Graphing Books?

Franco Moretti’s article focuses on a different manner of analyzing literature. Instead of focusing on a specific novel and its effects on the public, Moretti chooses to take a more statistical and analytical approach of collectively analyzing a novels and genres throughout time using graphs.

What Moretti had going for him in his article is that it was straightforward and precise. It presents you with cold, hard facts about the changing nature of novels, which seems a bit hollow considering the argument that Morretti is trying to make. While there is nothing wrong with pursuing a new method of analyzing literature, I personally do not think that Moretti’s method should really be applied in this manner, because I feel that it is very limiting. In one of the graphs Moretti provides us with, he discusses some of the reasons why novels had declines in specific nations during specific times. While Moretti does acknowledge that there could be several factors that affect the publication of novels and declines of specific genres, his research cannot give him the full scope of cultural and social events going on during the time periods he analyzed, especially when novels increased exponentially in popularity. Another issue with analyzing literature in this manner is that in analyzing large chunks of literature like this is that it focuses too much on the mass and not on the individual pieces of work, which can lead to making assumptions and generalizations about some aspects of literature, making parts of the research inconclusive.

In regards to SSTLS, the close analysis that we have been doing feels to me that it is the most effective way of analyzing the novel. With this close analysis, we are able to nitpick at the finer details of the novel, and analyze the various themes that Shteyngart presents to us and why Shteyngart did this and that. Analyzing the book on a broader scale would dampen our abilities to fully develop our understanding of several of the points Shteyngart is trying to get across, such as the somewhat subterfuged messages of racism and sexism. In the end, I think graphs and books do not get along too well.

A Super Sad Butterfly

M Butterfly and Super Sad True Love Story have parallel themes between them, the most prominent ones, in my opinion, dealing with love and politics. These three themes propel the events of both stories and, especially in M Butterfly, serve as the downfall of some of the characters.

Love is at the heart of both M Butterfly and SSTLS. The main characters (René and Lenny, who are both Westerners) fall in love with Asian women, and the romances are characterized as a sort of “forbidden love,” more specifically in René’s case. Song claims that a relationship with a Westerner is looked down upon in her society, which matters a lot to her. Similarly, Eunice mentions several times that her parents would not approve of her relationship with Lenny, which was clearly shown during the dinner with the Park family. While I have yet to finish SSTLS, M Butterfly ends with the romance destroying René, leaving him dead at the end of the novel, and SSTLS (considering the title) seems to be on track to leave a ruined relationship between Lenny and Eunice.

Another underlying, yet manipulating theme of the story is the role of politics, specifically in M Butterfly. At the end of the movie, we find out that Song was a Chinese male spy disguised as woman, and he had used René’s love for him to gain French intelligence about the Vietnam War. Chinese politics had an iron fist over how Song behaved, and he believed so much in his ideals that he was willing to go to the lengths shown in the movie to destroy someone, someone that Song seemingly has deep affections for by the end of the movie, even though homosexual sentiments are severely reprimanded in a nation like China. In the case of SSTLS, the US has become controlled by a single political think-tank, and the political atmosphere has effects on Lenny and Eunice’s relationship. Lenny does not want to become involved in the LNWI vs. HNWI conflict, as he fears for his safety and that of Eunice’s. Eunice, while sharing similar feelings towards the political atmosphere, has a personal connection to the issue, as her sister has become involved in the clash. This presented an impediment in Lenny and Eunice’s relationship, as Lenny refused to let Eunice go to check up on her sister, and Lenny claims that the incident of Noah’s death and Eunice’s disregard for her own safety has left him thinking that Lenny and Eunice should not be together, as they want very different things. While the situation sort of resolves itself later on, it is clear that politics play a pivotal role in both SSTLS and M Butterfly.

The Dark Side of the Social Networks

In Super Sad True Love Story, the influence of social media and how its usage comes to define our society is a prominent theme in the book. With the commonplace usage of the äppärät, which serves as a futuristic do-it-all iPhone, the society created by Shteyngart has become dependent on the device as a substitute for social interactions between two people.

Lenny decides to have a reunion at a bar with his friends following his trip to Italy. While there, one of Lenny’s friends suggests that they should “FAC,” or Form A Community. He explains to Lenny that this is “…a way to judge people. And let them judge you” (88). The äppärät then returns results that judge your compatibility with whoever you are FACing (which is a play on the homophonic explicative). This new method of interacting removes the human interaction involved with socializing and forming relationships with others, much like Facebook and text messaging are starting to do in today’s society. The book goes further with this idea, with one of Lenny’s coworkers adding Lenny to his list of “101 People We Need to Feel Sorry For.” Worried about the social repercussions he could have with Eunice, Lenny approaches him, saying, “‘Hey, guy. Look, I appreciate the attention, but I got this new girlfriend with 780 F***ability and I’m kind of, like trying to play it real coolio with her. So would you mind taking me off your stream?’” (120). Shteyngart smartly highlights our society’s obsession over how comments passed around social networks can make or break our social standings, whether they be true or not.

Continuing with this new method of evaluating individuals based on computer-analyzed profiles, the ratings provided by the äppärät prove to be a significant basis on whether it is valuable to socialize with another person. This rating system is also heavily centralized on sexual relations between two people, with the main rankings consisting of “Hotness” and “F***ability.” As Noah, one Lenny’s friends, points out, “‘Your äppärät runs [her profile] against the stuff you’ve downloaded about yourself and then it comes up with a [F***ability] score” (90). Shtyngart takes the emphasis of sex appeal today’s world and increases it two-fold, showing us the current path our society is headed to if this how we continue to conduct ourselves on social networks.