So recently I sat down to watch the now-obscure movie Limitless (yes, that movie with Robert DeNiro and the unemployed writer). I was aware of the film's dark, cynical tone prior to watching, and fully expected the film to resemble a Work of Great Literature. Surprisingly, it did not fully realize its potential for depression, and instead opted for ick. I'm not sure which I dislike more.
This doesn't end my long standing beef against cynicism and the Works of Great Literature that teach it (no, we are not talking Tolkien here - he can have my endorsement or C.S. Lewis - additional endorsement plus pat on the back . I'm talking Heart of Darkness and Crime and Punishment and *insert long list here*) Here's why:
cynical
adjective
1.distrusting or disparaging the motives of others; like or characteristic of a cynic.
2.showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others.
3.bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.
4.( initial capital letter ) cynic ( def 5 ) .
For most of this, I'm referring to definition #3. Cynicism in my mind is a more severe form of pessimism, and existentialism is a more severe form of cynicism. For reference, existentialism is "Life sucks and then you die." It's basically the ultimate emotional black hole.
Some literature classes try to avoid the fact that existentialism is what it is, others blatantly call it out like mine did. But so you are warned, I see three tenets to cynicism, all of which are not only depressing, but also...wrong.
1) The ratio of the number of problems that you have to the amount of mental ability you have to overcome them remains constant. You will always have problems until the day you die.
Now, to some degree this statement is true. Once you solve a problem, more come. And yes, when you become an adult your intelligence expands and so do the problems you have to solve. Welcome to the real world. Even if you get tons of money, you will have to use your brainpower to manage it (or hire someone else to manage it, but do you trust them? Riiiight.).
However, this is generally the wrong attitude - because freedom from problems is boring. That is a problem of itself. And realistically, we all have days where we solve like five problems, and days where we work all day on one problem and can't solve it. It's not a true constant ratio. And then there are the days when someone else solves our problems without our even asking...
2) The ratio between positive emotional energy and negative emotional energy remains constant.
I shouldn't have to tell you that this is a myth. If you want it in layperson's terms, "Happiness is impossible."
Yeah right.
A variant on this myth is that the ratio should remain constant, which is also impossible, BTW. Cynics tend to think that the net positivity of a person cannot improve. The truth of the matter is that emotions are a swinging scale between positive and negative. Over time the scale can narrow toward the negative end of the spectrum, making people think that positivity is impossible. The problem is, they haven't bothered to deal with the logical problems in their thinking that prevent them from experiencing positivity again. It is possible for the scale to narrow toward the positive, it's just that most people don't try.
3) Logic is useless.
Well, yeah. If there's no magic cure-all for your problems and you're never going to be happy, forget logic. Why bother to figure out the secrets of the universe if they get you nowhere? Go home and cry!
I hate to break it to all of Works of Great Literature, but logic is not useless. It is possible to figure things out using logic that does provide emotional satisfaction. In essence, cynicism is giving up on life in failure. It's saying that "truth will never satisfy me. Truth sucks." Unfortunately, the writers of Works of Great Literature never tried Truth out for themselves to see if they liked it, otherwise they would not have believed the preceding two myths.
How this appears in Works of Great Literature:
1) Characters that don't use logic.
No duh. If Logic is useless, chuck it out the window! Except if they ACTUALLY did use logic, they might avoid...
2) Downer endings, which may be lampshaded (foreshadowed) by characters beforehand. Or even the narrator! On page 1!
Why am I reading this? First off, thank you for spoiling the ending. Second off, if this is all going to end badly, what are the next 500 pages about?
3) Endless rambling by characters about philosophy, and usually not solving problems right in front of their face.
Character sympathy: gone. Author approval rating: goose egg. Usually when this happens, I just want to just punch the character in the face. Dude, just stop whining already! Shut up! USE LOOOOGIIIIIC!
Eventually, if it's really bad, I might start thinking "Oh just shut up and die already so I don't have to listen to your whining. DIE! DIE!11!!! DIIIIE!111!!" *character dies*
That wasn't what the authors of Works of Great Literature intended, I think.
Now you may be wondering, what about catharsis? Isn't that the good that comes of this?
catharsis
ca·thar·sis [kuh-thahr-sis] Show IPA
noun, plural ca·thar·ses [kuh-thahr-seez] Show IPA .
1.the purging of the emotions or relieving of emotional tensions, especially through certain kinds of art, as tragedy or music.
Emphasis on the word purging. This is the leveling of emotional energies between positive and negative. No happiness or yayz to be found here. It's also incredibly boring. Perfect calm and peace is boring. I'm bored. Go blow something up. *yawns*
In conclusion, I find it annoying that schools, through these books, are teaching students that their life is worthless and not worth living, pretty much. They also teach students that books are boring. I've found that a lot of professors and teachers have become cynical just like the works they teach, further compounding the ugly.
So that's my big, long, rant about why I don't like Works of Great Literature. At least, most of them, anyway - there are exceptions to the above rules. Depressor boringzyville.
* * *
Ironically, though, how to write a good story is the exact opposite of how Works of Great Literature handle it (IMO, at least):
1) Characters that use logic
Preferably in epically awesome ways. I heart "problem steamroller" characters, and aim for at least one a story. (Although it's okay to have realistic characters who make logic errors, they should have some redeeming qualities. Yeesh.)
2) Endings that aren't foreshadowed, and have at least SOME good in them.
Don't tell me the ending at the beginning. And I do like to end it on somewhat of a good note, but I usually like a mix of both.
3) Characters solving problems logically, talking/thinking when they want to or have to, but with emphasis on solving the problem in front of them.
Much happiness and extra boingy.
So yeah.
16 Comments
Recommended Comments