The book 'Rethinking Elvis' is the academic testament of Mark Duffett who passed away on February 15, 2025. He holds a PhD on Elvis fandom and worked as an Associate Professor in Media at the University of Chester, U.K. in media and popular music.
Publicity for the book stated that while much of the coverage of Elvis' life concerns his personal history and musical ability, ‘Rethinking Elvis’ pushes beyond the familiar to address Elvis' branding, historical and geographic reception, heritage, and fan phenomenon.
Using Elvis' iconography as a point of departure, popular music scholars and historians contend with issues related to the performer's whiteness, Southern identity, and gender, among others, in turn offering myriad opportunities to pursue new approaches in the emergent field of Elvis studies.
Paul Belard and Kees Mouwen shared their observations on this academic exercise.
Paul: Having read this book I think you could state that Duffett compiled an overly scholarly collection of essays written by highly intelligent individuals, and at times reads like a thesis from a scholar on his way to a doctorate. But it could have been titled ‘Overthinking Elvis’ as it moves beyond Elvis’ personal life to look at why he matters as a cultural phenomenon. It is heavy stuff!
Kees: I thought that sometimes the propositions examined by these academics really went beyond historical facts and reality. Questionable and, in some cases, harmful propositions are put forward - acknowledged by the authors in these essays - which are subsequently tested against radical and outdated literature, societal views, and ideas sometimes dating back nearly 60 years. Doing so, some questionable connections are drawn in through exercises that are detrimental to the current perception of Elvis’ life, accomplishments, and legacy.
Design
Behind the attractive cover of the paperback and hardback edition of this book, readers get 278 pages of heavy content, no less than 60 pages of notes and references, and less than a handful amateur pictures. Not something that will appeal to all Elvis fans. One chapter deals with the analysis of photographs, but these are not shown, that is both a design and content flaw.
If you are looking for a thorough book with scholarly analyses of various aspects of Elvis' life, background, and legacy as a musician, performer, and actor to sink your teeth into, then this is the book you need.
Content
Paul: Readers expecting another biography of Elvis or a celebration of his music need not apply. The book offers a variety of contextual lenses to consider Elvis’ life, legacy, and place in history (up to today) and the universe in general. The essays deal mainly with Elvis’ cultural, racial and social impact on society - often in a few being referred to as “white trash” (a derogatory term for poor, inarticulate and uneducated white people in the rural areas of the southern United States) - the too often misunderstood “did Elvis steal black music”, his role as an “American cultural weapon in Cold War Europe”, his posthumous legacy.
It is at times challenging reading, even grueling. One has to really concentrate to get through it. The arguments are at times over the top, as in Chapter 4 where the author establishes a parallel between Jesus and his twelve Apostles and Elvis and the twelve members of his mafia. I did not even know there were that many!
The introductory chapter by Mark Duffet sets the tone. We are far from his magnificent book ‘Counting Down Elvis’ where he lists Elvis’ 100 finest songs. The songs, the reason we love Elvis, are almost nowhere to be found. It frames the book as a set of new perspectives on Elvis’ significance in society, his symbolism, myth, and discursive uses, whatever it means.
I enjoy reading Mark. His style is fluid, his knowledge of Elvis complete, which is not the case of some others in this book, as will be seen. I was honored by the fact that Mark mentioned my book on Elvis’ supposed racism ‘From Black and White to Technicolor’. His untimely passing leaves the Elvis’ world much poorer.
Kees: It is a well written introduction on Elvis an academic studies. But Duffett complained in this chapter that the many “buddy books” by former family and Memphis Mafia members rehash the same old ground, but the authors of the various essays in the book Duffett compiled, do exactly the same, although through in an academic approach and ditto subjects.
Regarding to discussions on race, Duffett states that “The question is how we can, carefully and accurately, us Elvis in our discussions as part of that project.” Unfortunately not all authors featured in this book succeeded in using “Elvis” “carefully and accurately”. We have to talk about that.
Paul: The second chapter addresses how Southern evangelical religion shaped Elvis’ identity, especially his early life. It explores how Gospel and religious culture influenced his sound and stage presence.
Kees: But it also goes beyond that, James Goff poses the question if Elvis may have thought that his way of living with ”sex and drugs and rock and roll” could be considered sinful in the eyes of the (Pentecostal) church. Also confirming that approach, thanks to his Assemblies of God upbringing, wild man Jerry Lee Lewis was firmly convinced that the music he sang would surely send him (and others) to hell.
