Movie adaptations of books is nothing new, but in this upcoming wave of entertainment we're seeing behemoth projects being applied to development. Patrick Rothfuss's "Kingkiller Chronicles" isn't the first, but may be one of the largest undertakings of the new trend of multi-platform/cross-platform development.
In a statement from Lionsgate, who just won the rights to development: The deal sets up the simultaneous development of movies, television series and video games with the goal to adapt the many stories across the mediums at the same time.
Is this beneficial as it enables fans and audiences to explore the story in ways that film alone could not? Is it a cash grab? What are the benefits and drawbacks of this new trend of development?
Usually we talk about who Shakespeare influenced, but never the other way around. I recently learned that the story of Romeo and Juliet was borrowed from the old Greco-Roman myth of Pyramus and Thisbe, the tragic tale of two star-crossed lovers (likewise a rather shallow depiction of romance). Who and what else influenced Shakespeare, the greatest writer of the English language?
i really like this topic! it will be interesting to see what pops up (shakespeare being my favorite playwright) I like that you leave it to the writer to choose the plays instead of being tightknit on certain ones so they can do some research as well – scole8 years ago
I think this will make a great topic to approach. Since there was no actual law of copyrights, there are numerous and familiar literature pieces that have borrowed from ancient stories. – Arazoo Ferozan8 years ago
As You Like It's influence is incredibly interesting, for anyone who decides to tackle this beast of a topic. – chandlerwp8 years ago
It's actually not true that we never talk about who influenced Shakespeare. By reading his plays and poems we can see clear influences from Homer, Plato, Virgil, Ovid (who was his source for the Pyramus and Thisbe legend), Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Chaucer, Plutarch, Holinshed, Montaigne (particularly from the 1603 translation by John Florio), Spenser, Marlowe, and countless others. His works also illustrate that he had an extensive knowledge of a wide array of non-literary subjects, including (but not limited to) medicine, law, court politics, geography, sailing, witchcraft, falconry, and fencing, which surely necessitated a lot of reading. In the appendix to her book Sweet Swan of Avon, american scholar Robin P. Williams (no relation to the late comic) compiled a list of nearly every literary source which the poet must have read - as evidenced by references to them in some capacity throughout his body of work, thereby not counting anything that he may have read for pleasure without making any allusions to - and it wound up being eight times more than the total traceable sources of Ben Jonson, who is considered by many to be the second smartest playwright of the age. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Many of the plays were not original ideas, but rather based on several source materials. Troilus and Cressida is a great example for instance as an Italian writer expanded of of Homer and the story got rewritten a couple of times--even by Chaucer!--before the Shakespeare even wrote his version. Focusing on a couple plays might help narrow the focus – ckmwriter8 years ago
Another thing to consider is that many of Shakespeare's plays were "work shopped" in the Globe Theater. He would write the greater chunk of the script, pulling from Classic sources, but he would revise them with both cast a crew. Also, as ProtoCanon mentioned earlier, many of his plays were directly influenced by classics and to put it lightly, many of them could be considered adaptations or "fan ficitons" (to put it bluntly). I think a better question would be, although greatly influential and a master of language in his own right, how much of Shakespeare's material was directly his own? Considering the work shopping, the borrowing from other sources, etc. how much did Shakespeare actually create? Perhaps this needs to be better worded (I'm struggling myself to plot this question out correctly) but I still think these things should be considered when writing for this topic. – Mela8 years ago
Even a small dose of coincidence is needed in a work as lengthy and comprehensive as the novel, but Victorian novels seem more comfortable using it than many modern writers. Some consider that a defect, or put up with it as the artifact of a bygone era: but it might it be more than that? First, examine what "coincidence" actually entails, is it really a bad thing? Second, consider specific cases, such as Dickens, Dracula and Dostoevsky, whose brilliantly constructed novels sometimes make liberal use of coincidence. Might coincidence be an integral component in the success of these novels?
