Literature

For years after the success of the Harry Potter series, many new fantasy novels followed that proclaimed to be "the next Harry Potter." From Percy Jackson and the Olympians to the Inheritance series, many reviewers have compared these books to J.K. Rowling's masterpiece but yet sales and following movie adaptions have fallen short. What elements does a book series need to catapult it to the same level of fame and can it ever be replicated?

I've read a number of Isak Dinesen/Karen Blixen's works, and I am always struck by some of the feminist aspects/themes in her writing. It seems to me that she was ahead of her time. I would love to read an analysis of this. What are some feminist views she takes? How does this compare to society or the writings of other authors during the same time period? It could also be interesting to touch on her use of a male pseudonym and how this affects the perception of her works.

Shakespeare’s stage clowns stand apart from his other characters by the way they break down barriers, provide comic relief, and guide the audience through the many layers of complexity that are characteristic of all of his plays. Shakespeare’s progress towards self-discovery by way of disguise and foolery is achieved through the invention of these comic characters. The creation of these fools symbolizes one of Shakespeare’s many contributions to literary tradition. More importantly, these Fools are the critics inside his plays and without their truthful presence Shakespeare’s works would be transformed for the worse. With his famous founding fools, Shakespeare reveals faults in judgment and values and never fails to shed light on the socio-cultural Renaissance atmosphere. So, the question up for discussion is what would Shakespeare's works be without his famous founding fools?

See how the typical depiction of women in fantasy novels is different from G.R.R Martin's perspective. Is his inclusion of rape and violence a necessary evil or is it something excessive meant to be demeaning?

I have taken a number of courses in Restoration and Eighteenth Century lit, but remember a feeling of dread when I had to take my first one because it sounded so painfully boring. Imagine my surprise when I read the sex heavy plays, poems with many an innuendo (did you know that "to die" does not necessarily mean losing one's life), and stories with a little bit of everything. It's time to open people's eyes to the fact that just because it's not a modern story does not mean seventeenth and eighteenth century literature is boring!

There are many approaches to this topic. One can look into the genre of premature ejaculation poems, or into the plays and stories like The Country Wife by William Wycherley, The Lucky Chance by Aprha Behn, and Fantomina by Eliza Haywood.

Why has "the brick" seen continued revival and adaptations? Examine the ways that history made the novel so anticipated and "famous", but also the themes that might connect with the renditions. For example, was there a political reason to have the most recent 2012 movie adaptation? Or is there a political reason that there was/is a lasting "fandom" around the original text? I feel like there are few classics that have a cult following. Perhaps there could also be a comparison between Les Misérables adaptations and Sherlock Holmes adaptations.

What I mean by controversial is unusual, original, thought-provoking…How do these books break with the tradition of children's literature, or play with it in some way? How do they refer to modernity and explain contemporary problems? A Monster Calls, a children's book about cancer, or This Is Not My Hat' are particularly good examples.

Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49 was published in 1965, three years after the Cuban missile crisis, twenty-four years after the first atomic bombs hit Japan, and during the Cold War period that sent America into a “red scare.” American foreign policy called for a system of containment, aimed at spreading Democracy and expelling Communism, while propagating a state of mass consumption on the home front. Yet, this means of containment moved to American soil once McCarthyism struck and the nation was sent into a state of panic based on suspicion of the “other.”

Though this time in history has been viewed as a time of prosperity, the disintegration that occurred between fellow citizens due to a lack of trust led to an exacerbated state of disorganization and intense paranoia. In the years proceeding this novella, American culture was overwrought with Vietnam reportage and the Watergate scandal–signifying the original story we had been told about America had completely fallen apart, and it was time to reflect on alternative stories of culture to find meaning.

Embedded within the novella are the themes of communication, language, and semiotics. For example, the name of the protagonist, Oedipa, can be divided into two widely known systems of language: OED: The Oxford English Dictionary filled with the etymologies and various meanings of words, and IPA:The International Phonetic Alphabet comprised of symbols representative of the sounds of oral language.
Is Pynchon critiquing this period of suspicion and alluding to linguistics as a means of suggesting a new form of communication? Can this really be connected with McCarthyism, or is this a far-reaching thesis? Also, "Crying of Lot-49?" What is the significance of the number 49?