Elvis apparently was more practical, believing he was praising the Lord, and wouldn’t be in trouble for doing so. Memphis Maffia member Lamar Fike jokingly said: “Does the bible say “thou shalt not pop a Seconal”? Elvis upbringing, and visiting Churches that had a more liberal view on ways to praise the Lord, merging religion and “entertainment” with Gospel singers, obviously helped in this regard. As we all know, Elvis was a “searcher” and open to different views and form of belief. According to the author, Elvis didn’t see his substance abuse as “drugs use,” and therefore not sinful.
Paul: The third chapter is by Michael Bertrand, an historian of the American South. He wrote several books about music, notably ‘Race, Rock and Elvis’. Sub-titled ‘Elvis, or the Burden of a Southern Identity’, it explores Elvis’ Southern roots, read “white trash”, as a cultural burden that shaped how he was perceived nationally and internationally.
It can be considered as a more modern condensed take on W. J. Cash’s famous book ‘The Mind of the South’ which examined the history, psychology, and social structure of the American South, covering themes like slavery, racism, class, honor culture, and regional identity. A very interesting read.
Kees: The theme of “the burden of the South” apparently weighs heavy on almost everybody originating below the Mason - Dixie line. Everybody from the South who crosses that line, becoming or wanting to become successful (from congressmen running for President to musicians scoring a nationwide hit) success isn’t taken completely seriously, or worse, is put back in their place.
Presley isn’t really a subject in this chapter, he is primarily used as an example, just like former Presidents Johnson, Carter and Clinton who almost get more coverage than Elvis.
This doesn’t make the chapter less relevant for Elvis historians as “old habits die hard”. Looking at his first experiences with the North East establishment, and their disdain for the South, especially in 1955 and 1956 in New York, the shoe fits.
There is a reason it wasn’t until 1972 that he made a concert appearance in the Big Apple after being rejected for an appearance on ‘Arthur Godfrey's Talent Scouts’ on March 23, 1955. The producers deemed his performance of ‘Good Rockin' Tonight’ too weak or unsuitable, passing on him in favor of more “clean-cut" artists like Pat Boone. Read the article by Paul Belard on ‘Elvis On Television’ in ‘Elvis Day By Day 2017’.
Paul: Thanks Kees!
Kees: You're welcome. Look at U.S. President Trump, in an attempt to polish his image and appeal to part of his voters, made a short stop-over at Graceland in March 2026, while he was in Memphis. He was perhaps hoping that some of Elvis positive image would rub off on him. I thought it was strange that Elvis Presley Enterprises asked the sitting president to sign a guitar “for the archives” and that – a report of - the visit was not posted on their website or social channels?
‘Mixing Up Elvis’ is the fourth chapter and written by Australian professor Sean Redmond. It delves into Elvis as a hybrid cultural figure, combining elements of different genres, identities, and meanings.
Paul: I am pretty adept at solving crossword puzzles, as long as the clues do not deal with Rapper’s novel names or some algae used to wrap sushi, but some words in this chapter stumped me.
The author qualifies Elvis as “carrying the mythic qualities of the salvific hero”. I had to google the word: "Salvific" is an adjective meaning having the intention or power to save, redeem, or bring about spiritual/moral restoration. OK, good to know!
Another instance that puzzled me in this chapter has to do with the revelation that Elvis played a mixed-race character in three films, ‘G.I. Blues’, ‘Flaming Star’ and ‘Stay Away, Joe’. That it was the case in ‘G.I. Blues’ was news to me. It touches on the décor of Graceland, which will be the subject of Chapter 10. Finally, to confirm that this book is not light-reading, even intimidating, I’ll cite this sentence: “Elvis is the guide along the way, a helper on the pilgrim’s path, a vehicle and medium through which the pilgrim may come into contact with and encounter a higher truth and reality”.
Kees: Redmond is, in my opinion, selective in cherry-picking far-fetched arguments and examples to support absurd claims about "Otherness" (the process by which groups distinguish themselves from others whom they devalue, often creating a dichotomy between the “Self” and the “Other”, influenced by cultural constructs and historical discourse), bloodlines, whiteness, being pure or unpure and race.
To be honest, I found this way of thinking a little scary. If there was ever an artist who looked beyond the color of one's skin, it was Elvis. Linking the value of Presley memorabilia to race and ethnicity is, therefore, a step too far in my opinion.
Would Elvis really have opted to play Pacer in ‘Flaming Star’ as an instrument to “work off his bifurcated bloodline” and to “draw his perceived ‘hot bloodedness’ into its narrative” as Redmond writes? According to the author Elvis is “not performing the tragedy of the half-breed but revealing - from within his ‘essentialist’ core - its arterial pulses and oppressions … in rejecting his Western self, Elvis / Pacer draws attention to the limitations of white culture - of pure blood - which, in terms of the film’s textual operations, seems dull, pernicious, and overly regulated in comparison to its non-white counterpart.” Seriously?
