What do you think?
Goths: A Guide to an American Subculture
This in-depth exploration of Goth culture invites fresh understanding―and a critique of contemporary mainstream culture by comparison.
Goth culture is extremely diverse, touching on visual art, fashion, film, music, and body aesthetics. A Guide to an American Subculture offers a concise, easy-to-follow history of the subculture that explores its emergence and its impact on popular culture in the United States.
The book covers films, bands, and artists central to Goth culture, with emphasis on the Goth approach to fashion and body adornment. In addition, it discusses how America's Goth culture has influenced Goth populations elsewhere and how international developments have changed the U.S. Goth community. The volume is enriched with biographies of prominent Goth celebrities, such as Marilyn Manson and Robert Smith, as well as with interviews that offer readers a firsthand view of the culture. It concludes with an evaluation of Goth culture today, a look at what the future might hold, and a discussion of the significance of Goth culture to American society as a whole.
Goth culture is extremely diverse, touching on visual art, fashion, film, music, and body aesthetics. A Guide to an American Subculture offers a concise, easy-to-follow history of the subculture that explores its emergence and its impact on popular culture in the United States.
The book covers films, bands, and artists central to Goth culture, with emphasis on the Goth approach to fashion and body adornment. In addition, it discusses how America's Goth culture has influenced Goth populations elsewhere and how international developments have changed the U.S. Goth community. The volume is enriched with biographies of prominent Goth celebrities, such as Marilyn Manson and Robert Smith, as well as with interviews that offer readers a firsthand view of the culture. It concludes with an evaluation of Goth culture today, a look at what the future might hold, and a discussion of the significance of Goth culture to American society as a whole.
184 pages, Hardcover
First published February 2, 2011
About the author
Micah L. Issitt
9 books9 followersMicah Issitt is an author and designer known for things that he's owned and designed. He is the editor of the Darter Magazine and author of a bunch of books people have never read.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 2, 2012
The content itself is good and fairly erudite, covering quite a broad subculture within a short space, thus providing a rather parsimonious introduction to anyone wanting to read more on the inanities but also the conventionalities and multifarious offshoots involved. I feel like the book however stresses the bleak brooding image way too much and over accentuates it to absurd degrees:
"There is no “goth sound” per se in 2010, but rather a group of
bands that to some extent fall under an umbrella (a black umbrella,
of course)" (Page 42)
It also repeats itself too much and so the content is recycled through the chapters, probably to reinforce pertinent points such as the modern Germanic breadth in the Gothic genre or affinities with other subsets of music, mainly punk and the cerebral, ponderous post punk scene. However, it feels as though this is done for a reason. I think the book is set at such a level as to cover a wide range of reading levels and allow therefore an egalitarian access to the content of the book and the arguments involved, I am confident for example that my 15 year old brother would be able to read and appreciate the book, which is laudable. This doesn't create a reading experience which is academically stimulating with regards to a vibrant, heterogeneous culture and therefore the reader with such inclination may want to pursue journal articles on the subject.
"A generation of DJs was inspired to take up the torch" (Page 46)
The book strangely adopts a neo pragmatist argument by quoting sam rosenthal, "goth is whatever the fans say it is" (page 51) which surely just creates a void without any true theoretical or definitive reach at all. Goth is merely a subjective tag and the contextual definition is based on the prerogative of the fans which means that we end in an infinite regress of sorts and a waste of time. Why would I use the term "goth" over something else, if there wasn't some meaning behind it or at least some specification for meaning? I suppose this liberty in fucking up demarcated denotations is why we have such a large, all of which are nebulous, genres. Everything with "Step" at the end or "Gaze" or "Core" is largely a spurious haze of "whatever the fan says it is" ethic.
Nobody adopts this relativism in reality for there is always a criteria which although malleable to a certain extent will not stray from a variety of collectivized values, otherwise there wouldn't be a group subsuming and maintaining them. Surely if fans chose to define 'goth' in a relational way and contrary to the established ethical mores and praxis, they would probably be marginalized or individualized from larger subsets. Part of the problem, is that terms become conflated with others and appropriated in wrong contexts and used in ways which do not merit their use, which creates more and more opportunities for people to cite the term. "Emo" was the result of a small highly charged, hardcore punk genre. It became redundant and now is used interchangeably with other terms without any real contextual back bone. It cannot be correct to state that this conflation and misappropriation is a good thing particularly if we want to be understood. I think it's wrong to state that gothic music is now redundant and a thing of the past, but rather, it's not covered appropriately. People are making fantastic music which is not getting the press because alternative mainstream rock has became the modus operandi of nearly every single major music genre and so when the press covers "gothic rock", they are proselytizing people into generic pop branded tunes coated with the standard stylistic panache which confuses and bewilders many. These points are incidentally backed up on page 58, where the author showcases the extreme conformity that exists in these cultures. Freedom and individuality are only surface value motifs.
In short, to truly appreciate and understand "gothic" we must clearly define and conceptualize what it is not. It's not enough to say that it is a subculture which originated in an antithetical manner to mainstream culture, particularly when considering firstly the nebulous nature of "mainstream" as meaning anything popular and secondly the two cultures are not bifurcated anymore. I would argue that increasingly gothic culture is appropriating itself within mainstream music, at least in a watered down version. The book itself showcases the fact that early precursors to traditional gothic rock are often played in 1980s club nights and populist discos for aging octogenarians.
