heidi james shit on noah cicero's UK debut

THE HUMAN WAR by Noah Cicero came out in the UK yesterday and it has already been shit on.

The review is here.

I will paste the review below and type about each sentence.

First some observations about the review.

Every sentence in the review uses abstractions or "terms" (which are "received ideas," meaning the meaning has come from someone else or from society and not directly from concrete reality) rather than concrete specifics. The abstractions and "terms" are not defined in the review. When a person does this they are implying that they possess the only subjective experience in the universe. They are implying that they have exact definitions in their heads of phrases or words like "prose poetry," "adolescent," "angst," "nonsense," and "post-modern apathy" and then they are imposing that definition onto the rest of the universe.

It is like someone coming up to you saying, "You are a terrible piece of shit."

Most people would say or think, "Why?"

Heidi James' review is saying, "The Human War is nonsense."

So I think many people are thinking, "Why?"

(Though probably many or some people will just accept as a "received idea" that "The Human War is nonsense.")

Heidi James doesn't quote from the book. She doesn't define her abstractions. Heidi James is answering the question "Why is The Human War Nonsense" with "Because The Human War is nonsense." She is implying that she is the only conscious and perceiving entity in the universe.

Most people anticipate the question, "Why?" and so do not go up to another person and say, "You are a terrible piece of shit," but instead say something like, "You said you would meet me in the park and you didn't show up. Therefore [because you don't do what you say] you are a terrible piece of shit."

The sentences in THE HUMAN WAR mostly do not even say, "You are a terrible piece of shit," but only say, "You said you would meet me in the park and you didn't show up."

It uses mostly only concrete specifics. It is the opposite of Heidi James' review.

When a person uses only concrete specifics they are not imposing their experience of the universe onto you (or rather they are minimizing the imposition, since even a tree or a park, though concrete, is experienced differently by two different people; for example I could say "tree" and someone, though unlikely, could think I was talking about a "dog" or something). They are allowing the possibility that both you and they are conscious beings with different experiences of the universe. You can go up to that person and say, "I like red flowers," and they can say, "I like green flowers," and then you and that person can talk about something else without fighting.

It is the same with art. Books are like colors. People like different colors.

Okay.

I will type about the sentences in the review now.

The Human War — a short book written as a combination of prose poetry/dialogue, which therefore gives each and every sentence an elaborate, rhythmic yet dissonant weight.

Abstractions or "terms" in that sentence that are not defined are "prose poetry," "elaborate," "rhythmic," "dissonant," and "weight."

This significance to each staccato line betrays the protagonist’s adolescent angst as a meagre hysterical rant that rebuffs the reader’s close attention (perhaps intentionally), whilst mirroring the narrator’s alienation.

Abstractions or "terms" in that sentence that are not defined are "significance," "staccato," "adolescent," "angst," "meagre," "hysterical," "rant," "reader's close attention," "alienation."

However, this is a tired existential nonsense, and I dispute the lazy comparisons of this work with Beckett — whilst it’s true Cicero’s characters witter on without dynamic or conclusion — this is merely a facile aping of Beckett’s revelation of the human condition written in weary tropes.

Abstractions or "terms" in that sentence that are not defined are "tired," "existential," "nonsense," "lazy," "facile," "the human condition," "weary," "tropes."

If this book is intended as a synecdoche for Western society then I am afraid it is disappointingly successful, and perhaps that is my problem with this work, whilst personally shunning redemptive novels this small reflection of Post-Modern apathy is just too lacking in poetry or revelation to raise it from the lowest common denominator and frankly I can watch reality TV if I need a fix of that.

Abstractions or "terms" in that sentence that are not defined are "synecdoche," "Western society," "successful," "Post-Modern apathy," "poetry," "revelation," "lowest common denominator," "reality TV."

If someone keeps saying, "You are a terrible piece of shit," to you and doesn't tell you what you did in concrete reality that made them think that how would you react?

Post your answer in the comments section.

Thank you.

It is 4:27 a.m.

I recommend Noah's book.

I have read it three or four times and I like it.

I read probably 2% of the books I have read more than once.

I was just a little confused because I thought, "What if Heidi James is just saying she doesn't like Noah's book, isn't that just like saying she doesn't like the color red, or something?"

But I don't think she is saying that.

The review doesn't say "To me" or "I think" or "I like" or "I don't like."

It is not, "I think you are a terrible piece of shit," or "To me, you are a terrible piece of shit." It is, "You are a terrible piece of shit," stated as a fact. She is not saying that she does not like the book. She is saying that the book should not be liked. Remember: this is not "good" or "bad" because "good" and "bad" do not exist until a context and a goal has been established and I did not establish a context or a goal in this post.