What do you think?
Rate this book
Why We Love Sociopaths: A Guide To Late Capitalist Television
Sociopaths are pervasive in contemporary television, from high-brow drama all the way down to cartoons -- and of course the news as well. From the scheming Eric Cartman of South Parkto the seductive imposter Don Draper of Mad Men, cold and ruthless characters captivate us, making us wish that we could be so effective and successful. Yet why should we admire characters who get ahead by being amoral and uncaring? In his follow-up to Awkwardness, Adam Kotsko argues that the popularity of the ruthless sociopath reflects our dissatisfaction with a failed social contract, showing that we believe that the world rewards the evil and uncaring rather than the good. By analyzing characters like the serial killer star of Dexter and the cynical Dr. House, Kotsko shows that the fantasy of the sociopath distracts us from our real problems -- but that we still might benefit from being a little more sociopathic.
107 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2012
11 people are currently reading
769 people want to read
About the author
Adam Kotsko
29 books75 followers
Adam Kotsko
(b. 1980) is an American writer on theology, philosophy and popular culture, also known for his contributions to the blogosphere. His printed works include Why We Love Sociopaths (2012), Awkwardness (2010), and the authoritative Žižek and Theology (2008). Kotsko joined the faculty of Shimer College in Chicago in 2011, teaching the humanities component of Shimer's Great Books curriculum. Kotsko earned his BA at Olivet Nazarene University, and his MA and Ph.D. at the Chicago Theological Seminary. (from Shimer College Wiki)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
January 1, 2018
The general idea behind this book: TV sociopaths have become very popular due to our belief that people who are ruthless and don’t give a fuck about others are more likely to be successful.
The fantasy sociopath has little to no sympathy for other people, is amoral, a master manipulator and social climber.
Sociopathic characters represent the fantasy “If I didn’t care about other people I would be successful and powerful”
Some of the TV shows mentioned: House, Dexter, Mad Men, The Sopranos, 24, South Park, The Wire, Breaking Bad.
The popularity of this trope “reflects the widespread perception that contemporary society is alienating and unjust, led by self-aggrandizing elites interested in (and competent at) little more than perpetuating their own power. As a cultural diagnosis, this seems to me to be a good first approximation. Even if there are pockets of hope, late capitalist society is disturbingly destructive and amoral, demanding ever more of the many while enriching the few.”
The fantasy sociopath has little to no sympathy for other people, is amoral, a master manipulator and social climber.
Sociopathic characters represent the fantasy “If I didn’t care about other people I would be successful and powerful”
Some of the TV shows mentioned: House, Dexter, Mad Men, The Sopranos, 24, South Park, The Wire, Breaking Bad.
The popularity of this trope “reflects the widespread perception that contemporary society is alienating and unjust, led by self-aggrandizing elites interested in (and competent at) little more than perpetuating their own power. As a cultural diagnosis, this seems to me to be a good first approximation. Even if there are pockets of hope, late capitalist society is disturbingly destructive and amoral, demanding ever more of the many while enriching the few.”
August 20, 2012
Entertaining read. If only Sherlock was included though.
June 22, 2025
Sharp little book. I really enjoyed reading it, especially since I'm actively watching (House) or recently finished (Mad Men) some of the shows he focuses on. Some of the other TV shows mentioned: House, Dexter, Mad Men, The Sopranos, 24, South Park, The Wire, Breaking Bad. So it would only be meaningful to you if you understand the references. I particularly appreciated him laying out his basic premise at the beginning: "The sociopaths we watch on TV allow us to indulge in a kind of thought experiment, based on the question: 'What if I really and truly did not give a fuck about anyone?' And the answer they provide? 'Then I would be powerful and free'"
In the segment of "global population" but really the Americanised population that consumes pop culture entertainment, there's more than a few privately or unconsciously thinking that when they watch Tony Soprano or Don Draper. In an age when many of us feel set adrift, impotent, and totally vulnerable to our employers and landlords, it makes sense that we might fantasize about being ruthless and uncaring (and consequently successful and powerful) like those people we imagine in the ruling class. It's an emancipatory and fascinating take on popular culture, the brokenness of society which is both its own weakness and strength, and sociopathy as the ultimate capitalist attitude but also the only thing about it worth saving. He may have gone a little overboard with the examples, though. The redundancy and unstructured analysis of most shows and points may have sacrificed the more abstract and substantial part of this potentially piercing insight. Still, recommended for anyone interested in a deeper analysis of pop culture shows than the surfacial generic reviews of NYT. Ending with a gem of a quote that applies really well to leftists:
“That is the great danger of meritocracy: the people who reach the top of the system are precisely the people who have most completely identified with the system and its demands, creating a vicious circle preventing any actual change. It is no accident that conservatives tend to employ the rhetoric of social mobility so readily, as social climbers generally do not ask questions about the ladder.”
