Among the anticipated release of 'Harry Potter and the Cursed Child', readers were avid to know more about the Potter universe based 20 years after Voldemort's defeat. But did the playwrights do an accurate job of representing Harry in the script? Readers might see him as stony, uncompassionate and cold- not representative of Harry. Explore why Harry might come off as 'different' and whether this is a possible interpretation of how he might be in the years after he defeated Voldemort, as he attempts to create a 'normal' life for himself and his family.
Well, the Harry we knew was Harry as a child. The Harry of the books is an adult, having faced trauma, accompanied by current real-life stressors and a slew of responsibilities. Also, people do change after traumatic events. Another thing to consider is the fact that when people are facing obstacles, they have a level of momentum driving them through each challenge; yet, once these obstacles cease to exist, the person can sometimes become lost and not know how to interact "normally," now that their world, as they've known it, has changed. Just a few thoughts... – danielle5778 years ago
Harry Potter, as we knew him at the end of Deathly Hallows was at the beginning stages of the transition into wizarding adulthood. The only glimpse we got of him as an adult is the epilogue, which was very brief, but it was all we had to go off of for nine years. It is important to remember that the 20's is another very important season of changing for most people, and Harry Potter shouldn't be considered immune to that at all. Another idea, this play is mostly told from Albus Severus's perspective. Perhaps this is why Harry does oftentimes read as cold or stony, especially when taking into consideration the conversations between Ginny and Harry about the father and son's relationship in the play. – EmilyEMeadows108 years ago
I recently read an article in which a woman was complaining about constantly having to defend herself for listening to audiobooks. People would accuse her of being "lazy," or "cheating." Sadly, this said person had brain surgery 5 years ago that left her eye sight greatly diminished and reading had become a difficult process, and audiobooks her salvation. Where do you weigh in on this argument–just skim through the internet as those for and against audiobooks take great pride in stating their stance–and why is it even necessary to discuss one's "reading" habits? Is this a form of prejudice? Why should individuals feel the need to defend themselves? When did the format of reading–though it has been occurring on the e-reader versus paper platform for many years–become such a volatile topic?
I love this topic. I love reading but my husband hates it. He got hooked on audio books a long time ago and now we can discuss so many of our same interests. – Munjeera8 years ago
That's interesting that people are being criticized for using audiobooks. I haven't listened to one yet, but isn't it just like having someone read to you? I can see there being tension between print and online formats but I'm curious about where audiobooks fall into the mix. – S.A. Takacs8 years ago
For me and my ADD, they're more work. – Tigey8 years ago
My cousin has motion sickness, so during car rides my aunt and uncle play audio books in the car since she loves to read. this way, for long car drives, she get's to experience and listen to stories with getting ill – Mela8 years ago
Seems like an interesting topic, but I can't help feeling that it might be a little too subjective to arrive at any significant conclusions (or rather, in the case of conclusions like "laziness," judgment calls). It's the kind of thing that varies from person to person. For me personally, though I've never ventured a full novel in audio format, I really enjoy listening to poetry, and often read along with book in hand. There are a lot of great YouTube videos of Sir Anthony Hopkins reading poems by the likes of W.B. Yeats, Dylan Thomas, and T.S. Eliot, which can really enhance the experience when the written word is paired with his classically tempered voice and rhythm. Again, that's just my personal taste; I have no expectation for anyone to necessarily agree with it for their own personal engagements with literature. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
ProtoCanon, I agree. Hearing Eliot reading "The Wasteland" recalled my grandpa's accent and diction while speaking of '30's bootleggers and railroad men in Northern Minnesota. The poem is one thing, the history - not quite Greil Marcus' Weird Old America - in his voice another. – Tigey8 years ago
This is an interesting topic. I personally prefer reading the old-fashioned way. I've tried audiobooks a few times, but I find my attention wanders way too easily for me to retain much. I have to be in an incredibly quiet place where I can just focus on the story without any other distractions for there to be any hope for me. I don't think the use of audiobooks necessarily means one is a lazy reader. It may just mean one prefers to (or has to, as the case may be) experience the story in an auditory way as opposed to the written way. It may even encourage people who aren't avid readers into becoming more invested in literature they might have never tried before. – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
As a question of lack of maturity, it could be. A person that never fully explored the experience or the importance of being self-informed rather than waiting or expecting that another will water it down or mince it into relatable morsels of ideas, perhaps. In that manner, audiobooks may be viewed as counterproductive to self-improvement. Gathering information from several paper books heightens learning activity by deepening personal understanding as well as the sheer entertainment factor of reading for pleasure. – L:Freire6 years ago
Are there any contemporary writers who might live on in the Pantheon of greatness alongside the likes of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, etc.? If so, who are they? Explain why their greatness transcends time and place. If not, why not? Why doesn't their work transcend our time?
