What do you think?
Rate this book
Slaphappy: Pride, Prejudice, and Professional Wrestling
Slaphappy is reporter Thomas Hackett's penetrating look at the world of professional wrestling, for those who love the spectacle and for the sport's skeptics and the uninitiated. Through interviews with wrestlers, promoters, and fans, Hackett explores the full range of issues that swirl around wrestling culture -- fame, masculinity, violence, aggression, performance, and play. Among the lessons of professional wrestling is that deceit is a fundamental fact of American life. And yet, paradoxically, the one thing wrestling isn't is dishonest. Although wrestlers play pretend, wrestling itself doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is -- fantastically absurd, a very American kind of madness. Celebrity-obsessed, pathologically narcissistic, murderously competitive, it both epitomizes and parodies the delusional egoism at the heart of the culture. More than that, wrestling provides its fans and performers a medium for thinking about "getting over" in America today. This spectacle of excess may be the apotheosis of American imbecility, but it is also defiant, hopeful, liberating, and unifying -- a throwback to the raucous pleasures of early theater. Fans aren't detached connoisseurs, looking satirically down on life, concealing their anxieties in the cold comforts of irony. They are total participants in a carnival of their own making, shouting epithets, throwing chairs, expatiating their worries in a crowd's triumphant foolishness. It is, Slaphappy concludes, all the stuff of human culture. Where does fantasy end and reality begin? Where does the performance stop and life take over? Writing with affection and discernment, Hackett gets deep into the culture, discovering that the make-believe competition of wrestling is indeed "real" for millions of young men -- real in the sense that something real and important is at their worth as men.
- GenresNonfictionSports
266 pages, Hardcover
First published February 28, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
April 21, 2011
Slaphappy is Thomas Hackett's look into the world of professional wrestling as he searches for the answer as to why it's so popular amongst its fans. Along the way he interviews wrestlers and fans alike in hope he can unravel what those reasons are. Occasionally he will procure a theory and then back it up with some "facts" with one of his major outlets being that professional wrestling has its roots in homosexuality. Some of the reasoning behind this theory is ludicrous such as 'The Macho Man' Randy Savage presumably, according to the author, chose the name as a homage to the Village People and that Big Sexy, aka Kevin Nash, named himself such for the male audience. Hmmm.
The gay wedding of ex WWE wrestlers (sorry, I know I'm not supposed to call them wrestlers anymore due to WWE's desire to been seen as having entertainers) Billy & Chuck also gets a mention but the facts surrounding it are wrong in that the 'Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation' were furious over the wedding not taking place, when Billy and Chuck announced they weren't really gay, as they were led to believe by the WWE that it was going to happen thus breaking new boundaries. Also, anyone watching at the time would have easily noticed Billy and Chuck did not meet with fan approval even though Hackett claims they did. With basic facts being wrong several times throughout the book it was difficult to accept 'Slaphappy' as a professional piece of journalism. For instance, the shaving of armpit hair among wrestlers is portrayed as preening and somewhat homoerotic whereas, in reality, wrestlers do it so that when they have a guy in a headlock he's not getting a face full of their armpit hair.
There were many blanket statements that didn't do the author's arguments any good such as all wrestlers being oiled up and wearing "bikinis". Anyone who has watched any form of wrestling can clearly see that different wrestlers wear different attire and while some do sport the traditional look, and do use oil, there are as many wrestlers nowadays who don't. Even the guys on the cover of the book itself are not wearing the attire Hackett claims they all wear!
While this was a well written book (in terms of grammar sentence structure etc) it had too many flaws and for every chapter I found interesting there always seemed to be one that fell flat. However it does contain an extensive bibliography for anyone requiring further reading material but for some reason only contains information on some of the photographs used. As such one photograph will be labeled whereas the next one will leave the reader bemused as to who in the hell they're looking at.
With a bit more professionalism and more water tight theories this book could have been very good. As it is I wouldn't rate it beyond average.
