Scan barcode
sumatra_squall's review against another edition
3.0
I'll admit - I'm one of those people who thinks that Books Are Good For You and Video Games and TV Are Bad. But Johnson's book has made me rethink whether the conventional criticism that TV, video games and other forms of popular culture is making us dumber and passive consumers of intellectually undemanding fare is really true. And that the sole benefit, if any, of gaming is that it improves hand-eye coordination.
Johnson's argument revolves around what he calls the Sleeper Curve - that "the most debased forms of mass diversion - video games and violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms - turn out to be nutritional after all....culture is getting more intellectually demanding, not less". Essentially, he argues that we cannot use the same metrics to judge the merits of reading and the merits of non-literary popular culture - it's like comparing apples and oranges. While reading hones the ability to make sense of words, to convey complicated information, to immerse oneself into another's perspective, non literary popular culture hones a different set of mental skills. Gaming forces players to make decisions, to explore and unlock the logic of the game. Meanwhile, Johnson argues that TV shows have become much more complex in recent years; changes in the business model (where most of the profit is derived from syndication and DVD sales, rather than from the original airing of the show) now favour more complex shows that bear repeated viewing. So instead of Least Objectionable Programming, we are now moving towards Most Repeatable Programming, shows that you would want to watch and rewatch even 3 years after they originally aired. Technology that allows us to record, rewind, rewatch and dissect certain scenes also allows for more complex plots and narratives. And even the worst of popular TV - Johnson cites the Apprentice - much less acclaimed programmes such as The Sopranos and The West Wing, have a higher level of complexity in the network of social relationships playing out in the show (which audiences themselves then navigate and analyse).
Some might find Johnson's book a little repetitive - he makes broadly the same arguments for games, then TV, then film, then summarises these in Part II of the book. But Johnson's an engaging writer with a crisp, punchy style and the 200 pages went quite quickly for me.
Johnson's argument revolves around what he calls the Sleeper Curve - that "the most debased forms of mass diversion - video games and violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms - turn out to be nutritional after all....culture is getting more intellectually demanding, not less". Essentially, he argues that we cannot use the same metrics to judge the merits of reading and the merits of non-literary popular culture - it's like comparing apples and oranges. While reading hones the ability to make sense of words, to convey complicated information, to immerse oneself into another's perspective, non literary popular culture hones a different set of mental skills. Gaming forces players to make decisions, to explore and unlock the logic of the game. Meanwhile, Johnson argues that TV shows have become much more complex in recent years; changes in the business model (where most of the profit is derived from syndication and DVD sales, rather than from the original airing of the show) now favour more complex shows that bear repeated viewing. So instead of Least Objectionable Programming, we are now moving towards Most Repeatable Programming, shows that you would want to watch and rewatch even 3 years after they originally aired. Technology that allows us to record, rewind, rewatch and dissect certain scenes also allows for more complex plots and narratives. And even the worst of popular TV - Johnson cites the Apprentice - much less acclaimed programmes such as The Sopranos and The West Wing, have a higher level of complexity in the network of social relationships playing out in the show (which audiences themselves then navigate and analyse).
Some might find Johnson's book a little repetitive - he makes broadly the same arguments for games, then TV, then film, then summarises these in Part II of the book. But Johnson's an engaging writer with a crisp, punchy style and the 200 pages went quite quickly for me.
charcoalgraysocks's review against another edition
2.75
This reads more like an argumentative essay than a nonfiction book, and the premise wasn’t as clearly proven as the author seemed convinced it was by the end of Part 1. Despite that, this was a fun read and encouraged me to engage in a mental back and forth with the author in a way that many books do not.
If you’re interested in pop culture- from either an intellectual or entertainment lens, this is worth at least a skim.
If you’re interested in pop culture- from either an intellectual or entertainment lens, this is worth at least a skim.
elainejohanson's review against another edition
3.0
Had to read this to teach this. Students liked it a lot, and it includes a lot of interesting facts and ideas. On the whole, it's a pretty one dimensional argument that could have likely been made in half the length. Though Steven Johnson acknowledges the limits of his argument, and states that he wrote this to start the discussion, not end it, I worry that too many readers will take this book's thesis as fact.
emmasimone's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed the author's thesis about the change in our mass media over the past several decades. It had never occurred to me to think about how even our "bad" media was getting more and more complex thus making all of us think more and in different ways than prior generations. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in how games, TV and the Internet have changed how we think as a mass culture.
de23's review against another edition
4.0
Not sure I agree totally with his hypothesis that popular culture is making us smarter, but he makes a lot of good points, and I admit to looking at video games quite a bit differently now.
ekafritsas's review against another edition
2.0
Somewhere between 2 and 3 stars. Obviously at this point, this book is quite outdated (part of the issue with my promise to read books on the first couple of pages of my "to read" list...). The central premise is that media has become more complex (be it the thought process necessary to beat a video game or character/plot depth knowledge necessary to "get" a show) and as a result, our cognitive processes are improving and we are becoming smarter. The problem is there is not much causal research in the book to back this up (which Johnson touches on very briefly in the afterward) and increases in IQ or cognitive development could be attributed to so many other things. So, do I believe media has gotten more complex? Absolutely. You don't need to look further than the fan analyses of Breaking Bad episodes or Netflix original programming or any number of other sources to see that, IMO (a bummer these things didn't exist when the book was written!). Are we smarter because of it? I mean, maybe? It's possible. If you're interested in culture and media studies, you will likely enjoy this book more than if you are say, a statistician or researcher.
meginsanity's review against another edition
4.0
This book is overly earnest and a little bit shallow in terms of research and reliable background information, but I appreciated the counterpoint to all of the fearmongering about video games and other media in the news. I'd like to give it 3.5 stars but 4 it is.
douchegordijn's review against another edition
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
3.75