I agree with Munjeera, especially since your tag is literature, that you stick to literature in answering this question. This alone is already a rich and difficult question to broach, but if adding aesthetics into the equation, the topic deems nearly impossible to adequately answer. – danielle5778 years ago
Must this writer begin with the assumption that such a thing is possible? I think achieving canonical "greatness" requires a considerable degree of cultural concentration, a society with a sure sense of its own aesthetics. No doubt, this is true somewhere in the world. But where? – TKing8 years ago
Good point, TKing. Would you please request a revision so I could please change it? – Tigey8 years ago
Nice reworking of this topic. Samson Rushdie comes to mind, Thomas Pynchon, David Foster Wallace, Charles Bukowski, one of my personal favorites--Michael Cunningham, and I consider myself very difficult to please. Ouch, just realized I didn't mention one female writer!! I know people are going to read this--please note, quick, incomplete list, briefly off the top of my head--and think I'm insane by those I mentioned, and those I've forgotten. – danielle5778 years ago
Fantastic topic. However, for the writer, it might be worth mentioning for clarity that the placing of contemporary writers in an established literary 'canon' is something that does not necessarily equate with their current popularity/how many books they've sold? See as examples: Austen, Keats, Melville. – lucyviolets8 years ago
Author Orson Scott Card said "Science Fiction has rivets, fantasy has trees," implying that the two genres are effectively the same, only the set dressing is different. There are many tropes the two genres share, many stories in both genres that follow Joseph Campbell's archetypical "hero's journey," and a lot of elements that are near identical in nature but dressed differently to fit the setting.
But is Card's statement true? Are there elements of one that define it, other than the setting? Are there fantasy stories that would not work as sci-fi without fundamental changes to the story and outcome, and vice-versa? If there is a defining line between the two, where is it?
A term that is frequently used (especially in recent years, and especially to do with Star Wars) is "space fantasy," in lieu of the traditional label of "science fiction." The two are distinguished by how integral "science" is to explaining the fantastical elements of the story and its world. Because Star War is a narrative very much centred around the existence of magic (i.e. the Force), it is considered generically different from something like Firefly, whose fantasticism is explained wholly by science (i.e. terraforming and advance vehicular technology). This distinction is especially important to consider with regards to "rivets and trees," as it blurs the lines of this dichotomy. Furthermore, another important consideration is Arthur C.Clarke's Third Law of Scientific Prediction: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." This is often paraphrased as, "Magic is just science that we don't understand yet." The film Thor (2011) dealt with this matter extensively, attempting to justify the historicity of Norse mythology by intersecting it with the Ancient Alien Theory. This theory suggests that all mytho-historical accounts of divine beings were really extraterrestrials, misunderstood by ancient humans as being deities due to their lacking the proper critical vocabulary to describe what they had witnessed. Though this line of thinking is typically dismissed as pseudoscience - which has not been helped by a History Channel series jumping to its defense, not surprisingly - it is interesting to think about nonetheless, and makes for some fascinating speculative fiction. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Here is a link which may help define the terms which is something I think you should do before the article is approved. http://www.nownovel.com/blog/difference-fantasy-science-fiction/ – Munjeera8 years ago
Everyone has heard the ongoing arguments about which is better, the book or the film? The film or the book? But what is the right balance, if such a thing does exist?
