Modernist texts are often heavily fragmented – the plot is jumbled and does not follow a simple beginning to end chronology. This can be off-putting for many readers as it can make a story hard to follow and less immersive.
However, what are the benefits and what does writing in fragments achieve? An article could look at a selection of texts that are fragmented and offer an analysis of what this particular structure is doing.
For example, in Kaddish for an Unborn Child by Imre Kertesz, the plot keeps circling back to the same line, its repetition representing the repetitive trauma it has caused the protagonist. Or, in The Corpse Washer by Sinan Antoon, the plot is broken up by page long chapters detailing the nightmares had by the protagonist which can show how they interject in his life just as they have interjected into the plot. There are many works of literature that fragment the narrative and do so for thoughtful and strategic reasons. Thus, exploring texts that do this meaningfully could be an interesting read!
I suppose in literature that would be food for thought. But, I can emphatically say that it occurs in film as well. Take for instance the film Raging Bull. To the untrained eye or first time viewer, the boxing scenes appear fragmented, or improperly edited. In fact, it is a deliberate technique known as image collision. Effectively what it does is arrange a sequence of scene cuts with no apparent flow between them. The viewer is left to fill in the gaps or smooth over the perforations in the actor's activity and the camera movement. In the process, the audience is drawn into the cinematic spectacle before them. I would be interested in knowing if this a common practice in literature as well. (Aside from the obvious example, Alice in Wonderland.) – L:Freire4 years ago
Interesting. Modernism was a reaction against the inflexible confines of Victorian literature that preceded it. The motif of the circle, as in Kertesz's text, is an alternative to the traditionally linear conception of experience. The Modernist's realised that individual experience is not as simple as a traditional linear narrative with one major point of conflict; we think back, we reconsider, we hypothesise. The Modernists simply reflected this reality in the forms of their works. – hlewsley4 years ago
I find fragmented writing to be very confusing, but very intriguing as well. A reader following a straight line can get tiring and boring. Putting in fragments adds not only a timeline to a story, but also adds depth to characters, settings, and plot. The reader is able to tie things together themselves rather than have someone tell them which is more entertaining. – devdroses4 years ago
I don't really see "fragmented" stories as innately more confusing than linear ones. If you think about it, any story that starts in medias res or uses flashbacks--especially more than a couple of times--is making use of non-linear storytelling. That being said, probably one of the most infamous "fragmented" stories is The Trial, a novel by Franz Kafka. In that case, the reason why it's so fragmented is because the story was discovered after the author's death, and he hadn't managed to complete the story or put the pieces in order in the first place. Another interesting example of non-linear storytelling is in the movie Memento. The protagonist of that movie suffers from an inability to make new memories, and so the entire story is told in reverse, with the later events being shown first and the earlier events shown later, so that the audience can realize how confusing and misleading it would be to live in such a way. – Debs4 years ago
What an interesting topic! This could be a hard one to write because temporal shifts and fragmented plots work to “achieve” different purposes for different Modernists. Perhaps a thesis that explores a few common effects of the narrative style within a particular subset of Modernist writing would work well. One might consider narrowing to the early Modernists or even just the early female Modernists, for instance. Or, contrarily, a broader survey of Modernists using the style over time to achieve the same purpose would be super interesting, too. Again, keeping the focus narrow will be difficult, but I think it would produce a rewarding piece. – JCBohn4 years ago
Is the Olympic Games an athletic event, a cultural spectacle, or a tourism promotion? Describe how Olympic coverage caused certain trends to explode. (For example, Kpop's ascent following the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Games)
Useful perspectives include the history of the Olympics (why were they started and do those reasons hold true in modern Games), cultural impact (like the Doctor Who episode(s) featuring the Olympics and other depictions of the Games), and how Olympic athletes react to the spotlight (Simone Biles' mental health story, for example). – noahspud3 years ago
When Facebook first came out in 2007, social games came with it. Most of us played these games hoping to build connections with friends and improve our standing in fantasy worlds/virtual lives.
One of the biggest provider of such games was Zynga. From Farmville to Cafe World to Hidden Chronicles, they churned out plenty of games with plenty of connections and worlds to explore. Yet in a few years, most of these games vanished. Hidden Chronicles, Cafe World, and others are now just Wikipedia pages, although you may find some Facebook groups still asking for the games to be brought back. Meanwhile, other games similar to these, such as Pearl's Peril, are either floundering or closed.
