Amazon.com
Mike Davis peers into a looking glass to divine the future of Los Angeles, and what he sees is not encouraging: a city--or better, a concatenation of competing city states--torn by racial enmity, economic disparity, and social anomie. Looking backward, Davis suggests that Los Angeles has always been contested ground. In the 1840s, he writes, a combination of drought and industrial stock raising led to the destruction of small-scale Spanish farming in the region. In the 1910s, Los Angeles was the scene of a bitter conflict between management and industrial workers, so bitter that the publisher of the Los Angeles Times retreated to a heavily fortified home he called "The Bivouac." And in 1992, much of the city fell before flames and riot in a scenario Davis describes as thus: "Gangs are multiplying at a terrifying rate, cops are becoming more arrogant and trigger-happy, and a whole generation is being shunted toward some impossible Armageddon." Davis's voice-in-a-whirlwind approach to the past, present, and future of Los Angeles is alarming and arresting, and his book is essential reading for anyone interested in contemporary affairs. --Gregory MacNamee
From Library Journal
Eschewing the character study that comprises most Los Angeles history, Davis concentrates on the ongoing and ignored ethnic and class struggles, formerly manifested by booster (pro-growth) exploitation, now replaced by exclusionary (no-growth) neighborhood incorporation, and by police control of Afro-American and Latino neighborhoods. His analysis of recent Los Angeles history is often chilling and--sad to say--more true than false. Small inaccuracies sometimes afflict the narrative, and the breathlessness of Davis's writing will probably confuse readers who are unfamilar with the region. But these criticisms quibble with an otherwise important and necessary work. Recommended.
- Tim Zindel, Hastings Coll . of the Law, San Francisco
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
0 有用 遗忘以后 2011-11-09 06:11:42
读过了review算读过么
0 有用 椰褐 2024-02-18 04:40:39 澳大利亚
如果看人文地理的单一城市案例研究,这一本是必读。对于一些知识背景的读者,或许会感到略有不适,在中文评论里还有说这本书风格很“黑暗”。可能是一些朋友比较习惯批判现实主义城市史的那种风格, 一点愤怒,一点嘲讽,一种虽然同情但多少带点知识分子的旁观者视角。相对来说麦克戴维斯的风格有一点往内看,他讲述的是包括他自己在内的一种城市文化动向,而不仅仅是对产业,或者说生产方式的批判。对于另一些朋友对此书学术严格... 如果看人文地理的单一城市案例研究,这一本是必读。对于一些知识背景的读者,或许会感到略有不适,在中文评论里还有说这本书风格很“黑暗”。可能是一些朋友比较习惯批判现实主义城市史的那种风格, 一点愤怒,一点嘲讽,一种虽然同情但多少带点知识分子的旁观者视角。相对来说麦克戴维斯的风格有一点往内看,他讲述的是包括他自己在内的一种城市文化动向,而不仅仅是对产业,或者说生产方式的批判。对于另一些朋友对此书学术严格的质疑,我觉得人文地理和城市史是不同学科,抛开这些成见可以看到一本富集灼热的文字和鲜艳思考的,创造性取得学术和文学平衡的著作。 (展开)
0 有用 vlazilo 2019-10-29 13:08:59
Such a dystopian vision
0 有用 insula 2017-06-15 03:47:36
2008
0 有用 椰褐 2024-02-18 04:40:39 澳大利亚
如果看人文地理的单一城市案例研究,这一本是必读。对于一些知识背景的读者,或许会感到略有不适,在中文评论里还有说这本书风格很“黑暗”。可能是一些朋友比较习惯批判现实主义城市史的那种风格, 一点愤怒,一点嘲讽,一种虽然同情但多少带点知识分子的旁观者视角。相对来说麦克戴维斯的风格有一点往内看,他讲述的是包括他自己在内的一种城市文化动向,而不仅仅是对产业,或者说生产方式的批判。对于另一些朋友对此书学术严格... 如果看人文地理的单一城市案例研究,这一本是必读。对于一些知识背景的读者,或许会感到略有不适,在中文评论里还有说这本书风格很“黑暗”。可能是一些朋友比较习惯批判现实主义城市史的那种风格, 一点愤怒,一点嘲讽,一种虽然同情但多少带点知识分子的旁观者视角。相对来说麦克戴维斯的风格有一点往内看,他讲述的是包括他自己在内的一种城市文化动向,而不仅仅是对产业,或者说生产方式的批判。对于另一些朋友对此书学术严格的质疑,我觉得人文地理和城市史是不同学科,抛开这些成见可以看到一本富集灼热的文字和鲜艳思考的,创造性取得学术和文学平衡的著作。 (展开)
0 有用 vlazilo 2019-10-29 13:08:59
Such a dystopian vision
0 有用 insula 2017-06-15 03:47:36
2008
0 有用 遗忘以后 2011-11-09 06:11:42
读过了review算读过么