entertainment

Addicted to Entertainment (II)

Yesterday I looked briefly at entertainment addiction and attempted to propose a definition of entertainment. I said that entertainment is an escape or distraction from normal life. Perhaps I should have added that it is an “enjoyable” escape or distraction. While this is an imperfect definition, I think it is useful, at the least. We seek entertainment to take our minds off the stresses and strains and reality of life.

Today I want to offer a couple of ideas that may help you see the impact entertainment has on our lives.

Qualify Entertainment

I think we need to first qualify our entertainment. We need to figure out what constitutes entertainment and this may well vary from person to person. A lot of what we may think is news or information or otherwise beneficial information may really be entertainment thinly disguised. Do you check Drudge Report eight or ten times every day looking to see the newest headlines? If so, I suspect you are being entertained more than you are being informed. That little bit of information you get from glancing at the headlines and skimming through the stories should probably be filed as entertainment. The same is true of much of the evening news or the blogs you read. Are these things really integral to your life and faith? Or are they really just a form of entertainment? In Amusing Ourselves to Death Neil Postman asked when the last time was that you read a news headline and were compelled to take action. He realized that the vast majority of the news that comes to us is news which demands no action; instead, it is mere information that entertains us but without edifying or challenging us. Even news is often entertainment.

So my encouragement here is to take a look at your day and especially the time you spend in front of screens to determine how much of it is genuinely useful, genuinely applicable to life and how much of it is really a form of entertainment. Which of the shows you watch are entertainment and which are genuinely useful? Which of the web sites you read are entertainment and which actually impact your life? Which of the books you read are amusing and which are edifying? Just pause briefly to think about it.

Quantify Entertainment

Once you have qualified what you do to entertain yourself, try to quantify it. Here you simply attach a number to your entertainment—a number of hours or minutes every day in which you enjoy entertainment. I suspect that, almost invariably, you will be surprised at how large that number is.

As of 2008, the average person between the ages of 18 and 24 spent 8.5 hours every day in front of some kind of a screen—whether computer, cell phone, television, or any other. Mom and dad (aged 45 - 54) fared better (or is it worse?), clocking in at 9.5 hours. These are incredible statistics that give a sense of how digital technologies are reshaping our world. Consider that in 1940 the average would have been 0 hours per day. In just 70 years we have radically reshaped our lives.

How much of this screen time is entertainment-related? In most cases I suspect that it would be the vast majority. Almost 5 hours of the 8.5 for that 18 to 24 year-old are spent watching television (with mom and dad tallying over 6). Can any of that be deemed something other than entertainment? Not likely. How much of the computer time is related to work or school and how much is chatting or browsing or looking at pornography? And even when we seek to be productive on our computers, how often do we switch quickly to email or Digg or Facebook, even if just for a moment or two at a time? How much of the time spent texting and chatting on the cell phone is for entertainment purposes? And even when we do sit back on the couch with a good book, do we keep the television on, just within our peripheral vision?

Even when we look exclusively at screen time we find that people must spend several hours a day being entertained. And this does not include all the other means of entertainment available to us. So quantify your entertainment. For just a day or two track what you do and define appropriate categories. Keep an eye out for how often you switch from work to entertainment, school to entertainment, even if for only two or three minutes each time. I suspect you will find that you are demanding hours of entertainment every day.

What To Do?

Before we continue, I wish to emphasize once again that entertainment is not inherently evil. In fact, I am sure that God created us so we desire and pursue times of entertainment. However, I do think we live at a time when we pursue entertainment with reckless abandon and when we demand it in unprecedented quantities. And for this reason it does us good to think about it, to qualify it, to quantify it.

Now we return to the question that triggered these articles. Somebody wrote to John Piper and asked “I believe I do love Jesus, but most of the time I’d rather spend time being entertained than spend time in God’s word. How do I break this hold that entertainment has on my heart?”

