On pp 19-20, Johnson suggests that interfaces are the information revolution analog to Dickens novels during the industrial revolution, showing us the way, so to speak.
I think that's bogus. There are definately cultural and political biases in how we construct an interface, but an interface is generally agnostic. It is presenting information through a lens, but it is not presenting commentary on that information or illumination implications. It can show us things, but not comment on them. Writing, on the other hand, is almost entirely commentary, and I have a hard time believing that these two media serve the same purpose.
Generally I find the preface and the first chapter to be presumptuous and little else. Ironically, this is a presumptuous thing to say.