Rating: 
Summary: Should be Required Reading in High School
Review: For me, this book had one especially redeeming quality among its many - No longer could I consider myself the grouchiest grouch on the planet.By cutting through our phony pomposity and inability to recognize quality, Fussell exposes our us as a nation of shallow, self-congratulating losers who believe that it is alright to delude ourselves into believing we are something we are not. Specifically, deep thinking, conscientious citizens. To take something that is merely bad, and by promotion and hyperbole, convince the public that it is not bad, but good and even better than all the rest - we then achieve BAD. From movies to books to ideas to ostentatious restaurants and all the rest. Personally, I loved his skewering rant of the soapy Andrew Lloyd Webber, who, along with Mickey Mouse are my personal poster twins for the Dumbing of America. And if Fussell ridiculed the elections of Ronald Regan and George H. Bush, one can only wonder what the temperment of the book might be if it were being written today. Since this book was published, much more BAD has crept into our lives. From overbearing and attention needing cell phone abusers to major market quick read newspapers that make USA Today seem almost journalstic, our addiction to BAD behavior and kitsch make us considerably more transparent than we were when the book was published in 1991. I have enjoyed some of the reader comments in this section. Especially the comments from those who are offended by the fact that Fussell has challenged the ideas with which they have been branded. Their offense comes not at the fact that their institutions have been attacked, but that they have been duped into believing that these very institutions were necessary, important and relevent. On the downside, the book ended simply as a criticism, without relief. Unlike Steve Allen's "Dumbth," where dozens of suggestions for improvement are offered from one of the most thoughful minds of the century, B.A.D. sheds precious little light in the direction of redemption. The book could have used a few more chapters pointing the way. Nonetheless, I highly recommend this book to parents, teachers, students and to anyone in our society who believes that a college degree is a synonym for education, or that walking around the mall is the epitomy of cultural achievement.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a bad book, but still BAD.
Review: Fussell already said it, and said it with more wit and subtlety, in Class. Has he run out of ideas? Does he need to make a quick buck? He was once capable of so much better...
Rating:
Summary: It didn't teach anything I didn't already know.
Review: Fussell distinguished between bad and BAD. Bad is obvious trash, but BAD is obvious trash which people think good. The main problem with book is that we all know that USA Today, airports, Hollywood movies, televangelists, and politicians stink. So why read 200 pages about it? Especially if the 200 pages aren't funny enough to justify the time wasted. The minor problem with the book is that Fussell doesn't know enough about economics. So he favors some sort of socialism. You can read this book in under three hours, but why bother, and why waste your money? Read his _Class_ instead.
Rating:
Summary: Sometimes over-the-top yet valuable
Review: Fussell's ability to gainsay any grove of academe that is less than Ivy-League comes from his teaching at one, no doubt. As in "Class," I think that he shows too little sympathy for children of the lower or middle classes who sincerely wish to "improve themselves" but whose curious eyes are bigger than their wallets; and to the schools that are open to them. Self-improvement projects are one characteristic of the American middle class, at least traditionally, that it is only cruel to ridicule in principle, and there just isn't room enough in Harvard et al. to accommodate everyone.
Aside from this quibble, however, I'm all with the admiring commentators. Particularly telling is the chapter on BAD engineering, in that this output is eventually identifiable. While the BADness of a hat or a piece of music may be thought entirely a question of taste, some things need to WORK: a bridge that collapses into the water or an airplane that falls out of the air all by itself is an undoubted failure. Then comes an interesting QED, perhaps more implied than explicit: the uncanny resemblance between the producers and promoters of BAD engineering and those of BAD things-that-people-say-are-relative. Maybe they aren't so relative, after all.
Rating: 
Summary: A Tedious Rant
Review: I agree with the criticisms already made against Fussell's book. Nothing in this vapid book is original (either compared to Fussell's earlier work or to many other rants in the world at large). In fact, once one finishes this book, the overall feeling one is left with upon reflection of Fussell's "observations" is, "No sh-t." I would venture to say that this is one of the most egregious examples of "no sh-t" ranting I have read or heard in a long time. What's worse is the complete lack of any coherent principle or sensibility in this book. While Fussell rails against elitism and snobbery, he (as one reviewer here already observes) nevertheless displays a clear affinity for the Ivy League and the like. More specifically, he complains about the uneducated hordes, all the while damning their efforts at a college education merely because they are not all attending Yale or Harvard (of course, if Yale or Harvard were to admit more students, he would no doubt complain about that as well). Similarly, Fussell displays contempt toward those not "classically" and broadly trained in poetry, philosophy, or language, but he curiously ignores the fact that a broad, classical education involves the sciences as well (see Newton, Copernicus, Gallileo, et al.). In sum, the only coherent vision I can find in this book is Fussell's bitterness against all things that he is not, and more to the point, his bitterness over America's valuation of such things. He is essentially bemoaning the fact that bookish humanities professors are not as valued or as highly rewarded in our society as, say, politicians, engineers, lawyers, or rock stars. Although his point has some merit, this book, with all its verbiage and hostility, has almost none.
