When studying history, scholars refer back to artistic work done in the time period to learn more about said time's societal behaviors, mannerisms and even etiquette. Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde speaks loudly of Victorian society, Uncle Tom's Cabin of American society, The Ulster Cycle of Irish history, and more which gives us insight of past eras.
Which therefore made me question what history would say of us. What does the million of viewers/readers for Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, etc, say about current American society, if it says anything at all? Would there be an inaccuracy if future historians were to base off their knowledge of our culture on our literature top hits? Or is history based on literature, in fact, entirely inaccurate?
The problem with this question is that it's virtually impossible to tell what's going to be popular for your time when you're living it. Some things that are popular fizzle out with time, whereas others endure, and the only way to tell which is which is with hindsight. I think literature can tell us something about the period in which it was written, but it requires context and background knowledge. It isn't enough to read a work from the past and immediately start speculating about what people at the time would have thought and did in their everyday lives. – Debs5 years ago
I like the idea here - that you're looking at how novels can serve as a source on history. I wonder though, if this isn't two topics that might deserve their own focus? Your first set of examples talk about seeing novels as evidence of their time, and the second set of examples (for our time) is more referring to what's popular at a given time and what that says about audiences. Now those are certainly linked, but it might be more productive to focus on one or the other. Also, your contemporary examples are both genre fiction (which says a lot about the society!) but come with their own generic codes that might transcend a time scale. So that complicates a bit. Great suggestion for a topic, though. – msnfrd5 years ago
First, how long in the future are you thinking about? I mean, it seems that in 100 or 200 years, humanity will be facing catastrophic ecological problems and maybe history and literature won't play the same role they play today in society. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Second, I don't think GOT or HP will be the best references for future generations to recapitulate historic events or eras. Besides, HP does not deal with American society, does it? – T. Palomino2 years ago
Third, history is always inaccurate... What do you even mean by 'accurate' in any case? There are interpretations or approximations to historical events, and they change depending on who tells the story and when in time. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Potterheads enjoy asking each other which Houses they're from, and once you become a Potterhead, one of the first things you want to do (at least in personal experience) is get formally Sorted via a well thought-out quiz or app. It's not uncommon to go on social media and find people sorting their favorite media characters into Houses, putting HP Next Generation characters into Houses through fanon, and debating the traits of certain Houses and how they are or are not represented. (I myself am a proud supporter of Slytherin House redemption).
But, why all the fuss over this little bit of HP canon? Why do people get sorted over and over again, identify with more than one House, and so on? Several reasons worth exploring exist. For one, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff are just sort of "there," while Gryffindor and Slytherin get all the attention. House Sortings are the closest we're probably going to get to a "real" Hogwarts if we can't afford trips to Orlando. Sortings help us craft new, fantasy-based identities that may help us handle some real-world problems to a degree. We might be looking for a "perfect" Sorting experience that hasn't been achieved yet.
Is it all of this? None? Are there facets not yet considered? Discuss.
I feel like it stems from a desire to understand yourself at a deeper level. The premise of the series is that the Hogwarts house you belong to is supposed to tell you something about yourself, even if it isn't always immediately obvious what, as well as surround you with a community of (more or less) like-minded individuals. People like this idea, and so they try to find ways to make it work for them. – Debs5 years ago
I believe that people are eager to sort themselves into houses, because they want to belong to something. Millions of people are in love with the Harry Potter universe, because they prefer it to their own reality. Classifying oneself as Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Slytherin, or Hufflepuff allows people to identify with something that is greater than themselves. It acts a method of justification for their personalities, and people want to feel that it separates them from others. – nicolemadison5 years ago
To add on, I personally felt really validated and felt like I could finally accept my personality better while growing up. For example, before I became a Potterhead, I was almost embarrassed to be a smooth talker and that I could switch around my words well enough to sound really manipulative, even though it was not in my intention to be like that. However, after being sorted into Slytherin, I began to feel proud and truly understand that it wasn't a bad thing after all. I really owe it to the Sorting Hat for that one. – Dorothy5 years ago
Robert Caialdini author of Pre- suasion talk about how people need to have questions answered and will give there attention to topics which propose one in order to find out the burning question of why, this sounds like good topic to explore – Gkcopy1615 years ago
My most recent Artifice article was about the feminine spirit in Holocaust-centered YA literature, and I enjoyed every minute of prepping and writing it. I also enjoy Holocaust-based fiction (in small doses) because it so often focuses on heroism and brutality in real, thought-provoking ways. The stakes are already built in and a lot of times, couldn't be better.