In the segment of "global population" but really the Americanised population that consumes pop culture entertainment, there's more than a few privately or unconsciously thinking that when they watch Tony Soprano or Don Draper. In an age when many of us feel set adrift, impotent, and totally vulnerable to our employers and landlords, it makes sense that we might fantasize about being ruthless and uncaring (and consequently successful and powerful) like those people we imagine in the ruling class. It's an emancipatory and fascinating take on popular culture, the brokenness of society which is both its own weakness and strength, and sociopathy as the ultimate capitalist attitude but also the only thing about it worth saving. He may have gone a little overboard with the examples, though. The redundancy and unstructured analysis of most shows and points may have sacrificed the more abstract and substantial part of this potentially piercing insight. Still, recommended for anyone interested in a deeper analysis of pop culture shows than the surfacial generic reviews of NYT. Ending with a gem of a quote that applies really well to leftists:
“That is the great danger of meritocracy: the people who reach the top of the system are precisely the people who have most completely identified with the system and its demands, creating a vicious circle preventing any actual change. It is no accident that conservatives tend to employ the rhetoric of social mobility so readily, as social climbers generally do not ask questions about the ladder.”
October 14, 2018
Talks about the two modes of modern television being awkwardness and its dramatic opposite, sociopathy. Awkwardness is a "particularly powerful social experience, in which we feel the presence of others much more acutely" which is even capable of spreading, and whose function it is to enforce or point out the lack of social norms. Sociopathy is the opposite, where a person is unable to feel the breach or lack of social norms, and the fantastical television versions of sociopaths are able to harness this to their advantage and our enjoyment.
The author talks about three kinds of fantasy sociopaths:
1. The Schemers. Adult children and childlike adults who are able to ruthlessly pursue their goals of relative advantage (think: screwing someone over), and feel an intense yet innocent enjoyment either in the scheming itself or in their occasional success. However, they are shortsighted and incapable of effecting real change. Examples: Homer Simpson, Eric Cartman, Archer, the casts of Seinfeld and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
2. The Climbers. Schemers who have achieved the ability to rationalize, and thus manipulate the people around them. Though "they succeed to some degree in escaping from the constraints of their immediate social settings, they can only do so by following the impersonal dictates of social expectations" and thus are unable to experience the pure joy of the Schemers as they find themselves trapped in their new social settings. Examples: reality show contestants, Sarah Palin, Tony Soprano, Mad Men's Don Draper and Peggy Olsen, The Wire's Stringer Bell.
3. The Enforcers. Mostly dirty cops who break the law to pursue what they think are their own goals, and who try to live by what they see as their own social codes. They're 'dedicated to a goal more important than ordinary life'. For the dirty cops, they see themselves as existing above a corrupt society, but end up radically reinforcing it. They're ultimately reactionaries who can't actually create new moralities or live by their own social codes. What are cops, after all, if not violent upholders of the status quo? Some Enforcers are able to pursue worthy goals that offer fulfilment, but at the cost of the happiness of an ordinary life. Examples: The Wire's McNulty, 24's Jack Bauer. He also looks at House and Dexter as examples of possibly something new, but concludes they're ultimately just versions of the Enforcers mixed with some elements of the Schemers or Climbers, respectively.
Added to all this is a Freudian oedipus metaphor, where the Schemers are children obsessed with their mothers or at least resentful of their fathers, the Climbers have made peace with or are trying to emulate their father figures, and the Enforces are themselves father figures.
