivan
I couldn't read this book. I can read any book, but
I couldn't read this one. It was too boring and poorly written. I only
got through the introduction and first chapter. It literally put me to
sleep.
The book studies the rise of fundamentalism, and it
looks like it does a well-thought-out, thorough job. The main concept
seems to be that there is a link between the various fundamentalist groups
that popped up in the twentieth century, even though they're different
religions. That link is a similar cause for their rise: a backlash against
increasing modernity, technology and secularism. Good theory; I totally
agree.
But the book is sooooo dry and scholarly as to be unreadable.
A sure sign that a book is too scholarly is an introduction in which the
authors debate semantics and describe why the word "fundamentalism"
is faulty: "There are numerous problems in applying the word 'fundamentalism'
beyond its original historic use." What a waste of space - several
pages. Ok, we get it: each example of a fundamentalist group is different.
Duh. It's still a word that means something that everyone understands.
Let's see, there are lots of different chairs in the world - upholstered,
tall, wood, steel, made out of paper clips, but we still know them all
as "chair". It's called the basic concept of language, pals.
Yeah, don't read this book.
Bonus game! 10
points
Which one of these "words" is not found in the book:
virtuosi
monograph
modernity-suffused
peccatis nostris
sedevacantists
sabra-nationalist
delusionary
ethnonationalist-cultural
syncretic
extirpation
counter-stigmatization
"Read" June 2006
2