Certain traits are different when writing a script than a book and there have been some wonderful adaptions, in fact I'd say most adaptions are pretty good, some of the examples of my favourites being The Godfather, American Psycho, the Harry Potter series and The Martian.
But why do some go wrong and to those who are right, what makes them so?
This is a really good topic. Being consistent with the spirit of the original theme leads to a gratifying rather than disappointing adaptation in my view. I hope someone writes this topic. – Munjeera9 years ago
Cloud Atlas is a really interesting example of this, as it changes the narrative structure of the story quiet a bit, but it does things well that only a film could do. For example the multiple cast member playing multiple roles works well in the film, but was not directly from the book. – Thomas Sutton9 years ago
I think adaptations nosedive when they become obsessed with the letter not the spirit of the text. The only way to successfully adapt someone else's work, in my view, is to be absolutely as fearless with it as the original creator was. An example of this is 'Prisoner of Azkaban', where Alfonso Cuaron understood that you cannot simply film a condensed version of the novel, as Christopher Columbus did. You have to change, add new things in, take old things away, until you're left with something which works as a FILM in it's own right, not just an adaptation of another text. Very interesting topic. – J.P. Shiel9 years ago
I think people are disappointed with the cinematic adaptation as it lacks the ability to express the complexity of the human psyche so remarkably described in these books you've mentioned. The unspeakable array of fleeting emotions is difficult to convey no matter how gifted the actor might be. In the book, the author provides the reader a glimpse into the mind and heart of the characters and places the reader in a superior position of knowing that less accessible through cinematic representations. – danielle5778 years ago
I consistently hear that the book is always better than the film adaptation (no matter what), but I don't think that's a fair assessment. Since they're different artistic mediums, books may achieve what films lack and vice versa. Books often excel in providing interiority and psychological depth whereas a film's strength may be its exteriority/visual storytelling and its ability to convey mood through the soundtrack. As a writer, I often start by visualizing my story's descriptions as if they were being filmed. I have to say there have been a few times where I preferred a movie adaptation over the novelization. There are also plenty of instances where I was unaware of a novel's existence until the film came out. The Third Man, for example, is a brilliant film noir that has some of the most memorable scenes in it. I only read the Graham Greene novel after having seen the movie. The novel was able to clarify certain background detail, but I felt the film was imbued with greater drama and emotional poignancy that left an impact on me as a viewer. I think most people care about the film's "faithfulness" to what the book tried to achieve (however vague that may sound). – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
The skepticism towards Politics is nearly as old as history of political system. Various literature throughout the history, including the Attic Comedy of Aristophanes, satirize the political systems and the prominent rulers.
In many ways, Aristophanes can still appeal to the modern audiences thanks to his unforgiving wits and humor against the leading politicians like Cleon. Comparing Aristophanes to the modern satirists such as stand-up comedians or cartoonists could help us understand which aspect of politics changed or remained the same since the ancient Athens.
For example, One thing to note is that Aristophanes frequently used ridiculous characters and exaggerated personalities to make this point. Has this been changed much? Does Aristophanes' model lose its charm to the modern audiences?
Compare and analyze the characters, the comic elements, and the message of Arisophanes to the modern comedy(such as the Simpsons, South Park, etc) and others.
I really like the idea of comparing really old stuff to really contemporary stuff. Maybe it would be better to approach this as a comparative essay between, say, two well selected works, one from antiquity and one contemporary? Rather than a history, which just puts way to much on the writer's plate. – TKing8 years ago
This could be a great topic for someone knowledgeable. Maybe you could help by listing some of the connections you want to make with today's satirists. – Munjeera8 years ago
I think it would work really well comparing Atistophanes with a modern satire (I wouldn't worry about the distance in time you're covering, just state you're taking two examples and not attempting to track everything in between). Politics/satire is one of those things that never changes over a thousand years, so depending on your modern source I'd imagine that in core content and method there is little in way of 'advancement'. Perhaps a history of satire/explanation of two dominant schools Horatian and Juvenalian would be a good place to start your article (and help articulate your own direction in analysis). Other interesting areas to explore may be the production of these satires/risk posed in publishing or performing, popularity of approaches/reception to a particular style then and now, etc. I'm sure you'll have a lot to say when you get narrowed down to examples, especially with the current media circus in American politics which is almost satirising itself!!
