As we all know, satire is an extremely power tool of communication, capable of exposing fraud and reaching the masses. People such as Voltaire and Jonathan Swift have written infamous satirical essays that are still read today. What modern equivalents do we have of these superstars? In what instances has humor clearly pushed an agenda? One may think of John Stewart and his work with 9/11 first responders.
Whenever I think of Voltaire, I think of a purported incident in which he submitted a bill to legislature joking that people should have to shut their blinds during the day so candle and lamp makers wouldn't have to fight the sun for competition, which was great commentary against industrial greed. More generally, though, this is a good topic to discuss. My first go-to celebrities would be Tina Fey and Amy Pohler. Their interviews and actual discussions tend to be more direct than their shows, but both 30 Rock and Parks and Recreation had distinct socio-political overtones. Fey's character Liz Lemon was an outspoken feminist and eco-critic, while Pohley's Leslie Knope highlighted the issues with contemporary government that tends to slow down or stonewall progressive change. One important aspect to consider here is that in days past, these major writers were among the only artists (as in, people involved in any art, writing, plays, music, etc) to really pay attention to, whereas now we have far more celebrities than any one person can pay attention to. Moreover, art, especially literature, was reserved for the upper class, as they were the only people both literate and able to afford to read, since mass publication didn't exist, but today, anyone can access any range of art and media for little to no money. In discussing the impact of modern equivalents, we should also keep in mind the amount of people talking and who, in fact, is listening. – Kevin9 years ago
I think the real effects of humor are that it helps the war on so much disinformation. Satire promotes the ability to think critically in a palatable form. Munjeera – Munjeera9 years ago
Great topic. I remember reading an article that said irony was dead after September 11. Thankfully that is incorrect. – Tigey8 years ago
I have had this question in my head for years, but I've never had a space to ask it. When writing a narrative, how important is it to recognize one's own positionality? When I say this term, I mean one's social makeup and characteristics — As a white, cishet, middle-class man, does it really makes sense for you to try and write about the struggles of a Latinx transwoman from impoverished rural Oaxaca? Research aside, can you really embody someone whose experience is established by their otherness?
This is a heady question, and the above paragraph may not be clear. Essentially, how can you know the experience of someone who has known the world differently because of their positionality as a marginalized or oppressed person? Is it really possible to understand someone's lived experience based on research or testimonials? And if it is possible, should we do it?
I find this topic fascinating. I think whoever would write this article may find useful information for this by focusing on how epistemology plays a role within the positionally of the author. (It seems implicit within the questions you are asking here.) – Matt Sautman8 years ago
This sounds heavily like the theory of auteurship. In other words, does author matter? This has been discussed time and time again, however, it's still debated today. This leads me to believe this article would still have value being written. Try to take a new, interesting angle at this topic. How you will do that, I don't know. Good Luck.
-Brad – Brad Hagen8 years ago
This is a really interesting question. I think historically, we've seen a lot of stories of the struggles of minorities framed through the eyes of a majority person. A great example of this is "A Secret Life of Bees." Lily, the main character is patently white, and expounding on her experience as a white person infiltrating the society of black people. It's a great way to frame and tell a story but it's problematic, as well. You run the risk of using the majority person, such as Lily, to justify the experience as note-worthy. Which is all to say, this is a great topic to delve into and there are a lot of angles you can come from. – PennyL8 years ago
Something else that can be addressed within this topic is the universality of human experience--that is, while we all don't have the same particular experiences, we all experience love, friendship, betrayal, uncertainty, joy, birth and death, in our own unique. Thus, though you don't share someone's specific race, gender, social position, etc., you still can enter into their experience through the emotions and experiences we share based on our shared human nature. – Allie Dawson8 years ago
This is also a question that I've been mulling over for quite some time. Even though most writers can try to empathize and place themselves into people's lives which are much different from theirs, I still don't think they can fully capture their experiences. Can you really describe how it feels like to fear for your life in occasions due to being queer? Can you really write about how it's like to low-income, starving on the streets? Truthfully I think sometimes we give writers too much credit. There are examples of writers who completely miss the mark on creating authentic characters that are from marginalized groups. – seouljustice8 years ago
What's the difference between a parallel and alternate universe? Are these important differences? Can these two terms be interchanged?
