What to say about this book? Nothing good, definitely. It starts with a fairly serious if whimsical question, "What is it like to be a thing?" (shades of Thomas Nagel), but loses itself in a cavalcade of irrelevant philosophical flatulence.

As an STS scholar, I take the equivalence of human beings and things seriously. Bruno Latour's Parliament of Things actually sounds like an interesting idea. But even if we erase the divide between human and non-human, there still seem to be some bifurcations in the world: things and signs, atoms and bits, entities with intentional stances and those capable solely of reaction. A philosopher should examine these common-sensical distinctions, and the ways in which they are wrong. A true unitary theory would be a wonder. That is not in this book.

I'd hoped to see an approach by which we might approach the existence and quality of things: objects, technologies, artifacts, and so-called nature. Instead, Bogost throws out a few sparkling bon-mots in a sea of disconnected anecdotes and generally sloppy thinking. A subject that should be approached with immense care is treated with disrespect.

The only reason I finished this book was to honestly describe how bad it was.