Sorry, Game of Thrones Fans: Jon Snow is Dead

Was that clear enough? Let me say it again, just to be clear: Jon Snow is dead.

Please, no more need for recycling the same old theories about why he is alive. That ground has been thoroughly covered. That horse is as dead as Jon Snow.

Of course there actually are some decent arguments for why Jon Snow might somehow be resurrected. That possibility seemed quite plausible in the books, with Melisandre's presence at the Wall providing for a means of bringing Snow back from the dead -- and when Melisandre made her retreat back to the Wall as Stannis's army fell it seemed fair to ask why else she would be there but to save Jon Snow. The books also resurrect... book spoiler warnings Catelyn Stark. The books introduce a character, Coldhands, who seems to be a different form of living dead from the other creatures found north of the Wall.

In both the show and books Gregor Clegane, The Mountain, is brought back as some sort of zombie. Beric Dondarrion is resurrected several times before (in the books) passing his power onto Catelyn Stark. There would have also been the possibility of glamouring, as we know that Melisandre can make one character appear to be another. The book also emphasizes wargs, with some theorizing that Jon Snow could have warged into his direwolf before his body died (never mind that there's no obvious way back to human form, and that we've been told that remaining too long in an animal host will cause you to lose your human character).

Also, it seems like an incredible waste of a very interesting character to kill Jon Snow at this point in the story. The relationship you form with a television character is different from that you form with a character on the printed page, and the loss of Snow seems all the more stark (no pun intended) in the series. Why spend all of that time and energy building him into an interesting character only to kill him off, with nobody else of similar charisma to fill his shoes? Why drop conspicuous hints about his "real" parentage if he plays no role in the end game? From a literary standpoint, why kill off the principal point of view characters who could play a central role in the conclusion, while keeping alive others who can't possibly be on the winning team? Will people, readers or viewers, care about events at the Wall without Jon Snow?

At the same time there's one consistency to Martin's writing: If you're a noble, virtuous character who puts the well-being of others ahead of your own, you end up dead. Do you really think that Snow's body will be hidden and frozen for a year, so that he can be resurrected in Season 7? (Jon Snow on Ice.... Is this a Disney production?) From the standpoint of good storytelling, as questionable as it may be to kill Jon Snow at this point in the narrative, a secret, frozen Jonsicle would seem to be worse.

I suspect that the future story anticipates that readers won't care about the Wall post-Jon Snow, and thus won't be surprised or offended when the army of the dead defeats the remaining members of the Night's Watch (and any Wildlings who might have inexplicably continued to support their efforts in the wake of Snow's death), creating the context for a major conflict between the advancing White Walkers and the dragons of Danaerys. (That story line would seem a bit... predictable. We'll see.) Also, particularly if Jon Snow has the royal blood that many plausibly believes used to run through his veins, we can expect Melisandre to have some interesting visions in the flames of his funeral pyre.

The primary evidence for Jon Snow's death comes from the show, (and if it needs to be said) not the as-of-yet unfinished, unavailable sixth book. The show did not renew Jon Snow's contract for Season 6. It's one thing to give a character like Bran a year off, without much concern for whether the part will have to be recast in a future season -- children and adolescents change a lot, and few would be surprised to discover that Bran looks different after a year of communing with ancient trees -- he'll look different even if they keep the same actor.

While daytime soap operas of old used to switch out adult characters without much concern for appearance, and Game of Thrones has done the same with at least one small part (Gregor Clegane) and with a smaller role before it became larger (Tommen Baratheon) I don't think that audiences will accept a different actor as Jon Snow. He could come back among the undead, perhaps as a hooded Coldhands-type character, but he would both be dead and be a very different character -- what would be the point? If the show wanted to be sure that Kit Harington would be available to play Jon Snow in Season 7 or beyond, given the difficult production schedule, it is highly unlikely that they would risk his taking other jobs that would prevent his participation.

The show understandably shares Martin's affinity for killing off characters -- but sometimes the reasons for a death seem different, such as to simplify story lines and perhaps to control the show's budget. The death of Ser Barristan Selmy (a character whose story line died a slow on-screen death even before the showrunners made it final), the death of Mance Rayder with no glamouring, moving up the death of Shireen Baratheon and the defeat of Stannis Baratheon, not bringing back Catelyn Stark, killing Myrcella Baratheon (who at this point in the books was only missing an ear)....