But then I had a thought. Lilac Girls, The Guernsey Potato Peel and Literary Society, Lost Roses, The Girl in the Blue Coat, Flight Girls…there is a LOT of WWII women's fiction around these days, not all Holocaust-based. And I wonder, what is it about this sub-category that is or has become so compelling? Are other women in other time periods as compelling, and what could authors explore to give them their due? Have writers overused this category or are there more stories to be explored?
Wonder Woman 2017 is one other, though not the same time period but definitely a precursor in that regard. (And I suppose, Linda Hamilton in the hypothetical.) – L:Freire5 years ago
I think it's because women became more independent during this time. They took over men's jobs in the factories, joined the army as pilots, and even acted as spies or saboteurs. There is a wealth of possible stories just from this period.
I don't think it's overused yet. It's close, but not quite. However, World War I women could also be explored, particularly those in the Red Cross, as well as the 1920s. (These periods particularly interest me.) – OkaNaimo08195 years ago
As film and literature franchises grow in scope and popularity, audiences often crave additional material from creators that supplements the world of the main story, frequently known as an expanded universe (EU). Both Harry Potter and Star Wars are hugely successful franchises that feature expanded universes; however, audience reception to this extra material can vary greatly.
Before its acquisition by Disney, the Star Wars EU featured literally hundreds of books, video games, and comics by various authors that explored character backstories, recounted new adventures, and even created entirely new characters and eras of Star Wars lore. Importantly, the old EU was never considered canon by Lucasfilm (although Lucas did take elements from EU material and incorporate them, sometimes directly, into his canonical movies). It was generally well-received by fans and critics, so much so that elements from the old EU are continually being reworked into Disney-era Star Wars material today, such as the character Grand Admiral Thrawn. "Harry Potter" author J.K Rowling has also continued to produce supplementary material for her books, including continuous posts to Harry Potter fan website Pottermore as well as the Fantastic Beasts films. However, Rowling is often derided for her additions to her canon, being criticized that she is simply trying to retroactively "fill in" what she forgot to include in her books instead of add to the lore (the most famous example being her revelation that Dumbledore was gay the whole time). Some even feel this is harmful to the integrity of the original books themselves.
Why is there such a difference in opinion concerning expanded universes? Is it due to the authorship of supplementary material (Star Wars' EU was penned by multiple authors and NOT by Lucas, while Rowling's only comes from her)? Does canonicity of the material matter? Is it the length of time audiences have had to process it? Is it genre? Most importantly, does having an EU truly add to or detract from the main franchise material, i.e. the most important aspect of the franchise? Other famous expanded universes include the Marvel and DC Cinematic Universes, Doctor Who, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Star Trek, etc.
Very interesting topic. It's important to note that expanded universes aren't a strictly modern phenomenon: in the early days of cosmic horror, for example (so, late 1800's-early 1900's) writers borrowed from each other's work all the time, to create a much more elaborate pantheon of creepy deities than any of them could have come up with alone. I sort of think that they're inevitable with any long-running series that attracts a large-enough fandom, and one reason for their staying power is that the fans themselves enjoy "filling in the blanks" and seeing how everything fits together. So, expanded universes are really the inevitable result of an interaction between a set of creators and their fans (categories which are certainly not mutually exclusive either). – Debs5 years ago
Shout to the mention of Thrawn, one of the most significant Extended Universe/Legacy character in Star Wars. He is an interesting choice because he arguably is an improvement over many imperial antagonists and a great addition to the Star Wars mythos. Such a shame that Thrawn's first trilogy is no longer cannon. His second trilogy just finished up, but was not nearly as acclaimed (though the 2017's Thrawn is one of the best Star Wars books since the Disney purchase). – Sean Gadus5 years ago
In recent years, more and more people seem to be writing all sorts of nonfiction books based on popular literary movements, TV shows, and other popular media. One of the most well-known versions of this seem to be theme cookbooks, including a Downton Abbey cookbook and even a Lovecraftian horror cookbook called "the Necronomnomnom," which came out just this year. However, other kinds of books exist, including self-help books with popular characters and even a guide to starting a business using tips from Game of Thrones. Are these tie-ins a clever idea or a cynical cash grab? Can they offer any insights that a standard book couldn't? Are there any examples that stand out as particularly interesting or useful?
