I refer to myself as a book snob due to having such a difficult time approaching contemporary literature. I tend to stay in the realm of the classical cannon, Medieval Literature, and only "contemporary" authors–Pynchon, Foster, DeLillo–who I know are phenomenal and up to my standard of expectation. I bring up this topic because yesterday I finally purchased The Girl on the Train. It has taken me a year to make this purchase, every time placing the book down, and telling myself I won't like it, but then falling trap to all of the conversations surrounding the book (then again Fifty Shades of Grey was constantly spoken of!). We tend to discuss the decline in film, but what about the decline in literature? Am I a book snob, or am I accepting the painful reality that there really aren't many good contemporary reads available? Does anyone else feel this way? Disagree, and provide numerous examples that will have me copying down the list and enthusiastically ordering contemporary books.
Great topic. Shakespeare has no equal. I like some modern writing, but it's its accessibility, more than anything else that grabs me. My mom loves the poolside page turners and doesn't get my love for Hardy, Hugo, Dickens, Swift, More, Carlisle, Wordsworth, etc. Even my love of Breaking Bad is due to a fairly standard set of morals that lives in the old folk songs like Bob Dylan's "Seven Curses." I can't wait to read this article. – Tigey8 years ago
There are ALWAYS good books out there, even today. You just have to find them. I found Martina Boone's series "Heirs of Watson Landing" original. I didn't want to put the book down. I recommended it to a friend, but she didn't enjoy it to the extent I did because she doesn't like stories that have a Southern setting. Every story will not appeal to all readers. Often I have purchased books that have a good summary on the back and grab my attention in the first few pages, but then I get bored halfway through. It depends on a writer's style and people's moods; many times I have enjoyed a book because I was in the right mood or frame of mind. Listening to other people's reviews of books don't always match my own. Telling yourself that you won't like a book before you've read it is the same as anything else; you won't know until you try it. – JennyCardinal8 years ago
James Joyce put it well when he said that, "Life is too short to read a bad book." From the perspective of this topic, he can be paraphrased to say that, "You are statistically likely to enjoy a book that has been thoroughly evaluated over long periods of time, both in and out of its historical context, under the scrutiny of various different methodologies of aesthetic appraisal, by multiple generations of scholars and intelligent lay-readers alike who have come to the general consensus that this is, in fact, a good book." This is not to say that new books cannot meet that same critical criteria - since, after all, every book that we now consider canonical had to begin its journey as a new work in its own time - but when you only have less than a century on this earth, and have yet to read the entire canon from Homer to Pynchon (who, despite being still alive, has garnered enough praise by the likes of Harold Bloom to earn the title of "proto-canonical"), I see nothing wrong with choosing to spend your finite lifetime with works that have better odds of pleasing you. What you call "snobbery," I call "economics," which is the science of allocating scarce resources - in this case, your time. HOWEVER, partially to play devil's advocate to the point that I just made, I must contend that there is a special value in reading new works. Because "every book that we now consider canonical had to begin its journey as a new work in its own time," the onus is on us (the scholars and intelligent lay-readers of today) to decide what will be considered canonical tomorrow. This might require us to read many bad (untested) books, but that is the price that every generation of readers pays in order to document the literary achievements of their day and play gatekeeper for the curricula of future English courses to come. Because art is, by its very nature, a form of dialectic, we will never truly achieve an "end of literary history" in the Hegelian sense. It does not matter if Victor Hugo is an objectively better writer than Donna Tartt; she represents our current age in a way that his "timelessness" simply cannot. If that were not the case, then there would have been no need for anybody to ever write anything ever again after the First Folio of Shakespeare's works was published in 1623. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
The Victorian Gothic genre is known for its haunting tales served with a side of rich prose, grand settings, dramatic characters, and a dash of ambiguity. I believe that it is no coincidence that the genre started gaining popularity during the Industrial Revolution – a time of excess and instability. The most unstable class at the time appeared to be the emerging bourgeoisie and the genre can be interpreted as the class’ self-analysis. Popular Gothic novels such as The Castle of Otranto, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Dracula reflect aspects of the middle class’ interactions with their current economy and share themes of heavy loss and monstrous gains. Along with this, analyse some additional aspects and what that says about the genre and its contributors.
