In the former years of television, especially in the 1970's, there seemed to be a hoist of sitcoms and TV shows that revolved around working class families. Shows that focus on the working class like The Honeymooners, All in the Family, Sanford & Son, and Roseanne seem to have vanished in recent years. What does this say about modern culture and the kind of lifestyle it promotes? Does this create unrealistic expectations for families viewing at home?
I personally wouldn't say that the way certain families are depicted on sitcoms would set an "expectation," per se. Sitcoms may have changed over the years from focusing on working class families to more "updated" versions to most likely reflect on how certain aspects of society have changed over the years, such as gay marriage being legalized and that more people choose to remain single today. – enizzari8 years ago
The 'typical' TV family seems to be stuck in kind of a weird place, where it's clear that the middle and working classes don't exist the way they used to , like in shows from the 70s - 90s, but at the same time there is a lot of resistance to depicting families that reflect the reality of today, with single parents, same-sex couples, blended families, etc. I should probably note that I'm coming at this from watching a lot of shows more geared towards tweens (my sister is a tween), and those shows seem to really stick to the ideal nuclear family setup. – chrischan8 years ago
This is a rich topic. Our middle class is disappearing, so... – Tigey8 years ago
Take a look at the Pokemon television series and note how its fundamentals and style has changed throughout the years and seasons. How is the formula for each episode different? How have the type of characters changed? Why might have of these changes occurred? What do these changes reflect?
Sleepy Hollow is a supernatural show with a black female lead (Abbie) and a white male lead (Ichabod). At times, especially in the second season, Abbie would be sidelined so the narrative could focus more on Ichabod's love life, and now, as of the season three finale, Abbie has been killed for Ichabod's sake.
Analyze the intersected representation of both race and gender in Sleepy Hollow. How is Abbie portrayed compared to her white male counterpart? How are other characters, such as Frank and Jenny, treated within the show's narrative? When it comes to attempts to portray female characters other than Abbie, how are they presented? What is the effect of the characters of color who only appear when their culture is appropriated for story purposes? (Big Ash.)
Emily you were reading my mind. I appreciate the gender and all the color in Sleepy Hollow. I may take this one on, time permitting. – Venus Echos8 years ago
Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy and Aristotle's Poetics offer different examinations of tragedy as the highest form of art in the Hellenic tradition. Perform a comparative analysis of the philosophers' conceptions of the tragic form. Where do they locate the origin of tragedy? What do they identify as the most important parts of tragedy? What are the psychological and social implications of tragedy for civilization? Why do they praise it? What is the role of tragedy and art in the greater collective consciousness? These questions and more allow for an in depth understanding of the philosophers' respective theories of tragedy, and how the tragic form functions in relation to the individual and his culture. Take it further and draw the analysis to present day. What can tragedy offer us today, in the age of information, digital culture, and globalization? How can we use the theoretical work of Nietzsche and Aristotle to benefit our artistic production?
