There is an entire field dedicated to the study of place-based literature (spatial studies) and it is interdisciplinary, but there is less discussion about the draw of particular places for writers. Why do certain writers choose the places they set their stories in? This could be extrapolated out into the examination of how secondary world fantasy and science-fiction draw on mimetic qualities of our real world, or it could be a closer examination of why an author chooses to set their narrative in New York instead of Las Vegas.
There are already a number of authors who have written in the same places, drawing from locales that have personal meaning. It would be interesting to look at the decisions they made around returning to particular settings. For example, Coco Mellows uses New York in both her novels, but in the second also draws on London where she lived for a time. But other authors use locations they have never lived, but perhaps have an affinity with. It would be interesting to explore, from a writer's perspective rather than a theorist's perspective, how writers choose the places that resonate in and across their works.
In certain writing circles, SubStack and Ghost are popular ways of getting writers' work into a email newsletter format. These sites promise that the writer's rights remain with them, and, supposedly, revenue can be made through these sites. Ghost in particular sells itself as being a place where a writer can build up their brand. Furthermore, places like Royal Road and Wattpad are places where writers can post their work as web novels, which then might be picked up by a publisher. These places may accept donations on the writer's profile so that they can make money from their craft.
The topic taker should research the following things for this topic:
Does writing a web novel or posting writing on a subscription service affect the writer's process?
Is this way of allowing writing to be placed out into the world good or bad–for example, does creating a web novel cause the writer to burn out?
Are places like these sites using writer's aspirations for free revenue on their behalf? In other words, are these sites promising something like notoriety or a path to publishing that they cannot keep?
Finally, does writing for sites like these mean that the publishing industry might be going through a change, or, are sites like these a new way of gatekeeping making money off of writing/getting work published?
The topic taker can also talk about problems within traditional publishing and the toll it may take on a writer and their psychology or process of writing if they wish as well.
Add some descriptions to the links for the writers. – Sunni Rashad6 months ago
The first link is to Royal Road, a place that posts up web novels, and typically markets lit-RPGs. Writers can take donations for their writing, but, they have to get noticed first. The second link is to Substack, a subscription based service that writers can use to build a email newsletter platform. They claim that you can make decent money off of this system. The third link is to a site debunking the Substack claim of making money from their platform on their writing. This site claims that Substack pays a certain amount of writers enough money to live on to make Substack look profitable. The fourth link is to Ghost, which claims to help writers build a base/brand for their writing, though, like Substack, you can monetize subscriptions and possibly make money from with enough of an audience willing to pay. – Siothrún6 months ago
A study of this new way of getting one's works out to the public would be very interesting indeed. Just the question on the writing process could be explored with depth. Two major shifts I can perceive, compared with traditional publishing. Firstly, the writer is self-publishing, not dependent on being accepted by a publisher. This seems to be the democratisation of publishing. Secondly, the writing process now incorporates instant feedback from readers, at each stage or instalment of the writing, unlike in the past, when authors only get to know critics and public opinions after their works have been launched by a publisher, after the time lapse from the actual writing process. Would this constant feedback from public opinion beneficial to the author? Should the author obey their own artistic vision or popular demands? – Lydia Gore-Jones5 months ago
Love triangles are often associated with romantic fiction, but are also common in other genres like young adult, fantasy, or speculative fiction. A love triangle usually involves a female protagonist being pulled between two male love interests, but can be gender-inverted or use LGBTQ examples.
This trope is popular among many readers, but just as many claim to hate love triangles. Detractors say the trope is overused, with players often too attractive or otherwise perfect to be believed, and surrounding situations that are contrived if not outright cliche.
Using some of your favorite–and perhaps least favorite–examples of love triangles, discuss what sets some apart from others. What does it take to write a love triangle well? What are some common mistakes authors make when writing this trope? Why and how can a badly written love triangle still have legions of fans? Has the trope evolved in any significant way, and if so, what new versions and expectations should authors be aware of?
I'd also potentially really look at how this is done in LGBTQ+ works, and consider examining what makes that structure different from other written love triangles, if there is any difference at all. – Siothrún7 months ago
In addition to the exploration of LGBTQ love triangles, another interesting angle would include polyamorous relationships that develop through this trope. In literature, YA novel "Iron Widow" by Xiran Jay Zhao could be examined as an example. – Emma6 months ago
Superman is a hero routinely derided as one-note. A good boyscout who is always by the books. For this topic the writer should look into the myriad supermen.
Mainly focused on characters such as Man of Steel Superman, One Punch Man's Saitama, and Watchman's Dr. Manhattan.
Shared between these characters is a distinct sense of alienation. Not just from their friends but from the people they protect as "heroes"
Understanding the origins of each of their alienations and possibly comparing them to "evil" over powered characters such as Plutonian (Irredeemable), Homelander (The Boys) and Omni-Man (Invincible)
What elements make for a character's alienation that wouldn't lead into their collapse into villainy?
See also Ultraman from DC Comics' "alternate universe" stories: he's literally Superman with slight alterations in his backstory that made him a villain instead of a hero. Perhaps compare to mutants in X-men as well. Apocalypse and Magneto have superiority complexes pushing them to try to take over the world, similar to Omni-Man and some of the other evil Supermen. Professor X, on the other hand, is just as powerful but does not share that philosophy. – noahspud2 years ago
Umm i think thats a bit too broadening. Marvel has a bunch of direct Superman analogues such as Blue Marvel, Hyperion, and Sentry. Bringing in Prof X and Magneto and Apocalypse is a bit off topic. – Sunni Ago2 years ago
I enjoy how Lex Luther and Superman understand each other as being two sides of the same coin, in much the same way that Doomsday Superman can't -- being being an identical polar opposite they are literally two side of that coin in strength, etc and so can only annihilate and not triumph over the other. This is ultimately unsatisfying. Lex Luther adds the dimension of an unfortunate childhood, family, daily pressures and a superior mind which Superman can relate to though never condone. – anthonyzed2 years ago
I think this would be particularly interesting if one touchd upon Arthur Miller's essay on Tragedy and the Common Man. This kinf of alienation (being larger than life, greater good, not strictly 'human' but more than human) is exactly what Miller speaks about - and why this kind of heroism might be losing its appeal because it's not relatable to the 'Common Man'. – Janhabi Mukherjee1 year ago
Within the fiction writing community and especially on social media outlets like Tumblr, there is a particular type of writing that draws a subset of writers. This writing type is called "whump." Broadly defined, "whump" happens when one character gets hurt, physically, emotionally, or otherwise, and must receive care from another character, or conversely, endure the trauma alone.
Whump can take many forms and be as innocent or graphic as the writer wants, although most writers will post trigger or content warnings if they intend to go into certain details. Graphic or not though, many writers confine their enjoyment to whump communities for fear of being misjudged as sadists, masochists, or otherwise unstable. Others write whump to the exclusion of other types or scenes, which may raise questions about their growth in the craft of writing.
Examine the many reasons why fiction writers love whump. Are they all looking for catharsis for their own trauma? Are some of them caretakers who enjoy seeing characters rescued and nursed to health? Why do you think these writers get judged for liking and creating whump content, whereas a whump reader is less likely to be judged for reading a violent or horror novel? Are there some forms of whump that take the concept too far? And perhaps most importantly, what does this type of writing offer to the fiction community, that no other writing does?
This is an interesting topic because it’s partly just wondering why people like what they like. Of course, it goes deeper than that as I suppose it could with any genre, where naturally like-minded people may flock towards the same plot devices, tropes, structures, etc. I guess someone's opinions on whump diverge from their opinions on other genres (horror, for example) because of its very specific qualities. So, anyone could have an opinion on horror, but someone who has a strong opinion on whump must have a reason for it. The ‘taboo’ around its subject matter sets this trope apart from others like fluff or smut. Between the community where it primarily exists and its content matter, there could be any combination of factors that leaves it open to criticism: 1) It’s an impactful, condensed and sometimes painful (again, how much the writer wants to get into it) piece of writing that exists solely to convey those emotions. Rather than a drama in the form of a novel that might contain similar themes, all that would be spread out is jam-packed into sometimes only a couple hundred words.
2) It isn’t a commercially popular genre, at least not that I’ve seen. Which means that, ignoring the obvious highs and lows in terms of attention and effort, these aren’t always professionally-treated stories. Which means, that for better or worse, people might be writing about traumatic events they haven’t researched or experienced to then properly depict.