Finally, the book takes a stab at how drama will break out of this pattern, suggesting the creation of a new, more radically sociopathic figure who:
It's a clever argument that I enjoyed, but some of his examples fall apart on closer inspection. And his whole thing about social versus anti-social behaviour gets convoluted (he considers sociopaths to not be anti-social because they see their families and institutions as extensions of themselves, unless they lash out at these groups, in which case the sociopaths are anti-social again. And our prevailing social order is 'profoundly anti-social'. Fair enough. But then building a new social order is also anti-social?).
Oh and btw the answer to the book's title is that
The author talks about three kinds of fantasy sociopaths:
1. The Schemers. Adult children and childlike adults who are able to ruthlessly pursue their goals of relative advantage (think: screwing someone over), and feel an intense yet innocent enjoyment either in the scheming itself or in their occasional success. However, they are shortsighted and incapable of effecting real change. Examples: Homer Simpson, Eric Cartman, Archer, the casts of Seinfeld and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
2. The Climbers. Schemers who have achieved the ability to rationalize, and thus manipulate the people around them. Though "they succeed to some degree in escaping from the constraints of their immediate social settings, they can only do so by following the impersonal dictates of social expectations" and thus are unable to experience the pure joy of the Schemers as they find themselves trapped in their new social settings. Examples: reality show contestants, Sarah Palin, Tony Soprano, Mad Men's Don Draper and Peggy Olsen, The Wire's Stringer Bell.
3. The Enforcers. Mostly dirty cops who break the law to pursue what they think are their own goals, and who try to live by what they see as their own social codes. They're 'dedicated to a goal more important than ordinary life'. For the dirty cops, they see themselves as existing above a corrupt society, but end up radically reinforcing it. They're ultimately reactionaries who can't actually create new moralities or live by their own social codes. What are cops, after all, if not violent upholders of the status quo? Some Enforcers are able to pursue worthy goals that offer fulfilment, but at the cost of the happiness of an ordinary life. Examples: The Wire's McNulty, 24's Jack Bauer. He also looks at House and Dexter as examples of possibly something new, but concludes they're ultimately just versions of the Enforcers mixed with some elements of the Schemers or Climbers, respectively.
Added to all this is a Freudian oedipus metaphor, where the Schemers are children obsessed with their mothers or at least resentful of their fathers, the Climbers have made peace with or are trying to emulate their father figures, and the Enforces are themselves father figures.
Finally, the book takes a stab at how drama will break out of this pattern, suggesting the creation of a new, more radically sociopathic figure who:
combines the joy of the schemer and the single-mindedness of the enforcer with the creativity, persuasiveness, and unsentimental outlook of the climber. Such sociopaths could use the norms of our present social order without being bound by them and could form relationships based on enjoyment and the desire to know the other person rather than out of sentiment and obligation. I would even dare to say that radical sociopaths of this type could very well be the ones to invent a “better game” than the stultifying game of chess adult life under late capitalism has become, drawing people in through the persuasiveness of their very way of being in the world—and that’s because it seems to me that many of the great cultural innovators, such as Jesus, Buddha, or Socrates, have been sociopathic in just the sense I’m describing.
It's a clever argument that I enjoyed, but some of his examples fall apart on closer inspection. And his whole thing about social versus anti-social behaviour gets convoluted (he considers sociopaths to not be anti-social because they see their families and institutions as extensions of themselves, unless they lash out at these groups, in which case the sociopaths are anti-social again. And our prevailing social order is 'profoundly anti-social'. Fair enough. But then building a new social order is also anti-social?).
Oh and btw the answer to the book's title is that
May 26, 2020
Interesting little book, though a bit repetitive near the end. The (quite psychoanalytical) main these of the author is that we admire sociopathic TV characters because they seem to have an answer to the all-surrounding awkwardness (defined as a feeling of a lack of adequate responses in the realm of the social) of our times, i.e. ruthlessly pursuing their goals without regard for other people's emotions. Next he makes a threefold typology of characters: the schemer (Cartman,Homer, Peter Griffin), the climber (Don Draper) and the enforcer (McNulty, Jack Bauer). He sees House and Dexter as the apex of the unlikeable TV-character, in that they don't even respect the system they work for anymore, but purely focus on self-centered goals (this might be true for Cartman and Homer too, but their low status makes their social mobility low, much like a child's). In the end the author (very briefly) looks for the possibility of more adequate strategies in dealing with today's awkwardness.
