Literature

Lev Grossman, author of The Magician’s trilogy, has stated that in the series— which is also clear as day for readers— he recreates a version of C.S. Lewis’ world, Narnia. Many readers grew angry, believing that Grossman was not creative enough to create his own world. However, the author expresses (in multiple interviews) that he’s trying to create a grown up version of Narnia, as he himself grew up loving the series.

Additionally, Grossman further expounds that he intended to integrate the magician aspect of the beloved Harry Potter series into his books.

For those who have not read The Magicians, the series circulates around Quentin Coldwater, an eighteen-year-old who discovers magic after finding Brakebills, a school for magicians. Quentin was obsessed with the fantastical Fillory books— Grossman’s version of the Narnia books— and soon learns that Fillory is, in fact, real.

Grossman references and creates allusions to the pop-culture works of Tolkien, George R.R. Martin, Rowling, Lewis and many more throughout the series.

With all of that said, I think a real discussion and comparison of every allusion/reference to Lewis throughout The Magicians trilogy would be interesting in opening up an in-depth conversation. Not only would this help readers see that Grossman is not plagiarizing, but it would display specifically how Grossman took Narnia (and Harry Potter) and made such a captivating grown-up version.

To conclude, I’ll leave with a comment made by the New York Times, “if the Narnia books were like catnip for a certain kind of kid, these books are like crack for a certain kind of adult.”

Fan fiction seems to be a bit like Marmite: fans of original fiction either love it or hate it.

When I took my 'first foray' into the realms of fan fiction, I was surprised to encounter a wider range of sub-genres, tropes and terminology than I had realised…

Sequels and prequels to other authors' narratives, along with spin-off texts, new characters and 'non cannon' rewrites can prove contentious–especially when fans feel that the new text undermines or distorts aspects of the original work.

Yet, for some people, it extends the enjoyment gained from the original text and adds dimensions to the fictional universe in question. It can prove satisfying to read (or write) a character's backstory or find out what happens next–even if these events and characters were created by someone else and/or not generally considered to be 'cannon.'

In some cases, prequels, sequels and rewrites by different writers–without the approval or authorisation of the original author-have become published or otherwise firmly established in mainstream culture. Examples include Jean Rhys's 'Wide Sargasso Sea' (a prequel to Charlotte Bronte's 'Jane Eyre'), and Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage adaption (and rewrite) of Gaston Leroux's 'Phantom of the Opera' and a sequel, 'Love Never Dies.'

In the case of the latter, Lloyd Webber's narrative is arguably better known than the story it was based on.

Does this mean that, what essentially began as a form of fan fiction has now entered the literary/cultural 'cannon'? If so, at what point does this happen and how do we decide which 'fan fictions' become 'cannon'?

I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the topic of fan fiction, particularly with regards to 'intertextuality' and Barthes' theories on 'The Death of the Author.'

High school English curricula are filled with classics from centuries past. But, in a hypothetical high school curriculum that could ONLY include novels published in the twenty-first century, what would you choose? What considerations would need to be taken into account? What purpose would each text serve? Which genres are best/to be avoided? Is it possible to give a comprehensive education of literature without studying past texts? If so, why/why not?

When Suzanne Collins announced that her new book would follow President Snow, the antagonist of the original Hunger Game series, there was uproar from select fans who had no trouble expressing their distaste for a prequel story that followed this character.

However, there are books that follow villains or antagonists that people enjoy without fail – Game of Thrones has a huge cast of people that you wouldn't call 'good' necessarily, Vicious by V.E. Shwab protagonist is a 'villain'. Dexter and Breaking Bad were highly popular television series following characters that, in anyone else's story, would be the antagonist.

What is it about an antagonist, a villain, that encourages an audience to want to hear their story? What is about the antagonist that has audiences not wanting to hear their story?

I would argue its to do with how they became a villain themselves. Is it the world? Is it a privilege that has afforded them a certain belief system? Is it because the character is attractive?

Stephen King has built his career being the foremost prolific and successful horror storyteller of our generation. Or has he?

In his almost fifty years of publishing stories, he has a tendency to repeat the tales and tropes he finds interesting again and again because if there's one thing King is not afraid of, it's putting out his first draft while he hones in the story. "Here's my story about a murderous car. No, wait. Here is my story about a murderous car. Okay, hang on. This is my story about a murderous car."

Controversially, King's best work is when he branches away from the supernatural, the ghostly, and the otherworldly and steps into the realm of ordinary people in real situations. An author who after a car accident is taken in by a crazed fan only to be brutalized, a man wrongfully imprisoned for the murder of his wife succumbing to life behind bars but secretly plotting his escape, or an author is murdered and his killer stashes his unpublished works before being sent to prison but after his release goes in search of his hidden treasure only to find a child has stumbled upon his prize and the lengths he is prepared to go to get back what is his. All of these scenarios are horrifying, but in a wholly different way than utilizing some fantastical element like telekinesis or inter-dimensional monsters.

It is at the core of stories like these that we find real characters that we can relate and connect to and it is there that we find the heart and capability of Stephen King's true storytelling abilities.

Analyze CS Lewis' portrayal of Calormen and Narnia, focusing on the fact that the Calormenes are the only people of colour in that world. There seems to be a fair bit of racism (and seemingly some references to Islamophobia) in the way he writes the characters from Calormen.
Since 'The Horse and His Boy' is set almost entirely in Calormen and has Narnians and Calormenes directly interacting with each other (Susan and Edmund visiting Tashbaan, Shasta's identity as a Narnian/Archenlander who grew up in Calormen, etc.), it would likely be one of the main focuses. In terms of religion/spirituality, The Last Battle has the conflict of the two 'gods' of the two countries, Tash and Aslan.

Analyse how books with multiple character point-of-view enhances the reading experience. What are the benefits of having both female and male main characters? In what ways does having four different points of view aide the story's plot? As with real life, there is never one side to a story, there's plenty. How does this relate to real life situations?

Machiavelli spent much of the second half of his life concerned with regaining a governmental position in Italy following their political coup. For a statesman, ironically, Machiavelli was a quiet and shadowy individual, though his opinions on political rule are strong and controversial. He believed that a prince must always present himself as perfect and that all countries out to have a constant cavalry in order to have a fortress of sorts(though he disapproved of most stone fortresses). This made sense in his time due to the roaming barbarians that would eventually take over his country. Machiavelli believed no man can hold power without a knowledge of tactics and to trust no one. Such a Prince has only few advisers and admirers are brushed off, otherwise the Prince will lose respect, a ruler he says must be simultaneously generous, holding festivals, and mean or brusque, occasionally cruel without reason. Do you agree with his philosophy? Do you find it hypocritical?