Alex de Waal

Varmasti tärkeä, mutta vaikealukuinen teos. Keskittymistä vaivasi jatkuva nimien virta ja muutenkin luettelomaisuus. Välillä myös sodan kauhuja luetteloitiin raakuuksia luetteloimalla, mikä loi vain vaikutelmaa puolueellisuudesta (tosin luultavasti ihan aiheellisesti, mutta tällainen taktiikka ei herätä lukijassa luottamusta kirjoittajia kohtaan). Yksityiskohtien sijaan näin suppea teos olisi toiminut paremmin yleisiä suuntaviivoja hahmottelemalla. Teos onnistui kuitenkin avartamaan näkemystä konfliktin monimutkaisuudesta.… (mere)

This was a rough read. I've got no doubt that it's the definative text on Darfur and the history leading up to current conditions, but the book just wasn't written with readers in mind. Unless you already know everything that the authors are writing about, there are going to be many moments when you're confused as far as time goes---for two paragraphs, the authors will be covering events in 2008, and suddenly the mention of a particular place, person, or event takes you back to 2004, or to somewhere in the past that isn't entirely clear. Simply, the timelines here are incredibly confused, to the extent that it often comes across as a stream-of-consciousness history that was never really organized before being put to paper. Additionally, the constant name dropping makes the read difficult, and complicates the already hard-to-handle timeline. The information is here, but it's not presented in a fashion that's open to readers who aren't already somewhat familiar with the book's subject. As someone who's read various texts on Darfur, I have to say that this was by far the most difficult and confusing to read---it might imitate the chaos of the situation, but it's not a strategy for imparting informatin to readers.… (mere)