Here is Piper’s reply:

1. Recognizing it is a huge step in the right direction.2. Seek the Lord earnestly about it. Pray like crazy that God would open your eyes to see wondrous things out of his law.3. Immerse yourself in the Bible, even when you don’t feel like it, pleading with God to open your eyes to see what’s really there.4. Get in a group where you talk about serious things.5. Begin to share your faith. One of the reasons we are not as moved by our own faith as we are is because we almost never talk about it to any unbeliever. It starts to feel like a kind of hothouse thing, and then it starts to have a feeling of unreality about it. And then the powers of entertainment have more sway in our life.

What I have sought to do yesterday and today is give some guidance, some context, to this first step. I want to help you recognize if and where entertainment has dominated your time. If you quantify your entertainment and find that you are spending four or five hours a day being entertained, you may will identify with this person’s honest statement: “most of the time I’d rather spend time being entertained than spend time in God’s word.”

At this point I’d encourage you to pursue Piper’s remedy. I know there is much more that could be said at this point but his suggestions are, at the very least, a great place to start. Pray like crazy, immerse yourself in Scripture even (and especially) when you do not want to, talk with others about serious things and share the gospel. Let God’s Word shape and mold you, showing you what really matters.

Addicted to Entertainment

A few days ago John Piper answered a question about addiction to entertainment. He expressed his concern with our need today to be entertained and to be entertained near-constantly. He then offered a few pointers on escape this addiction. This little article got me thinking and I wanted to offer just a couple of thoughts on the topic.

First, I want to try to define entertainment. The best I can do, at least for now, is this: Entertainment is an escape or distraction or break from normal life. That’s not a great definition, but I think it is a start, at any rate. Entertainment distracts us from the cares and concerns and normalcy of life. It is a form of escapism. It is not necessarily bad to be entertained; but it is meant to be just a part of life, not normal everyday existence. Entertainment is meant to be supplemental, not instrumental. I’ve thought also about amusement. Amusement, if we wish to draw a distinction, is a passive form of entertainment. The roots of the word mean “not thinking” and this clues us in to how it differs from entertainment. A person watching television may be both entertained (as he lets himself take a break from the stress of life) and amused (as he just turns his mind off). A person who is playing Settlers of Catan is entertained, but probably not amused, since playing a game of that nature requires him to use his mind.

Not all entertainment is bad; not all amusement is bad. But I think we have a higher capacity for entertainment than for amusement. I may be entertained by reading a Tale of Two Cities even while not being amused by it. Watching The Office or 24 is pure amusement. The entire purpose is to have me turn off my mind, to stop thinking, and to just go with the story. I think it’s a helpful distinction, then, to see whether we prefer entertainment or amusement. Neither is intrinsically evil, but I think if we ought to be careful to measure both.

I want to point this out as well: entertainment is not a right and should not even be a necessary expectation. The Bible gives us no reason to expect it as a right. Entertainment is a privilege. And historically, the widespread availability and expectation for entertainment is the exception, not the rule. In fact, it has not even been a possibility. And this is at least one of the reasons: here is a small table outlining the cost for a general laborer to enjoy the entertainment of that day, given as a proportion of his daily wage (drawn from Todd Gitlin’s Media Unlimited):

18th century (theater)More than a full day’s wage
Early 19th century (theater)1/3
1840s-50sA little less than 1/3 (25¢)
1870 (minstrel, variety shows)1/6 (still 25¢)
1880s (melodrama, vaudeville)1/13 (10¢)
1910 (nickelodeon)1/40 (10¢)
1920 (movie theater)less than 1/40 (10¢)
1960s (television)1/360 (amortizing cost of $200 black-and-white set)
1998 (cable television)1/100 (amortizing cost of $300 color set plus basic cable

OK, so this is long enough for today. I’ll come back tomorrow with some further thoughts on what to do about entertainment. For now, I’d love to get feedback on what I’ve said here so far. I am really trying to think this through.

Light Fare: Which Pixar Film is Best?

Here is some good, light fare for a Saturday afternoon.

