Literature

If you love something, let it go. If it comes back, it was meant to be.
People have a hard time understanding that though, and instead want to possess other people. What are some reasons, we feel the need to "own" other people? What are some examples of these reasons being acted out in various pieces of literature. For example, in "A Picture of Dorian Gray" we see two characters fight over Dorian's friendship. There are several examples of them trying to keep him away from each other. Perhaps, one wants to possess someone so that they can feel needed and loved completely like the witch who wishes to keep Rapunzel locked away in a tower. Or maybe your author didn't finish writing your favorite story exactly how you wanted it. You decide to lock him in your house until he finishes it "correctly" as in Stephen King's "Mercy". And of course there is the obvious. Love. We can find many references to wanting to own someone just because we love them.

In one of the most controversial novels of the 20th century, D.H. Lawrence explores life, love and sex along Connie Chatterley's journey to physical and existential reawakening. In his depiction of the life of the mind and the industrialized world, particularly his prediction of what the world would be like 100 years after the writing of this work (e.g. ~2030), how accurate do you all feel Lawrence's prediction of the potential destructive nature of the industrialized world to be?

Many works of literary merit have been placed on a ban list and are forbidden to be taught in some schools. Chief among these books is "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" for it's controversial topics concerning race and censorship. Although the book isn't inherently racist, offense has been taken to it and its casual use of "the n-word." Despite the controversy surrounding it, though, it is still considered a great piece of American Literature. How does society react when it is presented with controversy (specifically in a school setting) such as this, and how do these reactions affect the value of the work as a whole? Would the meaning of the work be diminished if this conflict didn't exist? Use the answers to analyze whether Huckleberry Finn should be taught in school or permanently banned from our education system.

Ferret's works have been widely appropriated by feminists, and in her Neapolitan Novels Ferrante even mentions that she considered herself a feminist; however, the experiences and interactions of her characters seem to suggest a different, more subtle interpretation of the female experience.

Think about representations of nature and physical characteristics in Gothic novels. Ann Radcliffe and Mary Shelly both focus on these aspects in their various writings. Especially in The Romance of the Forest and Frankenstein, the respective authors use imagery to highlight the sublime aspect in their novels. Whereas the beautiful is something humans perceive as "pretty" or "delicate", sublime is something humans perceive as "awful" and "striking". This derivation of the word awful can be understood from its Greek roots. In ancient greek, the word "awful" translates more as a terrible wonder, giving more meaning to the power of the source. In Gothic novels, the sublime hold this meaning. Things that humans stare in wonder, but are at the same time terrified of are often personified in the gothic. For example, a flower is usually beautiful, whereas a thunderstorm is sublime.

It is tempting to write a historical fiction from the point of view from the famous figures of the era. Many fictions wrote Napoleon, Elizabeth I, or Alexander the Great as the protagonists with their own voices. However, this poses danger of simplifying/glorifying/vilifying the figures and bend the historical details. For example, the author writing Napoleon as the heroic figure might purposefully ignore his atrocities in Haiti or other blunders, or even try to glorify his vices.

Some authors find it restricting to write on well-known figure so they create new characters or take on lesser known characters. Hitoshi Iwaaki, the manga artist who created The Parasite, had Eumenes, Alexander the Great's secretary, as the main character of his historical comics "Historie". This provides more liberty for the author but may not attract readers' attention or place himself in dangerous paradox by making supposedly "obscure" figures too good – if such a significant person had lived, why did historians fail to recognize them?

But which type of protagonist can provide more entertainment? What would be the good model to follow?

Which type of protagonist can provide more entertainment: famous, infamous, or non-famous? Which would be the best model to follow?

Decades ago, if a book was written or a movie was produced, the writer or filmmaker could only hope that their work would have a sequel, remake, or adaptation into some other form of media. Nowadays, any fictional work seems to possess potential to be expanded into a fictional franchise. Has this trend reduced the quality/nostalgic feel of the original classic stories? Or can the expanded franchise be seen as a way of paying tribute to the original work?

Teiresias is a character that appears in a number of Greek plays,and other Greek Literature (namely, the trilogy of the Oedipus Cycle). Teiresias seems to have the role of the wisest of all men in the literature of Ancient Greece, with his role in the plot to either expose it, or to play an otherwise pivotal role. How is this done specifically? From whence is his wisdom derived? Also, is his prevalence any indicator of an ideal, or an actual, venerated person?