Examine some of these games and discuss why they didn't last. Compare and contrast them to some games that are popular on social media now. Are the newer games easier? If yes, how? Are they more fun or satisfying? What problems might they still share with the old games? If older games were to return successfully, what improvements would they need to make?
I imagine the disappearance of these games has been largely due to the rise of mobile games and steam. I couldn't imagine people playing Facebook games when their out as they have their game on the phone. And when their home on the PC I imagine free to play games like Apex, Valorant, and league which are pretty easy to run on most PC's are more favorable choices. Just speculation as I have not done research on this topic. – Blackcat1304 years ago
This week, Slate.com's parenting column, Care and Feeding, ran a letter from the concerned parent of a school-age child. The child's majority-white class, led by a white teacher, had been reading Bound for Oregon as part of an Oregon Trail unit. This book, written in the '90s, contains the N word. (From all indications, the parent and student are white, also).
The parent expressed concern because when they went to the teacher, she simply said she told the students the N word "is not a nice word," they did not have to say it (when reading aloud in small groups), and the class would discuss the word "later." However, the discussion had not happened, and the parent wondered whether to pull the child out of the class/school over the teacher's response.
Unfortunately, Bound for Oregon is not the first historical kids' or YA book to contain this word or other slurs, nor is it the first kids may be required to read in school. In 2020, what is the best way to handle this? Is there any historical kids' and YA lit that stays true to its historical background without using slurs or outdated attitudes? Are those attitudes "necessary" or "object lessons"–in other words, would "cancelling" them deprive kids of so-called classics or needed info? Does the classroom makeup–the race of the students or teacher, orientations, ability levels, etc.–make a difference? If it does, at what point should related literature be introduced or handled (e.g., how should we handle Holocaust literature when the majority of a class is practicing Jewish? Should able-bodied students be required to read literature about disabled characters, when their school has a segregated special ed program)? Discuss.
Is it possible to get a link to this article? – DancingKomodos4 years ago
Young adult literature has seen a needed explosion of Black protagonists lately, and particularly Black females. Many of these new protagonists are also involved in Black Lives Matter or similar, sometimes fictionalized, organizations. They may be involved with other fictionalized organizations like Innocence X (The Innocence Project), seeking justice for incarcerated loved ones. Some Black female protagonists also rap, blog, or otherwise create to have their voices heard, and face both support and backlash.
Examine the voice and portrayal of the young Black woman in today's YA literature. Who is she? Is her representation fair and nuanced, or do a lot of her incarnations look the same (and why is that)? If you choose to discuss historical Black females, how are current fictional protagonists different from those written in past decades? What do Black female characters have in common, and how do they differ from each other as well as other races? Who are some of your favorites, and/or whose stories do you think today's young adults should read first if they're trying to gain an understanding of Black, female personhood?
I highly recommend reviewing Chapter 2: "African American Young Adult Literature and Black Adolescent Identity Developing a Sense of Self and Society through Narrative" in Janet Alsup's Young Adult Literature and Adolescent Identity Across Cultures and Classrooms: Contexts for the Literary Lives of Teens (2010). I think anyone who chooses to write on this topic will find excellent insights in that textbook. – Felipe Rodriguez4 years ago
A recent social media meme reads, "I heard a woman say she won't let her kids watch Peppa Pig because it encourages bad behavior like jumping in puddles. I saw Road Runner and haven't blown up anyone yet."
Laughs aside, and whether the account is true or not, this does bring up how concerned adults have become about children's behavior, where that concern is coming from, and when that concern is or isn't justified. For instance, there are parents who sincerely believe Peppa Pig is a bad influence. Others have excoriated every series from Caillou (whiny, bratty behavior) to Fancy Nancy (melodrama) to Sofia the First, Elena of Avalor, and The Lion Guard (too much emphasis on royalty, princess mentality).
Is children's animation actually encouraging bad behavior, or do adult audiences focus too much on instances of normal childlike actions? Do any of today's animated shows have good messages, about behavior or anything else, and what are they? Which animations are the best and worst when it comes to presenting characters and behavior kids should emulate? Discuss.
