The Tolkien Estate recently changed their copyright, stating that under no circumstances may a person “create materials which refer to the characters, stories, places, events or other elements contained in any of Tolkien’s work”. Close on the heels of this announcement came the importing of The Library of Moria fanfiction archive into the Archive of Our Own network; an archive with a legal team that works to protect the content hosted there.
This isn’t the first time that an author or estate has laid down the law regarding the creation of fan content under the arguments of copyright and protecting the integrity of the original work. Authors like Anne McCaffrey and Anne Rice have well-remembered conflicts revolving around fanfiction of their books – but what is the future of fan works in a world of cease-and-desists, DMCAs and fiercely-protected copyright claims? The majority of fanfiction and other fan work is created and consumed for free out of a passion for the source material. Is it an estate or author’s right to ban the creation of any and all fan content in the name of ‘integrity’?
Whoever decides to write about this topic, I highly recommend they look at Japan's doujinshi (self-published) community. Many fans will self-publish their own fan-faction of popular franchises, and it is not that big of a deal. Even when the content is NSFW no one makes that big of a deal. It is even encouraged by some creators. The artist for Dragon Ball Super Toyotarou actually started out as a Doujinshi artist for Dragon Ball and was eventually chosen by Akira Toriyama to continue the Dragon Ball series officially. I think it would be interesting to see a compare and contrast of these two different approaches to handling the fan-fiction community. – Blackcat1303 years ago
There is also something to be said about the idea of commissioning fanfiction. The idea of paying someone to write about other copyrighted characters and franchises is debatable and interesting when it comes to trying to figure out whether or not doing so impacts the artists integrity or not. Is it wrong to pay someone that is not affiliated with certain works to make something with the same characters or even the same universe? – Belle3 years ago
Fanfiction is just as much creating as an original story. I think people underestimate fanfiction and fanfiction writers. Sometimes they can create much more amazing things then canon, something more fleshed out and with less holes. In a way fanfiction writers are creating their own world just with familiar characters. – amalhameed2 years ago
When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a handful of writers found solace and inspiration in Anne Frank. PJ Grisar of the Jewish Daily Forward, essayist Leigh Stein, and others wrote about how "the world [looked] to Anne Frank" during the first wave of the crisis (Grisar) and how her experiences contrasted with and mirrored our own.
Two years later, Anne Frank and her "mirror" have not gone away. Some continue looking to her for inspiration, while others, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., compare living as an unvaccinated American to living as a Holocaust victim, thereby stirring controversy and anger. But no matter how Anne Frank fits into the pandemic landscape, she remains a major part of it for many people.
How do you think readings and discussions of Anne Frank's diary will change as the pandemic enters a new stage and hopefully ends soon? Why do you think she resonates, even though comparing our situation to the Holocaust and Nazi Germany is rightfully offensive? Are there examples of classic or current fiction that could be read alongside Anne Frank as a study of the pandemic, lockdowns, and similar situations? Discuss.
Oooo I like this. I think adding the being cooped up inside and the antisemitic parallels to this article would really set it off. What we deal with is always compared to the past, but in this case, it’s usually in a wrong way and racist. Diving into this would be great and produce such a good story – mynameisarianna3 years ago
The phrase 'empathy machine' was first used to describe the way that watching films can give the viewer an understanding of what it is like to be someone different (different age, gender, nationality, etc.). More recently, it has been used in reference to virtual reality technologies and their ability to allow users to 'embody' someone else. The claims of both of these mediums as empathy machines rests upon their alleged ability to allow the viewer/player to understand and feel what others feel. This empathy is, of course, something they cannot get from their own life as they do not have the same shared experiences that the machine is allowing them to have. Thus, these tools as empathy machines are profound.
But, to what extent can literature be seen as a so-called empathy machine? Using a selection of texts, discuss how they can provide the reader with the knowledge necessary to empathise with those depicted in the texts. This could include fiction, where the reader is learning about the life of someone unreal. Or, it could be non-fiction, where the reader is learning of the life of a real person. Ensure that the specific empathetic qualities of literature are discussed. This might include literature's reliance on imagination, or the way that written texts allow for lengthy and in-depth first-hand accounts.
The potential writer of this topic could provide an overall assessment; is literature more or less effective than film or V.R. in creating empathy? Why/why not?
Excellent topic. The writer may also may want to look into the potentialities of visual novels in creating this form of empathy. – Sathyajith Shaji Manthanth4 years ago
Very interesting, indeed. Gary Saul Morson has written a lot about this topic, insofar as he centers empathetic engagement as the core of his pedagogy (see especially: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781618116758-011/html ). If we want to dig a little deeper, something that I'm curious about is necessity to frame it as a "machine," per se. This is understandable in the realms of film and VR, which undeniably have a "mechanical" component to their narrative transmission, but literature is significantly more analog -- especially if we're thinking of it in terms of the "text" itself, as opposed to the materiality of print media. Though I suppose a case can certainly be made that literature is a "technology" (if we trace the etymology back the the original Greek "teche"; Foucault's "Technologies of the Self" come to mind, if a reference point for more abstract uses of such terms is needed). I dunno, perhaps I'm being too literal, and should probably be ignored. – ProtoCanon3 years ago
Excellent topic. Within it, the author might also consider the different types of empathy. That is, there's a type of empathy that sounds like, "I have not been through this, but I can relate to something you are feeling." There's also a type that sounds like, "I have been through exactly this or something very similar, so I am relating strongly to your emotions and experiences, and may talk about them in relation to what we are both feeling." However, a lot of people only think of empathy as one kind or the other, so they either accuse others of having no empathy, or assume that empathy can't be found unless you have related personally to a given experience. – Stephanie M.3 years ago
Different types of art, believe it literature, cinema, etc., are endowed with a defamiliarizing potentiality, meaning, they can help the viewers observe the world and the issues at hand through a different perspective. I believe that this research can be used to analyze the recent films that portray a certain group of people as the social others. Simply put, how films help us observe the world through the eyes of the marginalized and "othered". – mahdisafari763 years ago
If someone tackles this topic, you have to look at Mattie Brice's piece, empathy machine: http://www.mattiebrice.com/empathy-machine/ – ProfRichards3 years ago
Literature is definitely more effective in creating empathy than other mediums. While we do get certain perspectives through movie characters, we don't get the full in-depth take on their thoughts and actions. For example, someone who only watched the Harry Potter movies probably think that Harry is a brat who never listens and is always angry for no reason. But after reading the books, we see what he's thinking, why he reacts to certain situations the way he does, and what his perspective is during all the conflicts he endures. The "omniscient" aspect in literature is what really lets readers step into the characters' role, something we don't get in film or VR.
The book that immediately came into mind while thinking through the lense of empathy is "All The Light We Cannot See" by Anthony Doerr. We get the perspective of a young French girl during the German seize of France, a young German boy who joins Hitler's army, a Nazi party official, a veteran with PTSD from the first world war, a French locksmith who gets sent to a "work camp", and many many more.
We see the innermost thoughts of these vastly different characters which makes readers feel for everyone involved-- even those we thought were inherently evil have some good in them. The ability to see why these characters stand for what they stand for, what they're thinking through all these events, and how they respond/react humanizes even the most hard-core officer. Readers don't just get scenes with these characters interacting while the plot unfolds, they get the perspective of each character in each individual chapter. As a result, we can empathize with everyone whether we want to or not. Now, I have not seen the movie adaptation of this book, but I can almost guarantee we don't get insight into the fear Wearner feels when he's around German officers, even though he's "one of them." We don't get to see how angry Marie-Laure is all through out the book, because we don't get her *thoughts*. That's what is so important for empathy in literature-- without getting in the characters' head and seeing their thoughts, we only get half the story like in movies/shows. – allysonkadas3 years ago
I would argue that empathy has some limitations especially between human and non-humans. Stories about non-humans are created by humans. Can we empathize with a plant or beetle the same way we do with mammals? I highly recommend reading 'Animal Writing: Storytelling, Selfhood and the Limits of Empathy' by Danielle Sands. – shaymichel202 years ago
Recently, talk among book enthusiasts has circulated that YA dystopia has burned out. The genre is certainly huge, but whether it's burned out, cliched, or tired in any way depends on whose books you read. Are there certain authors who give YA dystopia a burned out feel? Are there authors, or characters, who have brought fresh situations or themes to the genre? And if the genre is burned out right now, how might it be "revived?" Discuss.