Theories like this, emphasizing Elvis’ mixed racial, ethnic an unpure heritage, portray him as a representative of the “Southern white trash,” something these so called “intellectuals” often do. It is laying a burden on his legacy as described in a previous chapter.
And, turning it around, would people with an African-American background really feel unwelcome in a “racialized fan culture whose favored images include Elvis the working class hero” as Redmond writes? The thought of his legacy perceived like this alone would make Elvis “turn around in his grave” so to speak.
What is most notably missing from this chapter is Elvis' own perspective, especially with claims like these. There is not a single quote from Elvis about his relationship with Black people, his mixing of musical genres, accusations of "stealing Black music," or his views on heritage and religion. One would expect a university professor to present the complete picture and address multiple perspectives, yet Redmond goes down his own rabbit hole instead, “mixing up Elvis”.
The fifth chapter is titled ‘Elvis, Race, and the Unity of Complementary Genius’. Its focus is on race and how Black music influenced Elvis.
Paul: I think this is a great chapter on the history of black music from jazz to hip-hop and rap. However, the author began black music history with jazz, without hardly mentioning gospel and blues which took form on the plantations. I found this odd. As mentioned earlier, the knowledge of some of these authors seems sketchy at best.
This one writes: “Presley’s imitation of Willie Mae - Big Mama - Thorton is fairly well known.” Wrong! Elvis did not imitate Thornton as stated, but based his version of ‘Hound Dog’ on Freddie Bell and the Bellboys’ rendition he heard in Las Vegas in 1956, a far cry from Thorton’s approach to the song.
The author persists in her ignorance by stating that: “The copying of ‘Hound Dog’ by Elvis and SUN Records provoked a copyright infringement lawsuit.” Since the song was recorded seven months or so after Elvis left Sun, this statement is erroneous. It is fascinating that the example of Willie May Thorton is used so often to demonstrate that Elvis stole music from Blacks. The song was written by two Jewish white guys who like Black music. I found the use of this example deeply ironic.
Kees: That is true Paul, university professor Bill Wynne wrote a great scholar work on this song in 2024, the book is titled ‘A Hound Dog’s Tale’.
Another thing I miss in the chapter is the positive side of Elvis’ breakthrough. Yes, it was based or made possible in part by the influences he absorbed from Black music. Given his background, growing up among the poor Black communities of Memphis and Tupelo, he could hardly have developed any other way I think. For him, this musical blend was entirely natural. And with the negative focus by many of the authors in this book, we also overlook Elvis’ genius. Fortunately this author does mention that at the end.
The chapter presents a legal framework for determining “ownership” of an artistic work, and who is entitled to claim such ownership (“appropriation”). Yet in Elvis’ case, as far as I know, he ever claimed ownership of “his” music. On the contrary, Elvis himself consistently pointed to Fats Domino as the true King of Rock and Roll from the very beginning of his career.
That Elvis, as a white artist in a racially segregated society, faced fewer racial, legal, and social obstacles is obvious. But in his daily life, in his relationships with, and appreciation for Black musicians, he never let those societal divisions guide him. As the “only” white child in a Black neighborhood, he encountered and had to overcome many of the same challenges. And as a white artist singing black music, he joined ranks with his collogues of color to break through racial barriers.
Had the author taken this fact‑based perspective as a starting point - or, in other words, had he looked more closely at the person (Elvis) he analyzes - this entire chapter might not have needed to be written. The same could be said for several other chapters in the book by the way.
One might also wonder how this framework would look if it were written about Elvis “stealing” traditional Country music from so‑called hillbillies and rednecks. He created his own version of Bill Monroe’s ‘Blue Moon of Kentucky’ as the B-side of his debut single for SUN records, but much to the displeasure of some listeners. Yet he also remained remarkably faithful to the original of ‘Old Shep’, a song he had already been singing since the age of five. Could it be he just naturally sang from the heart?
The arguments used to support the theory of appropriation are selective as well. They highlight the songs by Black artists that Elvis studied and recorded, but ignore the fact that he was simultaneously listening to white country and even opera music. Without intending to defend Elvis, it is simply true that he absorbed “everything he loved.” Not to mention the fake claim you pointed out Paul.
