| Everything Bad Is Good for You | |
|---|---|
Everything Bad Is Good for You Cover |
|
| Author(s) | Steven Berlin Johnson |
| Language | English |
| Genre(s) | Social Comment |
| Publisher | Riverhead |
| Publication date | May 2005 |
| Pages | 272 |
| ISBN | 9781594481949 |
| OCLC Number | 69992179 |
| LC Classification | HM621 .J64 2006 |
Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter is a non-fiction book written by Steven Berlin Johnson. Published in 2005, it is based upon Johnson's theory that popular culture – in particular television shows and video games – has grown more complex and demanding over time and is improving the society within terms of intelligence and idea. The book's claims, especially related to the proposed benefits of television, drew media attention.[1] It received mixed critical reviews.
Contents |
Johnson states that the goal of his book is to persuade readers "that popular culture has, on average, grown more complex and intellectually challenging over the past thirty years."[2]
Johnson challenges the precept that pop culture has deteriorated. He derives the term Sleeper Curve from the Woody Allen film Sleeper, where "scientists from 2173 are astounded that twentieth-century society failed to grasp the nutritional merits of cream pies and hot fudge".[3] He uses this to argue against contemporary perception of the deteriorating standards of pop culture, although Johnson is quick to point out that by no means does the Sleeper Curve imply that popular culture has become superior to traditional culture.[4]
Johnson defends the value of modern pop culture. He argues that the appeal of video games is not through their (possibly violent or sexual) content, but rather through the fact that the "structure" of the video games uniquely invites exploration and stimulates the reward centers of the brain.[5] He asserts that television is a "brilliant medium" for determining how skilled people are at understanding interpersonal connections, or their Autism Quotient (the higher a person's emotional intelligence, the lower their "AQ"),[6] and that reality shows in particular realistically display the complexity of "social network maps" in human relations, where a group of people have complex and intertwined engagement.[7] Earlier television, Johnson says, simplified narrative and human relationships, while modern trends not only in reality shows but in "multiple threading" in scripted programs such as The Sopranos improve the audience's cognitive skills.[8] He suggests too that modern television and films have reduced the number of "flashing arrows", narrative clues to help the audience understand the plot, and require audiences to do more cognitive work paying attention to background detail and information if they wish to follow what they are viewing.[9]
The book has received mixed critical reviews. In one The New York Times review, Janet Maslin was primarily negative, dismissing the book's "facile argument" and sparsity of hard evidence and claiming that "The reader rattles around within the book's narrow universe and repeatedly bumps into the same thing: reiterations of Mr. Johnson's one big idea."[10] In another, Walter Kirn, while acknowledging a lack of science and questioning some of the book's premises with regards to the benefits of reality t.v., praised Johnson's "elegant polemic", concluding that "[c]onsidered purely on its own terms, Johnson's thesis holds up despite these quibbles."[11] Wired gave the book an overall positive review, describing it as "chock-full of interesting insights that are clearly the reflection of an agile and catholic intellect", but also suggested that the book is largely built around a straw man argument and thus "largely misses the point of the more valid critique of today's pop culture".[12] The Guardian found part of Johnson's thesis — that some elements of pop culture have grown more complex — persuasive, but not the second claim that this greater complexity offers any tangible benefits for the public aside from preparing them to handle more complex pop culture; it criticized the shortage of hard science and the conclusions drawn from what science exists and also the application of literary theory to visual arts media.[13] The Associated Press review praised the book overall as "an engaging read", although it noted that the book was uneven, with TV and video game discussions better than those on film and the internet, and repetitive in presenting its theme.[14] Salon.com described it simply as "a fine contrarian defense of pop culture".[15]