Take a photo of a barcode or cover
octavia_cade 's review for:
The New Optimism
by Henry de Vere Stacpoole
My goodness, what a ridiculous pontificating jumble. It's one of those dialogue narratives so beloved by philosophy, but in this case it's hardly Socratic. Instead of asking questions and leading the answerer into contradiction and illogic, this is a basically a puffed-up manifesto rant, and when the author stops for breath it's so his loyal companion (a woman, of course) can say Are You Sure? or I See. (I can't help but think that, if this conversation were happening today, these deadening non-responses would be the verbal hints to shut up and go away that Stacpoole is just not getting.)
This isn't to say that the book's an entire waste of time. When Stacpoole talks about science - which he does fairly often, as the central idea is that humanity is evolving into a world mind, shades of The Phenomenon of Man I think - he's frequently wrong but he does produce some beautiful sentences and imagery. Unfortunately he gets off his wrong-headed if pretty understanding of evolution fairly soon in order to start ranting about what are clearly two favourite bugbears - socialism and feminism. He grabs bits and pieces of evidence from every possible source - science, religion, history - to justify his rather condescending rants, and it's all clearly cherry-picked and often contradictory. For instance: an individual is of no real account to the world mind and the ongoing perfection of the species, so women should limit themselves to the home and motherhood no matter their desires or talents (a woman who exists outside of the home is of "no account"). But socialism is wrong because ensuring an equal playing field means that the individual's desire for self-improvement may be tarnished and they (by which he means men) will lose the opportunity to compete in business and rise through the ranks of society, and the individual's success is key to progress. See what I mean?
If this were actually a dialogue these inconsistencies might be acknowledged and confronted, but it isn't. It's basically just a manifesto rant, and has as much value as those things tend to do.
This isn't to say that the book's an entire waste of time. When Stacpoole talks about science - which he does fairly often, as the central idea is that humanity is evolving into a world mind, shades of The Phenomenon of Man I think - he's frequently wrong but he does produce some beautiful sentences and imagery. Unfortunately he gets off his wrong-headed if pretty understanding of evolution fairly soon in order to start ranting about what are clearly two favourite bugbears - socialism and feminism. He grabs bits and pieces of evidence from every possible source - science, religion, history - to justify his rather condescending rants, and it's all clearly cherry-picked and often contradictory. For instance: an individual is of no real account to the world mind and the ongoing perfection of the species, so women should limit themselves to the home and motherhood no matter their desires or talents (a woman who exists outside of the home is of "no account"). But socialism is wrong because ensuring an equal playing field means that the individual's desire for self-improvement may be tarnished and they (by which he means men) will lose the opportunity to compete in business and rise through the ranks of society, and the individual's success is key to progress. See what I mean?
If this were actually a dialogue these inconsistencies might be acknowledged and confronted, but it isn't. It's basically just a manifesto rant, and has as much value as those things tend to do.