I've considered starting this thread for some time and am curious to see if it gets any kind of traction. The purpose, really, is to consider, analyze, and discuss the art of wrestling using the tools, ideas, and theories of cultural and literary critics. I believe there are compelling reasons for viewing and understanding wrestling as a legitimate literary form on par with the novel, poem, play, and cinema, and as such, feel that reading wrestling through the lens of literary criticism can provide to us new insights into the human condition.

The authoritative starting point for this enterprise is renowned French cultural critic and literary theorist Roland Barthes and his essay "The World of Wrestling" chapter in his famous book Mythologies ("The World of Wrestling" appears on pages 13-23 of the linked pdf). In it, Barthes frames his argument with his description of the prevailing norms of the 1950s French professional wrestling scene. He argues that wrestling exists purely as spectacle, with everything about a wrestler (his costume, appearance, mannerisms, and move-set) all communicating things designed to be completely intelligible by the audience. We would all recognize the exaggerated practice of "selling," for example, as one designed to facilitate audience intelligibility of the performance. This intelligibility allows wrestlers to effectively communicate a story that, in turn, stirs a cathartic reaction from the audience such as a pop or heel heat.

Barthes' ideas remain incredibly relevant nearly 60 years after Mythologies was written, and I invite each ITT to examine the text linked above.

I also discovered an academic-minded blog that approaches wrestling through the ideas of Barthes:

http://thespectacleofexcess.com

I recommend skimming through and checking out a few of the articles--feel free to post any you'd like to discuss further.

Here's a short one that I found particularly sophisticated: "On Manipulating the Smarter Among the Marks.". The thesis is that WWE will bury/humiliate smark-favored wrestlers (the piece uses Damien Sandow during his MizDow run as its prime example) just to get heat from Smarks who don't robotically cheer faces and boo heels. In effect, WWE generates a new kind of heat fueled by the tears of Smark fans like us (see, too, the blazing heat created from the stubborn Roman Reigns main-event push we all hated).

That's just one example, and I'm certainly open to discussing it, Barthes, or anything else from this type of perspective.

I haven't read these specific articles, but one of the problems I have seen when people try and apply cultural and art criticism to wrestling is that they tend to lose sight of the fact that wrestling is a business. For example, the reason companies and wrestlers try to get heat is to draw money; usually to use a heel to get over a face, or so people pay to see that heel lose or get embarrassed. Heat is not an end in itself. Burying Sandow doesn't help WWE draw money in any way I can tell. He was removed from TV and PPVs, and eventually left. That's not worthwhile heat.

Moo, you were one of the posters I had in mind in starting this thread. In any event, serious academic analysis of wrestling *always* considers its business aspect. A phrase you'll see repeated numerous times in "The Spectacle of Excess" is "carny-corporate" McMahon & Co will have our attention (and get us to open our wallets) at all costs. For smarks it takes more work, and while I agree that heat isn't an end in of itself--caring about the product is, regardless of how that happens. Most Smarks will cheer the ostensibly heel Kevin Owens because he's so damn good at what he does. So WWE has to change things up to get heel heat from this type of fan. The article I linked above nails it:

"This scenario illustrates why a smark is nothing more than one of the smarter among the marks. We have to remember that this is wrestling, the mentality is carny-corporate, they will have our heat by hook or by crook, so they have it with the suffering of Mizdow. Don’t you feel indignant about what he’s been made to do! He’s so funny! He’s so much better than this! We want our Damien Sandow!

Tough sh*t, b*tches. To the McMahon Family, the particular flavor of heat they get from manipulating the smarter of the marks is sublime. Oh, you know they feel all tingly about it. They are withholding the potential of the talent because it generates powerful smark heat."

Maybe WWE is trying to do that. And I do think Vince has a need to feel better than the others and feel in charge.

But I don't see how burying Sandow got people to watch or attend that otherwise wouldn't have. Do they go to the show in hopes that they see Sandow overcome the obstacle that is the company itself? Or maybe they bought his merch hoping this would mean the company would 'have' to put him on TV? I think the argument would be more compelling if Sandow ended up actually being pushed at some point down the line rather than being released. In the end, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that WWE just didn't think Sandow had that much potential; if they did, they would have kept him.

I definitely see your point here. Keep in mind this piece was written in early 2015 well-before Sandow's release, so the author didn't exactly know how his angle would finish up.

