Rating: 
Summary: Wal-Mart: "good merchandise"?
Review: If you're new to White's lingo and need a definition of the "Middle Mind," see Kevin Currie's review above.As he states there: "Don't shop at wal-mart, even though they have good prices and merchandise. Don't watch TV, because despite the fact that it is entertaining, it is not deep." I'll explain: A "middle-mind" goes to Wal-Mart, because he or she is unable to get past "good prices"--unable to comprehend the REAL cultural price of "good prices." So what if they have to lock their janitors in the store--so what if they use illegal, underpaid labor! Their prices are "good." Good prices are, well, GOOD! A middle mind thinks, too, that Wal-Mart sells "good merchandise," and cannot grasp the reality of the situation: Wal-Mart sells the cheapest garbage it can get its hands on; it WANTS a quick shelf-life. Then you have to buy more! A middle mind REALLY THINKS AND BELIEVES that the primary purpose of television is "to entertain!" And even scarier, as White would agree, I think--these are the stated beliefs of an educated human--an aspiring academic, even! If you agree with Mr. Currie, you are the subject of the book, and will not like it--will probably be insulted by it, in fact. If you see any irony at all here, you will love it.
Rating: 
Summary: Simultaneously Engaging and Erudite
Review: It seems to me that Curtis White's engaging new book, "The Middle Mind," stands at least partly within the continuum that includes Mark Dery's book, "The Pyrotechnic Insanitarium: American Culture on the Brink," (Grove Press, 1999); Todd Gitlin's book, "Media Unlimited: How the Torrents of Images and Sounds Overwhelms Our Lives," (Henry Holt, 2001); and Thomas de Zengotita's essay "The Numbing of the American Mind," (Harper's Magazine, April 2002). Drawing broadly and expertly upon diverse sources from literature, art, film, technology, philosophy, and politics, Dr. White invites, and even implores us, to think and reflect critically upon the socially and politically orthodox metanarratives (overarching stories) that have come to characterize, define, and render largely insensate our present-day American life. He speaks of the commodification of dissent, of how we have become passive spectators (p. 99), and of our own unrecognized militarization (p. 102). Throughout his work, White draws explicit linkage among capitalism, technology, and militarism. He also delivers scalding criticism of current American foreign policy. Signficantly, White's call is for us to think--to imagine positive futures--as a pathway beyond our collective malady of "Middle Mind." Reading and thinking about this volume is well worth the investment of effort. Robert S. Frey, Editor/Publisher
BRIDGES: An Interdisciplinary Journal
www.bridges23.com
Rating:
Summary: Simultaneously Engaging and Erudite
Review: It seems to me that Curtis White's engaging new book, "The Middle Mind," stands at least partly within the continuum that includes Mark Dery's book, "The Pyrotechnic Insanitarium: American Culture on the Brink," (Grove Press, 1999); Todd Gitlin's book, "Media Unlimited: How the Torrents of Images and Sounds Overwhelms Our Lives," (Henry Holt, 2001); and Thomas de Zengotita's essay "The Numbing of the American Mind," (Harper's Magazine, April 2002). Drawing broadly and expertly upon diverse sources from literature, art, film, technology, philosophy, and politics, Dr. White invites, and even implores us, to think and reflect critically upon the socially and politically orthodox metanarratives (overarching stories) that have come to characterize, define, and render largely insensate our present-day American life. He speaks of the commodification of dissent, of how we have become passive spectators (p. 99), and of our own unrecognized militarization (p. 102). Throughout his work, White draws explicit linkage among capitalism, technology, and militarism. He also delivers scalding criticism of current American foreign policy. Signficantly, White's call is for us to think--to imagine positive futures--as a pathway beyond our collective malady of "Middle Mind." Reading and thinking about this volume is well worth the investment of effort. Robert S. Frey, Editor/Publisher
BRIDGES: An Interdisciplinary Journal
www.bridges23.com
Rating: 
Summary: His own favorite person
Review: It's hard to dislike a book that skewers John Seabrook, not to mention Bloom, D'Sousa, and English Department faculty who think they are political scientists . . . but this is a difficult book to warm up to. The problem is, I think, that it's poorly written. White bounces between little jokes, truncated academic arguments, and insightful observations about American society while the reader just holds on to his racing prose. It's more a rant than an argument. If I had been his editor, I would have said, "This is great, Curtis. It's good that you got this out of your system. NOW you can write an actual book about this subject." I think I agree with his basic views, but his arguments wander off into fogs of compacted references and then are abruptly announced as completed: "Now, having finished with the left, I'll critique the right." Finished? Had you STARTED? I think my biggest disappointment with the book is that very little of it is actually about the "middle mind" (after reading the book, try to sit down and write a one page essay distinguishing the middle from the lower and upper mind)and virtually none of it is about "why Americans don't think for themselves" (which is the book's subtitle). I've been trying to think of people I could recommend this to (people who don't share the exact same educational background as White), and I can't think of anyone. I really don't know who the audience is for this . . . perhaps graduate students. I am going to use it in my class because I agree with his positions, but think analyzing his statements would be a great exercise in critical thinking. I think the point of a book like this is that it could persuade people who don't already agree with his basic stance. And, in this, I think the book fails.
