Rating: 
Summary: Short of greatness, but still well worth reading.
Review: This book is an intriguing mix of 3 parts literary criticism, and 1 part history. The blend is perhaps the best method of tracing the philosophical history of a movement that I have ever encountered. However, I must confess that since I was expecting a more traditional history it did take a little getting used to. Like another commentator, I was forced to read (or more often read about) much of the tripe Kimball expertly takes apart in this book. As damning as his criticism is, the direct quotes from the works in question were what really nailed it for me. I now understand the political motivation behind the outrageously idealized view of these authors currently pushed in universities, as well as why most students are taught how great the authors were without ever being assigned the works! Where the book falls short is on the actual history side. Kimball only traces the roots of 60s radicalism back to the end of WW II, and in my opinion misses essential historical context. No mention is made of the well organized and often extremely effective effort by Lenin and Stalin et al in the years leading up to and continuing beyond WWII to create a hard left (communist) mindset throughout the industrialized world. Whittaker Chambers' "Witness" and Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley's "Hollywood Party" (each corroborated recently by Soviet archives and the declassified Venona decrypts) both show that while there wasn't "a red under every bed", the CPUSA backed by the Soviet Union was often amazingly effective at influencing US policy as well as popular culture as early as the late 1920s. The authors he reviews may well have been the seed of the 60s movement, but they were planted in a soil that had already been well fertilized. Kimball mentions none of this, even to argue the contrary. Lastly, the book fails entirely to live up to the title. Instead of wrapping up this powerful book by demonstrating how the cultural revolution changed America (or the West in general), he spends his energy criticizing another author's poorly thought out thesis on the subject. The literary criticism angle was great for the rest of the book, but the final chapter was a terrible let down! I can't understand why he chose to do this, because the impact of the 60s philosophy on our nation and culture today is such fertile territory. I was hoping for an analysis of statistics showing the interrelationship between 60s philosophy and present day divorce, violent crime, drug use, etc. I'd say maybe in another book, but given the title of this one I suspect it isn't in the works. If he does do such a book, he might title it "How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America (for real this time)". The above criticisms notwithstanding, this is an excellent book for gaining an understanding of the thought, writings, and some of the history of the 60s. For that alone, I wouldn't pass this book up!
Rating: 
Summary: [Many times I felt like his views were unneccesarily derrogatory]
Review: While Kimball does bring up some valid points as to how the counterculture affected the American culture they way it did there doesn't seem to be many (if anything at all) positive things to say about the sixties and what the counterculture inspired. Many times I felt like his views were unneccesarily derrogatory and never once spoke of anthing that happened in the sixties of any value. He never once spoke about the Black civil rights movement, of MLK jr., Women's Lib, or any other facet of the cultural revolution of the sixties. He discredits the sexual revolution as being nothing but a suspension in the development of the sexuality in the authors who promoted it. He discredits Charles Reich because, as he implies, Reich was unhappy and a repressed (...). Nowadays, after the sexual revolution, the homophobia of yesteryear is gradually dissapating and Reich may have been happier during this time as who he is. While reading this I kept wondering, the cultural revolution of the sixties must have been a result of something. Perhaps it may have resulted from the time before it, maybe the sixties revolution was creeping under the surface of society all along. So why discredit it as nothing more than a farce that continues on through today? Why not accept it for what it was, a reaction to the times before it, an expression of the elephant in the room of post-war America?
| 
