David Lane and Christopher Rush
We at the Scholarly Journal have enjoyed all the warm responses we have received from our first issues this year. Your comments and interactions have been encouraging in a variety of ways, as we continue to make Redeeming Pandora part of the cutting edge in scholasticism. One particular question (well, two, really) is worth addressing here, in the journal itself. David Lane asks,
“In the future, what works of literature and/or films (if their [sic] are any) of our generation and time period will be remembered as significant? And what historical events or movements influenced these works?”
That’s a good pair of questions, David Lane. Let me try to answer those questions with some answers.
The Nature of the Issue
The real difficulty with questions about the contemporary age is that no one, frankly, has any perspective to make any meaningful assessments. Most of the time period labels we use nonchalantly as if they have always been (“Baroque,” “Modernism,” “Enlightenment,” “Cubism,” as examples) are the product of later history, from the perspective of rhetorical and historical distance. Some movements, especially in the graphic arts world, are intentional and for them contemporary labels, such as “Fauvism,” but those are rare exceptions. It’s not as if Charlemagne woke up one morning and thought, “Hmm, we seem to be in the middle of two major periods of time, Classical Antiquity and the forthcoming Renaissance. We better start calling ourselves ‘The Middle Ages.’” As we discuss at times in class, genius is rarely recognized in its own lifetime. Yes, too, there are exceptions (Michelangelo, Tennyson, John Williams), but again, we should be chary of letting the proportionately small exceptions bemuse our understanding of their rarity. Adding to the confusion and challenge of the task is that current popularity does not always translate into posterity popularity. In America, the Fireside Poets (Whittier, Holmes, Longfellow, Bryant, Lowell) were the “pop culture” of the early nineteenth century. Walt Whitman was mostly excoriated, and Emily Dickinson was virtually unknown in her own lifetime. Now, though, the Fireside Poets are a brief anecdote in surveys of American Literature, if even mentioned at all, and Whitman and Dickinson are heralded as two of the greatest poets of all time. Similarly in England, Gerard Manley was unknown in his own day but is now considered one of the better, more creative lyrical poets, and not just of his Victorian day.
Sometimes simply the passage of time plays a factor in what is later important and significant. The Bible itself mentions works that were at least known (if not read) by the Israelites that are no longer extant. We do not know what happened to them. Sophocles is reputed to have written over 120 plays, but only seven of them have survived to this day. For all we know these could have been his seven worst plays. The digital age threatens to preserve (ironically by eliminating reproduction) the works of antiquity and the present age, but if the dvd manufacturing industry is any indication (just like the digital e-book reader industry), the infatuation with the present will soon eradicate the pretensions of preserving the past in favor of replicating the currently popular. Admittedly, copyright issues are a factor, but if these “preservers” of the past truly wanted to release what was made in the past instead of what is being currently made, they could. There truly is no good reason why the complete works of John Ruskin or the entire run of Your Show of Shows is not available, either digitally or not — the concerns of the moneymakers have overridden matters of quality and importance.
Thus we see personal and professional preference becomes a factor in considering what is “significant.” As is often noted, many times professors will write simply to use their own works as classroom materials and thus increase their own sales. The importunate atmosphere of collegiate administrators forced to employ published (and continually published) professors is another symptom of the decline of the age as well that must be addressed further, at another time.
Akin to what was mentioned above with the Fireside Poets, cultural movements often affect perceptions of “what is significant” and remembered. The ancient poets were forgotten (or subsumed under medieval monastic conservationism, at least) for hundreds of years. The Fireside Poets were the mainstays of home life and textbooks for generations. This is where your second question concerning the cultural factors comes in. Modernism intentionally broke from what was done before and considered “art.” The brief return to traditionalism following World War Two was disrupted by the intelligent (and academic) world giving in to the youthful belligerence of college protesters, especially in the landmark (in a bad way) year 1969, the year that changed pretty much everything (see Slouching Towards Gomorrah by Robert Bork or The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom). In our own age of multiculturalism, pluralism, and tolerance (outside of classical, Christian enclaves such as Summit, of course), the political pressures of the day require the old canon of Western Civilization be replaced by diversity simply for diversity’s sake, abjuring any objective standards of quality (see Roger Kimball’s insightful Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age).
Part of the issue, too, is the age-old controversy of “popularity versus quality.” Alexandre Dumas was prolific and popular (thanks, in part, to having a team of people writing for him using his name). The Three Musketeers is an enjoyable book to read, especially in its unabridged form. But is it significant? Is it “literature”? Leaving aside the question “what is literature?” for now, the issue of popularity as a factor in significance is important. Not too long ago, America used to read James Michener, James Clavell, Leon Uris, Saul Bellow, Robert Ludlum, and others of that post-WW2/pre-Operation: Desert Shield era. They were significant for a time, but they seem to have been forgotten rather easily.
