Postmodernism and Popular Culture : A Cultural History

Rating:
Summary: Adolescent Petulance from a Converted Poststructuralist
Review: John Docker demonstrates the kind of arrogance that is so prevalent in academia. He has a massive chip on his shoulder and, apparently, thinks that being a critic means he can criticize without maintaining any consistency within his logic. In his world modernity is equivilent to elitism, and an epithet to be hurled at anyone who doesn't maintain his standards of poststructuralism (Apparently Docker believes that poststructuralism and postmodernity are the same thing). He praises Benjamin for the complexity of his writings yet simplifies him into a pro-mass media precursor. Derrida is derided as postivistic, Jameson and Baudrillard are dismissed as modernists, and Adorno and Horkeimer are ignored as classist. Anyone who dare disagree with Docker's positive take on pop culture is, through Docker's hyperbole, seen as portraying mass culture as "evil and satanic".

His discrediting of various authors utilizes extensive paraphrasing with his own editorial slant and re-contexturalizing. A common complaint of his is that authors over-generalize from limited examples yet he does this exclusively - considering one chapter of one book rather than the entire body of work from each author. He complains when authors speak for others and somehow know what everyone feels yet he does this freely, especially in the sections of self-aggrandizement where he attempts to show his intellectual skills in practice ("see, I got quoted int the newspaper!").

Based upon his shoddy misrepresentation of articles that I am familiar with, there is no reason for me to trust any of his (re)presentation of any of the authors' ideas.

Rating:
Summary: Adolescent Petulance from a Converted Poststructuralist
Review: John Docker demonstrates the kind of arrogance that is so prevalent in academia. He has a massive chip on his shoulder and, apparently, thinks that being a critic means he can criticize without maintaining any consistency within his logic. In his world modernity is equivilent to elitism, and an epithet to be hurled at anyone who doesn't maintain his standards of poststructuralism (Apparently Docker believes that poststructuralism and postmodernity are the same thing). He praises Benjamin for the complexity of his writings yet simplifies him into a pro-mass media precursor. Derrida is derided as postivistic, Jameson and Baudrillard are dismissed as modernists, and Adorno and Horkeimer are ignored as classist. Anyone who dare disagree with Docker's positive take on pop culture is, through Docker's hyperbole, seen as portraying mass culture as "evil and satanic".

His discrediting of various authors utilizes extensive paraphrasing with his own editorial slant and re-contexturalizing. A common complaint of his is that authors over-generalize from limited examples yet he does this exclusively - considering one chapter of one book rather than the entire body of work from each author. He complains when authors speak for others and somehow know what everyone feels yet he does this freely, especially in the sections of self-aggrandizement where he attempts to show his intellectual skills in practice ("see, I got quoted int the newspaper!").

Based upon his shoddy misrepresentation of articles that I am familiar with, there is no reason for me to trust any of his (re)presentation of any of the authors' ideas.

Rating:
Summary: to be slightly more fair
Review: The previous reviewer (pzmolek) didn't really give Docker's book a fair reading. Possibly because a lot of big heroes (Jameson, Adorno, etc...) are trashed by Docker in this book?
Who knows? In any case, the review above is a woeful summary of what was obviously barely more than a skim.

Docker does NOT equate poststructuralism with postmodernism, for example. While he certainly shows inconsistency (most notably in his gushing over Bakhtin), and is not above some self-promotion, his arrogance is hardly beyond the pale in this genre. This is a book that means to be provocative. It's also got some style, some humour, and some (thanks be!) unexpected takes on various issues. Those who have encountered Docker in more typical (and perhaps serious and scholarly) modes, will be aware that he knows his stuff too. Here he is actually trying to reinvigorate (by being nasty and even flippant) a discourse that I think he clearly loves.