Very unique, theoretical paper! – Jason0527149 years ago
I hope the philosophers in our midst pick up this topic. I would love to read about how philosophies from another century can relate to the context and creativity today. – Munjeera9 years ago
I have to disagree with Jason on this one; there have been literally hundreds of books written on precisely this topic. Every aesthetic philosopher worth their salt has grappled with the nature of tragedy - since they owe the debt to Aristotle as the pre-Kantian father of their field - and has made a point of reading and building upon every thinker to grapple with the subject since, including (but by no means limited to) Seneca, Hume, Diderot, Schlegel, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Freud, Benjamin, and Walter Kauffman. Furthermore, there's an entirely separate domain of literary and dramatic criticism (that being my field) which has dealt with the subject perhaps even more extensively, including the likes of Goethe, Wagner, Bernard Shaw, Brander Matthews, Allardyce Nicoll, George Jean Nathan, Francis Fergusson, A.C. Bradley, Antonin Artaud, Bertolt Brecht, Eric Bentley, F.L. Lucas, George Steiner, Arthur Miller, Lionel Abel, Raymond Williams, Robert Corrigan, J.L. Styan, A.D. Nuttall, Richard B. Sewall, Virgil Geddes, Richard Kuhns, John Orr, and Howard Barker (just to name the first few to come to mind). I don't believe there has been a single scholar writing on the subject of tragedy since the turn of the twentieth century who has neglected to note and compare the visions and contributions of Aristotle and Nietzsche. Perhaps this would be a unique theoretical paper on this particular online platform, but I have a special request for anyone who is considering writing it: read at least four books by any of the authors listed above. If, after that, you still think you have anything to add, then by all means, go ahead. I will admit that your point near the end, regarding "the age of information, digital culture, and globalization" may be a somewhat fresher take - one that Hegel, Goethe, and Matthews were too early to comment upon - but that calls for an entirely different article that the one that the rest of your topic appears to be pitching. My two cents would be to re-frame the article to the effect of "Tragedy in the Twenty-First Century," to which the discussion will require reflections upon Aristotle and Nietzsche (if the author is worth his/her salt), but should emphasize what tragedy and the tragic mean to us today, rather than what they meant in 335 BCE vs. 1872 CE (which, again, has been well documented). – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Great topic. Analyzing modern tragedies in this way is not just interesting, but enlightening. – Tigey8 years ago
We've seen them in movies, comics, shows, and in most fantasy/sci-fi outcast stories. The non-human character. The robot, the alien, the animal, the personifications. Once they are established to have human emotions, the audience always falls in love with them, faster than they would a human character. Why is this? Why are we more attracted to the inhuman than the human?
Non-Human characters are often visually pleasing, such as human and animal hybrids, humanoid or even non-humanoid robots, actual animals with the poser of speech. There's often an attraction to the elegance, the cuteness, or other aesthetics of these characters that draws us to them more quickly and strongly than the regular human ones. It also could be (in part) that non-Human characters do not necessarily fall to the same sinful or selfish desires that regular humans do. Alien species may not have the same moral dilemmas or vices purveying their culture, thus it is easier to like them because they do not have the same capacity to do wrong. Animals and robots also often don't have those same issues either, either because they are devoid of certain human abilities, or they are without conscious autonomous thought. This is why we often fear for the life of pets a little more so than humans in certain instances, especially film. We worry about the cute innocent creatures meeting their deaths more than any human characters. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
With the extremely detailed sci-fi horror game SOMA, there was a lot that dealt with the meaning of humanity and sentient life. It really made me appreciate sci-fi that tackles this topic well. I'd be intrigued by an exploration of this appeal toward the inhuman. – emilydeibler9 years ago
One way to write about this topic would be to look at the evolution of sci-fi movies and books in the last decades. It maybe interesting to find in what ways they have effected our emotions and understanding of non humans in comparison to when the genre of comics and sci fi first emerged. Has the popularity of such genre changed our perception of non-humans and how we related to them?
– aferozan9 years ago
Maybe mention a few examples specifically like the new droid in Star Wars, or the operating system in Her. – luminousgloom9 years ago
I think that perhaps we fall in love with them because in a way we pity them whether they have gone through something to get to the stage of not being able to be loved or show emotions and that after all the hardship they are. Or perhaps we're interested in the idea that they can show feelings.. – Wanderlust9 years ago
I'm glad you brought up SOMA, Emily. I also thought of the droids in Star Wars, as well as the robots in the video game series Portal and WALL-E and EVE from the Pixar movie. For the purposes of keeping the article focused, the author may want to focus solely on one type of non-human (robot, alien, or animal) because there are so many great examples for each category (ET for the alien and Remy from Pixar's Ratatouille for the animal, for instance). – KennethC8 years ago
Because animals, robots, and aliens have never hurt me as much as humans have. – Tigey8 years ago
Most chick flicks out there these days (and from last 10-15 years) consist of broken-hearted over some guy or girl who broke up with them. The movies lead to them crying in front of the TV watching sad movie. Where did it say in the guide of movie making of how a women/girl grieves a broken heart? The movies over the years like Legally Blond, how to lose a guy in ten days and Bridgette Jones Diary all have the women at some point crying eating chocolate or Ice Cream crying over the guys in their lives.. Where did our women power go? When did chick flicks define how we women grieve over relationships?
