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.