I don’t know about the theory of drinking gin to get over the urbanization, but I like the image of gin carts!!!

I think maybe the “active” part of the interactive gaming culture of Web 2.0 is overestimated, just like the transformative character of t.v. was when it was still new and edgy and black-and-white. The greatest scam then was a Saturday morning show called “Rinky Dink.” Kids were invited to get a package from the store which included a plastic wipe-off transparent sheet that affixed to the screen electromagnetically. Then, when “Rinky” got in trouble, you were able to save him by drawing a ladder for him to climb out on, or some similar intervention. Two problems: If you didn’t draw it, he still climbed anyway, so credibility was gone. But the great capitalist part was: kids who didn’t have the storebought thingy would naturally draw on the screen itself. This virtually compelled their parents to go buy a set to save scraping the crayon off the screen! I think the FCC stepped in. That’s not Sontagian, it’s Marcusian! I think I remember this, anyway, but mostly I’m just waiting to see what my avatar is when I get back to school in a couple of months!

And, The_Myth: I hear you about the rah-rah. It sounds like reading Reason magazine, with all of the hopeful triumphalism about technology.

I think most would be shocked at how many gamers approach it just like it is TV, despite the myth of telepresence among players-en-scene.

All myths have a bit of “truth” [in its empirical sense] to them, but in the end it’s the story they tell that makes them real.

I have a background in media studies, with an emphasis on the social function of media, and I am dis-enamored with the rah-rah mentality of most “new media” scholarship, which I think often misses some huge elephants in the [chat]room…

I think it’s an interesting point–although at some point we do need to start making distinctions about quality. (Writing hugely popular and yet also erudite blogs about academia? Pretending to be an elf in World of Warcraft? Which represents a denser use of a “cognative surplus?)

Now, the question I have is: where would the internet and web 2.0 be without that 60 years of television watching in our collective memories? So much of what’s on the web is about or derived from American TV, so perhaps the division Shirky wants us to see is less clear. Where would we be without TV-derived, internet expressions like “jump the shark?” That expression alone is worth enduring all of those years of Happy Days. And we all know what Shirky means exactly when he asks, “Mary Ann or Ginger?”

And Fratguy–you make an excellent point about the similarities between TV and alcohol, although I might suggest that while they may serve a similar function for you, there might be a closer connection between TV and pot. After all, no one gets angry and fired up to beat up someone else or to rape someone just from watching TV. (At least, no one who wouldn’t get that way faster if he were drinking!) And pot-smokers just giggle a lot and fall asleep early. (Well, that’s the effect that TV has on me, anyway.)

But I do think he should tell us why.