The evil twin is, at first glance, a predictable trope where pure villainy is set against the heroism of the central protagonist. Evil is subsequently only something that is external to our hero. But is this all there is? Does having an evil twin make the hero confront another side to himself? What does it mean for the viewer to see someone who looks exactly like the hero we know behave in a completely different manner? Does it make us reevaluate his behaviour, think about what circumstances could make him turn to the dark side? Or is this all negated by the disappearance or death of the evil twin and a swift return to the status quo?
This is a very valid exercise in self-judgment or sizing up of strangers. In a personal sense, evaluating the inherent goodness or bothersome evilness can be cathartic in times of peril or doubt. In dealing with others, it can be a make or break relationship that start productive or end disastrously. Seeing this dynamic in action through the twin phenomena can be insightful for the viewer, and probably transformative for the director as well. I think there is a good reason this narrative exists, it really serves a useful purpose in finding the root cause of positive or negative personalities or situations. Movies and television are littered with the story line, contact me to discuss. – lofreire7 years ago
Interesting topic and questions. I tend to think the evil twin trope is tired and clichéd--if it's played completely straight. However, I like it when heroes are forced to confront "shadow" versions of themselves. For example, I once wrote a character whose nemesis embodied what her worst traits would have been, had she not possessed the morality and inner strength to control her own weaknesses. I think confronting that is a lot more powerful than confronting an evil twin, because it's actually scarier. If a hero has an evil twin, then yes he or she can just say, "Oh, that's the evil me. I don't want it, I have to kill it, I killed it, so let's go back to how things were." But if a hero is confronted with another, unrelated person, the stakes are different. Example: an intellectually gifted but loner hero confronted with an equally intelligent person who uses his or her brain to hurt and alienate others. In that situation, the hero has to confront, "That *could* be me. I can relate to and sympathize with that, so how do I approach and cope with this person?" – Stephanie M.7 years ago
The basic emergence of this cliched trend harkens back to the very existence of matter and antimatter in this universe. Interesting topic. – Vishnu Unnithan7 years ago
It can certainly be used as a lazy trope, undoubtedly; however, it also harks back to the doppelganger concept, which would be an interesting addition to exploring this theme. – JudyPeters7 years ago
Daria was a TV show that ran for 5 seasons from 1997 – 2001. It explores the life of a teenage girl who is a sarcastic realist in a world where her family life and school life are decentralized from her values and morals.
Given the recent rise of political correctness, how important is it for a person to stand for their beliefs even when they are unpopular? An look into the life of the fictional character Daria – Who is she and what does she stand for?
I'm not familiar with Daria, although I've heard a lot about her (should investigate). Love the topic. :) In writing it, be sure to:
(A) Define "political correctness"
(B) Compare/contrast what beliefs are acceptable or unacceptable, and why. How has that evolved? (Example: in the 1950s and '60s, what we now call "liberal" beliefs were highly unpopular for many. But as liberalism and conservatism have evolved, so have our stances on them).
(C) Compare/contrast other characters with Daria. Even if their beliefs aren't obvious, what do they seem to be? How do the characters stand up for what they believe--or don't they? If not, why not? – Stephanie M.7 years ago
Looks so interesting. I'm not familiar with the show either but I find this topic potentially very stimulating and topical. – JulieCMillay7 years ago
The TV show modern family appears to be a dramatised portrayal of a dysfunctional family. The show although, appears to focus a great deal on the need for adaptation to the various changes in social constructs especially in relation to family dynamics. Does modern family replicate the struggles that people come across today? How are we reacting to these rapid changes? Is modern family able to indeed create a parallel between TV and Reality?
Sci-Fi television has seen its fanbase grow immensely over the past decade. Many shows such as Doctor Who and Supernatural have an intense cult following on the Internet, which has only existed since the advent of Tumblr. Now, these same fans are flocking to old shows like Firefly and fueling their obsessions through binge-watching. How have the same Sci-Fi shows had different effects on viewers depending on whether they grew up watching them weekly or discovered them for the first time as an adult (or teenager)? And how has the Internet and social media influenced a new generation of Sci-Fi lovers?