It reminds me how the writers of the British Tv series The Thick of It, in response to calls for them to do a referendum special, said that they wouldn't/couldn't because the political game playing and internal chaos they used to satirise is now fully exposed and playing out in front of us. – JamieMadden8 years ago
Ridiculous? Exaggerated? "Wag the Dog" is all of that and more. It's real "purty." – Tigey8 years ago
In both Slaughterhouse-Five (1969 novel by Kurt Vonnegut, adapted to film in 1972 by George Roy Hill) and K-PAX (1995 novel by Gene Brewer, adapted to film in 2001 by Iain Softley), the main characters experience delusions of extraterrestrials. (Billy Pilgrim encountering the Tralfamadorians and Robert "prot" Porter believing himself to be a K-PAXian from the planet K-PAX.) In both cases, it is hinted, though never stated out-rightly, that these are coping mechanisms in response to trauma experienced by the characters: Billy's witnessing of the fire bombing of Dresden during WWII and prot's having lost his wife and daughter and subsequently killing their murderer.
Discuss the thematic link between these two novels? In what ways have they employed this trope similarly to one another, and how has K-PAX (being the latter of the two) altered it or taken it further? Why has extraterrestrial life been used by both of these authors as their go-to psychosis? What may have influenced their mutual decision to leave a final verdict on the aliens ambiguous, both having planted a small seed of doubt that the aliens may be real – and therefore everyone BUT the protagonist is "crazy" for not believing him. Furthermore, how does this compare to other abstract depictions of mental illness in literature and film? Are there any other examples of works that use fictitious aliens to in this way to shield characters from hard truths?
I've not seen the film of Slaughterhouse Five, but I read the book. As I recall, Billy Pilgrim's experience with the aliens dances along the line between fantasy and reality pretty ambiguously. The book is less interested in the reader's trying to figure out whether they exist or not than in K-PAX (here I know the movie, sort of, but not the book), but rather using them as a means through which to explore the insanity of the time and place. K PAX is almost entirely about prot's psychology. In that sense, the Tralfamadorians are undoubtedly real TO THE STORY in a way that I don't think applies in K PAX. I think you'll want to stick to either a movie-to-movie comparison or a book-to-book, unless you're specifically interested in the way in which each is adapted. I'd say that aspect isn't particularly pertinent. – TKing8 years ago
You can read some alien books for the same. – imemilyalice8 years ago
Juicy topic. I'd snap it up, but I haven't read K-PAX and the Slaughterhouse film stinks. – Tigey8 years ago
From The Giver to the Hunger Games, to Divergent, it seems as if Dystopian novels have become the new Paranormal. Where Twilight had filled book store shelves, now we see novels like, The Maze Runner, and The 100, filling those shelves. But, what if this genre has become too predictable, too generic? Will they die out like the Westerns? Or is safe to say that, Dystopian novels will forever be a staple in book genres.
As an outsider to the dystopian genre, having only read 1984, it seems like a lot of these series are becoming cookie-cutter rebellion against the power. Whoever writes this should look at novels and series that define the genre, especially 1984, Farenheit 451, and The Giver. Hunger Games seems like one of the first recently popular series to fit into the dystopian genre. Look at bestsellers, and look at how dystopian authors are being influenced. – John9 years ago
Dystopian novels are the new literary fad, proving to be very popular and profitable. I think that there are certainly authors that are simply trying to jump on the bandwagon, but some are really trying to get a genuine message and story out. Stories about the future are often meant to remind us that what we do now affects the world in years to come. I think, similar to the track vampire novels went, there are classics as John pointed out, newer stories that really pack a punch, and predictable, cookie-cutter novels. Perhaps discuss one example from each of those categories. Interesting topic, you would definitely have a lot to discuss in any direction you went.
