real/brilliant: LOST and How Story Trumps Literary Theory

I’m a huge fan of literary theory, you know that. But for one hour each week, I could care less about literary theory because I am swept away by story. The LOST episode last night was no disappointment. Amazing. Right? Let me hear it.

There are times that writers only want to create a mesmerizing story, not write a book with three or four levels. Not all of us are J.R.R. Tolkien. Not all of us want to figure out what it means when our main character walks into a river and is drowned or disappears down a rabbit hole. Sure, we’ll want to know later, but for the moment, just let us make the story unfold.

I’ve spent four years hounding folks on the Internet to find out spoilers for LOST. Since the first episode when I wanted to know what in the heck that smoke monster was, I’ve made friends with people from Hawaii, LA, Comic-Con, everywhere, anyone who could give me any inside information on upcoming episodes, just to satiate my curiosity for the show. This year marks the first time I don’t want to know what happens next. This year, I just want to watch it unfold each week. Am I sold on the literary theories or the story? What do you think?

Literary theory is not what makes a writer start writing. We don’t set out to create a new version of Hamlet, we start talking about a guy in Wisconsin who raises dogs and tries to avenge his father’s death (The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by David Wroblewski). We don’t set out to create another version of the Christ story, we talk about a man who goes to sea to catch a giant fish and barely survives the ordeal (The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway). See what I mean? Writers are motivated by character and plot. What if I put this character in this situation and have her meet this other character who is in this situation? What would happen? Voila, a story. That’s what happens.

I really do think story trumps literary theory. C.S. Lewis wrote fantastic stories (he borrowed heavily from every story he loved as a child and a man) and Tolkien wrote literary masterpieces, but in recent biographical and critical theory treatises (Planet Narnia and The Magician’s Book), it was pointed out that Tolkien would have NEVER kept writing the Lord of the Rings had it not been for Lewis. Lewis kept Tolkien moving forward on the story while Tolkien got lost in the literary theory he kept running back to (his defensive behavior as a writer). Tolkien would spend months figuring out the constellations of Middle Earth viewable on a particular night during a particular battle while Lewis took us into Narnia time and time again, spinning a story that has stood the test of time (LOTR has also stood the test of time, perhaps better than the Narniad, but I give Lewis a lot of credit for pushing Tolkien forward, otherwise, we would never know LOTR and its brilliance).

I do think LOST will be a landmark television show. I think it’s a story that has never been told before. Later, we can talk plot points (the four-toed statue, how old is Richard Alpert, how long was Charles Widmore on that island anyway, and why did he have to leave) and figure out what literary theories they espouse, but for now, just let me sail along on that yacht with Pen and Des and their son, Charlie (<sob> I love that) and let me savor every second of the story spinning out.

For much of my childhood I wanted to go to Narnia or to the Big Woods with Laura Ingalls, but in my adult life, I want to go to the world of LOST. Who wouldn’t?

Happy viewing, LOST fans.

Tagged as: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, literary theory, LOST, story