I entered into this book with the firm belief that I not only needed it but would also fall in love with it and be completely enthralled by it. However, that was not the case.

To be fair, there were indeed sections that were truly wonderful. In fact, this has piqued my interest in reading more of Vollmann's works, considering this is my first encounter with his writing.

Regrettably, I don't believe Vollmann can uphold the weight of all his own theorizing. He seems to perform at his best when he has to significantly reduce the content, as seen in "The Moral Calculus", when he is reporting as in Part II, and/or when he is reflecting as in the "Meditations".

But for the remainder of Part I, which in this abridged edition is a whopping 417 pages, his theorizing is burdened by unnecessary retellings and descriptions. Some of it was indeed interesting, such as the sections on owning weapons, the Russian revolutionaries, and the Marquis de Sade and John Brown.

However, I remain unconvinced that the descriptions and historical "reenactments" contribute as much as necessary to justify the space they occupy in the text.

Oh well. If I ever manage to get my hands on the full version, I probably will give it a go. But when I do, I will most likely just read Part II and check the sources. Such is life.

Favorites:

Part I
- Three Meditations on Death
- The Moral Calculus

Part II
- The Old Man (Malaysia)
- Where Are All the Pretty Girls? (Ex-Yugoslavia)
- Let Me Know If You're Scared (Somalia)

A massive, incredible monster of a book lies before us. It is not only an undertaking of moral philosophy that rivals the works of Marx, Kant, and Hobbes, but also a massive collected history of violence. Presented in both deep scholarship and bold journalism, it is written in phosphorescent literary fiction prose.

I did not read it nearly as carefully as it deserves, yet I still read it. I can hardly believe that I actually have some desire to read the unabridged version. However, the excising of race and gender, along with so many of the case studies, pushes me in that direction.

Perhaps it is the allure of a more comprehensive understanding, the need to explore those aspects that were left out. Or maybe it is the sheer magnitude and importance of the subject matter that compels me. Whatever the reason, I find myself drawn to this book, eager to delve deeper into its pages and uncover the hidden truths that lie within.

Despite my initial shortcomings in reading it, I am now determined to give it the attention it truly merits. I look forward to the journey ahead, as I embark on reading the unabridged version and gain a more complete perspective on this fascinating and complex topic.

An amazing book - if only I had the time to read the unabridged version.

It categorically shows that there are few, if any, connections between the justifications for State sanctioned violence and the realities.

For instance, the supposed reasons given for a particular act of state violence may seem valid on the surface, but upon closer examination, they often do not hold up. The book delves deep into this disparity, uncovering the hidden motives and the true nature of such justifications.

It does not endorse pacifism necessarily - not from my memory of reading it - but leaves little room for any other belief.

As one reads through the pages, it becomes increasingly clear that the alternatives to non-violence are limited and perhaps not as justifiable as they may initially seem. The book challenges the reader to question their own beliefs and assumptions about the role of violence in society and forces them to consider the consequences of different courses of action.

Overall, it is a thought-provoking and eye-opening read that has the potential to change the way one views the world.

This particular subject matter is truly fascinating.

It also makes references at various points, such as the fact that 80% of the books we read for great books at Mercer. This aspect adds an interesting layer to the overall discussion.

The connection to Mercer and the high percentage of relevant books being read there is quite significant. It gives a sense of the importance and prevalence of this topic within that context.

Overall, it serves as an excellent capstone, tying together different elements and providing a comprehensive view.

It leaves the reader with a deeper understanding and appreciation for the subject, while also hinting at the potential for further exploration and study.

The references to Mercer and the specific percentage of books add credibility and authenticity to the discussion, making it even more engaging and thought-provoking.

I can't claim that I have completely absorbed every single piece of this information. However, the overall philosophy presented here is truly brilliant. It's like a new authority has emerged in this field. The first few chapters specifically deal with the topic of death. The description provided regarding this subject matter is simply unsurpassed in the entire language. It delves deep into the various aspects and emotions related to death, painting a vivid and thought-provoking picture. It makes you stop and reflect on the inevitable nature of life and the significance of how we approach death. This work seems to offer a fresh perspective and valuable insights that are sure to have a profound impact on anyone who takes the time to read and understand it.

I don't know if William Vollmann is the best writer in America today.

Certainly, he isn't the most popular. Nor is he the best known. He may very well be the best and most ignored. The most topical and yet most overlooked. The one who is most feared by those in power.

Think of the one you consider to be the most popular and the most feared by those in power. That would be like Bernie Sanders, and Vollmann would then be Elizabeth Warren. In other words, the one they REALLY fear.

He has been writing, both fiction and non-fiction, for what seems like forever. He writes about everything that people don't want to know about. Such as migrant farmworkers in the Imperial Valley, sex workers, transvestites, immigrants on the road from Central America, the realities of the life of the poor, the way the Noh theater deals with femininity, and countless other "untouchable" subjects.

Here, he spent 23 years studying violence and its relationship to freedom. I cannot imagine, in this limited space, a concise way to present how he precisely edited down the (literally) massive seven volumes he produced to this one volume in order to convey his vision of meaningful deduction about human civilization's "progress" up to this moment. It is shattering. It is a must-read.

I almost never do this, but I am going to set this one aside without finishing it.

It is a 700-page abbreviated version of a much longer work that sets out to use detailed case studies and inductive reasoning to develop a comprehensive moral calculus on the use of violence.

The idea is audacious, and the writer is talented. However, I decided about a hundred pages in that finishing it would not be worth the effort.

The first hint was an early example where he dismissed the trauma of a female friend's sexual assault, which I found very off-putting.

He has thought hard and read widely, and engages with important figures from the left. But, what I read did not seem to enact the principles he proclaims.

He includes himself visibly in the text, which I approve of in one sense, but it seems more for adding colorful detail than taking responsibility for his place in social relations.