Also it's an interesting contrast compared to how men are allowed to grieve for relationships which I think often includes things like bashing women as a whole and either getting angry or trying to get the woman back. It seems like the active role is more left for men where as women are expected to be more passive and like you said, sit at home and cry about it – Briar8 years ago
I wonder whether it's men or women writing these scenes and movies, and what that says about how either gender thinks women (should) process their sadness. – chrischan8 years ago
I'd be careful about beginning from the assumption that these films have successfully defined how women grieve, and thus constitute a dissipation of female power. Yes, they often express a certain limited understanding of the emotional states women (and men) experience over the course of a romance, and depend for affect on their disinterest in other parts of that real world experience. But I wouldn't take it as self-evident that they effectively impose that understanding onto the lives of a viewership otherwise inclined toward something more. In a good movie, one finds something truthful. In a lazy, badly told, uninventive work of cliche, one will find only the leftovers of better films, and either move on or be satisfied. – TKing8 years ago
I don't think it's so much that chick flick style grieving is what women feel they must do, but since so many people learn about experiences they don't or haven't had from TV and movies, they come to believe that that is how women do or should grieve. Where it gets frustrating is when women are criticized or misunderstood because they don't react to a breakup in the way people will expect. – chrischan8 years ago
Often, I find myself speaking up for Ang Lee's Hulk, a film that is widely disregarded as slow, pretentious and generally misguided in its execution. Inevitably, the matter of the Gamma-ridden poodles will be brought up. However, I hold up Hulk as an artifact of the early days of the present super movie craze when each film was a distinct treatment of its source material, and each time the artistic voice of the director brought something new. This is before the monetary and perceived artistic success of one or two comic book movies, needless to name here, came in and flattened everything out. Is anybody with me?
I cannot, in good conscience, say that I enjoyed Hulk. However, I believe you have isolated an interesting difference between pre- and post-MCU superhero films. Should make for an interesting article. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I liked this version of Lee's Hulk. The cast was stellar but in this case I think it was a case of too many writers spoiled the broth. I think this Hulk story is also a reflection of the stage of where comics to film adaptations reflected a certain lack. Not necessarily because of the movie or content but back then superhero movies weren't as popular. With the release of Spiderman after 9/11 maybe we all feel the need for superheroes to feel safer. I would frame the article with the context of the times and why this Hulk version was underappreciated while acknowledging the story was a bit convoluted. – Munjeera8 years ago
I will always be quite lenient towards this film, as it introduced me to the character that has become my most favorite superhero out there. However, I will admit that as a Hulk film, its purpose could have been served better. But putting aside the character's fan perspective and taking on a more objective approach, I have come to appreciate this more as a comic book-inspired monster movie, almost like a recall to Universal's glory days in the genre up until the early 2000s or so. 15 years later, and it's quite saddening that not many people have come to appreciate the film as it deserves to be. – Veerji127 years ago
Analyse "canon" vs. "fanon", and whether the latter has any validity as regards interpretations and criticism of the former. Are fan theories a legitimate way in which to explore the deeper facets of a certain work or franchise, or is it merely a socially acceptable way for adults to waste their time? Discuss how certain fan theories have influenced (or not) storylines in different franchises and creator's rejections, adoptions, or subversions of popular fan theories (e.g., Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lost, Doctor Who, etc.)