October 9, 2012
Homer Simpson, Jack Bauer, Eric Cartman, Tony Soprano, Dexter, House M.D., Stringer Bell, Don Draper are just some of the charismatic stars of the best loved television shows in the modern era. In this slim but intriguing volume, Kotsko considers the reasons behind why these characters are 'sociopaths' and why this makes them such beloved stars of modern television. He considers their different natures and motivations, and comes to conclusions on how their 'success' reflects on the inadequacies of our society. Even if you are not in agreement with his conclusions,(I thought some of the arguments lacked clarity) this is still a highly enjoyable analysis of some of my favourite TV shows!
i-want-money
December 4, 2016Wherein Kotsko predicts 8/11.
to-keep-reference
August 25, 2017Adam Kotsko exploró hace poco toda una panoplia de tales «sociópatas a los que amamos»: mafiosos como Tony Soprano, asesinos en serie como Dexter, agentes antiterroristas torturadores como Jack Bauer, incluso primitivos padres disfuncionales como Homer Simpson. Lo que une a todos estos personajes es que, por la razón que sea (desde la simple satisfacción subjetiva o el deseo de beneficios materiales, hasta proteger el tejido básico de nuestra sociedad) son capaces, sin dudas morales, de suspender las reglas básicas de la empatía y decencia humanas: engañando sin límites, asesinando, torturando, manipulando, humillando, etcétera, a sus prójimos. ¿Cómo interpretar esta extraña fascinación? La respuesta obvia debería ser leerla como un índice del fracaso del vínculo social que mantiene unida nuestra sociedad: esta sociedad obviamente necesita sociópatas para funcionar «normalmente»; solo ellos pueden salvarla, es decir, las reglas de la sociedad deben romperse en nombre de la sociedad misma. Pero el perspicaz análisis de Kotsko da un paso crucial: el problema con estos sociópatas es que no son lo suficientemente sociopáticos; todavía necesitan a la sociedad, y a su propia manera la sirven. En otras palabras, lo que Lacan llama el «gran Otro» sigue operativo, determinando los objetivos que motivan a nuestros héroes sociopáticos (éxito social, riqueza, justicia, salud pública), y también asimila fácilmente los efectos de sus acciones (House y Bauer en realidad salvan muchas vidas, etcétera). Desde la comprensión dialéctica de este punto, Kotsko delinea la idea del sociópata auténtico como un revolucionario social que efectivamente pone en cuestión las coordenadas básicas del gran Otro de la sociedad. Kotsko identifica las características de cada tipo de sociópata: los «planificadores» muestran una suerte de deleite inocente e infantil en sus complots para molestar a sus amigos; los «trepas» muestran una creatividad y disposición excepcionales a la hora de correr riesgos en la persecución despiadada de sus objetivos, los «justicieros» (McNulty, Bauer) están enteramente dedicados a alcanzar un objetivo más importante que su vida cotidiana y la búsqueda de la felicidad. ¿No proporciona la combinación de estas tres características el modelo perfecto de un auténtico revolucionario? Está dispuesto a entregar su vida por la causa; aporta a ella creatividad y una disposición a correr todo tipo de riesgos, y en último lugar pero no menos importante, experimenta un deleite inocente en su actividad, libre de todo rastro de masoquismo sacrificial.
El año que soñamos peligrosamente Pág.128-129
El año que soñamos peligrosamente Pág.128-129
January 20, 2025
I wonder if this wouldn't have been better as a long-form video essay.
There are some great interpretations of visual media but by nature of its written format so much is taken up in plot summaries that you can't help but skim over—which in a book as short as this one says a lot.
There are some great interpretations of visual media but by nature of its written format so much is taken up in plot summaries that you can't help but skim over—which in a book as short as this one says a lot.
