In 1979, Bantam came out with the first book in their Choose Your Own Adventure series. By the mid-80s they produced close to 200 titles in the series. For those that did not spend hours rereading the books to follow the variety of plotlines, the books were a series of science fiction and fantasy adventures that allowed the reader to take control of the protagonist by making choices at the end of each chapter. Around the same time, Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 consoles began to appear in suburban households across America. Add to these an explosion in other media- cable TV, radio, magazines, and music and we're suddenly in an interactive age of media. By the early 1990s, mainstream media had started to evolve into a creature that played to this generation. With the advent of The Simpsons, Seinfeld, Wayan Brother movies, sampling, etc., media began to proudly present their influences as inside jokes and nods to their biggest consumers. Slackers were able to obsess about media because media was obsessing about media and presenting more information for them to use in their obsession. Mix the drugs of youthful indiscretion with some overeducation and you get Blogs, Ben Stiller, Wes Anderson, Reno 911, Kids in the Hall, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, MTV2, the new VH1 (not your parent's VH1), and reality shows. The orobouros goes on and on and on. . . For some pundits, the development of interactivity allowed them to step up the cultural war by attacking the straw men of immorality and violence. We've all heard the arguments: TV is turning kids into zombies; the only reason people use the internet is porn; video games are desensitizing our children to sex and violence. Read Steve Allen, Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, or Marie Winn's The Plug-In Drug. To add some balance to the diatribes and overprotective pablum that has dominated mainstream criticism, Steve Johnson has entered the fray with a book-length essay, Everything Bad is Good for You. When the book was released earlier this year, the media quickly picked up his ideas. He has had excerpts in Wired and an editorial in the Los Angeles Times. His arguments are perfectly balanced for the reader raised by television who trusts no one and grew up under the dual-edged sword of ironic detachment and fallen heroes. The main thrust of Johnson's argument is that there is a hidden force molding media. Johnson calls this force the Sleeper Curve (after the Woody Allen movie of the same name). The Sleeper Curve stipulates that most of the mass diversions in society today have been steadily growing more complex in the past 20 years. They may have started dumbed down for a mass consumer audience (the lowest common denominator we grew up hearing about) but the most successful programming of today is some of the most complex programming, involving multiple characters working through several threads of story. Think Melrose Place vs. Dallas. Both were prime-time soaps but the cognitive deduction needed to follow Dallas is not at the same level as Melrose Place. The reason for this "isn't a result of media titans doing charitable work; there’s an economic incentive in producing more challenging culture, thanks to the technologies of repetition and meta-commentary." In other words, The Family Guy and The Simpsons DVDs are some of the best-selling DVDs ever because the complexity involved allows for repeated viewings, and even interaction with others to gain a deeper understanding of the episodes. Johnson makes the case again and again that he is not arguing that movies, TV and video games should be a replacement for the fine arts and reading. He is very adamant in reinforcing the fact that he is talking about entertainment and not art. Art will always challenge us and foster emotional and intellectual growth. This has not always been the case with mass media. In fact, common knowledge dictates that mass media is actually present to make us not think. While not the most glamorous part of the essay, I think the most important point Steve Johnson make is that thanks to technology we are currently inundated with good stuff on all levels of the artistic spectrum from dance to television. In the second part of the essay he argues that the reason we are reading less is not because we're lazy and find it easier to watch TV or play video games, but that we are actually trading in time spent passively accepting data for time spent interacting with data. The internet has given us the chance to be a more active participant with our pastime. One of the most resonant lines in the book simply states, "Part of the compensation for reading less is that we're writing more." In the paragraph following that line, Johnson even assesses the myth that people are spending their free time watching television rather than reading. He looks at the data and agrees that while we are devoting less time to reading, we are also devoting less time to television, less time going to the movies. It turns out we are devoting less time to everything. I would add that we are juggling even more passions and past-times than ten years ago, while having less time to do so. The 50 and 60 hour work-week has become common for all rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Add to that the latest statistics on time spent in transit, we are losing more of our precious leisure time every year. This review is a perfect example of how we have options that determine how much free time we dedicate to our passions. I have 3 or 4 books started and another 8 by my bedside. I'm working my way through Doom 3, Destroy All Humans, and THUG 2. I also have 2 group art shows this month and 5 calls for work due at the end of October. In my bag, I have my work laptop with several dozen e-mails that need answers by Monday morning. Yet I'm spending my time on the internet writing a review for free. Ten years ago this would have been unthinkable, but now we have several million people writing on personal sites such as this. In a year that is already crammed with thought-provoking looks at modern society such as Blink, Freakonomics and The World is Flat, we have one more book to add to the pile. While Everything Bad is Good for You does not reach the level of his previous work, Emergence, it is a very well-conceived essay on the rise of the use of cognitive deduction in mass media. For anyone who has quoted Seinfeld or spent all night trying to beat Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, this book offers a convincing argument that you're not completely wasting your time in idle pursuits.