I feel like when the author states that their fashion protests are a mere "shopping protest" (59), it doesn't consider the fact that many people have stopped utilizing standardized means of political expressionism and have resorted to a variety of methods to express distaste in their community and life. One of these is through shopping as the consumer has a certain freedom in determining which brands to support and which brands to boycott. This isn't suggesting a meritocracy at all, it's suggesting that people outsource their politics and beliefs into the shopping mall. We as a culture through Neo-Liberal polices have "privatized" our expressions and activism into the daily which results in activism and subcultural groups forming as they see the normalcy of everyday life unbearable or untenable. I think that there isn't enough etiological analysis, maybe of trying to understand why they do these things exactly from a sociological point of view
It is however, a strong piece of work for anyone wanting to understand the dynamics behind the subculture and what they represent. I recommend it.
"There is no “goth sound” per se in 2010, but rather a group of
bands that to some extent fall under an umbrella (a black umbrella,
of course)" (Page 42)
It also repeats itself too much and so the content is recycled through the chapters, probably to reinforce pertinent points such as the modern Germanic breadth in the Gothic genre or affinities with other subsets of music, mainly punk and the cerebral, ponderous post punk scene. However, it feels as though this is done for a reason. I think the book is set at such a level as to cover a wide range of reading levels and allow therefore an egalitarian access to the content of the book and the arguments involved, I am confident for example that my 15 year old brother would be able to read and appreciate the book, which is laudable. This doesn't create a reading experience which is academically stimulating with regards to a vibrant, heterogeneous culture and therefore the reader with such inclination may want to pursue journal articles on the subject.
"A generation of DJs was inspired to take up the torch" (Page 46)
The book strangely adopts a neo pragmatist argument by quoting sam rosenthal, "goth is whatever the fans say it is" (page 51) which surely just creates a void without any true theoretical or definitive reach at all. Goth is merely a subjective tag and the contextual definition is based on the prerogative of the fans which means that we end in an infinite regress of sorts and a waste of time. Why would I use the term "goth" over something else, if there wasn't some meaning behind it or at least some specification for meaning? I suppose this liberty in fucking up demarcated denotations is why we have such a large, all of which are nebulous, genres. Everything with "Step" at the end or "Gaze" or "Core" is largely a spurious haze of "whatever the fan says it is" ethic.
Nobody adopts this relativism in reality for there is always a criteria which although malleable to a certain extent will not stray from a variety of collectivized values, otherwise there wouldn't be a group subsuming and maintaining them. Surely if fans chose to define 'goth' in a relational way and contrary to the established ethical mores and praxis, they would probably be marginalized or individualized from larger subsets. Part of the problem, is that terms become conflated with others and appropriated in wrong contexts and used in ways which do not merit their use, which creates more and more opportunities for people to cite the term. "Emo" was the result of a small highly charged, hardcore punk genre. It became redundant and now is used interchangeably with other terms without any real contextual back bone. It cannot be correct to state that this conflation and misappropriation is a good thing particularly if we want to be understood. I think it's wrong to state that gothic music is now redundant and a thing of the past, but rather, it's not covered appropriately. People are making fantastic music which is not getting the press because alternative mainstream rock has became the modus operandi of nearly every single major music genre and so when the press covers "gothic rock", they are proselytizing people into generic pop branded tunes coated with the standard stylistic panache which confuses and bewilders many. These points are incidentally backed up on page 58, where the author showcases the extreme conformity that exists in these cultures. Freedom and individuality are only surface value motifs.
In short, to truly appreciate and understand "gothic" we must clearly define and conceptualize what it is not. It's not enough to say that it is a subculture which originated in an antithetical manner to mainstream culture, particularly when considering firstly the nebulous nature of "mainstream" as meaning anything popular and secondly the two cultures are not bifurcated anymore. I would argue that increasingly gothic culture is appropriating itself within mainstream music, at least in a watered down version. The book itself showcases the fact that early precursors to traditional gothic rock are often played in 1980s club nights and populist discos for aging octogenarians.
I feel like when the author states that their fashion protests are a mere "shopping protest" (59), it doesn't consider the fact that many people have stopped utilizing standardized means of political expressionism and have resorted to a variety of methods to express distaste in their community and life. One of these is through shopping as the consumer has a certain freedom in determining which brands to support and which brands to boycott. This isn't suggesting a meritocracy at all, it's suggesting that people outsource their politics and beliefs into the shopping mall. We as a culture through Neo-Liberal polices have "privatized" our expressions and activism into the daily which results in activism and subcultural groups forming as they see the normalcy of everyday life unbearable or untenable. I think that there isn't enough etiological analysis, maybe of trying to understand why they do these things exactly from a sociological point of view
It is however, a strong piece of work for anyone wanting to understand the dynamics behind the subculture and what they represent. I recommend it.
February 14, 2012
Great take on the Goth subculture. I like how the book touches on so many facets of the subculture simultaneously, bringing in art, music, fashion, literature, and then rounding it out with an exploration of the general aesthetic behind what we all think of as "Goth." In some subculture literature, the author makes too much distinction between "us" and "them." The author is either obviously talking about him/herself or talking about people he/she can't really relate to at all. Somehow this author strikes a good balance by exploring the general appeal of the movement and moving on to a meta-discussion of how subculture defines itself or is defined from outside. This book gives an intelligent, thoughtful view of the topic without mockery or excessive reverence.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews