I think that there is a problem with scale in Vonnegut's analysis: sure, most weeks things go up or down a little bit but remain basically even and boring. But on the scale of years, there are turning points at which there is a HUGE amount of drama and VERY high stakes for the ensuing years. Cinderella probably had her boring days once she was "living happily ever after", but the week or so it took to get hitched by the prince WAS just as dramatic as all that, and the outcome was worthy of the drama.
I think because high stakes and high drama processes DO happen in real life, we simulate them with vicarious experiences of narrative so we can be ready mentally. If we don't digest stories beforehand, we won't have a model for when we discover we have cancer, risk losing a job or a deal, court a loved one, try to get accepted to an ivy league school, etc.
And if there isn't SOME drama in your life with real stakes and real risks, you probably need to go out and take on some challenges. Such a desire for drama is hardly pathetic or dysfunctional. That is, unless you stay at home and only satisfy it vicariously with HBO, or create needless challenges without any real stakes like driving too fast...
About 6 years ago, I saw him do these and the full timeline drawing of Hamlet at Washington and Lee University. In his very understated way he wowed the audience, but at this point he had the audience in stitches.
You're right, but his has a more memorable take-home: "We're trying to make our life into a fairy tale."
For convincing reason X, we create drama and problems for ourselves unnecessarily. We shouldn't do that. It's silly and childish. The truthfulness of reason X is irrelevant for the truthfulness of his primary point. I smile at his disingenuousness, and take home his message. I don't think he's actually trying to fool anyone - it's just a way of making a point.
Personally, I like demanding tasks, because then people on the team have less time for politics. United against a common enemy/for a common purpose and all that.
1) The loss of God probably plays a large role here. Faith provides a meta-narrative that gives the humdrum of life context and a story arc. Without that you just have a random collection of sensations without meaning.
2) We can't look at the last 30 years as normative. Pop culture (eg MTV) has dramatically increased the amount of drama we feel like we need. My Generation Y has an increasing emphasis on disconnected experiences -- and we have a whole new set of cultural artifacts to show for it -- Seinfeld, Improv Everywhere, Garden State, Juno, etc.
1) There are lots of unifying themes and grounds of meaning besides God -- the motherland, the continuity of the family, evolution, personal actualization, etc.
2) I disagree with most statements to the effect that "everything is different now", though the OP has a couple of interesting points. First -- disconnectedness has been a theme in the arts since the turn of the century (Dada, Sartre, etc). Second, I think that folks sitting around the campfire in the Kalahari probably like drama just as much as we do, they just that their media are different -- stories, songs, and low tech ritual versus TV; but I think the charge of meaning is the same, even if the amount of color and noise is vastly different.
I would say we've even lost that. A hundred years ago people might have hung their hat on any of those things you mentioned -- or more often than not, moralistic religion -- but at least they were part of some kind of grand story. Now it feels like we're all kind of floating out there. We're the middle children of history as Tyler Durden so eloquently said.
We're certainly all hard-wired for a narrative, I just had too many experiences in college, where I was like "Are you serious?! You're re-enacting last weeks episode of the Real World!" :)
The loss of God???? What in the world are you talking about? The majority of people in the US are religious. Religious institutions are all over the place and have huge influence on society.
When we get an openly atheist president, then you can complain about the loss of God.
I'm not about to thread-jack here, but I did think it prudent to mention that, as an atheist, I disagree with #1. There can be plenty of non-religious meaning behind those random sensations; it just depends on your perspective.
This would explain the effectiveness of marketing. If you can increase the perceived glamour (or ability to generate drama) of a product, people will be more likely to buy it.
I think because high stakes and high drama processes DO happen in real life, we simulate them with vicarious experiences of narrative so we can be ready mentally. If we don't digest stories beforehand, we won't have a model for when we discover we have cancer, risk losing a job or a deal, court a loved one, try to get accepted to an ivy league school, etc.
And if there isn't SOME drama in your life with real stakes and real risks, you probably need to go out and take on some challenges. Such a desire for drama is hardly pathetic or dysfunctional. That is, unless you stay at home and only satisfy it vicariously with HBO, or create needless challenges without any real stakes like driving too fast...