Internet trolling has become an even hotter topic in the wake of the 2016 election and the rise of the "other" Alt-Right. Explore the roots and history of trolling. Is it the legacy of Socratic rhetorical styles meant to expose societal hypocrisy or just plain bullying.
I wonder, however, if there is much history to this phenomenon yet. – mmastro8 years ago
There is. As you will note from the topic it arguably goes back to Socrates. – Christen Mandracchia8 years ago
Whenever someone has an idea, there will almost certainly be people waiting to tear it down...The internet made it worse because it allowed anyone with internet to become a critic. – MikeySheff8 years ago
MikeySheff, true. Opening access causes problems, limiting access causes others. The dilemma recalls Madison's yin-yang-like result of securing specific Constitutional rights: allow gun ownership, reap gun violence; ban gun ownership, risk totalitarianism. True too of free speech allowing far-right and -left perspectives, freedom of religion allowing Branch Davidians, Jonestown, etc. Even the double-jeopardy protection for the monsters who murdered Emmitt Till is understandable vis-a-vis the certain damage that would occur were that protection removed. – Tigey8 years ago
I would love to read an article on this topic. Perhaps another avenue to explore might be the historical appeal of trolling. If we view it as a satirical approach to modern debate then what makes it so appealing? Is it human nature to troll? Does exposing certain societal hypocrisies result in the rise of newer hypocrisies? Another point of interest that I am curious to explore is the advocacy of alt-righters. Often people associate this movement with a new sort of radical dissidence. They call the alt-right a "punk movement." Is it punk though? Or is this indoctrination of supposed punk ideologies merely used as a ploy to appeal to a youthful audience yearning for any form of subversion? – DrownSoda8 years ago
Just because someone says it goes back to Socrates doesn't mean it does. Just like to point that out. Socrates didn't promote trolling anymore than Jonathan Swift did. – wolfkin8 years ago
That's why I said "the legacy of Socratic rhetorical styles" and not "Socrates said so." Hence, writing an article about the topic. – Christen Mandracchia8 years ago
In 1818, the theme of immortality was considered by novelist Mary Shelley. Today, science has nurtured the desire to prolong life, with Cryonics. In between, the film industry thrives on the possibility of advanced human existence. From the earliest civilizations, the theme of longevity has been pursued and immortalized in monumental structures, lore, and ritual. A variety of human achievements can be traced from these contributions to reveal a long-standing preoccupation with thwarting the inevitable termination of life.
I just was rereading Frankenstein! It is an amazing piece of writing and the themes of the story translate incredibly well to discussion about modern science and technology as they related to life and death. I would love to see some dive deep into this topic, it would make for an exciting and fascinating article. – SeanGadus8 years ago
Already written, just waiting for more audience reaction, and for the Pending Review to open the gate, so to speak. Be on the look out, it won't disappoint, lots of food for though. – lofreire8 years ago
This is one of the broadest topics I've come across. So fascinating, because you could apply it to a whole hosts of works - but where would it end? (no pun intended!) – Luke Stephenson8 years ago
I have recently been faced with this question and I find that my response is not as black and white as I had originally supposed. Yes, you can teach someone the fundamental aspects of writing: thesis, introductory paragraph, syntax, diction, body paragraphs, topic sentences per paragraph, and a conclusion. But what about teaching someone to think like a writer? The love/hate relationship with writing that leaves one elated or deflated? Do you believe being a good writer is an innate gift, or something that can solely be taught? I do understand that some people need to be pushed to realize they do have the gift for writing, but what if it is not there, can it be induced?
As with any subject you can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. You can teach someone how to achieve the goals of their writing. I think this idea of a good writer is an idea that has to be revisited in light of medium. Certain platforms are more conducive to various types of writing. I favor helping someone to develop their unique voice. Just like speaking and any form of communication, it is important to reach the audience that you want to reach. When rap first came on the scene, critics did not consider it to be music. Now it is accepted worldwide. Going back even further Beethoven's work was considered to be a cacophony, Picasso underappreciated etc. Digital communication has changed the status quo on traditional rules of writing. I think there are three basic guidelines for effective writing: Who is your audience and does your piece reach them in an authentic and meaningful way?
Are your ideas strong and expressed effectively?
