Topics

Even casual fans of Zelda have heard of the triforce. The mystic golden triangles, left behind by the 3 goddesses after their divine act of creation, each represent a particular character trait, power, wisdom, and courage. The bearer of each piece of the triforce is said to personify the character traits that each piece represent. In addition, complete balance and mastery of the triforce requires one to have all three pieces at the same time. Without all three pieces at the same time, a person's soul is out of balance.

In a lot of ways, this characterization of the triforce shares similarities with Aristotle's virtue ethics. Aristotle wrote that in order for a person to reach eudaimonia (sometimes translated as 'flourishing' or 'happiness') they must have the proper balance of the different virtues, such as courage, wisdom, temperance, and justice. Aristotles ethics would provide a unique lens to analyze the different character in the Legend of Zelda and how the embody their respective virtues . Link obviously embodies courage, and its easy to see why. Link consistently takes on monsters 3 times his size, is motivated solely by justice, and is steadfast in his duty. An article examining the major characters of the series through the view of virtue ethics would be a neat take on the series.

Romance novel are often looked down on and seen as somehow inferior. Chick lit is a name that has negative connotations. It suggests something trashy or throwaway. Even Jane Austen, whose books are considered classics, is criticised for not concentrating on weightier issues. But why are romance novels so easily dismissed? Is it because it's mainly a genre written by women? Is it literary snobbery for something that is so popular? Romance, after all, is an important part of everyone's life. Most people either get married or live together. Obviously not all romance novels can be of the same calibre but many are well written and engaging. So there does seem to be an unfair tendency to criticise romance novels.

Look at this idea in terms of classic authors like Jane Austen and modern day authors like Diana Gabaldon or Nicholas Sparks.

Directors like David Lynch mislead audiences with dialogue. Going as far to create distorted backwards voices in Twin Peaks. Alfred Hitchcock once said a film only works if you can understand the story with no sound/dialogue. Explain the effect of dialogue and how it can be used to change the audience's perspective to intensify the visual elements of the storytelling process.

Those who have harassed and sexually assaulted others are finally coming to light. The skeletons are being flung out of many guilty people's closets and those who have suffered are speaking out. While it is not cleaning out everything, there is progress.

We have become familiar with publically "outing" abusers in the movie business. However, what do viewers, outside of the film industry, do to show their support for those who have suffered while protesting the offenders? Are we able to avoid a film because a director, producer or actor has harassed someone? Do we ignore the rest of the hard-working men and women attached to the set?

Are we able to appreciate the art of someone who is an offender?

John Belushi was a comedic talent above and beyond the ever constant flow of aspiring young actors. His antics were delivered with masterful ability in both television and film. His contribution to comedy, acting, and singing set the image for future actors to emulate. So, is it safe to say that Chris Farley was merely following the mold set by others or that he added his own specific brand of skill to a familiar venue? Consider the factors that play into developing the unique performer, while simultaneously pointing out the distinctive traits of the personality. Does comedic talent necessitate a lesser or more pronounced counterpart, much like Laurel and Hardy in order to cultivate the creative juices? How much of an effect does audience have on delivery and captivating tension? Are props, musical score, setting, and dialogue vital to the production or simple accessories of the process? Does the climactic spectacle require a "Who's on first?" dialogue as the one coined by Abbott and Costello, or is it merely the chemistry between the characters?

With a focus on the tentative new Prison Break reboot, this article would discuss the effective and ineffective aspects of television reboots and when and where the line should be drawn and the show should be over.

Rubber necking is the macabre desire people have to slow down near car-wrecks to see what happened. No desire to actually stop and help, but a twisted urge to see the gore and horror of an accident. I think shows such as 'UnReal,' 'You're The Worst' and 'Flesh and Bone' rely on the same instinct. They include trying terrible things perpetrated by truly terrible characters, and not in a genre way such as horror or fantasy, but in a real life manner. The psychological damage these characters constantly present in their real lives is so disturbing to watch, and it is of course inevitable that their lives are a series of car-wrecks. The question I have is why are we so engrossed by this? What is it about seeing truly terrible acts of people acting in completely psychologically unhealthy ways that means we can't look away from the screen?

This article seeks to pinpoint and discuss re-used/well-worn tropes in literature surrounding the issue of family and the background/ongoing story of a fantasy literary protagonist! What exactly is it about the tropes that fuels a protagonist's backstory – that makes it interesting? Why are these tropes used time and again (i.e. Dead Parents, Wicked Stepmother, Death by Childbirth); and in your opinion, are they useful, or too well-worn? Are there any notable exceptions where family either doesn't play a huge role (i.e. they're not mentioned), or they do, and are treated much as part of the protagonist's current story line as their past reason for doing things/giving them angst and trauma?

