Steven Johnson's Everything Bad Is Good For You

It’s hard not to side with author Steven Johnson as you pour through the more than two hundred pages of statistics, analogies, and other evidence for the “Sleeper Curve” that is Everything Bad Is Good For You. According to Johnson, video games, television, the Internet, and film (the same media forms that critics have been, well, criticizing for some time under the premise that they are becoming increasingly simplistic and replete with violence and sex) are in fact making us smarter. They exercise our minds in ways that more widely accepted literary works do not—in problem solving, pattern recognition, spatial logic, and other specific forms of intelligence measured for in IQ tests—hence the overall increase in IQ scores in recent years. Not only that, modern-day video games force players to “telescope” (e.g., to prioritize the many objectives that nest one inside the other like the lenses of a telescope, zooming in on the most immediate objective that must be achieved to advance in the game), to make decisions, and to learn the ways of the game through exploration. In his argument, Johnson claims that the popularity of these games, despite the frustration they often cause us, stems from their ability to tap into the brain’s “natural reward circuitry” and our desire to “see the next thing.”

Television, he says, has experienced a similar increase in complexity—there are more threads (plotlines) and important characters, and less flashing arrows (“narrative handholding”) in the average program today than ever before; thus, the audience must stay more intellectually attuned. And if they don’t? Well, there is always the option of taping it, “TiVoing” it, buying it on DVD, watching it On Demand, listening to the director’s commentary, or even reading (and participating in) fan sites or online discussion forums. This is the reason, Johnson argues, for the greater than ever sophistication of modern TV shows—that there are now so many ways to view and dissect them that the new goal of the TV production industry is to keep the audience’s attention through repeat viewings. How? By making things more complicated so that greater scrutiny is rewarded in the form of picking up on, perhaps, one more subtle reference or hidden meaning per viewing. The same goes for films—they are getting harder and harder to follow so as to be more attractive candidates for one’s permanent library.

The most compelling evidence for the “Sleeper Curve,” Johnson says (and I agree), is financial. We have said all along that popular culture is commercial; the goal of its producers (or “promoters,” as Nachbar and Lause refer to them) is to generate a product that will appeal to the masses (e.g., be consumed at large), and the best way to do that is to give the people what they want. How are they to know what the people want? Sales are a dead giveaway; it is obvious the American people want more complex games, TV shows, and movies that they can play and watch over and over again, because that’s what they’re buying, renting, etc. This concept dates back to the late 1800s, when American Vaudeville (variety entertainment) was first born. In order for his theatre to better succeed (financially), Benjamin Franklin Keith showed acts continuously so as to appeal to both the middle class (often with ample leisure time) and the working class (with their tighter schedules), and he cleaned up the content of the acts themselves in order to attract more women and children, not to mention the support of the Church.

Unfortunately, the content of today’s many forms of popular culture (games, shows, websites, and movies, in particular) are not so free of vulgarity, or violence or sex for that matter. Johnson briefly acknowledges this fact when he says, “the morals of the stories have grown darker and more ambiguous, and the antiheroes have multiplied,” but proceeds to brush the issue of content of entertainment aside, claiming that it “has less of an impact than the kind of thinking the entertainment forces you to do.” As an aspiring elementary school teacher, I am hesitant to altogether disregard the harmful content of popular culture, especially in those forms accessible to young children; however, I am aware that Johnson’s “Sleeper Curve” argument is unrelated to this issue, and so I do not see his exclusion of it as a “cop-out.” I do think it’s important to note that research by two certified psychologists, Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson, has shown that violent video games may be having strong effects on children’s aggression in the very same ways that Johnson says these games are making them smarter—by being “highly engaging and interactive,” by rewarding violent behavior, and by having them “repeat these behaviors over and over as they play” (“Violent Video Games”). So which is more important—that kids improve their “telescoping” and decision-making abilities by playing video games, or that they remain nonviolent by not? That, I believe, is a question to be answered in another book entirely.

