What is the role of a writer in the 21st century? Is literature dying? Will novels ultimately fade away and be replaced by "The Jersey Shore" (2009-2012)? These are tough questions, and as usual, I'll be facing them with some wimpy but well-intentioned answers.
If you look at some of the most commercially successful films and television series of the past few years, such as "Game of Thrones" (2011-present), Dexter (2006-present), Harry Potter, The Blind Side (2009), No Country for Old Men (2007) etc. (excuse my weird assortment of examples), you'll notice the enormous number of book-to-movie adaptations that make up today's popular entertainment. Some may see this as an escalating appropriation of our literary narratives by image-based media, and a sign that literature is becoming less relevant. However, one could also look at Hollywood's penchant for adaptations and see it as reliance upon literary creativity. Perhaps these adaptations demonstrate that sometimes even the most renowned screenwriting teams and writers' rooms cannot rival the unique imagination of the individual. I'd like to optimistically believe that the lonely process of writing, unhampered by producers and budgetary constraints and the limitless other problems associated with film and television production, brings out an unhinged and more deeply personal imagination than the kind of writing done explicitly for the screen (although there are many examples of auteur-like screenwriters, like Charlie Kaufman), and that this advantage will keep literature afloat in the sea of public consciousness for all time.
In my mind, there's something far more romantic about a mild-mannered dreamer dropping out of the hectic world for a few hours and writing his or her heart out than there is about the complex and interpersonal process of getting scripts green-lit for production. The social creativity of film, television and interactive entertainment is stellar in many ways, but my inner American spirit places vastly more value on the unadulterated individualism of solitary writing.
Another reason to be optimistic about the future of literature: in many cases, a writer can express opinions, imagine worlds and pose questions that a film or TV show simply can't. Films, television shows and video games are costly endeavors that require enormous amounts of oversight. Novels, short stories and essays require investments of time and energy and (sometimes) money as well, but nonetheless, they are all still based in the straightforward relationship between writer and reader, mediated by words and nothing else.
I'll go ahead and get to the point. I believe that the role of the modern writer, in addition to simply (of course I mean not-so-simply-at-all) writing engaging, meaningful and thought-provoking stories, is to dream up ideas and worlds that could not make it to the screen. There are and forever will be heaps of stories that are too transgressive, overwhelmingly epic, abstract or internal to be successfully produced cinematically. The medium of the novel/short story is inherently much better suited for stories that deal with the interior of the human experience, and with feelings and ideas that don't have an obvious visual component. Although, counter to my last point, I'll admit that those kinds of stories can be great fodder for the most imaginative and ambitious filmmakers.
Book of the week: House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. This unsettling read creates contradictory landscapes and creepy atmospheres in a realistic manner that would look phony onscreen, but with the mighty narrative detail of Danielewski, the images are chilling and unforgettable. Also, parts of the novel are told in the format of a critical analysis of a nonexistent film. A fascinating read, even if it does go on 200 pages longer than it ought to.
Kevin Criscione is a junior majoring in English. He can be reached at Kevin.Criscione@tufts.edu.
