Feed by M.T. Anderson
M.T. Anderson admits Feed is more contemporary allegory than forecast for the future.1 The novel succeeds in illustrating the threats mass media, technology, and Big Corp pose to independent thought and the longevity of the human species and while it may not thoroughly discuss underlying causes, it certainly does nail the symptoms: the destruction of the family unit, the extension of childhood into stillborn adulthood, the pervasiveness of ironic language, the breeding of people as consumers through schooling and media, the ecologically intertwined world war, and the mechanical replacement and subsequent atrophy of organic limbs. Published in 2002, before Twitter, TikTok, and YouTube, its concerns have, unfortunately, only grown more relevant today and with Elon Musk pursuing Neuralink, the "feed" itself is not even allegory anymore but literal near future reality.
The troubling confusion with Feed, however, is that Anderson shares these concerns by participating as celebrity author in the commodification of young minds with a coming-of-age book of his own, which, it should be noted, fails to offer any resolutions other than death or depression. Imagine the pitch to Candlewick Press: “It’s like Catcher in the Rye but Sci-Fi!” The intended disappointment, when Titus concedes trying to break through the alienation of consumerism, is, of course, frustrating, but furthermore, on the conceptual plane, Anderson's dystopia is particularly disgusting because it is Zion-less. Violet, the character with the greatest sense of agency, appears to comprehend the horrors of techno-capitalism and Feed reads as if its audience should admire her materialistic self-control. Yet her stoicism is ultimately empty, as she never dares to pursue anything more sublime than “going up to the mountains” with Titus. Violet's father appears to offer tools for independent thought. Yet rather than provide love and guidance, this potential mentor only scorns (You don't even get my Time Machine reference! Pathetic child!). Is this Anderson's attitude toward the next generation, too? Rather than a dynamic journey from ignorance to inspired purpose, Feed's endorsed heroic rite of passage is stagnant lolling in shame, self-pity, and hopelessness. Titus may not solve his problems, but, look, he has officially matured, because now he reads the worldly news like Violet and is sad about it, too! Even worse, Anderson provides little reason to even seek revolution. Violet's hysteria regarding the imminent end of the world goes unopposed. So, too, does Titus' anti-climatic realization that “there’s nothing more [to life] than that... just us, on the bridge of dreams.” Why bother fighting for change, then? There is an argument for realism, that these forces are incredibly complex and that it does more harm than good to ignore, sugarcoat, or simplify. But then again, dreams of “bubble neighborhoods” and “upcars” are tolerable, but a character finding true independence and meaning outside of mainstream America is too implausible? A character having hope for the future is off limits?2 The real danger Feed poses is that its audience will not grasp the a priori implications of the book's very existence: that it was written by an actual American adult, accepted by a major publishing company, printed thousands of times, distributed to stores and schools across the country, and brandished, even, with a shiny silver emblem. The deeper message kids should take away from Feed is that their parents are spiritually broke.
But what if Anderson is aware of this irony? Like saying Coke™ one thousand times is funny if you know it’s an advertisement. As in, Anderson demonstrates just how perversely doomed America is by writing an award winning young adult novel that only affirms modern life as meaningless and destructive. How should we judge this National Book Award Finalist then? One way would be by its material effect on the world, regardless of intention.3 It is still unclear what good Feed's publication could have spawned, even if its supposed satiric end were easily intelligible and not merely attainable by the kind of hypothetical leap taken here. Should an uprising of Freshman Literature teachers bearing red pens have stormed the offices of those superintendents who forced this gross material upon their classrooms? It should not have been lost on Feed's author that an ironic fight against mainstream America could only achieve that of Violet's own futile protests. On the other hand, Musk and the like actually provide a value system as intriguing as anything else available in the mainstream media market. Despite the antics, Musk's pursuits are founded in the beliefs that the human species is dignified and precious and that our most difficult problems should be attacked with bold aspirations. The philosophies embodied by Silicon Valley are not flawless, but the road to Feed's hell is paved by compelling visions. Even more reason for those who fear the externalities of these pursuits of infinite profits and the perfectbility of man to provide competitive alternatives. Anderson, however, appears too concerned with the lexically appropriate and Netflix-able to offer any. Either that or he has, himself, given up. Why write young adult fiction, then?
[1] He says so in the interview appended to my edition of the novel (ISBN 9780763622596).
[2] If we are to find solutions, don’t we have to first believe they exist? Here’s physicist David Deutsch on optimism.
[3] Philosophy Tube has a nice breakdown of Slavoj Žižek’s ideas on this approach.