We all know that Dracula is evil, Frankenstein's monster is a brute and the hidden gods of Lovecraft drive humanity insane but could we be misinterpreting this? Harker gets a posse together to brutally slay Dracula while he is helpless, Victor Frankenstein creates his monster and abandons him and Humanity has forgotten about the Lovecraftian gods in favour of newer kinder ones. Could it be that each of these stories (and many others) can be read in an alternate way such that the "monsters" are actually mistaken, misinterpreted and working from a "good" motivation? This can transcend the canon literature and even look at modern day monsters
"Beauty and the Beast" anyone? – smartstooge9 years ago
Hey there,
I don't think that we should create "monsters" like Frankenstein, or wipe them out without knowing whether or not the "monster" in question as actually a monster. A monster is something intrinsically evil...it works for evil, and doesn't repent and turn back to good. Many people would call Hitler a "monster", but the truth is, Hitler was a human, and that means he was fully capable of making moral decisions, and even loving every single person he had control over. "Monstership", I believe, is something that pertains to nature, not choice. You can't become a monster unless you ARE a monster.
I'm not sure how helpful this note was, but it's some food for thought! – Hedekira169 years ago
This is a great opportunity to talk about how subjective morality is. For example - if a vampire has to drink blood to survive, and do so, are they truly evil just because humans have decided it is an evil act to drink blood? Why are vampires in fiction considered 'good' if they drink animal blood instead of human blood, when it makes no difference to them because they are a different species anyway? It would be interesting to discuss humans imposing their moral system on other creatures. – Grace Maich9 years ago
Uh, I thought Frankenstein's monster was a victim? The author of the novel made his plight entirely sympathetic, and despite all his faults and flaws, Frankenstein's monster was pretty remorseful and set out to kill himself after his creator die. I'm also currently reading Dracula, so I'll get back to you on that, but from my understanding, Dracula really is just plain ol' evil. And from my understanding, Lovecraftian gods have a sort of bizarre morality, where our concepts of good/evil don't really... work with them. This isn't the first time this topic's been explored, but I welcome you to take a stab at it. – Helmet9 years ago
I think one of the issues in Frankenstein was also that of education. Or maybe the more accurate term to use is cultivation? When the creature was born, he was a blank slate. He had equal potential to be either a blessing or a curse to mankind--what settled it was the treatment he received. The creature himself says, "I am malicious because I am miserable." – chemis37 years ago
Analyze his short poems, specifically, The Red Wheelbarrow, A Sort of Song and This is Just to Say. Talk about its historical placement in modernism, but also, how we can understand his work living in a post-modern world? How can we continue to learn from such brevity?
Called both the most racist book of all time, and also a book that fights against racism, analyze Huckleberry Finn and its cultural implications. Is calling Twain a product of his time excusing his racism? Is Jim a complicated black character? Can the repeated use of the "n" word exclude this book from being a great piece of American literature?
Ah, I believe that when Huckleberry Finn was banned it was because of this very thing. I think analyzing Huckleberry Finn should be separate from analyzing Mark Twain. In any case...there are many ways to argue this. What is politically correct changes over time. That doesn't mean one is a racist produced and excused by the times. Also, Jim is portrayed as innocence, if I remember correctly. This would be a great article for someone to take on as a way of lightening up readers who see the "n" word once and refuse to read the book. Then again, maybe someone has an opposite opinion that they can back up with persuasive quotes from the book. BTW When you say "cultural implications" do you mean what it implies about "Mark Twain's" culture or what it implies about our present culture? – Candice Evenson9 years ago
Books like The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry or My Sweet Orange Tree by José Mauro de Vasconcelos.
I think the age group the book is meant for should also be considered. Is the book meant for adults or for young children? – Cagney10 years ago
The Bluest Eye is a great example. The narrative voice switches from the viewpoint of two little girls, an external narrator who takes on the protagonist's (another little girl) perspective, and stream of consciousness. Sometimes you get the voice of adult characters too through diaries or letters, and at the end you get the voice of the protagonist and this is where you see the impact of racism, which damages the individual's sense of self. And this book is meant for adults. Great book! – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun10 years ago
A classic example of a book with a child's point of view is Where The Wild Things Are. It not only deals with a child's imagination, but also the anger and frustration that is prevalent at that age. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
Prayers of a Very Wise Child by Rock Carrier is a great text to look at. It's told from the author's child point of view and satirically exposes society but is easily written so it can entertain children and adults alike. A child's POV is turned into a powerful tool for commentary. – Slaidey9 years ago
Another example could be Ender's Game, which is in the POV of a growing child (Ender). I've heard that some people wrote letters to the author complaining that the child's mindset didn't seem childlike at all, while the author argued that to a child, their own mind wouldn't consider themself immature. – VelvetRose9 years ago
I don't know why no one has mentioned Scout from To Kill a Mockingbird yet, but her perspective is really the best thing about the book. Without her innocent perspective, the story would not have been nearly as shocking with the inherent wrongness of racism in that town. – thekellyfornian9 years ago
Books like "World War Z" by Max Brooks, in which Max Brooks is a journalist collating interviews from the zombie outbreak. Or "And Then There Was No-One" by Gilbert Adair, in which the protagonist is an author of detective fiction called Gilbert Adair.