'Canon' has always had its 'fanon,' insofar as canonical work requires a certain apparatus of replication. Nothing is canonical if it does not get to the point where it invites imitation. Example: Cervantes's 'Don Quixote' invited, in C18th, the self-explanatory 'Female Quixote' of Charlotte Lennox. It also caused Flaubert to write, a century later, 'Madame Bovary' (about a woman who believes herself to be a character in her favorite romances). Tolstoy's 'Anna Karenina' also deals with a protagonist who feels misplaced in the world she is inhabiting. If Cervantes was the original, then all the rest are reinforcements of the same 'canon.' They are, to a certain extent, 'fan fiction.' But they are also excellent examples of how imitation of a precedent can create powerful independent work. – Francisc Nona8 years ago
The R+L=J theory for Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire is practically considered canon in the fandom even though it hasn't been revealed...yet. I think it would be interesting to look into the psychology behind fan theories. Why do people discuss fan theories? What draws them into engaging in "fanon?" – Lexzie8 years ago
Vince Gilligan's attitude toward Breaking Bad is something like, Sure that could be in there. I guess that's a strength of ambiguity, which he admits to employing throughout the series. – Tigey8 years ago
Recently Fun home by Alison Bechdel has been listed as one of the most controversial novels of the year. Why do you think this is? Possible ideas include the portrayal of sexuality within the text, and is this more controversial due to the – literally graphic – nature of the text.
"Blechdel" should be "Bechdel." :) I had to learn about this graphic novel in both a comics class and my university book club. I think the primary points are sexuality and Bechdel's complicated relationship with her father. These two issues are intertwined because Bechdel is a lesbian and her father, who potentially committed suicide, was closeted and could not come to terms with his identity. Bechdel talks some about sex, as well as how her and her father inverted gender roles. There's also a bit about death. – Emily Deibler8 years ago
I've met Bechdel and spoken with her about this very book! I think the controversy lies in the fact that it is so heavily personal, because so much of it involves her own memories, diary entries, and suspicions in her own head. Her exploration of her family is one that I'm not sure many people would even attempt to make, and that is what makes the story so poignant. Not to mention, the story was written in graphic novel form, meaning not only do we get to read of this struggle for identity, but we are given the chance to look at it for ourselves, even if they are recreated fragments of Bechdel's memories. – amandagoodwin8 years ago
I'm uncertain about this topic, especially since the graphic novel came out in 2006, and I haven't really heard this novel regarded as controversial, especially this year?
On the topic of Bechdel, one of the more fascinating topics in regard to the author is the "test," named and created by the author in her comic "Dykes to Watch Out For," (1985): Bechdel Test is a simple assessment that names the following three criteria: (1) it has to have at least two women in it, who (2) who talk to each other, about (3) something besides a man. Interestingly enough, not many movies, nor books pass this test. This would be an interesting topic to explore through television, movies, or/and, literature.
– danielle5778 years ago
It is a graphic memoir, not a novel per se. And this so call 'controversy' is relative, depending on who sees it what and where. Not sure what this topic will try to accomplish. – T. Palomino2 years ago
SPOILER ALERT: There is a lot going on in Zootopia regarding minority-majority relations, "us vs. them" mentalities and exploration of stereotypes and how they're developed and reinforced. It's practically begging to be written about.
There also ought to be discussion of how, in their attempt to make the subject matter friendly to kids, Disney drops the ball with the social metaphors. For example, after some of them go savage, the carnivores in Zootopia are at one point clearly paralleled to Muslims and their treatment in the U.S.: an entire group of people is suddenly regarded as dangerous because any one of them, for unknown reasons, could "go savage" and just start hurting people (hence the stereotype of suicide bombers).
In the real world, these conditions are brought about by deeply problematic religious relations, but in the name of relating to the targeted audience Disney turns to the catch-all solution of a poisonous flower whose fluids just cause animals to lose their minds.
I should say I am currently writing an article which argues how Judy is the best feminist icon and complete female character Disney has ever created, and I do tackle some of the social commentary in regards to her arch as a child-friendly character. However, I do not go near the religious implications of the commentary. These are extremely good points, and could profit from looking at American political propaganda focusing on immigration and religious freedom. – C N Williamson8 years ago
Excellent topic. Zootopia (Zootropolis) is easily one of the most poignant films ever made about contemporary America and to a lesser extent the West. – Luke Stephenson8 years ago
Zootopia is definitely sending the message about stereotypes and minorities. Even the hate-crime of forcing a young fox into a muzzle, and displaying it as not only bullying but as stereotyping.
