Dragons are known to be creatures of immense power and destruction and can be found in folklore across the globe. However, there is a difference in the way dragons are depicted as symbols of power between eastern and western culture. Eastern culture depicts power through embodying a dragon i.e. an aspiration to become like a dragon whereas western culture depicts power through slaying a dragon i.e. overcoming a foe who is as powerful as a dragon.
I think that you've already established some broad values that are commonly associated with Eastern culture vs Western culture that might be a bit too leading. I would love to see how these norms and attitudes have been challenged by more recent depictions of dragons (i.e. how dragons are of the East in Game of Thrones but were brought over to Western culture multiple times). – kickingupanacho5 years ago
I like the angle you chose--embodying or becoming a dragon (East) vs. slaying it (West). It's different from the more typical discussions about European dragons being associated with fire and destruction while East Asian dragons are associated with nature/weather and benevolence or one has wings and the other is pretty much a flying serpent. It'd be imperative to look at cultural sources, especially with Eastern culture as dragons are almost always (and exclusively) associated with kings/emperors. – snowycarousel5 years ago
Very interesting! I cant help but find the Western interpretation all the more inspiring. In spite of the vast difference in size and strength between a human and a dragon, the human still prevails, through courage and intelligence. The Western interpretation seems very applicable as a parallel to many of the problems that humanity faces, whereas the Eastern interpretation.. I can understand to a degree.. I've noticed many therianthropic themes in Eastern culture (humans turning into animals).. I wonder where this cultural focus stems from.. – Dstoll255 years ago
There has been many fairytales that have been written throughout the decades. One particular fairytale (little red riding hood) has taught us certain lessons and meanings about society. Explore how these meanings and teachings have changed within the 20th century.
Another thing to keep in mind is that "Cinderella" can mean any of a wide range of things. Over the centuries there have been many, many versions of Cinderella-type stories, in many different cultures. For instance, in Scotland there's the fairy tale of Rashin-Coatie, and certain Native American tribes have the tale of the Rough-Faced Girl (or something similar). So, there isn't really a single "traditional" version of Cinderella. – Debs5 years ago
This seems very interesting. While we might not be teaching children these tales anymore directly, the ideals and overall message are still strong to this day. – Aliadwan024 years ago
There are several scholarly articles that analyze this issue within Children's Literature Studies. – T. Palomino2 years ago
In 1977, Professor Roland Barthes released his book 'A Lover's Discourse: Fragments'. Over 200 pages long, this text is dense, lengthy, and at times incoherent. Therefore, an article deconstructing and analysing this text would be an insightful read. What is Barthes trying to say? How does he say it? Are his ideas accepted and approved of, or disagreed with?
One point he seems to be making is that our own experiences of love are dictated to us by the discourse of love within our culture. It is through this language that our expectations of what love should feel like are formed.
Therefore, after breaking down Barthes' text and some key fragments/ideas, this article could look into examples of popular culture and how they have influenced modern ideas of love. The romance genre in film, tv, literature, and even music are prevalent. Everything from Shakespeare's plays to Romantic Comedies to Disney movies.
If, indeed, you deduce other claims worth discussing in the text, find popular or contemporary examples to suit that also!
In 1796, Matthew Lewis published the novel 'The Monk'. An early example of 'masculine', or horror gothic, it covers many shocking and depraved themes. In 1797, Ann Radcliffe published her 'feminine', or terror gothic novel, 'The Italian'. It is viewed as a reaction or response to Lewis' novel. It discusses some similar themes, but in a milder way. An article could compare and contrast these texts. Worth noting is the things they do the same, such as offering commentary on Catholicism or exploring issues of love and sexuality. They also differ in several ways, from opposing treatments of women and the use of supernatural occurrences. Overall, the article should conclude the ways in which Radcliffe has used the original to build her own story, and also where she has deliberately chosen to deviate from Lewis' text. Potentially offer insight into how the two authors' differing approaches reflect the society at the time. An in depth understanding of horror vs. terror gothic would be worthwhile in building a substantial argument.
I've only read The Monk and I found it quite shocking and entertaining. Great gothic novel. I would be interested in reading more about it and the comparison to another gothic book would be something quite compelling and thought-provoking. Looking forward to learning more about it.
Don't forget to present these novels in the context of their time and to sketch out the wider landscape in literature in the 18th century. – Dani CouCou4 years ago
The Secret History, by Donna Tartt, became an instant classic when it was first published in 1992. Though it is primarily set in the 1980s, the story has a dreamy, timeless quality. To read it at a still impressionable young-adult age feels like a rite of passage. On the surface, it is a captivating murder mystery about a clique of Classics students at an idyllic New England college. But to stop there would be to sell the book short. Examine the potent combination of factors that have elevated The Secret History to its iconic status. In my estimation these include the introspective, romantic narration reminiscent of that of Victorian novels; the bittersweet, melancholic tone; and Tartt's subtle sense of humor. These elements work in concert to ensure that this well-constructed, well-paced mystery leaves a lasting emotional impression.
