Strausbaugh's first few chapters were almost enough to, in any other context, make me discredit the book and put it down as not so useful. Some of the "facts" seemed not so factual and sometimes plainly used out of any educated context. (An early example of this is when, on page 39, Strausbaugh says that the soon to be enslaved West Africans saw Western sails as "demonic". Any study of traditional West African wordview and religion will clearly state that West Africans neither believed in demons or the traditionally evil vs. good protestant worldview. For West Africans, good and evil worked hand in hand to create a balanced society. Evil was just as useful as good, and "demonic" as an adjective, if used, would not have had a negative conotation as it does in the western world.) Besides this, and even after finishing the book, I don't think that Strausbaugh had a decidedly identifiable audience. The book was much too generalized and unannotated to be aimed at an academic audience, but it also assumed too much retractable knowledge of specific names and types, the hotentot for example, to be aimed at a more general public.
These things aside, there was no evidence of a real organizational strategy. I kept having to look back at the titles of chapters to remember what it was I was supposed to be reading about. In the Afterword by James, he says that Strausbaugh is "explor"ing blackface and minstrelsy. Yeah, he's exploring in an unlit room with arms outstretched.
These couple of three aspects of the book were so alarmingly distracting so that I was only able to concentrate on the content of the book by the third or so chapter. From that point, I tried to ignore the instances where the above discussed showed up.
So, the thesis is I don't know. Americans are mutts. Got it. Contemporary social issues and music have a history. Duh.
I did find interesting the reoccurence of queer theory within the text, given more time in the afterword. But, there was never any real connection made between all the various topics explored. It's interesting stuff. I look forward to seeing how it came together for you all. Oh, and I do have a thing or two to say about how he approaches southern dialect. Yep, that's all folks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I really would have to disagree with you about the validity of this book. Just because the author was flip about the topic and played around with it a bit doesn't mean he should not be considered a valid resource. Furthermore, he appears to not be as liberal as many in academia are today. Is he wrong because he has some conservative views sometimes? Isn't that a bit biased? I guess that's my take on it. I feel he did a great job not only presenting the information but also in keeping the reader interested, even if he uses a somewhat controversial method for discussion.
I felt he manipulated some information to get his point across in a get attention sort of way. I feel cheated, as a reader, when I know the facts are not put before me as such. As we know, the book has gotten attention, even from academic circles. So, I think you're right in posing that he has a way of reaching an audience. I think that audience may be quite specific though, an audience that responds to exactly his tone towards the material. And, hey, it's alot to cover.
I think you can definetly play with a topic, approach a topic, anyway you choose. I do take issue with authors that use information for their own intention and purpose.
And, I didn't consider the author conservative. That adjective didn't even enter my mind. I don't think the context of the book would allow me to consider him conservative. But, I don't think he did a good job of making his point. Putting blackface into the context of the social timeframe would have done a better job of rhetorically presenting his position.
Post a Comment