Goodreads | Chelsea's review

Chelsea's review

Everything Bad is Good for You
by Steven Johnson

[close]

blog this review

Copy/paste the text below into your blog.

<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36085.Everything_Bad_is_Good_for_You?utm_medium=api&amp;utm_source=blog_review" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="Everything Bad is Good for You" border="0" src="http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1168694070m/36085.jpg" /></a> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36085.Everything_Bad_is_Good_for_You?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">Everything Bad is Good for You</a> by <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1563.Steven_Johnson">Steven Johnson</a> 
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/16773314?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review"><h3>My review</h3></a>
 rating: 4 of 5 stars This book makes me feel that I could give 4.6 stars here. It's a fascinating read, but I almost wish that it was *more* substantial - he has some great ideas going that need to be addressed in more than the brief Afterward. 
 
 Basically, his premise is that there is a "Sleeper Curve" at work in the development of contemporary pop culture. His argument is that our "smart" media is getting smarter and more complex, and that new media, such as video games and the internet, have beneficial qualities that far outweigh the cons when taken with moderation. 
 
 His argument is clearly laid out for each medium and I tend to agree with him on the overall concept of the Sleeper Curve. As he addresses each medium (games, tv, internet, film, etc) I felt that he really neglected bringing up and disputing counter-arguments. For example, in video games, he only breifly mentions "oh, yeah, and new studies say violent games aren't solely responsible for making kids violent". And in TV he spends a lot of time illustrating the growth in depth and scale of *good* television drama (and even comedy) and even finds merit in the likes of Survivor and The Apprentice for their ability to get average joes talking strategy, reading and writing copiously on internet forums and communicating at a fairly high level. However, he completely fails to mention the vast numbers of the dregs of television - the Paris and Nickis, the Aqua Teen Hunger Force and the like. Not even to say "well, when there's more of everything, that means theres more crap too". 
 
 His chapter on film was basically three pages saying "Film is old and about as good as it's going to get. Somethings as crazy as Momento or The Matrix were popular. Yay us." Frustratingly short considering the depth and breadth of previous chapters. 
 
 Overall, though, like I said before, I see his agrument and tend to agree with him. The fact of the matter is, what we used to consider "the good old days" weren't exactly that great. Shows were shallow and liner, networks assumed a least-common-denominator stance and even the "edgy" and controversial shows pale in comparison to the best writing of today. 
 
 Of course, he continues, this intellectual development of media has to be driven by someforce, and he argues that force is the natural inclination for the min to seek out challenges and the reward structure of problem->effort->solution. Because people like to bring things into their lives that are enjoyable and challenging, they seek out media with replay value, and thus drives the market for "smart" media. 
 
 He spend the second part of the book talking about the nature of IQ scoring and how the standard has been raised gradually over the last decades such that someone with a 100 even a few years ago would not achieve a score that high today. Then he basically spends the rest of the book hedging around the fact that though the IQ data is there, IQ scores are not a fantastic measure of someone's actual, innate, intelligence, but that we should take his word for it. 
 
 I really liked this book. I think that everyone, such as myself, who's ever said "Pop Culture's just getting dumber and dumber" needs to read his arguments, if for no other reason than to reassure them that all is not lost. 
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/745969?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">View all my reviews.</a>

Chelsea's review
rating:

** spoiler alert ** This book makes me feel that I could give 4.6 stars here. It's a fascinating read, but I almost wish that it was *more* substantial - he has some great ideas going that need to be addressed in more than the brief Afterward.

Basically, his premise is that there is a "Sleeper Curve" at work in the development of contemporary pop culture. His argument is that our "smart" media is getting smarter and more complex, and that new media, such as video games and the internet, have beneficial qualities that far outweigh the cons when taken with moderation.

His argument is clearly laid out for each medium and I tend to agree with him on the overall concept of the Sleeper Curve. As he addresses each medium (games, tv, internet, film, etc) I felt that he really neglected bringing up and disputing counter-arguments. For example, in video games, he only breifly mentions "oh, yeah, and new studies say violent games aren't solely responsible for making kids violent"...more This book makes me feel that I could give 4.6 stars here. It's a fascinating read, but I almost wish that it was *more* substantial - he has some great ideas going that need to be addressed in more than the brief Afterward.

Basically, his premise is that there is a "Sleeper Curve" at work in the development of contemporary pop culture. His argument is that our "smart" media is getting smarter and more complex, and that new media, such as video games and the internet, have beneficial qualities that far outweigh the cons when taken with moderation.

His argument is clearly laid out for each medium and I tend to agree with him on the overall concept of the Sleeper Curve. As he addresses each medium (games, tv, internet, film, etc) I felt that he really neglected bringing up and disputing counter-arguments. For example, in video games, he only breifly mentions "oh, yeah, and new studies say violent games aren't solely responsible for making kids violent". And in TV he spends a lot of time illustrating the growth in depth and scale of *good* television drama (and even comedy) and even finds merit in the likes of Survivor and The Apprentice for their ability to get average joes talking strategy, reading and writing copiously on internet forums and communicating at a fairly high level. However, he completely fails to mention the vast numbers of the dregs of television - the Paris and Nickis, the Aqua Teen Hunger Force and the like. Not even to say "well, when there's more of everything, that means theres more crap too".

His chapter on film was basically three pages saying "Film is old and about as good as it's going to get. Somethings as crazy as Momento or The Matrix were popular. Yay us." Frustratingly short considering the depth and breadth of previous chapters.

Overall, though, like I said before, I see his agrument and tend to agree with him. The fact of the matter is, what we used to consider "the good old days" weren't exactly that great. Shows were shallow and liner, networks assumed a least-common-denominator stance and even the "edgy" and controversial shows pale in comparison to the best writing of today.

Of course, he continues, this intellectual development of media has to be driven by someforce, and he argues that force is the natural inclination for the min to seek out challenges and the reward structure of problem->effort->solution. Because people like to bring things into their lives that are enjoyable and challenging, they seek out media with replay value, and thus drives the market for "smart" media.

He spend the second part of the book talking about the nature of IQ scoring and how the standard has been raised gradually over the last decades such that someone with a 100 even a few years ago would not achieve a score that high today. Then he basically spends the rest of the book hedging around the fact that though the IQ data is there, IQ scores are not a fantastic measure of someone's actual, innate, intelligence, but that we should take his word for it.

I really liked this book. I think that everyone, such as myself, who's ever said "Pop Culture's just getting dumber and dumber" needs to read his arguments, if for no other reason than to reassure them that all is not lost. ...less

Like this review? yes flag

comments (showing 0-0 of 0)

newest »

date

all Chelsea's books »