For this, you're going to need to consider a few things. First and foremost, what is the core difference? I'd say an alternate universe is a universe similar to the main one, only with one or two key differences. Whereas a parallel universe is one with all the same players, but just different events altogether occurring. Consider the Marvel Comics Universe. The 616 universe is the core reality, and there are numerous alternate and parallel realities. Something like Marvel Zombies, where there is one key event that changes everything, would be an alternate universe. On the other hand, the Ultimate Universe is totally different with completely different components and the like...but has all the core players from the main universe Ergo, parallel universe. Also consider remakes and film reboots. Genre remakes especially. Movies like the Halloween series has a surprisingly fragmented continuity by design. The first two films are core canon, but 4-6 are in an alternate universe to 7-8, with the core difference being Laurie Strode's survival and legacy. Whereas Rob Zombie's remake series is a parallel reality with nothing in common with the core films. And don't even get me started on the films with Batman. Or James Bond, even. Or...oh God...Godzilla. – agramugl8 years ago
I'd say that alternate is recognizably the same universe, while parallel is not. Alternate universes typically have generally the same general set-up as our own world, but differentiated recently in the timeline. I see this the most in DC comics: In "The Flash" CW show, there are alternate Earths with similar versions of each character (the same happen in Doctor Who, I think?). They have the same actor, but differ in personality, etc. due to some difference in their history. However, each Earth has integral events such as the particle-accelerator explosion that happen regardless of what Earth it is. This is explored more in "Crisis on Two Earths" (great DC animated movie, if you like that sort of thing) where Owlman discusses how each new Earth is created when a choice is made differently. Like, there's an Earth where Lex Luthor is good (one might call him an ALTERNATE version), one where life didn't happen at all, etc. [This concept seems to be universally geocentric throughout DC media, but whatever]. Contrastingly, Stephen King's "The Dark Tower" series mainly takes place in a world completely unrecognizable to our own, that runs 'parallel' to our own. Therefore, I'd call it a parallel world, based on its interaction and seeming disconnection to our world. [Maybe it will be revealed to be the future, but I'm not far into the series yet, ha.] A world that can't possibly be a variation of our own (a world where magic is real, the Dune universe with its melange, etc.) would typically be defined as parallel. These are just my interpretations, but I think they hold true throughout most media. The author of every work reserves the right to use the terms them interchangeably, or use one term solely. I have yet to encounter a work that uses both terms to mean a separate thing, but let me know if you find one (that would be a very interesting story!). – m-cubed8 years ago
Is there still a role for Devil's Advocacy in the age of social media trolls? Adopting a contrary position for the sake of debate has its origins in the Catholic Church and has become institutionalized in it's use in refining academic writing as an "opposing view" or antithesis. But as social media trolling begins to have real-world consequences, from violence to criminal investigations, should we retire the Devil's Advocate role once and for all? Or is there an affirmative role for a new kind of digital demon?
I kind of see what point you have, but I think you need to be a bit more specific. Do you have a specific instance that shows how devil's advocacy has "real-world consequences" that could support this argument well?
– Suman8 years ago
I think an additional consideration for whoever writes this could also be how to handle trolls/Devil's Advocates in an academically sound and ethical matter in order to avoid whatever "real world consequences" you are referring to – Kevin8 years ago
I like the essence of this topic, but it seems too willing to dismiss the value of playing devil's advocate in an abstractly general sense simply because a very specific type of devil's advocate is exhausting its value. In other words, the topic seems too willing to dismiss the concept of contrarianism because there are people who misuse it. Suppose, hypothetically, that we got rid of all devil's advocates, what would happen then? Would people be prohibited from making opposing claims and arguments? – IsidoreIsou8 years ago
I think whoever writes this should be specific about *Where* they see these devil's advocates. As, echoing what Kevin said, the internet troll started out as a form of devil's advocacy but has since become something else. (There is a good PBS idea channel video about this topic). If we're talking about real life discussion though, there's potential for a useful form of this rousing. – Mariel8 years ago
For writers who enjoy the challenge of writing flash or microfiction. Why do you enjoy it? Which format do you prefer? Hemingway's six-word stories? 100 word stories? Flash fiction format?
