By David Ross. The kiddy culture – the culture of sneakers, fast food, and video games – has subsumed the adult culture; or rather adolescents have stopped graduating from one to the other. Thus, as I read in Mark Steyn’s latest tome, the chilling and funerary After America, “males 18 to 34 years old play more video games than kids: according to a 2006 Nielsen survey, 48.2 percent of men in that demographic amused themselves in that way for an average of two hours and forty-three minutes every day – that’s thirteen minutes longer than the 12- to 17-year-olds” (181). Kay Hymowitz provides the definitive account of the new “child-man” in City Journal.
The kiddy world is characterized by impulse; the adult world by purpose. The kiddy world belongs to the playpen of the present moment; the adult world tethers itself to both past and future. The kiddy world passively imitates and downloads; the adult world discriminates and invents.
If I had to offer a living symbol of the “adult world” – its tenderness, stoicism, rigor, mature calm – I would point to Tony Rice’s version of “Shenandoah.” I would say to our thirtysomething sneaker-wearers, this is what it means to be grown up, to carry yourself like a man.
Posted on August 15th, 2011 at 10:34am.
My wife, of fourteen years, and I play video games together after we put the kids to bed. I suspect some nights we play as long as 2 hours and 43 minutes. We find gaming to be more interesting than most current TV shows (there are a few execptions) and a less passive activity. Why is this considered a sign of societal collapse, while spending the same amount of time watching TV wouldn’t be?
The vision of husband and wife relaxing together after a long and well-spent day is appealing. I suspect, however, that most of the billions or trillions of hours we spend watching and gaming are passed in fish-eyed solitude, while responsibilities go unmet and potential goes unrealized. My apologies if I sounded officious or judgmental. I did not mean to be either.
or rather adolescents have stopped graduating from one to the other
Good line! And so true.
Why is this considered a sign of societal collapse, while spending the same amount of time watching TV wouldn’t be?
Going by what I’ve read of David’s columns, I suspect he would say much the same of TV.
Kishke,
I would indeed say much the same about TV (and for that matter the vast majority of movies). Life is very short. Suck the full marrow from every hour. Leave it at that.
Then why are you wasting time blogging on a website largely devoted to movies and, to a lesser extent, TV? Shouldn’t you be sucking marrow out of bones or something equally useful to society?
Rob,
Movies and TV play a very small part in my activities. I am by trade a professor of literature. I teach film from time to time, and therefore take an obligatory professional interest in it.
I would answer as well that part of David’s purpose is to convey his cultural tastes, which must inevitably include some discussion of movies. But in any case, Libertas is not strictly devoted to movies, so your point, Rob, is not terribly relevant.
My last comment, I realize, was a little sniffy. I do love film, but not as much as other things, I partake of it in limited quantities. I see perhaps three or four films per month, though I carefully select these. Film can be enriching, it can also be time-wasting. I try not to waste time. That’s all I meant to say. Thanks, Kishke, for coming to my defense.