A few weeks ago we found, on sale, the complete Pixar collection (not including Wall-E). We have had fun going back in time and watching each of these movies. I still remember going to see Toy Story when it was in the theaters and marveling at the brilliant animation—that kind of computer animation was completely new at the time. And then came A Bug’s Life which was rather a disappointment. Toy Story 2 was next and probably ranks as my favorite of all the Pixar films. Monsters Inc. is a close second—a really incredible movie that shows some amazing animation, even by today’s standards (they managed to animate individual hairs in the bodies of those furry monsters). And the series has continued with one great film after another.

The other day I was talking to some people and comparing notes on which was the best of these movies. I thought I’d put it to the vote and make a poll out of it.

Do note that if you are reading this via RSS, you’ll have to click through to the site to actually answer. All voting is anonymous…

Things I Miss About Cable T.V.

It must have been a couple of months ago now that Aileen and I got rid of cable TV. We didn’t get rid of the television altogether—we kept it so we could watch DVDs and enjoy the Wii. But we got rid of cable and now have access to precisely 0 channels. Today I paused to reflect on all of the things I miss about having cable television.

Here they are in no particular order:

  •  
  •  
  •  

The end.

The Cost of Entertainment

Why we watch so much television today is a question that will have many and multi-faceted answers. But in his book Media Unlimited, Todd Giltin offers solid statistical evidence for at least one of the answers. Here is a small table outlining the cost for a general laborer to enjoy the entertainment of that day, given as a proportion of his daily wage.

18th century (theater)More than a full day’s wage
Early 19th century (theater)1/3
1840s-50sA little less than 1/3 (25¢)
1870 (minstrel, variety shows)1/6 (still 25¢)
1880s (melodrama, vaudeville)1/13 (10¢)
1910 (nickelodeon)1/40 (10¢)
1920 (movie theater)less than 1/40 (10¢)
1960s (television)1/360 (amortizing cost of $200 black-and-white set)
1998 (cable television)1/100 (amortizing cost of $300 color set plus basic cable

I guess this help explains the fact that the average American currently watches in excess of four hours per day!

Virtual Cheating in a Virtual World

Second Life and cheating in a virtual world.

Friday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal featured an article about Second Life, a popular online digital world. It is inhabited by people like you and me, but people who take on a new identity—a second life. It is, by all accounts, an engaging experience. This is borne out by the millions of people who have signed up for an account (almost 9 million according to the company) and the tens of thousands that can be found online at any given moment. It is a world that mimics the real world, but also a world that allows people to fantasize and to be things they cannot be in real life. Men can be women; poor people can be rich; unpopular people can have hundreds of friends. The game gives anyone the ability to create a whole new life.

The story centers around Ric and Sue Hoogestraat, a seemingly average couple who live outside Phoenix. Ric is addicted to the game, playing for six hours most evenings and often spending entire weekends at it as well. At one point he was housebound for five weeks and often played the game for up to twenty hours a day. His wife has no interest in the game and is growing increasingly frustrated with her husband.

The real Mrs. Hoogestraat is no stranger to online communities — she met her husband in a computer chat room three years ago. Both were divorced and had adult children from previous marriages, and Mrs. Hoogestraat says she was relieved to find someone educated and adventurous after years of failed relationships. Now, as she pays household bills, cooks, does laundry, takes care of their three dogs and empties ashtrays around the house while her husband spends hours designing outfits for virtual strippers and creating labels for virtual coffee cups, she wonders what happened to the person she married.

In a sense this is a story similar to any kind of addiction. One person in the family is hopelessly addicted to something while the others suffer but also tacitly support him. One person is being selfish and placing his own “needs” high above those of others. “Mr. Hoogestraat, for his part, doesn’t feel he’s being unfaithful. ‘She watches TV, and I do this,’ he says. ‘I tried to get her involved so we could play together, but she wasn’t interested.’” Sooner or later Sue is likely to reach the breaking point and walk out of the relationship. She feels deserted and in many ways has been.

