Last week Ross Douthat posted a comparison of The Sopranos and The Wire . He sees the two shows in terms of psychology v. sociology, the former being the more insightful because it presents flesh and blood human beings while the latter reduces its characters to their surrounding culture in order to critique it.
He is rehashing an argument he made when comparing Mad Men s Don Draper to Breaking Bad s Walter White: White is the more interesting character because his motives are complex while Drapers soul appears flat because Mad Men is first and foremost a show about 1960s America.
Switching genres, Tom Wolfe famously argued the death of the novel is upon us because novelists since the 1960s have retreated from realism. His essay ”Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast critiques the absurdist novels of Jorge Luis Borges, Vladimir Nabokov and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Wolfes call was for contemporary writers to create social novels in the tradition of Charles Dickens: The novelist should report on the cultural movements of his time.
What would Wolfe think of psychological novels like Dostoevskys? Does his call for more reporter-novelists apply to televisions storytellers as well? More importantly, arent the really great books timeless because they are not primarily about a particular time? And dont they do that by presenting us with a person so particular, so real, it encourages us to reflect on what motivations all human beings share or dont share in common?
We launched the First Things 2023 Year-End Campaign to keep articles like the one you just read free of charge to everyone.
Measured in dollars and cents, this doesn't make sense. But consider who is able to read First Things: pastors and priests, college students and professors, young professionals and families. Last year, we had more than three million unique readers on firstthings.com.
Informing and inspiring these people is why First Things doesn't only think in terms of dollars and cents. And it's why we urgently need your year-end support.
Will you give today?