<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Unfounded and inaccurate claims on technology
Review: Amidst Levinson's self referential waxing philosophic, it appears he may have had a point. However, he is likely the only one who knows what it is. Levinson assumes that a large, obscure vocabulary and an uncanny ability to refer to the likes of kant and popper as though they were best friends automatically makes his outlandish conclusions digestable. His sickeningly social-darwinist libertarian capitalist theories do nothing more than to give himself credit. Purporting that technology has a natural history is a strong claim, but not being able to back that with anything above phallic symbols of masculine market dominance and repetitive slandering of Karl Marx's good name results in a mockery of an intellectual journey. Speaking of shaming a good name, I am certain Charles Darwin is rolling over in his grave. It is clear that Levinson has never even so much as skimmed the Origin of Species. If you've always wondered though, why the answering machine is a prophylactic or why the alphabet caused monotheism, perhaps this misguided manifesto is for you. Otherwise, read McLuhan for actual 1st hand original ideas about Technology and the Media.
Rating: 
Summary: For those craving a MACRO/GLOBAL VIEW of today & Tomorrow.
Review: An enormously insightful panorama and investigation into the past, present and future evolution of information technology. The author looks at the impact of IT on society and the history of media of all types, from the introduction of the alphabet over hieroglyphics, to the photo-electronic revolution, to the age of computers and creation of the Web. The book concludes with ideas for the future, including ways to protect intellectual property, ethics, and ultimate possibilities for artificial intelligence. This is a work of both depth and breadth. For those who crave the macro/global perspective of the world, this book will be a fascinating find. Bibliography. HIGHLY recommended. Reviewed with great interest by Gerry Stern, founding partner, Stern & Associates and HRconsultant.com.
Rating:
Summary: Not as profound as the author thinks it is
Review: I enjoyed reading The Soft Edge. I found Levinson to be a little long in his summations. I also found that his first two chapters were confusing. I was not sure of his direction or the purpose of his book. His use of mini-headings in each chapter did make each subject easier to understand. I would highly recommend this book for research in other classes. I have already used it. I did find his use of quotes from other authors leaving me wanting more. He used them to prove his arguments. Without more from that author, I was not able to accept or decline his argument. I believe his weakest part was on the future of technology. Levinson gives a great history and analysis on the impact. I found his analysis on the future small and quite unassuming.
Rating:
Summary: The soft edge: Paul Levinson's highly biased manifesto
Review: Levinson's valient attempt to transcend current systems of thought and look at the history of media from a unbiased view, failed miserably. When not referencing himself, he unsuccessfully used Darwin's theory of evolution as an analogy, taking the focus away from the points he was trying to make and confusing the ones which worked. He would have fared a lot better if he had ignored trying to make the evolution analogy fit and focused more on the details (which were severely lacking). He digressed in order to push his own theories (monotheism resulting from the inception of the alphabet) and when he was not busy with that, he utterly simplified historical events (the printed word causing the Scientific Revolution) for reasons unknown. He studied the progression of media through the eyes of someone who has benefited from it, rather than approaching the topic objectively. I was extremely bothered by his subjectivity since the book was touted as a thorough study of media rather than the Levinson Manifesto. He covered only the basic historical facts in addition to the random conjecture about the future of media, rather than removing himself one step and looking at gender issues associated with technology and other more philosophical points. There were a few decent nuggets of information and ideas, but they were overshadowed by the lack of writing skill (or a good editor) and subjective, self-promoting proselytizing. All-in-all, one of the worst books I have read in a long time.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting questions
Review: Paul Levinson asks interesting questions about the history and future of media. Examples include: Was the invention of alphabetic writing necessary before an abstract religion of monotheism could take root? Was a printing press needed to make public education economical? Why did radio (sound with images) survive TV, while silent movies were obliterated by movies with sound? The most powerful leaders in this century were Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt. Was it a coincidence that they came to power in the age of radio? As other amazon reviewers have noted, Levinson's analysis of the future seems less compelling. For me, part of the problem is that he seems to be unaware of some previous writing on critical topics. For example, Levinson's discussion of intellectual property and ownership could have benefitied from familiarity with Brad Cox's work on Superdistribution or Varian and Shapiro's book "Information Rules." And the issue of artificial life is discussed more fully in the book with that title by Steven Levy. Overall, I think this book provides a solid background in media for a course on the Internet.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting questions
Review: Paul Levinson asks interesting questions about the history and future of media. Examples include: Was the invention of alphabetic writing necessary before an abstract religion of monotheism could take root? Was a printing press needed to make public education economical? Why did radio (sound with images) survive TV, while silent movies were obliterated by movies with sound? The most powerful leaders in this century were Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt. Was it a coincidence that they came to power in the age of radio? As other amazon reviewers have noted, Levinson's analysis of the future seems less compelling. For me, part of the problem is that he seems to be unaware of some previous writing on critical topics. For example, Levinson's discussion of intellectual property and ownership could have benefitied from familiarity with Brad Cox's work on Superdistribution or Varian and Shapiro's book "Information Rules." And the issue of artificial life is discussed more fully in the book with that title by Steven Levy. Overall, I think this book provides a solid background in media for a course on the Internet.