One last factor is the growing need in our culture to declare things good or bad, or least celebrate the “now.” Even people interviewed for VH1’s I Love the 90s admitted that discussing in 2004 what was important in 1999 did not allow enough time to contextualize what had just happened. This was made even more absurd by VH1’s need (based solely on the popularity of the other series) to create an I Love the New Millennium, discussing the 2000s before the 2000s were even over! Even once prestigious celebrations of music and cinema, the Grammy and Oscar awards, have fallen prey to this. The need to declare what is current as “good” or even “great” is always risky, especially since it seems most people generally agree that the overall quality of movies and television shows today is nowhere near as good as it was decades before (again, exceptions always occur every once in a great while), and this has also been made more absurd by the recent change in nominating ten movies for Best Picture, despite the dearth of actually good movies being made. Looking back, if we were to place some movies that did not win the Best Picture award against some movies that have won it, most of us would be, hopefully, rather embarrassed. The Wizard of Oz, The Philadelphia Story, The Maltese Falcon, It’s a Wonderful Life, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, High Noon, The King and I, The Ten Commandments, To Kill a Mockingbird, Cleopatra, Becket, Dr. Strangelove, Mary Poppins, The Lion in Winter, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Hello, Dolly! — that is an A-list of movies if ever there was one, but none of them won the Best Picture Oscar. Can you tell me that The Hurt Locker, Crash, The Departed, Chicago, Rain Man, or even Driving Miss Daisy, Forrest Gump, and Titanic are truly better movies than those? Of course not — but the need in our culture to celebrate what is current is definitely a detriment to the issue of understanding what is truly significant.
I admit this has all been anecdotal context and not really an answer, yet. Nor do I want to sound like nothing good is coming out at all in film, music, or literature. I have simply tried to clarify the nature of the issue at hand disguising a lengthy caveat that it is not possible to answer this question definitively, since I do not know what future generations of media consumers will regard as meaningful contributions to the “Great Conversation” as we call it. As another caveat, I must admit that since I am not really a part of “your generation,” and since I have no idea what the kids are listening to these days, I may miss the mark a bit as I try now to more directly answer the topic at hand. Since this is entirely speculative anyway, I shall offer two potential categories of works that the future may consider significant: 1) works I think will be remembered and 2) works I hope will be remembered.
Works I Think Will be Remembered
As we have already acknowledged, we are living in a very unsatisfied age, one that insists on “new” and “fast” at an unthinkable pace. Popular music in the twentieth century can be divided by the decade (and even into smaller increments): jazz, swing, big band, rock ‘n’ roll, folk, disco, punk, hair bands, grunge, boy bands, techno, and dance. Contrast that with the sixteenth century: what substantial differences in music occurred from 1530 to 1590? Alice posited earlier in this issue that dubstep is the next coming thing, and it may very well be. Your question, though, is how long will it last? Based on the track record of the recent past, not long at all. Our culture does not seem interested in what is good, just what is new, though as Alice explained, dubstep is about intentionally remixing what has already been popular, not even trying to be a completely distinct form. Thus it is hard to say what will be remembered. (Even Christian music is guilty of this, as so many “artists” today just tack on inane new choruses to great classic hymns to make money.) The digital revolution has caused great shake-ups in the music industry, and copyright laws and distribution systems are undergoing substantial changes because of new media venues. Audio cassettes and compact discs may soon go the way of the reel-to-reel, eight track, and laserdisc formats. The recent return of vinyl albums is most likely one aspect of the “reboot” fad that may soon burn itself out. Some bands have had impressive staying power: The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, and U2 are among those that have lasted for decades, despite the changes in their business — but soon, they too will become too old to rock ‘n’ roll, even if they are too young to die. It is difficult to see any of the current musicians (sometimes a generous appellation) being recognized by posterity as great contributors to music history: The Beastie Boys, Green Day, Run DMC, Soundgarden, Alanis Morissette, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, and Coldplay all have a chance. Nirvana probably will, thanks to Kurt Cobain’s self-slaughter. Again, though, since I don’t listen to what you kids are listening to, I’m no expert on post-’90s music.
Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, and Jack Nicholson will probably be considered great actors of the day, though none of them can touch Cary Grant, Clark Gable, Laurence Olivier, Richard Burton, Peter O’Toole, and Humphrey Bogart. As far as film and television shows, as mentioned moments ago, what we may best be known for down the road is our pseudo-nostalgic infatuation with reboots and remixes. I say “pseudo-nostalgic” because clearly the vast majority of the remakes are not made with much respect or deference to what has come before. Most remakes are barely recognizable and sometimes offensive, such as Tom Cruise’s treatment of Jim Phelps in the first Mission: Impossible movie. We have seen Flintstones movies, Brady Bunch movies, a G.I. Joe movie, a forthcoming Smurfs movie, some Transformers movies, Sherlock Holmes, Starsky and Hutch, Miami Vice, Eddie Murphy’s personal phase of remaking everything from I Spy to Dr. Doolittle, a Star Trek reboot, not to mention dozens of comic book hero movies: Spiderman, X-Men, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, Avengers, Captain America, Thor, a few Hulks, and more are undoubtedly on their way. Yes, there were Batman and Superman movies in the ’70s and ’80s (and always television shows to go with them), and even some of the “classics” are remakes of earlier versions of the same story, but the rapidity of studios “cashing in” on the fad is mindboggling. This kind of significance is not as beneficial as you may be hoping for, but it has gone on long enough to be remembered as a movement (not necessarily a progression, since it is looking backwards).
Most of the television reboots faded quickly (Dragnet, Knight Rider), but some are more successful: Hawaii 5-0 is still going on, though it’s doubtful it will last as long as the original. There are others. Certainly the best reboot lately has been Battlestar Galactica. Considering the considerable acclaim it received in its four-year run (including a Peabody Award), I think it will be remembered as an impressive show during a time when much of the Western world was asking similar questions. Those that scoff (guttersnipes with opaque souls, mostly) are people who “don’t get it” because they never tried it due to juvenile and petulantly darn-fool prejudices about “science fiction.” Sad, really.
Clearly, though, the main contribution (using it generously) by which this generation will be remembered is “reality television.” We all know by now that it’s not any more “real” than any other programming. No one doesn’t survive Survivor. No one can get too lost on Amazing Race. Combining American Gladiators with Circus of the Stars and calling it “reality” is not a major change, but it is new enough to motivate the Emmy to create new categories. Television has become incredibly self-aware, too, with all the specialty channels’ contest shows about becoming the next big whatever: the next model, the next chef, the next design star, the next idol of pre-pubescent music sharers (read: “copyright-infringing bootleggers and thieves”) all over the country. You know it has gotten out of control when the so-called reality programs start having “all-star” seasons of fan favorites doing the same thing over again, as if Champions Week on Jeopardy! is not enough.
Turning now to literature, or books at least, the most obvious answer of what is going to be memorable from this era is the Harry Potter series. Since they couldn’t wait very long to make movies based on them, it will be mildly interesting to see whether the books and movies have the staying power to reach a new generation. For a time, that children were reading these books was enough comfort for parents as if they had fully completed their roles as parents. “At least they’re reading,” I heard several times in the early 2000s. Actually, no. Just because they were reading does not make it okay. I suspect if you fed these same children nothing but cotton candy these same parents would not say, “At least they’re eating.” Reading nothing but Harry Potter books is not a healthy intellectual diet. I’m not saying they should never be read, nor am I saying you should not read them more than once, nor am I saying that they are Beelzebub’s discharges. I’m saying that unless kids move from these to other, better books, their parents have not done their job.
At the time of this printing, the Twilight series is making a splash as well. I do not think, though, that this series will remain as popular as the Harry Potter series; not just because it is shorter, but for reasons similar to those Emily Grant has expressed in a previous issue. I have not read them nor do I plan on doing so. Similarly, I have on reliable authority the Eragon series is more hype than substance. Other recent fads, like the Series of Unfortunate Events franchise achieved some initial acclaim, but it has faded out of mainstream consciousness, it appears. It may be indicative of the sorrowful nature of our literary culture that movie versions are the key to staying power. The fate of Phillip Pullman’s trilogy may suffer thanks to the poor reception of the Golden Compass movie. It wouldn’t be such a bad thing if his trilogy (and everything else he’s written) faded into oblivion, though.
Those are all children’s books (sort of). Have we any grown-up people fiction or nonfiction that might be deemed significant in the future? Possibly. Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and Amy Tan will probably maintain their statuses (though they are a bit before this generation) as key contributors to African– and Chinese-American fiction. Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. and Thomas Pynchon may survive the digital age, thanks to the increasing popularity of things absurd, but again, they are a bit before your time. Cormac McCarthy has made a significant contribution with his work, and again, having award-winning movies based on his works have helped get people back to his work. Dan Brown is probably running out of gas, but his Da Vinci Code was certainly significant for at least a brief time, which may be enough to make him noteworthy in the future. Michael Crichton will probably maintain some cultic significance at the least, also thanks to the movies based on his works. Neil Gaiman and Orson Scott Card will most likely maintain their statuses as significant contributors to fiction, if not just speculative fiction. It is too soon to know whether Jonathan Franzen and Steig Larsson will maintain their momentum. Meta-fiction and multi-media incorporated fiction (beyond the digital reader) will only increase in popularity and social significance in the years ahead.