Analyze popular themes in Canadian Literature from LM Montgomery to Alice Munro to Margaret Atwood. Some have noted themes of survival, self-deprecation and social gospel. Also take a look at Northrop Frye's literary criticism to form a lens to analyze Canadian literature.
I know that “Anne of Green Gables” is one of the classics and one of the more famous Canadian works of literature. Any discussion on this should include some discussion of this. – J.D. Jankowski5 years ago
The author of Anne of Green Gables is LM Montgomery. – Munjeera4 years ago
This purpose of this article is to determine whether or not the recently published rehearsal script for Harry Potter and the Cursed Child should be considered as a new addition to the Harry Potter canon. In other words, this article would focus on the mixed reception from fans, J.K Rowling's involvement in the project (or lack thereof) and argue for or against the play as part of the overall Harry Potter story timeline.
Does reception decide what "canon" is? Or is the fact that JK Rowling an author already confirm its legitimacy?
Keep in mind that it is a theatrical play. – Christen Mandracchia8 years ago
Fan reception does not dictate what is and is not canon. Canon is decided by whoever owns the creative rights. – Steven Gonzales8 years ago
Alright, I see both of your points. In some ways I agree and disagree at the same time. While I think canon is determined by the author, I also believe that an individual's 'personal' canon (the fan perspective) is valid and worthy of study. However, that's just my opinion. – AlexanderLee8 years ago
This is interesting, because "canon" is typically whatever the original author claims it to be. However, Cursed Child uses any number of ideas embraced by the fandom community long before the Cursed Child was written (friendship between Albus and Scorpius, Albus being in Slytherin, etc). Does the relationship between author and fandom change what the "canon" is? Does it give the fandom more ownership of the material? – sophiacatherine8 years ago
To me, it's not like an author's word about canon it's always law. Not without previous preconditions. Such as (among some others) authorship (it seems banal, but maybe not that banal) and underlying consistency. In this case, CC is not written by JK Rowling, even if she approved it, and shows major incoherencies if juxtaposed with the HP books (and movies). So, it maybe be "canon" in the sense that it's officially part of the Wizarding World trademark, the way movie adaptations are, but it's not properly literary canon. The author's word for it just does not suffice. If JK went mad and proclaimed canonic some scribble on a handkerchief she just found, should we take it as a fact just because "ipse dixit"? Canon is not defined solely neither by the author nor by fans. It is defined by facts. Fact is, fanfiction cannot be canon even if the author vouches for it. – emeraldnose7 years ago
The problem with The Cursed Child is that it doesn't have that same aura that the first seven Harry Potter books had. The main reason is that it isn't exclusively written by JK Rowling. Whatever, what really causes a problem with this last book is that it feels like JK just ran out of money and attention and decided that school books from the Potter universe weren't enough, so she decided to write a sequel. The problem is that, when it's not written with the soul, it's not... The same. TCC felt like a bunch of poorly written fanfictions all thrown there and mixed together, with a bunch of fanservice and totally crazy and unrealistic - almost ridiculous - plot twists for the sole purpose to serve a story that nobody asked for. TCC doesn't feel like a Harry Potter book, something's missing, and that's what doesn't make it canon. – Nad7 years ago
Most people often view Romeo and Juliet as a story with the message “listen to your parents.” I think the complete opposite it true. There’s a lot of evidence that suggests the story was meant to be more of a warning to parents, and to the audience, about the negative effects of arranged marriage. I think that Shakespeare was in fact a supporter of companionate marriage. Reading Romeo and Juliet from this perspective gets us away from the mindset that high school teachers force upon us. It’s not just a tale of warning in the form of a love story about two dumb teenagers, it’s a story that takes on the old (depending on culture and geography) practice of arranged marriage (and the patriarchy!). Somebody should explore this further; change someone’s mind about Shakespeare, particularly Romeo and Juliet.
I like this take. I always feel it's a little wrong to solely blame "dumb teenagers." If their parents and families didn't irrationally hold onto a violent grudge (with a reason they cannot remember), the bloodshed and need for secrecy would have never happened, and Juliet's father is especially abusive when she doesn't want to do what he says by marrying Paris. It takes several deaths for their families to come to their senses and resolve the dispute. – Emily Deibler5 years ago
Very interesting. It's worth exploring M. Scott Peck's distinction between the commitment of "love" and the feeling of "falling in love." – proflong5 years ago
Another very limiting and constrictive reading of a complex story. – T. Palomino2 years ago
