Why do social anthropologists suck? Mostly because they are
annoying, overeducated white folks with grant money, swinging happily
in the university safety net, fantasizing about acceptance into an
authentic, colorful world. Lola’s Luck is a pseudointellectual
mess from University of Washington alum Carol Miller, a puffed-up
account of her time with the Machvaia Gypsies. Miller imagines that her
fieldwork, “studying” the Machvaia tribe, was qualitative academic
research. In truth, she was having an affair with “Stevo,” one of the
respected Gypsy dudes. She was forever torn between two worlds. (Sigh!
Clutch pearls, sigh! Faint! Wipe Harlequin sweat off chest.)
I disappeared for days behind the ivied walls of the university.
Stevo manfully tried to come to my rescue—he went with me to a
dance that the anthropology department sponsored. He showed up looking
solidly prosperous. Everyone knew American Gypsies were the subject of
my studies, but no one knew a Gypsy was my escort.
Don’t be fooled into thinking you’ll learn about the really
interesting people she encountered back in the 1970s; they’re
overshadowed by a nervous author who waited 40 years until Lola died to
write about all the quality time spent with the Machvaia tribe. Lola
was not given a voice to tell her side of the story and is treated as a
cheap literary accessory. This book is really about Miller and the sexy
time she had, the “life-changing event of meeting her Gypsy man.” Every
page is a narcissistic memory of her sheltered life.
Before I knew Gypsies, I never thought much about luck. I began to
realize I had always been lucky. My life seemed to proceed according to
some fortunate plan. Smiles followed me wherever I went.
The subject of Gypsies and how they live in America could have been
groundbreaking social science if Miller possessed an ounce of Joseph
Campbell’s finesse at elegantly deducing our differences and teaching
us about our cultural parallels. Or if she admitted her inability to
make sense of the world without a textbook, ditched her superiority
complex, and just told an honest story—then she would have at
least been likable. If you have ever traveled to exotic places, met
indigenous people, and participated in their rituals without a degree
in anthropology, you will want to set fire to this book. This is
nothing more than a Jane and Tarzan romance novel with a West Coast
accent. 
Rayne’s reviews are very insightful. Thank you
Also, thats a terrible cover. Yes, I know never judge a book..
For an anthropologist that doesn’t suck, please check out books by Marvin Harris
Weird, my last comment got deleted. Maybe it was the wikipedia link that did me in.
Anyway, I was just saying – thats a terrible book cover. And that Marvin Harris was a kick-ass anthropologist. That is all. Oh and Rayne Rocks!
Rayne’s passion pours from every word. She is an exceptional critic and I can not wait until she publishes a book of her own.
Great review? She doesn’t even bother to introduce who Lola was but feels free to snark, context-free, of her.
From the whining anti-intellectual overgeneralization “social anthropologists suck” a livejournal grade analysis to her failure to even make a remotely interesting explanation of why, it appears our reviewer once got a C- in an Anthro class and had to explain to her angry MD or Attorney father why.
If she publishes a book I’m guessing it’s going to be self published.
Hackwork.
Marvin Harris, while entertainingly snarky, is biased as all hell (which can be helpful–at least you know what side he’s on when you’re interpreting what he’s reading).
Either way, thank you, Rayne for qualifying that “anthropologists suck” with “social.” Most of the biological anthropologists out there agree, wholeheartedly.
Jesus, this is all pretty dumb. First, there’s no grant money in cultural anthropology!
Anthropologists been critical of the voiceless ‘Other’ in ethnographies for, oh, decades now. Unfortunately, alt weekly book reviewers seldom mention those. (To be fair, they don’t have a lot of appeal outside the field because anthropologists are awful writers, and most of you are terrible readers who prefer your natives exoticized or as Noble Savages.) Don’t be conflating one bad book with the entire field if you don’t know the literature–and you don’t.
Hahahahaha, you took a semester abroad, and you’re criticizing white privilege.
Agreed; to dismiss an entire discipline out of hand because of one shoddy, sensationalistic piece of crap (last I checked, these can be found in any discipline) evinces laziness, not insight. Though anthropology is plagued with an inordinate amount of wind, when anthropological writing (and the research that preceded it) is good, it can be totally breathtaking.
The incomparable Phillipe Bourgois is a good example of a social anthropologist doing groundbreaking work in which people are never exoticized and from which solid policy recommendations are generated. His prose is gripping, and never lapses into the tired, straight off-the-shelf academic blather that tends to stand in for linguistic felicity in the social sciences.
That being said, if you can wade through some insanely boring, inane, or maddeningly oblique, self-referential language, there is a treasure trove of intensely interesting and thought-provoking material in cultural anthropology. No need to hate.
Back to the book then. To those who disagree with Ms DeMartini I suggest you read Lola’s Luck, then you may understand why Lola hardly rates a mention! This is all about Carol Miller and her adventure. For all I know this is a complete work of fiction; an attempt at a romantic novel. At no point did I gain insight to the life of the Machvaia but then again, perhaps I expected to much of social anthropology.
Agreed. The book was horrible and a disappointment considering the lure of Lola’s story. Ms. Miller barely makes it to California in the book because she is too busy getting it on with Stevo- who she stalks later on. She is living in a romantic delusion and you learn more about her than anyone else and who wants to learn about a woman from Washington about to have a mid-life crisis unless you are the same??? The book is a Melrose Place episode at best. Thank you Rayne for calling out the author. I look forward to more reviews. And come on people what would The Stranger be without a little punch.
correction: Melrose Place was too sexy a comparison, the book was more like an episode of The Golden Girls. Carol would be like Rose’s character meeting a gypsy while stumbling all over her words.
very interesting story….
my friend have already read this book ten times.He think about Lola how she looked…
Nice work Ms DeMartini, I love your write-up
No one here seems aware that Carol Miller is one of the most authoritative and frequently-cited scholars of Machwaya Roma ritual practices in the USA. This book is a rare gem for the authentic insight it provides into 1) the public rituals practiced by members of certain California Romany families, 2) the difficult choices and sacrifices made by those few outsiders like Carol who a) risk professional and public approbation while living a reckless and tumultuous life experience among Romanies and then b) share candidly the experience in print with risk-averse boors and bores like yourselves.
No one here seems aware that Carol Miller is one of the most authoritative and frequently-cited scholars of Machwaya Roma ritual practices in the USA. This book is a rare gem for the authentic insight it provides into 1) the public rituals practiced by members of certain California Romany families, 2) the difficult choices and sacrifices made by those few outsiders like Carol who a) risk professional and public approbation while living a reckless and tumultuous life experience among Romanies and then b) share candidly the experience in print with risk-averse boors and bores like yourselves.