TOW #7, Freakonomics 2nd Half

In the second half of Stephen J. Dubner and Steven B. Levitt's Freakonomics, the authors continue their pursuit of applying statistics and mathematical modeling techniques in novel ways to discover the surprising underpinnings of our society. While the variation among chapter topics continues, with the later chapters incorporating such topics as plummeting crime rates in major American cities, the impact of parent behavior on child success, and the science behind why parent's tend to give their children certain types of names over others (long vs. short, number of consonants, etc.) and what impact this has on children's likelihood to succeed. As I mentioned in my previous TOW post about this book, the authors collective purpose is a simple one: to provide the general public with a logical and surprising view of the world we (think) we know so well. In accomplishing this mission, the authors continue to weave elaborate and unexpected connections between aspects of the modern world that would appear unrelated at first glance.

In approaching a topic of such a blizzard nature, the authors make use of continually applied ethos, as an effective way to clarify to the audience that their initially far fetched claims are in fact, plausible. Both of the authors are accomplished in their field, with each holding a doctorate in economics, and one being a well-known author on similar topics. To effectively use these accreditations to their advantage, the authors make frequent direct and indirect allusions to past work of theirs, and experience in the educational aspects of their fields.

It can be assumed, based on the low technical level of the authors' writing, that this book was only intended to brief the general public on the novel applications of data analysis, and provide a conversational level of understanding to the reader. In this sense, the book wholly succeeds. This is the case because Freakonomics does a tremendous amount to both interest the reader in novel data analysis, and intrigue the reader with the larger social implications of data analysis. It does this through low-level data examination of intriguing, unusual examples, in such a way that manages to inform, and entertain the reader.

In concluding this imaginative, thought-provoking text, the authors provide a final insight that effectively leaves the reader with an idea to dwell on, until they inevitably pick up the book's sequel shortly after finishing it. On the book's final page, the authors consider the perceived cycle among wealthy parents to choose unique names for their children, leading to the popularity of these names, until they are passed down to the lower classes, and the cycle repeats itself. In examining this pattern, they conclude by asking the reader to perhaps consider which other cycle and patterns exist in our society that have yet to be discovered and analyzed properly. This is an effective way to conclude the book, as the reader will carry this question with them, and perhaps modify their behavior as a result. In this way, the book, and it's message, extend beyond the pages, and remain with the reader.

TOW #6, Analysis of Joshua Rothman's "What Gone Girl is Really About"

Earlier this week, an article appeared in the online edition of The New Yorker,  outlining one writer's views on the popularity, and the underlying message, of the most popular films of the fall. Gone Girl, a complex film with a deceptively simple premise, is the story of a man who's wife goes missing, and the events that occur as the search for her takes place over a number of months through the summer and fall of 2012.

As Rothman argues, however, the film intends to tell a story much darker, and much more thought-provoking than its premise would imply.  Written and directed by David Fincher, known for thematically heavy and complex films such as 1999's Fight Club and 2010's The Social Network,  Gone Girl is Fincher's latest attempt to showcase his view of modern society to the public through an engaging and intense narrative. In this case, the message that Fincher wishes to convey, in Rothman's view, is that one of the institutions of modern society that we cherish most is perhaps deeply flawed, and that once someone realizes that truth, life becomes a daily struggle against that part of society. If this message seems familiar, that's because it's nearly identical to the idea put forth in famous literary works like The Catcher in the Rye, and even in Fincher's own 1999 cult classic Fight Club. In that film, the part of modern society that Fincher was showing as broken was the media and advertising of modern society, which the film's characters come to view as fake, and promoting a destructive lifestyle. In Gone Girl, the same can be said for marriage. While these sorts of claims might seem too far-reaching, Rothman is credible to make them, simply because he has seen the film.

While The New Yorker's audience definitely leans to the left from a political standpoint, there is nothing particularly liberal about this article, which leads me to feel that the audience for this review is simply the general public. From the standpoint of context, the article was written simply because of the film's release and huge success at the box office.

Rothman has been noted for his ability to extract meaning where no one else is able to in his examinations of books and films, and this idea can definitely be seen in his critique of Gone Girl. Where other internet reviews focus on well-known parts of Fincher's cinematic work, like his use of certain kinds of filming techniques, or focus on how the film compares to the 2011 book, Rothman attempts to draw information about what lies below the surface of a film or book, and in this way he succeeds. Most of his review centers around Fincher's views on marriage in modern society, and how the film shows Fincher's belief that modern society makes it extremely challenging for marriages to be healthy and beneficial relationships. While it is important to understand what Rothman is saying, why he is saying it is equally important.

In so far as the why of this review is concerned, the answer is pretty straightforward. Rothman wrote this critique of Gone Girl because he wished to share his observations, thoughts, and feelings on the film with The New Yorker's audience. While one could also argue that he might want others to see the film because of his writing, his message centers only around his own feelings on the film, and doesn't deliver any sort of a final verdict in the way that most reviews do. In this way, he succeeds, simply because he does a wonderfully succinct and engaging job of relating his views on Gone Girl.