(It could be worth looking at TV Tropes and other websites for names of particular 'tropes' to discuss and explore).

A little bit of a silly topic this one, but I have been pondering the power of the cliche. For a long while in film, television and literature a lot of discussion was engaging in creating original art – to the extent of pushing away from the cliche. Ensuring that regardless of what would or would not work for the narrative, the most important factor was ensuring that it was not a cliche. Have we now pushed far enough out that the cliche has become nostalgic? What I thought might be interesting is having a look at what cliches still have juice to squeeze (star crossed lovers) and what others need to remain in the dead and buried (man of the house).

For the past few years, the phrase 'going viral' has been shown, to a increasingly greater extent, to shape what we might see and hear in the media – for better, or worse. Snapchat stories, vines, Youtube videos, memes, etc. gain attention and become news, earning their 'stars' perhaps longer than five minutes of fame, and instead spawning television appearances, or merchandise, for example.

How much is this a sign of the ongoing pace of what we consume as media on the internet, and how much of it can be controlled? Does this have any good, or detrimental effects (e.g. using examples, is there anything very good, or very bad, that has happened from a particular video/article/picture, going viral?)?

A look at the prevalence and effects of sexism in tabletop RPGs, such as DandD. How are female players and their characters treated by their male counterparts during a game session? How does this differ from a female character played by a male player, if at all? Some women who play RPGs have gone to certain lengths to avoid sexism during game play, such as forming all-female leagues. How is extreme sexism that wouldn't otherwise be tolerated in everyday life by male players justified during a game? There are many routes this could go, but it is, I feel, a fascinating subject with many points that could be taken away by various audiences.

Does physical presence primarily carry the screen character, or does the dialogue and script or director and cast influence the dramatic effect behind entertainment? In the process of this consideration, explore classic one-liners instituted by Mae West burlesque sketches in film and song. Among the other possible directions to elaborate, television greats such Jackie Gleason of The Honeymooners fame and his nonstop banter against his wife, his neighbor, and the slew of supporting roles displayed in a variety of episodes. This point can be expanded to other genres or periods such as: the Clint Eastwood 1970s role of Dirty Harry or the snide remarks of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator series.

The topic so far is merely a question in my head, and there are things too that I am uncertain about, such as whether this fits under writing or literature…

But what I hope for someone to explore is precisely what does the attainment or possession of the coveted position bode for the future of the writer? For many authors, the Nobel Prize in Literature is the ultimate, if not the most significant and most revered, position one can attain. It is a validation of one's place in history, a literal title that translates into the opposite of oblivion, instead, it is the acknowledgment that one has made great contributions to the development of literature, whose legacy will be set in stone and whose name will not be so easily forgotten.

In many of our minds, the awarding of the Nobel Prize comes late in the author's life: it is the crowning achievement of decades of hard, continuous work, the culmination and recognition of multiple published books, and the result of authorial evolution, progress, and contribution.

My question then is, what happens after?
Has this recognition amplified their prior productivity? Or stunted it? Does winning the prize make the writer take a step back from their typewriter and say, "this is it, there is no more need for anything else", or does it motivate them to continue the work they have begun, only stopping when they finally pass?

Jean-Paul Sartre, who famously declined the Prize in 1964, continued working tirelessly on his "Critique of Dialectical Reason" until his passing. William Faulkner (who also hated the fame that the Prize brought), after winning it in 1949, wrote two landmark works after, A Fable (1954) and The Reivers (1962).

There aren't many examples of writers who have continued their intensity of producing works after the awarding of the Prize, but anyone who takes up this topic could look at those who did, the nature of the works after the winning of the Prize, and whether the attainment of this revered position has positively or negatively influenced the legacy of the writers.

