I found this essay interesting because I both agree directionally (I think culture is getting richer in some sense) and yet find the suggested arguments highly debatable. Among other things:
a) The author doesn't put things back in context. That a painting can be easily copied doesn't mean that a new painting of the same importance can be produced. That a technique invented in a movie can be reused is not the same thing as inventing a new technique.
b) That we don't just copy or consume things from the past doesn't mean new stuff is any better. I wish there was an endless number of works of the caliber of Homer's Odyssey or Bach's cantatas — there isn't. Most people's experience of the latest show on Netflix isn't that it's the best thing ever, it's that it's whatever is easily available.
c) That Gladwell's prose is better than Smith's is both objectionable and again, highly time-sensitive. To claim that no one knew how to write clearly a hundred years ago is... kind of embarrassing?
d) The last part is probably the thing that's most irritating about the whole "progress studies" movement — the complete lack of rigor in establishing how to even measure progress beyond roundabout figures like GDP. "GDP going up? Must mean everything is getting better." I'm afraid that's a bit short.
I completely disagree with the analysis of smith vs gladwell's writing style. Gladwell's is less verbose, but not better - it says far less and it says it less well.
The kincaid grade level of the gladwell's text is 7, the level of the passage from smith is 22 or 23.... So the gladwell passage is literally middle school level and the smith is graduate plus level of writing.... The authors thesis can be summarized as playing to the lowest common denominator. His proof texts show a dumbing down of culture not a rising tide.
2 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 11.3 ms ] threada) The author doesn't put things back in context. That a painting can be easily copied doesn't mean that a new painting of the same importance can be produced. That a technique invented in a movie can be reused is not the same thing as inventing a new technique.
b) That we don't just copy or consume things from the past doesn't mean new stuff is any better. I wish there was an endless number of works of the caliber of Homer's Odyssey or Bach's cantatas — there isn't. Most people's experience of the latest show on Netflix isn't that it's the best thing ever, it's that it's whatever is easily available.
c) That Gladwell's prose is better than Smith's is both objectionable and again, highly time-sensitive. To claim that no one knew how to write clearly a hundred years ago is... kind of embarrassing?
d) The last part is probably the thing that's most irritating about the whole "progress studies" movement — the complete lack of rigor in establishing how to even measure progress beyond roundabout figures like GDP. "GDP going up? Must mean everything is getting better." I'm afraid that's a bit short.
The kincaid grade level of the gladwell's text is 7, the level of the passage from smith is 22 or 23.... So the gladwell passage is literally middle school level and the smith is graduate plus level of writing.... The authors thesis can be summarized as playing to the lowest common denominator. His proof texts show a dumbing down of culture not a rising tide.