The word out there—at least according to The
Economist Group—is that “smart is the new cool”. John Parker of Intelligent Life (sister magazine to The Economist) posits that, “in its
appetite for culture, the world is wising up more than it is dumbing down.” Parker
suggests in his article “The Age of Mass Intelligence” (Intelligent Life, 2008) that this apparent increase in the “mass
intelligent” can be seen in the growing appeal of museums, blockbuster
exhibitions, literary festivals, and operas. What he fails to mention is how
the increased sales of good literature translate into actual reading and
synthesis.
According to
Susan Jacoby, scholar and author of The
Age of American Unreason, Parker’s article exemplifies a culture-as-commodity
perspective: “If we are going to more literary festivals graced with
celebrities and greased with abundant alcohol, if we are spending freely in the
museum shops of world capitals and if we are willing to give Anna Karenina
a try because Oprah Winfrey has conferred her imprimatur on Tolstoy and his
doomed heroine, why, we must be getting smarter.” Ultimately, adds Jacoby, “It
is not a question of whether people read Dickens and Tolstoy, as opposed to Dan
Brown and Barbara Cartland, but whether they read anything longer than the text
bites that constitute "reading" on the web. I place the word in
quotation marks because most of us are engaged online not in uninterrupted
traditional reading but in a vulture-like swoop to gather tidbits of
information.” Jacoby describes Parker’s phrase, “appetite for culture”, as not
only allegorical but as symptomatic of a growing culture of addictions. Culture
commoditized; something to be consumed,
digested and excreted as opposed to experienced,
processed and enlightened by.
“The defining
phenomenon of our society during the past three decades has been the triumph of
video over print culture in general, and of shorter blocks of text over longer,
reflective articles. This process began in old-fashioned print media and has
reached its apotheosis on the Internet,” says Jacoby.
Evidence undeniably
shows that more people are being exposed to aspects of culture. Computers and
now smartphones have created an “instantly accessible” information-rich
society. Eighty-five percent of young
adults are smartphone owners, who use their mobile devices in a host of
information seeking and transaction. A majority of smartphone owners use their
phone to follow breaking news and share local events—as they happen. Buckminster
Fuller observed that human knowledge doubled every century until 1900; by the
end of World War II it was doubling every 25 years. It now doubles every 13
months.
Does this
reflect a genuine rise in “mass intelligence” or does it simply demonstrate
better marketing and an improvement by society in absorbing packaged
information?
Mass
Intelligent TV and the Age of the Disposable Hero (with apologies to those of
you who
currently enjoy Game of Thrones)
Like a gestalt barometer of a culture, the
story narrative reflects upon and expresses humanity’s artistic soul. The
stories of a culture convey its values and qualities. And, ultimately, they
carry a culture through its own evolution.
Emily Gardner of the Economist Group contends
that HBO’s immensely popular medieval fantasy Game of Thrones, with its complex character plotlines, intrigue,
and elegant world-building, exemplifies a rising “mass intelligent”, coined by Economist
CEO Andrew Rashbass to describe a rise in the ‘nerdy’, smarter more discerning
TV viewer. Granted, the TV series, based
on George R.R. Martin’s fantasy/horror book series A Song of Ice and Fire, contains
intelligent characters with depth (superbly played by an accomplished cast),
and some of the best world-building ever shown on TV. However, Game of Thrones also drowns these with copious
graphic scenes of mutilations, dismemberments, flailing, crucifixions,
castrations, beheadings and random axes in heads—not to mention ceremonious displays
of these various parts. The script, though intelligent at times, is fraught
with misanthropic voyeurism that borders on sociopathic. Heroes and villains
alike are unceremoniously tortured, flayed alive, dismembered and worse—with no
recourse for transcendence or redemption.
The producers defend the graphic brutality of
Game of Thrones with the assertion
that it is not a Disneyesque fairytale version of the world; rather, they meant
to capture the gritty reality of the world. however, as Internet commenter Todd
Geist wrote, “Game of Thrones is very
compelling. But so is a train wreck.”
Good
fiction—unlike a reality show—tells a purposeful story with fictional
characters who play a purposeful role—usually in a journey of change and a
story arc based on a meaningful theme. This doesn’t have to entail a happy
ending, but it does include meaning and fulfillment—even if only
for its audience. Without a meaningful arc, a character (and its empathizing
viewer) remains unfulfilled. When too many heroic characters are subjected to
such an abrupt ending (with their arc unfulfilled), the viewer will distrust
the narrative and distance herself. Reluctant to invest in any heroic character,
she becomes less story-participant and more distant-onlooker. The narrative
arc, once collapsed, naturally gives way to the thrill-seeking pattern of the
addict, anticipating the next thrill. Moreover, when theme-carrying characters
fail to prevail, this puts into question the very theme they carry, further
disassociating the viewer. This is best represented by the Stark family of
Winterfell, who are all but destroyed by the second season of the show.
According
to Tom Gualtieri of Salon, in the
land of Westeros naivety is punished and cunning is more valuable than honor.
“The Red Wedding, like so much that happens to the Starks, makes integrity seem
like naiveté,” says Gualtieri. “The Starks’ belief in honor is a noble trait
which impairs their judgment, blinding them to the treachery of others.”
Gualtieri’s cynical assessment demonstrates how Game of Thrones has strayed from its initial story promise by
making its theme-carrying heroes disposable.
With Season Five of Game of Thrones poised to simulcast to 170 countries on April 12,
news feeds scramble with teasers to whet the unruly addiction of fans, gripped
by the frenzy of the “game”.
Game
of Thrones may indeed epitomize the concept
of a rising “mass intelligence” with its intriguing, compact bite-sized
subplots and disposable heroes. The “mass intelligent” culture prizes
information over understanding and knowledge over wisdom. We empower our
smartphones with an attention we fail to bestow on our friends. We are a
sensory-deprived culture, addicted to piece-meal thrills and sensationalism to
carry us through our otherwise meaningless days. We obsess over but dare not
empathize with the disposable heroes of our stories. Our TV programs
increasingly feature the gritty anti-hero (or even villain) as main
protagonist. A growing discussion among those who study story challenges the
Jungian-Campbell archetypal narrative of change and transcendence and favors
alternative plot structures with no hero, no goals, and no achievement.
“Reality shows” and fiction narrative increasingly blur as we enter the ‘zero
narrative’ “Age of Mass Intelligence”.
The hero is dead, long live the hero!
Nina Munteanu is an ecologist and internationally published author of novels, short stories and essays. She coaches writers and teaches writing at George Brown College and the University of Toronto. For more about Nina’s coaching & workshops visit www.ninamunteanu.me. Visit www.ninamunteanu.ca for more about her writing.