You are absolutely on to something here in noticing the connection between the rise in Gothic novels and the upstart of the industrial revolution. This turn to nostalgic genres of "novel ghost stories," was a literary means of holding on to the past amongst an ever-evolving society that was difficult for many to accept. With the changes brought about during the industrial revolution, many prospered, but the majority suffered. The classes that were once predetermined by birth were becoming shuffled, and people were no longer looked down upon for working, and were given the ability to rise in class. The beautiful eccentric castles in all gothic novels is an ode to the past amongst an ever changing world moving to a more urban setting. Great topic that I hope to see published as an article! – danielle5778 years ago
User-generated photographs or videos regularly dominate television bulletins and the front pages of newspapers, while opinionated blogging also gains significant traction in redefining the field of journalism. Analyze the impact of participatory action on social media in steering journalism, and the implications of this shift in control towards the individual consumer.
Very important topic. I think it's sad that our society is viewing a death in traditional journalism with the rise of sites such as Buzz Feed (where copying and pasting gifs off of blogs is more important than critical journalist skills) or even just popular magazines like peoples, etc. I think another interesting social media platform to explore with a topic like this is tumblr. A lot of people (especially young people) use the site as a way to vent their frustrations and write about heavily loaded topics without any sources, etc. It usually causes more harm then good with passion and opinions rising -- especially when these opinions are often skewed or lack research to back up claims. In a way, people use the sight to mimic aspects of journalism but do so incorrectly. – Mela8 years ago
The Illuminati runs the media. – Riccio8 years ago
Whenever you're dealing with the traditional journalism vs. citizen journalism debate, it's important to note that many citizen/alternative journalists still rely on traditional outlets to break stories (to the tune of more than 90%). The usual process is that traditional news brings the facts and citizen/alternative journalism brings near endless analysis. – Ian Miculan8 years ago
A documentarian in Newfoundland, Chris Brookes, had a fun quote about citizen journalists that might be worthwhile for quotation. "I don't particularly care for citizen journalism, I don't think it's good idea. I also don't want citizen doctors or dentists. We train for a reason." – Piper CJ8 years ago
Social media has an impact on the world, there is no doubt about it. However, social media often lacks: proper sourcing, critical analysis, depth of writing, and much more. Hard hitting journalism will for the foreseeable future be done by large outfits such as The New York Times and Washington Post. Pieces like the recent NYT's one on Amazons work place culture were incredibly insightful. Social media can be an asset, where people can gather and discuss ideas, but the anonymity it presents issues here as well. Twitter arguments are not known for their civility or nuance for a reason. They do provide however extremely important outlets for those who are in areas where traditional streams of information do not flow. Without social media the situation in Syria would be a lot darker than it it currently is. – Aridas8 years ago
It's a mixed bag with the Internet. I just read an article, "Lucy Bites the Dust," about the scientific debunking of Lucy as a human ancestor. As excellent as the article was, the comments section by scientists was even more interesting. Years ago I read an article on a website that sounded convincing, read a couple of others on the site and realized it was highly literate racist propaganda. Like most people, I assume, I believe in free speech, but also in the golden rule. That use of journalism is a disappointment. Also, keeping in mind the infamous Goebbels quote - "He who controls the medium controls the message. He who controls the message controls the masses" - how much of a thorn is the Internet to the powers who might benefit from keeping us in the dark, if in fact such entities exist? Are there examples of curtailing free speech on the Internet, etc.? – Tigey8 years ago
In J.K. Rowling's acclaimed series, there is a clear separation between good and evil. The reader is aligned with Hogwarts and the 'good' wizards, and Voldemort and his followers are clearly characterized as evil. Dementors and Death Eaters are continuously attempting to invade the walls of Hogwarts, and are willing to kill anyone who gets in their way of securing power. If J.K. Rowling drew upon World War II for the series, can that view be shifted to how the series can now be read in relation to terrorism? Analyze the ways in which Death Eaters resemble terrorist organizations. What does this say about our culture? How can we learn from the series using this lens?
