Literature

There are several components that must be present in writing in order for literature to become – well, literature. Once such component that isn’t a necessity, but nevertheless, occurs frequently in novels, poetry, historical documents, and even political texts is religion. While we know such classics like Charlotte Bronte’s _Jane Eyre_ and Shakespeare’s _Rome and Juliet_ are teeming with religious allusions, can we say that religion, or religious undertones, in some form are present in nearly everything we read? This also requires us to ask if we have a common idea of what religion really is. Does it simply mean any set of principles or beliefs by which we choose to live, or must religion involve a higher power or entity? To culturally define religion and ask ourselves if we are being fed religious ideas while we read whatever we read is something about which I have often wondered. Discussion?

I was inspired by "The Song of Achilles" by Madeline Miller that explores the love between Achilles and Patroclus that was erased or ignored by many historians and adaptations of the story of Troy. It could be a very productive idea to discuss how reclamation of our erased stories can be empowering. Could also make an intersection with race and gender for parallel.

Romance novel are often looked down on and seen as somehow inferior. Chick lit is a name that has negative connotations. It suggests something trashy or throwaway. Even Jane Austen, whose books are considered classics, is criticised for not concentrating on weightier issues. But why are romance novels so easily dismissed? Is it because it’s mainly a genre written by women? Is it literary snobbery for something that is so popular? Romance, after all, is an important part of everyone’s life. Most people either get married or live together. Obviously not all romance novels can be of the same calibre but many are well written and engaging. So there does seem to be an unfair tendency to criticise romance novels.

Look at this idea in terms of classic authors like Jane Austen and modern day authors like Diana Gabaldon or Nicholas Sparks.

This article seeks to pinpoint and discuss re-used/well-worn tropes in literature surrounding the issue of family and the background/ongoing story of a fantasy literary protagonist! What exactly is it about the tropes that fuels a protagonist’s backstory – that makes it interesting? Why are these tropes used time and again (i.e. Dead Parents, Wicked Stepmother, Death by Childbirth); and in your opinion, are they useful, or too well-worn? Are there any notable exceptions where family either doesn’t play a huge role (i.e. they’re not mentioned), or they do, and are treated much as part of the protagonist’s current story line as their past reason for doing things/giving them angst and trauma?

(It could be worth looking at TV Tropes and other websites for names of particular ‘tropes’ to discuss and explore).

The topic so far is merely a question in my head, and there are things too that I am uncertain about, such as whether this fits under writing or literature…

But what I hope for someone to explore is precisely what does the attainment or possession of the coveted position bode for the future of the writer? For many authors, the Nobel Prize in Literature is the ultimate, if not the most significant and most revered, position one can attain. It is a validation of one’s place in history, a literal title that translates into the opposite of oblivion, instead, it is the acknowledgment that one has made great contributions to the development of literature, whose legacy will be set in stone and whose name will not be so easily forgotten.

In many of our minds, the awarding of the Nobel Prize comes late in the author’s life: it is the crowning achievement of decades of hard, continuous work, the culmination and recognition of multiple published books, and the result of authorial evolution, progress, and contribution.

My question then is, what happens after?
Has this recognition amplified their prior productivity? Or stunted it? Does winning the prize make the writer take a step back from their typewriter and say, "this is it, there is no more need for anything else", or does it motivate them to continue the work they have begun, only stopping when they finally pass?

Jean-Paul Sartre, who famously declined the Prize in 1964, continued working tirelessly on his "Critique of Dialectical Reason" until his passing. William Faulkner (who also hated the fame that the Prize brought), after winning it in 1949, wrote two landmark works after, A Fable (1954) and The Reivers (1962).

There aren’t many examples of writers who have continued their intensity of producing works after the awarding of the Prize, but anyone who takes up this topic could look at those who did, the nature of the works after the winning of the Prize, and whether the attainment of this revered position has positively or negatively influenced the legacy of the writers.

The inspiration for this post came from an interview that I read recently with Kentaro Miura, the creator of the manga series Berserk. Miura is commenting on a particular chapter of the manga that he explicitly omitted from the tankoban collections. The chapter in question involves one of the characters encountering and conversing with the "Idea of Evil", or the Berserk universe’s analog of God. When asked why he omitted that chapter, Miura said that by introducing ‘God’ he had ‘given away’ too much information about how the universe that Berserk takes place in operates. Miura said he wanted to give just enough information about how the Berserk universe is situated, as he felt that too much detail would constrain possible future developments of the story. Now, in a lot of fiction and fantasy, authors put a ton of effort into creating the cosmologies and underlying metaphysics of their fictional universes. Tolkein has an entire mythos about the creation of the world and a metaphysics about the structure of reality for his Lord of the Rings series, and many sci-fi authors ( I am thinking of Orson Scott Card and his universe of ‘philotes’ as an example) create a cosmological background in which their stories take place. I find myself wondering if Miura’s worry is a legitimate one: does the construction of these fantastically elaborate cosmological systems in fiction ultimately constrain the possible development of said fiction? At first glance I may think so. Authors who have created these elaborate systems may feel pressure to conform every detail of their story to fit that system, and ultimately limit the kinds of events, processes, or entities that the author would feel comfortable putting into the story. Sometimes, an otherwise unspecified explanation of an event may suit the story just fine. On the other hand, having theses complex mythologies in place does give an element of consistency and realism to the fictional universe that would otherwise be absent.

What is it about Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland that has managed to endure so many remakes without audiences calling for enough? With the exception of adaptions such as the video game Alice: Madness Within and books like Alice in Zombieland, few break outside of the original story and yet, particularly throughout the nineties, every time you turn around there appears to be a new adaption.

I had to do some research to refresh my memory of this literature before starting this topic. I think children’s books are a very important part of the literature world. A writer has the ability to teach a child an important lesson while also entertaining them.

One important author who transformed the way children were perceived in their respected genre was Beverly Cleary. She wrote long-standing series such as Henry Huggins and Ramona Quimby. Throughout her series, where each character was under the age of 10, Cleary wrote about relatively mature conversations such a parent losing their job.

With this topic, I think it would be interesting to take a look at some fictional childhood role models and speak about their significance. Perhaps we can even broaden this to reach countries other than the United States.