This is an interesting topic for discussion. In my experience, it's not so much the television shows themselves that are the problem, as that parents aren't doing the nurturing and moralizing that they used to. If parents aren't there to provide their kids with a value system, the kids turn to media, including television, to make sense of the world. Ultimately this creates a feedback loop, where the TV programs pander to what they think the children will like in order to make money, and therefore cut them off from their parents' values even more. – Debs4 years ago
In absence of a role model, with absent parental figures, children look at the next best things and absorb "the babysitter." Jim Carrey's character in the titular Cable Guy seems less fiction and more reality with all the avenues the younger generations are inundated with messages and values. What is worse than clashing with the values of a family, is the lack of any role model at all and adopting whatever flips up on a screen. I grew up watching everything from Loony Toons, Saturday morning cartoons, Toonami, animé, etc., but my parents were there to decompile the content instead of letting it ferment in my spongy prepubescent brain. I have a feeling that there is a similar vein here as in the "videogames make people violent" where accountability is placed on environment and OTHER people, never the individual's personal agency in internalizing and later acting on values. – DancingKomodos4 years ago
I think some children's animations are bad to watch, simply because they add no value to the child's development in moral character. Shows like The Amazing World of Gumball are simply visual drugs with little or no beneficial moral message for children to learn from. I'm disheartened to see that most kids' shows these days are overstimulating visuals without a good story, character development, or moral lesson. I recently read a book called "Tending the Heart of Virtue" by Vigen Guroian. He argues that it doesn't necessarily matter how "badly" a character acts in these stories. What matters is the journey they go on and the lessons they learn along the way. Take the classic telling of Pinocchio for example. The wooden puppet is a terrible role model for children, but he is not rewarded for his bad behavior. Instead, he learns that lying and refusing to take responsibility for his actions turns him into a donkey and sends him into the belly of a whale. In the end, he learns from his mistakes and receives the gift of becoming a real boy. – skylarjay3 years ago
The constant messaging nowadays to "stay safe" seems at odds with most of the books written for children in elementary school. Fairy tales, adventure stories, and even classic and seemingly gentle books like "The Secret Garden," encourage children to face their fears, take risks and stand up for what they believe in, even if it endangers themselves.
How are today's children to interpret characters like the Pevensies in Narnia, Lina and Doon from the City of Ember, or Parvana from "The Breadwinner," in the context of risk-averse messaging? Do these kinds of stories still reflect our values, and what kind of benefits do children get from them?
I love this topic and can think of other books to discuss, too. Really, you could make the argument that if a children's lit protagonist is an orphan or in a non-traditional family situation, or situation of any kind (and most are), they're already taking risks. They may already not be safe, through no fault of their own. And I love that about good children's lit. I sense you're afraid we may lose that, and I share your concern. If no one claims this, I'm taking it! :) – Stephanie M.4 years ago
I wonder if a brief history of children’s lit might help contextualize this shift from adventure narratives to our cultural desire to protect children - from my knowledge a lot of children’s books first started out as instructive tales, like Aesop’s Fables or A Pilgrim’s Progress, and then developed into the children lit we recognize more broadly now. I also wonder if there could be an examination of the cultural shifts between some of these classic children’s lit works, like Narnia, and now. For example, would Narnia have been as successful if it had been released in 2020? Or is there something about post-WWII England that made those stories extra enticing? And how does this cultural context play into the understanding of fear/adventure? This is a great topic :) thanks for your ideas! – cassidyleone4 years ago
Discuss racial and gender representation in the various television series that comprise the CW's Arrowverse franchise, such as the introduction of television's first transgender superhero in Supergirl and the normalized same-sex relationships of Legends of Tomorrow. Present examples/details and discuss their relevance to your overall analysis of the show(s).
Okay, good idea. You seem to be a little more focused on gender though, so maybe just tackle that for this article? Or, you could talk about race, gender, and some other difference (are there religious representations in the Arrowverse? Representations of national origin, such as a person who is from a "majority" race but not the same country as everyone else)? – Stephanie M.4 years ago
It's so irritating it gives it a new name, diversity and representation! Give the people that deserve roles and don't question is it because of their race, or choosing. There can't be one day that I don't have to read about 50 topics on it, and we talk about how that is important and so on! Can we have people, all people, just have the audition and I don't need to know if they have been chosen because of anything but their acting. There is literally nothing worse than when you go and I don't know, tell me you will make a Black Superman. Is that something any black man would really want??? I mean it can be seen from space why they do it. Why would any black man want that? Why don't you make a White Black Panther? Is that some white man would want to see? I don't know, but I am sure there are millions of stories and characters from black culture, well I don't expect a lot of white actors to act there once those stories are adapted. I am just wondering, why more of stories like that aren't adapted. That would be something new, something not jet seen. – FictionHorizon4 years ago
What can "celebrity animals" — like Dolly (the cloned sheep), Tilikum (the killer whale), or even the octopus who gained fame on the Netflix Original, My Octopus Teacher — tell us about "the human socially constructed natural world" as Nick Couldry calls it?