As an idea the Death Eaters exemplify terrorism but at it's core it's really hard to say/argue. I feel like they are the embodiment of terror because the books make it a little too easy for us to see them as people. They don't get character development, like Bellatrix a lot of them come off as just wanting to watch the world burn. On that note, there is always Draco. A good angle this article could take is: Draco Malfoy helping people sympathize with children in radical families. Death Eaters aren't brainwashed by religion like modern day terrorists but as the books point out in a lot of cases they are pressured into it, feeling like they have no other choice, and that it's submit to Voldemort or die. – Slaidey9 years ago
Are you aiming to explore Death Eaters as "weapons" or terror as as state sanctioned vehicle to spread fear of terrorism or a way to control it. It might be a more effective argument to take Death Easters as weapons of fear and control, given that they are operated under the "state power" which in this case would be the ministry. For example as one of the comments above has suggested here, Death Eaters are clearly not brainwashed but rather, it is their nature and function to spread fear. – aferozan9 years ago
I'm actually going to go ahead and take this topic up. It seems like an interesting topic to discuss. It's pretty well established that Rowling drew inspiration from the Nazis, but puritan ideology exists even today, and future generations may look back at this series, coming as terrorism becomes a real problem in the world, and may very well assume that was its inspiration. – Adnan Bey9 years ago
Looking forward to this article Adnan. – Munjeera8 years ago
There's a pretty interesting (and amusing) video that Cracked made a couple of years ago that might shed some light on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz88P6tL9wc – ProtoCanon8 years ago
We have grown quite used to seeing numerous lists ranking books, movies, and television: "The best television shows of all time," "The worst series finale of all time," "The best books ever written," "The top movies of all time." They are fun to read, and at times infuriating when you disagree. As for Middlemarch (1871), written by George Eliot, there has yet to be a list in which this novel is not included, or even at the top of the list. Yet, so many people are quick to say, "I've never read Middlemarch." What makes this novel immensely appealing to a wide range of individuals, critics, avid readers, and literary theorists? Why are there so many readers who have yet to tackle this novel consistently noted as one of–if not the–best novels ever written? Is it the size of this novel? Could it be the fact that people are so tired of Victorian Literature, which has constantly been viewed as "a one size fits all," style of writing? Is Middlemarch really the greatest, or just another example of an over-hyped medium of art?
There is an interesting comparison that can be (and often is) drawn between Middlemarch and Anna Karenina, two novels which frequently and well-deservedly compete for the "greatest ever" title, though the latter seems to have garnered a greater appeal from the general reading public. The key point of comparison lies in their structural congruency; as the great Russian literary scholar, Gary Saul Morson, has noted, "Like Middlemarch, Anna Karenina tells three stories, but unlike George Eliot's novel, it is named after one of them" (Morson, 2007; p.37). Though the two share a disunity of action that was rare among the predominantly character-driven novels of the day, Eliot did not grant readers the same pointed guidance as to which plotline required the greater focus, thus obscuring its narrative from easy distillation. Tolstoy's novel has thereby had better luck at receiving stage and screen adaptations (most recently in the 2012 film, directed by Joe Wright from a screenplay by Tom Stoppard), because of the unspoken rule that the story is all about Anna, thus resulting in an unfortunate suppressing of Levin's story, not to mention the Oblonskys who are frequently treated as mere cogs in Anna's downfall. Due to its lack of such centralisation, there have been far fewer (successful) adaptations of Middlemarch - which, unfortunate as it may be, has a massive impact on exposure to contemporary audiences. In a similar vein, the British dramatist, Helen Edmundson, who is best known for her ambitious adaptations of 19th century novels, was able to adapt Anna Karenina for the stage in a way that effectively represented the importance of Levin to the plot. Though she has also done an adaption of Eliot's The Mill on the Floss - whose plot is much more central to a single grouping of characters, that being Tom and Maggie Tulliver - she has not ventured to broach Middlemarch, likely for many of these same reasons. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Analyse the similarities and differences between the Mortal Instruments (City of Bones) series by Cassandra Clare, the movie directed by Harald Zwart, and the new FreeForm TV series Shadowhunters. Discuss the casting roles compared to the character's descriptions in the novels and how true the plot lines have stayed to the book.
