Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing

The structure is unlike anything else I've read; the chapters vary pretty widely in tone, length, and subject, and there is a worldview in there, but it emerges gradually through glimpses rather than through argument. This patchiness is a major theme of the book, given how the mushrooms grow and how economies spring up around them, so the approach is appropriate. The only drawback is that it dissipates any momentum that builds and makes it quite a difficult book to read.

That said, I would appreciate more of this type of book being written, and it's a refreshing contrast to something like [b:Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind|23692271|Sapiens A Brief History of Humankind|Yuval Noah Harari|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1420585954s/23692271.jpg|18962767] or [b:Outliers: The Story of Success|3228917|Outliers The Story of Success|Malcolm Gladwell|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1344266315s/3228917.jpg|3364437], which can feel a bit too polished.… (mer)

I heard about this book from three sources, including Adam Tooze's Substack, before deciding to get a copy.

I love fungi. I've been in the permaculture world for over a decade, where the kingdom has a strong presence. That said, this book is less about fungi, and more a social anthropology of people that harvest the matsutake mushroom in the Pacific Northwest of the United States for export to Japan.

I had heard the name a few times, but before reading this book, I knew very little about matsutake. The author goes as far as to say that white people don't like the mushroom, but after speaking to a few white friends, it sounds like this is an over-generalization. Now that I've heard so much about it, I am interested in tasting it someday.

The author latches onto to some themes in the book which I didn't find illustrative. The term that stands out to me the most is "indeterminacy." It seems like the author would like to make a point about hazard, about risk, about uncertainty and possibility. But in the context of this book, it felt so vague, slippery, and hollow so as to muddle her thesis as opposed to strengthening it. Yes—the world is fundamentally indeterminant, but that in itself is not much of a rhetorical foundation. The author my have been trying to contrast this with the determinacy of capitalism, but this didn't come through for me, and I'm not sure either.

As the subtitle suggests, the author is a subscriber to the Myth of Progress. Despite her statements to the contrary, even the term "capitalist ruins" assumes an arc of history (which says a lot about worldview, cosmology, etc.). That said, many authors write in reference to the Myth of Progress; it is one of the stories we fall back on to orient ourselves, even if it is just an abstract mental construction.

There were some entertaining bits on the way that the author stereotypes the American sense of "freedom." She describes Americans as wanting the freedom to gamble. Americans don't want stability, they want volatility, because it is only through volatility that there is the possibility of wild success.

I found it a slow-going book. I put it down a few times to pick up texts with more momentum to them. That said, if you like sociology and like mycology, you'll probably find this book worth reading.… (mer)