Philip Roth is the main character in at least 2 Philip Roth novels:
Operation Shylock – Philip Roth is the first person narrator who discovers that another "Philip Roth" has appropriated his identity and is using his celebrity to push a anti-Zionist political agenda.
The Plot Against America – Philip Roth, as a child, comes of age in an alternate history 1940's America where Nazi sympathizer Charles Lindbergh has become President and keeps the US out of WW II.
An article could not only address different novels and how they approach authors as main characters but also how readers react to it. Does it help or hinder the novel? For that matter I was wondering if first person novels translate better into movies than third person because fans fall in love with the external characters... so does this work the same way? Do we come to love the author or try to treat them as a separate character themselves while within the literature? – Slaidey9 years ago
They are not the authors, they are fictional representations of the authors. – T. Palomino2 years ago
The author's (assuming they reveal it in an interview or something) or the reader's (they usually interpret while reading the comic, before watching/reading the filmmaker's interview)? Is it different when the book in question has one ambiguous element and when the entire plot is ambiguous?
Same question can apply to movies, and often does.
If a film/book has a deliberately ambiguous moment, and the author film maker later reveals what they believe happened, this is just their opinion. When you hand a piece of art over the public you are free to interpret how you want and your opinion is just as valid.
The classic example that comes immediately to mind is the film Drive. At the end, the Driver drives away and we don't know if he'll live or die. My immediate thought at the end of that film was that he is going off to die. Later the film maker said that he thought the Driver lived, and he may even do more films with the character.
Until you give us another movie, the directors opinion is only that. If he wanted his films ending to be conclusive, he had the chance when he first made it. There is no point being arty and vague with an ending, if you just want to tell us later that you think the guy lives.
Calls for a great article nonetheless.
It would be interesting to discuss John Green, who refuses to answer questions about ambiguous events in his books (or symbolism, or what happened afterward) because he believes books belong to their readers and anything they interpret could be true. – Grace Maich9 years ago
Yes yes I'm so passionate about this topic! Does the book belong to the reader or the author? JK Rowling and John Green definitely support the idea of the reader having their own interpretations, but maybe seek out the other opinion, like authors who strongly support author-only interpretations. – Taylorsteen9 years ago
Currently in academia it is agreed upon to be up to the reader, because as they say "The Author is Dead." But it would be interesting to explore the hypocrocy. Many will say the author is dead in one case and then when it comes to David Foster Wallace, his word is literary law to the point that people are wondering if Wallace would be for or against the film about him. If the author is truely dead then why the hell would we care what David Foster Wallace would think? Yet, you say this and the literary mob will come at you with fire and pitchforks. An article on this topic should really enter into the academic conversation as well as the fandoms. It should have a nice works cited. – Erin Derwin9 years ago
Are they mutually exclusive? Drawing perhaps from Jonathan Lethem's The Ecstasy of Influence, discuss the effect of subconscious (or in some cases very conscious) influence by other authors. Is the evidence of another author's influence in a text a negative thing? Does it render the writer's work unoriginal?
This is a wonderful idea and one that has not been explored enough I think. Writers make other writers better - or so we hope that in a small community we can lift each other up. However, there is the danger that in our subconscious we write the same things we recently read because we loved it and saw it as successful writing. Though I have not read the piece you mentioned, I think the influence can be a good thing because an idea can spiral in so many different directions but it all depends on whose mind the idea is in. So an idea borrowed (whether subconsciously or consciously) can become an original idea once built on and taken in a different direction. Obviously we wouldn't write the same book even if we had the same idea. Not sure how much sense I made but I hope this helps! – Nof9 years ago
Depth is an important concern for most literature enthusiasts. There are people who can write four pages on pounds, "In the station of the metro". There are others who see 14 words. As a literary artist, one should be able to understand, critique and create literary pieces. What if one cannot, but still has an intense passion for the arts?. Is there a level of depth required to appreciate literature?. Depth meaning, intense understanding, reading between the lines and cohesive interpretation.
Under Revision for the title capitalize I. – Venus Echos9 years ago
Also, the apostrophe between the words "can't" and "but" should be removed. As for the question mark, it belongs more at the end of the sentence instead of a period. – dsoumilas9 years ago
@Venus @dsoumilas Instead of adding a note, you should have just clicked the Reject button and then outlined your revision note there. – Misagh9 years ago
Interesting choice of topic. Depth, meaning, subjectivity and the importance of passion would all be highly intriguing things to explore. – IRBurnett9 years ago
