The Rise and Fall and Rise of Critical Thinking

Bill Keller has an editorial in the NYT Magazine called The Twitter Trap, which bemoans the decline of, well, everything due to the rise in social networks. He basically blames Twitter and Facebook for the death of critical thinking, I think. While I know some who may share that sentiment, I would argue that curmudgeons have bemoaned the death of critical thinking before such a thing was born. I think it is probably the plot of Bye Bye Birdie (girls besotted with pop star can focus on nothing else). Back-in-my-day-ness requires a near-distant utopia of critical thinkers who've evolved unwittingly into idiots due to the rise of the printing press/telephone/Xerox machine/computer/etc.

But why is Bill Keller picking on Twitter? I can think of at least 10 things off the top of my head which are easily more to blame for the death of intellect. For example,

1. Spending too much time with one's children. In our utopian past, multiple generations raised our children, freeing us to commune with eachother, engage in political organizing, and become economically literate. Now I spend a solid 6 hours of the day discussing Star Wars and sharks. Critical faculties: DOA.

2. The length of professional sports' seasons. WTF hockey and basketball? Go away.

3. talk radio

4. laundry. Have you noticed how much there is, and how the clean stuff never gets folded?

5. video games*

6. MTV*

7. bridge, canasta, Trivial Pursuit, Settlers, etc. Basically any board game that grown-ups will meet to play.

8. Email*

9. matching our shoes to our bags

10. the casinos (basically pathological #7)

* These are pastimes which once wasted huge hours of my life, and no longer do, except for video games, which have migrated through every platform I've used. You can read about it in my autobiography: From Frogger to Tetris to Farmville to Cut the Rope: One Woman's Journey through Non-Violent Videogames.

Anyway, my point? Keller is sounding an alarm that has been sounded so many times that no one really believes it or cares. This too shall pass. Twitter will just get absorbed and shelved in its rightful place in the world, and people will be roughly as smart and as stupid as we've ever been.

Finally Having a Thought Longer Than a Tweet

Can't promise it will be any good, though.

I finished A Visit From the Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan the other night. I'm becoming such an old lady that I promptly began referring to it as The Geek Squad, until Mr. Scobie reminded me that that is actually a commercial service provided by a major electronics chain and not a Pulitzer-prize winning novel. And why is it P-p winning? If it is truly the best fiction book written this year, then I definitely don't feel bad for not having read the others.

Goon Squad isn't bad, per se. It just isn't memorable, or novel. It's structured like a set of short stories which are entangled by shared characters and referenced situations (i.e. something that happens in one chapter/story will be referred to in another). The styles of the stories differ, as does the voice - one of the better ones is actually a Power Point presentation by a 12-year-old. Which is adorable and brilliant, right? But let me ask you something: would any of the following writers ever have written a Power Point presentation to get at the loveliest denouement of their novel: Steinbeck, Hemingway, Bellow, Roth? How about Jane Austen pr Joyce Carol Oates? How about Judy Fracking Blume? No, they would not have done that. Why? Because they are masters of voice and narrative and don't have to resort to trickery and stylishness and something that seems vaguely like magical realism but is really just spacy, lazy omniscience.

This is all the rage now. The "good" books are all jump-cut and we are expected to be kept off-base by switching stories and narratives. This is why I didn't like (and didn't finish) Cloud Atlas. It was too precious that it was a set of nesting stories. Ditto The Imperfectionists: although better written than Goon Squad, it took way too long to begin weaving its stories together. Hell, since I didn't finish that either, it maybe never did.

I want to be told long, involved character-driven stories. I don't even mind if they are, in fact, magical realist. Or scifi. Take Infinite Jest. I've decided IJ is probably science fiction. That's okay with me. It has a consistent style, strong characters, limited enough in number to be really engrossing, a distant but familiar world where politics and technology are ours, magnified. And the subplots are woven together, not mashed up or folded in on eachother without actually touching.

Why am I going on like this? I'm annoyed that I have nothing to read, and that maybe the books that I should be reading are the ones I had already written off. It's also possible that I am jealous of these writers. I have this sense that I could tell a better story but fear that I can't. Or won't.

15 Seconds of My 15 Minutes of Fame