Topics: Guest

Everyone has an opinion on this topic, even those who "like all kinds". Highly differentiated opinions tend to be held quite strongly, as in a lover of 'classical' music who categorically dismisses all music published after 1918 – or adhering to a single genre such as heavy metal. But seriously, what bugs me more is when people refuse to discuss their criteria of quality and instead give in to some kind of lukewarm relativism. So, this is your chance to have it out. How about complexity (rhythmic, harmonic, structural, etc.)? Technical virtuosity? Emotional impact? Popularity (just kidding)? Whatever makes you like a piece, spelled out and described as concisely as possible in objective terms. I suggest we focus on criteria and attributes, rather than merely placing your favourite example front and centre.

What can "celebrity animals" — like Dolly (the cloned sheep), Tilikum (the killer whale), or even the octopus who gained fame on the Netflix Original, My Octopus Teacher — tell us about "the human socially constructed natural world" as Nick Couldry calls it?

Animals (especially charismatic species with which we feel we can identify) can certainly ground environmental issues and cause us to at least feel something for environmental crises. However, there is often unequal distribution of attention that leads to inequality: mediagenic coverage that places certain animals in a positive spotlight allows us to care more for a gorilla or elephant than for an insect or fish, for example.

Media power is prevalent in the operation of animal fame. Given that human animals are the norm in studies of celebrity environmentalism, what difference does it make to consider the role of non-human animals? Consider, with reference to one non-human animal celebrity associated with environmentalism (like Dolly, Tilikum, or others that have come about in mainstream media).

Mark Z Danielewski's House of Leaves is probably the most famous oddly structured book. For the most part there's two separate narratives; the narrator's own story is told in footnotes, the main body of the text being the discovered critical analysis by Zampano of a non-existent documentary film about an ever-changing house. Zampano's also blind, btw.

It's a little bit gimmicky, but at times the Zampano essay is stunning, with some of the most memorable sinister moments in modern literature.

Beside House of Leaves, I was surprised by the twist of the plot and development in these books:

Abraham Verghese: Cutting for Stone.

Orhan Pamuk: Museeum of Innocence. (This is a love novel, and you may not like this genre.)

Benito Perez Galdos: Fortunata and Jacinta.

Theodor Kallifatides: In her Gaze. (First written in Swedish, but it is translated into some other languages. I do not know if English belongs to them.)

Selma Lagerlöf: The Story of Gösta Berling. Repeatedly some one will predict an event that is easily seen to be impossible, unless supranatural phenomena are included. And then the event does occur, but because of perfectly natural causes.

Arnold Zweig: The Fight Over Sergeant Gruschka. (In WWI Gruschka is a deserter from the Russian army and had been living in a German P.O.W. camp. He had escaped. What he is most eager to avoid is to be send back to this camp. A woman eventually advises him how to avoid that – but he will actually suffer worse outcomes.)

I read another note entitled, 'The effects of Iconic roles on an Actor and his/her career' and I was excited that it might be a topic on something I've long contemplated on, but the description specified a different interest. So I decided to submit my own topic. I'm interested in hearing about the ways in which taking on certain roles have impacted an actor's personal life. By acting as someone else, do they find themselves becoming that character at times in their personal lives? Having had practiced traits that were perhaps new to them before their role, does it change them? Does it help or hinder them? Have they learned about new things because of a specific role, i.e. an actor acting as an astronaut – have they learned about space? This might perhaps be interesting to research into child actors as well. Since they're in a bubble surrounded by adults, is it daunting? Etc. Mainly though how specific roles have impacted their personal lives is my interest.

A modern trend as it would appear, in superhero films-especially those within the DC comic book universe, would be the darker, more realistic cinematic portrayal of the heroes themselves. This trend seemed to be pioneered by director Christopher Nolan in his critically acclaimed 'Dark Knight' trilogy which showcased the most critically installment of Batman thus far. This article could discuss these titles as such.

It can be argued that Romanticism has continued to persist past the 1800s and continued on one form or another. With this in mind, it would be interesting to see a comparison between Romanticism and Hippie culture. Is Hippie culture a continuation of Romanticism? What are the similarities and differences between these ideals? How does it show up in literature?

Sherlock Holmes has had many renditions, but BBC's Sherlock and CBS's Elementary came out about the same time. BBC's Sherlock takes the stance that Sherlock is a high functioning sociopath while CBS's Sherlock is a recovering addict. These renditions affect how other characters in the series were represented as well as how they interact with him. How do these differences compare to the books and do both versions show a strong representation of a version of Sherlock Holmes in their own right?

Analyze and discuss how j-horror is distinct from other genres of horror, particularly its defining characteristics and notable directors or narratives (i.e. What makes them notable, to you as a viewer and the overall field?) Discuss its historical and recent developments. Have there been any emergent prominent themes? Compare it to remakes.

The struggle with motivation and focus can be helped by habit. I'm a fan of two steps, which has worked well for me, although of course everybody's different.

