Negative Positive
Title: For faculty members only.
Review: To introduce chapter 2 in "Hollywood, Westerns and the 1930s," author Peter Stanfield blithely discusses "[t]he lost and largely unresearched history of the series Westerns." Lost and largely unresearched? What about Don Miller's "Hollywood Corral?" I hear you say, or Jon Tuska's "The Filming of the West"? Surely William K. Everson's seminal work "A Pictorial History of the Western Film" would qualify as "research"? Yet none of these fine books are listed in Mr. Stanfield's otherwise lengthy bibliography, nor are the works, electronic or otherwise, by lesser lights (such as this writer). Why? Because these scribes aren't true academics and refuse to use terms such as "diegesis" or "contextualize." In Mr. Stanfield's world of Higher Learning you need a dictionary at the ready to review the legacy of Gene Autry - GENE AUTRY, for Heaven's sake! - and that just ain't right!
Is the review positive or negative? 