Scan barcode
tabear's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
Content Warnings
Minor: Racial slurs
ashlynfbarclay's review against another edition
4.0
Amusingly dated at parts, yet quite relevant in others
zoecloudco's review against another edition
Started listening to the audiobook on a road-trip, but didn’t get a chance to finish.
jmcphers's review against another edition
3.0
Don't be put off by the alarmist title. I nearly didn't read this slender volume because the cover made the thing look like the ravings of a Luddite who romanticized the bygone era of print.
Postman's main argument in this book is not that television is a brain-rotting indulgence to be avoided at all costs. His argument is that it's a fine tool for entertainment, but that it demands that whatever is displayed on it is in fact entertaining, and this has lowered our news, politics, and education to the level of show business.
His argument is very convincing, and even more relevant now than it was in 1985. The number of hours spent watching television just keeps going up every year. Postman accurately predicts this trend, and suggests that the future to which we are headed is not that of overt government control over thought (forecasted in 1984) but that of displacement of thought by always-available entertainment (forecasted in Brave New World).
While Postman thinks and writes clearly about a subject about which too few people have thought and written (given the enormous influence television has had on the direction and definition of our culture), I had a few issues with this book:
1) It's hard to read someone railing about the superiority of print media in a book without feeling as though the author is indulging in a bit of smug self-righteousness. Postman over-romanticizes the era of print and paints it as a time of enlightenment when everyone read all the time, thought in clear and beautiful logic, and held reasoned debates with their fellow man while warm sunshine beamed from the unspoiled sky.
2) Postman doesn't spend adequate time convincing the reader that the things that are being given up in a television-centric society are in fact worth keeping. For instance, in an early chapter, he lambasts the suggestion that television news is useful, asking the reader what they are going to do about the Iranian hostage crisis, which they have been following with great urgency on the news (answer: nothing). However, in a later chapter, he bemoans the fact that your average high school student can no longer tell you when the alphabet was invented. What impact does the date of the alphabet's invention have on the high schooler's life? (answer: none.)
Even if you already agree with the author's premise, this book is worth reading, because Postman has really put some thought into what exactly happens to a message when it is modified for television. It will change the way you watch TV, from commercials (did you notice that they never use propositional language?) to the news.
If you like this book, I highly recommend [b:The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains|6966823|The Shallows What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains|Nicholas G. Carr|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1264537321s/6966823.jpg|7205526], which is a more physical but surprisingly symmetric analysis of media's effects. Postman's book focuses more on the culture, whereas Carr's focuses more on the individual.
Postman's main argument in this book is not that television is a brain-rotting indulgence to be avoided at all costs. His argument is that it's a fine tool for entertainment, but that it demands that whatever is displayed on it is in fact entertaining, and this has lowered our news, politics, and education to the level of show business.
His argument is very convincing, and even more relevant now than it was in 1985. The number of hours spent watching television just keeps going up every year. Postman accurately predicts this trend, and suggests that the future to which we are headed is not that of overt government control over thought (forecasted in 1984) but that of displacement of thought by always-available entertainment (forecasted in Brave New World).
While Postman thinks and writes clearly about a subject about which too few people have thought and written (given the enormous influence television has had on the direction and definition of our culture), I had a few issues with this book:
1) It's hard to read someone railing about the superiority of print media in a book without feeling as though the author is indulging in a bit of smug self-righteousness. Postman over-romanticizes the era of print and paints it as a time of enlightenment when everyone read all the time, thought in clear and beautiful logic, and held reasoned debates with their fellow man while warm sunshine beamed from the unspoiled sky.
2) Postman doesn't spend adequate time convincing the reader that the things that are being given up in a television-centric society are in fact worth keeping. For instance, in an early chapter, he lambasts the suggestion that television news is useful, asking the reader what they are going to do about the Iranian hostage crisis, which they have been following with great urgency on the news (answer: nothing). However, in a later chapter, he bemoans the fact that your average high school student can no longer tell you when the alphabet was invented. What impact does the date of the alphabet's invention have on the high schooler's life? (answer: none.)
Even if you already agree with the author's premise, this book is worth reading, because Postman has really put some thought into what exactly happens to a message when it is modified for television. It will change the way you watch TV, from commercials (did you notice that they never use propositional language?) to the news.
If you like this book, I highly recommend [b:The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains|6966823|The Shallows What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains|Nicholas G. Carr|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1264537321s/6966823.jpg|7205526], which is a more physical but surprisingly symmetric analysis of media's effects. Postman's book focuses more on the culture, whereas Carr's focuses more on the individual.
themtj's review against another edition
5.0
Well, that was a lot easier to read than Infinite Jest!
The running contrast of Brave New World with 1984 is a potent one. Americans of both major parties are ever on guard against Orwellianism (however unlikely it may be) and both philosophies are equally blind to Huxleyism even when it is staring them in the face.
The running contrast of Brave New World with 1984 is a potent one. Americans of both major parties are ever on guard against Orwellianism (however unlikely it may be) and both philosophies are equally blind to Huxleyism even when it is staring them in the face.