Goodreads | heather's review

heather'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://s3.amazonaws.com/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/2026859?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review"><h3>My review</h3></a>
 rating: 2 of 5 stars i knew someone who read this a while back, and her description of the book made it sound idiotic to me (although she was in love with it). last year i read and fell in love with johnson's book the ghost map, an engagingly narrated work about the soho cholera epidemic. i couldn't believe that the guy who wrote that book had also written this one. when i found it on remainder for $3 last week, i decided to give it a go. 
 
 i'll start by saying that this is a quick read and well-written. i find myself sometimes wanting to agree with johnson and sometimes liking his points. the basic problem with this book is inherent in the title: johnson relies entirely too heavily on the good vs bad paradigm. it's too simplistic. he's criticizing others for blanketly calling pop culture "bad," but he's guilty of the same gross oversimplification in calling tv shows and video games "good." i can agree with many of his statements about the increasing level of complexity in american entertainment and i can even agree that much pop culture media engages a person's mental faculties in innovative and worthwhile ways. however, just saying that the stuff that's "bad" now is better than what was "bad" thirty years ago doesn't make the "bad" stuff "good." the willful ignoring of shades of gray is exactly the problem with most media critics (also, with most journalists), including johnson. 
 
 the other big problem with his theory is that it only works for his own, and perhaps the preceding, generation. to say that older forms of entertainment have somehow "trained" people to grasp today's more complex and rewarding entertainment is to ignore the fact that large swaths of pop culture consumers have little to zero experience with earlier forms. honestly, how many people who are currently in high school or college have any significant exposure to dragnet? dragnet did not somehow prepare these people to follow the sopranos. unless he's trying to argue that this training is somehow genetically passed down, the argument is nonsensical in terms of the general american populace. 
 
 johnson also misses what, to me, seems a prime opportunity. in the introduction, he cites the recent national endowment for the arts study (which i like to personally call the doom and gloom study) that purports that reading for pleasure is on a sharp decline in the american adult population. johnson brings up the study without bothering to follow through with the pop culture implications of it, specifically that the study did not include such materials as graphic novels or magazines (among other categories) in the survey and also excluded any reading that might be done for job or school related purposes. you'd think johnson would hop on the chance to harp on how the definition of "reading," particularly of "reading for pleasure," has been twisted by the nea in order to exclude much of what people, and often highly educated people at that, might choose to spend their leisure hours enjoying. 
 
 i'm glad to be reading it but that i'm highly disappointed in johnson's reliance on hyperbole and the gaping holes he leaves in his theories. for all that, though, the way that he's thinking about pop culture is relevant and, i think, a positive direction for sociological and cultural studies. i would love to see a more comprehensive analyst pick up his ideas and take them to the next level. and it's certainly a book that's made me think and engaged me, which earns an extra star.
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/133892?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">View all my reviews.</a>

heather's review
rating:
bookshelves: 2007

i knew someone who read this a while back, and her description of the book made it sound idiotic to me (although she was in love with it). last year i read and fell in love with johnson's book the ghost map, an engagingly narrated work about the soho cholera epidemic. i couldn't believe that the guy who wrote that book had also written this one. when i found it on remainder for $3 last week, i decided to give it a go.

i'll start by saying that this is a quick read and well-written. i find myself sometimes wanting to agree with johnson and sometimes liking his points. the basic problem with this book is inherent in the title: johnson relies entirely too heavily on the good vs bad paradigm. it's too simplistic. he's criticizing others for blanketly calling pop culture "bad," but he's guilty of the same gross oversimplification in calling tv shows and video games "good." i can agree with many of his statements about the increasing level of complexity in american en...more i knew someone who read this a while back, and her description of the book made it sound idiotic to me (although she was in love with it). last year i read and fell in love with johnson's book the ghost map, an engagingly narrated work about the soho cholera epidemic. i couldn't believe that the guy who wrote that book had also written this one. when i found it on remainder for $3 last week, i decided to give it a go.

i'll start by saying that this is a quick read and well-written. i find myself sometimes wanting to agree with johnson and sometimes liking his points. the basic problem with this book is inherent in the title: johnson relies entirely too heavily on the good vs bad paradigm. it's too simplistic. he's criticizing others for blanketly calling pop culture "bad," but he's guilty of the same gross oversimplification in calling tv shows and video games "good." i can agree with many of his statements about the increasing level of complexity in american entertainment and i can even agree that much pop culture media engages a person's mental faculties in innovative and worthwhile ways. however, just saying that the stuff that's "bad" now is better than what was "bad" thirty years ago doesn't make the "bad" stuff "good." the willful ignoring of shades of gray is exactly the problem with most media critics (also, with most journalists), including johnson.

the other big problem with his theory is that it only works for his own, and perhaps the preceding, generation. to say that older forms of entertainment have somehow "trained" people to grasp today's more complex and rewarding entertainment is to ignore the fact that large swaths of pop culture consumers have little to zero experience with earlier forms. honestly, how many people who are currently in high school or college have any significant exposure to dragnet? dragnet did not somehow prepare these people to follow the sopranos. unless he's trying to argue that this training is somehow genetically passed down, the argument is nonsensical in terms of the general american populace.

johnson also misses what, to me, seems a prime opportunity. in the introduction, he cites the recent national endowment for the arts study (which i like to personally call the doom and gloom study) that purports that reading for pleasure is on a sharp decline in the american adult population. johnson brings up the study without bothering to follow through with the pop culture implications of it, specifically that the study did not include such materials as graphic novels or magazines (among other categories) in the survey and also excluded any reading that might be done for job or school related purposes. you'd think johnson would hop on the chance to harp on how the definition of "reading," particularly of "reading for pleasure," has been twisted by the nea in order to exclude much of what people, and often highly educated people at that, might choose to spend their leisure hours enjoying.

i'm glad to be reading it but that i'm highly disappointed in johnson's reliance on hyperbole and the gaping holes he leaves in his theories. for all that, though, the way that he's thinking about pop culture is relevant and, i think, a positive direction for sociological and cultural studies. i would love to see a more comprehensive analyst pick up his ideas and take them to the next level. and it's certainly a book that's made me think and engaged me, which earns an extra star....less

Like this review? yes flag

comments (showing 1-1 of 1)

newest »

date

message 1: by Helocin

06/29/2007 05:20PM

I pulled out my copy to see if I had post-it noted my thoughts on it because I could not remember if I liked it or not, but I guess I read this was before I started doing that.

The only thing I have written in my copy is on page 135 (hard cover, hopefully the same pagination) at the end of the first paragraph: "So repetitive! Is this a fifth grade essay on topic sentences?!" haha. well, I found that funny.

horray, now you have a comment.