"By encouraging youths to spend less than 3 hours 13er
day watching television, parents, teachers, and health care professionals may be able to help reduce the likelihood that at-risk adolescents will develop persistent attention and learning difficulties," Dr.
Elsewhere: "You just have to imagine"--do we really?--"a TV-glued 13er audience nodding in response to Jay Leno's line about why teenagers eat Doritos Tortilla Chips: |Hey kids!
Luckily, Howe and Strauss allowed a younger writer, Ian Williams, to "crash" the book to offer a 13er perspective.
It clangs like a bungled ad line, and there's nothing we "13ers" hate more than bad marketing, you know.
After showing how 13ers have rejected the Boomer sixties esthetic, Howe and Strauss note that "like tie-dyed Marlena Baxter, making a living selling falafel to Grateful Deadheads, or like bell-bottomed Olivia D'Abo, cast as a hippieish girl in The Wonder Years, 13ers know how to present a Boomerish front when it works to their advantage." Here's how: "They just rent Easy Rider and Hair videos, and hey, no problem." Virtually any statement by a twentysomething seems sufficient to make a sweeping generalization: "Like the young New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan, [13ers] consider themselves |post-ideological.'" We do?
The internal gaps between "13ers" are deep and not easily resolved by appealing to a common popular culture, which is itself becoming fractured.
The authors contend that as a result, 13ers no longer view their work lives as an opportunity to "find a higher calling," but rather as "a means of survival, as an opportunity to prosper, as something that doesn't mean anything but just has to get done if anybody's going to get paid." I can't prove them wrong on this point, but it seems reductionist, both in terms of our generation's cynicism and the older generation's supposed lack of concern for the bottom line.