Introduction: Amusing Ourselves to Death, Part 1

Ch. 1 Ch. 2 Ch. 3 Ch. 4 {pt 1} Ch. 4 {pt 2} Ch. 5 Ch. 6 Ch. 7 Ch. 8 

Ch. 9 {pt 1} Ch. 9 {pt 2} Ch. 10 Ch. 11

“Part 1” because I *hope* to continue this written narration (that’s what it is really) of the book going until I’m done with it. I actually got to page 32 before I decided to go back and do narrations. Although Charlotte Mason said that doing a re-read is a no-no, I found it to be extremely beneficial to myself. When I started reading initially, I was just hooked by this book; paragraph after paragraph, page after page. But I think I read too fast without really digesting the words. That’s why I’m starting over. 

Introduction to the Twentieth Anniversary Edition by Andrew Postman (hereafter referred to as A. Postman):

What could a book that was written 20 years ago possibly have to offer those of the fast-paced, electronic world of today? With emails, phone calls, downloading of music (and video), playing games on consoles (PlayStation, Game Boy {lol, I think now that would be DS?}, XBox {he didn’t mention that one either; I don’t think it was as popular yet in 2005}) and online, websites, blogs, IMs, text messages, TiVoing (does that still exist?), watching what was TiVoed, flat screen tvs, e-readers, tablets (he doesn’t mention either of those either), new releases and bestselling books, etc., people are too busy to read another book. And an old book at that. This is the Age of Computers, er, Electronics. I think it has moved from television to computers and beyond to electronics.

To answer the question: a lot. I think so. So do many other people. Not just those who studied under Neil Postman (hereafter referred to as N. Postman); not those who read the original edition; not those who agreed decades ago. But almost another decade has passed since then. Whose opinion matters, A. Postman asks. Simply: college students.

The age range of 18-22 year olds whose television relationship is vastly different than the original audience of Amusing Ourselves to Death, in 1985. I would venture to say that it is quite a bit different even than in 2005 when A. Postman wrote his intro for this 20th Anniversary Edition. For these ‘kids’ –that’s my term –it isn’t just television; it’s computers, ipods/phones, cell phones, tablets (he refers to computers, video monitors, and handheld). “Multitasking is standard. Communities have been replaced by demographics. Silence has been replaced by background noise. It’s a different world. (pg. ix)”

In some colleges there are teachers that assign this book to their students. The students generally have never heard of N. Postman. I hadn’t and it wasn’t assigned in any of my college courses. Some of these students related that their perspective of their surroundings “changed” because of reading the book. Some thoughts they had afterward included that there is a lack of being ‘alone’ with the prolific technology today; television and education are all about entertainment; information is immediately available; “religion is mimicking an MTV kind of world” (there was a reference to “Bible magazines” that are fashioned after teen magazines); and there seems to be a need for constant stimulation.

Do you remember that song “Dirty Laundry” by Don Henley? A line goes: “We got the bubble headed bleach blonde who comes on at five; She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye; It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry.” {kick em when they’re up, kick em when they’re down…ahem} The next bit in the book reminds me of that. N. Postman calls it the “Now…this” idea. After the terrible story of perhaps a plane crash, or a murder, the anchor says cheerily, “Now…this” and goes on with something ridiculously out of touch with the preceding story. It is “so disparate in scale and value, as to be incoherent, even psychotic. (pg. xi)” Those who read the book were particularly struck with this idea.

Another impression of the book was how it was written: like a storyteller having a conversation with the reader. One student said that N. Postman proved that something can be entertaining and have no pictures. Many appreciated the lack of jargon but at the same time inspiring thoughts on the matters being presented.

Of course, there were some who didn’t care for the book for various reasons: some didn’t care for the ‘assault’ on television and their “culture” {that is what it is, isn’t it?}; television isn’t internet and that is what they relate to now; some felt Postman to be anti-change and didn’t paint television’s positive influence; or there were no solutions offered. Finally, some felt that indeed, it is true! we’ve amused ourselves to death, why do we need to read about it.

One teacher has her students do an e-media fast, for just 24-hours. No electronics or media of any sort. No phones, no computers, no internet, no television, etc. Some at first think, “No big deal,” but soon find out how much of a role it actually plays in their lives. The result? They end up “doing”. They walk more, they have face-to-face interaction with friends, and one said that she did things that she hadn’t even thought to do –ever. She doesn’t specify what that is but just think, perhaps it’s walk along a trail nearby or to pick up a book by an author never heard of. All of the students who do the e-media fast say that they are changed by it.

