on January 25, 2013
DeBord is, as Foucault once described Derrida (mistakenly, I believe), a "militant obscurantist". My review of the book will take into account DeBord's writing style, which is the real hurdle here. Whereas Derrida can seem paradoxical or to follow the paths of very questionable logics, who are not always self-evident, one can generally find their way back and come to an understanding. The content begins with cursory definitions which are easy to overlook. He does not dwell on explaining or rendering explicit many of his assertions. The language employed tends to follow a pattern, which through of the course of one's readership, is not any more revelatory than it was at the beginning. It requires a very circuitous investment of energy to keep one's eye on the target of the book, so to speak. Do not take these criticisms to undermine the value of the work or the importance of the message - I'm just describing the difficulty with which the general reader will have in approaching this book and pinning down the exact meaning of what he's trying to communicate.
It's for that reason I'm giving the book 3 stars, instead of 4 or 5. A writer concerned with the approachability of his work would employ a more standard writing style and not contribute to the reputation of "high-falutin nonsense" where one knows only the word, and not the idea, to which their argument continually refers.