Sharon M. Hannon

Punks: A Guide to an American Subculture [book] (2009)

Brian Shultz

Oh no, another all-encompassing book about "punk," and this one's by someone whose name doesn't start with "Legs" or end with "Mackaye." In fact, I'd probably have never heard of Sharon M. Hannon's name if not for this review submission, so this might very well be her first foray into documenting a slice of punk rock history. Scary enough, it's not even a slice she's covering--it's a general summary of the roots and all its various offshoots. But breathe a sigh of relief; Hannon's Punks: A Guide to an American Culture is, for the most part, a factually accurate textbook of sorts that touches upon all the important touchstones of what any self-respecting "punk" would likely regard as crucial to the movement.

As a disclaimer, Punks admittedly mentions this very website briefly in the book, though I don't believe Hannon ever contacted anyone from our staff. It simply sidles in besides other, far more notable documenting zines of the punk canon: i.e., Maximumrocknroll, Punk, etc. al. It's just one section of many that highlights the various given factions and cultures, from DIY venues like 924 Gilman St. and ABC No Rio to groundbreaking upstart labels like Dischord and SST. Sure, this is all well-worn territory for any of us with half a clue, but to the inquiring at least it's representative.

Hannon provides quotes from a handful of first-hand interviews with important "punks" of sorts as well, like Jello Biafra, Kathleen Hanna and Ian Mackaye among others. The full text of some of these interviews are available to read in the later portions of the book as well, and some of them are honestly pretty interesting. Biafra goes on at length about the importance of political action going hand in hand with living a "punk lifestyle" and it's articulate and refreshingly hopeful.

Hannon doesn't quite hit out of the park, though, as the glaring head-scratchers and relatively false generalizations in the "punk glossary" pertain to. Who still refers to skatepunk as "skate-thrash"? And do that many of us consider "pop-punk" derisive enough to make it half the entry's definition? Unlikely.

Those unfortunate oversights aside, Punks is an otherwise faithful and tidy representation of punk rock history. It's Punk for Dummies for the normals and a handy reference guide--if ever needed--for the rest of us.