Critical Anal. a Review of The Unwinding by George Packer

[Skillian]

I recently read The Unwinding: An Inner History pf the New America by George Packer. Then I felt inspired to critique of a review about it. Here it is. Enjoy.


The review I chose to analyze was written in The Independent titled: "Review: The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America, By George Packer" by David Goldblatt (June 2013). I made this decision purely on the theory that an out of country source might have the more objective and less biased lens, whether or not that theory is sound.


Initially I liked the review. It says 'But how does one write such a book?' Which were my sentiments regarding the colossal task of writing a book that is trying to encompass much more than is simply possible. I like how they touch on John Dos Passo's trilogy U.S.A., and how George Packer admitted he owed so much to it. I think that is a bit more rare in regards to writers, admitting when an idea isn't wholly their own. He uses biographies of Americans from all walks of life, Oprah, Jay Z, Dean Price, etc. whether rich and famous or poor and living out of their cars. Also, he makes these small word collages of news headlines and chart topping songs, which really sets the mood of the years as we venture through a shifting setting of the book. It gives this bit by bit image of a much bigger picture, the word used most often is 'kaleidoscopic.'


The first time I disagree with the review is during the statement 'The biographies are unsentimental, penetrating accounts of America's elites and their self-delusions.' I find many of them sentimental, how could you say Tammy returning to her home years later isn't sentimental? There are plenty of times where it is almost romantic how Packer portrays certain characters in their helplessness to the events taking place around them. Also, not all accounts within the book are of 'elites' so to claim that the biographies are of America's elites is just silly. Did they even read the book? Granted they redeem this statement by discussing non-elites within the book later, but actually it may be more like proving themselves wrong.


They spend a lot of time summarizing the content of the book, breaking down various people within the book and their stories. Which is not the point of a review... some but not too much. This isn't cliff's-notes. I'm also starting to realize how silly my theory in choosing this review really was, especially when the writer is embracing all opportunities to scrutinize Americans (and its OK since an American wrote the book they claim are making these claims *wink*).


However I completely agree with '... his smoldering clear-eyed anger with America's elites and his deep empathy with the country's many losers are ever-present.' Granted I don't like how the writer feels able to call people 'losers.' That's pretty rude.


I do agree that Packer made great efforts, but overall no one is able to capture the whole of America. I do appreciate that there is someone out there willing to try. They do make the point that 'There is barely a Latino voice in the book, nor do the disastrous economic and emotional consequences of relentless foreign wars really register.' I'm from Tampa. The fact that Tampa is a main portion of the book, and yet there weren't really Hispanics shows a huge misrepresentation.


Overall, Packer is simply human and I can't get upset with him for any shortfalls in tackling such a huge topic. He writes beautifully and if nothing else his style and clarity will carry this book a long way. I think it will linger and reach more homes than most books on such subjects. There is definitely a value in having wide appeal, especially when it comes to the generally assumed less entertaining topics. I can imagine the people this book will reach, and maybe, just maybe, it will inspire them to get more involved. I give the book itself a 3 out of 4, and the review the same score. While I didn't agree with it much.. it was still well written and engaging.