January 10, 2021
This is an interesting and fun read. It is not unnecessarily convoluted and inaccessible like a surprising number of books about film and TV are. It gives a general overview of the various kinds of sociopathic characters present in modern American TV.
Kotsko presents these characters as forms of the "fantasy sociopath". So, their characteristics and actions are not necessarily based on those who could actually be described as sociopathic in "real life" (although I've read elsewhere that people are not diagnosed as sociopaths, but rather, people with "antisocial personality disorder"). However, the social and political prejudices and pressures of "real" American society are reflected in these TV shows, and so the characters are naturally borne out of a potential human response, however extreme, to "realistic" circumstances. In that vein, I feel that Kotsko fails to address two key points: how race interacts with sociopathy, fantastical or real, and how gender does, too.
Most American TV shows are about white people, so it may appear natural that there are more white sociopathic characters than BIPOC ones. Beyond this, though, one of the ostensible mainstays of sociopathy, according to Kotsko, is an abnormal, almost ruthless level of self-interest. Insofar as whiteness is inextricably linked both to self-interest and to self-entitlement, I found it limiting that Kotsko did not acknowledge the way that the majority of the relevant characters' experiences with whiteness inevitably interacted with and possibly exacerbated their sociopathic thoughts and behaviours (I say the majority as the protagonist of The Wire, Stringer Bell, is included).
On top of this, most of the sociopathic characters mentioned in the book are men, just as most of the sociopathic characters in American TV are men. Kotsko acknowledges that women are less likely to be presented as sociopaths in TV because they are largely limited to being mother or lover figures. However, he does not acknowledge that there could be more to the story than this... I'm not a psychologist, and neither is Kotsko, but I'm inclined to ask - are there more male sociopaths than female ones? If so, why is this? Could it also be linked to the self-entitlement that comes with growing up as a boy/man in American society? Of course, this could be untrue, but I believe it is not unfounded. Even if we are purely sticking to the world of "fantasy sociopaths", the psychology behind these characters is based in "reality" closely enough to ask these questions of fictional characters as well as real people.
Kotsko aims to address how late-stage capitalism has produced these narcissistic characters. Discussions about late-stage capitalism cannot be separated from discussions about race, and also, discussions about gender. Again, Kotsko briefly addresses these two things, but in my opinion, he does not do so in enough depth. Still, it's a short read, presumably deliberately so, and for a short read, it's entertaining and engaging throughout. Perhaps exploring these things would turn it into an entirely different project - but there would have been no harm in acknowledging them, and raising questions.
Kotsko presents these characters as forms of the "fantasy sociopath". So, their characteristics and actions are not necessarily based on those who could actually be described as sociopathic in "real life" (although I've read elsewhere that people are not diagnosed as sociopaths, but rather, people with "antisocial personality disorder"). However, the social and political prejudices and pressures of "real" American society are reflected in these TV shows, and so the characters are naturally borne out of a potential human response, however extreme, to "realistic" circumstances. In that vein, I feel that Kotsko fails to address two key points: how race interacts with sociopathy, fantastical or real, and how gender does, too.
Most American TV shows are about white people, so it may appear natural that there are more white sociopathic characters than BIPOC ones. Beyond this, though, one of the ostensible mainstays of sociopathy, according to Kotsko, is an abnormal, almost ruthless level of self-interest. Insofar as whiteness is inextricably linked both to self-interest and to self-entitlement, I found it limiting that Kotsko did not acknowledge the way that the majority of the relevant characters' experiences with whiteness inevitably interacted with and possibly exacerbated their sociopathic thoughts and behaviours (I say the majority as the protagonist of The Wire, Stringer Bell, is included).
On top of this, most of the sociopathic characters mentioned in the book are men, just as most of the sociopathic characters in American TV are men. Kotsko acknowledges that women are less likely to be presented as sociopaths in TV because they are largely limited to being mother or lover figures. However, he does not acknowledge that there could be more to the story than this... I'm not a psychologist, and neither is Kotsko, but I'm inclined to ask - are there more male sociopaths than female ones? If so, why is this? Could it also be linked to the self-entitlement that comes with growing up as a boy/man in American society? Of course, this could be untrue, but I believe it is not unfounded. Even if we are purely sticking to the world of "fantasy sociopaths", the psychology behind these characters is based in "reality" closely enough to ask these questions of fictional characters as well as real people.
