dara’s review of Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals > Likes and Comments

47 likes · like
Comments (showing 1-22 of 22) (22 new)    post a comment »
dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by rachel (new)

rachel wow, that bad, huh?


message 2: by dara (new)

dara rachel wrote: "wow, that bad, huh?"

I just added a short review; a lot more things about the book annoyed me, but I felt like if I went into it any further, I'd be exploiting GoodReads for a free therapy session.


message 3: by rachel (new)

rachel nicely written - and now i'm going to take this off my to read list, and add the book you recommended instead.


message 4: by Skye (new)

Skye Thanks for this review. I'm taking this book off my reading list. I'm Mexican and it makes me so mad when people use the word "illegal" to describe people of color. And he calls nonhumans "it"?!


message 5: by Asthmatoad (new)

Asthmatoad I have to say that I love this review. I'm only about a quarter of the way through this book, and I have found myself annoyed by author on multiple occasions already. I feel your review is thorough and well supported. You make many strong points. I'm considering forgoing any further reading and instead buying the book you suggest, which I came across previously and made me wonder if "Some We..." was just a cheap copycat.


message 6: by Kristen (new)

Kristen I think you may have come into this book with a specific expectation that this book was not even attempting... who ever said it was activist literature? It is a scientific study on human psychology, which includes ethics, but it is not supposed to argue for a specific way of life; that is not its purpose.


message 7: by Taryn (new)

Taryn This review covers it. I just finished this mess of a book and was so happy to be through it I couldn't bothered to write a proper review. Luckily, yours verbalizes my exact thoughts.


message 8: by Aaron (new)

Aaron Taylor Kristen, this book doesn't sound very scientific.


message 9: by Kristen (new)

Kristen Well, social science.


message 10: by dara (new)

dara Ugh, I was printing something on campus and someone had printed a chapter from the book along with assigned reading questions. I wish I knew what class was using this BS. One of the questions: "What role does vegetarianism play for eating disorders?" One of < 10 questions, none of which take vegetarianism seriously. How eating disorders relate to our attitudes towards animals continues to elude me


message 11: by dara (new)

dara Also, I'm a sociology major. This book doesn't cut it from a social science perspective, either. My biggest problem with this book is not that it advocates or does not advocate a certain view, but that it deviates from what it is claiming to study: Instead of discussing his field of "expertise," his writing derails into an attempt to discredit vegetarianism as "dangerous."


message 12: by Ancilleno (new)

Ancilleno Davis I for one find it better that the author gave an unbiased account. It was not meant to change a point of view but broaden perceptions. I do admit some wording may have been a little off putting for those with particular points of view, but this review speaks nothing to the art in the writing. The book is well written and does a good job at pointing out the problems from several points of view. Also, he did not call Mexicans illegals he said that is how the others see the trade of cock fighting.


message 13: by Tezden (new)

Tezden I'm so surprised to read all these comments, I read this book and didn't find it at all like this. One thing you mention is his mention of Hitler being a vegetarian, I think that he didn't cite it better is because it was just a fleeting mention, and such an inconsequential piece that it wasn't even meant to be a solid point. The real magic in this book, for me, was all the alternative perspectives that he offered. I went into the book with all my opinions about animal welfare and vegetarianism, and it was great to see some very well presented alternatives. This book covers many science experiments, but what it mostly is is anecdotal, which is fine. I found it so interesting, it is full of perspectives I had never considered, prime example being the segment on cock-fighting, and also on the intricacies of why some may consider it more moral to eat a cow than a chicken. I don't think this book was written to push an agenda, which I think is what the original poster was looking for. This book offers different perspectives, and I thought it was very intelligently done.


message 14: by dara (new)

dara Just because the agenda is the status quo doesn't mean it isn't an agenda.


message 15: by Tezden (new)

Tezden It's the job of the intelligent reader to read, interpret, digest, and then, if he or she wishes, to form an opinion. If you think he's pushing an agenda, it doesn't necessarily make it a bad book or one that people can't get something from. I thought his points were very fairly presented. So little of the book actually has to do with the merits (or futility of) vegetarianism, but he does refer back to it to make points and bring out contradictions in our relationships with animals (see title of book). There's a lot more to it than just whether or not to eat them. To me the most fascinating parts was the way he looked at pet ownership. I know many, many vegetarians who own pets, but don't really consider the 150-300 pounds of cat or dog food that the animal consumes each year, all full of animal meat. These are things that are considered in the book, the "morality" of being a vegetarian and having a meat-eating pet, among many other things. I'm not saying it's bad for a vegetarian to have a pet, and neither does Mr. Herzog, but he does present the topic for us to then consider. To me, it was fascinating, and a must-read for any haughty-totty vegetarian to read (myself included)--not because I think it will change anyone's mind, but it is all good information to consider, as simple as that.

I hope some of you who have taken this off your reading list will reconsider!!


message 16: by Tezden (new)

Tezden http://ttbook.org/book/transcript/tra...
An interesting interview with Hal Herzog for anyone wanting to hear his voice before getting the book (or not getting it).
:-)


message 17: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca I agree with Tezden in thinking that Herzog was trying to present a balanced book rather than an agenda. He was mostly studying why people think the way they do about animals rather than trying to make moral judgements about whether or not they were correct. However he did in places state his opinion, i.e. that he thought cock fighting was indeed wrong... but then he tempered that with showing how our judgement about it compared to other animal cruelty can be clouded by society.

I also think he was more balanced about the whole Nazi animal policies thing than you suggest - he even states 'needless to say, the fact that Hitler loved animals does not in any way undermine the validity of the case for animal protection.' Whether Hitler was a vegetarian or not is also not central to his argument. Instead, he looks at quantifiable Nazi animal protection laws, for example the fact that Jews were not covered under the laws for humane animal killing.... I think this makes the point he is trying to make far more credible than you allow for.

I'm not saying the book doesn't have its flaws - I for one would love some more concrete conclusions to be reached from all the interesting experiments he lists. But I don't think it is quite as unreliable as your review suggest...


message 18: by Sarah (new)

Sarah Dyer Thank you- I just checked this out from the library and I am promptly returning it.


message 19: by Chiara (new)

Chiara I'm quite surprised by your reaction to the book, dara. Most of his opinions were added more just as a human perspective, I found, rather than something he thought other people should follow. He himself recognised that he was hypocritical in the way he thought about animals, but then goes on to show how almost everyone is. Perhaps I felt differently about it because many of his views were similar to my own, but mostly I thought they were irrelevant to what his argument was. I expected the book to be about ethics, but it turned out to be about the psychology of ethical standpoints instead. I didn't at all find a pushing of one particular conclusion over another.


message 20: by Raydel (new)

Raydel I am so happy i read your review, it was amazing!


message 21: by Wayne (new)

Wayne So, basically, you're saying you gave this book a poor rating because it challenged your worldview in a way that you find threatening and uncomfortable. That's not particularly useful to anyone other than devout vegans hoping to avoid accidental exposure to material that doesn't confirm their own biases.


message 22: by dara (new)

dara So, basically, no.


back to top