Literature

I’m an English Literature student at university and throughout my time studying literature at school/ college, and even university, I’ve noticed a trend amongst teachers and markers, which is a reaction of almost scorn at analysis of character in fiction. To me this has always seemed the oddest phenomenon as character has always been the most interesting, and also sometimes most important and valid feature of a novel. Take ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ for example. During and after my reading of the text, there was so much meaning hidden in Atwood’s characters that I felt was integral to the message of her novel. Thinking about what I might write about for my dissertation, I felt ready and inspired to delve into this topic until I remembered the impression teachers have had of characterisation in the past. An example of this, for those of you who are unfamiliar with this sentiment, my a-level eng lit teacher told me to focus more on structure as it was considered higher level than character. This has always enraged me a little as I think avoidance of analysing character in a novel is avoidance of a whole chunk of the message of a book. As for the effects this has, I think this leads to a connection between fiction and the real world being lost. Often times I have questioned the purpose of analysing books if we are not taking deeper meaning from them in regards to the worlds that they were written in. I think undermining the importance of character in a book is evidence that the real purpose of a book (if it is concerned with a wider message, which they almost always are) is being lost.

An issue that I think is still prevalent even today. But the pressure that you have to prove how much of a nerd you are to be accepted within certain circles.

Especially with how mainstream Nerd Culture is becoming, it’s almost as if we have to prove we’re not just riding the wave and even if we were, whats so wrong about that?

I’m sure everyone has experienced the feeling of not being nerdy enough, or even judged for not having played a certain game, or knowing all the character’s names in a show, or not following all the episodes of Critical Role.

Is it just due to an elitist mindset in nerd culture? or is it perhaps more of a defensive mechanism to protect from ‘fake nerds’ just riding the mainstream wave?

Ask any English major, teacher, or even English student about the current literary canon, and you’ll probably get a tongue-in-cheek response about dead white guys. Although the canon is expanding, most English literature curriculum offerings are still centered on Shakespeare, Dickens, Faulkner, Twain, you name it. If a class or canon is not centered on dead white male authors, it is labeled as such (World Literature, African-American Literature, etc). and sometimes taught as an elective. This sends a negative message to minority and female students, or those who may be white but of non-European heritage.

Then again, I have no problem with some of the old dead white guys. I was reading Dickens when I was ten; he actually inspired some of my (rather bad) first forays into creative writing. I developed crushes on Shakespearean heroes. You get the drift. But we need so much more variety in our literary diets. So the question at hand is: How can we balance the canon so that all authors get representation? How much "dead white guy" literature do we need? Whose works deserve to stay in the canon, and who needs to go? If you could design an entire curriculum or canon yourself, what would be in it? Why?

I’d love to write this myself, but I’m even more interested in what others think…so let’s get going. The floor is open!

Analyse how the protagonist, Lucy, is simultaneously the antagonist of the YA novel, The Light We Lost by Jill Santopolo. Lucy is an egocentric female lead, based on many actions she goes by in the novel. She also lacks good communication with her love interests, ultimately leading to the tragic demise of someone.

Food, a staple of life, has often had significant meaning attached to particular types of food. For instance, the most commonly known are foods that are considered aphrodisiacs, or chocolate that is linked to lust and decadence. An interesting article could be the exploration of these meanings and how in literature these have also changed over time and across different cultures.

A few examples to whet the appetites would be: the easiest would be the role of chocolate as lust, desire for worldly sensuality in Joanne Harris’ Chocolat; sandwiches eaten on a picnic rug in Wind in the Willows represent friendship and trust; wealth is often represented through food, such as cucumber sandwiches in The Importance of Being Earnest when cucumbers were imported from India; or food as taboo, as in A Doll’s House where the macaroons represent secrecy, concealment and rebellion.

It could also be included in the discussion the rituals that surround eating: many novels will include a moment that captures the family eating together or even the break in this ritual, such as in Harry Potter where family meals with the Dursleys highlighted Harry cooking or serving but not often eating. Or even looking at subversions of food and rituals, as in Alice in Wonderland with the Mad Hatter’s tea party or the enlarge/reduce eat/drink items, all of which acted to challenge the over emphasis placed on Victorian rituals surrounding food in that period.

Young adult literature and children’s literature is a true paradox. It is written by adults but the market suggests it is made for teens and children.

Both authors explored the magic of children, the innocence of imagination and characters that rebel against conforming to ‘adulthood.’ in what ways are these authors alike, what sets them apart. There is an importance to how an adult, or at least the idea of how adults are and how they view the world, and then there’s the children that make up these stories and poems that uncover the magic. What is this importance and how does it work to serve as an analysis of the outside world of the works, the reality in which we live in?

I love the scene in The Matrix when Agent Smith is interrogating Morpheus, and he explains why the world they created was so unpleasant. He said initially that they created a good world but that people rejected it. In fact, they lost whole crops of humans who couldn’t accept the utopia. People rejected what wasn’t believable to them.

This is true of good stories also, particularly in how they end. If the ending is too happy, the story loses its impact. On the flip side, many modern stories end without a real conclusion or with the protagonist still struggling. I’m curious about how to find that perfect balance of satisfying resolution and believable pain that reflects the real difficulties of this world and a hope of redemption.