Kotsko aims to address how late-stage capitalism has produced these narcissistic characters. Discussions about late-stage capitalism cannot be separated from discussions about race, and also, discussions about gender. Again, Kotsko briefly addresses these two things, but in my opinion, he does not do so in enough depth. Still, it's a short read, presumably deliberately so, and for a short read, it's entertaining and engaging throughout. Perhaps exploring these things would turn it into an entirely different project - but there would have been no harm in acknowledging them, and raising questions.
December 26, 2016
My usual response to a title that starts with "Why We Love..." is immediate contempt and disdain. You'll see similar headings online and I suppose they drag in people who want to be like everyone else, or who do fit a stereotype, and a big problem with this is that "everyone" doesn't like the same thing, which should be fairly obvious actually, but maybe I'm the odd man out. Anyway, the price was right and I wanted to learn about sociopaths.
A complicating factor in this is the subtext of "late capitalist television" which meant that I would have no real reference point to the examples, never having seen the Sopranos, Wired, Mad Men, Dexter, South Park, The Simpsons and the like, although I did know the names of a couple of characters. Ultimately, this meant that the examples given became lost on me and so I couldn't give it a higher rating. If you've watched this stuff it will be an advantage
Adam Kotsko starts off talking about awkwardness, the subject of a previous book, which is a really interesting social interpretation and suggests that in our currently broken society wanting to be a sociopath, or at least watching people act out particular versions of psychopathy is a kind of reverse awkwardness in that a sociopath doesn't care for the rules of society. The sociopath, following Freud apparently, is child-like emotionally, and there are various kinds of psychopath in schemers, climbers and enforcers. The TV shows provide examples.
Amusingly, Kotsko points out that the people who watch most of this stuff are by no means the universal "we" commenting that viewers attest to the authenticity of Wired, set in Baltimore, without having any experience or idea of either the city or the context of the show. This brings to mind something that apparently the academic and tv presenter Mary Beard was taken to task by someone regarding the authenticity of an aspect of her historical presentation, for which his reference was the film Gladiator. There are people in Australia who appear unaware that US law differs from Australian law in a number of respects, sometimes markedly.
One of the things that cam to mind whilst reading this book was that an explanation for the liking of sociopaths can be found in cultural history – for instance Boxing Day and the Lord of Misrule, or even Barbara Ehrehreich's Dancing in the Streets, and there's a lot of myth and legend that can indicate this. Of course, one can elect a sociopath in the hope/expectation that the broken society can be fixed by someone acting outside the rules, but that's another thought altogether.
A complicating factor in this is the subtext of "late capitalist television" which meant that I would have no real reference point to the examples, never having seen the Sopranos, Wired, Mad Men, Dexter, South Park, The Simpsons and the like, although I did know the names of a couple of characters. Ultimately, this meant that the examples given became lost on me and so I couldn't give it a higher rating. If you've watched this stuff it will be an advantage
Adam Kotsko starts off talking about awkwardness, the subject of a previous book, which is a really interesting social interpretation and suggests that in our currently broken society wanting to be a sociopath, or at least watching people act out particular versions of psychopathy is a kind of reverse awkwardness in that a sociopath doesn't care for the rules of society. The sociopath, following Freud apparently, is child-like emotionally, and there are various kinds of psychopath in schemers, climbers and enforcers. The TV shows provide examples.
Amusingly, Kotsko points out that the people who watch most of this stuff are by no means the universal "we" commenting that viewers attest to the authenticity of Wired, set in Baltimore, without having any experience or idea of either the city or the context of the show. This brings to mind something that apparently the academic and tv presenter Mary Beard was taken to task by someone regarding the authenticity of an aspect of her historical presentation, for which his reference was the film Gladiator. There are people in Australia who appear unaware that US law differs from Australian law in a number of respects, sometimes markedly.