It is undeniably tragic that white music was valued more highly than music of Black origin, and that some music was considered more refined when performed by a white artist in the fifties or people of color didn’t get the recognition for their work. Yet Elvis himself had to overcome similar criticism when white commentators judged his music and performance style. Perhaps he stood shoulder to shoulder with his Black musical friends, using his “privileged white position” to kick open doors and step together with his friend across the racist threshold.
Several prominent Black artists and musicians, particularly those who worked during the 1950s, credited Elvis Presley with breaking down doors for them in a segregated industry by introducing Black music to mainstream white audiences.
Little Richard stated, "He was an integrator. Elvis was a blessing. They wouldn't let black music through. He opened the door for black music". He also mentioned that Presley made it possible for him to come through and that he "thanked God for Elvis" because he opened doors that were locked by racism. Solomon Burke added: "He opened up the door at a time, when we couldn't put a foot in it!". Ernie Isley of The Isley Brothers went even further, saying that Elvis was "the guy that sort of blew the hinges off the door".
While acknowledging Elvis’ privilege, B.B. King spoke fondly of Elvis, noting that Presley was a "blessing" and that he began to respect Presley after he did Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup material, stating that Elvis stood on stages that were closed to Black performers. James Brown called Elvis his "brother" and respected his role as a musical bridge.
These artists often argued that Elvis was a student and messenger who respected the origins of the music he sang, providing visibility to Black musicians who were largely ignored by the mainstream industry. This perspective is missing in the article and in most chapters of the book.
Sadly, the reactions to the blend of rap and country in Lil Nas X’s ‘Old Town Road’ (also released in a remix with “redneck” Billy Ray Cyrus) or Beyoncé’s 2024 country album ‘Cowboy Carter' show that some still cling to outdated ideas about (“their”) instead of embracing new interpretations or enjoying it.
That the book encourages us to reflect on these issues is one of its strengths. But the fact that the author ends his article by questioning whether we should even look at Elvis and his musical legacy through the framework he just presented made me raise my eyebrows, why write twenty pages about it then?
The sixth chapter looks beyond the U.S. to how Danish reporters interpreted Elvis in the 1950s.
Paul: Mostly, it is a list of second-hand reports qualifying Elvis as noisemaker rather than a singer, peppered with a couple of words I needed to google again, such as “semiotician” and “Bourdieuian”.
Kees: It was a nice read on the Danish Boomers of the 1950’s not knowing what to think and how to handle Elvis, a trouble maker. Authors Nygaard and Rosenorn didn’t really do their housework, and seemed caught is a trap, wanting to make this a “rebel without a cause” story.
Contrary to what they write, Denmark wasn’t the only European country that was late to the party when it came to Elvis, and other rockers. In France, Italy, Greece and Spain he wasn’t welcomed with open arms either. Several book have documented this the past few years.
Besides that, there were several business changes in the Danish movie and music world, holding up distribution of new material. Could it simply be that that was the reason the Danes were at the back-end of the cultural revolution of the fifties?
A little scary, but funny to read back now is the description by Danish critic Robert Naur of Elvis: “Behold the specimen: low-browed, the mouth strangely quadrangular from an interesting sullenness that overaged people like us might mistake for common surliness, the gaze dull as in a reptile from whom one expects the worst.”
Later in the article they refer to the Tommy Steele, the British counterpart of Elvis, as a “… white …”. Although the authors claim that the Danes wanted to refrain themselves from racial matters after their experiences with the nazi’s occupation during the Second World War (remember, back then that war was just 12 years in the past), but this description comes close to what Nazi’s did. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this. Maybe it is going a little too far.
Chapter 7, examines ‘Elvis Outside the USA’ in Italy’s Cold War context and how Elvis was perceived as a cultural symbol.
Paul: A large part of it has to do with the post-war presence of NATO in Italy. There is a great introduction on the origins and meaning of the Blues, albeit an academic one pointing out the color blue as the uniomentalis - the union of spirit and soul - and using Oedipus and Antigone in order to explain the Black diaspora. As noted before, this book is intellectually heavy, making it more suited to academic readers than casual fans.
Kees: I though the link between Greek mythology and the black diaspora was farfetched, just like the history of the “blue” in blues, The history of the introduction of American popular music, from Blues to Jazz and Rock and Roll as a means from the U.S. troops to win over the Italian souls. Interesting to read was that the strong presence of the Catholic church, communist and socialist parties had to be overcome, especially with the youngsters who – not burdened by the problems of the war – wanted to be free. But in the end the church and politics won, as they controlled the media outlets.
Elvis only makes an appearances on the last pages, so this chapter is more the story of the rise and fall of Rock and Roll in Italy, adorned with the details of the introduction of Elvis.