This is a very interesting and relevant topic to fictional writing, but I think I would steer away from questions that would prompt the writer to write in the first person such as "Why do you enjoy it?" because it may give the article a strong "blog" vibe. – Opaline8 years ago
I like this topic but I'm not sure that it has enough of a focus. Rather than writing generally about flash and microfiction, perhaps you could limit the topic to the rise of flash and microfiction in the literary scene or its ability to influence media due to its condensed capacity and a growing impatience for longer works due to the rise of social media. – luciahmiller8 years ago
I agree with luciahmiller; this is an interesting topic since flash fiction is growing within the writing commuinty, but I think it would be more focused, like luciahmiller says, if you focus on a specific part about flash fiction. – seouljustice8 years ago
Many of the old "classic" writers chose to write all their work by hand first and then type, if typing was available at all. Has the use of the computer and typing improved writers ability to perform their craft? Do writers today who choose to write long hand have an advantage?
Typing definitely reduces the amount of time spent for writing. However, some writers who choose to write longhand do so because it's their work habit. I think writing longhand helps them spot errors more because looking at a screen might be more difficult for some writers. – seouljustice8 years ago
The act of writing with an instrument in hand infuses one's heart and soul into the work. It is like a tear sliding down the cheek: you feel it. Typing is more like work - just getting it on the page. Forming letters, words, and phrases in ink from a perfectly proportioned pen with the color that fits the mood allows the writer to bleed out on the page. No keyboard can replicate the bond that ink from the hand creates.
– ajforrester758 years ago
The writer might also look into the way the brain works when handwriting versus typing. Handwriting is more engaging than typing. You can cross out words and write small notes to yourself as you go along. There are ways to do that in a word document; however, it really isn't the same. – krae298 years ago
It may be individual. For example, when I write with a pen, it makes me feel kind of secure. Not just because, unlike with computers, I’m sure my writing will not be accidentally erased or deleted but also because it gives this unexplainable feeling of close friendship with pen & paper) It’s the kind of feeling you have if you prefer printed books over e-books. It also makes my piece feel more real, for some reason. Writing longhand is time-consuming, it’s true. But for someone like me, it reduces anxiety, which is more important to me (if only I don’t feel the deadline’s breath against my back – then the anxiety is inevitable, anyway :)). So, I usually write my stuff down and then put my headphones on with some Aretha playing and start typing it on my computer almost automatically – weirdly enough, I enjoy typing as a separate activity which I cannot properly combine with the writing process that requires concentration deeper than one I have when just typing comments or messages.
Plus, papers with handwriting gain even sentimental value through the years.
I suppose, I’m a bit old-fashioned and embarrassingly not ‘technology-fluent’ as for a millennial (first time calling myself this way)). I guess, the perfect option for me would be a typing machine – a vague compromise between velocity and cosiness. Unfortunately, I would still have to either type it once more on my computer or use some damn good scanner and a bunch of software tools to convert images into text so I could put my work on the net and have it mobile. So, objectively, it’s most beneficial to do it all A to Z on the computer, but, from an individual point of view, writing with one’s hand has some personal advantages. The evolution of technology has played a crucial role here, but the evolution of people in the context of their readiness or refusal to accept those changes is what really should be examined.
– funkyfay8 years ago
Now that is has been a while since it's release a well rounded consensus can be established. Disregarding the overall quality of the execution of how the story was told, did it have a reason for existing? Did anybody feel that the book justified its existence by providing a well needed chapter of emotional development missing from Harry Potter's character arc?