The showrunners could easily have carried Jon Snow's character forward into season six, perhaps drawing on the chapters dealing with his management of the Wildlings or delaying the death of Stannis Baratheon while having Jon Snow announce the rescue mission that precipitated his death on the printed page. But they instead chose to bump Snow off during the last episode of the season, saving themselves a big chunk of change to apply to hiring other actors, building sets and producing special effects.

If in light of all of that you still think Snow is coming back, what do you think the dialogue would be upon his return in season seven? "Hey, folks, I'm back. Did I miss anything? Ooooh... are those dragons?"

So stop watching the length of Kit Harington's hair -- it's going to get longer and shorter over the coming year because (assuming an occasional haircut) that's what hair generally does. Stop arguing that if you turn your head sideways and squint, you can see proof of Snow's survival because his eyes almost imperceptibly change color during his death scene. "We shall never see his like again, and now his watch is ended."

Feel The Optimism

To support his contention that "Americans have always felt that they are masters of their own fate", David Brooks cites statistics that:

• Sixty-four percent of Americans believe there are more risks that endanger their standards of living today than in their parents’ time.

• Fifty-Eight percent of Americans believe there's no more opportunity for advancement, or is less opportunity for advancement, than there was a generation ago. (Brooks tries to spin this as a positive "Forty-two percent believe there are more opportunities to move up than a generation ago.")

Brooks thus concludes that "Americans stand out from others in their belief that their own individual actions determine how they fare", a belief that "has been utterly unshaken by the global crisis".

As you might expect, Brooks isn't looking at the statistics with a questioning eye. He has his preconceptions of what "the rest of" America is like, and has spent his career reinforcing dichotomies that often exist largely in his own mind. He is happy to see the glass as half-empty when his world view is challenged, but today's statistics reflect how hard he works to avoid admitting the glass is less than half-full. No, I'm not arguing that Americans don't see themselves as self-reliant, or embrace the concept of upward mobility (including the Horatio Alger myth), but it does occur to me that there are a whole lot of Americans who fall less into that archetype that Brooks presents, starting, yes, with David Brooks himself.

Let's be blunt - in the corridors of government, the opinions and desires of the wealthy, politically connected 5% of the country into which David Brooks falls count for a lot more than lectures about how the rest of us "want a return to normalcy, with balanced budgets and a limited state." If a return to "normalcy" means that people like Brooks must cede power, wealth and influence, well, you can guess how far that'll get. Do you need to be reminded? Normalcy in those circles means getting six and seven figure bonuses even after you run your company into the ground. (And if you can only afford those bonuses by applying taxpayer bailout funds? No worries.)

I'll give Brooks some credit for departing from the "Obama's a failure" line advanced by a lot of conservative pundits or commentators. His observation that support for Obama will fade if the public perceives him as less than competent, well, could you have guessed?

Oh, The Poor Children....

The Internet is buzzing with news of Susan Boyle's appearance on ITV’s Britain’s Got Talent. The Telegraph's Rupert Christiansen laments that people with "touching" stories get on this type of talent show and, despite being significantly short of professional quality, gain celebrity.

Poor nice Miss Boyle. The story of her deprived, honest life is touching. In a more rational society, she could have had a enjoyable part-time career singing for pleasure rather than profit in the local choir and amateur operatic society, which is where talent such as hers honourably belongs....

But Susan Boyle is past the point where informed criticism would make any difference, projected into a crazy fantasy world where all our dreams come true and anyone can earn the equivalent of a Goldman Sachs bonus in a nanosecond.

Let's be honest for a moment. Boyle did a nice job with a song, but were she a stunning beauty by conventional standards she wouldn't be receiving this level of attention. It's the contrast between the expectations of the audience and her performance that has made her a sensation. (For an illustration of the opposite effect, consider Joshua Bell's performance in the DC subway.)

Yet how does that make her different from any other celebrity? Some of the world's most recognizable celebrities were born in to fame, bought their way into fame, or had a chance encounter with an agent or producer that led to fame. How many of them were boosted not by talent, but by their appearance? And at that, often an appearance that was in small or large part purchased at a cosmetic surgeon's office? Which of the top earning actors are among the world's most skilled? Which of the top ten earning singers? It seems fair to ask, is Christiansen offended by the serendipity involved in Ms. Boyle's sudden fame, or by the fact that it's not the type of serendipitous outcome with which he's comfortable?