Chapter 8 expands on the preceding chapter and analyzes the impact of Elvis on Western Europe and behind the Iron Curtain, noting that Elvis was more than an artist, but a prime pop-cultural symbol of the USA in the struggle between West and East.
Paul: The section on the Soviet Union and its satellites is very interesting. While Rock and Roll was officially denounced as “wild orgies of cavemen”, it was perceived differently by the young Russians. I like the anecdote about a Moscow football team on a trip to Britain in 1957. They were urged by Soviet officials to visit Shakespeare’s hometown. Instead, they went to see Loving You in a local cinema. Good for them!
Kees: Like the previous one, this was a nice read. The situation in the “two Germany’s” was different from Italy. The youth in West Germany embraced Elvis as a symbol of the new era while in the German “Democratic” Republic the youth embraced him as a symbol of resistance. Very insightful, and as this was the place where post-war East and West met, it wasn’t so strange that the U.S. Army sent Elvis to Germany.
I couldn’t help but smile when I read the quote from the Official newspaper of the East German Youth Party that accused Elvis of “wild hip-swinging a la Marylin Monroe” and “jumping around like a lunatic, shaking his crotch as if he had been given undiluted hydrochloric acid, and roaring like some wounded deer, just not as melodious”.
Paul: Up next is chapter 9, another essay by Mark Duffett. It explores the early fan culture before Graceland became a tourist attraction, notably around the famous gates.
Kees: This was an insightful chapter with not too much unnecessary “academics”. It read like the history of the gates and their place in the fandom. From the days they were installed, and the first news snippets came through and were distributed through Garry Pepper’s fan-club. From there the gates became more iconic, and a place where Elvis met his fans, not so much separating him from his fan base.
Duffett should have proofread his article: Elvis Presley Enterprises was not founded by Lisa Marie Presley in 1977.
Chapter 10 is about the photographs of Graceland by Willam Eggleston. Like Elvis, he lived in Memphis and, like him, had experienced the disdain of the South by the Northern elite.
Paul: This is an engaging portrait showing how images of Graceland are important in American mythmaking around success, place, and celebrity. The chapter ends with the sentence, “Ultimately, Eggleston’s photographs suggest that to mock Elvis is to mock ourselves”.
Kees: In an essay that analyzes photographs to tell the story behind that sentence, the photographs must be shown. Here the book falls short as the essential graphic element is lacking here.
What I didn’t like was the link and distinction between the fine art of photographer Eggleston and the trashiness of Elvis as a starting point. In my opinion, this happens too often in this book; this is likely the way academics view Elvis' legacy and image. It is this bias that is elaborated in this type of article, whereas one would expect a broader and open perspective on the subject of the essay.
This isn’t necessary, as you could also say that Elvis is the representation of the American Dream, from rags to riches. The “taste” of the subject is something personal. Comparing Graceland’s decoration with Castles in London, Moscow or Versailles, there is less difference than one might think.
Also missing from this essay is that Elvis did, at several moments, open his house to the press, allowing for example, the Memphis based Commercial Appeal make photographs inside his home. OK, this was not an episode of MTV’s Cribs, or a boudoir shoot for a fashion magazine, but those are usually fake too.
We must not forget that this was a big step for Elvis as he was the most photographed man of his time, so his mansion, separated from the world through behind by the musical gates, was his home, and only private place, away from the glamour of Hollywood.
And what do we see on these photographs? Eggleston made his phots in 1983, after Priscilla Presley redecorated the mansion, replacing the red colored scheme that Elvis (and Linda Thompson) had done with a blue color scheme, returning to the 1968 - 1972 era, and closer to the 1957 decorations. Apparently in response to Goldman’s criticism, trying to uplift Elvis’ image. Hiring Eggleston fits in that strategy, he photographed a home turned into a museum, not the place Elvis left behind.
Finally, the author seems to be selective in the quotes he uses, I didn’t read his perspective in the conclusion, even the quote that end the article isn’t his own …
Chapter 11 takes us on a visit to Nashville and its connections with Elvis.
Paul: It is an appealing segment that makes the reader want to take a trip to Music City while using this chapter as a tour guide.
Kees: I read it differently, I first thought I heard a “boomer” explaining that experiencing music through old fashioned vinyl, bought at your favorite record store or visiting a concert was vital to experience music at its fullest. It was about memories, places and experiences. Something lost in the digital age and mobile streaming. Robert Fry complained that Spotify’s algorithm determined what you heard, and that it was limited to the favorites of the masses (commodified music, just like a “burger” from McDonalds). Fans are missing out on a lot!
