1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Book Review for Anthro Class, but you might get something out of it., April 1, 2009
For my term paper for Anthropology of Homosexualities, and based on related reading in our class, I chose to review and report on "Intertwined Lives: Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict and Their Circle." I personally had no idea either of these women had any connections to the queer community prior to taking this class despite having heard of them, so it was exciting to learn about women who not only shaped the face of anthropology for all time, but also coalesced with one another on their work, on their growth and development, and in love. I would like to mention before we even get started that this book has wonderful pictures that helps bring the book to life. Allow me to show you an example. Now, I am not going to attempt to lure you to read this book by telling and showing you that it has pictures, but how many non-fiction books have you read that have been made bearable and even good by the inclusion of pictures? Be honest with yourself and I think my point is made.
(http://find.galegroup.com/stage/A112404910_DQ1039190.jpeg)
If you take the time to read this entire review, you will see I give it somewhat of a mixed bag review. Please in no way allow this to deter you from reading the book. I am pretty much able to admit I have a huge crush on both Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead now as a result of reading this book, coupled with a need to stifle my desire to switch majors again and my rededication to finding a suitable mentor. I laughed, I cried, (I may have nodded off a few times) and I used the dictionary a lot. Tangible proof that this book impacted my life is evidenced by my new flapper haircut and 1940's feminine aesthetic. It takes an influential book to do all of that! But I digress. This is a solid book by a notable researcher. Lois Banner wrote the introduction to Mead's book on Ruth Benedict, a situation that shows a deep respect for her on Mead's end. I bring up some points about the book that were noticeable to me, a sophomore at City College. In looking around at other book reviewers, a tad late in the game, I am pleased and relieved to see I am not the only person that found the things I found to not work a tad off.
I also attempted to remain more formal in this paper, as you will see following this paragraph. As you may have already inferred, I prefer to use a less formal and more familiar voice in my writing. However, out of respect and admiration for all of these women I honestly tried to stay on point and provide solid critical analysis. So if you are out there reading this someday, Lois Banner, please do not be offended. I loved your book, really. And besides, what do I know? I may be an advanced reader, but really I am brand new to the study of anthropology!
In writing this epic work of regarding two huge personalities and careers, Banner took on a giant task and ended up with an amazing book about the lives and times of Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and their families, friends, adversaries and colleagues. She goes into great detail and provides some amazing insights and in-depth analysis of these powerful women's scope of influence; on others, themselves, and each other. However it is not without its problems. I feel that her analysis is too far reaching at some points and she seemingly take some liberties. I will expound on that idea as this review proceeds.
She starts the book off with a short teaser of Ruth and Margaret's personal relationship, diving straight into the depth of their complex arguments and reasoning for where they were in their lives. This is a snapshot of Rome in 1926, and the prologue was never really brought to any pleasing conclusion in the full text, as it was barely ever mentioned again outside of the idea of Benedict's Sibyls.
This is immediately followed with an in-depth and obviously well researched genealogical profile of both women. The first four chapters of this book are really dry. It was a challenge to make it through this part of the book, and that is not an exaggeration. Expectations are set to read about two brilliant dykes and here I am trying to shuffle 30 different names vague relations and quickly connections... it could have been done in a more imaginative and inviting manner. She could have looked to the writing style of Ruth she obviously coveted and remembered that not everyone reading the book had any concept of either of these women prior to reading it. Of course I am not saying it is not a needed part of the book or that it will be dry reading to all readers. She goes further than that and tries to highlight any reform work being done by woman in their respective families and pioneering attitudes towards women by the male figures in their lives. It brings into focus their similarities and differences which will provide great insight into some aspects of their relationships. It serves its purpose; it is just dull and a taxing way to start a book.
Speaking of dull and boring, I do not want this to be a play by play of the book which is what it is already well on its way to becoming. Forgive me, dear reader, as I lapse out of this and into something a little more critical, in some ways flattering, and hopefully more interesting. So a main point in my book review that I feel the need to mention is that I was left at the end of the book feeling more confused than enlightened in some respects and inspired and motivated in others. I guess in some ways the confusion comes from Banner's analysis of Mead's work. Perhaps it really was as scattered as she presents it, but I feel like in her concurrent role as an educator perhaps she could have pushed herself to come up with a more concise and easy to follow version.
However, I do get the impression that trying to document Mead's life was an enormous challenge and Banner did bring this part of her personality across clearly. Maybe to gain insight into Mead's life and theories you have to accept the fact that there is no neat and pat timeline and to the extent that her genius was influenced by the cultures she visited, the mentors she chose, the lovers she pillow-talked with and the breakneck pace at which all of these things simultaneously occurred. And if that is indeed the case, which I suspect it to be, perhaps Banner really did do the best job that anyone could. I will also say that the conclusion left me scratching my head, as it was abrupt. I would have liked to see one more chapter dedicated to Mead's life after Benedict's death.
However, considering the questions you pose of us, perhaps I will shape this portion my review with my responses to them. And then get back to the play by play, if it is still necessary.
Based on your knowledge, did the anthropologist "get it right"?
Yes and no. I think that she did beautiful and complex research. I would have no basis to complain about that. It is obviously a labor of love and admiration and her dedication and devotion certainly come through. That alone is reason enough to read this book. Banner was thoroughly entranced with these fascinating women and their many interwoven friends, ideas, and lovers.
I think where I liked this book was the valid connections she made. By pouring over their letters, research, and books she does an amazing job of bringing to light the depth of this relationship. She is a great detective for the most part, and she obviously is a talented historical researcher. She took what I am sure an enormous, overwhelming amount of information and brings it together in a readable and real fashion.
I feel like I want to be careful in being too harsh in my criticisms of this book. Even as Mead and Benedict realized in their time that the woman's rights movement had made leaps and bounds, I feel that the queer community has as well and I should not have fear about pushing back the movement in finding one writer's analysis a little overreaching. However, I think that this fear speaks to the importance of this book, and its place in showing how our history as a community exists even if it is shrouded and needs to be rooted out. It was scary for Mead and Benedict to be queer and I feel nervous for both of them at times. I felt connected to both of them and felt I got to know secrets and things I would never otherwise know. This is a huge triumph and in the end what makes the book totally worth reading.
Banner has a great oversight into both women's lives as their duel biographer. She highlighted their work on gender issues, women's issues, and their interconnectedness. I think where she misses the mark is in her armchair analysis of both women, and for attaching too much meaning to small snippets of something as subjective as the women's poetry.
This extrapolation is present throughout the book and the "harness" incident is how I remember it most clearly. (pgs 185 and 223) I understand that a certain amount of conjecture is going to occur in a book compiled in the manner as this one was, and I give her credit for working directly with Mead and perhaps that having shed some additional insight into these ideas. However, it does not take away from the fact that her aureate description of the women's poetry is a tad bombastic. (Please note my attempt at irony here.)
Was the ethnography wordy, inconsistent, or complicated? Was an argument well formed and completed?
Well, it is a 400+ page book, so yes on the wordy count by default. I think I already touched on the one glaring inconsistency, which is starting the book with a daring teaser foreshadowing their tryst and then leaving the reader high and dry when that is the only real mention of this meeting of the women. I think the other place that Banner was the most inconsistent was with her analysis of Mead. I felt more satisfied and informed with the information presented about Benedict. At this point I will admit that my biographical knowledge of these women was next to...
Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
