She blinded me with Science

     Moretti takes an analytical and objective approach to literature in his article, “Graphs, Maps, and Trees” by trying to discover the bigger picture literature poses rather than focusing on the smaller, less significant patterns that most scholars today focus on.  In doing so, Moretti takes a scientific approach to literature, analyzing graphs and historical information to draw conclusions about the rise and fall of a genre.  This approach to literature gives it an objective, quantitative result, excluding the subjective aspect usually studied in literature, which, depending on the application of the result, can be beneficial or detrimental.
     This method of looking at literature is beneficial in that it presents information systematically, leaving little room for interpretation by describing the trends observed in the popularity of literary genres.  Moretti attempts to shift the focus of the study of individual texts to the study of texts in general.  Genres rise and fall according to the political situations governing the time and wars dictate popularity, shown in tracing the rise and fall of ‘the novel’ in different countries during various wars.  He concludes that if literature is depicted scientifically, quantitatively, then it poses questions to popularity of genres and the disappearances of genres that do not already have an answer.  This, at large, is a very science oriented way of approaching literature. 
     There are, however, detriments to this ‘scientific method of literature’, which completely discredit the subjectivity of a text.  In Moretti’s research, for example, he discredits the idea that a text, or a specific genre, is popular simply because people at the time enjoy reading that type of literature.  He seeks to explain away the power of words through graphs and data, and then presents his audience with an unanswerable question, providing unnecessary ambiguity to the study of literature, as if it didn’t have enough of that already.
     As applied to Super Sad True Love Story, this method brings into question the genre of the novel, the political aspects of today as a dictator in the novel’s popularity, and the big picture that is reflected in the novel’s pages, all of which are readily available from a close read.  This novel could be many genres: a dystopian novel, a romance novel, a coming of age novel, all of which have specifically to do with the political atmosphere of the country in this day and age.  SSTLS mirrors political predictions of a United States in the near future, and comments heavily on the corruption of the society.  In fact, a little bit of Moretti’s theory of generation and the disappearance of a genre are in play IN the novel.  Books in this future United States are obsolete ‘novelties’.  The generation depicted during this time period does not read books, nor does it produce anything of literary merit, and books of all genres disappear. 

I'm sorry, but I object. That just isn't ok.

ATTENTION: PLOT SPOILERS. 
Because it is relevant to my argument, I do spoil the plot of SSTL.  Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

In many ways, the film M Butterfly mirrors the major themes of Gary Shteyngart’s Super Sad True Love Story.  One of the most obvious conflicts in both stories is the idea of love and how it ties into gender and is guided through ethnicity.  In both stories, the main character, a white male approaching middle age, falls in love with a younger, attractive Asian woman.  However, in M Butterfly, the audience and the main character both learn that looks are deceiving and that politics are the driving force between all relationships, whereas in Super Sad True Love Story, the audience is lead to believe that youth is the driving force between relationships, and that ethnicity is the deciding factor. 

In M. Butterfly, the main character falls in love with a Chinese opera singer, a mysterious young woman who veils herself in mystery.  As the main character becomes intimate with her, it is revealed to the audience that the woman is really working for the Chinese government.  She discloses information about United States troop movement to her corresponding spies.  She goes away for a while to ‘have a baby’, and returns a year later with the little boy.  She then disappears for a few more years to work in a concentration camp.  Meanwhile, the main character loses everything, basing his predictions of Asian culture on the ideas his mistress is disclosing gently to him.  When he gets back to the United States, he finds that the woman he loved is actually a man disguised as a woman who made everything about culture and tradition up to get information out of the main character.  Distressed, the main character commits suicide in a jail in front of the entire prison, giving a performance about his love.  The Asian man used the main character in order to get political information, faking everything about a woman in order to get close without flat asking for the information.  In the end, there is a hint that the man posing as a woman actually did have feelings for the main character, but it is not entirely clear that he did, suggesting that even though love may have been present during the relationship, loyalty to one’s country and political sacrifices were more important.

Super Sad True Love Story, however, suggests a slightly different message while holding on to the idea that love and life is cruel.  Lenny, the main character, falls in love with a Korean girl, Eunice, and finds out through a series of harsh ‘trials’ that her ethnicity dictates the amount of love she showers him.  In the end, it is revealed to the audience that Eunice feels that she needs to be punished for not being a ‘good daughter’ and for cheating on Lenny by being with Joshie, the man who gets younger as the years progress.  This same idea is seen in Eunice’s mother’s behavior, blaming herself when her husband hit her because the food wasn’t good enough, or the house wasn’t clean, or he didn’t think his daughters were good enough to uphold his family name.  This behavior not only suggests that it has been observed and practiced through the family, but that ethnicity has a strong say in guilt and the ability to love.  Eunice feels guilty about being wrong for Lenny, so she decides to ‘punish’ herself by being with Joshie, the man who treats her significantly worse than Lenny does, and demands quite a bit out of her.  She even writes herself an email apologizing to Lenny and herself for giving him up, saying that she does still love Lenny when she decides to leave him. 