As a young viewer, the entrenched messages and the profoundness of the story line I believe tends to hold a subdued stance. An adult may find more practical value in the artistry, the potential, and the timelessness of the substance behind the entire production. An interesting point, hope to read it soon. – lofreire7 years ago
I find this topic interesting and worthy of investigation, but I'm unclear on how exactly one can go about evaluating the central question. The way I see it, there are really only two options: anecdotal evidence (which makes for a weak argument) or conducting extensive research interviews (which is, quite frankly, too much work for a typical Artifice-level article). If there is a third route, I'd be happy to be proven wrong; I just think it would just be a shame to see this good topic wasted in the event that the prospective author should choose the former. – ProtoCanon7 years ago
Interesting topic. I think there's definitely scope to look at if and why the timing of when you are exposed to something might have a more pronounced effect in the science fiction genre than in other genres. I suppose it might be something to do with the degree of foreign-ness of the subject matter. For example, I might have a different/more difficult time trying to get a friend to watch old star trek episodes with me, than i would trying to get the same friend to watch Gilmore Girls with me. If I grew up with both and loved both, but she did not grow up with either, I wonder if and why one may be more accessible than the other for my friend as an adult. I would be curious to see what kind of research there is out there on this in terms of genres and the effect of growing up with shows from particular genres such as science fiction, as opposed to finding them later in life. It's an interesting topic, I look forward to seeing what happens with it! – HRadford7 years ago
*Orange is the New Black* released its latest season this month, and it struck me the way the program continues one trend — to humanize and rationalize the criminality of the inmates. Like Piper, who is written as a hapless entrant to the Litchfield Pen., it seems as if each inmate is offered a flashback account of poverty, racism, LGBTQ bigotry, and bad luck that result in incarceration. In this season, explicitly focused on the inhuman treatment of the inmates and the dehumanizing treatment of Poussey's death, this narrative choice is especially potent. Yet, there's also the occasional lapse in the narrative — like when instead of killing and dismembering a hitman-guard an inmate enslaves another or dreams of eating human flesh. How effective is the humanizing narrative in this season and cumulatively in *OITNB*? Is the narrative goal for viewers to understand the prison system to be horrid, in part because the inmates are mostly undeserving of incarceration?
I too found the message to also be a little inconsistent. Were they still trying to be sympathetic? Were their terrible actions on (mostly) innocent people justifiable in the writer's eyes? (especially considering how many of the inmates never cared about Poussey) Still, it was refreshing to see a darker, more complex OitNB. The series was starting to get cartoonish. Every inmate was a victim of circumstance (even if they did something terrible it was always somebody else's fault), while every guard and person outside the prison were villains. It just added a level of realism that when these people were put in charge of the prison, they were no better (amd in a lot of cases worse) than the guards they hated (it might also be a good idea to use the Stanford Prison Experiment as a parallel). – AGMacdonald7 years ago
American Gods, Battlestar Galactica, Xena. People's fascination with gods seems to have shifted from worship to a kind of character archetype. Are "gods" essentially malleable symbols open to interpretation, or is it fundamentally incorrect to draw a line connecting pop fiction gods with their cultural basis?
Potential here to expand the subject to include comics (the Wicked the Divine), games (God of War franchise), film (Bruce Almighty, Dogma, Gods of Egypt).