Animals (especially charismatic species with which we feel we can identify) can certainly ground environmental issues and cause us to at least feel something for environmental crises. However, there is often unequal distribution of attention that leads to inequality: mediagenic coverage that places certain animals in a positive spotlight allows us to care more for a gorilla or elephant than for an insect or fish, for example.
Media power is prevalent in the operation of animal fame. Given that human animals are the norm in studies of celebrity environmentalism, what difference does it make to consider the role of non-human animals? Consider, with reference to one non-human animal celebrity associated with environmentalism (like Dolly, Tilikum, or others that have come about in mainstream media).
I think this topic is great! Other examples that immediately come to mind are Harambe (the gorilla) and Cecil (the lion), both of whom came to be heralded as martyrs in the social media court of public opinion. I also wonder if less personalized/individualized examples might also fit into this paradigm, such as the nameless polar bears precariously photographed on shrinking ice sheets, or the much discussed declining honeybee populations (whose absence has been memorialized on boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios). How do these animals function as metonymical stand-ins for ecological destruction, and does the same logic of celebrity apply without the overtly anthropomorphizing gestures of assigning a proper name. On the subject of anthropomorphism, I wonder if there's also room in article to discuss the celebrity status of fictional animal protagonists, which seems to be most common of dogs (e.g. Call of the Wild, Old Yeller, Air Bud, Marley & Me, The Art of Racing in the Rain, etc.) and horses (e.g. Kholstomer, Black Beauty, and particularly War Horse -- on page, stage, and screen). Lastly, I'd be remiss if I didn't recommend the prospective author to read up on the recently scholarly literature in the booming humanities discipline of "Animal(ity) Studies," whose key contributors have been Carey Wolfe, Peter Singer, Jacques Derrida, Margo DeMello, and particularly the posthumanist theories of Donna Haraway. – ProtoCanon4 years ago
Verrrry nice! I'm assuming you've seen a lot of animal documentaries, including Blackfish (Netflix). If you can find anything, you might also use the story of Keiko, the orca who played Willy in the Free Willy franchise, as a source. I had some other suggestions, but it kinda looks like you're covered. :) – Stephanie M.4 years ago
During the coronavirus pandemic, we have seen celebrities and high profile people use social media in a way that has roused both negative and positive response. However, a quick internet search of celebrities and the pandemic leads to overwhelmingly negative titles: A headline for the NY Times says "Celebrity Culture is Burning" and BBC asks, "Is the age of celebrity over?" Think of images of celebrities on their private islands, flaunting their wealth, and hosting parties — all while preaching "we're all in this together!"
To think more specifically, some examples that comes to mind include: the celebrity-sung "Imagine" video, or John Krasinski's web-series "Some Good News," or even the host of sourdough videos made by celebrities on their Instagram stories.
How is celebrity changing/how has it changed during the coronavirus pandemic? Are there any examples or sources of joy and positive affect coming from celebrity culture? Or are the overwhelmingly negative headlines right to say that celebrity culture is burning?
Very interesting. I cannot say that I've seen any of these other articles you've mentioned, but I'd be curious to read them now, and see what arguments they make in defense of that thesis. I suspect one death knell for celebrity culture was that much maligned celebrities-singing-"Imagine" video, with its palpable chasm between its authors' expected reception and its actual audience's kneejerk cringe. However, on the other side of the coin, I would argue that Covid has presented new templates of celebrity that did not exist prior. Anthony Fauci and (our Canadian counterpart) Theresa Tam have long been well-known in medical and epidemiological circles, but the pandemic turned them into household names. On a different corner of the same side of the coin, I wonder if Joe Exotic and Carole Baskin would have ascended to celebrity status they way they did if not for the pandemic. Lastly, if celebrity culture is in fact declining, I wonder how much of that is necessarily a direct result of the pandemic -- correlation not being synonymous with causation. One significant (non-Covid) factor that I can see as being responsible for this decline is the rise of so-called "Cancel Culture" (which is a complicated subject, too big to unpack here), in which celebrities are being held accountable for their problematic actions/statements/views, and being stripped of their power as a result. In addition to dispossessing existing celebrities of their cultural capital, this trend may also prove to make acquisition fame a less desirable goal for others, who might be dissuaded by overwhelming public scrutiny, social media's acceleration of the process, and the knowledge that very minor transgressions can fuel Twitter-mobs just as much legitimate sexual assault and/or bigotry. Just some food for thought. – ProtoCanon4 years ago