While also showing characters like Judy's fox bully at home can change. That the stereotypes given to minorities do not define how we must live their lives.
Just as Nick Wilde eventually fought against stereotypes, it is hard to do unless there is someone like Judy Hopps there to support you and fight alongside you. – epindera8 years ago
I disagree that Disney drops the ball with the social metaphors. I would consider how the movie portrays the dominant ideology of a culture stereotyping others, and that the hero, representing "good people" are not exempt from making assumptions or having prejudices. – rhetoricofafangirl8 years ago
Many comic books deal with whether or not a hero should kill someone if they feel they have to. Villains always break out of jail and hurt people, so at what point should they be executed? Some heros, like the Hulk, can't control themselves and often leave a path of destruction, should they be gotten rid of? Discuss how some of these scenarios played out and what killing means to different heros. Comics that explore this are Batman Hush, Justice League Crisis on Two Earths, Injustice, Marvel's Civil War, and Watchmen.
Love the idea! Might be worthwhile comparing the way the ethics of heroes killing villains in comics is represented, against the representation of that struggle in films and television, and why there might be differences. Daredevil seems like a good example given the entire second season is about the opposition between Daredevil and the Punisher's ideologies of life and death. – Zujaja K8 years ago
this could even be brought into the age of ultron and what it meant to ultron to kill, he did not want to kill just because there was a reason behind it. he wanted to essentially make the world a better place, but some people got in the way of that. very very good topic! – scole8 years ago
With the recent popularity of #StarringJohnCho, discuss the history of Asians in Western Television and Film and the possible reasons why there is so little Asian representation today. Why are there so few leading Asians in film, and why does Hollywood tend to stick Asians into stereotypical supporting roles?
Hollywood's formula at its most reductive is a film which attracts the largest consumer or the most specific one (camera angles, landscapes, fandom etc.). This isn't to say Asian America doesn't consume film. Rather, it means there is a presumed range of audience-consumers who watch films for pleasure and, as a result, won't care whether the portrayal of the Hero who exercises restraint and is later rewarded is White or Asian. But there lies the paradox: films which are enjoyable because characters express a philosophy or individuality audiences can live through vicariously means that there is an emotion or performed emotion which is accepted as universal. Justice looks like this, honour like that. However, this axiom (self-evident truth not up for discussion) has been established alongside, in response to, or disavowing a history which is, fundamentally, racist. The term carries hostile connotations, yeah, but it also speaks to a legacy of bad blood recognized and enforced by the law to keep the peace. Asians in supporting roles confirms what is imagined as quintessentially Asian. This specificity is something the cast, rather than the lead, should accomplish because authority, which the cast defers to the lead, is assumed to lack or exist in spite of such associations. Thus, the lack of Asian leads is because there is the implicit understanding that Whiteness is unquestionably located in a philosophy that aspires to transcend or progress past racialized and ethnic histories and identities. Bring an Asian into the picture to represent a role considered unhindered by this baggage and the narrative is disrupted. Most times, it is then critiqued for attempting to insert politics into a space reserved for enjoyment—and unquestioned for its White legacy. – JMIWrites8 years ago
Great topic -- has anyone done this already? Asians are a massively underecognized ethnicity in film. As an asian american myself I am always on the lookout for asians in hollywood. – sophiacatherine8 years ago
Architecture has yielded some of the world's greatest monuments, evidence of passed and present civilizations. Pharoes, Emperors and Kings made sure to leave their mark in the world. It's a combination of precise calculations, artistic vision and hard work. What has become of architecture today? Where is it headed?
