Terrence Pearson
Mr. Boczkowski
English 110.01
May 12, 2009
Is it Johnson’s way?

Media can be looked at in many different ways. Some people believe it hurts our society, while others believe that the media helps stimulate one’s thought process. Reading Everything Bad Is Good For You by Steven Johnson and keeping a weekly journal over the television show The Hills has helped me understand the two different viewpoints. The heart of Johnson’s argument revolves around something called the Sleeper Curve. Johnson stated that “the Sleeper Curve is a universe of popular entertainment that trends intellectually speaking, ever upward, so that today's pop-culture consumer has to do more cognitive work, making snap decisions and coming up with long term strategies in role playing video games, for example, or mastering new virtual environments on the Internet than ever before” (Johnson, Everything Bad Is Good for You, page 39). After studying The Hills I can truly say that the sleeper curve is present. Johnson is stating that today’s media makes you work harder at making quick decisions but also educates one’s mind set. Today’s media educates people by providing visual examples of appealing facts about are society. There are television shows in the world that may not serve any purpose to your life; however, it may play a major part in someone else’s. For example someone who is interested in an earth program is more likely to watch the discovery channel than myself; I am an individual that watches ESPN and MTV. Keeping up with today’s media may seem worthless but it can truly be beneficial.

The Hills is a MTV reality program that follows the life of several young people living in Los Angeles, California. The show's current main cast member is Lauren Conrad of Laguna Beach. The Hills presents lots of drama between friends but it also haves its good side. Throughout the first couple of weeks of watching and analyzing this program, I was completely unintrigued. There were days when my mind would just wonder off while the show was playing because I lacked all interest in it. As time progressed, I found myself making predictions, gathering first impressions, and also making comparisons between the different characters’ lives. I finally began to interact with the show. I can actually say that my experience with The Hills supports Johnson’s Thesis.

Study of One Tree Hill

One Tree Hill is a really great example about what Steven Johnson says about what is going on with television. This show shows everything that Johnson has talked about in his book Everything Bad is Good For You. You see One Tree Hill is a great example of all the things that he talks about in his book. From the multi-threading to the flashing arrows and finally to the social networking. This show has the multi-threading and the social networking. It also shows that there are no flashing arrows. That is why this show is such a great show to do for this essay. The thing though is that not everyone believes that television is really a good thing for us. Other people think that television has made us in since dumber. Then of course other would agree with what Johnson say about television.

I should explain what I’m talking about when I talked about multi-threading, social networking, and flashing arrows. These three things are part of what Johnson calls the sleeper curve. Which the sleeper curve is the things that have helped change television to what it is today. You see television has really come along way since it first started. That is really all of what the sleeper curve is.

To make things clear on why One Tree Hill is a good choice for this paper I need to summarize the show. To start of the show is about two brothers, Lucas and Nathan, that don’t get along with each other at all. You see the two brothers have the same dad but different moms. You see Nathan is the star of their schools basketball team. He is also dating one of the head cheerleader, Peyton. Then there is Lucas who is just a regular guy who plays basketball on a riverside court. As it turns out things change and Nathans couch wants him to join the team. In the end Lucas does end up joining the team. While on the team Nathan and the other players Haze Lucas really bad. Besides the basketball there is a lot of mixed up emotions going on. You see Lucas starts to like Peyton who is going out with Lucas. Peyton’s friend Brook likes Lucas, but he really doesn’t like her. Then we start to see that Nathan really like Haley, Lucas’s best friend, when he is single. After awhile things start to cool down between the two. Not just because Haley asked Nathan to. Things cooled down because of some of the things that the two had to go through with each other. Like getting away from three guys from the basketball team they just played. That is what this show has been about.

Multi-threading is when there is more then one story line going on in an episode. You see Johnson says that “multiple threading is the most acclaimed structural convention of modern television programming, which is ironic because it’s also the convention with the most debased pedigree” (65). With that statement I would have to agree with it all the way. Now a days if a show does not have these multi-threads the show just seems boring. If you would talk to anyone they would say the same thing. Multi-threading just makes the show a whole lot of fun to watch. From what I have read when this first came out people did not like it because it made them try to keep up with everything going on, which I understand why they would think that way. Back then when people watched television they liked it to be nice and simple. Sometimes it can be hard to keep up with all the storylines in the show. From what has been said it is easy to say that multi-threading does fit with One Tree Hill. This show has these multi-threading in every episode. An example of this would have to be in episode 6 called “Every Night Is Another Story”. This episode has two nice story lines in it. The first one would have to be the fact that Lucas and Nathan have to work together to get out of jam with three rival basketball players, that they just beat. The other story line is that we se see Haley, Peyton, and Brook to kind of start to get close.
Now flashing arrows are things in a show or a movie that might give off what may happen soon. Johnson gives an example of what a flashing arrow looks like. He gives us a example from a show called Student Bodies. He gives the example of when the camera zooms in on a door then backs up and then it says “Door Unlocked!” You see Johnson says that “flashing arrows is a parody, of course, but it’s merely an exaggerated version of a device popular stories use all the time (73). Which there are no flashing arrows in the show One Tree Hill.

There is one more thing I read about in Johnsons book Everything Bad Is Good For You. The last thing that I read is about character web. You see Johnson says that “ The trend toward increased social networking complexity is not the exclusive province of reality of television; many popular television dramas today feature dense webs of relationships that require focus and scrutiny on the part of the viewer just to figure out what’s happening on the screen” (109). In this show there is a nice sized character web of all of the characters. That is why this show fits in with Johnsons idea. Here is the character web for One Tree Hill.



These are the examples from the show One Tree Hill. Also to show who is connected to each other in the show. As you can see it is a very complex web. Everyone is connected to each other in one way or another. It gets hard sometimes to keep up with all the connections sometimes. I think that is why this show is so great to watch.

Now for me I do agree that television has helped make us smarter. They’re people out there though that think that television has made us in a since dumber. In the article Spudding Out, by Barbara Ehrenreich she believes that television is bad for us. It is like she is saying T.V. has taken over our lives of people. I came to this conclusion because Ehrenreich stats that “ We never see the neighbors anymore, nor, they us. This saddens me because Americans used to be a great and restless people, fond of the outdoors in all of its manifestation, from Disney World to miniature golf “ (147). Now One Tree Hill fits in here because this show is one of the reasons why so many people are staying inside to watch television. All in all I would have to disagree with her about television making us dumber. On the other hand there is another person that agrees with Johnson. Paul Adams agrees with Johnson by say that “ watching television is the greatest single use of “ free time” (time not spent working, sleeping or attending to household or personal needs)” (118). For the same reason as the one, it fits One Tree Hill. because it is a show that people watch on their “free time”. Thomas C. O’Guinn says that “television has supplanted reading and interpersonal narrative as our primary means of storytelling and myth delivery and has thus fundamentally changed our culture” (278). What he is saying is that we get are information from T.V. more now instead of reading books.

In conclusion you can see that different people have different ideas about what television has done for use. No matter what way you believe the show One Tree Hill is a show that can connect with each opinion someone may have. Then that I think that television does help us .



Adams, Paul C. Television as Gathering Place. Vol. 82. N.p.: Tyler & Friends,Ltd, n.d. JSTOR. Ithaka Harbors,Inc. Web. 27 May 2009. http://www.jstor.org/action/showAdvancedSearch.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. "Spudding OUt." The Cultural Influences of Television (n.d.): 147-48. Print.
Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad IS Good For You. New York: The Berkley Group, 2005. Print.
O'Guinn, Thomas C., and L.J. Shrum. The Role of Television in the Constuction of Consumer Reality. Vol. 23. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1997. JSTOR. Ithaka Harbors, Inc. Web. 27 May 2009. http://www.jstor.org

Leverage ( Great for Entertainment, Bad for the Sleeper Curve)

Leverage is a show of comedy, suspense, drama, romance, sarcasm, tactics and wit. The show provides entertainment to a more mature crowd because of some of the content within the show. However, all around the show I feel is great and entertaining, because you can just watch it and not have a care in the world. Leverage does at a lot of things as far as media is concern, but the idea behind the concept of the show does not support Johnson’s argument of the Sleeper Curve.

The show that I am following is no doubt a very ingenious show, because it supports the idea that in order to do good one must do bad. However it does not challenge the mind, and go along with Johnson's idea of the Sleeper Curve. In this show it is more of a how we do what is done opposed to the typical show where one is trying to figure out the motive of a person. There is no typical “whodunit” it, or mystery or suspense that has you thinking each turns of the movie and just when you think that you have figured it out there is a twist to it. The show is pretty much based the same way each time something is stolen or lost and it is up to this team to go in and retrieve it.