Interesting. If you ask me, celebrity culture can take a hike. It turned my stomach to hear them preaching about empathy and togetherness when as you said, they weren't losing anything or making sacrifices. You could also talk about how some celebrities *attempted* to spread joy but actually exploited certain groups (e.g., celebrities or news anchors using feel-good stories of people with disabilities doing everyday things as "hope in these uncertain times," so to speak). – Stephanie M.4 years ago
I actually think that celebrity culture is, in many respects, the same as it ever was. Celebrities have always attempted to champion whatever causes were relevant to the day, even if they had no bearing on their actual lives. Furthermore, just as there have always been people willing to lavish attention and love on celebrities (and always will be) so too have there always been people willing to write them off as narcissistic, shallow and-out-of-touch. What's changed, I think, is that with the pandemic people have fewer things to distract them from the activities and sanctimony of the celebrities. Additionally, it does seem to me that the type of celebrities that people flock to are different. In other words, while people used to lionize movie stars and singers, now they are more likely to focus on the lives and actions of political figures instead. For instance, I notice lately that a lot of people have been treating the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, as if he were a god. On the opposite side are those who are doing the same thing to Dr. Fauci. At the same time, both of these people have as many utter detractors as fans, just as with any other celebrity. – Debs4 years ago
This is an interesting topic. The pandemic has truly changed how we view celebrities because we have been able to view them on a day-to-day basis and see that they aren't so different from us after all. We have always had this idolization of celebrities without really considering their flaws and true nature. This pandemic has been interesting in being able to strip everyone down to who they really are and show that celebrities aren't exactly something to be idolized. Or even just showing how out of touch they really are with the rest of the world. While people are struggling to pay rent or find food, and they are lavishing in multimillion dollar homes, complaining about the pandemic. It has truly stripped away the glamour and revealed the wide disparity that I believe we have been willfully blind to before. – SSartor4 years ago
I was looking around this year for content during the pandemic about mental health or lack of. As a college student, I watched a fair few of my friends experience depression or widespread anxiety for the first time due to the impacts of the pandemic.
It is no secret that this generation is calling out for resources and the destigmatization of "mental health" as a form of combating and healing. However, what next? You've healed from the stigma of your mental illness and you still feel like shit. Where is that story?
I believe that the answer we need lies in the TV "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" a musical comedy from the genius mind of Rachel Bloom. The show is not a light touch of social anxiety but instead a humorous and relatable dive into personality disorders and the darker side of "mental health". In a way separate from buzz words like "representation" and "normalization", Bloom does what all good writers have learned to do, tell a universal stories through the outlandish specifics.
Could perhaps start with reading some of his lesser know work , plays i.e 'The Gardeners Son' – Yama14410 years ago
He’s certainly an interesting author. But this topic seems quite broad. Is there something specific about his work the author could focus on, like the type of characters or settings being used? – Stephanie M.4 years ago
In this day and age, historical accuracy is more important than ever. At least, to some people. When "Little Women" won the Oscar for Best Costume Design in 2019, a few people were unimpressed, given the inaccuracies of the costume design compared to what people would have worn at the time. This article would look at various films in Oscar history that won or were nominated for Best Costume Design with some modifications made to period clothing that raised a few eyebrows. These could be to send a powerful message (see Emma Watson's corset-less dresses in "Beauty and the Beast") or to make a fashion statement (Elizabeth Taylor's wardrobe in "Cleopatra"). The films can implement changes for the better or for worse, so long as they are slightly different from the outfits they're based off. Some sources that the author might want to look at are Bernadette Banner and Karolina Zebrowska, YouTubers who not only know their fashion history, but also try out fashion items, critique films, and debunk myths. Of course, other sources besides YouTube can be used.
Another source to consider is the TV series, Outlander, which prizes itself on historically accurate costume (there are many resources about this online and YouTube with interviews from cast members who comment on how their costume impacted their abilities) – telltaletalovic4 years ago
It would be interesting to see a comparative character analysis of some of TV's biggest anti-heroes (Walter White, Tony Soprano, Omar Little, to name a few). The analysis might consider a few similar traits amongst those heroes and explore the dynamic characterization that can oftentimes develop more gradually and organically in TV series than it can in film.