This is a great topic! I think it will be interesting to see how the TV show continues now, especially after the season finale, and whether it will follow the plot line of the novel or delve into a different side of the characters – LilyaRider8 years ago
Some might find the adjective "stereotypical" I chose to use in the subject line interesting since it appears that the whole point of heroines in chic-lit (let's say, Hunger Games, Divergent, etc…) is to avert the traditional female character profiles in literature. However, as far as contemporary chic-lit books go, the heroines actually seem more stereotypical than ever. They go through battle combats, or training processes that used to be considered only for man. They break gender roles usually at the cost of the abandon of their own characteristics as a female: sexuality, physical beauty, obedience (or, rather, the willingness of submitting to others' decisions without perpetual argument), etc… For me, such characters do not contribute to a solid, independent interpretation of contemporary female identity.
Hear hear. Critical feminist interpretations open now. Agreed 100%. We are exchanging one stereotype for another. One TV show that deals with this is Drop Dead Diva. I find TV offers more character development. Movies though have wholeheartedly embraced the new badass stereotype of womanhood. While I do appreciate the change in some ways, in others ways I would prefer to see more variety among female movie roles. – Munjeera8 years ago
A big problem with the stereotyping of women is that if they're not the feminine ideal, they're often portrayed as a masculine ideal: unemotional, strong, good at fighting, etc. I think it's a reason why a lot of people like Harley Quinn (I know this isn't literature exactly, but it's the first reference I could think of). She's definitely very capable at what she does, but she's still flawed: she's goofy, she's madly in love but in an abusive relationship, she's violent, and no one of those things defines her entirely. Because she's not supposed to represent an ideal or be a role model, she's allowed a lot of space to make mistakes, whereas the clearly heroic Wonder Woman feels kind of like a standard or optimal type of womanhood that could never be achieved. – chrischan8 years ago
Agree with chrischan. The contemporary female literature is greatly affected by latest feminism waves that believe being equal means the abandon of one's own feminist characteriatics. Not only are people encouraged to devalue or neglect the physical beauty of a female, many are also stigmatized by radic "feminists" when if they put focus on the female body. From movie auditions to literature characters, we often hear how it is the inner that matter and those who look for physical beauty are superficial sexists – are they? Recommended reading, Mina Loy on feminism – Chiharu8 years ago
I agree wholeheartedly. It might be interesting to look at why these female characters are extremely unlikable too (such as Katniss from the Hunger Games; most people I talk to either hate her, or just like her because she's the protagonist). I would also suggest that you look at characters that break the stereotype in order to draw attention to the frequency of the stereotype (a character that comes to mind is the protagonist from The Disreputable History of Frankie Landeau-Banks-- which is also debatable) – ainjelwings8 years ago
to ainjelwings. It is almost impossible for me to think about any exceptions in American productions except for maybe the girls in RWBY. But for Asian especially Japanese animes there are tons. KANAME MADOKA in Magika Madoka, for example,would be an interesting character to look into. – Chiharu8 years ago
Legally Blonde is another examples that does fit either female stereotype. – Munjeera8 years ago
I love and embrace the idea that a heroine going through combat has become stereotypical. I have found myself discouraged as a woman, especially as a single thirty-something, because of a narrative that says, "Men want women who can do anything they can, but do it better." Where did all the feminine heroines go? It's discouraging that more authors are not attempting to create feminine heroines who are not also simpering damsels. As a woman crying out for a happy medium, I would love to see this topic written (and may explore it myself, although I'm pretty new here). – Stephanie M.8 years ago
Analyze Ned's role as Nancy's "special friend" and his relationship with Nancy. Was he included in the series only to be her escort and muscle or do they have a real relationship?
This is such a cool topic! I think it would be good to consider Bess and George as well. I think looking at how the three of them affect Nancy and how they are portrayed in comparison to Nancy would be important to add! That way we can see what they represent, and how they bring out those qualities in her – LilyaRider8 years ago
Never thought about it. I only read a handful of Nancy Drews as a kid, and of course I thought Ned was cool because, "Nancy is older and has a boyfriend; that's a cool, grown-up thing to do." As a grown woman now, I'd argue that Ned is there primarily to show amateur sleuth Nancy does "normal" things like having a boyfriend. Carolyn Keene uses Ned to try to make Nancy more human, but from what I remember, he was basically her arm candy. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