The gay wedding of ex WWE wrestlers (sorry, I know I'm not supposed to call them wrestlers anymore due to WWE's desire to been seen as having entertainers) Billy & Chuck also gets a mention but the facts surrounding it are wrong in that the 'Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation' were furious over the wedding not taking place, when Billy and Chuck announced they weren't really gay, as they were led to believe by the WWE that it was going to happen thus breaking new boundaries. Also, anyone watching at the time would have easily noticed Billy and Chuck did not meet with fan approval even though Hackett claims they did. With basic facts being wrong several times throughout the book it was difficult to accept 'Slaphappy' as a professional piece of journalism. For instance, the shaving of armpit hair among wrestlers is portrayed as preening and somewhat homoerotic whereas, in reality, wrestlers do it so that when they have a guy in a headlock he's not getting a face full of their armpit hair.
There were many blanket statements that didn't do the author's arguments any good such as all wrestlers being oiled up and wearing "bikinis". Anyone who has watched any form of wrestling can clearly see that different wrestlers wear different attire and while some do sport the traditional look, and do use oil, there are as many wrestlers nowadays who don't. Even the guys on the cover of the book itself are not wearing the attire Hackett claims they all wear!
While this was a well written book (in terms of grammar sentence structure etc) it had too many flaws and for every chapter I found interesting there always seemed to be one that fell flat. However it does contain an extensive bibliography for anyone requiring further reading material but for some reason only contains information on some of the photographs used. As such one photograph will be labeled whereas the next one will leave the reader bemused as to who in the hell they're looking at.
With a bit more professionalism and more water tight theories this book could have been very good. As it is I wouldn't rate it beyond average.
January 8, 2019
I'm not surprised that this book has mixed reviews. I've been an on/off follower of wrestling, finally binning it with the disappointing ECW PPV that launched its short stint as a WWE franchise. My interest in wrestling was never particularly deep, but I enjoyed the spectacle - especially the more hardcore and indie varieties. I also have a lot of respect for wrestlers.
Hackett's treatment of the scene will always be controversial. He comes with a very high-brow approach, blending cultural theory and sociology with a pretty low-brow activity. But unlike other books that dissect pop culture through an over-educated prism, Hackett gets the balance right. It's worth reading the entire book - and it's actually also hard to refute his theories. What Hackett writes makes sense and in many ways align with the worries raised by the likes of Roddy Piper (second only in number of matches to Rick Flair).
It's not perfect, but no single book can ever capture an entire scene. What Hackett provides is a welcome outsider view that is provocative and also thought provoking. It was not at all what I expected when I started reading, yet I found it profound, sad and enlightening. Hate him for it, but Hackett does expose the emperor's new clothes here.
Most negative reviews of this book seem to resort to straw man arguments, attacking aspects of his writing or just outright refusing to entertain his message. But I see far fewer decent rebuttals of what he wrote - and more than a decade after it was published this book unintentionally predicted the disappointing backwards slide that pro wrestling has experienced.
One area Hackett doesn't explore is the high octane appeal of pro wrestling, though that only really became evident once MMA started becoming a big deal. But this book is more about the reasons why pro wrestling exists and it actually vindicates and celebrates the institution. If you can put judgement and prejudices aside for the 236 pages of Slaphappy, you will find it surprisingly enlightening and humbling.
If anything, anyone who doesn't grasp the appeal of pro wrestling - at least the appeal it once had - should read this.
Hackett's treatment of the scene will always be controversial. He comes with a very high-brow approach, blending cultural theory and sociology with a pretty low-brow activity. But unlike other books that dissect pop culture through an over-educated prism, Hackett gets the balance right. It's worth reading the entire book - and it's actually also hard to refute his theories. What Hackett writes makes sense and in many ways align with the worries raised by the likes of Roddy Piper (second only in number of matches to Rick Flair).
It's not perfect, but no single book can ever capture an entire scene. What Hackett provides is a welcome outsider view that is provocative and also thought provoking. It was not at all what I expected when I started reading, yet I found it profound, sad and enlightening. Hate him for it, but Hackett does expose the emperor's new clothes here.
Most negative reviews of this book seem to resort to straw man arguments, attacking aspects of his writing or just outright refusing to entertain his message. But I see far fewer decent rebuttals of what he wrote - and more than a decade after it was published this book unintentionally predicted the disappointing backwards slide that pro wrestling has experienced.