Have you remained true to your voice? I recognize that sometimes people feel frustrated with editing errors but writing should be done with heart and while writing conventions can be taught, I think that transmission of ideas are the most important part of communication. Generating ideas can happen when people research their topic thoroughly and gain knowledge by examining all sides of an issue or genre. It is like movie making. When you look at a movie like While You Were Sleeping, it is a pretty conventional rom-com. But it was a hit because all the conventions were well played. It is bringing the writing conventions together with great ideas that make for effective written communication. – Munjeera8 years ago
Good to whom? I love Vonnegut and shake my head when I see Catch 22, which I despise, recommended for Vonnegut lovers. I love Bob Dylan's writing and roll my eyes when someone brings up Jim Morrison as a poet. I'm intrigued by John Calvin's views on predestination, but laugh when Oliver Stone "implies" - well, what word do I use for that heavy-handed hack? - the fatalism of Nixon's paranoid megalomania through flashing microscopic cells on screen. One man's meat is another man's organically-fed vegan pet. – Tigey8 years ago
In all honesty, I did NOT want to use the word "good," but if I didn't, I felt as though people would just focus on the fundamentals of writing, and then think if course this could be taught. – danielle5778 years ago
There are whole books dedicated to this notion. Academics like Peter Elbow and Stephanie Vanderslice have committed large chunks of their career to exploring this thought. I don't know that a single web article can give this subject the attention it needs. See Elbow's "Anyone Can Write" or Vanderslice's "Rethinking Creative Writing." – Tarben8 years ago
Danielle, You pose a timely question. If you put it in the context of what challenges writer face today and what advantages are present due to online writing I think you may have a topic someone will pick up on as a compare/contrast piece. I find writing today much more enjoyable as I can reach a large audience, in real time and it is not impossible to get published. I also try to have a fun voice, academic voice and a persuasive voice depending on who I want to reach. Let me know what you think. – Munjeera8 years ago
While I don't know how the writing experience can be taught, I think a good source for showing aspiring writers what works and what doesn't would be the book "How NOT To Write A Novel," which humorously gives examples of bad writing - from poor grammar to inappropriate use of certain tropes in fiction - and explains why they're bad. Awareness of what doesn't work could be an excellent tool for bettering a writer's work, even if they feel they have no talent. Even if the writing is nonfiction, writers could still benefit from some of the advice the book has to offer (such as "don't use words you don't know the definition of," "Don't be repetitive," etc.). Sometimes common sense isn't all that common. – PressXToNotDie8 years ago
I do think with effective work and communication teaching writing styles can get better and more efficient for new writers. – sadafqur8 years ago
Teaching someone the framework to write with is the easy part. Teaching someone to express themselves effectively? I think not. Perhaps they teach themselves as they go along, practicing the act and acquiring the skill. – nwh528 years ago
I think everyone can write. But, it really comes down to whether people want to stick with it. Like all things in life, some people are just don't match with certain things. However, I do think that writing is one of those things that people convince themselves that they can't do. It takes dedication and time to learn writing as a craft. Outside of the just grammar, I think we can encourage people to be open to writing and foster an environment that allows them to find their own desires to write, but I think that's about it. – eugeneleec8 years ago
Not to be over the top, but I think you'd have to question what it means to be a writer. You can teach someone how to write, sure. You can teach them how to write stories, articles, screenplays, etc. However, I feel like that just makes them someone who writes, not a writer. Writers want to express themselves and you cant teach someone to want to express themselves through writing. – elisetheastronaut8 years ago
There are so many ways in which one can be a writer. Anyone can learn to write well. For some, writing is not difficult to grasp. Others have a harder time with it. Then there are those with a special gift or an innate need to write. For me, writing is survival. – ajforrester758 years ago
Thinking like a writer can totally be taught. I learned. Before I was taught I just looked at the story to determine if a book was good. Since I learned how to think like a writer, I've started to look at the craft of the writing even more than the story. The elements of writing can be taught, but I do not think the artistry can. – good1bl8 years ago
I believe a talented writer is someone who have loved writing for many years. It takes alot of skill and imagination to become a writer and it can be taught but to be a unique skilled writer you need prior experience. – bdh2028 years ago
Social media has evolved quite swiftly. We are able to watch the news on Facebook, while also reading and analyzing the opinions of others. On Instagram, we are able to view our favorite celebrities and their daily lives. Then there's Snapchat, which has become a new medium for communication, interaction, and pointless "snaps" of our activities taking place at an exact moment.
Is this a good or bad thing? Have we grown closer to one another through the advancement of this form of news and communication or are we simply becoming obsessed, lazy, and judgemental?
No matter which direction the writer chooses for this I think it's important to talk about the impact of social media on long distance friendship. It may draw us away from people in our present space, but at the same time it allows us to maintain some sort of connection with the people we've had to leave behind as our culture becomes more spread out and even globalized. There's also the facet of this topic that could explore friendships which actually begin online. Are these any less real? – Mariel Tishma8 years ago
I agree with this topic a lot. I do not have ay form of social media, so when people want to get to know me more that ask to talk to me on SnapChat or Twitter. It is crazy how they are talking to me and telling me these things, then they can take 5 minutes out of their day to talk to me more. Some people do not like to talk directly to peoples faces, so I think they use this as a cover up. – aliyaa198 years ago
With truth in reporting laws gone, we have a new problem of self-referential media. It's always been a problem in academia that academics have tried (and often failed) to be aware of... but now it's become a machine. Not sure how we break the chains... – staceysimmons8 years ago
I agree with a lot of this, but I feel like it could boil down to just being condescending towards millennials (Please don't! My intelligence isn't determined by my birth year!). Also, I think you discredit a lot of the positive aspects of social media. Pinterest is great for recipes, and rarely vapid or narcissistic. Twitter can be stupid, but it can also be humorous and effective in promoting social movements. And as much as I absolutely abhor Instagram, I have seen many younger people take an interest in legitimate photography (and not just 'selfies') because of it. Social media probably does more harm than good, but there are definitely positive aspects. But yeah, I have no defense of Snapchat, ha. – m-cubed8 years ago
There's definitely some potential to this topic. A cost/benefit argument can be made regarding social media. Whoever chooses to tackle this article should weigh the pros and cons. The benefits of keeping in touch with friends or family members who have moved hundreds of miles away is invaluable. Additionally, the ability to create a professional network can make or break some newly graduated or licensed professionals in their careers. That being said there are considerable cons to the prevalence of social media that could be addressed. Most notably, and already mentioned, the epidemic of fake news in today's society. As opposed to real journalistic integrity of obtaining sources and fake checking those sources, today's "media" relies on gotcha headlines and three degrees of hearsay to sway an audience into believing something that isn't true. – rtpnckly8 years ago
From a PR standpoint, social media is a great tool for storytelling. The ability to share one's experiences instantly (such as on Snapchat or live video) is valuable. Other platforms such as Pinterest and Instagram are also great creative outlets for both everyday users and content creators. While there are disadvantages, such as the proliferation of "fake news" and cyberbullying, social media allows us to learn from one another and stay connected. – AaronJRobert8 years ago
I believe that this would be a valid topic to address and that there is a large amount of truth within this statement as well. It would be beneficial to prepare some subtopics to address with in this umbrella of information to better craft your argument towards specific objectives. I think this is a great topic to address, however, I do not see how well it fits into the more broad, categories Artifice offers for writings. – mmmarino8 years ago
Every new advancement in communication causes this response. People worried about newspapers, comics, telephone, the radio, etc. Maybe we are still humans. – lmunson8 years ago
Whoever writes this topic should check out the book Hamlet's Blackberry by William Powers. It has a lot of interesting background on the development of different technologies and how people have adapted them, as well as his own commentary on what social media is doing to us as a society. – itsverity8 years ago
Anyone who has played this game knows that the developers did a fantastic job. Anyone who has both walked the streets of Paris and played this game has most likely had their mind blown. I am the latter, and also a student of French language and History. The accuracy with which a Revolution-era Paris is depicted not only thematically but geographically accurate to an incredibly detailed degree. If anyone out there is a Revolution buff and enjoyed this game, aidez-moi!
Kurt Vonnegut once said that "every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water." But can some characters, like some people, be partially passive elements in a story? The orphan who doesn't care who their parents are, the divorcee who makes no attempt to salvage their marriage, the hero that saves the world because..they do. Is it possible to have a compelling story with such characters playing a central role?
