lsquo;This work goes where other books fear to tread.? It reaches the parts other scholars might imagine in their dreams but would neither have the international reach nor the critical acumen and?forensic?flourish to deliver.rsquo; Alan Read; Kings College Londonlsquo;This book is not only timely.? It is overdue ndash; and it is a masterpiece unrivalled by any book I know of.rsquo;? Erika Fischer-Lichte; Freie?Universitauml;t Berlinlsquo;The first and only book that focuses on the intersections of performance; terror and terrorism as played out beyond a Euro-American context post-9/11.? It is an important work; both substantively and methodologically.rsquo; Jenny Hughes; University of Manchester lsquo;A profound and tightly bound sequence of reflections hellip; a rigorously provocative book.rsquo; Stephen Barber; Kingston University LondonIn this exceptional investigation Rustom Bharucha considers the realities of Islamophobia; the legacies of Truth and Reconciliation; the deadly certitudes of State-controlled security systems and the legitimacy of counter-terror terrorism; drawing on a vast spectrum of human cruelties across the global South. The outcome is a brilliantly argued case for seeing terror as a volatile and mutant phenomenon that is deeply lived; experienced; and performed within the cultures of everyday life.
#4472716 in eBooks 2007-04-01 2007-04-01File Name: B00JP6HF9Y
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy saucy sueTerrific book2 of 4 people found the following review helpful. When I think of the worst book I have ever read; I think of this book.By MillsWhen conducting research for my thesis on the historical allusions in Phantom of the Opera in 2002-2004; I naturally read every remotely Phantom-related scholarly work which had been published by that time. There wasnt much. This made the atrocity of Hogles work stand out all the more as there was so little to counterbalance it. I was mad in 2003 when I first read this; and I was mad again in 2010 when I revisited it. Why? Because Hogle is so incredibly incoherent for chapters and chapters on end in my discipline on a topic I am passionate about.His long-winded and unapproachable prose style - aside from a near total lack of content - is offensive to careful readers who expect words to have meaning. He uses quotation marks; hyphens; and backslashes almost indiscriminately. Its difficult to weigh his ideas because he seems to have no clear idea himself what he thinks. Where were his editors? Were they asleep or dead? Where were his professors when he was learning how to write scholarly work? Did they hate him? Why did they do him such a disservice by allowing his writing style to flounder like this?The bibliography is unnaturally long. I suspect that Hogle simply made the longest possible bibliography he could manage; regardless of the pertinence of each source. He also managed to bungle the translators name (de Mattos) for his single most important source; the original English translation of _The Phantom of the Opera_. I seriously lost it when I discovered this. I dont understand. How could he have a bibliography hundreds of entries long and screw up his one primary source?If you must read this book; get it through inter-library loan first. Let someone else absorb the cost.UPDATE: I am apparently cursed to re-read this book once every 7 years. My opinion has not moved a whit.18 of 18 people found the following review helpful. Not easily accessibleBy EphaliaHogles book is written using dense professorial obsurantism. Readers will need an outstanding education and exceptional literary sensitivity to understand what the good professor is trying to exposit. One professional reviewer stated that the authors approach to his subject was "strenuous and original". I couldnt agree more. "Strenuous" completely describes not only this work but also the process of deciphering what it is that Hogle has to say. While it is an in depth and intensely researched look at the implications of this story for western society throughout the past century; it trades psychological insight into the cultural phenomenon for a more contextual social analysis. The personal psychological impact of the story for readers is something he seems to approach only distantly. Unfortunate; because this would give greater insight into the larger social ramifications. Also; Hogle can be repetitive with themes during the course of his analysis of the subject. I have praise only for his commentary on the original Leroux novel; which is insightful and meaningful. His commentary on the remainder of re-adaptations of the original novel ranges from good to weak. This is nowhere more apparent than in his discussion of what he calls; "the most important... renovelization of the original book" referring to the novel by Susan Kay. Here he attempts to prove; in less than four pages; a thesis that is both absurd and ill supported; despite the importance he himself has attributed to the work. Overall; his book is something that those persons enraptured with the story should avoid and that literary scholars should approach with appropriate discernment.