I've written extensively about TV antiheroes so this is a very attractive topic to me, but I would also maybe suggest discussing the cultural background of the antihero protagonist, i.e. how it reached a new epoch in the 2000s following Tony Soprano and gradually dissipated through the 2010s after Walter White. – GJWilson64 years ago
Great feedback, GJWison6. Thanks! – JCBohn4 years ago
Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, there's been a new spotlight shone on doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers. To show support for those in the medical field, it's now time to evaluate the portrayal of both doctors and nurses in TV: particular tropes, harmful stereotypes, progress in the way women/LGBTQ/BIPOC characters are handled or portrayed. What are some examples of groundbreaking works in the genre? What are some terrible or offensive examples? Some shows to look at are Grey's Anatomy and Scrubs. Comparisons can also be made to non-American TV shows and how they approach the subject matter.
I think The Good Doctor should definitely be added to the discussion. The majority of the doctors are Black or Brown (although the main protagonist is white, which brings up other issues). There's also plenty to say about how female physicians are treated or portrayed, especially with the addition of Dr. Jordan. Check out the episode where Jordan treats a large Black female patient, and has to deal with the racial and weight-related implications of her treatment, as well as how her fellow doctors handle it. – Stephanie M.4 years ago
TV series 13 Reasons Why depicted real-life challenges of American high school students. Bullying, rape, suicide, mental health, drug addictions and many others are included. Season 1 and 2 dealt with Hannah Baker's 13 reasons to kill herself, and whether or not the school was responsible for failing to prevent this from happening. Season 3 focused on Hannah Baker's rapist Bryce Walker's accidental death and how Hannah Baker's circle of friends covered it up. Lastly, Season 4 centered on how the friends of the "framed victim" investigated into finding out the real killer. It is often argued that TV shows/media of this sort are bad influences on young audiences, with examples include horror movies and heavy metal music. Why do you think, after all the accusations and criticisms, Hollywood/American television is still producing and promoting such contents? Is it because any publicity is publicity, and sensational contents are always good TV show materials? Should television be producing fewer of these shows or only to be broadcast on adult channels? Does demand for such contents create supply? Or, perhaps a little more positively, the show does alleviate real-life problems of high school students and young adults, and more of these are needed?
This is a solid topic. I would look into creator intent for this subject. As, some directors just do as you pointed out in your thesis; and they merely wish to create content that will get easy media attention. They do this because they know people will watch shows just because it is talked about and could careless about whether or not the press is positive, while others actually care for the taboo topic and want to do them justice. Netflix's cuties is another worthwhile thing to look into. Not trying to poison the well here, but I believe cuties was an example of individual who had a questionable understanding of the subject matter, and this lead to it possibly doing more harm then good. Beast with no Nation is also worth looking into, as it was received positively for the most part. – Blackcat1304 years ago
In numerous studies, people are finding that pop music is homogenizing, both harmonically, stylistically, and even in vocal variety (i.e. very similar sounding artists being appreciated). Some claim that pop music is being "dumbed down" by becoming harmonically and melodically simplified. While pop music nowadays may be more harmonically and melodically simple, are there other factors that make it more complex/varied? Should we judge music based on these factors, or should we appreciate other aspects of the genre? What are those factors that we should appreciate?
A big factor is how formulaic a lot of the music is. Everyone wants to climb to the top via popularity and they do so by following the mainstream and taking the place of those who came before them by doing the same act. Many musicians don't even write their own songs, they just perform what their companies give them. It's a struggle between capitalism and the rise of the artist. – LaRose9 years ago
I'm not sure this topic fits into any of the current categories. According to the guidelines, music is not currently a category, but might be in the near future. Once this comes to pass, I would give this topic a second look. – BoomBap9 years ago
This topic is difficult because there is so many factors that can play a role. While I'm of the opinion that music (and all mainstream art including visual media, animation, film, literature, and theater) is being dumbed down. The reason people are noticing how similar music is becoming is also due to them being more familiar and experienced with it. While many artist are often criticized for "copying" other artist work. The reality is many artist are "inspired" by other artist. You can see this with bands like Wolfmother, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Cage the Elephant who were inspired by late 60's rock bands and tried to imitate them. You can honestly pick any era for music (or games, movies, and theater) and start noticing how redundant trends pop up due to the success of others. If you go back to the early 2000's there was a point where every artist was using auto tune and even further back you had the gangster rap era where everyone was trying to prove how "tough" they where. Also more recently Invincible has become incredibly popular due to its Amazon series and many people have praised it for its subversion of mainstream comic-books, but to me that is not the case. As, many of the more "shocking" elements have been done before by other comic-book series, such as the supposed paragon of good actually being corrupt. And is simply using his positive image to take over the world. Graphic violence has always been apart of comics and super hero's having sexual relations and having it be portrayed in full detail in the pages has also occurred. But the general press is talking up these elements, which to me shows how unfamiliar they are with the subject matter. "Btw I do think Invincible both the comic and Amazon series are worth looking at but not for the reason's I listed above." While I'm sure some musicians are simply following trends, I don't think all of them are. You also have to take in account how producers can act as gate keepers to the success and how popular some artist become, as they may choose to publish one artist over another due to them being similar to another successful arts. – Blackcat1304 years ago
I agree with some of the points previously mentioned. A particular aspect of music that can be argued is the notion of why exactly is pop music in its current state? Popular music in a sense can be argued is rap music due to the popularity of the genre. Moreover, pop music is an amalgamation of various genres blended together and can be seen in the ways in which EDM influences the beats of songs or how low-fi beats borrowed from ambient R&B. – jgabriel974 years ago
To an extent, I do agree. I think, however, it's about encouraging people to have variety in their listening repertoire. It's ok to listen to something with simple harmonies and melodies, just like it's ok to eat fast food once in a while. I think people should be encouraged to keep an open mind and have a lush pallet of genres in their playlist and also appreciate how many genres, whether classical, jazz, pop, rock, drill or whatever it may be overlap and have more in common than we often give credit for. – JRAsquith3 years ago
Mark Z Danielewski's House of Leaves is probably the most famous oddly structured book. For the most part there's two separate narratives; the narrator's own story is told in footnotes, the main body of the text being the discovered critical analysis by Zampano of a non-existent documentary film about an ever-changing house. Zampano's also blind, btw.
It's a little bit gimmicky, but at times the Zampano essay is stunning, with some of the most memorable sinister moments in modern literature.
Beside House of Leaves, I was surprised by the twist of the plot and development in these books:
Abraham Verghese: Cutting for Stone.
Orhan Pamuk: Museeum of Innocence. (This is a love novel, and you may not like this genre.)
Benito Perez Galdos: Fortunata and Jacinta.
Theodor Kallifatides: In her Gaze. (First written in Swedish, but it is translated into some other languages. I do not know if English belongs to them.)
Selma Lagerlöf: The Story of Gösta Berling. Repeatedly some one will predict an event that is easily seen to be impossible, unless supranatural phenomena are included. And then the event does occur, but because of perfectly natural causes.
Arnold Zweig: The Fight Over Sergeant Gruschka. (In WWI Gruschka is a deserter from the Russian army and had been living in a German P.O.W. camp. He had escaped. What he is most eager to avoid is to be send back to this camp. A woman eventually advises him how to avoid that – but he will actually suffer worse outcomes.)
Really interesting topic!
I would add The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison. Different narrative voices intertwine and the font plays a really important role too. The Dick and Jane story at the beginning of the novel is written 3 times - one normally, one without punctuation and one without any spaces between letters. Worth reflecting on what that is supposed to mean. And the book is structured by seasons, comparing the Dick and Jane vision of spring, all nice and pretty, and the afro-american's reality of spring in the 1960s - rape and violence.
And Gabriel Garcia Marquez' A hundred Years of Solitude. – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun10 years ago
What about Faulkner? I'm thinking The Sound and the Fury and As I Lay Dying. – Kristian Wilson10 years ago
I'm thinking Scandinavian crime/mystery-thrillers and their impact on modern fiction (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). – Thomas Munday10 years ago
The structure and themes of Cloud Atlas could be another book to consider for this topic. I find the puzzling feature of the structure of linked stories or novel-in-stories to be intriguing and feel it could be inserted into this topic. Some other linked story novels include: Circus in Winter by Cathy Day. Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan, and Woman Warrior by Maxine Hong Kingston. – BethanyS10 years ago
Interesting. But would you mind explaining what are the questions this topic is going to answer/any potential central argument? For example, what the authors are trying to do with the unusual structures? What messages do they convey? I would also suggest to look a bit into the history of the novel. – Ka Man Chung4 years ago
In light of the relatively recent comments on Marvel films made by the likes of Scorsese and Coppola, does the superhero film have a place as an artistic work? Is it a modern reiteration of older genres of filmmaking (the Western, the gangster film, etc.) replete with popular cultural furnishings? Or, as the New Hollywood filmmakers suggest, does Marvel's cinematic universe mark a downward spiral in quality for the cinema of America (and likely the world at large)?