Maybe look at pop culture as a driving force for this phenomenon. – MichelleAjodah9 years ago
Dystopian novels are not going anywhere. The hype may die down, but they have been around a long time and will continue to be around until we somehow stumble upon the perfect society. Good luck to that. Dystopian books are generally used to take a "good idea in theory," and then show us that it's not going to work. Also see Brave New World and basically anything by Ayn Rand. – Tatijana9 years ago
You've only mentioned YA titles. Popular dystopias should be distanced from their more literary offspring, though some middle ground can be found in-between. – JekoJeko9 years ago
Perhaps it would be helpful to note that maybe it's not necessarily the Dystopian novel itself that is thought by some people as too common, but the Dystopian YA novel. The writer on this topic should try to research what other novels and works are out there to see if they follow similar arcs. – Jaye Freeland9 years ago
I mean, dystopians have been a genre for quite some time. I think the one you're interested in specifically is young adult dystopia. Interestingly, I just saw a review about Divergent by Veronica Roth that argued it was basically a knock-off of The Hunger Games. I didn't agree at all - while they share similarities (namely, that they're both set in post apocalyptic America and have female protagonists) everything else about them is different. I think part of the problem is that the YA genre is taken less seriously as a literary genre to begin with - so even if the books in question aren't actually the same, they're assumed to be because the genre is taken so lightly. (Note how no one criticizes how the "classic" dystopian novels share similar characteristics.) I think because it's a popular fad (and, let's be honest, mostly loved by teenage girls, especially books like THG and Divergent) it's easy to mock it or pretend that it's somehow less original or interesting. I wouldn't agree with that at all. In any case - when writing this, focusing on the entirety of the dystopian genre might be fun. Like thinking about the popularity (or non-popularity?) or novels like 1984 or Brave New World in their own time, compared the popularity of dystopian novels now. – kcecka9 years ago
Dystopian novels are definitely becoming popular. The vampire craze went around when Twilight came out, so why not now with a dystopian future? I think it's safe to say that the first major dystopian future novel/movie to come out was the Hunger Games. The amount of popularity it gained world wide is insane. From there, so many more movies of the same genre were made. I agree with what kcecka said. It's definitely big in the YA world. – diehlsam9 years ago
Part of what makes a lot of dystopian fiction seem alike, especially YA dystopian fiction, is that the movie adaptations are all made to to be similar. After the smash success that was The Hunger Games movie, there seemed to be a surge in following years with Divergent, The Maze Runner, The Giver, and others I'm probably forgetting.
I think that movie studios tried to make all subsequent YA dystopia movies fit the mold created by The Hunger Games, and it worked better for some (Divergent) than for others (The Giver). – chrischan8 years ago
I recently reviewed the film Equals, a dystopian film about a post-apocalyptic society where emotion has been totally stamped out. I wasn't very positive, and my main argument was that the dystopian vision felt shallow. There was no causal logic to it, no substantive explanation of the psychology that allows people to accept the terrible new conditions and no external cause that imposed it either. As a result, it wasn't so much "Here's what happens when society goes too far this way" as it was "wouldn't it be horrible if society was like this?" Of course it would be. But without bringing us from here to there, what's the nightmarish fantasy got to do with anything? – TKing8 years ago
Great topic. Perhaps a broad collective concern for out-of-control social and political events has encouraged modern dystopian works, making them appear less unique. – Tigey8 years ago
I think dystopian novels will probably be around for as long as we are. It relates strongly to the issue of our own mortality, albeit on a societal scale. What happens if our supposedly civilized, well-organized, and morally sound society goes off the rails? Deep down, all of us are capable of cruelty and so dystopian novels often expose the aspects we fear most about ourselves. The genre is likely meant to shock us into realizing our own culpability. However, I do feel the genre has gotten a bit oversaturated and generic lately. Fahrenheit 451 is probably my favorite as far as dystopian novels go. It's filled with great lines of prose and remarkable insights. – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
