Today's New York Times Magazine has an essay excerpted from Steven Johnson's latest book Everything Bad is Good For You, out this coming week. Watching TV Makes You Smarter introduces what Johnson calls the Sleeper Curve, which I guess is the main theory behind his book:
For decades, we've worked under the assumption that mass culture follows a path declining steadily toward lowest-common-denominator standards, presumably because the "masses" want dumb, simple pleasures and big media companies try to give the masses what they want. But as that "24" episode suggests, the exact opposite is happening: the culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less. To make sense of an episode of "24," you have to integrate far more information than you would have a few decades ago watching a comparable show. Beneath the violence and the ethnic stereotypes, another trend appears: to keep up with entertainment like "24," you have to pay attention, make inferences, track shifting social relationships. This is what I call the Sleeper Curve: the most debased forms of mass diversion—video games and violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms—turn out to be nutritional after all.
Okay, so I don't care overly much for 24 in particular, but I do understand what he's getting at with Sleeper Curve; the shows that get my attention and manage to retain over the course of seasons are the ones with the twistiest of plots and multiple stories woven into each other, that require the closest attention be paid at every turn or I risk being completely lost come next week. He mentions The Sopranos, which I do love, but the first show I ever felt this way about was The X-Files, its byzantine mytharc as appealing to me as the detective stories and Gillian Anderson.
Johnson goes on to explain the Sleeper Curve as it relates to reality shows and why we love them:
Reality programming borrowed another key ingredient from games: the intellectual labor of probing the system's rules for weak spots and opportunities. As each show discloses its conventions, and each participant reveals his or her personality traits and background, the intrigue in watching comes from figuring out how the participants should best navigate the environment that has been created for them. The pleasure in these shows comes not from watching other people being humiliated on national television; it comes from depositing other people in a complex, high-pressure environment where no established strategies exist and watching them find their bearings. That's why the water-cooler conversation about these shows invariably tracks in on the strategy displayed on the previous night's episode: why did Kwame pick Omarosa in that final round? What devious strategy is Richard Hatch concocting now?
So now you know why contests like Project Runway and America's Next Top Model are as addictive as crack, but can we admit that many reality shows, especially those that follow celebrities around, really are about "watching other people being humiliated?" No one questions that Anna Nicole is drunk and high and will do something embarassing or that Jessica will say something painfully clueless. And then you have your choice trainwreck moments on shows like C.O.P.S. or Showdog Moms & Dads, the latter one being the show that dog people like myself watch because seeing people two or three orders of magnitudes crazier about dogs than we are is reassuring, reminding us that while we put bandanas on our dogs every once in a while, we're nowhere near THAT bad. *cough, cough*
Anyway, I'm tired, sleepy (and somewhat bloated from this afternoon's Taste of Chinatown snacktravaganza, more on that later), so I'll stop blathering on now, except to point out that you can pre-order Everything Bad is Good For You on Amazon and read Johnson's blog post on how he came to the idea behind the book while thinking about games. Can't wait to read it!