What really bugs me, however, is that Miss Boyle’s success gives out the entirely misleading message that anyone who can pass muster at karaoke can become a star overnight and that it’s luck, rather than slog, that does the trick. How can we expect young people to take the surer path and train for years in drama schools and music conservatoires when there’s this short-cut smash-and-grab approach to stardom on offer?

Think of the poor, talented children who will look at Ms. Boyle's case and recognize that there's a huge amount of luck in achieving fortune and fame. Because... what? They're not going to notice it from the success of pretty much every other celebrity out there? Because the most famous entertainers in the world, the highest paid actors and singers, trained for years in "drama schools and music conservatoires"?

But leaving that aside, assuming Boyle even had the opportunity to spend years training in a drama school or music conservatory, what would have happened next? Let's even assume that she would be "in the class of Elaine Paige or Patti LuPone". Is it not fair to ask, would people like Christiansen be able to get past her physical appearance? ("She's an exceptional talent, but....") What lesson would Christiansen have children draw from the fact that people who look like Boyle are most often relegated to the chorus, or become backup singers?

The idea that Ms. Boyle is exceptional in how she found celebrity? It's nonsense. The idea that Ms. Boyle would have had a strong chance of finding fame, let alone equivalent fame, by pursuing years of training in a music conservatory? In my opinion, also nonsense. I'm not arguing that the knowledge that fame, and the huge paycheck that goes along with it, has more to do with serendipity than with talent and hard work is the most inspirational lesson for young people. But such is life. Most people have to train and work harder than a lot of celebrities did, yet settle for far less reward.

There's one more thing Christiansen overlooks. That fame and fortune frequently come in what seems like a flash, and it's easy to forget that there's often a great deal of effort, preparation, and work that leads up to somebody's being able to get to the point that they become an "overnight sensation". Another expectation bias comes up when we hear the background to a particular performer's success and learn of their years of formal study and practice, years of minor performances when nobody had heard of them, or, similarly, hear a beautiful celebrity speak out on an issue and are surprised that they appear both intelligent and informed. That surprise is just as much a consequence of our instant-celebrity, beauty over talent culture, as is Ms. Boyle's attaining fame and possible fortune by virtue of her TV appearance. It's every bit as much a bias to see beauty and assume "unintelligence" as it is to see somebody of average or below average appearance and assume "untalented."

Christiansen's quick to embrace formal training as the proper path to fame, and for vocal performers there's no real doubt that formal training can make a huge difference. But it appears that Ms. Boyle took advantage of the formal training opportunities she could reasonably obtain. She didn't just wake up one morning and say, "I think I'll go on TV today and sing glorified karaoke." She studied and practiced (within the confines of her day-to-day life), got an opportunity, grabbed it, and by virtue of extraordinary luck and timing it worked out for her. That doesn't make her exceptional in the world of celebrity - it makes her pretty typical. I don't begrudge her the opportunity to make the most of her fifteen minutes - she should go for it.

Multiculturalism

The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial on immigration by Jason L. Riley, arguing for immigration and against multiculturalism. Despite his ostensibly taking the opposite view, part of his piece reminded me of Robert Samuelson's "I wish candidates would tell everybody else what I want to hear" editorial. My parodic expansion of Samuelson's thoughts,

"Now you're of course asking me, 'How are you going to keep those 'south of the border types' out'? I'm not. Oh, I might promise stepped up border patrols, fencing the entire U.S.-Mexican border, or other expensive forms of window-dressing, but at the end of the day I'm simply not the type of politician who is going to ask the agriculture industry to pay the type of wages that will draw citizens to pick our nation's fruits and vegetables, the hospitality or retail industry to pay that type of wage for maids and janitors, or the construction industry to pay that type of wage for workers.

Riley's explicit thoughts:

The problem isn't the immigrants. The problem is the militant multiculturalists who want to turn America into some loose federation of ethnic and racial groups. The political right should continue to push back against bilingual education advocates, anti-American Chicano Studies professors, Spanish-language ballots, ethnically gerrymandered voting districts, La Raza's big-government agenda and all the rest. But these problems weren't created by the women burping our babies and changing linen at our hotels, or by the men picking lettuce in Yuma and building homes in Iowa City.