The most important part of writing on this topic is establishing what is a "good" and "bad" film. While Scorsese and Coppola are considered great film maker's, their opinion on films at times are subjective. And while they've have been praised throughout the years, we have to acknowledge that they have bias on what they believe is "good" and "bad". Most people will simply let their comments go without actually questioning them, because they've established themselves as an authority on film through their successful career. But by that same metric we could say people Micheal Bay and Seth Rogen are great film makers, as they have had successful films. Meaning simply finding someone in film that believe superhero movies are "good" would be enough to counter the opposing opinion. What makes a quality film can vary from person to person. Good example of this is many people felt Star War's the last Jedi was a good movie. Though when you look at critical and fan opinion the feeling were split. So, I would recommend using your early paragraphs to establish how you will be measuring a films quality and then apply that to modern Superhero films and the films that Coppola and Scorsese believe are "good". I find this topic really interesting, albeit a difficult one to discuss. This is mainly because people use personal enjoyment to decide if a film is "good" or "bad" when that is entirely subjective and can vary from person to person, as how we may react to an experience can vary greatly. My last bit of advice is there are people out there who get pleasure from pain "masochist". And people who can enjoy eating shit. Pleasure is always subject to the individual. It is the same when discussing the quality of a film. – Blackcat1304 years ago
As with any form of media, trends come and go. The initiation of the MCU encouraged a lot of failed imitations of the "cinematic universe formula" (see universal's Dark Universe, the DCEU, and the limping corpse of Sony's Spider-Man universe). However, I would argue that such criticisms from Scorsese etc are indicative of the wider blockbuster "genre", the commodification of individual films into franchises owned by huge conglomerates, and the frequency with which blockbuster films are now produced. As Warner Bros, Universal, and especially Disney continue to churn out more and more productions, it's almost inevitable that the quality will begin to decline. We're now looking at several tv series and 3 or 4 MCU movies per year, as opposed to waiting three years between each Star Wars film, as it was in the 70s. The commodification of franchise cinema has a lot to answer for, and the MCU's consistency in terms of quality can likely be attributed to the singular vision of Feige, so at least everything is consistent. The lack of this same vision is the same reason that the new Star Wars films have felt so dissonant from one another and have been suitably lambasted. So yes, I think a case could be made for the MCU signalling the end of "quality" blockbusters, but less mainstream art pictures, smaller studio productions, and independent films will likely remain unaffected. However, the precedents set by the MCU have bled into other blockbuster franchises who all want the same financial returns; so I'd argue for blockbuster cinema their concerns are valid. – NathanialEker4 years ago
Interesting questions! Building on an earlier comment, I think we need to understand the criterion for assessment. If you are talking about 'quality', is this purely subjective? If so, a definitive answer to your closing question is impossible. However, might there be more objective measures of quality? Or might we ask the question in terms of more objective criteria? For example, if financial measures such as ticket sales or profitability could serve as any indication of quality (perhaps indirectly, as a measure of how much individuals/society are willing to pay to enjoy a film), then one might argue that Marvel is doing just fine! Of course, there will probably be just as much disagreement around what metrics/measures should comprise 'quality' as there is around the subjective opinions with which we started! – jeolsen2 years ago
Dr. Henry Jekyll, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, Doc Emmet Brown, Dr. Walter Bishop from Fringe, and characters like them throughout literature and film are categorized as "mad scientists." Sometimes it's because their science is taboo or outside what society believes is even possible; sometimes they're suspected of madness or some other kind of mental illness; sometimes it's both. Why are these characters appealing to audiences, even if they're not well-liked by the fictional societies they live in.
An analysis could include comparing them to real-life scientists like Galileo and Copernicus who were considered "kooks" but turned out to be right. Also, consider how driven these characters are to prove their theories, even pushing moral and societal boundaries – if they weren't actually mad before, they can more easily be perceived that way by the end of their story.
Hmmm, intriguing. You might begin exploring this topic with what it meant or means to be "mad," both in past eras and now. For instance, Jekyll, Frankenstein, and even Brown were considered "mad" for their eras but would that be true now? If so, is that because of their methods? Should scientists be expected to work within certain boundaries so they and their work will be acceptable to society, or is that too much like "playing God?" I think you have a lot to explore here and look forward to reading a full article. – Stephanie M.4 years ago
Through some mishap, the title of this topic left out the word "Mad." That bugs me, but I imagine y'all understand what I meant. – noahspud3 years ago
Real-life examples could also include scientists we would consider downright evil, like those working in concentration camps during WWII. This would contribute to the moral/ethical boundaries of science. – EditingWithEmily3 years ago