One area Hackett doesn't explore is the high octane appeal of pro wrestling, though that only really became evident once MMA started becoming a big deal. But this book is more about the reasons why pro wrestling exists and it actually vindicates and celebrates the institution. If you can put judgement and prejudices aside for the 236 pages of Slaphappy, you will find it surprisingly enlightening and humbling.
If anything, anyone who doesn't grasp the appeal of pro wrestling - at least the appeal it once had - should read this.
October 21, 2008
he treats this world like some heart of darkness but i don't think he's ever too condescending. definitely goes in trying to "understand pro wrestling" or uncover the psychic repercussions of playing the role--he bails on the former task, but does a heartbreaking job in the latter. the chapter when he visits the hart family "mansion" in canada is just so sad.
ok so i read this alongside that duke press essay compilation, steel chair to the head--mostly curious to see what advantages an investigative approach like hackett's would have over high academic essays from top-notch culture theorists, including henry jenkins. i love henry jenkins but ok: the dude wrote a long essay about how middle-aged working class men like pro wrestling because they relate to it--because it's a projection of their own issues w/r/t masculinity and ineffectuality etc--and then you read hackett's book (and recall your own memories) and realize: jesus fucking christ, this brilliant m.i.t. professor just wrote a thousands of words based on an entirely faulty premise of middle-aged men watching professional wrestling.
from 90 to 94 i loved pro wrestling because it was a manageable body of knowledge. i was less interested in the content than my ability to understand the wwf universe entirely. do you remember food fighters?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Fig...
those soft plastic action figures of anthropomorphized food with like this military bent just in time for the gulf war? it's the same thing. theoretically, i could know everything about every wrestler in the wwf. this was right when RAW was starting too, so it wasn't so difficult to keep up simply by watching SUPERSTARS on saturday mornings, read the magazines in the grocery store, go to mankus's for the p-p-v matches every three months, etc.
i imagine there were some kids out there aching for father figures, who found some semblance of them in big boss man and razor ramone and mr. perfect and so on. texas tornado, maybe. but at least in the philadelphia suburbs, where this shit was as popular as anything could have been, i think we were happy to have something to follow that was at once (a) athletic (b) historical (i.e. had a history) (c) manageable in its body of knowledge (d) portable, or had some kind of catchphrase quotient so one could signify that he was into professional wrestling, smelling what the rock was cooking, sucking it, etc.. in a way, i feel like kids got the hang of following sports via following pro wrestling--which is some kind of grand irony i'm sure.
http://laddermatchblog.blogspot.com
ok so i read this alongside that duke press essay compilation, steel chair to the head--mostly curious to see what advantages an investigative approach like hackett's would have over high academic essays from top-notch culture theorists, including henry jenkins. i love henry jenkins but ok: the dude wrote a long essay about how middle-aged working class men like pro wrestling because they relate to it--because it's a projection of their own issues w/r/t masculinity and ineffectuality etc--and then you read hackett's book (and recall your own memories) and realize: jesus fucking christ, this brilliant m.i.t. professor just wrote a thousands of words based on an entirely faulty premise of middle-aged men watching professional wrestling.
from 90 to 94 i loved pro wrestling because it was a manageable body of knowledge. i was less interested in the content than my ability to understand the wwf universe entirely. do you remember food fighters?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Fig...
those soft plastic action figures of anthropomorphized food with like this military bent just in time for the gulf war? it's the same thing. theoretically, i could know everything about every wrestler in the wwf. this was right when RAW was starting too, so it wasn't so difficult to keep up simply by watching SUPERSTARS on saturday mornings, read the magazines in the grocery store, go to mankus's for the p-p-v matches every three months, etc.
i imagine there were some kids out there aching for father figures, who found some semblance of them in big boss man and razor ramone and mr. perfect and so on. texas tornado, maybe. but at least in the philadelphia suburbs, where this shit was as popular as anything could have been, i think we were happy to have something to follow that was at once (a) athletic (b) historical (i.e. had a history) (c) manageable in its body of knowledge (d) portable, or had some kind of catchphrase quotient so one could signify that he was into professional wrestling, smelling what the rock was cooking, sucking it, etc.. in a way, i feel like kids got the hang of following sports via following pro wrestling--which is some kind of grand irony i'm sure.