Both stories suggest that love is cruel and is not always pure in both cases, and in both cases, it is the woman’s love that is put into question, unlike most literature where the man’s love is the one under scrutiny.  Neither ends happily, suggesting further that, realistically, love does not end well for those involved.  No matter the driving force, be it political, ethnical, or because the person attached actually loves his or her partner, love ends badly in the end.

On a personal, slightly unrelated note, I have found it incredibly depressing that love is seen in this light in the world of literature.  It is as if there are no ‘happily ever after’ outside of Disney and faerie tales.  It is as if literature is trying to capture the cruelty and unhappiness of the world and compacting it into a small, bite-size package the audience can ingest and carry with them for the rest of their lives.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines love as “a feeling or disposition of deep affection or fondness for someone, typically arising from a recognition of attractive qualities, from natural affinity, or from sympathy and manifesting itself in concern for the other's welfare and pleasure in his or her presence”.  Respectfully, Urban Dictionary defines love as “nature’s way of tricking people into reproducing”.  These two contradicting definitions pose many questions about love and which way culture perceives it, which is frightening.  If something as basic as love isn’t agreed upon, then is anything certain in the world?

This is the world that we live in

As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, a ‘dystopia’ is “An imaginary place or condition in which everything is as bad as possible” (Dystopia, def. 1), which is exactly where Shteyngart has set his novel.  Lenny lives in a not-to-distant United States where the government is at war with another country and is constantly monitoring its citizens.  In this world, everyone is judged by their Credit score and the dollar is virtually worthless.  In this world Shteyngart paints, everyone is judged and everyone is a suspect, a place where one can’t even trust one’s friends.

“CRISISNET: DOLLAR LOSES OVER 3% IN LONDON TRADING TO FINISH AT HISTORIC LOW OF 1 EURO = $8.64 IN ADVANCE OF CHINESE CENTRAL BANKER ARRIVAL U.S; LIBOR RATE FALLS 57 BASIS POINTS; DOLLAR LOWER BY 2.3% AGAINST YUAN AT 1 YUAN = $4.90” (81).  

The most striking detail about this piece is that the information about the dollar is under, ‘CrisisNet’, producing an aura that the following information is the difference between life and death.  It is done in a quick, matter-of-fact, no nonsense way, leaving out all logical punctuation, allowing the idea of ‘crisis’ to really hit the reader and in this case, Lenny.   If the dollar is falling, the United States economy is falling as well.  To tie it in with the definition, this would a ‘condition in which everything is as bad as possible’.

“IT IS FORBIDDEN TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS CHECKPOINT (‘THE OBJECT’).  BY READING THIS SIGN YOU HAVE DENIED EXISTENCE OF THE OBJECT AND IMPLIED CONSENT.” (82)

Not only is this phrase ironic, it also speaks volumes on how much the government has come to control the population.  Everyone has to be literate to have an apparati, where the information is presented in print.  Reading a passing sign is almost habit.  In making a sign in uppercase letters, it immediately draws a passenger’s attention.  It is obvious that the following procedures the government is going to take are against Constitutional rights, thus people having to ‘give their consent to deny anything that happens at the checkpoint’.  It is a visual contract with the public over what they are and aren’t allowed to talk about in the ‘privacy’ of their own homes.  The phrase is ironic because Lenny reports about it anyways, showing that there is definitely a way around denying the existence/activities of the checkpoints.  When the government probes and prods people for the sake of ‘national security’, and then asks people to ‘consent and deny’, there is a serious distrust built between the government and its people. 

“ ‘I think Noah may be ARA,’ ” he whispered.  ‘What?’ ‘I think he’s working for the Bipartisans.’…
‘You watch, if the Chinese take over, Noah will be sucking up to them’”(96).

Lenny is told here by another friend that he cannot trust Noah, his college buddy. This illustrates a time when people aren’t only distrustful of the government, but are also distrustful of their friends and family members, much like the ‘black list’ in the 1950s, where people were marked for being communist by family members, friends, and neighbors who themselves didn’t want to be in trouble with the government.  In this futuristic world, however, ‘being communist’ is equated with ‘being bipartisan’, infringing on people’s freedom of speech and their right to choose which ever political party they agree most with. 

All these passages pull strongly on events happening now, raising the question of whether or not the United States as a whole is turning into a dystopian cesspool.