Leverage is the modern day version of the show the A-team, it is based on an ex-insurance investigator named Nathan, who is wrongfully done by his insurance company (that he works for), when his dying son needs surgery, but the same company refuses to provide coverage for it. Nathan soon leaves the company to; and is connected and leads a team of vigilantes, doing good deeds for people all across the world, after the government refuses to help them. The motto of the team is they provide, leverage (a push to get over the top) when no one else is there to help to them. What makes this show interesting is that each one of the characters has a different trait to add to the benefit of the team. You have: Elliot which is the muscles of the team, Parker is the sneaky one, she can get in and out of an environment without no one even knowing, Hardison the computer whiz if it has a something to do with computers he can work with it, Sophie is the actor she poses as the undercover person to infiltrate what it is they need to, and last is Nathan he the brains behind the operation he provides the plan for the teams so mission to go as smooth as possible.

Johnson's’ idea of the Sleeper Curve is that the media as well as technology is actually making us smarter opposed to the present day stereotype: That the media and technology is hindering us from fulfilling our full potential as well as making us dumber, because the things that we are doing are taking little if no energy at all. Johnson's argument that today’s pop culture is making us smarter, I feel is indeed correct, but I feel that in order for that statement to be true the mind has to be challenged to new heights and that is what today’s pop culture is doing. Over time popular culture has made a tremendous transition it went from the media being a useless waste of time to becoming a new era of learning. Technology is the founding father of that idea; things that we use in our everyday life such as: television, video games, the internet, cell phones, etc. are shaping our minds into becoming a more influential and smarter society. This idea is the “Sleeper Curve”.

Leverage does take technology to new heights, because of the types of equipment that the characters use to help them succeed, but it does not support the argument of the Sleeper Curve, because the idea behind the show is not challenging. The basis of the show is someone usually of a richer background comes to the leverage team with a substantial amount of money in exchange for a retrieval of something very valuable to that person. There it is, you know exactly who took whatever it is that needs to get back, and you also know there motive for taking it (usually for money or some other type of personal gain). After those things are spoon fed to you the only thing to do, is just to watch the show and see exactly how the tactics that they use to get back whatever it is they need to. The show is very entertaining and it shines light to these actions, but unfortunately it does completely oppose the idea of the sleeper curve. Leverage is more of modern genre of shows that were set back in the fifties, where no one wanted a challenge when watching television they just wanted to be lazy and watch something on television.

Although Leverage is not the typical Law and Order, or C.S.I type of show that absolutely supports the Sleeper Curve it does support Johnson in other manners. In the book Everything Bad is Good for You, Johnson mention phrases in that exist in modern pop culture he mentions Multi-threading, and Flashing Arrows as well as character mapping. These ideas go into Johnson's argument of the sleeper curve.

Johnson talks about Multi-threading- a series of stories going on inside of the big story itself. Leverage provides a lot of these in throughout the episodes. One complex things about multi-threading is that it can go on during at the same episodes through the same scenes even at the same time and they can continue over a period of episodes; this usually leads to joke or inside humor in a later show. Johnson argues that multi-threading is “the most acclaimed structural convention of modern television programming”. According to Johnson multi-threading started with the show Hill Street Blues, 1981 and has increased over time to a multiple story plotline show such as The Sopranos. Although this show has multiple threads, one might argue that it does support Johnson’s argument; I however do not feel that way because the idea behind Johnson’s argument is that these ideas challenge our mind but in my opinion this rule causes for an exception.

Flashing Arrows are another thing that Johnson brings up in the book. A flashing arrow is a symbol that alerts us when something bad or very dramatic is about to happen, this idea helps shape the Sleeper Curve because the fewer flashing arrows the better because in a sense they help us think about what could possibly happen next. Leverage fails to make these apart of the show because of the story plot line. The Flashing Arrows are very subtle and one usually could not notice them. This makes it hard for one to put together the fact something is about to happen.

Even though my show does provides one these two huge components of Johnsons’ argument I feel it is still none the less not a very good argument of the Sleeper Curve. My show supports modern society ideas that television just makes us lazy because there is no thinking or effort in to watching someone do something and all you have to do is stand there and watch.

I do agree with the whole idea of the Sleeper Curve but not with the idea that Leverage supports it. The show is fun to watch at the times of being lazy or not feeling up to the idea of putting your mind to use, but what does that get us? Johnson's argument is not to get us to use more media but simply justify the fact that a lot of present day pop culture media is making is improving our intelligence, but as far as supporting Johnson’s argument unfortunately my show does not.

The Inner Message

Steven Johnson, author of the National Bestseller Everything Bad is Good for You, believes that the world of media is intellectually stimulating. Johnson’s Sleeper Curve ideas are all around us and in all forms of media showing us that there is more to a particular medium than what meets the eye. Video games, television shows, movies, and even the internet all show signs of intellectually activity just underneath the surface. Johnson explains how the forms of media are good for us and actually help us out by increasing our brain's activity.

The television series Fringe, created by J. J. Abrams, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, is a science fiction television series that first aired on September 9, 2008. The show is about an FBI “Fringe” Division based out of Boston, Massachusetts. Fringe follows FBI Special Agent Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv), scientist Walter Bishop (John Noble), and his son Peter Bishop (Joshua Jackson) as they investigate different unexplained occurrences (genetic mutation, teleportation, artificial intelligence, etc) throughout the world.

The Sleeper Curve is Steven Johnson’s theory that popular culture in the form of media “has, on average, grown more complex and intellectually challenging…” (xv). Johnson formulated his ideas from George Will’s when he said “I see a progressive story: mass culture growing more sophisticated, demanding more cognitive engagement with each passing year” (xv).

Steven Johnson’s theories and ideas on the Sleeper Curve are very apparent in the television series Fringe. Fringe has everything from the social networking to the flashing arrows which show opposition to Johnson’s theories. Another key factor in Fringe would be the full force of multithreads. I have not seen one episode of Fringe where there has not been multiple scenarios going on during the same episode. Every Fringe episode is a twisted web helping to implement Johnson’s sleeper curve theory.

Social networking for Fringe is a tangled web of characters (Figure 1). Although is small compared to other shows like CSI and Everybody Loves Raymond, yet complex. Most all of the characters are related in some way shape or form, but it is not as easy as them hanging out to notice it. For some of the networks one would have to start watching the series and stick with to understand what is going on; it for instance Agent Dunham is only connected to the CEO of Massive Dynamics Nina Sharp by what she knows of when she participated in drug trials as a child. In Figure 1 above, is one of Johnson’s character webs, this character web displays characters from the television series Fringe. Above is a web of nine characters all connected (displayed with connecting lines).



Figure 1

While flashing arrows are against Johnson’s Sleepers Curve, they are apparent in Fringe; flashing arrows appear in the music, visions, and even when cretin people show up in a seen. There is one particular man that shows up in every episode. This man tall – white – baldheaded, is known only as The Observer; will show up randomly at any given time, and once he shows up something happens to alter the story line for that particular episode. Fringe uses it music to its advantage; the music is used build up suspense and adds dramatic effect and after the build up something might happen, but then again sometimes nothing happens at all. There is one other flashing arrows that is very apparent in almost every episode. This flashing arrow comes in the form of Special Agent Olivia Dunham dreams that she often has. In almost every episode Agent Dunham has a dream or nightmare that shows what could come later in the episode, but this is not always true; Agent Dunham has even had dreams of her past that help to peace together a mystery.

Fringe is a television series with few multithreads per episode. Unlike CSI Miami which can end an episode with three separate story lines Fringe is lucky to go one episode with more than a single story line. Johnson’s idea of multithreads make a television show more complex due to the overwhelming number of items that one must comprehend at any given time during the show.

While Fringe is a great example of Johnson’s Sleeper Curve theory, it does not cover all of his complete thoughts. In the television section of Everything Bad is Good For You, Fringe covers every section including the part disproving Johnson (Flashing Arrows). Johnson goes on in his book to talk about video games, movies, the internet, and how they growing more complex and intellectually stimulating. Although Fringe does not completely fulfill Johnson’s theory it is a prime example for supporting some of Johnson’s arguments in the section on television.

Twitter and all the good for you

Over the past ten weeks I have been interpreting Twitter into Steven Johnson’s “Everything bad is Good for you” argument of the Sleeper Curve. I came to find that Twitter is exemplifying with Johnson’s argument of the Sleeper Curve. Twitter is a popular website today. Johnson talks about three different things that have the internet on the rise that challenged our minds in three fundamental ways: virtue of being participatory, learning new interfaces, and new channels for social interaction (Johnson 117-8). Some people might think the internet is not making our conversation any better but it really is making our culture better at the same time. Twitter makes our brain work less than it should but at the same time it is enhancing our cognitive faculties and making our pop culture smarter.

The Sleeper Curve has three crucial pieces to it. The internet part of the Sleeper Curve talk about three fundamental way to challenged our minds 1) virtue of being participatory 2)learning new interfaces 3)creating new channels for social interaction. The internet is a new form of pop culture that had been around for more than a decade ago. It’s one thing to adapt your lifestyle to include time for sitting around watching a moving image on a screen; it’s quite another thing to learn a whole new language of communication and a small army of software tools along with it (Johnson 117). Yes many people had to change the way they way living for this new form of communication that is pop culture today.

Twitter is a new form of communication in today pop culture media. Twitter is basically a social network where you are on their communicating with different people. What you are doing all day is following different people and people are following you. Today everyone has a Twitter, from celebrity to normal people. Twitter is a hand on web site where you really do not have to have any brains to do much. Twitter has gotten to that point where how you can “tweet” form your phone now. “Tweet” is just another name to call it rather that “twittering”. Millions of people are Tweeting every day, and twice as many are on Twitter.

My first point of Johnson’s in comparison with Twitter is being participatory: participatory is you engaging yourself into the web site that you have gotten on. “Everyone recognized that the practices of composing email and clicking on hyper links were going to be mainstream actives” (Johnson 118). How you use this on Twitter well by writing I your blog box with only a 140 characters and writing to different people. People might put up question for their follower to answer different blogs might have hyper link in it, you can click on it and it will open up another web site with whatever they wanted people to see. For example I was reading one of P.Diddy’s blog that he had wrote, it said something about haters so he had a link on his blog and I click on it, it had part of Katt Williams “American Hustle” the part where Katt talks about having haters. I was using the participatory fundamental way of challenging our minds.

My second point of Johnson’s in comparison to Twitter is learning new interfaces: an interface is when you are in control of the system. “The accelerating pace of new platforms and software applications forces users to probe and master new environment “(Johnson 121). The interface part of Twitter really does not fit into what Johnson says about it but it does fit into face book. There is not many software application is can get on Twitter but on the other hand you can find most application on face book. Face book has this list of different gadgets you can put on your page. For examples you got this photo gadget where you can put on your page. You can upload a lot of photo and put your page. Whereas on Twitter you have to spend time look for the link to add your photos and that is just doing too much.

The last point of Johnson’s comparison to Twitter is social interaction: Social interaction on web is when you are interacting with different social group online. “in fact, nearly all of the most hyped development on the webs for augmenting social connection: on line personals, social, business network sites” (Johnson 124). Twitter is basically all three of these social sites put into one. Well one it a personal site because you have your profile set up and everything. Then next it’s a social site because you are socializing with different people. The final one is business, Twitter is for everyone, I have seen business with their Twitter page. They are promoting their business Columbus Jobs has a Twitter I am following them and they are following me. They post new Jobs up every day if they are hiring.

Steven Johnson’s book “Everything Bad for You is good” made the statement that pop culture is making society smart. Twitter, even though there is not much to do on that site. It stills a great point out the Sleeper Curve and how today technology is making our popular culture smarter than the last decade. Today you have three fundamental ways is challenging today young people’s brain. Participatory, interface and social interface is what the internet offers the society today.

Works Cited

Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad Is Good For You. New York: the Penguin Group, 2005.

The Study of Futurama through Eyes Johnson

“Futurama controlling you through a chip in your butt since 1999,”not really but I couldn’t help but putting this as an opening statement because it goes along so well with the main idea of the paper. Let’s start in the beginning, Futurama is a TV show that was created by Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons, and for the most part was relativity popular for the few years it was on TV. In my opinion, the complex story lines, the complicated character webs, and the repeatability that never gets old puts Futurama in sync with the “Sleeper Curve” that author Steven Johnson discusses.

Steven Johnson is the author of a book called Everything Bad is Good For You, in the book he discusses that everything that is said to be bad for you, popular culture, is actually good for you. He describes the trend of the smartening of popular culture as “The Sleeper Curve.” Now the big points Johnson discuss about TV and movies are the flashing arrows, multi threading, filing in the gaps, and the repeatability of the show. I will discuss Futurama's relevance to these categories.

The first point I’m going to talk about that Johnson mentions are flashing arrows, Johnson says flashing arrows are “... a narrative sign post, planted conveniently to help the audience keep track of what’s going on.”(Johnson 73) Now these are easily seen in “first generation slasher movies,” with the obvious signs that something terrible is going to happen to the character on screen.( Johnson 72) However, as TV gets more complex and smarter shows tend to not use flashing arrows as much and we tend to be “kept in the dark” in order to make our minds work to try and figure out the story; now that we have been trained to be in the “dark” for a several years the writers of the shows can lose the flashing arrows, or our hypothetical “training wheels” used to guide us thought the plot.(Johnson 75-7) Now Futurama doesn’t use flashing arrows like some of the older TV shows like Murder She Wrote were they always showed you the killer in the beginning and the clue they left behind; it was the viewers job to watch and be impressed with how Jessica Fletche found the clues and suspect.

Futurama obviously isn’t a murder show but it does still have a few hinting areas in it. I wouldn’t necessarily call them flashing arrows more of just very clever foreshadowing. You might not notice them at first, but after watching the show again you would notice that that a certain scene is a foreshadowing of incidents bound to happen. A good example of this is in one of the episodes where Bender (the robot) started to hate humans, before he got off the ship to go to a planet of human killing robots Fry (guy from the future) and Lela (one eyed alien) told him to act like he hated humans, and he replied in a sarcastic voice “I’ll try.” This to me is a foreshadowing Bender will start to hate humans, and in fact he becomes one of the most famous human haters on the killer robot planet.

Now the next thing Johnson talks about is multiple threading. Multiple threading “weaves together a collection of distinct strands- sometimes as many as ten;” essentially it’s the connecting of several smaller story plots, in a episode, together to give it complexity instead of following one story line. (Johnson 67) Now Futurama fits perfectly in with this idea; it often has two possibly three or four story threads going at once. For example take the first episode “Pilot,” there’s the thread about how Fry was frozen and unthawed 1,000 years in the future. His life sucked back in the year 2,000 so he is happy in the cool new future. Then they present the story thread of Lela trying to do her job and implant a career chip in Fry (which he doesn’t want); while at the same time being upset with her job. Then they introduce the story thread of Bender who is trying to kill him self because he hates his job. They all “weave” together in the end with the story thread of the professor (Fry’s Great…Great Nephew) who is looking for a new three man crew for his delivery ship. (Johnson 67)

Now it may seem complicated on paper but the writers cut and splice scenes to make it flow together as if it was one story, but in reality its like four smaller stories put into one to make an episode. The shows smart multiple threading puts it right up their with Johnson’s “Sleeper Curve.”

Another thing Johnson discusses is filling in the gaps. “You’ll enjoy this more if your capable of remembering a throw away line from three years ago, or if you noticed that we’ve framed this scene to echoes the end of Double Indemnity.” (Johnson 87) Now Johnson isn’t crazy what he’s describing here is how TV sitcoms like The Simpsons and Seinfeld started to pull jokes and lines from past episode and throw a new twist to them in current or newer episode. This causes the viewers to pull the line or joke from their memory in order to truly understand it, aka filling in the gap. Johnson says, “the jokes come in layers… you can watch a episode and miss all the film riffs and still enjoy the show” (Johnson 87) However, it would be a “richer” and “more rewarding experience” if you did understand all the “film riffs.” (Johnson 87)

For instance in the one of the episodes of Futurama Lela sleeps with Zap Branagain (a jackass whose a commander in the democratic space fleet). In future episodes Lela and Zap have run-ins and every time Zap tries to impress her and acts like she’s his girlfriend. Now if you didn’t watch you might wonder why this guy is such a creeper; you might be able to deduce something happened between them, but if you just watched that one episode so many questions between those two characters are answered.

Like in the episode “A Flight to Remember”, as Fry and Lela were walking on the ship she noticed Zap. Zap said, “my, my if it isn’t Captain Lela, might you accompany me on this cruse.” Lela responded saying, “I would love to but I have a boy friend.” Then she pulls Fry close to her and said, “Zap I would like you to meet my boy friend, Fry.” Now you would understand if you never knew they slept together that Lela just wasn’t interested, but if you did know that information from the past episode the joke of having a fake boyfriend would be “richer” and have more meaning. (Johnson 87)

One last thing I want to touch on that Johnson talks about is the repeatability of the show. Johnson says, “already, any given episode of a successful television show will be seen by more people in syndication than it will during its first run on network TV.” (Johnson 160) Basically what Johnson is saying is that watching reruns and DVD forms of the shows are already get the show more views than its premiere on network TV. Because of this shows are now adding in more features “that reward great scrutiny;” like little hidden things in an episode, or watching a episode for the fifth time and noticing a joke you don’t remember hearing. Malcolm Gladwell agrees saying, “The extraordinary amount of money now being made in the television aftermarket—DVD sales means that the creators…. have an incentive to make programming that can sustain two or three or four viewings.” (Gladwell)

Futurama definitely fits into this category because I never watched it on TV, but now that I’ve seen it on DVD I can’t get enough of it; I went and got two other seasons of it, and I continuously watch the episodes over and over. I watch the episodes that much because I like the challenge of trying to find the hidden things in each episode. Like in the episode “Pilot,” theirs a scene were Fry and Bender hide in a Head Museum (were all the dead celebrity’s heads are cut off and kept alive in a jar), and they have a camera shot of them hiding behind a shelf of heads. One of the heads on the shelf is the head of Matt Groening (the creator of the show.) That little discovery made me feel so good about my observation skills and urged me on to try and find other hidden secrets in each episode.

Joe Rhodes of the New York Times agrees with me about Futurama saying, “…with its share of inside jokes, many requiring freeze-frame study to appreciate it fully.” (Rhodes) Rhodes is just reinforcing my argument that Futurama isn’t just a once you’ve seen it your done with it, kind of show. A good example of this is the foreshadowing example I presented earlier. I didn’t notice that what Bender said was a foreshadowing of future events; however, after a second glance it dawned on me that it was a big indicator of what would happen next.

Although not everyone fully agrees that Futurama is a clever show that is attributing to our culture in a positive way. “…The show lacks the vision of The Simpsons, the snappy rhythm and the kind of far-reaching humor that keep it dizzyingly smart even after a decade on the air. Is there anything good to say about Futurama? Sure, it's better than Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza,” said by Ginia Bellafante. (Bellafante) Now Mrs. Bellafante said this about the shows premier episode which in my opinion isn’t a fair assessment of the shows full potential. Also if she had bothered going back and using a little wisdom from Johnson and watched the episode again she may have seen it in a different light, and had a different opinion on it. I think her quote fits right in the old category of don’t judge a book by its cover. The show wasn’t meant to just be viewed once and skimmed over. It’s a show that has some depth to it and deserves a second look in my opinion.

So In conclusion I do believe that Futurama fits into the “Sleeper Curve” pretty well. It has no flashing arrows just clever foreshadowing like in the Bender example I gave. It has a nice multiple threading like with the example of the “pilot” episode. It has a variety of jokes and lines that are brought up over several seasons for filling in the gaps like in the example of Lela and Zap. And of course it has repeatability that makes you want to watch it over and over like in the example I gave about the Head Museum. If you don’t like the show just don’t kick it to the curb give it a second try you might find it has grown on you, and then you might actually find it amusing. Like other shows of today’s popular culture Futurama is no exception to Johnson’s “Sleeper Curve.”

Works Cited
Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad Is Good For You. New York: Penguin Books, 2006.
Bellafante, Ginia. “Futurama.” Time. 29 March 1999. 31 May 2008. .
Rhodes, Joe. “Back to the Animated Future, this Time on DVD.” New York Times. 27 November 2007. 21 May 2008. .
Gladwell, Malcolm. “Brain Candy.” The New Yorker. 16 May 2005. 21 May 2009. .
“Pilot”. Futurama: The First Season. Writ. Matt Groening and David X. Cohen. Dir. Matt Groening. Fox. 28 March 1999. DVD. 20th Century Fox, 2003
“A Flight To Remember” Futurama: The First Season. Writ. Matt Groening and David X. Cohen. Dir. Matt Groening. Fox. 26 September1999 . DVD. 20th Century Fox, 2003
“Fear of a Bot Planet” Futurama: The First Season. Writ. Matt Groening and David X. Cohen. Dir. Matt Groening. Fox.20 April 1999. DVD. 20th Century Fox, 2003

By Zander Shumar

The Gilmore Girls and Intelligence in Television

TV is making us smarter, so says Steven Johnson who lays down the foundations of proof for intelligent television in his book Everything Bad Is Good For You. Johnson is arguing that popular media such as videogames, television, and the internet are becoming more complex with time because as we watch and participate in these media we become smarter. Johnson thinks that watching television with complex intersecting plotlines and characters is teaching us to be better at reading emotional cues of our social groups in real life. He attributes the rise of IQ scores to problem solving skills needed to play videogames and multiple threading involved in television viewing. “Where pure problem solving is concerned, we’re getting smarter” (144).

As we become smarter from watching television, television must increase in complexity to keep us interested and entertained. “You have to focus to follow the plot, and in focusing you’re exercising the part of your brain that maps social networks” (Johnson, p. 115). Johnson labels the idea that we may not yet be advanced or observant enough to understand how important and good for us television really is as the “Sleeper Curve”. I think Johnson is hoping to lead the way with the idea that although TV has been totally integrated into our daily lives we simply don’t appreciate its benefits yet. Where once we misunderstood the effects of TV now we can recognize it for all its potential reward This may be true with intricate shows like 24 and Arrested Development that force you to follow many plot threads and multiple character interactions, but I do not believe this is true with a show like Gilmore Girls. Quirky, funny, and heartwarming though the show may be, Gilmore Girls has offered little complexity to analyze.

The show is centered on two main characters, Lorelai Gilmore and her teenage daughter Rory Gilmore. The pair are best friends and very much alike in their quirky personalities. They share all of the same interests, from punk rock to old movies, and a endless love of coffee. The main conflict in the show comes from the dysfunctional relationship between Lorelai and her parents, Emily and Richard Gilmore. Lorelai and her mother rarely get along, and though her parents are rich, she refuses to take more from her parents than is absolutely necessary. This demonstrates Lorelai’s independent nature. There are several minor characters who provide comedic value, the most entertaining being Michel, the snarky French front desk man.

The television of a modern audience contains “densely interwoven plotlines” that require the viewer to “fill in crucial elements” referred to by Johnson as multiple threading. “Multiple threading is the most acclaimed structural convention of modern television programming” (65). Meaning, as we watch these narratives we become smarter and therefore appreciate new complexities in television as they arise. What may have seemed interesting to viewers ten years ago will no longer hold the audience’s attention because we have progressed and demand deeper complexity to hold our interests. Johnson, seems to think ten threads per episode is considered complex and uses the examples of Hill Street Blues and Sopranos to point out improved multiple threading (66-72). However, not all television is created equally, as proven by the lack of multiple threading in Gilmore Girls.

There was only one major plot line in Gilmore Girls: “Kiss and Tell”. Dean, the new dreamboat at Stars Hollow High, kisses Rory, Lorelai’s daughter, at the grocery store, where he works as a bag boy. The entire episode then revolves around this one event. Rory tells her best friend Lane about the kiss, but decides not to inform Lorelai. Lane’s mother over hears the pair talking about the kiss and tells Lorelai, who is hurt and surprised that her daughter, who she considers her best friend, did not tell her about the kiss. Comedic drama turmoil ensues when Lorelai invites Dean to watch a movie with her and Rory. This plot thread can be split into two, Rory’s reaction and Lorelai’s reaction to the kiss; however, I am considering it one thread, because both reactions merge during the movie. Clearly this does not demonstrate the complexity on the level that Johnson would consider intelligent.

One way our social intelligence is increased is by watching complex TV programs, which require the viewer to keep track of various characters, their relationships with each other, and role the characters play in multiple threads of the story (Johnson 109-113). This “social networking” comes into play when we track interpersonal relationships that surround us in our real lives and in the lives of fictional characters (106-115). This is important because “the ability to analyze and recall the full range of social relationships in a large group is just as reliable a predictor of professional success as your SAT scores or your college grades” (109).

Gilmore Girls, “Love & War & Snow” opens with Lorelai excited about a message left on her answering machine by Rory’s teacher, Max Medina, whom she once had to cancel a date with. Lorelai is also excited because it is going to snow and she thinks good things always happen to her when it snows. This turns out to be true, because Max has car trouble while passing through Stars Hollow and they end up having an unplanned, but wonderful date. The date ends with Max being invited to spend the night with Lorelai, who makes him sleep on the couch because Lane, Rory’s best friend, is also spending the night (not knowing that Rory is with her grandparents).

All of the characters in Gilmore Girls are directly connected to either Lorelai, Rory or both. None of the characters seem to have independent lives or threads or interact with anyone except the Gilmore girls. In “Love & War & Snow” we are finally introduced to the idea that there may be plots happening outside of Rory and Lorelai only to be disappointed when the two show up every time these separate threads are active. Max, who has not been seen or discussed for a few episodes, is given an introduction that leaves no doubt in the viewers mind as to his role in this episode, further diminishing the social intricacies of this show. This show truly focuses on the mother daughter duo, or trio if you include Emily Gilmore as a protagonist.

A counter indicator of a shows complexity is a “flashing arrow.” These arrows point out to the audience what is important, taking out any guess work or mystery as to what is going to happen next (Johnson 73-74). A flashing arrow moment: when Lorelai is listening to Max’s message on the answering machine, she then has a seemingly unrelated conversation with Rory about how good things always happen to her when it snows, then she returns to listening to the message. At this point she has no idea that Max will be in town when the snow hits, but of course the viewers have no doubt about what is in store.

Though Johnson does comment briefly on the detrimental impact that violence and sex in popular media may be having on society he chooses to over look its impact and focus instead on the cognitive value of media (11-14). Jennifer S. Martin while reviewing Johnsons idea of multiple threading says “he ducks contentious issues related to content”(16). “Perhaps we really do want to believe that video games, and television, films and the internet are having a positive effect on our society despite, all too often, the apparent absence of redeeming social values” (Martin 17). Multiple threading and social networks are easy ways to identify advancements in television. Perhaps the appeal of Gilmore Girls is not its complexity as Johnson would define it, but rather its simplicity in a world of 24 and Sopranos.

The value of this show is its simplistic relationship between a mother and daughter living in a seeming perfect small town. A place with the appeal of every one knowing your name and your history, yet still valuing you as a member of their community, accepting you in a familial type of relationship not present in the real world. This represents a craving we all harbor of a harmonious place to live and be accepted for who we are. “Gilmore Girls established itself as a dramedy that indulges in an idealized world, a fictional utopia knows as Stars Hollow. The show, known for its excessive displays of both food and knowledge, is a witty juxtaposition of popular culture and high brow education” (Johns and Smith 23). Brenda Boyle and Olivia Combe describes their relationship with the show by saying “In becoming fans we longed for the reality of those lives, unconsciously recreating the (simulacra of the) warmth of their friendships and family as we sat together in front on the television set. No, we didn’t want them to be real – we wanted their lives to be our own” (159). Beyond and doubts of multiple threading or flashing arrows therein lies the ultimate appeal of the Gilmore Girls.

Works Cited

Boyle, Brenda, and Olivia Combe. "Gender Lies in Stars Hollow." Gilmore Girls and the Politics
of Identity. Ed. Rich Calvin. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc., 2008. 23-34.
Johns, Erin K., and Kristen L. Smith. "Welcome to Stars Hollow: Gilmore Girls, Utopia, and the Hyperreal." Gilmore Girls and the Politics of Identity. Ed. Rich Calvin. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc., 2008. 23-34.
Steven Johnson. Everything Bad Is Good For You. New York: Penguin Group, 2005.
Jennifer S. Martin. “Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today’s Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter.” Women Lawyers Journal Winter 2006: 15-17.
"Kiss and Tell."Gilmore Girls: The Complete First Season. Writ. Amy Sherman and Jenji
Kohan. Dir. Rodman Flender. WB. 16 Nov. 2000. DVD.
Warner Brothers, 2004.
"Love & War & Snow."Gilmore Girls: The Complete First Season. Writ. Amy Sherman and Joan Binder Weiss. Dir. Alan Myerson. WB. 14 Dec. 2000. DVD.
Warner Brothers, 2004.

THE OC: Making Us Smarter

Can everything that is bad really be good for you? Well, if you ask Steven Johnson he says, pop culture is actually making us smarter. In his book, Everything Bad Is Good for You is a book that discusses and tries to convince you that today’s pop culture is turning out to actually be good for you. Johnson states that television, in modern shows, the storyline has now been more complex than shows from years ago. The OC is a show that Johnson would say is good for you because of the complexity of the storyline and the multiple threading and the disappearance of flashing arrows make it harder for us to understand the relationships between all these characters and we have to use our own intelligence to figure it out.

The OC takes place in Orange County, California; where the houses look like resorts and there is always a party to attend with champagne and fancy clothes. The major storyline is that one of the families of Orange County takes in a kid from Cheno, a town that no one from Orange County really steps in to. If the kid messes up once, then he will go back to “juvie.” So, the whole time you are watching you think about the trouble he gets in and if he will ever have to leave to go back. But, that is just the major storyline. There are so many other ones to keep up with. The OC is a show of many main characters: Sandy Cohen; brilliant, a great father, a caring husband, an awesome friend, and he helps everyone he comes in contact with, even the ones that our not his favorites; Kirsten Cohen; a wonderful wife, a great mother, and a very talented worker; Seth Cohen; hilarious, a great friend, and usually confused about girls, but he is very intelligent; Ryan Atwood; quiet, and usually takes out his frustration with his fists, but he is very smart and a great kid, and he was taken in by the Cohen’s’; Summer; a great friend, Seth’s girlfriend, and very funny; Marissa; a great friend, in love with Ryan, has a troubled home life, and tries to be independent, but then realizes she needs her friends and family. There are many more characters, even some more main ones, but those characters always seem to be in the middle of everything. Each character has something to deal with but someone all hooked together, which is what you find out. When a new character is introduced, you kind of try to find out why that character doesn’t stick around or why they are placed in the episode that they are. Johnson calls this, “multiple threading.” In one of the episode there were sixteen different threads: They plan a trip to Mexico. Jimmy and Julie are getting a divorce. Luke hooks up with Holly. Seth overhears that Summer needs a ride to Mexico. Marissa says she is staying back home to spend time with her dad but he says to go because secretly he is moving out while she is out of town. So, Seth, Summer, Ryan, and Marissa ride together to Mexico. But, on the way they get in an accident because Seth and Summer were fighting about driving. They then have to stay in a crappy motel until the car is fixed. Seth and Summer sleep in the bed together and before Ryan and Marissa get back into the room, Jimmy calls Marissa and tells her about how he is moving out. The next morning Ryan and Marissa wake up cuddling, but didn’t kiss or anything. Meanwhile in Orange County, Sandy gets offered a new job and takes it, and Jimmy kissed Kirsten! Then she left right away. When the kids finally make it to Mexico they go into a club and Marissa catches Luke and Holly making out. Then Holly tells Marissa all the crappy stuff Luke has done to her. Marissa runs off and then Summer finds her at the hotel but Summer goes into the bathroom for a couple minutes and comes out to find Marissa and Summer’s step mom’s pain pills gone. They look everywhere. They finally find her in an alley where she was passed out. As you can see, there is so much to keep up with and most of these threads continue to the next episode.

Flashing arrows are used to point out when something is going to happen. Flashing arrows are used a lot in scary movies or adventurous. For example, the music of a movie when it is loud there is something about to happen. Johnson talks about the disappearance of flashing arrows in modern television and film. Now it is getting harder for us who are watching to figure out what will happen next without that music and the pointing to something in the background. In The OC there are no flashing arrows. Some might be mistaken with the thought of the Cohen’s door being a flashing arrow because it always shows the door handle when someone rang the doorbell, but you never know who is actually behind the door. In older movies or shows, it might have shown the viewers who was behind the door and then give a hint to the person about to open the door, but in The OC, you never know who it could be.

In television, Johnson also discusses social networks. Social networks are what The OC is all about. Orange County is a big social network and it is a very important one. Everyone is linked together but at the same time each person has their little relationships with someone that has another one with someone else and you have to keep up and think about it or you will get lost in the show. This brings Johnson’s point of character webs. Character webs shows how all the characters are somehow linked together. Johnson’s character webs are very complex and “represent a social relationship that you must grasp to make sense of the episode’s plot.” (Back of book). Because of The OC’s huge social network and there are many main characters: their character web would be very big and very complex. There are family ties that would have to be linked and then that person would somehow be connected to another person. In Figure 1 shows a character map of the main characters in The OC.

Figure 1

This character web shows which characters have relationships with other characters: Starting with Sandy; he is married to Kirsten, the father of Seth and adopted father of Ryan; Kirsten; married to Sandy, mother of Seth, adopted mother of Ryan, sister of Haley, daughter of Caleb; Seth; son of Sandy and Kirsten, brother to Ryan, dated Anna and Summer, grandson of Caleb; Ryan; adopted son to Sandy and Kirsten, brother to Seth, in love with Marissa; Marissa; the daughter of Julie and Jimmy, ex girlfriend of Luke, best friends to Summer.

So maybe, everything that is bad can be good for you. The OC is one of the shows that might be looked at as bad for you because of its drama and just because it is a TV show, but Johnson has proved that today’s pop culture could really be good for you. The way The OC uses multiple threading, the disappearance of flashing arrows, the use of social networks and the complexity of each storyline to prove what Johnson is saying, that we do use our brains to watch these types of complex shows, so we are in fact getting smarter. The shows that people love are the ones that are difficult to understand. There are very many fan sites dedicated to The OC. The show ended in 2007, but the site is still going strong because so many people loved the show. The site says, “This site will remain online at a tribute to the series and a place where you can find info on the cast.” The site keeps up with where the characters from the show are now and what they are doing. There are contests and just details about the show when it was still playing and also you can watch episodes. There are many members that have joined this fan site.


Works Cited
Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad is Good For You. New York: Penguin Group, 2005.
Network, Fox. The OC Online. 2004. 12 May 2009 . .

Essay #2

Kylor Roberts

Boczkowski

English 110C01

13 May 2009

Essay #2

Sitting down to watch T.V. is an activity that most people engage in almost daily. Some may wonder, is watching T.V. making us smarter, or just lazy and less intelligent? Steve Johnson would say that television is good for us, making us think, analyze, and learn. In his book Everything Bad is Good for You Johnson provides his readers with many reasons for this argument. Johnson’s book has been a popular discussion topic. Time Magazine writes “Everything Bad is not junk criticism; it is a brisk, witty read, well versed in the history of literature and bolstered with research--for instance, even as electronic media have supposedly "dumbed down" society, IQs in the developed world have been increasing three points a decade for a century. Johnson, it turns out, still knows the value of reading a book. And this one is indispensable.” Time and many other sources have analyzed and reviewed Johnson’s book, and many, perhaps most, agree with him. I also agree with Johnson. Over the last six weeks, I have been watching the very popular television show House. After watching this show, as well as reading Johnson’s views on television, I have been able to make some definite connections between my show and Johnson’s opinions. House is a perfect example of what Johnson is attempting to prove to his readers.

Johnson’s book is based on his theory that popular culture, while it is constantly criticized in a negative way, is actually good for us. The increasing complexity of the shows we watch and video games that we play is forcing our brains to work more, and we are becoming smarter because of it. Johnson calls this effect “The Sleeper Curve.”

House is a very popular show on television. It is aired once weekly, this season on Mondays. The main character, Dr. Gregory House, is the best diagnostician in the world. In each episode, a patient has severe and uncommon symptoms, and while the clock is ticking, House and his team must race to make the proper diagnosis and treat the patient before it is too late. House himself is quite rude, and does not play by the rules at all. He does whatever he feels is necessary to prove his point, especially if it means obtaining the proper diagnosis. House is also addicted to pain killers, and takes Vicodin far too often.

The plot of House is very complex to a viewer who watches regularly, but at the same time, can be picked up by a first time viewer with no problems. Hidden beneath the simpler plot of a medical mystery for which a diagnosis must be made, there is an extremely complex network of intercharacter relations that have grown from the start of the series, which has been airing since 2004. House is an extremely engaging show; it leaves both the casual viewer as well as the avid enthusiast waiting in anticipation for next week’s episode. It is true, as I mentioned, that one can watch House simply for entertainment, but it is hard to not get sucked up into the lives of the characters of the show. You begin to feel more and more like you are in the show as you watch. This is a sign that the show is very mentally engaging.

House is an antisocial addict, who is battling personal problems while at the same time trying to decipher some of the most difficult diagnoses that real doctors would ever be faced with. But hidden underneath this main plot, House has many other relationships which have their own plotlines. House has a past romantic relationship with his boss, Cuddy, which is referred to very infrequently, and would not be picked up on by a casual viewer. House also has a friendship with his coworker Wilson that dates back to when the two of them were in college. Two of House’s ex-team members, Chase and Cameron, are engaged, and actually get married in the most recent season, but their relationship with each other, or the fact that they had once been members of House’s team, is not mentioned in every episode. These smaller plotlines are referred to by Johnson as “Multiple Threading.” This really shows how the shows that we watch today are becoming increasingly complex. Johnson is not the only author to note this increase in complexity over the years; Joseph Rosenbloom, author of “Brain Candy” clearly states his agreement with Johnson. While discussing Johnson’s novel, he tells his readers “TV shows have become mind-dazzlingly more complex… ''Starsky and Hutch" has given way to ''The West Wing" and ''24."” There are countless other examples of smaller plotlines underneath the main story. All of these examples help to prove one of Johnson’s points: Television can be used simply as a source of pure entertainment or as a tool to make us think and analyze; ultimately making us smarter as we watch.

Another of Johnson’s topics in his book is what he calls “flashing arrows.” What he means by flashing arrows are obvious queues that alert the viewer to important upcoming events. For example, flashing arrows are most clearly seen in horror movies, when a main character leaves the door unlocked or a window open, and the camera will pause to make sure it is noted by the viewers. House, as well as many other shows on television today, have an increasingly smaller amount of these queues. The decreasing amount of flashing arrows, is actually making us think more, because we are not as clearly alerted to the coming events, and must analyze what is happening to predict what may be approaching in the show’s plot. The viewer being surprised by new twists and turns in the plot makes the show as a whole much more engaging. An example that Johnson talks about that relates to House particularly well, is that in medical shows, medical terms are not clearly defined to the viewer. It is expected that the viewers will understand the meaning of these terms through the situation in which they are used. Attempting to understand these terms as we watch is yet another way that House makes its viewers think, and it also makes the viewer more engaged by giving them the sense that they are watching actual doctors at work. Carrie, the author of the article “Does watching T.V. make you stupid?” would disagree; however. He states that “Johnson seems to have mistaken some social cues himself, believing that appearing smart and being smart are one in the same.” But this is not Johnson’s point at all, in fact, Johnson is not trying to say that the characters at play are actually intelligent, he is only saying that the illusion of intelligence that they are given makes us think more as viewers. If Carrie were to state that we are only learning to appear smarter, not to be smarter, Johnson could quickly point out the continuously rising IQ scores over the last few decades. Flashing arrows aside from this can be found in House, but are not as clear cut as those in other forms of media such as horror films. You may see an increase in musical tempo leading up to a new symptom on a patient, a dramatic soundtrack when an argument is ahead, or a triumphant song when a member of the team as a realization of the patients ailment, but these are not entirely obvious uses of flashing arrows, and the viewer must still think about what is happening and prepare to be surprised.

Another of Johnson’s points about televisions benefits is social networking. For many fans, House is not just a show that is watched once a week and then forgotten, often it is much more. The show becomes a topic of discussion between them and friends. They may discuss it with peers or family, or turn to an increasingly popular fan site. Many fan sites exist for House. A quick search from an online search engine for “House Fan Site” will generate 41,900,000 results. On these site, fans gather and discuss the happenings of the show, and try to analyze what is happening, or make predictions about upcoming events. A visit to the largest of such fan sites, titled, HouseWiki, will allow a user to quickly view a list of characters and cast, to view video clips and pictures, and there are pages to take polls and discuss the show with other fans. Even simply by watching T.V. and observing and analyzing the character’s actions, we are learning about social networks. Farhad Manjoo, the author of “Don’t Kill Your Television” agrees about the knowledge of social networking that we gain from watching television: “When you're watching one of today's popular shows, even something as nominally silly as "Desperate Housewives," you're exercising your brain -- you're learning how to make sense of a complex narrative, you're learning how to navigate social networks, you're learning (through reality TV) about the intricacies of social intelligence, and a great deal more.” The point being made here is that the people watching this show are using it as a gateway to communications with others, and that the discussions that they have with other viewers is educating them in the process.

In these ways, House is a prime example of all the points that Johnson is trying to make to his readers. HouseHouse is making everyone who watches it, whether they are aware of it or not, slightly more intelligent in the process. is a dynamic and engaging show, capturing its viewer’s attention quickly and involving them in its multiple threads. The show forces them to think and attempt to predict with its intelligent uses of flashing arrows Fan sites and peers allow viewers to connect with others via social networks to further their knowledge of the show. In all these ways,

Works Cited

Carrie. "Does Watching T.V. Make You Stupid." Stay Free! 05 Jan. 2005. 22 May 2009 .

Johnson, Steven B. "Dome Improvement." WIRED Magazine May 2005.

Manjoo, Farhad. "Don't Kill Your Television." Salon.com. 22 May 2005 .

Poniewozik, James. "Children, Eat Your Trash!" TIME Magazine 1 May 2005.

Rosenbloom, Joseph. "Brain Candy." The Boston Globe 01 May 2005.

Johnson On The Dollhouse

Johnson On The Dollhouse
If someone was to come up to you and tell you to watch more of a show because in reality it is actually good for you; would you believe them? A man named Steven Johnson is one of those people who would say that. So the question is, would he state that The Dollhouse is a show that supports the Sleeper Curve theory? Steven Johnson has commented a lot about Sleeper Curve and what it is doing for our popular cultural. The Dollhouse has many factors that Johnson touches base on in his book, Everything Bad Is Good For You.

Author Steven Johnson is well known for his national bestseller book, Everything Bad is Good for you, and the interesting points he has made about popular culture. According to New York Times, Johnson brings up television intelligent and it has grown a lot in the past 30 years. Johnson speaks upon the Sleeper Curve theory, and how he believes what most people think is making us dumber is in fact making us smarter. Steven Johnson has been talked about all over including: The New York Times, The New Yorker, New Partisan and so much more. Journalist everywhere are both agreeing and disagreeing with Johnsons theories. For example from the New Partisan, a journalist stated, “Johnson may be right. But he also misses the point. Unlike copies of SimCity or episodes of Friends, all intelligences are not created equal.” This shows that journalist don’t think Johnson is looking at every aspect that could go into why some IQ s are higher than others.

Does The Dollhouse back up the Sleeper Curve theory? The Dollhouse has many ratings and viewing by different people. The New Yorker wrote about The Dollhouse and what they think about the episode. On March 2, 2009, Nancy Franklin stated, “What seems to be on Whedon’s mind in “The Dollhouse” is the question of identity. Who are we, and who are we in relation to other people? And who are they? The “dollhouse” here is a facility…” This is where Sleeper Curve comes into the story; it makes the viewer think. We can see who the character is but what we have to figure out is who the character is in the episode or episodes depending if it carries on to the next episode. All of the muli-threading and character mapping is what makes The Dollhouse a Johnson show. Yes, there are better rated and watched shows out there but the fact of the matter is, does The Dollhouse click with what Johnson is saying?

The Sleeper Curve that Johnson talks about in his book, Everything Bad Is Good For You, is big to what journalist have to say because people want to know about what is or isn’t helping us. In the novel, Everything Bad is Good For You, when Johnson was talking about Sleeper Curve he stated on page eleven, “The forces at work in these systems operate on multiple levels: underlying changes in technology that enable new kinds of entertainment; new forms of online communications that cultivate audience commentary about works of pop culture; changes in the economics of the culture industry that encourage repeat viewing; and deep-seated appetites in the human brain that seek out reward and intellectual challenges”. What this means is that not only is technology growing as we grow as a culture, but pop culture is also getting more challenging for us and that is what he calls the Sleeper Curve. So does The Dollhouse click with what Johnson has made clear to his readers? The Dollhouse has a lot going on with it, with its changing of characters inside characters inside of characters and it’s a lot to keep up with. For example, the character on the show, Echo, has three, sometimes more, characters in her in one episode. Sometimes she is brain dead, what they call and “active”, she is someone they dollhouse implants in her that the client has paid for, or she is Caroline, the character she first was before she became a doll. This is a lot to keep up with and most people would argue that it is in fact a big example of the Sleeper Curve. According to Johnson on page sixty-three, Everything Bad Is Good For You, “following multiple threads, keeping often densely interwoven plotlines distinct in your head as you watch”, and The Dollhouse has a lot to do with that.

There are many different journalists that speak about sleeper cure. The New York Times spoke on Sleeper Curve and stated, “I believe that the Sleeper Curve is the single most important new force altering the mental development of young people today, and I believe it is largely a force for good: enhancing our cognitive faculties, not dumbing them down.” They also went into how much violence there is in shows now and they are not helping us as a culture but that doesn’t rule out all shows. So from translation to this, The Dollhouse would be both a positive and negative show towards society. Yes, The Dollhouse has violence in it which according to The New York Times, plays a negative role in society. However it has strategy and sense in it that doesn’t make sense at first and makes us think. Like when a doll is programmed to be someone else that character is now a different character in the same body. Jumping right into the show would confuse someone, so you have to sit down and watch, think, put together. This is what Johnson is talking about, what people think is making us dumber is actually making us smarter. Johnson says the Sleeper Curve shows that shows are getting more and more mentally challenging as the medium evolves, not that pop culture is on a race to the bottom. Johnson is quick to the point on what he is trying to show everyone, and I believe that The Dollhouse is there to back him up.

Johnson makes it clear to the point how much shows have grown to the better of the benefit in the last thirty years. Johnson states, “This book is an old-fashioned work of persuasion that ultimately aims to convince you of one thing: that popular culture has, on average, grown more complex and intellectually challenging over the past thirty years.” For example, put the show Dollhouse next to an older show like, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you could see the tremendous amount on how much popular culture has grown like Johnson said it has done and will continue to do so. The way everything is played out it makes you think more and put situations together. Maybe this is because our technology has grown a massive amount and we are now able to do whatever we would want or maybe television is more available to everyone and is more accepted as time went on. Either way it is more complex and makes you think more. The flashing arrows have gone down a lot; even if there not completely gone they are much harder to spot. In the book, Everything Bad Is Good For You, Johnson states, “Television is growing increasingly rigorous. And the pace is accelerating- Thanks to change in the economics of the television business, and to change in the technology we rely on to watch.” Fox has grown a lot and the episodes they keep playing they keep rates on by how many people are watching their shows. Because the economy has in fact changed Fox has grown as well. If something isn’t getting a good rating they will not put another season on. People have expectations for shows now and they must be met.

According to Johnson, Flashing Arrows and what they actually do for pop culture do not help pop culture and the progress we have made. In Johnson book on page seventy-three he states, “a flashing arrow that gives the audience precisely the information they need to know I order to make sense of the ensuing plot.” This makes it much easier for the viewer and less challenging so it turns out to be bad. Flashing Arrows are planted in the show as a signpost to help the audience keep track of what is going on or what might happen. The Dollhouse has Flashing Arrows; things such as, music getting louder when something is happening, shadows creeping by, anything along that nature. For example when Echo was on the verge to discovering who the spy was inside the Dollhouse the music got louder and more intense. Where aren’t as nearly as many flashing arrows in Dollhouse as there are in a lot of older shows and this would be good towards the Sleeper Curve. This way it makes us as the watcher think more and strategize more.

Based off what Johnson has written in his book, Everything Bad Is Good For You, popular culture has grown and will continue to grow for time to come. Popular culture has not stop developing and growing and there are no signs saying it is going to stop anytime soon. Johnson has shown that television is not bad for you. Too much of anything is bad for someone; however television works your mind not destroys it. So with that said The Dollhouse does support what Johnson has to say in his book. Nothing is perfect but it certainly dose make you think!

In Treatment Vs. Steven Johnson

Liz Holsinger

Boczkowski

Essay #2

English 110.1


Steven Johnson’s theories on entertainment are abundant. His theories which affect most people are the one’s on television and film. Johnson, an obvious couch-potato, has thought up many different ways to dissect today’s entertainment. He has paid close attention to the detailing of televison and film so to achieve a better understanding of what we are actually retaining from mindless entertainment. In his book Everything Bad Is Good For You, Johnson argues that today’s television shows are mentally stimulating and enhance the brain’s capabilities. My biggest question regarding Johnson’s break-down of sitcoms is, “Are they Consistent theories?” Does every scripted televison show abide by the rules he has created? The popular HBO series In Treatment begs to differ.