Nonetheless, I think there is something to WWE keeping smark-favorites down to generate heat. Think of how mad it used to make us when Michael Cole would call Daniel Bryan a nerd, or the white-hot rage we all felt when he lost to Sheamus in 12 seconds at Wrestlemania. The general thesis here is that any heat that keeps us interested, even if its heat at the meta-level where we're pissed at the product's direction, is what WWE aims for. The most dangerous possibility from a business perspective is that we stop caring (and as such, stop watching, buying tickets, and ordering merch).

Incredible 5 minute discussion of pro-wrestling as art from Mike Quackenbush that was making the rounds on Twitter today:

I am very interested in this topic, unfortunately I really don't have the time I would think necessary to contribute right now. I still will read and add in anyway I can though

"On the Phenomenology of AJ Styles and the Mysteries of They Don't Want None"

If anyone actually stops by to read, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Miz-Ziggler didn't main event, FWIW. I mean, it was certainly the biggest part of the show to many of us, but it was in the middle of the card. From your wording maybe you knew that, but then you compared it to Bret-Bulldog at SummerSlam '92, so I dunno.

I don't have much to add with regard to James Ellsworth, but you have an enjoyable writing style.

Thanks--good catch. I was in and out of the living room throughout the PPV, missed Miz vs. Ziggler live, so I went back watched the replay. I had assumed it was the last match, so I'll make an update.

I'm glad you enjoyed, as I think the writing on that blog is generally super-high quality as far as wrestling criticism and analysis goes. I highly recommend the Phenomenology of AJ Styles piece a couple of posts up. And by all means read the original Roland Barthes Chapter in Mythologies linked in the OP, as it continues to inform readings of wrestling today.

By the way, I've seen you talk about how shocked you were by the Barry Horowitz upset win at the time...the unfortunate thing was this was that the announcers laid it on really thick in weeks leading up to that point, teasing that he was going to win a match soon. He had just been this background character forever that they barely bothered to acknowledge by name. Then they started talking about him more, about how he was searching for that elusive win. Then he started getting surprise near-falls during his jobs. They basically screamed from the rooftops that the upset was coming relatively soon. That made it a lot less impactful than 1-2-3 Kid's upset win on Raw over Razor Ramon, especially since the Kid upset a legit star and Horowitz upset a JTTS.

Hard to disagree with the above. And I do have great memories of the 123 Kid Razor upset, though I probably prefer the Horowitz upset since he remained a lifetime jobber while the Kid had a decent singles career as that character and even more so as (sigh) X-Pac.

Also, I started a "Best WWE jobbers thread" in OOT over ten years ago that predates the Wrestlemania megathread. I wish I could find it somehow.

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...fpart=all&vc=1

Will get to reading the essay later today.

Oh thanks for finding this. It's worth a read, not to mention seeing some old school posters in that thread.

Congrats on getting posted. +1 to you having an enjoyable style, I actually enjoyed it much more than anything else I've read on the site, I was really put off by the Hardy article you posted for example.

Hey thanks...style confirmed to be honed after 12 years of posting on 2+2.

Anything in particular you didn't like about the Hardy article? I really like the Phenomenology of AJ styles piece (which I've only recently understood "phenomenology" as a play on "phenomenal.") In any event, I have a few other ideas percolating that I might bounce off you all ITT.

Nice piece out this morning on Spectacle of Excess:

On Donald Trump, Goldberg, and Premature Pushes.

http://thespectacleofexcess.com/2016...mature-pushes/

It didn't really say anything outside of the obvious. It was basically just recapping something the writer really liked and I just wasn't a fan of their style. Although maybe I'm just dumb and missed the point.

Going public was the worst thing that ever happened to the WWE product. I was thinking of how story lines would go over in the past. First of all, McMahon would be using the polarizing figure of Trump as a talking point to rile up the crowds one way or another. The other story line I saw briefly the other night was when a wrestler had his best friend in the audience watching the match, then he came in to congratulate him and he ended up clothslining his friend. Then they immediately had a match.

In the past there would be more build up of this. The first time the wrestler fought, maybe his friend would just be in the audience cheering him on. Then the second time maybe he goes into the ring to congratulate him. The third time he comes in again, and this time he even celebrates like he won the match annoying his friend, then finally the fourth time the wrestler can't take it anymore and he hits him. Then they would promote this match for their huge PPV upcoming. That seems like the way a story arc should go. Maybe I'm out of touch here.

No argument here about the pacing of storylines, but that's much less about going public than it is about expanding to roughly 20 billion hours of televised product per week (though I guess you could easily connect the dots between those two things, as there's an argument that it maximizes profits to the benefit of shareholders).

A bump for my latest essay on the XFL’s return:

http://thespectacleofexcess.com/2018...postmodernism/

Please enjoy if you have a spare moment.