Outside of working on the history of mountains (among other things), there are a number of blogs that I read for fun and relaxation. Chief among these is the excellent Snark Squad, who write ‘re-caps’ of books, films, and TV shows. I first discovered them when I was trying to figure out what all the fuss over the Fifty Shades of Grey series was about. Their brilliant re-caps at once provided far more amusement than reading the books ever would, and gave me a whole host of reasons not only not to read them, but also to worry about the fact that so many people had that they had reached best-seller status. They also re-cap other books and series (Buffy the Vampire Slayer being chief among them) with more fondness, but still, as the blog name would suggest, a healthy dose of slightly sarcastic humour. Their re-caps stand halfway between a summary and a review; they provide enough information to give the reader a sense of what is going on in the episode or chapter under consideration, whilst also adding their own thoughts or criticisms as they go along. They also tend to do them ‘real-time’, in that a chapter or episode is re-capped as soon as the writers have read or watched it, and before they move onto the next. This adds immediacy to the re-cap, but also removes the benefit – and curse – of hindsight. It isn’t about reviewing a book or TV show in its entirety, but about charting each step through it.
This is, surprisingly, relevant to me as a PhD student and blogger. My supervisor recently suggested that I read Foucault’s The Order of Things, on the basis that in terms of its reflections upon big cultural and intellectual shifts it might be relevant to my work, but with the warning that it would not be an easy read. I’ve never read Foucault before, and although I relished philosophy as an A Level subject, I’ve yet to really become enthusiastic towards the idea of combining highly theoretical or philosophical ideas to my historical research. However, I’m not necessarily prejudiced against the idea, and I think it’s important at the outset of a PhD to be open to trying new things. So, off to Waterstones I went to procure a copy of the relevant text. (I found the small ‘philosophy’ section in the miscellaneous corner that all bookshops hide in a back corner, alongside books about Zen spirituality and a few diet books. I wondered what Foucault would make of that!) But possessing the text, and reading through it, is not the same as having a handle on it.
Therefore, I am planning to do for Foucault something a bit like what the Snark Squad has done for Fifty Shades of Grey (I wish I could say that was the first time Foucault has ever shared a sentence with said title, but this isn't true). At the end of each chapter, and before moving onto the next one, I will write a brief ‘re-cap’, along with any thoughts of my own. Hopefully, this process will both enable me to interact with the text more actively (and thus try to understand it better!) than I might if I was just taking notes for myself, and provide an insight into the text for those who haven’t read it, or amusement for those who have.
One brief disclaimer before we delve into The Order of Things - a 're-cap' is not, to me, a formal piece of academic writing. The re-caps will, hopefully, be a little bit fun to read. Any irreverence, however, does not indicate any lack of respect for the work under consideration. Finally, FYI, I will be reading the 2002 'Routledge Classics' edition, based on the 1970 English translation.
This is, surprisingly, relevant to me as a PhD student and blogger. My supervisor recently suggested that I read Foucault’s The Order of Things, on the basis that in terms of its reflections upon big cultural and intellectual shifts it might be relevant to my work, but with the warning that it would not be an easy read. I’ve never read Foucault before, and although I relished philosophy as an A Level subject, I’ve yet to really become enthusiastic towards the idea of combining highly theoretical or philosophical ideas to my historical research. However, I’m not necessarily prejudiced against the idea, and I think it’s important at the outset of a PhD to be open to trying new things. So, off to Waterstones I went to procure a copy of the relevant text. (I found the small ‘philosophy’ section in the miscellaneous corner that all bookshops hide in a back corner, alongside books about Zen spirituality and a few diet books. I wondered what Foucault would make of that!) But possessing the text, and reading through it, is not the same as having a handle on it.
Therefore, I am planning to do for Foucault something a bit like what the Snark Squad has done for Fifty Shades of Grey (I wish I could say that was the first time Foucault has ever shared a sentence with said title, but this isn't true). At the end of each chapter, and before moving onto the next one, I will write a brief ‘re-cap’, along with any thoughts of my own. Hopefully, this process will both enable me to interact with the text more actively (and thus try to understand it better!) than I might if I was just taking notes for myself, and provide an insight into the text for those who haven’t read it, or amusement for those who have.
One brief disclaimer before we delve into The Order of Things - a 're-cap' is not, to me, a formal piece of academic writing. The re-caps will, hopefully, be a little bit fun to read. Any irreverence, however, does not indicate any lack of respect for the work under consideration. Finally, FYI, I will be reading the 2002 'Routledge Classics' edition, based on the 1970 English translation.