Writing

Using second person point of view isn't exactly common when it comes to literature. It often brings to mind "Choose Your Own Adventure" stories, but not likely much else. Novels often seek to put the reader into the protagonist's shoes so to speak, which second person point of view literally does, so what accounts for its limited use? Examine what puts this type of narrative at a disadvantage compared to the more popular first-person and third-person points of view in novels. What are some examples that make good use of second person point of view and how they successfully navigate its pitfalls and/or subvert its expectations?

There tends to be a negative stigma attached to Young Adult literature these days. It's too cliché, it's all the same, there too many vampires, angels or oppressing dystopian societies etc etc. And it seems once you've passed a certain age you're looked down on for still reading and enjoying these books. Do you, as an adult, walk down the Young Adult aisle and fear the judging eyes on you from behind? As if they're silently telling you to grow up? Is this a problem within the genre or people in general? Do you believe that we need a fresh wave of writers to bring a new edge to the idea of Young Adult literature to crack this stigma attached?

Was John Lennon a multi-talented individual or did his success arise from a mixture of personal and professional acquaintances, geographical destinations, life experiences, or generational appetite? Examine the events leading to his early struggles as a fledgling art student, to the final years of masterful composing in order to isolate and understand the potent recipe for musical ascendancy.

Modern performances rely on young actors amid outlandish worlds of fantasy and fable. It is often conveyed through technological devices such as computer graphics or scale mock-ups. But years ago, child performers had only their voice, their dancing feet, their counterpart, and a reliable stream of antics to deliver entertainment to audiences. In the tradition of Shirley Temple and Little Rascals, show how much or how little technological advancement in screenplay has impacted the burgeoning and maturing actor into a unique form or into a rambunctious version of the original model. By all means, incorporate relevant patterns of the genre by configuring actors such as Mickey Rooney (who started in silent film) into the prose, or the Brooke Shields foray into fashion, modeling, and advertising.

The actor Michael Douglas graduated from University of California at Santa Barbara with a degree in Drama. The real work began after an impressive portfolio of film and television roles: The Streets of San Francisco, The China Syndrome, Romancing the Stone, Fatal Attraction, Basic Instinct, Black Rain, The American President, Wall Street, and The War of the Roses. He has played: detective, banker, lawyer, reporter; in both an acting capacity and as director. As if that wasn't enough to qualify on your own merits, he is the son of famed Hollywood thespian, Kirk Douglas. But, success has no limits and Michael Douglas is proof that the territory of theater is his dominion. It is no surprise then that the University of St. Andrews in Scotland bestowed upon him an honorary Doctor of Letters degree in 2006. With a vibrant history of contribution to the arts, one must wonder–what was the allure that kept audiences flocking to the theaters and Hollywood studios beckoning with scripts? One avenue to explore could be the pressure the character has to deal with in front of the camera; crime, career, colleagues, addiction, moderation, or marriage. Who holds the key to a great performance: the scriptwriter, the actor, the circumstance, or the foil? In what way does Douglas figure against seasoned counterparts, gender-ethnic based peers, or immediate audience? Is it a matter of how willing and able the actor is to crossing boundaries (cultural, professional, geographical, personal, ideological) for the sake of the film industry, even if merely for the art? Consider this common thread of crossing material and metaphysical boundaries in the analysis.

There are many talented writers, but many people still argue whether it's nature vs. nurture. Is being a good writer a mix of the two, or is it solely based on talent? Also, what are some signs of talent or potential in someone's writing?

Fifty Shades of Grey originated as a fanfiction online of the Twilight series in an alternate universe. It's escalated into its own franchise. Other online writers have the same hopes for their fanfictions. But is this kind of writing appropriate and is it right that authors get to literally take other characters and rename them to make it into an entire new series, sometimes not as well-written?

Poets and prose writers often receive different "instructions" on how to write well, and are encouraged to read widely in their own genre, but I would suggest that prose writers can vastly improve their craft by turning to poetry. Poets focus on imagery and concision – two tools that make immensely better prose writing too. Of course, these tools aren't used in the same way, but reading and even writing poetry can strengthen a prose writer's ability. Sylvia Plath's novel The Bell Jar is a perfect example of this. Plath is best known as a poet, but her novel is unparalleled. While reading it, I was struck by the poetic use of language and economy of words (why use twenty when you could use five?). What other ways can prose writers improve from reading/writing poetry?