Interesting conference report

[rivkat]

From MIT, a conversation about popular culture and Stephen Johnson's Everything Bad Is Good For You, which I reviewed here. There's also an audio version available on the site. I found the discussion of the complexity of today's TV storylines versus older TV particularly notable since I was just listening to the commentary on the pilot of American Gothic, in which the producers discuss the network's initial opposition to having Sheriff Buck whistle the theme from The Andy Griffith Show as he jauntily went to kill someone. In 1995, they say on the commentary track, before Buffy, network execs resisted references to other shows, but they think they were allowed to do it because Pulp Fiction had just shown the popularity of cross-reference.

Anyway, the MIT series is pretty cool; you can find other conference reports and papers on the same site.

Comments

[owzers.livejournal.com]

I grew up watching "Andy Griffith" and "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" and it just boggles my mind how whitewashed those shows were - especially after reading about the tormented lives of the actors in those shows. What a shocker that was! I can't help but wonder if they were showing "I Love Lucy" these days, if they'd still think of her as a loveable clown. I mean, honestly, she was more of a deranged sociopath if you really think about it.

And on a side note - did ya see the cover I did for your "Skin Deep" story? That's one of my very favorite Clex fics hon! You rock!

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I've been really bad about checking LJ of late (for some reason, the baby thinks he's entitled to more of my attention, plus I just can't stop staring at him) so I'm glad you pointed it out to me.

[marymason.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link, I was really interested to read the Butler and Magaziner articles among others.

before Buffy, network execs resisted references to other shows

Now to penetrate TV dialogue viewers are expected to possess and draw on an encyclopedic knowledge of popular culture. The idea that we must all be conversant in pop-culture--and further that being conversant is a sign of sass/wit/intelligence--is brilliant from a cross-marketing point of view. It encourages full immersion as the best means of gaining social currency.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Good point -- though it does make you wonder why the networks resisted it for so long. Were they afraid of advertising someone else's product? On the American Gothic commentary, the proffered explanation is that the networks thought it would rip people out of the illusion if fictional characters referred to other fictional characters, but that seems very odd, at least in retrospect, since real people do talk about pop culture all the time.

[tmelange.livejournal.com]

Thanks so much for the link. This was great reading.

[postcardsfrom.livejournal.com]

This was interesting, but I'm uncomfortable with the premise that anything you do that involves sitting in front of a box is challenging. Taking it to this serious level of analysis indicates how important TV has become in the lives of the young. Even video games are passive, although they may develop fine motor control and a certain facility with figuring things out in the context of a video-game world. I don't think watching TV and playing video games is bad, but it's not good either. It's neutral entertainment, and, like stretching out on the couch eating bonbons, should be indulged in within limits. If that's accepted, then the issue of how complex modern programming and videos are becomes fun yet trivial.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Well, the same things can be said of reading (passive, just sitting there), yet -- for upper-middle-class Americans, at least -- reading is considered highly valuable for kids, and video games aren't, so one might wonder why. There are definitely things to worry about when a kid spends all his/her time playing video games, but that's also true of reading, sports, or hanging out with friends. Although my constant reading as a child did reinforce (and was reinforced by) my social isolation, there were a lot of people, fellow geeks, willing to validate that kind of behavior once I got older; video games don't have the same installed base of approving older users, but that might change in a decade. I also don't think video games are the equivalent of bonbons (less fattening, for one thing), though my Mah-jong Solitaire addiction probably comes close.

[postcardsfrom.livejournal.com]

I think there is a reason reading is preferable, and as a fellow childhood socially isolated reader I know you appreciate it -- making your own images, creating worlds from words (etc.) Not to mention the act of reading itself, decoding and all that. AND, if you're reading fairly well written books, developing a sense of the language. I agree that reading is just sitting there (I recall doing it in a tire swing at recess) and bonbons can and have been ingested in the process. But all in all reading isn't completely passive. Same with Mah-jong, I've heard it's a difficult game to master, and (unless in my ignorance I haven't realized you do Mah-jong solitaire on the computer) don't you hone your fine motor skills and aesthetic feel by manipulating those tiles? However, as you point out, it's really a matter of balance -- too much of anything and too little of the other makes Jack a dull boy. Unless Jack is a prodigy of some sort. I think you may also be right about changing standards -- my viewpoint on reading and video games may already mark me as an old (excuse me) fart.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Johnson's argument, which I found partially but not wholly convincing, was that video games, like reading, can involve important imaginative skills -- not necessarily imagining what the characters look like, but making the logical and/or intuitive leaps to figure out what to do next in order to succeed, since many popular games require players to puzzle through a narrative structure. If you're interested, it is a very quick read, and he at least unsettled my beliefs by making a plausible case that video games develop different but not necessarily worse competencies than reading.

I do my Mah-Jong on the computer, and it is completely indulgent -- I often listen to music (or TV) or let my mind drift while I play, but that doesn't make it good for me. I still spend more time reading than most people, but then I have the luxury of a job that pays me to keep up on the relevant literature.

[postcardsfrom.livejournal.com]

I guess I'd better read the whole thing rather than skim excerpts! I hope to be convinced that video games are "good for you", since I let my kids play them way too much -- or maybe not!
Do you actually enjoy keeping up with the literature relevant to your work? If If so, you are truly blessed.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

I love keeping up with the literature! I find copyright, trademark and advertising law so fascinating that it is often hard for me to remember that other people don't. I am amazingly lucky to have my job.