http://laddermatchblog.blogspot.com
March 16, 2017
given the interviews he got and the sources he'd read (hackett and i share a wrestling/masculinity bibliography, it seems), this should've been the greatest book ever written abt the sport.
it wasn't.
hackett, though a prestige mag-caliber writer, squandered all of his promise by adopting the condescending tone of the bemused outsider that characterized pop culture writing of the pre-web 2.0 / pre-grantland era. "let's see why the rubes watch this bullshit" is the best way to summarize his take.
in spite of that, there's a lot of great stuff here. there could've been more. and why did this book vanish so quickly? that alone makes me sad.
it wasn't.
hackett, though a prestige mag-caliber writer, squandered all of his promise by adopting the condescending tone of the bemused outsider that characterized pop culture writing of the pre-web 2.0 / pre-grantland era. "let's see why the rubes watch this bullshit" is the best way to summarize his take.
in spite of that, there's a lot of great stuff here. there could've been more. and why did this book vanish so quickly? that alone makes me sad.
April 15, 2010
One of the best books on Pro-Wrestling. It is the book I have wanted to write but never had it in me. Hackett goes through and tries to distill what it is that makes people love professional wrestling. He never actually finds it but for a fan a lot of what he says does deeply resonate with you. I don't agree with everything he has to to and think he could have been more specific in categorizing groups of fans (stating that all fans have deep seated homophobic issues) and I think that he fails to give credit to many of the wrestlers out there by dismissing them as non-athletes. But over all I still think he hits things on the head more often then not and to not let his biasness over run the book (he toddles between thinking wrestling is ridiculous and important at the same time, which as I write this, actually agree with so I dunno).
August 2, 2011
This book started out like an outsider that was going to take apart something he didn't even try to understand. Yet as you moved thru it, the author did make real attempts at getting into the minds of the fans, and even the wrestlers themselves. But this was more about the fans and the author's take on the pysche of those fans. He still comes off as somewhat of an elitist, at least you can tell there is some understanding. There is some good history of this form of entertainment, and some good observations of the current arena of it. But over all the read comes off as a bit too cold and uncaring for the subject manner. Just when it seems the author is opening up, he throws in some sort of pschological observation that seems more of a way of shielding himself than it has to do with the subject manner.
Not really worth the time.
Not really worth the time.
August 22, 2014
What started out interestingly enough, turned into a book searching for a reason to belittle wrestlers and wrestling fans, while constantly getting even basic wrestling history wrong. The book has not only basic typos but grammar mistakes as well and is in serious need of an editor. No time was spent organizing the information as the writer constantly jars the reader by switching federations, wrestlers, and even time lines at random. The only saving grace was the small section on wrestler Luke Hawx. The rest seemed to be complete garbage better suited to a wrestling dirt sheet. Save yourself the time and money.
January 4, 2018
Pretty interesting, multi-faceted look at the spectacle and deeper cultural meaning of professional wrestling. The author's half-baked pop psychoanalyzing of wrestling wears a little thin, but for the most part it's a nuanced, highly readable examination. His portraits of wanna-be wrestlers are particularly sensitive and interesting.
November 16, 2011
The stories about wrestlers on the extreme fringe were interesting. The fans are as crazy as the performers. Some of his theories were way out there, especially his theory of wrestling as homoeroticism.
It is sad to note how spot on he is about wrestlers destroying themselves. Chris Benoit's suicide comes first to mind, but watching Rick Flair in his 60's parodying himself is sad too.
It is sad to note how spot on he is about wrestlers destroying themselves. Chris Benoit's suicide comes first to mind, but watching Rick Flair in his 60's parodying himself is sad too.
September 24, 2013
Tries to be too analytical and comes up a few inches short, but that's ok. That's what makes it so endearing. It's virtually hype-free. Gay and porn parallels are interesting while not always being convincing. An ideal read to cleanse the mind of the previously read university press book.
January 15, 2014
A sociological exploration of wrestling and wrestling fans that never quite seems to get its feet under it or know where it's going. Has some evocative insights but (like the industry itself) ends up unsure what to do with a lot of loose ends and messy thoughts.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews