Outside Reading: Book Review due 1/10/11

1/9/11

"Blood Lust and Britney Spears" by Toby Young

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576035523274398038.html?mod=WSJ_Books_LS_Books_5

In Blood Lust and Britney Spears, Toby Young writes about Tom Payne's “Fame”. In “Fame”, Payne studies society's obsession with celebrities through the eyes of the ancient Greeks and Romans, whom he thinks can provide insight. Young gives a critique of Payne's work while actively trying to remain unbiased by looking at each of his claims from both sides. This allows the reader to have more faith in Young's analysis and believe what he is writing.

As the piece begins, Young questions Payne's ability to provide anything original in an already stale topic, yet in a sympathetic way. While pointing out Payne's origins as a professor at the England's “snootiest” private school, Young writes that he “struggles manfully” to attempt to revive this dull topic. Young uses a very accurate simile to describe Payne's familiarity with contemporary celebrities: “He's like an amateur naturalist, marveling at all the exotic flora on some South Sea Island but without any grasp of botany.” At the same time, Young is supportive of Payne by claiming that his unfamiliarity with modern fame doesn't prove to be much of a handicap. His diction simultaneously questions and encourages Payne's work which makes the reader believe that the review is evenly criticized.

With all the doubts Young has about the solidity of “Fame”, he does give Payne credit that he did his research and that his claims are not unfounded. When Payne reaches an interesting theory about how the media's treatment of falling stars is a form of human sacrifice, a way that we can satiate our modern blood lust, Young acknowledges that Payne brought forth “a wealth of examples” as proof. At the same time, he politely points out faults in the author's claims, like the lack of proof of Greek and Roman sacrifice and how Payne's theory was a bit of a stretch.

Young isn't satisfied with the parallels Payne draws between history and the present and believes there must be an “overarching theory” to be the backbone to all of Payne's claims. Young use of diction is very clever in that he points out Payne's faults while remaining polite. He uses the word “shoehorn” to describe how Payne squeezed in a couple paragraphs explaining why humans need sacrifice, which should have been a major component of his book. Young accurately relates how this missing piece is crucial to Payne's work by comparing it to “E=MC2 without the theory of relativity”.

No specific critical perspectives that we have covered in class seem to be at work in this book review. It gives a fair, even handed critique of the book, and is almost apologetic. I also cannot spot any connections between this review and any other previous course material or readings.