I guess some pro-immigration, pro-assimiliation right-wingers are willing to be explicit - they see immigration exclusively as an "us against them" with Mexico, but are content with the idea of allowing "them" to work as maids and nannies, or pick vegetables, as long as they don't (dare I say) cling to their cultural heritage.

Which brings us to the glory of assimilation. Riley confabulates a powerful special interest group that opposes assimilation:

If American culture is under assault today, it's not from immigrants who aren't assimilating but from liberal elites who reject the concept of assimilation. For multiculturalists, and particularly those in the academy, assimilation is a dirty word. A values-neutral belief system is embraced by some to avoid having to judge one culture as superior or inferior to another. Others reject the assimilationist paradigm outright on the grounds that the U.S. hasn't always lived up to its ideals. America slaughtered Indians and enslaved blacks, goes the argument, and this wicked history means we have no right to impose a value system on others.

The fact that you would be hard pressed to name even one such person? I guess that only shows how insidious they are. But you know as well as I do, when people go to the polls and are looking for opinion leaders on these issues, the first place they turn is to "multiculturalists, and particularly those in the academy". Whether its anti-immigrant sentiments, anti-gay marriage laws and ballot initiatives, "English language only" laws, whatever, those darn fictional ivory tower elitists get in the way of right wing populism at every turn.

The political right should continue to push back against bilingual education advocates, anti-American Chicano Studies professors, Spanish-language ballots, ethnically gerrymandered voting districts, La Raza's big-government agenda and all the rest.

Ah, so there we go... the evil leftists unmasked.

• Bilingual education advocates - these, presumably, are the people who respect studies demonstrating that bilingual education is effective at keeping immigrant children at grade level as they learn English. These programs can even take the form of rapid immersion, with bilingual elements phased out over a relatively short period of time. The horror.
• Anti-American Chicano Studies professors - these must be the "multiculturalists ... particularly those in the academy" previously mentioned. How many "Chicano Studies professors" exist, and what subset of them is anti-American? That's beside the point.
• Spanish-language ballots - Letting citizen immigrants read ballots in their native language, so they can fully appreciate what they're voting for? Can't you see, the sky is falling!
• Ethnically gerrymandered voting districts - Darn those liberal, multiculturalist Republican gerrymanderers. Darn them to heck! Wait... other motives may be involved? Well, go figure.
• La Raza's big-government agenda - Who? These guys? I guess I'm in the wrong part of the country, because I'm not seeing them wield any influence in these parts. Anyway, as we previously covered, when we say "you guys should assimilate" we mean by "burping our babies and changing linen at our hotels, or ... picking lettuce ... and building homes", not by petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Stop your anti-American antics!

It's also interesting to note that people like Riley have a very narrow view of what it means to assimilate. You won't hear them crying in their milk over our nation's having "too many churches", and how we really need to assimilate into a single [Christian] religion. You won't hear them whining about Scottish heritage festivals, and how the nation would be significantly improved if only we banned the caber toss. You won't hear them lament that we're still referencing the Scots-Irish heritage of residents of West Virginia. You won't hear them calling for the shuttering of ethnic restaurants. You may hear them whine about the "decline" of American culture, and in particular about the evils of popular culture. When you do hear that complaint, it will typically be uttered with the same degree of contemptuousness - because the problem is not the origin of the culture, it's that the culture is alien to them and they don't like it. (A response we might get? "It's different this time, and I'll tell you why shortly, but right now I'm taking the family to Taco Bell as soon as I get my kid to turn off Dora The Explorer.")

You see, there's "good multiculturalism" and then there's "bad multiculturalism". "Bad multiculturalism" necessitates railing against the latest major immigrant group and declaring that they're somehow going to ruin America. "Good multiculturalism" involves celebrating the heritage of the group you once despised, while completely overlooking the fact that multiculturalism and assimilation can and do coexist, and contribute to what we now see as "American" culture. There are many examples in our society of groups that are regarded as 100% American, but who hold on to elements of their historic culture.