Changed. A. Postman argues that this book, rather than not offering solutions as some felt, is a call to do something. It encourages claiming a “way to be more alert and engaged. (pg. xiii)”

Twenty years isn’t what it used to be,” says A. Postman. “Change changed,” said N. Postman (pg. xiii). News networks and entertainment are more entwined (more even than in 2005, probably). An example given is of Jon Stewart from Comedy Central’s The Daily Show talking with hosts of CNN’s Crossfire –he arguing for a definite separation of news and entertainment, them appearing to be hearing an alien speaking! (Or another translation, they didn’t appear to understand what he was getting at.)

A. Postman does make a comment that I stopped to think about for a bit: “Our own media companies don’t provide truly gruesome war images as part of the daily news, but then they didn’t do so twenty years ago either (though forty years ago they did).” Since I don’t watch the news, I can’t really argue against this but it does seem to me whenever I happen to see the news, the images, perhaps not of war, are rather gruesome. Perhaps I am too sensitive? I do agree whole-heartedly with his next assessment: “The…(reality quotient) of computer and video games is way up. (pg. xiv)”

He had mentioned that community was replaced with demographics earlier but now he acknowledges that new communities have been created that would not have if not for the internet. Also there is ‘collaborative creativity’, thanks to the internet and ‘open source’. But also families are eating dinner together less and less, groups and clubs that used to meet regularly don’t, and “people don’t have friends over or know their neighbors the way they used to. (pg. xiv)” And then there’s the push {downright shove?} of computers, internet, and electronic technology in education.

Next A. Postman alludes to both Orwell and Huxley {neither of which I’ve read; perhaps I should} and how Neil Postman’s book points more to the latter than the former in the Age of Television. But, A. Postman determines that N. Postman “asked such good questions that they can be asked of non-television things…[even] of things still unformed, for generations to come…” Questions such as:

“What happens when we become infatuated with and then seduced by them? Do they free us or imprison us? Do they improve or degrade democracy? Do they make our leaders more accountable or less so? Our system more transparent or less so? Do they make us better citizens or better consumers? Are the trade-offs worth it? If they’re not worth it, yet we still can’t stop ourselves from embracing the next new thing because that’s just how we’re wired, then what strategies can we devise to maintain control? Dignity? Meaning? (pg. xv)”

A. Postman says that N. Postman wasn’t a “curmudgeon” and he didn’t fear all of television. In fact he rather appreciated the ‘junk’. N. Postman said, “The A-Team and Cheers are no threat to our public health. 60 Minutes, Eyewitness News, and Sesame Street are. (pg. xv)” 

In 1985… 

In this portion of four paragraphs, A. Postman takes the time to acquaint readers with those figures that N. Postman refers to in the book. “If you were alert back then, this refresher may be unnecessary, even laughable. If you were not alert then, this may just be laughable. (pg. xvii)” And laugh I did! I was eight years old in 1985 {oh, now can guess my age –oh well lol} and recall a lot of the names mentioned in this portion. Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, John Glenn {yes, the astronaut but in a political role here of senator}, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Billy Graham; television shows Dynasty, Dallas, The A-Team, Entertainment Tonight, and American Express and Wisk commercials. There are many more that I do not know who are or what the show is: Walter “Fritz” Mondale, Geraldine Ferraro, Gary Hart, Ed Koch, David Garth, Jimmy Swaggart {the name is somewhat familiar but that’s it}, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Robert Schuller, and Oral Roberts. Shows that I don’t know anything about: The MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, Hill Street Blues, and Dr. Ruth Westheimer’s radio call-in show {thankful I didn’t hear any of that!}. 

Foreward by N. Postman

Two books, 1984 and Brave New World, that ‘prophesied’ the future. Orwell that we would be oppressed by external forces and it would be the end. Huxley that we would not be oppressed but enlightened by technology that they become slaves to it and will no longer be able to think on their own.

N. Postman contrasts these two books, which I mentioned I’ve not read. Orwell feared the ban of books; Huxley feared there would be no need because no one would want to read them. Orwell feared that information would be denied to us and truth kept from us; Huxley feared that there would be too much information and the truth would be lost in the shuffle, but we wouldn’t care anyway. Orwell feared a captive culture; Huxley feared we’d be all about ‘feelies’. Ultimately, “Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right. (pg. xx)” 

Wow. And I admit that now I want to read both of the books he is referring to.

And on that note, I end my narration for the moment. No, I didn’t remember all the details I’ve put here, but I knew where to find what I was looking for and referenced it. Next is Part 1, Chapter 1: The Medium Is the Metaphor.