Both a recent convert to the Springsteen synod of the First Church of Rock n' Roll and a rogue scholar pursuing the aims of Deweyan democratic community, I have considered the possibility of a scholarly study of Bruce Springsteen's music. Such a study would consider (ideally) several themes: One, most importantly, is to situate Sprinsteen's music within a certain American literary and musical tradition; another is to present Springsteen's work as, in some respects, part of national dialogue on questions of citizenship, patriotism, manhood, etc.; yet another is to consider Springsteen's music as a sort of ethical practice, almost as an Aristotelian guide to character development. Jim Cullen's book, although it falls short of my ideal in many respects, does offer an interesting and, I think, ultimately compelling vision of the possibilities of scholarship on Springsteen.

Cullen's argument that Springsteen belongs to a literary tradition beginning with Walt Whitman, and including Mark Twain and John Steinbeck, is persuasive. Although his comparisons of these authors with Springsteen, both stylistic and thematic, are a little thin, the similarities are made evident. (One weakness of Cullen's argument is his failure to consider the most notable differences between Springsteen and Whitman, et al.) Springsteen's is an aesthetic of the everyday, offering a picture of lives and landscapes that form the stuff of life for most Americans, but are often overlooked (interestingly, by both conservative proponents of high modernism and and leftist supporters of avant-garde art). His stories are drawn from the very streets on which he grew and lived, from the events affecting his society, and from the plight of those left behind in the wake of society's progress ("The Ghost of Tom Joad" and "Nebraska" are most exemplary of this dimension of Springsteen's work -- having rather little to do with his own life). Thematically, this is the very stuff of Steinbeck and Whitman.

Cullen also makes an interesting case that Springsteen be seen as a proponent of American republicanism. (Not to be confused with the Reagan sort of Republicanism -- Springsteen is certainly not right-wing.) This is the political tradition to which Whitman, Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and (not mentioned by Cullen) John Dewey belong. It is a tradition which promotes and protects the rights of individuals, but always sees these individuals as members of a community. Springsteen's work, as a whole, it seems to me at least, in part traces a movement from individualism (consider the romantic idealism of Born to Run) to community (embodied in the group performance of "If I should fall behind" during the 1999 performance). His more recent work, "The Ghost of Tom Joad" and "The Rising" particularly, is concerned explicitly with the importance of community in the face of both internal and external challenges.

Overall, while Cullen's book does provide an interesting and compelling case for the 'serious' study of Springsteen's work, I think it does have a few significant flaws. For one, which I have already suggested, his comparisons of Springsteen with other literary figures are somewhat superficial. More detailed comparisons (involving, in part, more thorough examination of Springsteen's lyrics), even where this brings out the differences, would strengthen the argument. (In general, Cullen's presentation of the general historical and cultural settings of Springsteen and other artists is too superficial -- especially as compared with the studies in his other work on American popular culture.) For another, I think his analysis of Springsteen's political significance would benefit by a more individualistic interpretation (paired with his republican analysis). While I think it is true that Springsteen's political vision fits closely with that of Whitman, etc., it is also true that the direct impact of Springsteen's music (as is true of any art), is registered on the individual level. I believe that our moral identities are shaped, in large part, through identifications with various models, which may be culled from popular culture (among other sources, of course). Springsteen's music maintains a serious and generally consistent moral vision, and provides a model of moral character worth emulating. (This seems to be true of Springsteen the man as well.) And thus his music may actually serve as a valuable democratic resource.

This book is a fine read and a fairly unique interpretation of Springsteen's work. As an early serious effort to assess Springsteen's cultural and political significance it will of course have some problems, but these can be excused for the simple fact that so few other authors have tackled this subject in this manner.

Jim Cullen's book carries a weighty premise: Bruce Springsteen is the cultural heir of Emerson, Whitman, Lincoln, and The American Kings (Martin Luther King and Elvis Presley). Cullen divides Springsteen's themes into useful categories and explores them in the context of America's great artists, thinkers, and cultural movements. Although it reads a little like a dissertation in places, I found Cullen a credible Springsteen expert. His discussions illuminated dimensions of Springsteen's work for me, as well as provided interesting but arguable perspectives on other American artists and cultural figures. This isn't a pop biography, but it rewards the thoughtful reader.

Whether you're a fan of springsteen's or a student of american history, this is a must-read. This book is by no means a biography, it is a study of Springsteen's work and its' meaning and context. I have no idea what this fella from spain is talking about calling these essays overblown and that Cullen has no right to compare someone of springsteen's stature to whitman. Cullen does an excellent job of discussing his theses - two of the most intriguing being how springsteen's viewpoints on parenthood and women grow and mature throughout his body of work (how many other rock stars work have that degree of sophistication?). Well-written, well-executed, anove all, SMART. More books like this - serious studies on a musician's work and not his/her life and lifestyle - should exist.

p.s. I originally wrote this way back when. I recently got a new e-address and am in the process of updating all my old postings. So, yes, you may see this review twice. It is worth noting that since the time I originally wrote this, I've re-read various sections, and was impressed with how well they stood up to repeated readings. So - yes, I stand beside my original review and then some.

Cullen's book tries to examine the Civil War from different 20th century perspectives such as Carl Sandburg's Lincoln, the movies Gone with the Wind and Glory, 70's Rebel rock, & 90's battlefield reenactors. It's a yawn - a boring, politically correct, droning waste of some pretty decent research. Cullen writes badly and has no sense of humor. Tony Horowitz' Rebels in the Closet covers basically the same topic in a much more entertaining manner and is a much better read.

In analyzing popular culture's portrayals of the Civil War primarily from the persective of race, class and gender, as well as political ideologues, Cullen purposely gives the reader an incomplete picture of this unique analysis. How can Cullen write about GWTW (which he did insightfully) and not mention the portrayals of Sherman and his army or of the Confederate veterans returning home? Why did he choose for an in-depth interview, a female reenactor? Overall, it was an entertaining read if you understand that, as an academic historian, Cullen writes from the biased position of a 'new historian'.