and 3) It’s not the masses who are reading these stories—unless it’s the type of genre to come under pressure publicly only for everyone to secretly open up their favourite social media site to then read fervently—which means that a lot of people probably don’t know what it really is. And this can be seen with so many things right before something sends them over into the mainstream. So while a horror novel and a whump fic might be pretty equally-footed in terms of mature subject matter, it is infinitely easier to criticize a genre that revolves around obscenity or violence (even to cathartic means) rather than a genre that encompasses much more. It’s also interesting, the point you raise about people questioning people’s ability to write because they choose to write whump. Much like the speculations about why people like to read whump, I like to think that most writers write what they write because that’s what they enjoy writing. And if a horror writer writes horror because he has never felt the warmth of a woman’s touch and couldn’t possibly fathom a contemporary romance, I don’t think that should reflect (negatively or positively) on the genre or the writer. And finally, while I’m not sure I could agree with any statement that tries to prove there’s a genre out there that could be so completely unique in its ability to bring certain things to the table, I do think that whump is really good at dealing with a rawness in human (or human-like) emotion. Of course there are the sometimes exceedingly graphic depictions of pain and various forms of mutilation, but even then, as long as we’re discussing writing as it brings out the best in a genre, I think it inspires creative description and real emotion in terms of connection or isolation. – Zak1 year ago
A common point of difference in commentary on literary craft is the role of tools: the pens, the paper, the word processors, and other ephemera through which writing actually happens. Some authors, such as Neil Gaiman, famously write in beautiful notebooks with beautiful pens, while others take the opposite approach. Natalie Goldberg, for instance, has written of her preference for a fast-writing cheap pen and an inexpensive notebook, on the basis that such tools put little pressure on the author to produce perfect work.
While it seems reasonable that personal preference plays an important role, how can aspiring writers think more critically about their choice of creative implements? Of the resources at our disposal, which are likely to support the creative process, and under what conditions? Conversely, under what conditions might we consider a writing practice to be ill-resourced, and what are the telltale symptoms of such a situation?
The same consideration could be applied to the entire material environment and its consequent impact on the writer's experience. For instance, compare Henry David Thoreau, who wrote in a small cabin in the woods with a fountain pen, to modern digital nomads writing on their laptops in the coffee shops they found in their way. – ivan1 year ago
Newspapers, though changed and challenged by the digital age, still offer a unique platform for community exchange and cultural expression. However, most larger newspapers only actively solicit letters to the editor from their readers—not poetry, art, short stories, or photography.
Are newspapers missing an opportunity to regularly engage in these art forms, or are these art forms meant only for specialized publications and magazines?
Furthermore, if more poetry were added to newspapers, how would it extend or shift cultural conversations? Does poetry invite a dialogue or merely distort facts with feeling? Does poetry belong in a “factual” space? And, finally, on a practical level, how might a newspaper regularly engage with poetry, for the benefit of itself and its readers?
This is an amazing topic! And a very topical one as well. I think putting poetry into newspapers would be a quiet but powerful step in giving people the chance to re-explore verse beyond a classroom setting. It is startling to see how far poetry has faded into the background of our world today. Often, it seems like people see poetry as a complicated, puzzling realm of writing that they can't simply read without much poetic expereince. But poetry is the roots of our written words--the foundation of where story and song found their home in our earliest ages. In a way, poetry is a cornerstone of our shared human culture--and incorperating it into the public press might be a subtle but potent reminder of this. It might help people see that poetry doesn't belong to any one group of readers, that anybody can enjoy a poem whether they are familiar with it or not. I also think it's a nice idea to have a small snippet of abstract beauty fixed between a dense forrest of headlines. – mmclaughlin1022 years ago
Very eloquently said, @mmclaughlin102. I especially like your point about poetry being woven into our cultural fabric as the foundation of story and song. When reading your note, I kept thinking of a phrase, “to democratize poetry”: that is, to widen the voice, participation, and understanding of poetry. If poetry is seen as being only for specialized audiences, newspapers could have a role in widening its audience and accessibility (to re-democratize it, if you will). Thought provoking. – KatieM2 years ago
In the Victorian era, many writers believed that writers and poets would replace religion and the church. While I do not think poetry will have that much power in a modern context, I believe that poetry has the potential to be highly useful in a medium such as newspapers. Poetry has the ability to invite dialogue about certain topics that are relevant today, such as colonialism in Kipling's "The White Man's Burden". As others have noted, there is this air of complexity around poetry and I strongly believe that by having poetry in the newspapers, more people will gain exposure to this style of writing and be more comfortable around it. Poetry has the ability to tell stories of personal experiences, and important historical events and encourage conversation about relevant modern topics. Without a doubt, I believe that poetry deserves a place in newspapers. – ethan2 years ago
Explore how common racial stereotypes have inhibited character archetypes for characters of color. For example, Asian women have been stereotyped as hypersexual in Western media, so many Asian writers have avoided this characterization for their Asian characters in order to defy stereotypes. However, this creates a stigma where Asian female characters are not allowed to be sexual without inadvertently fitting a Western stereotype. Is purposefully writing characters that don't fit stereotypes really progressive, or is it simply another case of racists controlling the narratives that POC can write?
More specific examples: -hyper-sexualization of Black characters – "comedic" de-sexualization of Asian male characters – Indigenous people as "shamans"
Stereotypes do limit the roles of characters, however, you don't need to center their stories on how Western media portrays them. Steer away from viewing them as objects and only catering to the male gaze. – shivzd001 year ago