And although he has a point I don’t think it was all that different back in the day (when all was better). The record store could only present as much variation in music as the square meters allowed. The algorithm was also present in the eighties, it was the shop-owner who created sections, placed artist together in genres, or advised you other records and tapes based on your limited knowledge or the albums you had bought.
Fry mentions that the introduction of the record player also separated the music from the “live performance and listening experience,” so this has been something from all ages. In my view, this is not so very different from the invention of the printing press. When, for example, the Bibles were printed, a separation also arose between the physical and collective experience of the service, and people could actually take the word of the Lord home with them and find their own way and experience through the book.
This makes me think, perhaps the Walkman is to blame, because listeners literally cut themselves loose from the socket.
Where Fry has a point is that music must be experienced. Reading this essay, it looks like the author doesn’t go out much, because the youth of today uses Spotify to discover new music, shares it with friends, connects online in fan groups or physical events and yes, goes out to concerts. The latter is also due to artist going back on the road more, as the real money is to be earned there.
His observations in the way - the history of the - music is brought to visitors of some of the holy places in the U.S. raises some good insights. It is good and fun that it becomes more interactive. Unfortunately the author’s argumentation does not seem to be coherent. At one point he lacks the direct connection between music, the record or the concert venue where you experienced it, giving music a context. On the other hand he doesn’t really like the museum-like display of original artifacts behind glass, as it creates distance. But he also doesn’t like the manner in which music can be experienced in Beale Street in Memphis or downtown in Nashville. According to Fry it is too commercialized, polished and lacks connection to history. It looks like he seems to forget that those are commercial bars, needing to earn money to stay open. They use music to do that.
Fortunately, there are places that found a way to connect both. I did like the idea that you could sit behind the piano that is so prominently featured on the many recording Elvis made in that studio. But since that is a controlled environment, this is possible.
In conclusion, I think this author too overanalyzes it when he writes about fences around statues of Elvis in Memphis versus statues of Chet Atkins or Owen Bradly in Nashville where you can “interact with the artist”. He writes “The statue, however also reinforces clear distinctions between fan, performer and history, suggesting that fans can learn about and celebrate Elvis from a historical and spatial distance”. Perhaps it also has something to do with the preserving the statue, not wanting fans to climb on it and damage it. The author forgets to mention that Elvis Presley Enterprises build a multi-million dollar experience center, presenting Elvis - polished as it may be - in a more modern and interactive way.
Chapter 12, ‘A Star Is Imagined’ is subtitled The “Unproduction” of Elvis Presley’s Film Career. It recaps the movies offered to Elvis but that he did not make.
Paul: This paragraph summarizes too well what a lot of us think. “Imagine what Elvis could have been and done in the 1960s. Elvis could have played in ’60 type films, been a major player on the concert circuit, created music that would have advanced’60s cultural innovation, and have generally been a key figure. But Elvis just wasn’t part of the real 1960s”.
How true, how sad! And this absence can be laid at the feet of Parker, whose interest was more in the dollars than in developing Elvis’ talent.
Kees: This could have been interesting indeed Paul, but I have a problem with the model used by London Palmer
The author wrote that in 1961, Elvis was not considered for the film adaptation of Bertolt's 'Three Penny Opera' because there needed to be a connection between his "contemporary cultural meaning" at the time and the film role according to one of the movie’s producers. You can see the logic in that. But then again, it may simply have come down to the fact that a film better suited to his image and the interests of his young audience would make more money. ‘King Creole’ and ‘Jailhouse Rock’ prove this I think.
For this analysis of Elvis’ film career, Palmer used the concept of "unproduction studies.” This idea can roughly defined as the study of films or recordings left unmade, unseen, unheard or unreleased, as a radical discipline with the potential to uncover a shadow history of the industry, actor or musician. In other words, ‘what ifs”.
It is genuinely interesting to explore why Elvis was not cast in 'The Rainmaker' at the start of his movie career or in 'A Star is Born' near the end of his life, or anything in between. But let's do that based on facts, because they tell us a lot about how Elvis' career evolved and how he was seen by fellow Hollywood stars and studio suits.
For me, these imaginings can be fun in a meme or one of the many A.I. clips of Elvis playing a role in ‘Star Wars’ on YouTube. But, I found myself skipping ahead when Palmer tried to make these “what ifs” too seriously.
For readers interested in that kind of fact-based look behind Elvis' film career, I'd point them to the work of David English and Pål Grandlund on his movies. There is no ‘overthinking Elvis’ in those volumes.
Chapter 13, titled ‘Posthumous Representations of Elvis: From Cultural Icon to Transproperty,’ examines Elvis’ afterlife in culture, how his image and name have become intellectual property, moving from person to cultural and financial asset.