I consider myself lucky in that my semester topic (Gilmore Girls) fits nicely into Johnson’s theory that television shows, among other things, are growing more and more complex, and that this is what viewers want. First and foremost, the more than 150 episodes that make up the seven seasons of GG are packed with what the writers call “Gilmore-isms”—“witty and memorable wordplays and pop culture references.” As I sit here, flipping through the “Your Guide to Gilmore-isms” for Season 2, which includes the explanations of such specific references as “Cujo” (“the rabies infested canine from the Stephen King novel and film”) and “I Like Ike” (“campaign slogan of Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the USA from 1953-1961”), I ponder how many of the show’s viewers actually consult these guides. Certainly, they would be able to pick up on more of the “in-jokes” that went unnoticed the first time around; thus, they would get more enjoyment out of the episodes with repeated viewings—a surefire sign of the show’s complexity. But is my sister Stephanie (GG aficionada from below) the only one that is willing to spend mucho money on the complete seasons on DVD? Upon further research, I found that the answer to this question is a resounding “no.” In fact, 589,638 copies of the Complete Seventh Season had been sold after just two weeks on the shelves, which amounts to more than 20 million dollars in total sales. Johnson’s theories in mind, it’s no wonder GG lasted so long with its smart, witty, fast-paced, hard-to-follow dialogue that apparently captivated a large DVD-buying audience eager to keep up.

Nachbar, Jack, and Kevin Lause. "Getting to Know Us. An Introduction to the Study of Popular Culture: What is this Stuff that Dreams are Made of?" Popular Culture: An Introductory Text. Bowling Green State University Press, 1992.

"Violent Video Games--Psychologists Help Protect Children from Harmful Effects." Psychology Matters. 8 June 2004. American Psychological Association. 8 Dec. 2007 .

http://the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/weekly/thisweek.php

Can Money Really Buy Happiness?

Before I introduce the actual clip I have chosen to analyze for this assignment, let me first give some background information on Gilmore Girls that may lend a hand in your understanding of said analysis. It first debuted on the WB Network in 2000, at a time when reality TV was at its prime, thus making GG “an out-of-sync anomaly” and its smart, witty, fast-paced dialogue perhaps “too smart and witty for its own good.” However, it did seem to restart a revolution—that in favor of script-driven dramas and writers more so as “creators and molders of TV entertainment.” (Soon after its premiere, we saw a reemergence in popularity of shows like ABC’s Desperate Housewives and CBS’ Without a Trace.)

David Janollari, current entertainment president of the WB Network, has identified young women as the show’s target audience. And surely this demographic has been reached, as the show remained the network’s top pick among women 18-34 and 18-49 for several seasons. I can see the plot, too, being particularly attractive to young and/or single mothers and their teenage daughters because, as Janollari mentioned, Lorelai and daughter Rory’s close relationship is a desirable one.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000791110

A clip from Episode 15, Season 4 of GG entitled “Scene in a Mall,” which premiered February 24, 2004, is one that delves a little deeper into the issue of class that the show has dealt with (though often not so overtly) from the start. It begins with Lorelai, Rory, and mother/grandmother to the two, Emily Gilmore, in a mall department store. Emily is shown on what is essentially a shopping rampage. She barks orders at the salespeople, demanding that they put what must amount to thousands of dollars worth of useless merchandise (including a wedding dress for Lorelai and a display globe for Rory, neither of which they need) on her tab, meanwhile shouting to her trailing daughter and granddaughter to “stop dawdling and start picking.” Her rampage culminates in a loud rant to Lorelai about her husband Richard’s “new life,” which, according to Emily, includes “club-hopping” and “secret lunches” with female friends and, even more distressing, a longer mustache.

In an attempt to calm her down, Lorelai and Rory pull her out of the store and around the corner to the food court, which Emily, though a frequent mall-goer, has never before seen. They sit her down and buy an assortment of food for her to try. Rory goes back for napkins and Emily expresses how embarrassed she is for her behavior in the department store. Lorelai acts almost as a therapist to her mom, encouraging her to talk to Richard so that they may work through their problems instead of constantly bickering about petty things like his mustache. The clip ends with Emily’s expression of admiration of her daughter’s life.

Now, just as Vegard Iglebaek analyzed a particular clip of the hit TV series Friends as proving the widening degree of acceptable personal disclosure for heterosexual males instead of Joey and Chandler’s homophobia or homosexuality, I will attempt to use this GG clip to show the preferred lifestyle of the working class over the rich. By no means is this message hidden from the audience; the two classes are clearly distinguished and it is obvious who is happier (and more sane). Emily, dressed in fur and covered in gold jewelry, storms through the department store like a mad woman, spending her husband’s money just to spite him. The salespeople in the department store have obviously witnessed her in this state before and are eager to take advantage; they say, “These scarves all match, and of course you'll need gloves,” to which Emily responds without pause, “We’ll take them all.”

