As this was not my intended library selection, but merely sat on the same shelf as the one on which I was supposed to find my chosen book, I had no idea what I was getting into. After finishing page 339, I still have no idea what I’m supposed to be reading!

Not that this is uninteresting or poorly written. To the contrary it’s quite engaging and the prose flows smoothly (well, he does spastically race around from one reference to another, but it’s mostly legible). What I don’t understand is the overall intent. As this promises a “tale” about two “utopias,” the first part seems logical as a hyperactive overview – covering the origins and ultimate demise - of the sundry groups, figures, and ideas that culminated with the dynamic global happenings circa 1968. Good start. Then we come upon what I assume to be his “two utopias” – the incongruous chapters about the “Gay Awakening” within the US and the Czech Velvet Revolution through the lens of Vaclav Havel with cameos by Frank Zappa and Shirley Temple. Huh??? I assumed the “Goodship Lollipop” might somehow relate to the gay thing, but no.

I stuck with it (as mentioned, interesting stories in and of themselves) with the assumption that the concluding chapter would serve to reweave such disparate things. Hardly. The conclusion now takes us, among other random things, to a dissertation about the parallel, yet contrasting theories proffered by a French philosopher and a dude working for the RAND corp. under the Reagan and Bush administrations. The ultimate goal I suppose is to articulate prophecies about “the end of history” and propose a third Hegelian reading (that is, adding “Yankee Hegelian” to the already common “Right” and “Left” Hegelian political readings). I dunno. Are these early 90’s theories the “Two Utopias”?

So no conclusive weaving as far as I can tell. This had all the consistency of adjacent SNL skits (including the inevitable 8 minute commercial break between). I was hoping it was more akin to the film Mystery Train or Crash where all this stuff comes together somehow. Perhaps I’m stupid and the indubitable logic flew right past me. Wouldn’t be the first time. After all, I blindly assumed that the utilization of THREE libraries in a major Northeastern city would eventually yield at least one book on my now dog-eared list of 27 relatively mainstream titles. Silly me… ( )

Berman has several distinct essays in this book. I'd like to give it more stars, but for two reasons I feel I can't. First, I like a book that better ties together. One can see how the essays mostly fit, but they are definitely distinct essays. If you don't mind that kind of thing, ignore this criticism. Second, parts of it REALLY drag, especially the lengthy prose about French 60s revolutionaries.
Regardless, there were some very nice ideas--discussion about gay identity and history of the 60s, and the contrast between Glucksmann's and Fukayama's views of history in light of Hegel and Marx. ( )