The genre of "Chick Lit" is often seen as nothing other than feel good and fluffy. However, can the argument be made where this genre can be seen as anything more? Should it be seen as more? Should those who read this genre feel shame?
Choose a few books that support your position on the topic, and explain why you think it is one way or the other.
An important thing an article on this should consider is the term "Chick-Lit" itself, and the negative connotations of that. As far as I am aware, there is no such demeaning term for male-oriented literature (I could be incorrect?). It seems the entire 'genre' is set back by this name alone. If it merely fell under the banner of romance, or romantic comedy, would these books be treated differently? It could be argued, then, that this 'genre' has been dismissed in part due to societal perceptions, rather than any notion of literary merit. – Samantha Leersen4 years ago
I actually really like what you have mentioned about this, and that is something that could be explored to make the argument a little more complex! – RheaRG4 years ago
Although I haven't read this book myself, I have come across Janice Radway's work, Reading the Romance (1984) which, as the title suggests, critically examines romance novels as a subject of serious inquiry. Could be a useful resource! – the.liquid.kid4 years ago
Writers of history usually receive the bad reputation of being boring and uninspired storytellers, for the events of history aren't designed to be page-turners. On the other hand, there are histories that embellish for the sake of storytelling but compromise accuracy. This is also criticised.
Thus, an article exploring histories that are both accurate and educational whilst still captivating audiences would be a great read.
Offer examples of good histories, and give reasons as to why they are effective as both works of popular literature AND educational history resources. Jung Chang's Wild Swans or Ten Days That Shook The World by John Reed are two good examples. Some factors that make history writing 'good' include: the inclusion of personal stories (not mere objective facts), prose that is accessible to all, not just academics, and the formation of a chronological narrative that, while remaining accurate, sparks interest and excitement.
There are some wonderful examples of written history that tend to get lost amongst the 'boring' stuff. So an article highlighting examples of good history, and analysing why that is, would be interesting and perhaps even helpful for those looking to write public history.
Seeing this topic has reminded me of Lucy Worsley's recent PBS documentary series Royal Myths & Secrets. In it, she explores how the public images of famous figures such as Elizabeth I, Queen Anne, and Marie Antoinette have been heavily distorted from their flesh-and-blood counterparts. Details such as when these historical accounts were written, the relationship between writer and subject, differences between national propaganda/mythical storytelling and textual evidence/alternative accounts, etc. all play a role. Like you said, it raises ethical questions over what "the truth" is in the pursuit of a good story. Do the ends ever justify the means? – aprosaicpintofpisces4 years ago
This something that I struggle with as a student of history; what is a historian's vocation? Is it just writing just what happened as Leopold von Ranke put it so long ago? Or is it telling a tale about what happened as Herodotus did in his masterful work? Or should a historian try to craft laws of history in the vein of the early and post-War Annales School? Is he/she a scientist, a writer or a philosopher? I'd think it was a mix of all three.
– RedFlame20004 years ago
I read an interesting essay once that noted that whilst it is a common truism that history is written by the victor, it is a less-acknowledged truth that any account of history is victorious. This is fascinating. I think the value of historical fiction lies in its ability to deviate from the established norms of historical acccounts that are at best insufficient and at worse, misleading. Historical novels allow a depth of exploration that traditional historical accounts rarely achieve. Furthermore, they allow a experiential response in consequence to what is inevitably a personal perspective of events of the past. – hlewsley4 years ago
Buddhism teaches that we can let go of illusion by letting go of “our story,” i.e. letting go of our insistence on seeing reality our way. Many literary classics teach us the same lesson, sometimes through characters metamorphosing by undergoing evolutionary cycles including tragic moments. We see this struggle and more or less successful letting go performed by protagonists such as the Buddha, Oedipus, Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Henry James’ Maisie, Edith Wharton’s “Ethan Frome,” Ishiguro’s characters in The Remains of the Day, Toni Morrison’s Sethe in Beloved, and Murakami’s un-hero in The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle who learns to let go of all his stories by sitting in a dark well for a long time.
The common theme in these fictions as well as in many others is letting go of illusion by letting go of one’s story, all unfolded in fiction. What sort of fiction must one invent to not add to the world of illusions? Does something distinguish these fictions in addition to the theme, something that makes them resist becoming part of our illusions? Or is it impossible not to add to the illusory? Where do commonalities between letting go of one’s story end and differences in consequences thereof open up, according to whatever works of fiction we decide to look at? What do these fictions have to say about what stories we rarely let go of? How does this theme of letting go of story in story speak to the story-telling during the global pandemic in 2020, specifically about the stories we tell of the “before-the-pandemic” world? Are we, like Murakami’s character, in the well, or are we emerging? How can we tell? Tell us.