Ramifications of Technology on Plot

While watching this film, in the wake of the release of this montage—which satirizes the lazy horror writer’s plot device—there was one question that was begging to be asked. What happens to common plot devices and narratives when communication technology becomes sufficiently advanced and ubiquitous? How does a writer navigate the reality of an increasingly connected world, when trying to spring the perfect trap for an unwitting victim of their own creation?

The truth of the matter is that this singularity has likely already arrived. At this moment, there are myriad devices that fit in merely a pocket that would manage to quickly thwart any burgeoning horror writer’s attempt at killing off their adolescent cast. The only way out of this little plot problem is the introduction of technological failure (that is, some magic force that prevents communication from functioning correctly for the sake of story, effectively creating an artistic sandbox). This is becoming harder and harder to reconcile as an audience.

How can any member of the modernized world take these threats seriously? There are so many platforms for instant communication, and so many devices that provide near perfect geo-location, that the pill becomes too unbearable (and honestly, offensive) to swallow. From this point forward, freedom is just a tweet away, whether writers are willing to accept it or not.

UPDATE (2/15/2010): A tangential mention of the ramification of technology on plot (different from the examples above, as it points out the lazy application of technology as conduit to magic plot advancement, instead of reinforcement).

"We seek on the Internet because that’s where we find. In the tween movie Twilight, heroine Bella discovers that her boyfriend Edward is a vampire by consulting a website with a convenient link to supernatural occurrences in her very own tiny town. The Internet is here collectively written, but perfectly tailored to exactly her individual needs. It is not the wizened woman in the house down the road that holds the truth to Edward’s identity, but an anonymous and multiply sourced repository of lore. A silent film would have cut to an intertitle to explain a secret; a Thirties noir would have spun newspaper headlines in circles to leap forward in time; a Seventies sci-fi flick would have introduced a wacky professor or scientist to deliver a piece of arcana. Today a quick cut to Google delivers the missing link. It advances the plot." Christine Smallwood at The Baffler

Is this the role technology should play in narrative?

On The Conclusions of Objectivity

After searching long and hard for the most egregious distortion of facts on Conservapedia—the last refuge for those unhappy with the academic version of history, and whom search only for “truth”—there seemed to be one article that stood above the rest as a monument to human misunderstanding, and a paragon of desperation. That article was on the subject of evolution.

One might think that given the nature of the site (an encyclopedia purportedly documenting reality), long winded diatribes, and counter arguments would be deemed inappropriate and unacceptable—as they obviously work towards undermining the perception of a topic, and not towards creating the definition. This type of dialogue does not convey anything but bias by virtue of its nature! And this is the type of dialogue that one can expect from any politically charged topic (see abortion, once we are finished here) on the web site.

In addition to the false premise of Conservapedia (that all articles share), the fundamental problem with the article associated with evolution, is that it functions solely to progress the agenda of the Intelligent Design movement in convincing people that Creationism, and tangential disciplines, are science. Science is the antithesis of religion: it is not dogmatic and it is not sacrosanct. Theories can be changed. Scripture cannot (unless the religion is still breathing).

How is Intelligent Design scrutable? It isn't, and that is why it is not science, and why it should never be muttered in the same breath as Darwin’s theory (do you hear that Ben Stein?). Nobody said Darwin has it perfectly correct, we just said he has the best supported argument in the confines of the Scientific Method at this time. And even still, the theory does not preclude the existence of a God (yes, that is true, and they can and should coexist)!

Have your cake and eat it too, or just stop masquerading as science and truth!