I cannot fully express how unimpressed I am with this book. It's filled with contradictory statements ... Barely any mention of Tony Soprano at all... the title is just a gimmick to sell books.

While this book is heavily promoted as an analyis of contemporary America in light of the Sopranos, it is awfully light on the Sopranos side. Basically, a snippet of plot description from "The Sopranos" is used as a lead-in to each chapter, which then heads into dry sociological analysis.

Why is it I have the suspicion that this book originally lacked any mention of the Sopranos, but then received the snippets, the title, and the heavy promotion to get some portion of the Soprano fan market? I guess it worked, I bought it without taking too much of a look at it.

It isn't even very good sociology. It makes all sorts of claims and statements without citing statistics or having footnotes.

Not really worth it. Browse it in the bookstore and decide for yourself, but there really isn't much here.

The author claims this TV drama portrays contemporary culture. What about 'Father Knows Best', or 'Mayberry RFD', or 'All in the Family'? Weren't they all hit shows in their day? Is 'The Sopranos' a modern dress version of 'I, Claudius'? Would the plots be usable for 'At Home with Cesare Borgia'? Can a work of fiction ever be a measure of society? Perhaps its popularity is due to its dealing with usually unreported facts (like 'The Untouchables'). Or the fantasy of a strong and powerful man who can do as he pleases (think of James Bond or a John Wayne film).

I wonder how reliable are its statements? Page 9 claims the murder rate of America is "ten times higher than Europe, Canada, and Japan combined". But the rate of violent deaths in America is less than in many European countries or Japan, and just above Canada's! Page 11 claims poverty was not a social problem before JFK! That would be news to FDR or Truman. Simon uses his sociological imagination to analyze this show as a case study. This would be a better book if it was based on a real "Middletown" rather than a fantasy TV drama.

Page 14 talks about the pursuit of financial success as if this was strange, but De Tocqueville said the same thing around 1835. Did they have today's problems then? Simon then says America is "anti-intellectual" because success involves making money, not education! But what about Europe and its history? Is there much difference? Page 16 talks about putting businessmen into government. Was it different under King James II, Louis XIV, or the Caesars? Page 157 says people can "keep only $1 in every $2 they earn over $5000"; he needs to do better research.

Chapter 6 compares crime in America to a department store of many levels, from the bottom to the top. Street gangs, organized crime, white-collar crime, banks and major corporations, the criminal justice system, and, crime in Government Intelligence Agencies. I found this the most interesting section of the book. Are we doomed? Chapter 8 contrasts the realities of everyday life to what we learned in Civics Class. Simon claims a bewildered and disillusioned public react with skepticism and cynicism. And this keeps people from acting to correct their problems.

Chapter 9 proposes solutions to the many problems of today's America. Simon correctly states that nothing worthwhile can be achieved without collective action. I think the same history tells us that his solution is worthless ("join a local church ... oppose environmental destruction ..."). If the problems are caused by the corporate control of politicians since the 1860s, then the solution is to rebuild democracy by eliminating corporate power on the state and national level. Other books have made this point ("Wealth and Democracy" by Kevin Phillips). You must start with a new political party that is NOT controlled by the "two party system". It won't be easy. Corporate power, like hell, is not easily conquered.