Fascinating topic. One thing I'd suggest for the prospective author to consider is difference in representation between the pantheistic "gods" of antiquated mythologies vs. the monotheistic Judeo-Christian "God" who has remained the cornerstone of much of the world's contemporary theology. Despite all deriving from similar religious foundations, there's a clear distinction between Chris Hemsworth portraying Thor (whom few, if any, people still hold sacred) and Morgan Freeman playing Yahweh (which, quite literally, breaks a Commandment that many people still consider blasphemous). How do the authors/filmmakers approach these two classes of gods differently, and does the latter adhere to the same archetypal logic as the former? – ProtoCanon7 years ago
The comparison of superheroes to Gods may serve the purpose of this article well, both in comparing and conceptualizing superhuman deities with supernatural powers. Superheroes such as Batman, Superman, or Spiderman, have become symbols of the potential within all humanity for greatness. – iRideChallenges7 years ago
Perhaps the issue boils down to a laziness, limitation, blockage in the English language and American culture with regard to the concept of godliness. What is a god, anyway? Immortal, all-powerful, divine...the words usually hark back to our religious heritage. Those who maintain and value that religious heritage are understandably pained by callous use of the term, perhaps because of the confusion it engenders. Those who do not feel a connection to a religious heritage might express their ignorance, but also a concerning anger or rebellion towards it by careless use.
The term "superhero" has wide appeal perhaps because it does not trample on belief, but moves in a different, fantastical and immensely interesting direction. According to an article in the New York Daily News, the term superhero was first used in 1917, long before Marvel and DC came into being. It's a tremendously useful 100-year-old word. Maybe it's time for another even more descriptive word. After all, we have made some progress in that length of time, haven't we? – CLHale7 years ago
Analyze what makes The Great Gatsby such an enduring piece of literature — the 1920s was long ago, as is its culture, and yet we continue to read the book and see pieces of ourselves in the characters. What is it about the writing, the scenario, or the characters that continue relentlessly, beat on, boats against the current?
I think it might be useful/helpful to think about if any core themes of the novel still resonate with readers today. I would argue that despite the many changes have occurred in America in the past 90 years, there are still fundamental themes and ideas at the center of Gatsby that remain core/essential to the American experience today.
Also, the writing is immensely beautiful. – SeanGadus8 years ago
I think the 'tickle in the fancy' with the Gatsby is that we can all relate to the images that emanate from the rituals of the not-so-common part of society. If we were to look more closely, even the lower strata of society would have its own version of the 'Ghetto ' Gatsby and that's what I feel draws the reader (or the viewer) into the appealing characters, happenstance, and yearning for abundance in generous times. Shakespearean drama took place even earlier than the 1920s; yet, the plays cry out to our past failures, future hopes in ways that seem more contemporary than distant. I guess, Mario Puzo is the best analogy I can give to the effect that Gatsby has on the unsuspecting reader, the discerning writer, and the public at large; through his Godfather saga. – lofreire7 years ago
Selfies, self promotion and social media. A common trait in all three? Self-aggrandisment or is it determination? As our perceptions change and our way of promoting ourselves alter is it fair to judge someone for posting a shameless selfie, or for constantly posting paid ads on their feed? Are they merely showing off their good looks or are they making a name for themselves? We are seeing more and more models become famous through Instagram photos rather than their actual modelling work. Have we as a generation squashed the notion of egotism or is it all that we know?
Which came first the chicken or the egg? Is social media ballooning our narcissism or the other way around? I saw a hilarious interaction the other day. I was at a tourist site and a young parent asked her 7 year old to take a picture of her, the mom. I could not help but smile. It was the first time in my life I have seen a child take a picture of a mom. But I want to make sure that as I share this story that I do so without judging the mom. It was just a funny exchange of roles. – Munjeera7 years ago
This sounds like a cool topic! But in my opinion, even if selfies are becoming practical tools for furthering your success, like a shallow form of a resume, they are ultimately serving a goal that is largely Ego-driven-- your own personal success, which in our competitive culture is something that is done at the expense of other people for only your personal gain. – Calnamni7 years ago
I would suggest that egotism is, in some sense, a habit, and that whatever ends we may be engaging in egoistic activities for are largely irrelevant. Perhaps you only post selfies or engage in self-promotion to further your online presence and advance a career, and perhaps you are able to maintain enough detachment from said activities to keep yourself from being overly self-focused. That said, I imagine most would be unable to do so, and the mere habit of focusing on your own image/personal brand leads to increasingly narcissistic tendencies. – Ben Woollard7 years ago
