Rosen, David. New York: Harcourt , Inc. 2002. 200 pp. ISBN: 0156007371. $12.00
USD (PB).
[1] This volume, written by psychiatrist and Jungian analyst David
Rosen, is an analysis of Taoist characteristics that the author - clearly
an Elvis fan - identifies in the life and wisdom of Elvis Presley.
Intended to evoke thoughtful reflection about Taoist qualities for which
Elvis was a model, Rosen notes that the volume is "a psychological and
philosophical work in that it is about the phenomenon and the experience
of Elvis as well as his (and our) pursuit of purpose, spirituality,
and wisdom" (xiv).
[2] The format of the book is rather simple, if not repetitive. After
a brief introduction, each of the forty-two chapters (one for each of
Elvis’s years alive) begins with an epigram intended to illustrate that
chapter’s theme (which include such topics as "love," "virtue," "beauty,"
and "destiny"). For example, for the chapter titled "Madness and Illness,"
the quote is from Deng Ming-Dao: "Which is worse? The madness of following
Tao or the madness of an existence without awareness?" (141). On the
second page of each chapter there are four quotes from various classic
Taoist writers and philosophers, followed by a page of quotes by or
about Elvis, intended to illustrate parallels between the King and the
Tao. On the fourth page of each chapter, the author explains how the
theme is illustrated by Elvis’s life, deeds, or words. And so it goes
for two hundred pages. Epigram, Taoism quotes, Elvis quotes, Rosen
analysis.
[3] Interestingly, many of the epigrams at the beginning of the chapters
are taken from such decidedly non-Taoist authors as Kahlil Gibran (identified
as Elvis’s favorite author), but this seems to be in keeping with the
somewhat perennialist attitude of the author, who presents Taoism not
as if it were a specific religio-philosophical tradition with the same
kind of history and particularistic integrity as, say, Christianity
or Judaism, but as a universal truth to be found everywhere, and in
the face of which all other religious traditions disappear. The clearly
Christian (and even purported Jewish) connections to Elvis are glossed
over, and even as eminent a Protestant theologian as Paul Tillich is
identified simply as "Existential philosopher" (163). The topics of
each chapter are vague enough to guarantee that someone, somewhere,
said something about Elvis that relates to something said by some Taoist
philosopher somewhere. And Rosen’s analysis at the end of each chapter
only reinforces that ambiguity. Of course Elvis was the perfect example
of Taoist principles. How could he not be?
[4] This book is not nearly as effective in illustrating the principles
of Taoism as Benjamin Hoff’s The Tao of Pooh (Penguin Books,
1982), and not nearly as interesting as the myriad of books or chapters
on Elvis’s religious interests or the religious aspects of the Elvis
phenomenon (for example, "Dead Elvis as Other Jesus," by Mark Gottdiener,
in In Search of Elvis, edited by Vernon Chadwick [Westview Press,
1997]; or "Saint Elvis" in Elvis Culture, by Erika Doss
[University of Kansas Press, 1999]). Because of this, it is never clear
for whom it is intended. Sincere Elvis fans may find the various quotes
from (or about) their King to be inspiring, but many of the more devoted
"Elvis as King" variety may be offended by the implication that Elvis
was anything other than thoroughly grounded in a Christian world view,
interests in Asian philosophy notwithstanding. On the other hand, even
they will have to admit that Elvis was quite enticed by non-Christian
religious teachings and practices. But no matter; Rosen nowhere suggests
that Elvis was particularly interested in Taoism. He is simply making
the side-by-side comparison of the teachings of various Taoist masters
with the things said by or about Elvis.
[5] There are great books about Taoism and popular culture, and there
are great books about Elvis and religion. This one is neither. David
Rosen has created a work more devotional than illuminating, more self-involved
than probing, and thus less useful than hoped. Almost entirely untheorized,
it is of virtually no use as a critical source, and scholars (even scholars
specifically interested in the by-products of the cult-of-Elvis phenomenon)
likely will find this book disappointing.
Eric Michael Mazur, Department of Religion, Bucknell University,
Lewisburg, PA 17837 U.S.A. (mazur@bucknell.edu)