Rating:
Summary: Worthwhile but mixed bag
Review: Many arguements here need to be made, heard widely, and considered deeply. The cultural criticism and telling 'take' on various writers is thought provoking even if the style is sometimes not as direct as it could be. He does a better job of reviewing authors who mislead and may not "think for themselves" clearly than thouroughly living up to the subtitle about "why Americans (generally?)don't think for themselves". Because the situation is deteriorating rapidly with multimedia replacing thoughtful reading; job training replacing liberal education; professional business/law win-at-all-costs replacing most ethics and humanism; and language itself losing cogency the topics he essays are critical indeed. White also, as ome example, has the guts to tell us the impolite reality that we enjoy the fruits of materialism at the expense of many disadvantaged in the world - directly at their expense more than we think. (The American child's problem is often obesity and boredom and attention deficit syndrome when nearly half the world lives on less than $2 a day and children are malnourished. Fact not liberal softheadedness.) A worthy effort worth revision; the Truths herein deserve it.
Rating:
Summary: A great opportunity squandered
Review: Reading "The Middle Mind" reminds me a bit of when I lived near a Univeristy of California campus and hung out with mostly PhD candidates. There would be moments of sheer brillance mixed in with a general soupy fog of academic lingo, rhetoric and, at times, arrogance. Curtis White has a theory that makes a lot of sense. As a former director of a political non-profit charged with the task of mobilizing grassroots Americans I saw the "middle mind" at work on a daily basis. Very basic critiques of US governmental policy seemed incomprehensible to people who definitely had the intelligence to figure it all out. But many couldn't. Why? I think Curtis White has something here with this book. This is why I picked it up with such enthusiasm. When you've got a great idea like White you're charged with two specific tasks. One, present the theory. Two, illustrate how this theory reflects reality by using specific examples. It is in the examples that White gets bogged down. I cheered when I read his critique of "Saving Private Ryan." Some of his arguments were the very same thoughts I had when I first saw the movie. The character of "Upham" the translator was a blatant attack on compassion, on intellectuals, and anything or anyone who doesn't follow the American way. Unfortunately, as White points out, very few people were able to "read" the movie and see these underlying messages. Then White goes after college "Cultural Studies" programs. When you look at the book you get the idea that this is supposed by about why _most_ Americans have a middle mind. Concentrating on cultural studies reveals White's weak spot. He's an academic and, like many academics, he's been in his isolated world too much. As a lawyer once told me, "Don't worry, it's all a tempest in teapot." That describes perfectly the political turmoil on a lot of US college campuses. This is not to say that cultural studies hasn't had an impact. But to suggest that it deserves this much attention is just more ivory tower arrogance. Another kind of mistake White makes is in picking less obvious targets like Terry Gross's "Fresh Air." Coming up with a theory can be a moment of genius. Going after an NPR radio personality who projects a smart and extremely pleasant demeanor is simply not a good way to endear potential believers in that theory. Even if White is correct about Gross, it's just not smart if you want people to actually believe in what you say. You turn them off because you've insulted someone they happen to think is a nice person. Overall, I think White can't see the forest through the trees. The big picture here are the larger issues - politics, social movements, that sort of thing. A huge percentage of Americans have seen "Saving Private Ryan." That same huge percentage also tends to blindly support US foreign policy. There's a loose connection there and its important. Focusing on the micro culture of academic theory, however, has very little relation to the lives of everyday Americans. Any effect it has had is surely minimal. If White had just stuck to more commonly shared American sources of information and culture such as "Saving Private Ryan" this book could have had a far more reaching impact. I will give White credit, however, for being fairly impartial in aiming his criticisms. While he happens to like Zinn and Chomsky, he also attacks, for example, the New Age movement and political correctness. This is important because the middle mind, as I witnessed in my own experience working in politics, is not exclusive to a political ideology. Each side has certain weak spots. On the right you've got people who follow George W. Bush without question. On the other you've got leftists who blindly believe that Mumia Abu Jamal is as innocent as driven snow and anyone who says otherwise is a racist. Both mentalities depict a certain amount of intellectual laziness - a middle mind. Overall, White has made the revolutionary act of describing the reality we live in. Americans don't think. How he went about doing this is a disappointing squandered opportunity.