This sounds like an intriguing topic and I like the idea of using specific cases of literature to prove your thesis. For whoever chooses to write this topic, it might also be useful to examine how exactly coincidence is seen as a detriment in literature and what made it appear to be undesirable to use for modern writers. – MAG958 years ago
Perhaps the Victorians were big on fate. There's so much coincidence in Dickens thwt I can picture people,rolling their eyes at a retell ins of one of his stories, but his stories are wonderful and believable. – Tigey8 years ago
You might also examine whether modern writers or genres still use coincidence and if so, how. I'm a published writer for the inspirational market, and in that circle there is a bit of the attitude, "You can pull off anything as long as you explain God was behind it." I tried that in college Creative Writing, and my very understanding professor introduced me to the term deus ex machina. Now I avoid coincidence like the proverbial snake in the garden, but have seen it used successfully. It might be an angle worth exploring. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
William Langland is not a well-known writer due to having spent the entirety of his life working on a single work–Piers Plowman. He did write three versions: A text, B text, and the C text. There were revisions made to each text, but the one text with the most revisions is the C text, in which the political language is toned down.
Many scholars have speculated that C text, written in 1390, was toned done in political language due to the Peasant Rebellion that occurred in 1381. This is due to the rebels actually calling out the name of Piers Plowman while rioting. Piers is a fictional character in Langland's visionary poem who undergoes numerous tasks in attempting to find the road to salvation, alongside Will. The poem, broken up into 20 passus ("steps") highlights and personifies vices as all powerful, and the virtues are strong, at moments, yet quickly overcome by the battle between the vices.
The poem appears to end on a triumphant note in which Will, the character attempting to find the road to truth and knowledge, learns that caritas (charity) is man's salvation. Yet, the poem ends with an apocalyptic tone with the vices building in strength and the virtues giving up the fight.
The end of the world in which Piers exists seems doomed…and then the poem ends. Though this is a visionary poem, was Langland more concerned with the sanctity of religion, or with the unsettling state of England? This was at the time when famines and plagues were rampant, and parliament became increasingly greedy and cruel with taxation and land seizure. Or, was Langland simply connecting these two facets to show how the vices of Parliament would eventually lead to the destruction of man as one is left with nothing…there is nothing to lose?
While the quality of its prose is generally considered substandard, E.L. James's Fifty Shades of Grey has topped bestseller lists around the world. The book is also the subject of controversy when it comes to its portrayal of relationships and BDSM, but that doesn't seem to have impeded its popularity. What does the popularity of the book say about society and its views of BDSM? Does everyone secretly harbour a repressed desire for sexual domination? Is that the cause of its popularity?
It would also be helpful for anyone who writes this to see responses from the BDSM community regarding 50 Shades. – Emily Deibler8 years ago
Milton was without a doubt a powerful writer and exceptional poet. One of his most famous works, PARADISE LOST, is not just a biblical retelling of the fall of man, but a work in which Milton rewrites Genesis. William Blake was so disgusted by Milton's portrayal of God as inferior and Satan as superior that he referred to Milton as a Satanist. Yet, aptly stated by Stanley Fish, Milton does so to seduce the reader with Satan's tantalizing language in a manner that places the reader in the role of Eve. Milton first emphasizes the prelapsarian world where temporality is non-existent, to after the fall, in which Adam and Eve now exist in a postlapsarian world in which Adam and Eve begin to notice one another in a sexual manner, realize their being nude, and experience feelings of embarrassment and shame. Does Milton glorify Satan and place God in an inferior position, or is he simply utilizing the poem to showcase the ease in which one slips into sin, and the eventual redemption that will occur with the saving grace of the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus' death to save mankind? Is this a work mocking the Fall of man, or one that upholds and restores the power of faith?
Though I like a good discussion of Paradise Lost as much as the next guy, something about seeing it here (perhaps coloured your vague choice of subject title) seems a little redundant. Milton criticism is as old as he is; go to any good library with a LCC system, and you'll find literally hundreds of titles between the call numbers of PR 3560 A2 E45 and PR 3597 B8, with Blake, Fish, and countless others among them. With such a rigorous tradition of criticism that has exhausted nearly every conceivable topic concerning the poem, I'm not really sure what you, me, or anyone on this site could really add to all of that.