When more rational Lorelai suggests she “slow down on the shopping,” Emily bitterly retorts, “Why do I need to slow down? This is what I do, according to Richard.” Her excessive spending is her way of dealing with the neglect and general unhappiness she feels at home as a result of her husband's, yes, money-making, but also very time-consuming job. Lorelai is able to recognize this and resist the urge to give into her mother’s offer to buy her whatever she wanted merely because it was “on [her] father,” thus demonstrating her maturity and satisfaction with her current life and possessions. When Rory expresses interest in a hat, Lorelai says to her, “Don’t get sucked in! This is craziness! It’s a symbol.” The two are able to remain in good spirits despite Emily’s embarrassing behavior, “Hey, see those marbles rolling on the floor?” Lorelai asks Rory. “They're Mom's. They spilled out of her head.” When Lorelai’s comment that she is being “crazy” triggers an outburst by Emily, however, their amusement turns to concern.

In the food court, when Lorelai attributes her ability to properly and calmly deal with even the more stressful situations at work to following her mother’s example, Emily replies, “Oh, please. I order maids and salespeople around. That's different. I've never done anything.” At this point, the true reason for her unhappiness surfaces—she, on top of feeling neglected by her husband, also feels unaccomplished, and envies her daughter’s independence and success as a single, working mother. We come to the conclusion that a big house and essentially limitless credit card such as hers are not necessarily synonymous with happiness, as was widely believed during the 1980s (e.g., the Decade of Greed). Shopping is no longer seen as a “transforming experience” as it was for Julia Roberts’ character in Pretty Woman; on the contrary, it is shown in this clip as contributing to the misery and literal and metaphorical loss of control of the wealthy (or in this case, Emily). Lorelai (who represents the working class in this episode, as suggested by her less gaudy attire, numerous phone calls from co-workers, and careful attention to her budget), though inadvertently, gains power. As she sits in the food court, essentially counseling her mother, who, not moments before, was storming through a public place demanding others to obey her every command, we ponder which lifestyle we would prefer—that of Lorelai or that of Emily. We do not have to ponder too long before the show answers our question practically directly: “What’d I miss?” Rory asks as she returns to the table. “I was just admiring your mother’s life,” Emily answers. “Oh, I do that daily.”

Person-centered Ethnography: Stephanie as Lorelai

My sister and best friend, Stephanie Haas, is a 21-year-old, soon-to-be-graduate of the University of Maryland, College Park. She will conclude her educational career a semester early, on December 18th—a date she knows well and highly anticipates—with a bachelor’s degree in Communications and a minor in Spanish, not to mention a 4.0 GPA. She considers her intelligence to be among her best qualities, along with her initiative, decision-making skills, and laid-back personality. “I can have fun doing anything,” she told me. “Even this interview is rather enjoyable!” Stephanie predicts others might describe her as smart and funny (perhaps, opinionated and loud, at times) but a generally enjoyable person to be around. “I think I would be friends with myself,” she laughed.

Where did such a socially adept and highly accomplished young woman get her inspiration? From the one person she admires most: her mother. Stephanie is grateful for her support over the years (in school and sports, especially), lucky to have inherited at least some of what she considers to be her mom’s best qualities (her decisiveness and sense of humor), and envious of her ability to “do 10 million things at one time.” She describes her mom as “a woman of the 70s. She kept her name, and she thinks girls can do anything”—a belief which Stephanie, too, holds dear.

Stephanie claims that TV plays a “huge” role in her everyday life, but not just any channel or program; there are certain shows that she is very attached to (typically realistic ones with characters around her age) and others that she is quite averse to (those that are action-packed or involving the supernatural). “The shows I like, I watch regularly,” she told me. “I look forward to them and I carve out time for them.” Stephanie will, for the sake of being able to watch without interruption, two of her favorites—The Hills and The Real World, both on MTV—be sure to finish her homework by 10 p.m. on Monday and Wednesday nights when they come on. She has even been known to decline offers of social engagements on these and other evenings for fear of missing her beloved line-up of shows.