Rating: 
Summary: Good history - medicore analysis - weak conclusion
Review: This book asks many interesting questions about the history and future of media. Examples include: 1. Why did the sight-only medium of silent movies get wiped out completely by "talkies" while the sound-only medium of radio survived television? 2. The most powerful leaders of the past 150 years were Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, and Stalin. Was this power due to the nature of radio as a medium, and the fact that radio flowered when they were prominent? 3. Is centralized authority in media necessary (because people need "gatekeepers" to filter information for them) or a result of the economics of mass media (the high cost of sending radio signals compared to the low cost of receiving them)? 4. Does information want to be free? Levinson's answers are not always as good as his questions. His explanation for the survival of radio (as a medium you can use while doing something else) was persuasive. His view that the leaders of WWII drew their power from radio was less compelling. Levinson's view of the decentralization effects of computers is valid. The opposite view, which is widely held, is a serious misconception. Otherwise, when discussing the future, Levinson is disappointing. He says less than what can be found in other work that predates his book. The issue of the future of paper is discussed better in some of George Gilder's articles in Forbes ASAP, going back to 1994. The issue of how to pay for information is discussed better in Brad Cox's work on what he calls "superdistribution." The issue of the status of artificial life is discussed better in Steven Levy's book on that subject. If I were teaching a course on the Internet, I would include "The Soft Edge" as background reading early in the course. It would help students start to think about the evolution of media.
Rating:
Summary: Great questions, uneven answers
Review: This book asks many interesting questions about the history and future of media. Examples include: 1. Why did the sight-only medium of silent movies get wiped out completely by "talkies" while the sound-only medium of radio survived television? 2. The most powerful leaders of the past 150 years were Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, and Stalin. Was this power due to the nature of radio as a medium, and the fact that radio flowered when they were prominent? 3. Is centralized authority in media necessary (because people need "gatekeepers" to filter information for them) or a result of the economics of mass media (the high cost of sending radio signals compared to the low cost of receiving them)? 4. Does information want to be free? Levinson's answers are not always as good as his questions. His explanation for the survival of radio (as a medium you can use while doing something else) was persuasive. His view that the leaders of WWII drew their power from radio was less compelling. Levinson's view of the decentralization effects of computers is valid. The opposite view, which is widely held, is a serious misconception. Otherwise, when discussing the future, Levinson is disappointing. He says less than what can be found in other work that predates his book. The issue of the future of paper is discussed better in some of George Gilder's articles in Forbes ASAP, going back to 1994. The issue of how to pay for information is discussed better in Brad Cox's work on what he calls "superdistribution." The issue of the status of artificial life is discussed better in Steven Levy's book on that subject. If I were teaching a course on the Internet, I would include "The Soft Edge" as background reading early in the course. It would help students start to think about the evolution of media.
Rating:
Summary: Ellul, Postman et al Refuted
Review: This book is a reply to the technological pessimists such as Ellul and Postman who see technology as dehumanizing. Levinson convincingly argues that technology is not dehumanizing in itself and indeed succeeds in establishing itself when it is matched to human forms of activities. The title 'Soft Edge' is a comment on the ideas of technological determinism. Hard determinism is the view that technology contains within itself the means to dictate how it will be sued in society. Soft determinism is the view that technology can only influence the direction of how it will be used. Levinson seems to go even further by arguing that technology and human society co-evolve and that technology that is not amenable to successful human use will be eliminated. Successful technology is absorbed into the human fabric and new technology demonstrates its fitness in the natural selection process of this co-evolution by demonstrating its fitness to serve human needs. Levinson clearly points out that this co-evolution does not necessarily have beneficial ends. It opens possibilities whereby both human good and human evil can flourish. It is a human choice as to which one - good or evil - will predominate. Levinson shows how the power of radio to create close personal contact benefited both the evil of Hitler and the virtue of Roosevelt. Each in their own way touched the feelings of their populations personally. Radio, in part, created the conditions whereby politicians of their respective sorts could lead. It was human choice and not technological determinism that allowed each to flourish. This book contains important ideas that do much to refute the popular pessimism of the current day. It is well worth reading. However the style in which the book is written makes this a tedious exercise. It is difficult to follow the argument due to the incessant asides with only partially pertinent observations. It appears that instead of using footnotes, Levinson strung supporting observations and references in line in the text. The main argument is obscured when it is broken up constantly with pages of observations that only marginally illustrate it. It is even worse when there is obvious carelessness in the presentations of the supporting commentaries and when obvious errors are made that hinder significantly its credibility. Special relativity is used as an example of the use of non-Euclidean geometry. Alexander Graham Bell is stated to have developed the telephone in one passage as part of a search for a hearing aid for his wife and correctly in another as an attempt to develop a harmonic telegraph. The explorer Jacques Cartier is misnamed Jean Cartier. This book needed a good editor. However in one of his innumerable asides, Levinson gives a lengthy account of the reason that he does not overly revise his work. He should change his mind on that. Despite these flaws this is a good book with important ideas that bears close reading. I recommend it.
<< 1 >>
| 