Paul: This chapter is a highly academic essay that argues that fame is not the same as celebrity and introduced a “metonymized Elvis”. Checking the meaning of the word, it describes the use of a linked term, attribute, or associated idea to represent an object or concept, rather than using its literal name. An overextended and demanding chapter.
Kees: Reading this loose chapter did remind me of the continued efforts by Elvis Presley Enterprises to control, police and monetize the Elvis’ brand with all means possible.
An interesting observation by Madeley and Downes was that the fans and the “copyright” owners have opposite interests most of the time. And where it was possible – to some extend – to control this in the physical world, this has significally changed in the digital social media era, and you see that the Authentic Brands Group moves along.
With the various lawsuits they waged to regain control over Elvis’ rights and how to commercially exploit, direct, and monitor them, they laid the foundation for all other deceased artists. Even in this area, therefore, he is an innovator.
And although the controlled image and (re)presentation of Elvis through the Authentic Brands Group does not always serve the interests of the fan base, it is good to see that EPE managed to keep “their Elvis” relevant. With the expansion of Graceland with a triple star hotel, entertainment center and clear strategy beyond the 50th anniversary of Elvis’ death in 2027, they created the (commercial) basis for years to come. I can applaud that.
Chapter 14 touches on Black Lives Matter and the Meaning of Elvis in Contemporary Memphis, using a Black Life Matters protest during the 2016 Candle Light Vigil, and how the Memphis Police Department handled it, as the casus for this chapter. The author uses Elvis and Graceland as symbols for a racial system that caused a financial / wealth gap that still exists today. It portrays “Elvis” as an alleged racist, where he is even described as a racial impersonator and of course it regurgitates the false and 70 year old “shoe shine” phrase to build a case.
Paul: To all this nonsense, I will cite B.B. King’s remark: “If anyone says Elvis Presley was a racist, then they don’t know a thing about Elvis Presley or music History.” Unfortunately, it seems to be the case with some of these writers.
Kees: You are too kind here Paul. I find these types of essays very worrying, for various reasons. The book offers a variety of contextual lenses to consider Elvis' life, legacy, and place in history, from the fifties of the last century, up to today. The problem with some of the lenses is that you create a narrative that can easily be perceived as true, even when it isn’t.
A perception like this is hard to correct, especially in this day and age. Just look at the “shoe shine” quote that is dragged up again, even if there is no proof that these words were spoken and the author acknowledges that. As a narrative it still goes around 70 years later.
Yes, you can look through a "white supremacy" lens at Elvis or Graceland, making them symbols of the racial wealth gap that that still exists in Memphis today. But by doing so you also make Elvis a symbol of something he wasn’t. Referring to vague sources, racist authors, or quotes that can't be validated is not something I would expect from an award-winning author with 15 years of experience in the academic world.
One protester is quoted as saying "Graceland was the object of the protest, not the subject," but by organizing the protest as the BLM movement did, the association has been made, and the harm has been done. This protester probably didn’t know his history, forgetting that Elvis grew up in the poor side of Tupelo, at times in a black ghetto. As one of the few white kids in a black neighborhood, he faced the same problems as his colored friends. As part of the “white trash” community of East Tupelo, he was one of them. The system of power they protest today, didn’t help a young Elvis 80 years ago either.
As for the Graceland mansion, when Elvis bought it, it was located on the outskirts of Whitehaven, not in the middle of a poor neighborhood, primarily inhabited with poor people of color.
Besides that, you have to have the decency to realize that there is a place and time for everything. When preparing a protest you should ask yourself if a Candlelight Vigil, during which people remember and honor a deceased person, is the most appropriate event to voice your problems with the City of Memphis and (in)directly blame that deceased person for all the harm that was done to them by the city and state of Mississippi the past 200 years. It simply shows a lack of respect, not to mention that there are 364 other days in the year to raise your voice …
Regardless of how (wrongfully) the Memphis Police and Elvis Presley Enterprises handled the situation, I wonder what would the reactions would be when a memorial service for Memphis's other King, the late Martin Luther King, was used to protest against the city.
Let's not forget, during his life, Elvis kept his personal opinions to himself, and he silently helped those in need, doing what the city didn’t do. And now, in 2026, he can't (or should I say) shouldn't have to defend himself against something he wasn’t.
The result of these associations can’t be undone, and years later, in 2020, the protest returned to Graceland when the famous walls surrounding the mansion were defaced by Black Life Matters protesters, proof that the narrative had not been corrected. So writing essays like this, authors should realize that words matter, even when used “for arguments sake”.
