Literature

It is tempting to write a historical fiction from the point of view from the famous figures of the era. Many fictions wrote Napoleon, Elizabeth I, or Alexander the Great as the protagonists with their own voices. However, this poses danger of simplifying/glorifying/vilifying the figures and bend the historical details. For example, the author writing Napoleon as the heroic figure might purposefully ignore his atrocities in Haiti or other blunders, or even try to glorify his vices.

Some authors find it restricting to write on well-known figure so they create new characters or take on lesser known characters. Hitoshi Iwaaki, the manga artist who created The Parasite, had Eumenes, Alexander the Great's secretary, as the main character of his historical comics "Historie". This provides more liberty for the author but may not attract readers' attention or place himself in dangerous paradox by making supposedly "obscure" figures too good – if such a significant person had lived, why did historians fail to recognize them?

But which type of protagonist can provide more entertainment? What would be the good model to follow?

Which type of protagonist can provide more entertainment: famous, infamous, or non-famous? Which would be the best model to follow?

Decades ago, if a book was written or a movie was produced, the writer or filmmaker could only hope that their work would have a sequel, remake, or adaptation into some other form of media. Nowadays, any fictional work seems to possess potential to be expanded into a fictional franchise. Has this trend reduced the quality/nostalgic feel of the original classic stories? Or can the expanded franchise be seen as a way of paying tribute to the original work?

Teiresias is a character that appears in a number of Greek plays,and other Greek Literature (namely, the trilogy of the Oedipus Cycle). Teiresias seems to have the role of the wisest of all men in the literature of Ancient Greece, with his role in the plot to either expose it, or to play an otherwise pivotal role. How is this done specifically? From whence is his wisdom derived? Also, is his prevalence any indicator of an ideal, or an actual, venerated person?

I'm currently writing a college essay specifically regarding Atwood's usage of architecture, but I'd like to see it on a more global level. Margaret Atwood's A Handmaid's Tale shows an area titled the Republic of Gilead that everyone lives in and the narrator provides vivid descriptions of the architecture in the area – a Late Victorian style with the simplicity of early Neoclassical beliefs in the United States. Atwood has said in interviews that it is also inspired by Cambridge, MA as far as the style and layout. Although I haven't read any other Atwood novel I have heard that she also describes architecture in great detail in those. Many other writers such as William Faulkner and Edgar Allen Poe have done similar things with their work where they take real architectural styling and use it to create a unique, sometimes metaphorical, space. How does the architecture change our perception of the story i regards to its surface value? Should architecture be described more in writing to create a surreal sense of space?

Analysing how the heroic virtues of the protagonist of Odysseus in Homer's 'The Odyssey' befalls tragedy and misfortune on his travels in the form of overt heroic confidence, contrasting it with his characterization in 'The Illiad'.

Conrad's Heart of Darkness explores the mysteries of human corruption. Francis Ford Coppola adapted Conrad's novel in Apocalypse Now, re-telling Conrad's story in the context of the Vietnam War instead of the Belgian colonization of the Congo. Matthew Stover's Star Wars novel, Shatterpoint, adapts Heart of Darkness with Mace Windu as the protagonist. Stover's novel is set on Mace's home world, the jungle planet of Haruun Kal, whose guerrilla uprising clearly echoes Coppola's film. How do Coppola and Stover adapt Conrad's novel? How does the portrayal of racism and colonialism differ in these appropriations? How do their endings diverge from each other?

Something I've been thinking about lately is how competitive getting published is. Novelists who want to write a "less accessible" kind of story may find themselves struggling with finding an audience, or even an interested agent. Meanwhile, the list of national bestsellers is filled with novels that, generally, play it safe. For instance, The Girl on the Train is regarded in its promotional material as another Gone Girl. Would the former have been written the way it was or even be written at all if the latter didn't precede it? Are the heavily publicized novels becoming too homogeneous? And how is this reflected across genres?

There is great unbalance between the popularity of works of prose and works of poetry in today's world. Everyone and their mother has read a novel or two, and you might even hear them recommend one. Poetry, on the other hand, seems to be something hidden from mainstream conversation and even recognition. I can go on naming celebrated contemporary authors and novelists, while the only poet I can think of as being worthy of "celebrity" status is Billy Collins. That is not to say that there are not skilled or renowned poets today, but it seems that neither they nor their work are nearly as recognized. Why might this be?