I don't want to unfairly brand Riley as myopic, so I'm fully prepared for somebody to send me his editorial, which certainly must exist, lamenting our nation's St. Patrick's Day Parades, or decrying the continued presence of "Chinatown" or "Little Italy" districts in many of our nation's major cities.

Have a Dowd Paul Krugman Christmas!

What are blog readers searching for this hour? According to Technorati:

1. Dowd - Apparently people are searching out her latest column, which (from the stuff that's not behind the firewall) is an update on last year when she "let her brother" (a Republican) write the bulk of the column for her.

2. "Paul Krugman" - The other Times columnists are "hit and miss", but you can always find Paul Krugman's latest column through technorati and Google's blog search.

3. Christmas - You would almost think it was Christmas Eve....

4. James Dungy - Which reminds me of my post of last evening. It's Christmas, it's tragic for his family, leave it alone... at least for a few days. Okay?

5. Wafa Dufour - Apparently the niece of Osama Bin Laden and an aspiring professional singer / Paris Hilton wannabee.

6. Intelligent Design - Give me a break.

7. Luciana Salazar - Apparently for some people it's not Christmas if you don't get some Argentinian cheesecake.

8. Apple - Apple what? Apple pie? Apple iPod?

9. Mu Zimei - Apparently China's equivalent of Paris Hilton. (Distiction: I had heard of Paris Hilton before today; Similarity: I wish I was still blissfully ignorant of both of them. Along with the Argentinian, um, model and that Bin Laden niece....)

10. Brokeback Mountain - Oops. Refreshing technorati shows that Brokeback Mountain was just replaced by "Sarcozy". Neither being what I would pick for Christmas entertainment.

Apparently, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American society.

A Victorian Perspective on Manners

In "iPod's Missed Manners", George Will laments how technology seems to be affecting how people behave in public.

Many people have no notion of propriety when in the presence of other people, because they are not actually in the presence of other people, even when they are in public.

And I don't mean to diminish that thesis, as I agree that some people are oblivious to how their public use of technology affects others. It's a bit overstated to speak only to electronic gadgets - George Will's fear of stumbling across somebody who is watching pornography on an iPod is duly noted, but historically that same person could as easily have been looking at printed pornography. And yes, it is annoying when you are stuck on a bus with a person who has the volume on her music player so loud that you can discern the lyrics, but people can also infringe upon your personal space while reading a newspaper, block you from taking a seat by placing a bag or stack of books next to themselves, and can interfere with your quiet enjoyment by singing. Technology isn't the problem.

Will mentions the fact that some parents object to being told that they need to control their kids in public, or that somebody else might tell their kids how to behave. That's unquestionably true - and pretty much anybody in food service is likely to be able to share horror stories. Will writes,

A thoroughly modern parent, believing that children must be protected from feelings injurious to self-esteem, says: "Johnny, the fact that you did something bad does not mean you are bad for doing it." We have, Truss thinks, "created people who will not stand to be corrected in any way." Furthermore, it is a brave, or foolhardy, man who shows traditional manners toward women. In today's world of "hair-trigger sensitivity," to open a door for a woman is to play what Truss calls Gallantry Russian Roulette: You risk a high-decibel lecture on gender politics.

With all due respect, Will is referencing something other than modernity, although for once he didn't use the "l" word to describe the type of person he intends to describe. (Perhaps that's because if his earlier silliness, that liberals see calls for rigid conformity to grammar rules as fascistic, while conservatives view it as a fight against anarchy. Or perhaps it's because he has encountered "conservative" parents who are raising unruly kids.) If I were asked to identify the person in the nation who best exemplifies "people who will not stand to be corrected in any way", the person who first comes to mind is President Bush.

As for holding doors open for people? I've done that my whole life, without once being lectured. (Although I do sometimes experience the thought, "A thank you would be nice.") I think he should check the date on that particular canard - it's past its shelf life. (Or does Will cling to it as an excuse for not getting the door?)

Why do I reference Will's column as a Victorian perspective on manners? Because much of Victorian "polite society" involved rules for behavior in public, while turning a blind eye to what was happening behind closed doors. Will's similar focus on public conduct ignores how private conduct also shapes manners, and permits him to impeach the manners of others without taking a hard look in the mirror. His columns, to put it mildly, cannot always be described as contributing to polite discourse.