Behind the story is an interesting warning for Christians. Ric has a second life in this game and it is one that involves another woman. It is a woman he has never met and apparently never wants to meet. In this game he is a married man. He married another player who goes by the name Tenaj (her real name is Janet Spielman). They spend countless hours together online, party together in this new world, and even have virtual sex. It seems clear that he is better friends with this virtual friend than with his life. He prefers the company of Tenaj than that of his wife. And, unfortunately, it is no longer unusual for people to prefer virtual company than real-life company. “Nearly 40% of men and 53% of women who play online games said their virtual friends were equal to or better than their real-life friends, according to a survey of 30,000 gamers.”

A short time ago I read an article written by a Christian suggesting that online dating is not a biblical option for Christians. I would tend to disagree. The greatest strength of online dating, as I understand it and as I’ve seen it play out (even in the life of a family member) is that it removes the physical dimension, at least for a time, while increasing the necessity and the depth of communication. People who date online share things in the written word they may not share face-to-face. This builds a kind of intimacy that is very important to relationships which can otherwise become easily derailed by physical intimacy. But the strength of such an online relationship shows the danger of forging these kinds of relationships haphazardly.

This problem is not unique to people who play games such as Second Life. It may apply also to people who read blogs or who use chat rooms or instant messaging or any form of online communication. Real life relationships are increasingly being supplanted by virtual ones. This article points out that our brains aren’t really wired to make the clear connections between what is real and what is virtual, what happens in the real world and what happens on a screen. “Our brains are not specialized for 21st-century media,” says Prof. Reeves. “There’s no switch that says, ‘Process this differently because it’s on a screen.’” So while a man like Ric may insist that he can draw a neat line separating what is happening on the computer from what is happening in real life, on a psychological level this may not be the case. And certainly on a spiritual and emotional level it is not the case. The story makes it clear that the intimacy he has developed with Tenaj has come at the expense of Sue. “Sitting alone in the living room in front of the television, Mrs. Hoogestraat says she worries it will be years before her husband realizes that he’s traded his real life for a pixilated fantasy existence, one that doesn’t include her.”

I’ve never played Second Life and have no intention of getting into it. It looks like it would be lots of fun, but it also looks like it would be far too addictive. My brief experience with this kind of game or experience shows that they have a strange power to draw people into them. I’d be concerned that it would suck me in and consume far too much time. But I have another concern. I am concerned that a game like this would lead me to develop relationships that are not real or valuable. Like Ric, I could easily develop relationships that exist only in bits and bytes and pixels. I would develop these relationships at the expense of real ones. After all, if I spend my Saturday afternoon sitting in my office roaming the lands in Second Life, I would not be able to spend that time with families, friends and neighbors. Yet there is more to it than time.

The time I might spend in a virtual world is only the beginning. There is also emotional and spiritual time and energy that would also be invested in something so fleeting. It seems clear that Ric’s investment is far deeper than only time. He is using this game, this world, to construct a whole new life and one that is far more interesting, far more perfect than the one he has now. In the game he is young, wealthy, fit and surrounded by beautiful women. His wife realizes this. “Basically, the other person is widowed,” she says. “This other life is so wonderful; it’s better than real life. Nobody gets fat, nobody gets gray. The person that’s left can’t compete with that.”

Constructing a second life is a proposition that may be fraught with peril. After all, if we create a life that is fictional but which represents what we would really like life to be like if it was without its current limits, we will necessarily make this real life look pretty pathetic in comparison. Consider Ric: in real life he is sick and overweight and getting older every day. He works a job that he probably does not much like and which does not pay very much. His wife is also getting older every day, is heavy set and does not support his addiction. But in the game he is young and attractive and rich and unbound by the nagging wife. As Sue says, his character is him at 25. Or it is how he wishes he could have been at 25.

In this virtual world we are all in danger of creating second lives. We may do so through a game like this one. We may do so simply by being dishonest in our blogs or in what we share about ourselves in the many social media platforms. The danger of being a different person in a second life is that this first life is the one we really live. What we do in the second impacts the first—how we feel about it, how we live it, how we enjoy it. God has given us one life to live. It would be foolish of us to give to much time, too much attention and too much energy to a second, virtual one. Chances are that this one will always look shabby in comparison.