Sorry for being a downer. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Milton's intention in writing Paradise Lost was to (at least, according to this poem) "assert Eternal Providence/ And justify the ways of God to men." This might lend itself against William Blake's interpretation and towards the interpretation of Stanley Fish.
Should also be remembered that within the Christian tradition Satan is depicted as a proud and ambitious spirit. Therefore any presentation of him that borrows from this tradition would necessarily show a charismatic underdog fighting against impossible odds - a figure easy to sympathize (and thus tempting to do so).
This might prove helpful should someone decide to write about the topic.
– Mack8 years ago
The epistolary form has long been a way for the young adult narrator to communicate to the audience. It sets up an interesting dynamic between writer and reader and makes the narrators voice more authentic. At the same time it helps mask the irony that occurs when an adult author speaks in the voice of a teenager, ultimately setting up a power dynamic. Does epistolary help or hurt the way the reader perceives a text and its meanings?
Interesting topic. If someone were to pursue it, I think it would be important to emphasize (especially in the title) that the focus is almost exclusively on contemporary YA fiction, because the epistolary form as a whole exceeds that narrow scope. Bram Stoker's Dracula is an epistolary novel; Marilynne Robison's Gilead can be viewed as one as well; arguments can even be made that St. Paul's letters from the New Testament are epistolary novels. If your interest is in how adult authors write from a youth's perspective, it'd be wise to not reduce the entire form into that one box. Likewise, there are plenty of non-epistolary instances when adult authors write from a child's point-of-view. For example, I'm always baffled at how effortlessly GRRM is able to write one chapter about complex feudal politics from Ned's perspective, and then write a Bran chapter that feels so genuinely childlike. To Kill a Mockingbird is also a fine example, telling an adult story of young Scout's perspective. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Yes, I find it interesting that the focus is purely on YA. I thought that this was gong to be something about the lack of relevance as no-one writes letters anymore. I think if someone were to take this topic, it would have to be more clear in the title if it is going to be YA focused. – Francesca Turauskis8 years ago
You assume an interesting perspective on this topic. When I think of epistolary novels, I immediately think of PAMELA, by Samuel Richardson, or DRACULA, by Bram Stoker, and EVELINA, by Fanny Burney. I guess this comes with having been a literature major, and studying the inception of the novel. Yet, the way in which you introduce this topic, I do now think of many contemporary YA novels written in this form, such as THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER,by Chobsky. As for the aspect of irony, I've never really considered this, as well as the masking you mentioned. I do know that with PAMELA, constant questioning as to her perspective on the actions of the novel were perplexing. She was just so naive and jumped from one contradictory emotion to the next. When the book is written in epistolary form, entirely based on ONE character's letters, the reliability of the "narrator," is constantly in question. As with Dracula, the varying voices provide different perspectives as well as a better key to understanding the dynamics of the other characters. Also, Dracula's format provides such an interesting temporal facet due to the reactions of letter writers occurring after events they're writing about have already occurred. Regarding whether or not the epistolary form disrupts the perception of a reader...I would say that lies in the hands of the author. Sincerity of voice and tone is essential in drawing the reader in and leading he/she to a place of trusting the character's recollection of events. Nice topic!! – danielle5778 years ago
Stories are what shape our reality–both on a personal and a widespread cultural scale. They directly affect how we understand everything, from everyday occurrences to the larger questions in life. Stories also play a large role in the world religions through both oral and written types of scripture, including myths, historical accounts, poetry, letters, etc. The novel Life of Pi reflects on the impact of stories in relation to religion and history. Examine questions of "truth" and "scientific fact" in contrast to "myth" and "spirituality" and how these themes are presented in both the novel and the movie. Also analyze the apparent human need for fantastical stories as presented in the movie–does this imply that religion is simply a way for humans to cope with the difficult events of life? Or does it have a larger implication, such as that "truth" or "fact" in life is not always tangible, and does not always have the importance we place upon it? There are many philosophical questions that can be explored regarding stories and reality in Life of Pi, and this topic is certainly open to suggestions!
