Literature is Dying, Literary Theory is the Cure.

You don't hear much about it any more, but people used to wonder--say five years ago--whether technology was destroying our ability to think critically. More recently, we might ask whether the novel is dead. The best-selling genres today are the relatively shallow story plots of "romance novels" and young adult fiction. Henry James would go unread today, because one does not simply read Henry James. One must re-read Henry James before he can be understood, and read a third time before we know why he wrote this. Modern readers are apt to miss the fact that The Great Gatsby is a homosexual novel because they read it too literally. (Some critics note that though Gatsby is in love with Daisy, Nick's infatuation with Gatsby borders on homoeroticism.) Biographer, writer, and teacher Emily Toth noted that students often ask if Robert  Lebrun in The Awakening is homosexual (because Edna asks her husband if Robert was "gay" when they met), and are confused whether Robert and Edna or Alcee and Edna "did it" because the answers are hidden in euphemisms. Literal reading makes Twain into a racist, and has led to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn's banning in schools (though it certainly isn't a book for children).


Comparing literature of last two centuries in America to modern successes is certainly discouraging to anyone who likes complexity to plots. Indeed, the age of complex story seems passed. The Hunger Games trilogy asks us only to consider that the world has gone insane and honors violence (which is what we do now, isn't it?). Though interesting, the three novels form a disconnect in plot. Katniss, who starts so promising, turns out to be a flat and emotionless character. Indeed, we often wonder why it takes so long for love to develop. The disjointed civil disobedience in the later books does not match the unaffective girl in the beginning.

In Twilight, we find similarly flat characters. The discovery that vampires glitter in the sun is pure artifice, and never seems to appear again. The author seems to want us to forget that the sun does shine even when the clouds are out. How would plants grow but vampires not glow?

Movie magic.

Studies show that visual skills have improved while critical thinking has declined. If this is true, it is instructive to look at the complexities of popular movies. Do people watch complex movies any longer, or are they out for a cheap (though consistently getting less cheap) thrill? 

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World is a highly complex story with much subplot. The viewer must carefully consider each character's actions as a part of the whole. Despite a rocky start due to casual, modern screen techniques (e.g. This is the End, Kickass, Earth to Echo), and a somewhat flat start to character arcs and dialog (e.g. Dan in Real Life, Her), the movie delivers. Main character Dodge's talk with his father is heavy with backstory and subplot (a writing teacher would say it is good showing with no telling). This movie made less than $10 million.

The Hunger Games series and the Twilight series have both been extremely successful. Combined, they have passed $2 billion dollars so far. This despite a main actress that could have been portrayed by a cardboard cutout and portrayed more emotion. There are also some unexplained plot holes or extraneous information. Why do vampires sparkle? Why, in thousands of years, has no one noticed? Why do they only sparkle on clear days; doesn't the sun actually come up every day? In the Hunger Games, we might ask why Katniss inspired anyone. Wasn't the resistance already underway? Why did they wait seventy-five years to do anything? Couldn't they have sabotaged the games earlier? These are all elements of subplot that never developed. Visually, these movies are well-done.

The Avengers: Age of Ultron and its predecessors are typical of super hero movies. Disney and Marvel (or should I just say Disney now?) has done an excellent job with this franchise. Rather than continually tack sequels on, they planned the sequels a decade in advance. This has led to a continuity of story line that is simply incredible. Viewers have responded by helping the newest installment pass $1 billion dollars. However, there is little complexity in super hero movies. We know coming in who will win. They all have personal issues to deal with, but they are surface plot. The first Avengers movie nearly falls flat in the middle of the battle for New York when the writers realize the super heroes must be tired, the movie slows for a moment, but no one is injured. I am a huge fan of Marvel (and all science fiction) but this is purely linear story telling with very little if any subplot.

By contrast we might look to movies such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It is a shame that, despite winning an Oscar, this movie grossed only $72 million. The movie is especially valid as it showed us that Jim Carey is more than a one-trick pony. Who knew he could be serious? The story is extremely complex and requires more than one viewing to understand. There are subplots to the subplot here. Complexity does not translate into sales any longer.

The last example shows us that complex stories can make money, but only in conjunction with wild special effects. In Interstellar, one might argue that the special effects were the primary money maker. This movie grossed $621 million. Though the plot is far from perfect (many take issue with several unexpected twists, which will be discussed in a later post), there are subplots galore. I often refer to these type of science fiction movies (see also Oblivion) as literary movies not mainstream movies.

Visual Skill and Gimmickry.

As our critical thinking skills have decreased, visual skills have increased. Old printing ideas such s above the fold or below the fold are gone. Now, anything without a picture is ignored. Take a look at the doomed Facebook; the system goes out of the way to find an image to put by news stories. Often, these have no relation to the story you have posted. Facebook is falling behind to other giants of visual information sharing such as Instagram and Pinterest. Even Stephen Spielberg has noted that many directors (himself included) have a tendency to forget about story an resort to visual gimmickry. (Though this can work on its own, look at anything by Kubrick.) Maybe no one will notice that there is no reason for a car chase as long as it ends in a big enough explosion. 

In life, most things can be understood in relation to The Simpsons. As the animation has changed, starting with the failed movie, the story has gotten lost. We miss the ridiculous stories that begin with a fish crushing their car and ends with them in Africa. The animation is technically better at the cost of better stories.

Written literature has fallen into this trap as well, focusing on action over character. The old saying is that a picture is worth a thousand words, but we forget what that saying really means. I could look at a photograph and analyze the framing, the medium, and describe in detail what we see. This is not the essence of critical thinking. Critical thinking involves looking beyond what we see. We must learn to understand what an image means within a cultural reference to find its real value. Literary theory helps us understand how to combine history, writing practices, and the complexities of the story and plot. Writers today need to be able to analyze their own work and understand what produced it.