Chinua Achebe and Salman Rushdie will probably maintain their international staying power for awhile. John le Carré will most likely be considered significant, even if his popularity goes the way of Robert Ludlum. Philip Roth, Joyce Carol Oates, Tom Wolfe, and Don DeLillo keep hanging in there, but with the recent passing of John Updike, they may become the next group of forgotten American writers like dos Passos and Bellows. Harold Bloom will surely outlive them all.
The genre-specific fiction writers of the day may very well make their respective pantheons of fiction. Stephen King will probably last, thanks to his voluminous output, but I don’t see him achieving any genre-transcending apotheosis. P.D. James, Kathy Reichs, David Baldacci, Sue Grafton, William Bernhardt, Lilian Jackson Braun, Scott Turow, James Patterson, Janet Evanovich, Patricia Cornwell, Terry Pratchett, George R.R. Martin, Robert Jordan, et al. may soon join the ranks of Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Doyle, Christie, Stout, Wells, Verne, and Tolkien.
In poetry, Gwendolyn Brooks, Rita Dove, Garrett Hongo, Naomi Shihab Nye, Ntozake Shange, and Leslie Marmon Silko are most likely going to be featured in anthologies for years to come. Other than Stephen Sondheim, I have no idea who will be the dramatists of the future. Now that August Wilson is gone, once Edward Albee shuffles off his mortal coil American theater will completely belong to David Mamet and a new generation of playwrights, whoever those may be.
Comic books and graphic novels have been popular for years, but the recent upsurge of Manga’s popularity may continue for some time. It is also quite possible that the main figures in graphic novel circles could achieve mainstream popularity and significance: Alan Moore, Frank Miller, Art Spiegelman, Chris Claremont, Neil Gaiman, Bill Willingham, J. Michael Straczynski, Grant Morrison, Garth Ennis, Chuck Dixon, Brian K. Vaughan, and John Byrne, to name a few who are building on the legacies of Stan Lee, Jerry Siegel, Bob Kane, and Will Eisner.
Works I Hope Will Be Remembered
Each generation thinks its things are the best. The 50s generation loved Lucy and liked Ike. The 60s listened to Motown, the Beach Boys, the Beatles, and folk music (not to forget Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs). The 70s petted rocks and discoed with ducks. You get the idea. Since I have somehow transferred out of being part of the youth of America, I am probably set in my preferences about what I think is meaningful. Fortunately for me, and now you, I happen to be right.
Since most of the music I listen to is from before my time, the main musical groups I hope will be considered significant and memorable are a bit before this generation’s time: U2 (this is almost a certainty, thanks to Bono’s humanitarian efforts), Genesis, Rush, The Moody Blues, The Police, and others that need not be enumerated here, since most that I listen to are already significant and will continue to be so even through this digital age. What can I say, I’m a man of the classics. The more recent artists I believe are worthy of lasting recognition are the Dave Matthews Band, Live, The Black Crowes, and Collective Soul. That’s about it. I’m sure there are some Phish and Dream Theater fans who would disagree; that’s fine.
I haven’t seen a whole lot of movies in the theater in the last few years, either, so I can’t say too much about recent cinema. Indiana Jones movies are good entertainment, along with the first three Star Wars episodes (by “first three” I mean IV, V, and VI), but the oeuvres of Spielberg and Lucas are assuredly secure already.
Television series that are worth watching again and again (the more recent ones) are, of course, Babylon 5, Mystery Science Theater 3000, Red Dwarf, Farscape, Lost, Alias, Battlestar Galactica, the Star Treks, Quantum Leap, NewsRadio, Cosby Show, Cheers, Perfect Strangers, As Time Goes By, Cracker, Prime Suspect, Fry and Laurie, and Whose Line is it Anyway? Not many of those may be remembered, but they should be, considering the dilapidated state of entertainment today, especially if you add the halcyon ’80s: MacGyver, Remington Steele, A-Team, Scarecrow and Mrs. King, G.I. Joe, Transformers, Muppet Babies, ThunderCats, Shirt Tales, Littles, Pirates of Dark Water, M.A.S.K., Mysterious Cities of Gold, Smurfs, Inspector Gadget, Ghostbusters, etc. Stock up on the dvds now.
I don’t know of too many fiction authors, poets, or playwrights other than those enumerated above who should be considered significant. If Philip K. Dick does not stay popular, things are in seriously bad shape. Most of the genre-specific elite will stay elite, since their fans keep the home fires burning without the aid of scholarly journals. I hope some of the seemingly forgotten authors of the recent past (Michener, Clavell, Uris, Bellows) will return not just to popularity but to critical acclaim. Most of you have heard me extol the praises of ISI (the Intercollegiate Studies Institute) and ISI Books to know I hope they become even more significant in the years ahead. Other nonfiction authors who should be recognized are Roger Kimball, Fr. James V. Schall, our old friend Michael Wood, Gilbert Meilander, Michael Dirda, Roger Scruton, Christopher Dawson, and Peter Kreeft, to name a few. Their bibliographies will direct you to the greats of days gone by, as well.
Cultural Influences and Beyond
As we have tried to show in just about every class at Summit, the artistic output of a culture is influenced significantly by the other factors of the day, even when the artists are intentionally trying to reject society and/or tradition. Our own day has certainly had its share of significant events: the terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center; the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the natural disasters in the Gulf Coast, India, Haiti, and Japan; and the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, just to name a few. Certainly these have incited a great number of petulant and partisan responses, from both Conservatives and Liberals. Like most political diatribes and satires, they will be passé and outdated within a few years, if they aren’t already. While kairotic, this sort of work is quintessentially ephemeral.
Some argue we are already post-postmodern, but this is part of the desire to label, quantify, and valuate hampering the overall quality of our era. As this fad grows, it will itself become a factor in the output of society and will play a role in what is considered significant in the generations ahead. As we have made clear by now, this is a reactionary age (the need for labeling is a symptom of it), and we probably will be best known for remakes, reboots, and remixes. I certainly did not foresee in the ’80s that the push toward recycling would overtake artistic output.
In a way, we are thus building off the Modern period’s rejection of what was theistic and traditional, but in an embarrassingly dumbed-down fashion. By intentionally redoing what was already done (and that quite recently), our age thinks it can do everything better, yet it is tacitly admitting it can’t be creative enough to even try to be original. The television industry is a key sign of this. The only channels creating original (as original as can be, considering Solomon’s words so long ago) programming are the non-mainstream channels. NBC, CBS, and ABC have given up, apparently, on all attempts at being new and fresh (Lost is one of the ultra-rare exceptions, but that’s over now). This can be seen by the “franchises” and networks’ unwillingness to take risks: Law and Order, NCIS, CSI — procedurals have taken over the industry, and creativity has been abandoned for financial security. The non-mainstream channels such as Fox, USA, and AMC (I suppose abandoning one’s origins and purpose is a way to be fresh) are the channels trying to be new and creative. Why Fox gave up on its creative and enjoyable The Good Guys so quickly is a mystery, though this is the same channel that gave up on Brisco County Jr., so we can’t be all that surprised — creativity can only go so far in an industry concerned mainly about “the bottom line.” The number of series that come and go so quickly these days is an embarrassing testament to the industry’s inability to be patient. No one remembers the lesson of M*A*S*H, unfortunately.
Another key cultural factor that will affect significant film and literary output is technology. The infatuation with not-so-special effects is ruining the ability for movies to tell good, enjoyable stories. Why George Lucas didn’t remember this when making Episodes I, II, and III is a mystery. Hypertext fiction main become part of the new wave of “writing.” Beyond digital readers, what iPods are doing for the music industry, iPads may do for the writing industry. I do not see printing ending within your lifetime, David, since too many billions of dollars are still invested in it (especially in the college textbook racket). Though some colleges are piloting iPad “textbooks,” it is still too soon for that to become mainstream, especially in neighborhoods and school districts that still don’t have Internet access. Too many people still like “real” books for them to just go away any time soon.
The socio-political atmosphere in which we find ourselves will certainly influence artistic output as well. In an era of “No Child Left Behind,” ever-increasing crude oil prices, ever-diminishing test scores compared to the Far East, plagiarism, performance enhancing scandals in every sport, NCAA rules violations commonplace, overcrowded jails, pornography studies in higher education, jobs outsourced at an increasing rate, and cell phone/Internet dependency, the situation looks grim.
Fear not! God is still in control, Jesus is alive and well, the Church is growing, and the transcendent standards of Beauty, Truth, and Goodness are still as relevant and accessible as ever. Once in awhile a good album, book, and movie comes out, and the classics are still there, regardless of what the future may bring. Thanks for the good questions, David. Keep them coming, Faithful Readers! Excelsior!