I have to say that Steven Johnson, author of Everything Bad For You Is Good For You, is a persuasive individual. He starts off by identifying the “Sleeper Curve”-which is how in the Woody Allen film, of the same name, things that were thought to be bad, deep fat, steak, cream pies, and hot fudge in the future are good. I never thought that I would budge from the position that there is nothing redeeming about computer games, but Johnson has shown that the role playing games in particular require problem solving skills to advance in the game and cites The Simms and Grand Theft Auto as examples-there are 100 page step guide that have been written to help gamers proceed through the varying levels of the game. He says often these games promote “telescoping”-which involves solving short term problems like slaying a dragon, while being cognizant of the end game goal rescuing the princess.
He also goes onto to explain how television challenges today like at no other time. He shows how comparatively a show like Dragnet, which required little thought to process the story, has evolved into The Sopranos, which has a large ensemble cast and requires knowledge of the characters and the shows past history, as well as the need to follow the story in progress for foreshadowing. The complexity of the show is validated by its repeated watchability-a factor that has made Seinfeld’s and The Simpson’s creators incredibly rich on syndication rights. He takes this a step further, when he analyzes reality TV. He compares it the game shows of the past like The Price Is Right, which is a simple game in which the rules are set. A show like The Apprentice can throw a curveball. His example was that they brought back fired employees to work for the two remaining contestants, which would show whether or not hey were well-like by their former competitors-a factor that wasn’t considered by the contestants. Furthermore, it invites participation as the theoretical water cooler talks that take place between people and more increasingly on the net promotes the reading and writing and cognitive analysis of not only game shows, but also other shows like Lost and 24 where speculation is half of the fun.
In part Two, he explains how these changes in mass entertainment have resulted in greater intelligence. He cites the rise of the middle section of IQ scores over the years as well as the fact that though the internet people read write more than have in the past. I’m not doing Johnson justice, but he makes a good case that things might not be as bad as they are made to be by the media and other cultural critics. An interesting and provocative read that is not unlike those that I have recently read like The Tipping Point or Freakonimcs.
I read an excerpt of this in Harpers a while back. I liked his TV plotline charts showing the narrative complexity of 'Starsky and Hutch' versus 'Hill Street Blues' versus (I think) '24'. It was pretty interesting, but then, I like charts.
Posted by: mjv | March 21, 2006 at 11:45 AM
I think you'd like this book there were several charts like the one you mention, which was compared to The Sopranos rather than 24. Finally, justification for our viewing habits!
Posted by: MC | March 21, 2006 at 05:01 PM
you should check out some of Edward R. Tufte's books. he's the master of information display. he makes some mean charts.
Posted by: lou | March 30, 2006 at 07:48 AM