Is this a question of what today's great works of architecture are, or an analysis of current trends and movements, or a look into celebrity architects (starchitects) and their influence on style? – chrischan8 years ago
It can be any one or all of these. I wrote the question this way on purpose. My goal was to keep it broad enough for there to be multiple points of discussion within the same overarching theme of architecture. – nnader8 years ago
This is an excellent question - - as an architect myself, I see myself and my contemporaries grappling with what architecture means, the domain it occupies, and its relevance in an increasingly technocratic society. – SUNANDO DASGUPTA AND ASSOCIATES5 years ago
In the bilungsroman, or coming of age novel, readers follow a protagonist on their journey from a state of naivety and childishness to maturity, in which they are able to navigate the society of the world. Yet many novels, classified as coming of age stories actually depict a very different fate for the protagonist. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye would be such an example of this type of novel. Why is that such tales of anti-development remain relevant and appealing? What is it that they say psychologically about the world that produces them?
Interesting. It's been a while since I read Catcher, but I believe it leaves us hanging on whether Holden matures. I'd be intrigued to see what the stagnation or ambiguity says about the world. If this isn't restricted by time period, Ellen Hopkins' YA work may be something to look into because she sometimes leaves the protagonist(s) without an upward conclusion. Interesting topic. – emilydeibler9 years ago
This a really intriguing idea, as I agree, many traditional coming of age novels leave students scratching their heads trying to connect what they just read to an outlook they should supposedly apply to their lives. I think this topic could be expanded into the discussion of how we often praise books of the label as "classic" while ignoring the lives and outlooks of the authors, which would be playing into your last question of the psychology of the creator or our mass consciousness. This would be also a great gateway to talking about what keeps them popular, but also what is being produce now and has the potential for being a new book that lasts beyond its time and becomes a classic as well. – TravisBoom9 years ago
I have not read Catcher in the Rye all the way through yet, but I have read L'estranger by Albert Camus which is normally considered a rite of passage for French Teenagers. In "The Stranger" we follow the existentialism ideology that was made famous by Jean-Paul Satre. Existentialism might have a lot to do with these novels your topic is about, so the "Anti-Coming of Age Novel" might be based on the ideas of this philosophical system (at least to a point). The Stranger was published in 1942 while The Catcher in the Rye was published in 1951. This seems, to me, like plenty of time for the transfer ideas between cultures. – garland419 years ago
Would love to see some references to modern bilungsroman. Murakami might be a start. – oakhubris9 years ago
FYI: It is technically "bildungsroman," not bilungsroman. And yes, Catcher in the Rye is a good example. One of the most famous earlier examples is The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling, by Henry Fielding. Though most relate these types of stories to male protagonists, Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte, is regarded as a bildungsroman, as is Maggie, from The Mill on the Floss, by George Eliot. One of the best examples is Dickens' classic, Great Expectations. On a more "contemporary note," Ralph Ellison's extraordinary novel, An Invisible Man is a pertinent example of a bildungsroman, as is Harper Lee's To Kill a Mocking Bird. More recent examples would include The Kite Runner, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and even Harry Potter. This is a fascinating topic. – danielle5778 years ago
Examine the elements of horror movies that are generally considered the most effective at scaring, disturbing, or unsettling audiences, and how these have changed over the decades, from early silent films to Hitchcock's masterpieces to modern remakes.
One direction this article could go could be to make a list of the recurring motifs in horror film according to film theorist Robin Wood, which are Psychos, Nature, Satanism and possession, the Terrible Child, and Cannibalism. It could also explore the idea of repression and the Other in film, not to mention the idea of horror originating from something totally normal being scarier than horror originating from the outside world. – VelvetRose9 years ago
What's interesting to note here is the mood and setting when sitting down to watch a horror film. The setting created by the atmosphere of the movie and the music's score help turn things which would normally not be scary for some, and makes them terrifying. Example, I am not scared of clowns but you be darn sure I freaked while watching IT for the first time. – cdenomme969 years ago
Whoever takes on this article should also consider comparing older films with their remakes and examine the changes. Classic horror movies are known for being terrifying while remakes are often bland and watered down. It may be easier to pinpoint what makes a movie scary. – Vexliss8 years ago
Great idea! Music is so important too. – Munjeera8 years ago
The psychology of scaring people is fascinating, especially once you get past the often-cheap jump scare: the mechanics of tension building are deeply interesting, and the part that music plays in making something terrifying cannot be understated. – Barselaar8 years ago
With the newest book in the Harry Potter universe coming out soon, and considering the new movie "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" entering theatres in November, discuss the different ways in which the Harry Potter universe has attracted millions of fans. Consider the writing style of the books, the movies, the theme parks, and all of the things that make Harry Potter what it is today. Discuss where you expect the wizarding world to go, and how it has impacted our world.