As a knee-jerk reactionary blogger, I make no claim that editorials should adhere to a polite and respectful tone. (Well, maybe they should, but the other way can be more cathartic.) I do think, though, that the conduct of columnists such as Will contributes to the manner of public debate, and that he should thus consider his own contribution when lamenting how impolite the world has become.

National Stereotypes - Perception vs Reality

Although superficial, this article suggests that while some national or gender stereotypes have a basis in reality, others do not.

In Robert McCrae's most recent study he asked people to assess not their own personality, but a "typical" member of their community. The stereotypes were certainly there: Germans rated themselves as highly conscientiousness; Australians considered themselves to be extrovert, and Canadians thought themselves to be more agreeable than most. But these projections of stereotype had more or less no relationship with the actual personality profile of average citizens of each country.

Germans rate themselves as highly conscientiousness but they score just about the same on this trait as Turks, who consider themselves to be rather unreliable and lazy. Puerto Ricans consider themselves highly extrovert but they are apparently no more so than the French Swiss who consider themselves introverted. These results indicate that such perceptions are social constructs, based on hearsay and prejudice.

It would be interesting to read something more complete about the U.S. than "Americans were similar to Canadians".... The original article is available online, but it doesn't fill in many of the gaps.

IQ's Rising Because Of....

Through an interesting book review in the New Yorker, I was introduced to "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter" - a book which suggests that we get smarter (or, at least, get higher IQ's) by watching more television and playing more video games. Now, I will admit that I have not read the book, but I question some of its arguments as set forth in the review.

First, the review alludes to James Flynn, who reviewed historic IQ data and determined that, within the industrialized world, IQ has risen over time.

Flynn found, I.Q. scores showed a steady upward trajectory, rising by about three points per decade, which means that a person whose I.Q. placed him in the top ten per cent of the American population in 1920 would today fall in the bottom third.

An important aspect of Flynn's findings was not mentioned - the increase was not in the learning-based aspects of IQ testing, such as vocabulary, math skills, or general knowledge, but was instead in the abstract problem solving or "lateral thinking" portion of the test. This is important in the context of the book review, as it helps explain why the author is proposing that various aspects of "pop culture" which test our problem-solving skills may be responsible for the IQ boost - what the author describes as cognitively demanding leisure. Granted, the review later states, "If Johnson’s book has a flaw, it is that he sometimes speaks of our culture being “smarter” when he’s really referring just to that fluid problem-solving facility." I just believe that the true nature of Flynn's findings should have been discussed explicitly, even if not up-front.

My trouble starts with the examples provided in the review. For example,

A typical episode of “Starsky and Hutch,” in the nineteen-seventies, followed an essentially linear path: two characters, engaged in a single story line, moving toward a decisive conclusion. To watch an episode of “Dallas” today is to be stunned by its glacial pace—by the arduous attempts to establish social relationships, by the excruciating simplicity of the plotline, by how obvious it was. A single episode of “The Sopranos,” by contrast, might follow five narrative threads, involving a dozen characters who weave in and out of the plot.

The review continues by noting how many modern television shows require more "filling in" by the viewer to get a full understanding of the story. But, while I grant that TV shows of the 1970's were often tedious, for the "TV is getting harder" argument to work shouldn't it be the case that the TV programming of that era, or of the decades that preceded it, should have been "harder" than radio drama? In my opinion, producers of television used the visual aspects of the medium to shortcut the type of plot and character developments that were often found in radio drama, and a lot more "filling in" is required when you are listening to a drama and have to create the dramatized world in your head instead of watching it on a screen.

The "TV is hard" argument is the opposite to that advanced in an editorial I read a week or two ago, the source unfortunately forgotten, where the author proposed that today's "smart" television is an illusion - that we feel good about ourselves for getting the jokes on a show like Frasier, but that all the hard work was done by the show's authors and we are simply passive recipients. I tend to think the truth lies somewhere between the two positions - I do think that there are television shows which, by virtue of their plots and scripts, challenge the mind. However, for the most part, those same show can be watched passively, and not just by the intellectually incurious, but also by smart people who aren't challenged by the humor (even if they believe they appreciate it more than other viewers). In my opinion, there can be a lot more challenge in a single panel of "The Far Side" than in an entire episode of Seinfeld. It's not always the case, but it can be the case.