1. Have some sort of master plan: an outline, a flowchart, a spreadsheet, a detailed synopsis, an index card for each scene, or whatever other organizational method works for you. Know the whole story before you begin writing; most novels that remain incomplete are that way because the writer started without knowing where he was going and how to get there. For a first novel, a plan is vital. Maybe you can write your second without one, but first you need to know you can finish a work that big.

2. Once your whole story is planned out, try the BIC method. That's your butt in chair for a set amount of time every day, minimum 30 minutes. (An hour or more is better. You want to write this novel or not?) During BIC time you have two options, and only two. You may write, or you may not write. You can't be online, have the TV on in the background, read or send texts or instant messages, play a computer game, do writing-related research, read what you've already written, adjust your outline, eat, smoke, or anything else. Write or don't, period. (Those who give themselves BIC of more than an hour can schedule a break if they must have one–but it doesn't count as part of the BIC time.) If others in the household might disturb you, you need to find a way to make that not happen, like doing it while they're at work or school, asleep, or take your BIC time at the library or a coffeehouse. Most days, you'll write. On the best days, you'll 'catch fire' and go beyond your assigned time, which is great. However, you can't amass credit. The next day, you still owe the same amount of BIC time as every other day.

Teaching yourself to write even when it doesn't come easily or you don't feel like it is part of the road to being a professional writer whose work other people pay to see.

Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Macbeth – these plays could be considered the "Holy Trinity" for Shakespeare in academia; these plays seem to be the ones that are introduced to students most often and at the earliest ages (with an occasional Othello or King Lear thrown into the mix).

Why are these three plays seemingly the most prevalent in English classes? Some of the more "obscure" Shakespeare plays are, arguably, just as good for both reading and teaching as the aforementioned ones. Consider Much Ado About Nothing, Twelfth Night, Coriolanus, or the history plays (Richard/Henry) and how they would fare as a student's first exposure to Shakespeare, as opposed to Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and Macbeth.

Recent animated shows airing mainly on The Disney Channel and Cartoon Network have established quite a large following among high school and college students. Why is this? Can it be said that recent cartoons initially targeted at children have taken on deeper meanings beyond young entertainment, while teaching some moral values along the way? With shows like Adventure Time, Steven Universe, Gravity Falls, and Over the Garden Wall attracting a more mature audience than probably anticipated, what does this reveal about the nature of these cartoons.

One of the biggest reasons why the most recent Beowulf movie (2007) was so disappointing to some viewers is because it deviated too much from the original text, mainly in regards to Grendel's mother and the circumstances of Beowulf's death.

Is it important for modern adaptations of medieval works in film to be true to the text? How much liberty can/should be taken with a text before it "goes too far" and loses the original flavor of the work? Does this liberty affect how people view the original text, and is this an important thing to consider when making such a film?

"A person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes."

I have no problem with this definition but it does raise a question.

Primarily, how important is it that the person believes themselves to be an expert vs actually being an expert in film?

From the little definitions of "snob" that I looked up, a common element is the superficiality of differences that the snob sees and looks downward at the person just because of the superficial difference that isn't an indicator of any intelligence.

One of the most interesting – at least to me – 'thematic explorations' in film is seeing works that depict a society in a state of profound, often radical change. Ozu was perhaps the very best at doing this. As Wim Wenders said:

"Ozu’s films again and again tell the same simple story, always of the same people and the same city: Tokyo. This chronicle, spanning nearly 40 years, depicts the transformaton of life in Japan. Ozu’s films deal with the slow deterioration of the Japanese family, and thereby with the deterioration of a national identity."

I can't think of any other Japanese director that examined the disintegration of the postwar family, and the country's sense of national identity with more profundity, depth and attention than Ozu.

Werner Herzog's Heart of Glass (Herz aus Glas (1976)) is also a fantastic film that looks into a small, isolated village being impacted by the effects of industrialisation.

Further, many Italian neorealist films did a remarkable job at looking into a society completely brutalised by war, and the consequences of a collapsed fascist regime.

Books like The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry or My Sweet Orange Tree by José Mauro de Vasconcelos.

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.

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.

'Mister Miracle' for instance.

I'd like to see kids required to read "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" by Barbara Ehrenreich. Not that it's great literature, although the writing is solid and quite easy to read, but because it shows underachievers what life may have in store for them if they continue to coast. The payday that seems perfectly adequate to a 17-year-old still living at home, s/he will learn, is just barely enough to allow a life of despair and doing-without. I read it several years ago, but I vividly recall her descriptions of the places she could afford to rent, what it was like being on her feet all day in cheap shoes, how she could not afford to see a doctor or repair her beater of a car, and what groceries were in her small budget.

Other Fiction: Great Expectations, Pride and Prejudice, Frankenstein, The House of Mirth, any or all of the Sherlockian Canon, Northanger Abbey, New Grub Street.First Love.

And Non Fiction: Over the Edge of the World, In Cold Blood