One of the things that cam to mind whilst reading this book was that an explanation for the liking of sociopaths can be found in cultural history – for instance Boxing Day and the Lord of Misrule, or even Barbara Ehrehreich's Dancing in the Streets, and there's a lot of myth and legend that can indicate this. Of course, one can elect a sociopath in the hope/expectation that the broken society can be fixed by someone acting outside the rules, but that's another thought altogether.
July 9, 2014
"The path of my analysis, then, will move from the bottom-feeding schemer to the self-seeking climber and all the way up to the self-sacrificing enforcer—and perhaps also beyond, to an even more radically sociopathic form of sociopathy. In conclusion, I will ask what all of these characters may be able to teach us about how to actualize the hope at the heart of our sociopathic fantasies: the hope that we, too, might have sociopathy, and have it more abundantly." (pp.17)
A light and mildly entertaining read, Kotsko's humor is one that I can particularly appreciate because of his awkward wit. It's an emancipatory and fascinating take on popular culture, the brokenness of society which is both its own weakness and strength, and sociopathy as the ultimate capitalist attitude but also the only thing about it worth saving.
He may have gone a little overboard with the examples, though. The redundancy and unstructured analysis of most shows and points may have sacrificed the more abstract and substantial part of this potentially piercing insight.
3.5/5
A light and mildly entertaining read, Kotsko's humor is one that I can particularly appreciate because of his awkward wit. It's an emancipatory and fascinating take on popular culture, the brokenness of society which is both its own weakness and strength, and sociopathy as the ultimate capitalist attitude but also the only thing about it worth saving.
He may have gone a little overboard with the examples, though. The redundancy and unstructured analysis of most shows and points may have sacrificed the more abstract and substantial part of this potentially piercing insight.
3.5/5
September 25, 2016
This book investigates why people love TV sociopaths, and the different types portrayed (schemers, climbers, and enforcers). I recognise now that I am not a fan of TV sociopaths, since I have never (or barely) watched most of the shows used to illustrate the different types, e.g. The Sopranos, The Wire, Mad Men, South Park, Archer, Dexter, 24, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Breaking Bad, and Weeds...
Although I know the basic plot and characters for most of these shows, the examples assume a much higher level of knowledge, particularly related to The Wire. This made the book very boring and hard to follow. There were a few interesting mentions of The Simpsons, House, Family Guy, 30 Rock, and Seinfeld, but I didn't get much out of this book other than a greater understanding of why I avoid current shows like House of Cards and Game of Thrones.
Although I know the basic plot and characters for most of these shows, the examples assume a much higher level of knowledge, particularly related to The Wire. This made the book very boring and hard to follow. There were a few interesting mentions of The Simpsons, House, Family Guy, 30 Rock, and Seinfeld, but I didn't get much out of this book other than a greater understanding of why I avoid current shows like House of Cards and Game of Thrones.
May 3, 2020
Great little book. I really enjoyed it, especially since I'm actively watching (Mad Men) or recently finished (Sopranos & Breaking Bad) some of the shows he focuses on.
I particularly appreciated him laying out his basic thesis at the beginning:
"The sociopaths we watch on TV allow us to indulge in a kind of thought experiment, based on the question: 'What if I really and truly did not give a fuck about anyone?' And the answer they provide? 'Then I would be powerful and free'" (page 4).
Truth be told, there's more than a few of us privately or unconsciously thinking that when we watch Tony Soprano or Don Draper. In an age when many of us feel set adrift, impotent, and totally vulnerable to our employers and landlords, it makes sense that we might fantasize about being ruthless and uncaring (and consequently successful and powerful) like those people we imagine in the ruling class.
I particularly appreciated him laying out his basic thesis at the beginning:
"The sociopaths we watch on TV allow us to indulge in a kind of thought experiment, based on the question: 'What if I really and truly did not give a fuck about anyone?' And the answer they provide? 'Then I would be powerful and free'" (page 4).
Truth be told, there's more than a few of us privately or unconsciously thinking that when we watch Tony Soprano or Don Draper. In an age when many of us feel set adrift, impotent, and totally vulnerable to our employers and landlords, it makes sense that we might fantasize about being ruthless and uncaring (and consequently successful and powerful) like those people we imagine in the ruling class.