In Treatment is based around Dr. Weston (Paul), a psychiatrist Living and practicing in Brooklyn. There is little story that takes place outside of Dr. Weston’s office, except of course, when Dr. Weston visits his own psychiatrist, Gina. In Gina’s office the two of them come together to discuss Paul’s relationships with his patients and his life. The viewer is able to obtain a deep look into the minds of Paul’s many patients. Each episode is based around one character. The entire story is set on Dr. Weston listening to the patient as he or she discusses issues. It is a very simple show when compared to high intensity sitcoms with many characters. There is no humor, thrill, or suspense. There is only people dealing with themselves and their everyday lives that the viewer is unable to see.

In Treatment is set up in a very distinct manner. On Mondays, Paul meets with Mia, a woman who is involved in an affair with her married boss. On Tuesdays, Paul meets with April, an art student who is battling cancer. On Wednesdays, Paul meets with Oliver, a young boy whose parents are divorcing. On Thursdays, Paul meets with Walter, a control-freak who suffers from panic-attacks. Finally, on Fridays, Paul meets with Gina.

One point that Johnson tirelessly makes, is that television is actually making us smarter. Following a messy character plot or storyline keeps our brains stimulated the same way it would be as if we were working a puzzle. With this theory Johnson is incorporating television shows with neuroscience. The viewer may believe a complex television show like 24 is entertaining without realizing the good it’s doing for one’s brain. It’s that unnoticeable phenomenon known as the Sleeper Curve. These forms of media are filling our heads with knowledge just by experiencing them. According to Johnson no television show is actually mindless. Journalist, Walter Kirn wrote, “Johnson wants to convince us that pop-culture is not the intellectual tranquilizer that it sound-alike critics have made it out to be but a potent promoter of cerebral fitness.” In the article “Everything Bad Is Good For You”: The Couch Potatoes Guide To a Higher I.Q.

Whether we like it or not we are learning and acquiring information just by paying attention to complex television shows. I never believed that I learned anything from Beavis and Butthead, but looking back on it, Beavis’s incessant shaking and twitching may have been the reason why I stayed away from caffeine as a child. Even the most painfully-dumb shows have a message.

The idea of the Sleeper Curve holds true in the series In Treatment. The patients in this show are made to make you think because of the way they behave. If a patient seems very uneasy about being in therapy it can cause the viewer to question the possibility of that patient having control issues. Matthew Gilbert from The Boston Globe, recognized In Treatment’s Sleeper Curve with this comment. “The entertainment in “In Treatment” comes from watching these characters say the opposite of what they mean, or make off-handed comments loaded with significance. The intrigue of the show is watching for fleeting glimpses of the unconscious in sessions, appearing like fins through the surface.” Similar to a show like CSI, In Treatment provokes you to solve the problem with the patient before Paul even asks a question. Even this simple show becomes a puzzle for your brain to solve.

Most people generally won’t realize that their brain is firing off neurons as they watch television. I do however, believe that television viewers are somewhat aware of that fact that T.V. shows make them culturally more intelligent. In Treatment is a perfect example. By continuously watching this series one will gain a better understanding of Therapy as a medical practice. Someone who has never personally walked into a psychiatrist’s office and had a session is now able to have that experience. Watching this series familiarizes one with medical terms, psychiatric diagnosis, and the people in one’s life.

In Treatment also offers powerful human emotion and complex characters that a viewer may not have previously been familiar with. In Treatment introduces characters who represent everyday people who are constantly battling personal demons; much like everyone else. In Treatment is a compelling drama that gives the viewer a look beyond a person’s facade and into their personal life. The idea of being let into the personal places of another person’s soul keeps us as viewers wondering. It cautions us to take a better look and to feel empathy for our co-workers, family, friends, and the people we pass by everyday.

Johnson also talks about sitcoms always using Threading. In Treatment certainly doesn’t fit that mold. Johnson explains that today’s shows have many more characters and several smaller stories can be mashed together to make one episode. This idea is very true with most popular television shows. There’s usually at least four main characters and several secondary characters that aren’t seen as often. Each main character usually has something different going on in each episode that the viewer can observe. In Treatment, however, has two characters per episode and one story. The character’s being Dr. Weston, and whatever patient he’s with that episode. The only story is that of his patient. Paul’s patients often discuss their family and friends. Certain names come up regularly which in my opinion, constitutes as threading. If the viewer is able to know a great deal about a person, even if the person is not seen, this person still becomes a character. Although we never see the unseen character’s opinion or feelings they still have a voice that is communicated through the primary character (Paul’s patient).

There is little threading in the episodes. I have already stated that this series is extremely simple. Most television shows use threading to keep the viewer interested and hooked. Matthew Gilbert agreed that threading was unneeded in, In Treatment with this comment, “Because the show has little soundtrack music, unchanging scenery and only subtle camera play, the actors have the opportunity – and the obligation – to hold our attention.” Which was written in his television review for the Boston Globe In Treatment also holds attention by leaving each episode open. The problem with a patient is never solved after the first episode, much like therapy itself. Instead of being in a constant state of entertainment you, as the viewer are left wondering what the patient will say or do next. Strong acting and heart wrenching personal drama brought by one character is enticing enough to hold an audiences attention. Television shows tend to use multi-threading as means to distract the viewer from somewhat boring characters or next to ordinary acting. Therefore In Treatment as no need for multi-threading.

Social Networks are used by Johnson to break down the way we see television shows. Social Networking, according to Johnson, are groups or classes of people linked and intertwined by relationships but is easier to understand if it’s thought of a visual network. Walter Kirn, a writer for The New York Times suggested that Television, “engages viewers emotional intelligence by confronting them with a staged array of rapidly shifting social situations and densely interlocking human relationships.” This is what Johnson means by social networks.

Although In Treatment doesn’t carry a wide variety of characters who interact with each other it still holds social networking. In the case of Oliver, he occassionally receives treatment alone, but for the most part he sees Paul with his separated mother and father. In this way the viewer becomes intertwined with their relationship and by watching them interact with each other is able to understand the character. In Treatment is also a very emotionally stimulating show based purely on it’s content; due to this fact I believe it creates its own social network. One between the character, the viewer, and the people the viewer encounters everyday. For example, when I watch episodes with Mia, I feel for her. I understand her fear of being forty, unmarried, and without a child for the simple reason that I have had aunts, cousins, and co-workers feeling the same biological pressure. Most social networks allow you to understand a show better and it’s character’s dynamics. In Treatment helps you better understand the people around you. I feel sympathy for Mia because she reminds me of other women in my life.

Character Maps and Flashing arrows are not seen in, In Treatment if a character map was drawn for this show it would have Paul’s name at the top with a line from his name drawn to every character separately, aside of Oliver and his parents, with Gina off in a corner somewhere. This is mainly effected by low threading and a low social network. Flashing arrows also go unused for many reasons. This show was meant to reflect any true therapy session. There is little music, little change in scenery, and little action. The talking is the action. Mostly flashing arrows are used to insinuate that something unexpected is about to happen, much like foreshadowing, and because these instances don’t actually occur in real-life. There is no need for them in this show.

Johnson’s theories add up to make a lot of sense in regard to most television shows. Theories like the Sleeper Curve, threading, and social networks make up a small part of In Treatment, but because threading, social networks, character maps, and flashing arrows are used to little or not at all to make this show great; they go virtually unnoticed. The Sleeper Curve, however, still plays a key role in this televison show. Everything Bad Is Good For You may expose some very valid points, but Johnson’s views are very one-sided. He only theorizes on the basis of neuroscience and logic thus completely missing the fact that television enhances one’s intelligence culturally. When watching different shows the viewer is able to comprehend people, places, and scenarios that otherwise they would not come into contact with. When comedies make hilarious references to other pieces of American media that the viewer can understand it is easier for him or her to make other cultural connections. Johnson dug under the radar to prove that T.V. is mentally stimulating and completely missed the obvious. He missed the excuse that my generation has been using for years. When my mom tried to drag me off the couch I would reply with; “Mom it’s In Treatment! I’m learning how to diagnose you!”