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
What do onscreen adaptations of abusive relationships tell us? Why do ex's get back together? When does someone know if they are in an abusive relationship? Does having too much in common turn a relationship venomous? Is there anything redeemable about Harley Quinn and the Joker as a couple? "The New Batman Adventures" episode, "Mad Love" gives the viewer an inside look of how the Joker seduced Harley Quinn and how abusive their relation is. It is obvious through the trailer of "Suicide Squad" that that relationship will be established and built upon. Maybe it is time for someone to try to make sense of their relationship and address the suggested questions? You up for the task, puddin?
Great Post. Antioxidant supplements are very good for body. I also can suggest you some antioxidant supplements <a href="http://alces.com.sg/super-lutein/">Super Lutein Singapore</a> , <a href="http://alces.com.sg/izumio/"> Izumio </a> These are very good supplements from <a href="http://alces.com.sg/">Alces-Naturally Plus</a> – anas6 years ago
A top 5 list of the best female villains of all time in either literature, TV or film with a description of what makes them so memorable, their motivations and their evil strategies. From Eve to Lady Macbeth to Catwoman to the Borg Queen.
Forever Femme Fatale: Reigning Female Villains A top 5 list of the best female villains of all time in either literature, TV or film with a description of what make them so memorable, their motivations and their evil strategies. From Eve to Lady Macbeth to Catwoman to the Borg Queen. – Munjeera8 years ago
I think this article should stick to one category (like only TV or only literature female villains) since there would be so many to choose from. – LaRose8 years ago
Analyze how TV shows can put people in a certain mindset which alters their real life behaviour. Are they just influencing and changing their perspective? or are they brainwashing as not every aspect of the situation is shown?
When thinking about reasons why people go to movies or why they are so engaged in television shows, it is either done to unwind and relax or to escape from one's own life.
TV shows often take place in very realistic settings, where the probability of the events taking place in the show are likely to take place in the viewers own life. However, especially after binge watching a show for hours on end, it is easy to get caught up in the TV shows world and try to apply their problem solving skills to one's own problems. This almost impossible to do. To perform a monologue of one's undying love for another may work in the staged construct of the show, but in reality it is kind of creepy and very over the top.
The situations on TV shows are being carefully calculated and balanced by the writers, and in real life people do not have set boundaries that they must act within. – Naomster78 years ago
I believe the TV shows give us unreasonable expectations for how relationships and behavior function. For example, How I Met Your Mother examines the relationship's between 5 friends in New York. Throughout the entire show I felt desperate to find similar relationships in my own life; but this is nearly impossible. Although fictional, the behavioral exchanges between characters seems realistic, but people do not behave like that in real life. Many of the characters have candid exchanges with new, and old, friends, but if the acted this way in real life, the responses would be quite different. For example, Ted's many romantic acts might warrant a restraining order in modern day society. People cannot be as carefree and friendly in real life as they are in shows, because our society does not support this type of behavior. – megduckworth8 years ago
I would actually be more worried about the influence of reputed news organizations in affecting the behavior of individuals. There are many viewers who will only watch one network, and since "news," follows the title, these individuals believe this to be the absolute, undisputed truth and will not pursue different avenues of thought. This leads to biases and ideologies that are difficult to change. – danielle5778 years ago
True. Look at right and left wing media. It does portray news in an unworthy way. – Munjeera8 years ago