Rating:
Summary: A great opportunity squandered
Review: Reading "The Middle Mind" reminds me a bit of when I lived near a Univeristy of California campus and hung out with mostly PhD candidates. There would be moments of sheer brillance mixed in with a general soupy fog of academic lingo, rhetoric and, at times, arrogance. Curtis White has a theory that makes a lot of sense. As a former director of a political non-profit charged with the task of mobilizing grassroots Americans I saw the "middle mind" at work on a daily basis. Very basic critiques of US governmental policy seemed incomprehensible to people who definitely had the intelligence to figure it all out. But many couldn't. Why? I think Curtis White has something here with this book. This is why I picked it up with such enthusiasm. When you've got a great idea like White you're charged with two specific tasks. One, present the theory. Two, illustrate how this theory reflects reality by using specific examples. It is in the examples that White gets bogged down. I cheered when I read his critique of "Saving Private Ryan." Some of his arguments were the very same thoughts I had when I first saw the movie. The character of "Upham" the translator was a blatant attack on compassion, on intellectuals, and anything or anyone who doesn't follow the American way. Unfortunately, as White points out, very few people were able to "read" the movie and see these underlying messages. Then White goes after college "Cultural Studies" programs. When you look at the book you get the idea that this is supposed by about why _most_ Americans have a middle mind. Concentrating on cultural studies reveals White's weak spot. He's an academic and, like many academics, he's been in his isolated world too much. As a lawyer once told me, "Don't worry, it's all a tempest in teapot." That describes perfectly the political turmoil on a lot of US college campuses. This is not to say that cultural studies hasn't had an impact. But to suggest that it deserves this much attention is just more ivory tower arrogance. Another kind of mistake White makes is in picking less obvious targets like Terry Gross's "Fresh Air." Coming up with a theory can be a moment of genius. Going after an NPR radio personality who projects a smart and extremely pleasant demeanor is simply not a good way to endear potential believers in that theory. Even if White is correct about Gross, it's just not smart if you want people to actually believe in what you say. You turn them off because you've insulted someone they happen to think is a nice person. Overall, I think White can't see the forest through the trees. The big picture here are the larger issues - politics, social movements, that sort of thing. A huge percentage of Americans have seen "Saving Private Ryan." That same huge percentage also tends to blindly support US foreign policy. There's a loose connection there and its important. Focusing on the micro culture of academic theory, however, has very little relation to the lives of everyday Americans. Any effect it has had is surely minimal. If White had just stuck to more commonly shared American sources of information and culture such as "Saving Private Ryan" this book could have had a far more reaching impact. I will give White credit, however, for being fairly impartial in aiming his criticisms. While he happens to like Zinn and Chomsky, he also attacks, for example, the New Age movement and political correctness. This is important because the middle mind, as I witnessed in my own experience working in politics, is not exclusive to a political ideology. Each side has certain weak spots. On the right you've got people who follow George W. Bush without question. On the other you've got leftists who blindly believe that Mumia Abu Jamal is as innocent as driven snow and anyone who says otherwise is a racist. Both mentalities depict a certain amount of intellectual laziness - a middle mind. Overall, White has made the revolutionary act of describing the reality we live in. Americans don't think. How he went about doing this is a disappointing squandered opportunity.