The very act of constructing a comprehensive moral calculus of violence is an indulgence in liberal-democratic hubris, a unilateral declaration of how "I" relates to the rest of humanity.

It claims that certain judgments can be reduced to reason alone if a privileged man makes the effort. So, no thanks.

The point, however, is not to understand whether Stalin was right or wrong. Let's assume he was completely wrong. Now what remains to be understood, and this is where the road gets steeper (perhaps insurmountable), is how for twenty years and more everyone believed, out of love or force, that Stalin, one man against a country of hundreds of millions of individuals, could only be right.

The point is not to understand whether Hitler was evil or not, whether he was a reasonable statesman condemned by an adverse destiny or a paranoid madman to whom circumstances or others' imprudence or opportunity had entrusted the button room.

The point is that Hitler claimed that the Jews were an imminent and destructive threat to the survival of German culture and people. Germany, he said, had every right to defend itself from this violent threat if it wanted to survive. Today, history books say that in reality the opposite happened, that Hitler himself, after destroying the Jews of Germany and much of Europe, reduced his own country to rubble, that country that promised to reign for a thousand years.

But why, at least until 1945, was it peaceful, obvious, natural for the vast majority of Germans that Hitler was right and had reasons for what he did? This is the question.

And Hitler was certainly not brought down by books and refutations. Indeed, it took a world war for the world to reach a consensus on the evil of the dictator with the moustache. A war in which Hitler's own adversaries, between Dresden, Hiroshima and more, certainly did not go gently. In fact, there were more deaths outside than inside the concentration camps! And at the table of the victors sat none other than Stalin, more mustachioed and satisfied than ever...

The point is that we can all perfectly agree with the rules for the good use and good rejection of violence, as Vollmann sets them out in his book.

No, of course, in reality Vollmann's book is complex, far from hasty, and it loves (this is its value) to sow doubts more than to give certainties.

But simplifying and getting back to the point: who is not in favour of peace and justice, who does not want to defend the weak and stop the violent? And it would be too convenient to disqualify some hotheads as malicious if the particular means or ends, or the results, or the specific manifestations of the general aspiration are not those that we like.

The point is to understand how it is possible that the defence of the weak and the fight against the violent have led and often lead to very bad results, indeed, to those very results that in the declarations of principle were meant to be avoided. Precisely, Hitler who announces that he will save Germany from the Jewish threat, who is thus welcomed as a hero by the people, and then ends in an epochal failure, exterminating (among others) millions of innocent Jews, razing his own country to the ground, and condemning his ideology, which so many of his contemporaries saw as justice and refuge, to the abomination of posterity.

The point is: how to distinguish, in the chaos of the world, the shield that defends the weak from the sword that destroys it, when both appear and present themselves as equal, identical? Only afterwards, only when (if...) this knot has been untied, will we be able to decide when and how it will be legitimate to use the sword, to use the shield.

3.5 stars: Good

Abridged version

How can I summarize this? I have never contemplated violence of so many diverse types, committed for numerous different reasons, and from various angles and considerations as I have in my life. “When is violence justified?” William T. Vollmann poses this question throughout Rising Up and Rising Down: Some Thoughts on Violence, Freedom and Urgent Means. His conclusion appears to be that violence is rarely justified. Ultimately, his examination and Moral Calculus are not a fixed rule but rather exist so that you, as a reader, can make your own decision and develop your own moral calculus.

The reason for my 3.5-star rating, despite the significance of the subject matter, is that I found the writing, or perhaps more so the structure of the book, to be a bit cumbersome. I did read the abridged version, so that surely had an impact. I also noticed issues regarding race and sex bias that emerged in the language at times (not blatant racism or sexism but that blindness to those issues that surfaces in language). In the context of the larger themes of the book, this is not to say not to read RURD, but I had to set aside my irritation to get through it.

Nevertheless, Rising Up and Rising Down strengthened what I already hold as my moral compass, enabled me to consider and solidify or zero in on situations that I hadn't considered before, and actually apply it to recent world events. It is February 2022 as I write this review. The past two years have transformed my life in profound ways. Maybe that's why I had to read this book now.

I'm not going to rate this because it's only the abridged version.

To truly enjoy and have the complete experience, I need to buy the full 7 volume set.

However, the cost of the full set is $1500, which is quite a significant amount of money.

I'm not sure if I can afford it right now, but I really want to have the full collection.

Maybe I need to start saving up or look for a way to get a better deal on it.

I hope I can get my hands on the full 7 volume set soon and be able to rate it properly.

Until then, I'll just have to make do with the abridged version and dream about the full set.

Joe Curran and I, in a state of late-night revelry, found ourselves engaged in a rather ambitious purchase.

We were up late, drinking and chatting, and somehow convinced ourselves that we had both the time and the mental capacity to devour this truly enormous book.

We excitedly clicked the "buy" button online, imagining ourselves delving into its countless pages with ease.

But as the days passed, and the book sat on our shelves gathering dust, we realized the folly of our late-night decision.

Need I say more? The reality of our busy lives quickly set in, and the idea of reading all those zillion pages seemed more and more like a distant dream.

Yet, the memory of that impulsive purchase still lingers, a reminder of our overly optimistic selves in those late-night hours.

Yes, I bought this.

To be honest, this was the kind of McSweeney's hype that was truly worth both the venture and the purchase. It's truly wonderful that they decided to put this out.

If you've never had the opportunity to see him doing a reading or presentation in person, I wholeheartedly recommend it. You simply won't be able to forget the experience.

The way he engages with the audience, the passion he brings to his words, it's all just captivating.

Whether you're a long-time fan or new to his work, this is something that you don't want to miss.

So go ahead, take the plunge and get yourself a copy. You won't regret it.