The book closes with Chapter 15, another piece by Mark Duffet. In the future of Elvis studies, he would like to see Elvis as a subject of serious academic inquiry, not just pop biography.
Paul: Duffett notes that on any quantifiable measure of scholarly interest, in academia, the Beatles easily win. He hopes it will change. He touches on the existing clubs, magazines, sites which keep Elvis’ memory alive. Kees Mouwen and his ‘Elvis Day By Day’ series are rightfully so mentioned. Unfortunately, this is not the case of the great and essential Australian site, Elvis Information Network. A simple omission perhaps.
Mark also suggests that there should be a better understanding of Elvis fandom and disability. There is already plenty of material on Elvis and the March of Dimes, his fight against polio, and countless pictures of him with handicapped fans.
Kees: Nicely spotted that he mentioned the ‘Elvis Day By Day’ yearbooks. Duffett quotes Gilbert Rodman who noted in 1996 that “intellectuals have traditionally been unwilling to see Elvis as a figure of sufficient importance to undertake serious critical work on his life, his art or his cultural impact.” But no other artist could justify such a retrospective each year, but Elvis does! I couldn’t find one on the Beatles (following the comparison Duffett makes between the Fab Four and Elvis in regard to the number of - academic - publications).
Looking back, this has always been the case, movie and music critic preferred to review some obscure band or underground movie instead of an Elvis release. Every Bob Dylan release was worth a few pages in Rolling Stone magazine. Fortunately new releases have showed up on the Rolling Stone website, but mostly as sponsored articles.
Paul: For all of Elvis’ achievements, I would have liked to have seen one chapter about the malfeasances of his manager and how it curbed Elvis’ talent. Parker’s pursuits of the almighty dollar and the limitations imposed by his illegal alien status are the causes that allowed us to see only the tip of the iceberg of Elvis’ genius.
Kees: Yes, that would have been great, because much of what has happened on the Elvis Presley timeline, is in a big part due to (Elvis’ interactions with) him. More so than the academic exercises by many of the scholars who contributed to this book make us want to believe. And this is where this book missed its goal for me, too many of the chapters are “Overthinking Elvis” as you so rightfully mentioned. Books like this, with too many theoretical abstractions, won’t find too many readers, both in the academic world or in the fan world.
Conclusion
Paul: In conclusion, ‘Rethinking Elvis’ is dense and demanding, a cultural analysis that requires careful attention that may give some a headache. If you’re interested in how Elvis became an enduring global icon - beyond the hit songs and Hollywood image - and you enjoy critical theory, cultural studies, or music history while rejecting some of the negative aspects, ‘Rethinking Elvis’ is a stimulating, compelling read. It reframes Elvis not just as “the King of Rock and Roll” but as a cultural entertainer and social game-changer whose meaning is still contested and evolving.
Kees: I think the book offers more than that, as it also makes some dangerous associations. Or should I say accusations? Yes it is “food for thought”, but most the dishes served on these pages require acquired taste from the reader, it isn’t “take-a-way”. Some chapters leave you wanting more. But some others are half-cooked, some are a strange mix of ingredients, some are over the top, and a few are simply a failure and leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Many essays got me thinking, that’s what academic works are for, so Duffett succeeds here. But I also found some of the essays farfetched, trying to make and proof connections that aren’t there. I got the feeling they were damaging Elvis the man, the myth and his legacy. I felt like I had to defend him, something I didn’t want to (have to) do.
There wasn’t much accolade to the good that followed when Elvis broke onto the scene. He was the spark that lighted a fire, a fire that changed our lives for the better I believe. Most authors overlooked that aspect, or failed to mention it. Therefore, I felt compelled to mention a few “corrections” in this review (although that was not my intention).
Paul: Indeed, the writing is oriented toward scholarly discourse, with theory and cultural critique - too far - at the forefront. It’s not light reading, but offers various assessment of Elvis’ place, not only in American culture, but all over the world, even the one we live in today.
Kees: Having worked my way through these pages, I’m ready for a new, lighter, and more visual orientated book, so Paul, when is your new book due?
Paul: Well, when my headache subsides, I will go back to simple times, Elvis in 1956, when he was the “Rockin’ Rebel” and shocked the establishment. My most recent book is about the second Milton Berle show with the famous or infamous, depending on which side you were on, rendition of ‘Hound Dog’. Next in line are the second Ed Sullivan show, February 25th in Memphis, a few Army books and the last “Ring” book.
Thank you Kees for the opportunity to review this book together. It was a pleasant task.