Indeed the most intriguing of Stephanie’s relationships with TV is that which she has with a certain CW show, Gilmore Girls, a “dramedy” (part drama, part comedy) about a single-mother, Lorelai, and daughter, Rory, living in a small town where everyone knows their business. She owns the first six seasons on DVD and has asked her boyfriend to get her the seventh as a gift for their two-year anniversary. She watches an episode before bed each night and lets the DVD play all the way through as she sleeps. “[Lorelai and Rory’s] lives are just real enough that I feel like I could be like them, but just exciting enough that I would want to be like them,” Stephanie said.

And she is like the featured Gilmores—witty Lorelai and studious Rory. Stephanie likes that Lorelai is independent (that she “can hold her own”), that she can have fun just watching movies and eating pizza on a Saturday night, and that she is “always one step ahead while everyone else is trying to catch up.” Stephanie continually finds herself thinking about what Lorelai would do or say if placed in similar situations to hers, and often acts accordingly. As for Rory, Stephanie has always been able to relate to her conservative and somewhat bookish ways and good decision-making, not to mention the fact that Rory’s character is just one year older than Stephanie and went through the stress of applying to college at about the same time. So has Stephanie always been so quick-witted and scholarly, or has her regular exposure to Gilmore Girls shaped who she is today? Based upon 19 years of shared experiences, as well as what I gathered from the interview, I would say the answer is somewhere in between.

Person-Centered Ethnography Questions

1.) What events have shaped your life thus far? Can you name some influential people? Do they have any qualities you greatly admire?

2.) How would you describe yourself? How would others describe you? Which qualities do you take the most pride in? Which qualities are you not so proud of? Is there anything you would change about yourself?

3.) What role does TV play in your everyday life? Do you enjoy watching TV? How many hours would you say you spend watching TV per week? At what time of the day do you generally watch TV? Do you ever download TV shows online or buy them in DVD form?

4.) Do you have a favorite channel? What shows do you watch regularly? What genre of shows and/or movies are you typically drawn to?

5.) Which character on Gilmore Girls do you relate to the most? Does he/she posses any qualities you wish you possessed, as well? When you’re watching the show, do you ever put yourself in his/her shoes? Do you ever think about this character when you’re not watching the show? Do you, perhaps, act in certain ways because this character would if placed in a similar situation?

A Picture of Me

Geppi's Entertainment Museum

At Geppi’s Entertainment Museum in Baltimore, a good time was had by all, and by “all” I am referring to my friend, Steve, and me, who were the only visitors at 5:00 p.m. (just one hour before close) on a Thursday night (game night for the O’s). As the hostess handed us our pamphlets, badges, and Treasure Hunt tickets, she said, “It’s all yours,” a light-hearted crack at the attendance. We explored the “A Story in Four Colors” exhibit first, as suggested, which featured comics from as far back as the late 1800s. In all honesty, I have never had much of an appreciation for comics, but a quote by Will Eisner, who, as I discovered upon further research, has been called the “Godfather of American Comics” (http://lambiek.net/artists/e/eisner.htm), brought things into perspective for me: “In the beginning, God made comics, and we drew on the walls of caves trying to tell everybody how we captured a mastodon that afternoon.” Just seconds later, Steve exclaimed, “The first Superman comic ever!” and I approached with genuine interest.

Naturally, since this was a class assignment, I searched for the answers to the suggested questions first. “Are there objects you think are controversial?” (Yes—the Sassofras Jones ventriloquist dummy (circa 1860s) from the “Pioneer Spirit” room, for its painted black face, disproportionately large nose, and bright red lips.) I soon found myself, however, more intrigued by Steve’s reactions and those of the few other guests. Steve spent the majority of the hour entranced by the Treasure Hunt. “Of course, Dino! He can’t ride on Bamm-Bamm!” he scoffed jokingly at the computer in reference to a question about some Fred Flintstone battery-powered top. He was interested in the toys, but more so concerned with successfully completing the game so that he could win the prize at the end.

There were also two women walking around together. One was obviously a veteran of the museum and had returned with a friend this time so that they could reminisce together. In one of the rooms, she nearly trampled me as she rushed to the glass case that held a BOB-A-LOOP toy, meanwhile yelling to her friend to join her. She looked up at me and said, “I’m sorry, this is just really exciting for us.” At that point, it was clear to me that Geppi’s Entertainment Museum was not created for my generation’s enjoyment. Sure, I recognized a few things that have since been recreated—Underdog, Fantastic Four, and Little Orphan Annie—but Steve and I were, in general, out-of-the-loop (pun intended).