Interesting topic, but to me the title and description are asking different things. The dichotomy between active/passive is not synonymous with wanting/not wanting. Someone can want something without taking action to achieve it; likewise, a "reluctant hero" can take action toward a goal that s/he doesn't really care all that much about. To use Vonnegut as an example, Billy Pilgrim is a great example of a protagonist who doesn't really appear to want anything in particular. He's just floating through time and space (or rather his own PTSD-inflicted psychosis), but never seems to have a goal in need of pursuit. The logic of that is, if you know everything that'll ever happen to you, and understand the inevitability of it all, then there's no point in exerting effort into anything to the contrary (aka Dr. Manhattan Syndrome). I suppose that still counts as being passive; perhaps a better example would be Lyubov Ranevskaya from The Cherry Orchard, or Vladimir and Estragon from Waiting for Godot. All of them have a specific goal (to save her estate from being sold, to meet Godot), but spend the entire duration of their respective plays doing nothing to achieve them. To answer your title question, all we need to do is ask whether or not we find such characters engaging, and then maybe follow that up with "why." – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I'd be interested to see you explore characters whose situations force them into passivity. Often, we as readers or viewers criticize characters for not doing anything or wanting anything, but we forget they can't. Cinderella is probably the easiest example. She's criticized for not changing her situation, but has few or no options other than to stay with her abusers. Miss Honey from Matilda is another example, as is Solomon Northrup from 12 Years a Slave. But a character doesn't need to be enslaved to fit this description, or even abused. Sometimes an oppressive culture can do the job, or just reluctance to leave a situation because someone you love is in a more vulnerable position, leaving you feeling they must be protected. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
ProtoCanon: I understand what you're saying, but I think I'll leave the title and description different so that the author of this article can choose which they prefer. Thanks for the great comment! – m-cubed8 years ago
I really like what Stephanie said. If an author writes a character who is passive, he/she likely had some specific reason for doing so. What in the character's background caused them to be as such? Is this just part of the character's personality? How does this trait function within the storyline? If there isn't a specific purpose, then the character will fall flat. – itsverity8 years ago
I actually like characters with more passive or introverted personalities because to me, they are easy to root for. You want to see them break out of their shells, experience the world, and not feel so "buttoned up." At the same time, you want them to come to a place where they are at peace with *natural* passivity, as opposed to what has been forced on them. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
Films and TV shows have soundtracks. Authors often write to specific songs or associate music with their works. The "writing playlist" is sought after by many fans, and famixes (playlists often created for public listening attempting to capture the mood or heart of a character or story) in and of themselves are becoming a new genre of playlist. Some songs even today tell stories, and may rise out of the tradition of epic poetry. To what degree can music tell a story on its own? How often does the line intersect? Should it? Is some form of narrative inherent in any medium using words? And how does this relate to scores or instrumental themes?
This is a bit of a broad topic with many topics within it. It would be better to focus on an aspect of this (i.e. fanmixes, writing playlists, songs as epic poems).
There has been an academic debate going on for a long time regarding whether wordless music means something. There are countless musicological articles about a piece of music and its possible meanings, particular within its historical context (I would recommend reading some Susan McClary), which I think makes it quite clear that all music has meaning. In short, that aspect of the topic strikes me as far too broad; it would be better to focus in on the meaning of a particular piece if you go that route, in my opinion (I'm actually writing an article right now that does that!), or else find a way to narrow down that aspect of the topic in a different way. – Laura Jones8 years ago
The 1970s saw a big push in public consumption of television. With well written programs like The Mary Tyler Moore Show, M*A*S*H, and Good Times, society scheduled their evenings around television programming. This trend continued into the 00s until the rise of reality tv and the advent of DVR and streaming networks like Netflix. The public began moving away from tv for a more niche market suited for individual experience. Analyze the rise of binge-watching and how this reality changed the ways writers approach script.
Maybe looking at two or three shows on Netflix specifically might help maintain focus on the phenomenon of binge watching. And perhaps parallel that with solid shows like MASH, and how no show will likely ever receive that level of viewership, since nowadays, people consume TV in a very niche, individualistic approach. – mazzamura8 years ago
The relationship between binge-watch culture and television writers is an interesting topic to explore. Perhaps, as a way to focus the thesis of this piece, draw examples from shows that, without new digital outlets like Netflix and Amazon, would have died a quiet, unfortunate death (shows like STRANGER THINGS and SNEAKY PETE, for example), never to see the light of day. Another question this premise poses: Are writers really changing their approach to show creation in this post-Netflix world? And furthermore, are there new trends found in digital-exclusive shows that makes it more inherently bingeable (in season/episode structure, characters, etc)? – bloom8 years ago
These are great notes. I definitely think show creation has seen an evolution. Mini movies over compact 30 min to an hour plot lines. Thanks for the assistance. This would be a dope article. Of course, I'm biased. – DKWeber8 years ago
Another thing to discuss is the length of shows per season and how that might affect the writing of shows overall. It might also have an impact on binge watching if one show has a season that is 8 to 13 episodes long compared to say 20 or more. – CoolishMarrow908 years ago
Sounds like a titanic endeavor if it's done right. Or an uninteresting and superficial job, if it's done wrong. – T. Palomino2 years ago