Also, as the author suggests that more complex television and more complex and involved video games may be responsible for the rise in IQ, it should be noted that the rise commenced prior to the modern generation of video games and TV shows. Which is not to say that I don't believe that there are video games which can help kids develop their minds - even back in the 1970's, there were simple computer games which required application of problem-solving skills and, despite a simplicity or paucity of graphics, by the 1980's many such games were available, and some were quite sophisticated. The catch is perhaps revealed with the statement, "Twenty years ago, games like Tetris or Pac-Man were simple exercises in motor coördination and pattern recognition." - well, no. But perhaps a majority of video game players of that era chose games like Tetris or Pac-Man over Infocom's text-based adventure games, NetHack, or Wizardry. And there is no guarantee that today's video game players are consistently choosing the more intellectually challenging games over "point and shoot" - while the sophistication of "point and shoot" games has increased, they still rely heavily on motor coordination and pattern recognition. Go figure. Meanwhile, a computer game-addicted friend of mine insists that most current strategy games are less challenging than some that he used to play on his Intellivision.

The book review quotes a few paragraphs where the author jokes, "but only in part", on the subject of books, which are described as understimulating, isolating, and linear, inspiring passivity - "books force the child to sequester him or herself in a quiet space, shut off from interaction with other children"; "You can’t control their narratives in any fashion - you simply sit back and have the story dictated to you." Well, it is certainly true that your senses are stimulated across a broader spectrum by watching a TV show or playing a modern video game, than from reading a book. But a book is no more passive than your first viewing of that TV show or first playing of the video game, when you passively experience what happens.

Even within the context of a sophisticated video game where you ultimately learn to control your environment and experience multiple "story lines", there's a lot more pattern and predictability than the author prefers to suggest. Players get comfortable with their "favorite character", master that character's special skills, and confront the puzzles and problems in a methodological fashion. (The author suggests that a video game which creates a simulated world represents "delayed gratification" - in fact, each time you do better than during your previous attempt, you get gratification.)

The book review also notes that, whatever progress we have been making in our entertainment culture, all is not equal:

When it comes to the other kind of intelligence [beyond fluid problem-solving facility], it is not clear at all what kind of progress we are making, as anyone who has read, say, the Gettysburg Address alongside any Presidential speech from the past twenty years can attest. The real question is what the right balance of these two forms of intelligence might look like.

And this is where I think it is important to note that, while many of my highly intelligent peers loved a challenging video game, sophisticated live role playing games, good television, theater, and film, there is also some truth to that stereotype of "the nerd with his nose stuck in a book". Most of the really smart people I know devoured books when they were kids. And whatever I am to make of an overall growth in problem-solving skills, or the increase in the challenge of certain aspects of our society, there are some very important areas of our culture which have been dumbed down to the point where you would think people would feel offended by the dripping condescension. (Perhaps particularly in the manner in which we are treated by our elected officials, or by the media.)

The book review closes with a subject I have previously discussed - mandatory homework policies - and the reviewer seems to share my low opinion of such policies. There, I think the review is completely correct - assigning pointless homework to be completed during time children would otherwise spend doing something else (or even "goofing off") may well be counter-productive to their development.

Heroes and Sacrifice

My wife brought to my attention a trend in American culture, to confuse "survival" with heroism. That is, if somebody survives an ordeal, they are often branded as a "hero" even if they did not perform any act which was even slightly heroic. Now, I'm fine with survival stories, and Readers Digest used to make them a staple of pretty much every edition. ("Drama in Real Life" - do they still run those stories?) And it can take a great deal of fortitude to pull yourself through a horrendous ordeal. But I guess I would like to see a more restrained use of the word "hero" by those who would bestow it without regard to whether the beneficiaries of that label demonstrated any concern for others, let alone whether they engaged in any form of noble sacrifice.

It strikes me as odd that our culture also works so hard to tear down heroes. We celebrate our heroes, real or false, but then seem to hope that they stumble or fall. Perhaps we are more comfortable with false heroes - victims of circumstance who do only what they need to do to survive - because that's the type of "hero" we can most easily imagine becoming. And perhaps we're quick to magnify any stumble, or grab on to any salacious rumor, associated with a bona fide hero because deep down we can't stand that some people truly are braver than us, and even better than us.