Rating:
Summary: Why the IV Leagues Won't Save Us From the Bad
Review: I had to nod, and chuckle, and grin, and finally get out of bed for a smoke in the middle of reading this book. The reason for the nods, chuckles, and grins should be obvious to anyone who picks this book up: kitsch is always easy to laugh at. And American kitsch is even easier to laugh at because I'm accustomed to it. But then, somewhere, in the middle of the laughs, Fussell gets pretentious. That's when I took the smoke break. Here's what happened: in the chapter "BAD Colleges and Universities," Fussell argues (essentially) that degrees from colleges outside the IV Leagues are BAD, but degrees from stodgy old Eastern Seaboard Colleges are good. Why? Because state colleges and universities focus too much on creating professionals, and too little on imparting intelligence. I couldn't agree more with this last point. But we absolutely must recall that the IV Leagues (Harvard, Yale, and so on) crank out most of the bad players in our culture, in addition to the good ones. Both Bushes, for example, graduated from Yale. I think we can probably find a state school student who knows more about the classics than they do. (I could talk about the way the way the Bennetton family managed to convince a friend of mine during a lecture at Harvard that THEIR brand of globalization is good because THEY donate to Buddhist temples, but I won't. Anyway, does the idea that a single clothing line should be a way of "uniting colors [nationalities]" suggest a ubiquitous European kind of BAD?) Further, Fussell's argument in this regard absolutely contradicts itself. He lambasts small (or new) schools for focusing on athletics over academics, as he should. But he fails to remind us that the IV Leagues (all the schools he elevates to heavenly levels) got that name (and a lot of their dollars) from their at one time excellent football teams. Yes, Harvard and Yale are "Ivy" League schools because of sports, not academics. Check out the Harvard application online some time, too. They actually ask if you're blue blood! Inbreeding makes smarts? This is not to say that the academics at the IVs aren't great, if the students want them to be. But the students from his model schools are also perfectly capable of being idiots. And students from state schools are perfectly capable of being ingenious. Further, Fussell fails to remind us how much of the bad actually CAME FROM the "top" schools. Currently they're cranking out people called "cultural critics." In case you're not up on the latest, these cats aren't "critics" at all, and some of them have even managed to convince their friends that Madonna is an important feminist symbol. Ironically, the so-called "BAD" state schools have resisted the trends toward academic doublethink, and it's often at those schools that a student gets to read, and APPRECIATE, the classics of thought and literature Fussell rightly praises. Further, Fussell fails to distinguish between tacky and BAD. For example, if the Franklin Mint is BAD, what does that make the Federal Reserve? If Stallone movies are bad, what does that make Hollywood? I would say that Stallone movies are tacky, but Hollywood is BAD. The Franklin mint is tacky, but the Federal Reserve is BAD. Most of what you'll find in this book relates what is tacky in American culture, and that's not really going to help anyone progress culturally, or politically. This must be a book for the self-hating middle class. If you want to know what's BAD in American culture, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. May I recommend checking out the Freedom Press and some free Jello Biafra MP3s that are lying around the Internet? Yes, it was a worthwhile cigarette.
Rating:
Summary: Why the IV Leagues Won't Save Us From the Bad
Review: I had to nod, and chuckle, and grin, and finally get out of bed for a smoke in the middle of reading this book. The reason for the nods, chuckles, and grins should be obvious to anyone who picks this book up: kitsch is always easy to laugh at. And American kitsch is even easier to laugh at because I'm accustomed to it. But then, somewhere, in the middle of the laughs, Fussell gets pretentious. That's when I took the smoke break. Here's what happened: in the chapter "BAD Colleges and Universities," Fussell argues (essentially) that degrees from colleges outside the IV Leagues are BAD, but degrees from stodgy old Eastern Seaboard Colleges are good. Why? Because state colleges and universities focus too much on creating professionals, and too little on imparting intelligence. I couldn't agree more with this last point. But we absolutely must recall that the IV Leagues (Harvard, Yale, and so on) crank out most of the bad players in our culture, in addition to the good ones. Both Bushes, for example, graduated from Yale. I think we can probably find a state school student who knows more about the classics than they do. (I could talk about the way the way the Bennetton family managed to convince a friend of mine during a lecture at Harvard that THEIR brand of globalization is good because THEY donate to Buddhist temples, but I won't. Anyway, does the idea that a single clothing line should be a way of "uniting colors [nationalities]" suggest a ubiquitous European kind of BAD?) Further, Fussell's argument in this regard absolutely contradicts itself. He lambasts small (or new) schools for focusing on athletics over academics, as he should. But he fails to remind us that the IV Leagues (all the schools he elevates to heavenly levels) got that name (and a lot of their dollars) from their at one time excellent football teams. Yes, Harvard and Yale are "Ivy" League schools because of sports, not academics. Check out