Rating:
Summary: Well done
Review: Some very strong points. Sometimes tends to spend too much time on certain deconstructions, but overall a worth read
Rating: 
Summary: The Author is a Genius... in his Own Eyes.
Review: The author's thesis in this book is simple: Americans cannot appreciate the aesthetical qualities of art and poetry. If only Americans understood his heroes--Ezra Pound, the poet, and Theodore Adorno, the art critic--all would be well, or at least significantly better. Such a claim is implausible. For example, why is it the lack of aesthetical sense as opposed to lower educational standards in general? Why is the undeniable void in the average American's knowledge of poetry and art criticism a more significant factor in the "dumbing down" of American than, say, scientific or mathematical illiteracy, lack of knowledge of American history, or other more obvious choices? Implausibility aside, this book would be worth reading if it gave us a good fight--if it provided some evidence for its main claim. And here's the book main weakness: it produces virtually NO evidence to support this claim. I don't mean that the evidence is not convincing, or weak, or perhaps flawed in other ways. I mean there is no evidence to be had. Instead, the book is simply a rant about: how awful things are; how correctly Adorno, Proust, and the author's other heroes of aesthetics predicted how awful things will become; why the author, with his superior aesthetic education, is so much better than all you stupid people who haven't read Ezra Pound. The lack of evidence, together with the constant harping on the author's own superiority to others, shows us what the author's REAL "argument" in support of his unlikely thesis is: 1). I've read Ezra Pound and Adorno; 2). I am infinitely superior to other people; therefore, 3). reading Pound and Adorno makes you superior, and not reading them makes you inferior. Q.E.D. If the author only claimed to be superior in his aethetic taste and knowledge to othersthing about this book is that he truly believes his superior aesthetics makes him superior to others in EVERYTHING. He effortlessly tell us "the truth" about world (and American) politics, terrorism, economics, globalization, war, media, and so on. How did he figure out the truth? He used his aesthetic sense. Generally speaking, his method is to figure out if a certain action would meet with the approval or disapproval of Pound and/or Adorno. If it does, it's good. If it doesn't, it's bad. That's it. This is all you need to know to run the world's only superpower. This is the secret decoder-ring formula to solving the world's problems. In sum, the author is merely stroking his own ego, and wondering why, oh why, the world doesn't recognize that, since he read Pound and Adorno (yes, he DOES mention them almost as frequently in the book as I do in this review), he is infinitely superior to everybody else and has all the answers. Surely, the ONLY reason this is the case is because America is in terrible decline--"the middle mind", which doesnt care about Mr. P. and Mr. A., has taken over. What a catastrophe. Or not.
Rating:
Summary: Now, what was the Middle Mind again?
Review: The best thing about Curtis White's The Middle Mind: Why Americans Don't Think for Themselves is the title. This is a disappointing book-a dizzying hodgepodge of discursive cultural criticism interspersed with long stretches of pretentious nonsense. Despite the book's title, there emerges no coherent description of the "Middle Mind," much less an analysis of why Americans don't think for themselves. Indeed, White's Middle Mind idea is so poorly developed that it almost seems to have been inserted after the book was written when his publisher told him that he needed to have a point. The one clear, unifying element in the book is White's disdain for those he considers his intellectual inferiors, which seems to include just about everyone except for Wallace Stevens and Jacques Derrida. What is White's solution for the "poverty of imagination" which now cripples American thought? I'm not sure, but it seems to be poetry (preferably that of Wallace Stevens, whom he quotes ad nausaem). Many of White's complaints are quite apt, such as the recent "postmodern" tendency to turn art into sociology. However, he throws much of his credibility to the wind because of his tendency to judge everything according to whether or not it sufficiently subverts the status quo-which is the first step in thinking about art in strictly sociological terms! All of this culminates in a crescendo of gibberish in the final chapter, entitled "Notes Toward the Next American Sublime," which reads like a series of randomly selected excerpts from research papers of undergraduate film students.
Despite the book's flaws, it is a worthwhile read-not least for his delightful analysis of the opening scene of the film Saving Private Ryan.
| 