Maybe an approach could be, what does Harry Potter and the Cursed Child add to the universe and understanding of Harry Potter that wasn't there better in just the books, films, and cult followings? – Kevin8 years ago
It is important to note that Cursed Child is a piece of theatre co-written by two other people. It brings HP to the stage while still presenting something new. It is completely different and it definitely has a reason for existing, as evidenced by the tickets sold out from now until eternity. – Christen Mandracchia8 years ago
This is a difficult topic to approach because, technically speaking, there is no reason any form of art should exist. It might serve a good function but it serves a constructed one, either through the artist's vision or through society's desires. When looking at the latest installment in Harry Potter, I would keep the facts strictly true and twist the discussion toward a more interesting one, which might be: does an author have the right to promulgate or continue a story even if it is to the story's detriment? Perhaps this isn't a question worth answering, but it is worth considering especially with the possessive nature of fandom today. – atiku8 years ago
Was "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" a worthy continuation to the Harry Potter series? I actually think this a very interesting topic to explore. It's true that it is a piece for theatre above anything else but it still continuing the story of the novels. I also have the question of whether the story should have been told in novel form verses in stage form. Why continue the story in a different format? – MatthewSimmons8 years ago
I believe that this is a very interesting topic that would make a great read. It is quite arguable whether or not there is a valid reason for it's existence. I'm sure some feel as if it was a wonderful continuation, while others find it just a way to extract more money from devoted Potterheads. I personally would take this on by writing how The Cursed Child helped you learn more information about your already beloved characters. – jccrockett8 years ago
The Cursed Child has a reason for existing insofar as it brings Harry Potter to a new medium--the stage. Though A Very Potter Musical exists, JKR had never been part of a theater adaptation of the series, and by creating the play, an opportunity for a new audience to experience the series, and long standing fans have a chance to experience the series in a new format. The actual story, however, didn't seem to be a worthwhile addition to the canon. In the sense of continuity, the characters did not read the same in the play as they do in the books or movies. And then in the sense of fiction practice and ethics, characters should arguably let free after a series has finished--the author has already constructed a story that should leave the audience with distinct enough impressions of the characters for readers to determine for themselves what comes of their lives. – mrgawlik8 years ago
I myself am very contradicted about this. I go back and forth about it a lot. Overall though, I think I've come to the conclusion that it was great to see how Harry's kids turned out. I would've never thought Albus would actually become a Slytherin. I never thought that people would think Scorpious would be the son of the dark Lord. It was fun to see these new characters go through their own adventure, especially since i was so enthralled with them after reading the epilogue – Jenae8 years ago
I think its better to question if Rowling should have allowed others to (in my opinion mar her legacy) interfere with her works. Did the co-authors do justice to the series or was it more of a money making attempt. Was the character development and style what fans came to expect from Rowling, how has The Cursed Child helped or hurt her readership or how her fans view her now as opposed to before The Cursed Child came out? – ADumbuya8 years ago
The reason was money, I believe. – T. Palomino2 years ago
REVISION: How can writing benefit a student in all jobs/careers?
ProtoCanon, I thought your response/note was a little harsh. In no way am I judging or millennial-bashing anyone. In fact, I am one of those thousands of millennial undergraduate students studying English, so I would not submit a topic to bash myself. But thank you for the destructive criticism. – Marina8 years ago
Marina, this is too simplistic. I know you've revises the edits but the topic requires more detail before someone can write it. Honestly if you just add some background (why is this relevant? important?) than it will be perfect. – Mela8 years ago
I think one of the many benefits of writing is that they can improve their communication skills. But I do agree with Mela. The topic is interesting, but it wouldn't hurt to add more details. – seouljustice8 years ago
You could almost instantly narrow this topic down if you talked about its polar opposite. What can't writing do for you career-wise? Which aspects of professional life remain unexplored by written expression? This next suggestion is a slight deviation but someone could consider talking about the aspects of life (both professional and otherwise) that are beyond written expression. Does recognising these limitations provide any worthwhile information about how to better use writing to one's advantage in all domains? – IsidoreIsou8 years ago
Too broad and out of the scope of The Artifice. – T. Palomino1 year ago