YA Dystopia used to be such a huge genre in the 2000's up to 2016, when Veronica Roth's 'Allegiant' was released in the theatres. I used to re-read Suzanne Collins' 'Hunger Games' and watch the movies. Until it sort of all became really boring. The action of the plot was there, and so were the likable characters. It began to feel really negative, since the entirety of Dystopia was that the world was inevitably ending in some horrible way. Or the world had already ended and the harsh new reality of the world to come was a dystopia in itself. Since I've found myself reading YA Fantasy and New Adult Fantasy recently, I haven't read any YA Dystopia books, but if there was to be a revival of the genre, it has to be reimagined. No more oppressive governments and fight to the death situations. Something unique but altogether terrifying if it were to happen. – talonsx3 years ago
This is an especially interesting topic considering the recent rise of dystopian shows, however more digestible for the general public and perhaps less confronting – Lily3 years ago
I think it was certainly the fact that all the big books to come out at that time were fairly similar. They didn't really have anything meaningful to differentiate them. Also they created that book-to-film conveyer belt very quickly and I think that heightened their sameness. The oppression they were fighting against never really felt that serious, I guess in that way it worked for a while due to the youthful notion of being rebellious against anything. – limbamurphy3 years ago
It could also be worth mentioning that in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and when there are extreme weather events, people may not feel like reading dystopia series because it is starting to read as too-real? That is something that has turned me away from the genre recently. – Jordan3 years ago
One thing that should be kept in mind is that the young adults towards whom the genre was marketed in the 2000s to mid 2010s (the time when the genre was in full bloom, lots of new books coming out along with movie adaptations) have all grown up. I believe the Divergent series was what caused the downfall of the genre as it showed authors of that time that YA Dystopia has a formula and if that formula is followed with some minor tweaking the book is gonna be successful. The new YA Dystopia has a new audience which do not respond to the same old formula, so it is time to change the formula and create something different altogether perhaps – Blueberry2 years ago
YA dystopia is dead; Hunger Games was such a unique concept that the others following it became similar and very lacklustre. But it is also becoming blurred what YA actually is as a genre. I think early on in its success YA was where books with young female protagonists go even though the subject matter wasn't suited for YA. *Ahem* Throne of Glass and A Court of Thorns and Roses. Now with the introduction of New Adult, the lines between what YA is has become extremely blurred. – hannahclairewrites2 years ago
Analyze the psychological and traumatic effect that marginalizing can have on the minority groups portrayed in the modern fiction. As it happens, othering and subordinating certain groups of people can traumatize them on a daily, which may give rise to a specific behavior and neurosis in such social others.
I think specifying what type of psychology should be applied to this would be a helpful start for whoever wishes to write this. As a psychology major, I would suggest writing through the lens of social psychology. – darbyallen3 years ago
Maybe look into disability studies as there are a lot of great pieces about disability representation in literature. – ProfRichards3 years ago
As a linguist, I can see this topic being analyzed from a discourse analysis perspective particularly in regard to the narrative. Such analysis can properly justify the dehumanizing language of some social groups that exists in modern fiction. – Malak Cherif3 years ago
From reams of fairytale retellings, to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, from Meg and Jo to Circe, the literary world bursts with retellings of classic novels. The smorgasbord of material grows every day, giving rise to multifaceted questions. What sets one retelling of a classic apart from another (why, for instance, might someone choose the Little Women retelling So Many Beginnings over Meg and Jo, and its companion novel, Beth and Amy)? Do some classics lend themselves to retellings better than others? Perhaps most intriguing of all, what is the benefit, for writers and readers, of retelling classics and/or reshaping them for a current audience? Once these classics are reshaped or retold, are they classics any longer? Discuss.
This is a really interesting topic and very timely to our current media- and book-scape. I think it would be helpful to think about the designation "classic." Of course, that's always a sticky topic, but it might be necessary to think about what it means to re-tell a classic. – JaniceElaine3 years ago
Yes, I should've clarified, that should be the first thing the writer does if they choose this topic. However, they would have to be careful that the article didn't become a full discussion of what a "classic" is. – Stephanie M.3 years ago
This is a great topic and the topic of one of my articles. Should classics continue to be remade? In our day and age is the moral of the classics even applicable? If the classics are remade and remade are they considered classics anymore? – scampbell3 years ago
When it comes to film and and television adaptations of literature and novel mediums, it is largely understood that the omission of certain details or scenes is due to constrictions of budget or time. However, another method of adaptation has been the combination of certain characters, dialogues, and plot points/events to 'ease' the understanding of the adaptation under the guise of the aforementioned. For example, David Benioff and D.B. Weiss's adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire, made the choice of changing the names of certain characters so that the audience would not get confused by the extensive catalog of main characters. George R.R. Martin's original purpose for including character's of the same name or namesakes is because that is a quality of real-life. This is a small example, but I am interested in reading where other writers and readers can identify where a seemingly harmless change or omission of detail is actually a veiled attempt at maintaining an audience's attention and therefore their wallet.
