Robert Maguire

I enjoyed this way more than I expected to. It also reminded me how much I enjoy reading these collected volumes. So great to get varied perspectives on a topic from people who know their stuff. I'm still uncomfortable that the majority of contributors on a book titled [book:Who Owns Haiti?: People, Power, and Sovereignty|29502704] are White American men. It makes me wonder who was invited to participate in this symposium. I wish the editors had unpacked this a bit in their intro. Great show more books for readers who want an introduction to the work of the scholars who contributed. If you already know their stuff, you might find it underwhelming.

Breakdown:
Intro: Good framing
Dubois: Good summary/presentation of 19th century agency. I'm not too sure about using "alternative archives" mentioned to confront Haiti's challenges.
Fatton: Excellent chapter, but extremely depressing.
Pierre-Louis: not impressed with this one. Very biased description events. Also, I am so tired of this idea that the fact that Haitian politicians are looking out for their own interests is something exceptional. It looks to me like politicians are like that in a lot of places. See current crises in the US and France for examples. I would love to know in what country politicians from opposing parties or factions get together and sing kumbaya for the good of the people.
Seitenfus: I really appreciated the perspective on Haiti/LA relations. My readings don't usually include that and it really is an essential part of the picture. That being said, this chapter was very slanted as well. It's weird how authors will point out analysts or actors relying on one party's viewpoints and how that produces baised findings, then go on to do the same thing themselves.
Maguire: Ok
Richman: Ok. Nothing new -- to me, anyway, but good overview.
Freeman: I almost skipped this one because not my field, but I'm glad I didn't. Very interesting. And I see how it could be applicable more broadly.
Kivland: I have mixed feelings about this one. Definitely interesting, but rather messy in its treatment of concepts and certain realities. Also some questionable translation of terms.
Conclusion: Nothing of note here, just a basic summary of book's overarching themes. show less

It had been a long time since I'd read serious lit crit before I took on this book.

It's a good, perhaps great, one.

If you are intrigued by Gogol, this is a great place to look. It covers the great works and then some, covering his whole (extremely odd) career. Highly recommended.