Scan barcode
terribletusan's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
It's very well written and researched. Very thought provoking.
_bookmoth's review against another edition
4.0
Amusing Ourselves to Death is both dated and topical. I liked his discussion on the rise of typography and the telegraph the most. He also gives an interesting take on television. However, one of his main arguments is that TV is not interactive. It does not offer an opportunity for discussion. In our technological age this is possible, yet his other comments on entertainment, fragmentation, and short-lived news. Also his view that Huxley's Brave New World was closer to our day and age than 1984 was insightful.
So, yes, the book is partly dated but also insightful for the 21st century.
So, yes, the book is partly dated but also insightful for the 21st century.
lipsandpalms's review against another edition
3.0
I am convinced we're closer to Huxley's Brave New World than we are to Orwell's 1984. This book gives a decent amount of examples as to why but it's a bit outdated. I believe what was outlined in this book about attention spans and entertainment has probably only gotten worse with the internet.
There are some interesting ideas here like how a culture's dominant form of communication bleeds into others. You can see that now in conversation when people will reference memes or say the names of twitch emojis instead of expressing an emotion.
That being said, we may be returning to a print dominated world just in the form of internet articles and texting. Yes people are still bingeing TV shows but podcasts and texting have never been so popular. I think there will always be people who want to learn even if it isn't entertainment
There are some interesting ideas here like how a culture's dominant form of communication bleeds into others. You can see that now in conversation when people will reference memes or say the names of twitch emojis instead of expressing an emotion.
That being said, we may be returning to a print dominated world just in the form of internet articles and texting. Yes people are still bingeing TV shows but podcasts and texting have never been so popular. I think there will always be people who want to learn even if it isn't entertainment
ysanne_51's review against another edition
4.0
探讨了电视媒介较铅字文化对人思考方式、教育、政治、宗教的影响，并强调我们会毁灭在赫胥黎预言的快乐中。在信息碎片化的时代，就算不刷短视频，看长视频觉得学到了什么也是一种自我欺骗，依旧是一些不成体系、与自己无关的片段，浪费自己系统学习、培养爱好、专注思考的时间。
vinnyb123's review against another edition
dark
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
paladintodd's review against another edition
1.0
Really hating this book - it's solidly in "old man declares new technology is bad, bad I say!". Most disgusting, it's all dressed up as a scholarly book while being devoid of any reason at all.
First off, as in all old man bitches, we have to start with "the good ole days". In this case, Portman gives us a full chapter on his ideal time: The Lincoln-Douglas debates and the days when "boys would read Emerson while plowing the fields" (to paraphrase). The latter I'm guessing is bullshit, but let's pretend the former is true.
Portman then turns his attention to TV and makes his declaration that "information without action" is worthless and that his complaint about TV and modern "news" - it doesn't actually change anything for the consumer of it. He throws in that voting is a worthless action as well - that voting alone is not a worthy enough use of information.
OK, the folks listening to the Lincoln-Douglas debate in your imaginary Utopia took what ACTION? Oh, that's right, they took no action at all. Maybe it affected how they voted, but that was it. His good ole days fails the very criteria he puts on modern technology.
Portman's premise is bullshit and his conclusion is equally bullshit. Yeah, we have new technology available to us. Technology is a tool. Sure some people use the new tools poorly while others use it to further themselves.
-----------------------------
And really, how are we supposed to take seriously a book that drapes itself in scholarly robes yet declares that gaining knowledge you don't act on is worthless? Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is worthless? Knowledge is just "an amusing bit of trivia"? This guy I should take seriously? No.
-----------------------------
Soldiering on, Part 2 would be more enlightening when he turns his attention to what he calls the Age of Show Business. He tells us that television is "a beautiful spectacle, a visual delight" and "exquisitely crafted". From that, he then immediately draws the conclusion that television "is devoted entirely to supplying its audience with entertainment".
Huh? How the hell did you reach that conclusion because you gave absolutely no evidence to support it. What a load of bullshit.
First off, as in all old man bitches, we have to start with "the good ole days". In this case, Portman gives us a full chapter on his ideal time: The Lincoln-Douglas debates and the days when "boys would read Emerson while plowing the fields" (to paraphrase). The latter I'm guessing is bullshit, but let's pretend the former is true.
Portman then turns his attention to TV and makes his declaration that "information without action" is worthless and that his complaint about TV and modern "news" - it doesn't actually change anything for the consumer of it. He throws in that voting is a worthless action as well - that voting alone is not a worthy enough use of information.
OK, the folks listening to the Lincoln-Douglas debate in your imaginary Utopia took what ACTION? Oh, that's right, they took no action at all. Maybe it affected how they voted, but that was it. His good ole days fails the very criteria he puts on modern technology.
Portman's premise is bullshit and his conclusion is equally bullshit. Yeah, we have new technology available to us. Technology is a tool. Sure some people use the new tools poorly while others use it to further themselves.
-----------------------------
And really, how are we supposed to take seriously a book that drapes itself in scholarly robes yet declares that gaining knowledge you don't act on is worthless? Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is worthless? Knowledge is just "an amusing bit of trivia"? This guy I should take seriously? No.
-----------------------------
Soldiering on, Part 2 would be more enlightening when he turns his attention to what he calls the Age of Show Business. He tells us that television is "a beautiful spectacle, a visual delight" and "exquisitely crafted". From that, he then immediately draws the conclusion that television "is devoted entirely to supplying its audience with entertainment".
Huh? How the hell did you reach that conclusion because you gave absolutely no evidence to support it. What a load of bullshit.