the Harvard application online some time, too. They actually ask if you're blue blood! Inbreeding makes smarts? This is not to say that the academics at the IVs aren't great, if the students want them to be. But the students from his model schools are also perfectly capable of being idiots. And students from state schools are perfectly capable of being ingenious. Further, Fussell fails to remind us how much of the bad actually CAME FROM the "top" schools. Currently they're cranking out people called "cultural critics." In case you're not up on the latest, these cats aren't "critics" at all, and some of them have even managed to convince their friends that Madonna is an important feminist symbol. Ironically, the so-called "BAD" state schools have resisted the trends toward academic doublethink, and it's often at those schools that a student gets to read, and APPRECIATE, the classics of thought and literature Fussell rightly praises. Further, Fussell fails to distinguish between tacky and BAD. For example, if the Franklin Mint is BAD, what does that make the Federal Reserve? If Stallone movies are bad, what does that make Hollywood? I would say that Stallone movies are tacky, but Hollywood is BAD. The Franklin mint is tacky, but the Federal Reserve is BAD. Most of what you'll find in this book relates what is tacky in American culture, and that's not really going to help anyone progress culturally, or politically. This must be a book for the self-hating middle class. If you want to know what's BAD in American culture, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. May I recommend checking out the Freedom Press and some free Jello Biafra MP3s that are lying around the Internet? Yes, it was a worthwhile cigarette.
Rating:
Summary: Author As BADly Pretentious And False As His Targets
Review: I hope no one spends money on this useless rant. Any sane person is left wondering what the hell this author DOES like? I agree that bad sitcoms and People magazine are trashy, but this guy knocks everything! He seems to speak against British pretentiousness, but enjoys sabbaticals in pricey London. He was well-off enough to attend posh universities, all the while knocking the lower-priced ones. He slams the lower and middle classes, while pretending to be "above classism." Not a page goes by where he doesn't insult Reagan. This snob even hates graduation ceremonies, university logos, the flag, and the bicentennial back in '76. The piece de resistance (he DOES love French snobbery) is when he blames the US Navy for Lockerbie. What DOES this clown like? Oh, check out the photo in back. Aren't ugly toupees and shoes without socks BAD?
Rating:
Summary: Professor Heal Thyself
Review: In the eight years between his insightful and trenchant "Class" (1983) and this book, Prof. Fussell has evidently come to the conclusion that the only way to get a message across to the American public is to shout at them. This is simply "Class" sectioned up into bite-sized bits, given larger print, boldfaced introductions, and a more hostile edge. Some of the book makes its points well - BAD poetry, BAD airports, BAD books, BAD movies, BAD universities (although he possesses a patrician disdain for any university outside the Ivies or their peers) - but the outrage is less compelling than his besumed take on American culture in " Class". I didn't always like his former book but at least there his observations on American cultural practices tied neatly into his thesis on their class-based character, but here an original thesis is non-existent. BAD is simply a synonym for "kitsch" - substitute the two words and Fussell's BAD becomes a tired rehash of elite American cultural criticism but made easier to read and quickier to digest. In other words, BAD is BAD Criticism - it gives the appearance of a serious and penetrating work but is geared (rather contemptuously) toward a mass audience apparently too dull to read anything that may contain a dependent clause. It's rather sad to see an intelligent critic fall victim to the disease he decries but Fussell has managed to go from "The Great War and Modern Memory" to this undisciplined rant in a mere twenty years and that's too BAD.
Rating:
Summary: Professor Heal Thyself
Review: In the eight years between his insightful and trenchant "Class" (1983) and this book, Prof. Fussell has evidently come to the conclusion that the only way to get a message across to the American public is to shout at them. This is simply "Class" sectioned up into bite-sized bits, given larger print, boldfaced introductions, and a more hostile edge. Some of the book makes its points well - BAD poetry, BAD airports, BAD books, BAD movies, BAD universities (although he possesses a patrician disdain for any university outside the Ivies or their peers) - but the outrage is less compelling than his besumed take on American culture in " Class". I didn't always like his former book but at least there his observations on American cultural practices tied neatly into his thesis on their class-based character, but here an original thesis is non-existent. BAD is simply a synonym for "kitsch" - substitute the two words and Fussell's BAD becomes a tired rehash of elite American cultural criticism but made easier to read and quickier to digest. In other words, BAD is BAD Criticism - it gives the appearance of a serious and penetrating work but is geared (rather contemptuously) toward a mass audience apparently too dull to read anything that may contain a dependent clause. It's rather sad to see an intelligent critic fall victim to the disease he decries but Fussell has managed to go from "The Great War and Modern Memory" to this undisciplined rant in a mere twenty years and that's too BAD.
|