July 2, 2012
Rooted somewhere in between mainstream criticism found in magazines like the New York Book Review and the high brow and reputedly inaccessible world of academia, this thought provoking book is an entertaining (and relatively quick) read for anyone who has ever reorganized their lives, even if just for an hour or two, so that they can watch (or catch up on) the Simpsons, South Park, House, Mad Men, 24, Dexter, or the Wire.
October 9, 2012
Kotsko's very sharp here. You needn't have seen the shows he discussed to chew on the food for thought he's provided. But if you've watched some subset of The Wire, Dexter, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, South Park, 24, Mad Men, and House you'll probably especially enjoy this work. Clocks in under 100 pages. Lots of good challenging thought for such a slim volume. Recommended! (You need not have read his previous book _Awkwardness_ but if you like this you'll like that too.)
August 9, 2017
Like! Interesting look at TV sociopaths and what it means to identify with or fantasize about them. I was enjoying TheLastPsychiatrist, but he doesn't post enough, so I asked my friend Brookes to recommend someone somewhat like that, and he recommended this (round about). Success. Also, if you don't read TheLastPsychiatrist.com you should, it's great. The person (guy?) is sometimes a crank, and sometimes unsavory, but always with the X-ray eyes.
July 3, 2022
This book catalogues the ascent of inhumanity in our current society. Fortunately, I guess, the only show I've seen of all the many written about is The Simpsons, because my younger daughter used to say, when she was about two or three: "Huwwy! Huwwy! Baht on!" But those were the earlier days. I didn't even know what happened to Ned Flanders' wife. The rest of the shows cited are part of popular culture that I haven't had the misfortune to see.
September 25, 2012
Really insightful book by Adam Kotsko analyzing western culture through the lens of modern television show like House, The Wire, MadMen, and the Simpsons. Smart, funny, and extremely well written. Perfect gift for someone who thinks philosophy is nothing more than empty speculation on abstract ideas. This book is thoroughly practical and understandable.
July 28, 2019
un interesante ejercicio de filosofía light e interpretación libérrima en pos de una tesis ingeniosa que en sus mejores momentos colinda con la subversión y en sus peores con la superación personal. como sea, la interpretación de cartman/homero y walter white/dexter bien valen la lectura por sí solas.
October 3, 2019
Groups a variety of anti-social characters from TV under the label of sociopathy. Unlike the previous book in the trilogy, this book sticks closer to its examples, fleshing them out in greater detail. The concluding remark on how Jesus, the Buddha and Socrates were sociopaths redeems a category that is too often relegated to the status of psychological complexity and "gritty realism."
July 12, 2014
A very interesting work that describes three classes of sociopath using examples from television to ask the question "why do we embrace sociopaths as heros?" Or at least, what do we gain or lose from the portrayal of sociopaths as heros. A fun and thought provoking read.
October 10, 2016
very good indeed. I would have absolutely loved this book, since it seems to be bang on target on so much. Sadly, I couldn't really follow it, since I don't watch TV, and this is a quite specific discussion of TV characters
December 3, 2020
I was surprised to read a film criticism analysis of the tv show South Park. The deconstruction of the characters were spot on and I felt like I needed to rewatch certain episodes to see the reflection of the sociopath.
Great, fun, and short read to popular media.
Great, fun, and short read to popular media.
August 25, 2013
review tba
March 13, 2015
In an awesome analysis of modern television, this small book shows how Capitalism tends to make the sociopathic figure thrive not only as an interesting ideal, but one to be emulated.
August 20, 2017
A book to pick up if you want to learn something new analyze your new knowledge.
Shows examples and shows leaders that are presently out leaders. A must read for new knowledge
Shows examples and shows leaders that are presently out leaders. A must read for new knowledge
April 6, 2019
Enjoyable jaunt into the proliferation of sociopathic tv characters post-9/11 and our interest in vigilantism, system defiance, and fantasy.
July 9, 2019
Great quick read for tv lovers and social thinkers.
February 26, 2023
Television sociopaths project a freedom modernity does not allow the rest of us. This is a false freedom, but, to the spectator, it is no less appealing. Tremendous.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews