Customer Reviews

The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for the New Humanities (Culture and Politics Series)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This book is excellent for learning the basic concepts of theory. It doesn't include primary sources, but it gives you the understanding you need to tackle the primary sources without getting lost. We used it in a discussion group and the questions in the book generated some great conversations!

Being a scholar by default I picked up Nealson & Searls Giroux's student-oriented compendium on postmodern theoretical applications as a diversion. It reads as an exciting conversational piece organized so as to provide a productive exposition in key postmodern concepts - such as agency and ideology - while using language and idioms that an uninitiated undergrad may find more appealing. Examples are drawn from advertising and popular culture, as well as literature and current social events. It succeeds in being efficiently user-friendly and does its best to challange assumptions and facile descriptions, yet it never goes beyond a superficial, albeit pragmatic explanation of theorists (as for example Nietzsche, Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze) within a chapter analysis of theoretical topics that includes: theory, authority, reading, subjectivity, culture, ideology, history, space/time, posts-, differences and agency. It does disentangle the more difficult strands of theory and engages the reader in admirable ways. Ultimately the book adopts a slant that evokes a sociological and political education of why theory matters and more specifically why postmodern theory matteers for everyday life. There are condescendng moments when for example the authors write: "when we stop to think about it, we're incredibly dependent on media to keep us both informed and entertained" yet procede to introduce the pedantic pronouncement with media is mediation and do a thorough job at illustrating this fact. The book is studded with ads from popular magazines and each section includes a "Working Questions" and "For Further Reading" list which makes for an invaluable resource that is current and interdisciplinary.
In the end this is a book which most who have a slight understanding of such topics will find very useful and pertinent as it lends currency to the impact of postmodern theory on literature, media studies, philosophy and critical theory.
It is definitely recommended for undergrad students that are daunted by the presentation and rhetoric of the more academic reads. This book is intent on educating students and it is the next best thing to full immersion, as well as the perfect preface to further study.

I am a culture and communication major -- a very communication-theory intense course of study. I had this for a class. It's great. It touches on theories of subjectivity and postmodern identity, which were my two favorite chapters. It is written in a conversational manner, despite the heady content. I think it was a helpful book for many students in my class. If you're interested in academic criticism or any theory, it's a pretty cheap book that's worth having for reference. The only annoying thing was the authors's tendency to try too hard to make pop cultural references or be funny. It wasn't funny and sometimes made me cringe.

I think the biggest issue with the Theory Toolbox is the overt elitist attitude of the author. While the book is a very inclusive introduction into the world of theory, Nealon often displays a sarcastic and at times even snide pretentiousness in trying to simplify these theories in a way he assumes the average college student will understand. More than once in the book, Nealon takes the opportunity to deride Stephen King, while alternately praising Philip K. Dick. He makes the claim that King is not an author but merely a writer, but goes on to call Dick an author in the same chapter. Later in the book he says the fact that King sells millions of novels is something that causes "true literature" lovers to lose sleep. To make matters worse, Nealon doesn't even spell King's name correctly, a mistake he also makes with "Brittany" Spears. Strange that he should so easily manage names like Michele Foucault and Jean Baudrillard.

I'm not attempting to defend King or Spears, mind you, but merely questioning the intentions of a writer who is so willing to deride other people while explaining theoretical concepts. It's not just popular culture, either. In one of his "working questions," Nealon questions why the fans at Penn State football games chant "We are Penn State" at home games. He sarcastically suggests that it would seem pretty obvious they are Penn State fans since they are at a Penn State game. I suppose Nealon is trying to be funny, but he fails in this regard.

Beyond this issue, I did also find the Theory Toolbox to be redundant and overlong. The chapters on culture, subjectivity, and differences could easily have been combined and condensed. The differences section is particularly pointless, as it does little in the way of offering anything new. I think anyone who had already read the first 9 chapters would not need a chapter explaining differences in gender,race, orientation, etc...these things seem so self evident that Nealon's expounding on them is tiresome. He tells us such obvious bits of information as: people from higher economic classes can afford more expensive things, people from different racial backgrounds have cultural differences, and (shocker) people from different genders and sexual orientations may interpret things differently.

I genuinely feel sorry for the people who have been required to flip through the pages of this book to satisfy the requirements of some poorly conceived curriculum in critical reading. I feel even sorrier to think that the obligated reader is paying precious money and wasting time better invested elsewhere to swim through the toxic cognitive morass that engorges this disgustingly unprepared book. While it promotes itself as something that provides "tools of critical social and literary theory", what the book amounts to is a sloppily-written, digressively presented collection of superficial opinions on par with the worst articles on wikipedia. At their worst, the authors redigest original sources in a style that attempts to be modern and snappy, but by the ineptitude of the interpreters, the sources are excreted like waste material with complete corruption of the original ideals. At their funniest, the authors demonstrate their lack of scholarship in their puerile and amateur notions of space and time. As a whole, what was supposed to be an "engaging inquiry that asks students to consider deeper and deeper questions" winds up as a rambling uninformed soliloquy fit for "The View", or perhaps a dinner date in a boxcar with someone high on meth. It is unfortunate as well that the authors underestimate the capability of the student, because, by attempting a style "written in students' own idiom, [meaning, oh God, you students are dumb!] and drawing its examples from the social world" it winds up being overtly condescending and patronizing. This "toolbox" has no tools but it does come with a list of loosely associated buzzwords. The theory it promises is merely opinionated hearsay. A quick flip through the Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms would be a thousand times more fruitful. Educators who assigned this book should be lobotomized. To those who paid for this book in both money in time, the joke is on you.

This is a fantastic introduction to literary theory. It has a philosophical bend, and proves far more interesting than first glance would suggest

This book is possibly the one of the worst ever written. I regret ever having to buy it. It's bad enough that it's horribly written, but they repeat and reword their 'theories' over and over until it becomes akin to beating a dead horse with a stick.