Book Club Responses

The Mind at Work  Book Club Review Response

I was quite surprised at how difficult it was to find a professional review of The Mind at Work.  I searched the New York Times archives, the LA Times, even NPR and found nothing!  So, I took a look at one of my favorite websites GoodReads and found a nice succinct review written by Bookmarks Magazine.  Here it is:

"Through in-depth research, Rose, a member of the faculty of the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies demonstrates that cultural stereotyping has invariably underestimated blue-collar workers' intelligence and accomplishments. Rose quotes a policy analyst: "How do you honor a student's construction worker father while creating the conditions for his child to not be a construction worker?" Combining memoir (his mother was a waitress) with case studies, he also provides an excellent overview of the academic-vocational divide, though at times his overly scholarly descriptions of the work environment reflect this division. Generally fast paced and never dogmatic, however, Rose has certainly drawn an original portrait of America at work." 

The reason I liked this review so much is because it gave credit where credit is due (Mike Rose is clearly an intelligent, accomplished writer) but, it also touched on my biggest issue with the book thus far.  Mike Rose's "overly scholarly descriptions" of the jobs discussed in his book can come off quite condescending and actually negate the point he is trying to make. 

Clearly, the blue collar worker is much more intelligent than social stigma allows most to believe.  Mike Rose examining these jobs shines light on the skill required of the average American worker.  However, explaining the intelligence of the work in difficult to read, academic prose, may not be the best tactic.  

The Mind at Work Chapters 1 - 3

Though I believe that Mike Rose is a gifted writer, I have an incredibly luke warm opinion of the profiles in The Mind at Work thus far.  

In Chapter 1, I was first struck by the fact that Rose decided to use his mother as the subject of his profile of a waitress.  I felt that his choice was too personal and much of the piece was extremely biographical.  I didn't like that the author made himself so present throughout the chapter--rather than allowing is mother to be the primary focus,  Rose made her feel secondary by referring to her as "my mother" and relating to her too much through their personal relationship.  After finishing the chapter, I couldn't recall Rose's mother's name if asked.  She became only the author's mother to me.  

From what we have read about profiles in this class so far, I felt that Rose was breaking a lot of rules of the trade.  He made himself ever present with his constant use of "I" and "me."  I felt the chapters were many pages too long and as a reader, I felt I was reading the same material over and over.  I found myself wanting to scan the writing rather than appreciate each word.  I became bored with a subject I initially felt interested in. I also didn't like that Rose forecasted what he would discuss so bluntly.  

"I'll consider each of these qualities in further detail..." (pg 34)  

"Let us now return to the details of the practice..." (pg 56)

If Rose had just wrote what he had intended to write rather than telling me first, I would have been much more interested.  This language made the piece seem much more scientific and took away from the personality of his subjects.  

In Chapter 2, I began to like the book much more.  The opening account of discussing the hairdresser cutting hair in her kitchen was vivid.  I felt as if I were present.  This is what I imagined a profile to be.  Rose did a much better job of relating the subjects to the reader.  I was struck, however, that he chose numerous people to discuss.  The chapter began as a profile for Vanessa but, quickly included Sharon and others.   

The experiments that Rose used with the hair dressers was very interesting.  By comparing the reaction to pictures of hairstylists and ordinary people, I was more able to see the world through the hairdressers' eyes.  This was a great form of research and I appreciated it.  

Again, however, I felt the chapter was much too long.  I understand that the author was examining the intelligence required for hair styling pretty thoroughly but, I felt he could have done so more effectively in fewer words.  Rose has become extremely long-winded and I often wondered if the author of On Writing Well, William Zinnser, would like Rose's approach to the profile.  

Chapter 3, was by far my favorite chapter of what we have read so far.  It opened well just as chapter 2 had but, seemed much more cohesive.  Rose chronicles the work of the plumbers and describes the environment very well.  He relates to the reader better and I learn to appreciate the work of these plumbers simply through his observation of them.  This chapter was also much more succinct and was exactly the length it needed to be.  I felt I was reading a different author throughout Chapter 3.  

So far, I am not in love with this book.  I have preferred the profile examples we have read in class much, much more.  I walked away from these profiles unable to answer the two golden questions of the trade of profiles:  "How would I characterize these people?  Do I like them?"  I honestly don't know.  The personality of the subjects was too diluted for me to form an opinion.