Reviewer Resource LibraryThis is a featured page

While new texts are exciting to read, there is a significant body of literature in American Studies that is regarded as 'classic' or 'canonical'. These are texts that often get assigned in course readings, and which Masters and Doctoral degree candidates are expected to have read, and to know well. As graduate students, we know the frustrations and challenges these texts can pose, for graduates, undergraduates, and lay readers alike.

We offer this section of the site as a resource for reviewers, and those who aspire to write for the journal. Here you can write a short (or long) summary, review or response to a book, journal article, or other materials that you regard as key to understanding some aspect of American Studies. These summaries will not be considered for publication in the NeoAmericanist.

For the sake of generating meaningful discussion, and responses from other readers, we ask that your summaries be at least 250 words, and simply address any aspect of an American Studies text/journal article at least ten years old (particularly 'classic' texts such as those that usually end up on syllabi and in PhD 'field' reading lists). NOTE: Summaries that do not meet the basic criteria for academic discussion may be deleted by the Reviews team.


GregoryKlages
GregoryKlages 		Latest page update: made by GregoryKlages , Sep 17 2008, 10:11 AM EDT (about this update About This Update GregoryKlages Intro text provided. - GregoryKlages

209 words added

view changes
- complete history)
Keyword tags: classics
More Info: links to this page

Threads for this page

Started By Thread Subject Replies Last Post
RahmaJerad Film Review: Sex and the City, by Michael Patrick King. 1 Oct 1 2009, 11:47 AM EDT by GregoryKlages
Thread started: Sep 14 2009, 4:27 PM EDT  Watch
When first broadcast in 1998, the HBO series turned the world of TV series upside down. The show openly and humorously displayed the sexual lives of contemporary New York women, thus debunking some stereotypes about female sexuality. Unfortunately, Sex and the City the movie was quite the disappointment because, among other reasons, it follows the typical chick-flick plot. Carrie Bradshaw is finally going to marry Mr Big and while she is busy with the preparations of the wedding at the New York Public Library, Mr Big isn’t thrilled by the perspective of a public ceremony. On D day, while on his way to the Public Library, he decides to call off the wedding, while she is already on the premises. But as soon as he realizes his mistake, he turns back to join Carrie and apologizes for his blunder. But Carrie refuses to have him back. That’s the start of her long journey through depression, first in a luxurious Mexican palace, then in her cosy NYC flat, with the help of her friends and Louise, her new assistant who, just like Carry, happens to be a fashion addict, with a fetishism for expansive designer handbags. After a long path out of depression, Ms Bradshaw randomly meets Mr Big and they finally get married.

Besides the typical plot, the movie is merely a juxtaposition of clichés about women, from the Cinderella-like happy ending to Bradshaw's obsessions for expensive designer shoes. Women here are just as materialistic, hysterical and depressed as in any other misogynistic film or piece of literature. The movie seems to be part of a trend in recent romantic comedies such as The Wedding Planner (2001), 27 Dresses (2008), or Made of Honor (2008) where the heroines’ ultimate goal in life is to get married and have a perfect wedding ceremony. The US film industry is thus perpetuating the idea that women’s main goal in life is, and should be, to get married, which merely perpetuates a centuries-old stereotype and puts the feminist movement in the trash.
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: Gender representation. Movie
Show Last Reply
RahmaJerad “American Journalism,” a presentation by W. Joseph Campbell 0 Sep 13 2009, 4:18 PM EDT by RahmaJerad
Thread started: Sep 13 2009, 4:18 PM EDT  Watch
In his latest book, W. Joseph Campbell considers the year 1897 to be defining for US journalism. He first enumerates important events that took place in 1897 and convincingly shows that historic developments towards modernity marked that year. It is thus hardly surprising that American journalism too started acquiring modern features. Then Campbell delineates the major novelties of American journalism such as the coinage of the expression "yellow journalism." Finally, he deals with “the clash of paradigms.” 1897 saw the emergence of three paradigms set by three young New York journalists. According to the first paradigm, or “journalism of action,” journalists had to be active in public life and take action when the government failed to serve its citizens. The second, “counter activist journalism,” was defined by Adolph Ochs of the New York Times, who considered that activism had no place in newspapers. Their purpose was to provide an impartial treatment of the news. And the third trend was more of a literary approach. The struggle of each to impose its view ended with the victory of the New York Times model. To conclude, Campbell explains that more than a simple exploration of the past his book draws an invigorating parallel because American journalism emerged strengthened from that period.
Overall, what is most fascinating is Campbell's typology of the three kinds of journalistic writing. By addressing the rise of the New York Times model as the result of a struggle to define the most appropriate form of journalism, he gives keys to understand how the current newspapers were shaped. More interesting is the parallel between the past and the present. For we are in a period of great turmoil with the decline of newspapers in Western countries. So Campbell's book helps us put things into perspective, take some distance from the current alarmist forecasts and hope that from the current crisis a new model of journalism will emerge and thrive.
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: 1897 American journalism New York W. Joseph Campbell webcast review
GregoryKlages What texts should I write about? 0 Sep 19 2008, 12:03 PM EDT by GregoryKlages
Thread started: Sep 19 2008, 12:03 PM EDT  Watch
Feel free to tell us what 'classic' or 'crucial' (both of these attributes would, of course, be contestable by others) texts you would like to read someone's review of, and responses to.

As a place to start, I'd like to see some commentary on:
Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States" (orig. 1980).

Noam Chomsky, any of his many titles, but particularly, "Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and U.S. Political Culture" (1993).

John Gaddis, "Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security" (1982)

Laurie Olsen and Herbert Kohl. "Made in America: Immigrant Students in Our Public Schools" (1997).

Michael Steiner and Wayne Franklin, "Taking Place: Toward the Regrounding of American Studies." In Franklin and Steiner, eds., Mapping American Culture. Iowa City, Univ. of Iowa Press, 1992, pp. 3-23.

Robert Putnam, "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community" (2000).

Ray Oldenburg, "The Great Good Place", (1991).
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None
Showing 3 of 3 threads for this page