The inspiration for this post came from an interview that I read recently with Kentaro Miura, the creator of the manga series Berserk. Miura is commenting on a particular chapter of the manga that he explicitly omitted from the tankoban collections. The chapter in question involves one of the characters encountering and conversing with the "Idea of Evil", or the Berserk universe's analog of God. When asked why he omitted that chapter, Miura said that by introducing 'God' he had 'given away' too much information about how the universe that Berserk takes place in operates. Miura said he wanted to give just enough information about how the Berserk universe is situated, as he felt that too much detail would constrain possible future developments of the story. Now, in a lot of fiction and fantasy, authors put a ton of effort into creating the cosmologies and underlying metaphysics of their fictional universes. Tolkein has an entire mythos about the creation of the world and a metaphysics about the structure of reality for his Lord of the Rings series, and many sci-fi authors ( I am thinking of Orson Scott Card and his universe of 'philotes' as an example) create a cosmological background in which their stories take place. I find myself wondering if Miura's worry is a legitimate one: does the construction of these fantastically elaborate cosmological systems in fiction ultimately constrain the possible development of said fiction? At first glance I may think so. Authors who have created these elaborate systems may feel pressure to conform every detail of their story to fit that system, and ultimately limit the kinds of events, processes, or entities that the author would feel comfortable putting into the story. Sometimes, an otherwise unspecified explanation of an event may suit the story just fine. On the other hand, having theses complex mythologies in place does give an element of consistency and realism to the fictional universe that would otherwise be absent.

This generation has seen a reinvigorated interest in the representation of women and minorities in the arts past and present. Entire industries are racing to be more inclusive in terms of both fictional characters and real-life labor, to avoid stereotypes and sexualization in favor of agency, to make up for previous manifestations of prejudice, and to give more due recognition to women, nonwhites, LGBTQ persons, etc., for works of merit. To what extent is this a genuine cultural reckoning, and to what extent is this (speaking from the extreme polar opposite perspective) a cynical corporate ad strategy targeting millennials which isn't really meaningfully changing the wealth-geared, elitist, social Darwinist neoliberal reality we live in? Where do we see this trend creating new stereotypes as opposed to new, truly refreshing narrative paradigms? One potential avenue for the writer to consider is the sustained neoliberal negligence towards issues of class, particularly in Trump's America–as opposed to issues of sex, race, ethnicity and sexuality, discussion of which has no doubt been rightly rejuvenated.

An analysis of how sports create a promote story-lines to increase interest. This could discuss how sports journalism and online fan forums find points of interest and incorporate them into larger stories about teams, players, rivalries, etc. It could also discuss how Olympic coverage often use "Behind-the-Athlete" segments to catch-up on the story-lines of sports they might not be familiar with outside of the Olympics.

Did it really take a zombie apocalypse? The Walking Dead has several integral characters who happen to be same-sex attracted, yet their place in the narrative does not revolve around their sexuality. It is stated, inferred or shown, but is not a major plot point. Does this mean we are finally able to present LGBTQ characters without dwelling on their sexuality? How is this viewed by the fandom? Why does mainstream media still feel the need to sensationalize a character’s ‘coming out’?

The media loves sequels. Name almost any popular action, animated, or other movie from the last decade and you can pretty much bet it has a sequel or is getting one this year. The same is true for television shows. For example, Fuller House serves as a sequel to Full House, although it's something of a reboot, too. Books that were not meant as series also get sequels. The wildly popular Wonder (a personal fave) has some short story sequels from the POV of other characters besides Auggie.

Sequels are great, and there's obviously a huge market for them. But do we always need them? That is, do we always need or want to know what's next, or can we be content to let characters live happily ever after, as it were? What about writing our own sequels – besides being a ton of fun, do fanfictions and headcanons fill some sort of creative void? Discuss.

Film adaptations are the result of taking a story, usually a text, and adapting it to, well, film. Adapting a piece of work for the screen is not easy. A novel, for example, was created with specific detail. Taking a 300-page novel and condensing it into a 120-minute film is challenging. You are forced to remove or adjust certain characteristics to fit concerns, like financing. Otherwise, you may have a short story with hopes to create a full feature. That's just the beginning. Imagine if there is a verbal story carried on through generations. What does a screenwriter do then?

Can something that was created for another medium successfully "work" as a film, narratively and stylistically?

In 1954 François Truffaut coined the term 'auteur' in his groundbreaking work "Une certaine tendance du cinéma français", a descriptive that would subsequently be used to describe directors whose style or approach is so idiosyncratic that their films would be easily recognized (See Wes Anderson, Scorsese, Charlie Kaufman and the Coen Bros). But could this perspective and theory be possibly applied to the video game world?

We don't hear much of names in the video game industry, but the ones that come to the top of my head include Hideo Kojima, Shigeru Miyamoto, Toby Fox (for his sheer creative control in Undertale), Ken Levine (of the Bioshock games) and Sid Meier, who has built his own empire from his Civilization games. So my question is: is it possible to consider such visionaries auteurs? Can their games be considered solely products of their own unflinching vision? Or is another step in order: wherein we ought to consider companies/collectives as auteurs in their own right?