Interesting premise, though I feel like it might be just a tad cynical. To use your GoT example, the reasoning for changing Asha Greyjoy's name to Yara (due to the original's similarity to the completely different character of Osha), never seemed to me as being "because the audience isn't smart enough to tell these two characters apart," but rather out of media-specificity. On the page, one can clearly see the difference of the "A" and the "O" that might easily be missed when television viewers are relying only on auditory signifiers, with phonetic similarities potentially being harder to parse than ink-on-page. Also keep in mind that if the reader gets confused, they can temporarily stop reading and flip to the genealogy charts in the back of the book. Though most viewers can arguably pause the show to pull up a fan-wiki, film and television (and especially the commercial-less HBO) are principally designed to be consumed without interruption, which would have been the experience of anyone watching the series live as it premiered. I don't think the creators' awareness of these differences and their decision to edit accordingly really constitute insults to the audience's intelligence -- not to defend D&D, there's certainly more than enough BS in the later seasons to merit that label. It's also worth noting the inverse scenarios, wherein equally similar names (such as Bran and Bronn) and even identical ones (Robb Stark and Robert Baratheon or Jon Snow and Jon Arryn) made it into the show unaltered, suggesting that thought WAS put into which ones were deemed worth changing and which needed to be kept intact. The latter examples of the Robs and Jons are more meaningful than the rather arbitrary closeness of Asha and Osha (two characters who have nothing to do with each other and never interact), since it subtextually hints to the audience the degree of Ned Stark's reverence for his allies from the rebellion, via his decision to name his sons after them. I guess this is a long way of me saying that onomastics alone might not be substantial enough of a basis to justify to severity of your central claim. If I may propose a slightly more contentious counterexample: do we see Zack Snyder removing the alien vagina-squid from his 2009 film adaptation of Watchman as being motivated by fear that the audience wouldn't understand? I've seen valid arguments on both sides of this one, so let's discuss! – ProtoCanon3 years ago
I think they are just trying to accomplish something different, which often times means they have to "do away" with a lot in order to (essentially) stay within budget – JuanGomez3 years ago
Modernist texts are often heavily fragmented – the plot is jumbled and does not follow a simple beginning to end chronology. This can be off-putting for many readers as it can make a story hard to follow and less immersive.
However, what are the benefits and what does writing in fragments achieve? An article could look at a selection of texts that are fragmented and offer an analysis of what this particular structure is doing.
For example, in Kaddish for an Unborn Child by Imre Kertesz, the plot keeps circling back to the same line, its repetition representing the repetitive trauma it has caused the protagonist. Or, in The Corpse Washer by Sinan Antoon, the plot is broken up by page long chapters detailing the nightmares had by the protagonist which can show how they interject in his life just as they have interjected into the plot. There are many works of literature that fragment the narrative and do so for thoughtful and strategic reasons. Thus, exploring texts that do this meaningfully could be an interesting read!
I suppose in literature that would be food for thought. But, I can emphatically say that it occurs in film as well. Take for instance the film Raging Bull. To the untrained eye or first time viewer, the boxing scenes appear fragmented, or improperly edited. In fact, it is a deliberate technique known as image collision. Effectively what it does is arrange a sequence of scene cuts with no apparent flow between them. The viewer is left to fill in the gaps or smooth over the perforations in the actor's activity and the camera movement. In the process, the audience is drawn into the cinematic spectacle before them. I would be interested in knowing if this a common practice in literature as well. (Aside from the obvious example, Alice in Wonderland.) – L:Freire4 years ago
Interesting. Modernism was a reaction against the inflexible confines of Victorian literature that preceded it. The motif of the circle, as in Kertesz's text, is an alternative to the traditionally linear conception of experience. The Modernist's realised that individual experience is not as simple as a traditional linear narrative with one major point of conflict; we think back, we reconsider, we hypothesise. The Modernists simply reflected this reality in the forms of their works. – hlewsley4 years ago
I find fragmented writing to be very confusing, but very intriguing as well. A reader following a straight line can get tiring and boring. Putting in fragments adds not only a timeline to a story, but also adds depth to characters, settings, and plot. The reader is able to tie things together themselves rather than have someone tell them which is more entertaining. – devdroses4 years ago
I don't really see "fragmented" stories as innately more confusing than linear ones. If you think about it, any story that starts in medias res or uses flashbacks--especially more than a couple of times--is making use of non-linear storytelling. That being said, probably one of the most infamous "fragmented" stories is The Trial, a novel by Franz Kafka. In that case, the reason why it's so fragmented is because the story was discovered after the author's death, and he hadn't managed to complete the story or put the pieces in order in the first place. Another interesting example of non-linear storytelling is in the movie Memento. The protagonist of that movie suffers from an inability to make new memories, and so the entire story is told in reverse, with the later events being shown first and the earlier events shown later, so that the audience can realize how confusing and misleading it would be to live in such a way. – Debs4 years ago
What an interesting topic! This could be a hard one to write because temporal shifts and fragmented plots work to “achieve” different purposes for different Modernists. Perhaps a thesis that explores a few common effects of the narrative style within a particular subset of Modernist writing would work well. One might consider narrowing to the early Modernists or even just the early female Modernists, for instance. Or, contrarily, a broader survey of Modernists using the style over time to achieve the same purpose would be super interesting, too. Again, keeping the focus narrow will be difficult, but I think it would produce a rewarding piece. – JCBohn4 years ago