How the view of women inside books changed. For example, in earliest writing of fiction and plays women would be portrayed as being delicate. In some of mythology they were seen as items and prizes for the heroes. In some stories they are seen as enchantresses that lure men into danger. How did they transition from that to books with characters like Anne Shirley ?
This would be a good topic, and there's certainly a lot to be explored. You could analyze only American literature, British literature, or whatever and analyze how the views have changed across history along with decisions that have happened pertaining to culture and society. – Nayr12309 years ago
This topic is incredibly interesting, but it is also extremely broad. Perhaps it might be easier to take a couple character traits and shown how authors have ran with ideas that exemplified those traits? How has society made room for redefining what the roles of a women should be? Lastly, it could be worth looking into how the roles of women has changed in just two consecutive decades? – lgonsiorek9 years ago
I don't immediately see this topic as a good one. Women have to be generally objected, categorized and potentially dehumanized to reflect on the view of women in all of books. The generalizations that would have to be made would be terrible patronizing. If you carve out "perceptions of women in Norse mythology" or "portrayal of the woman's role in classic British literature" would help to focus the topic. – Piper CJ9 years ago
The main problem your generalized draft question hints at is how women characters were written BY men for most of history. I think narrowing your focus to considering the range of female characters women authors write could also open up some interesting discussions. The problem is that it's assumed that in ancient/early modern writing women were mere sexualised items however that view is problematic by how some Greek authors (see Lysistrata by Aristophanes) were already playing with those roles and creating strong female characters. And sadly today things aren't drastically better in how tv and many books still don't have strong female characters or lead roles. Perhaps it's worth investigating the instances they are given faithful representation and the type of stories that demote them to objects (masculine, pursuits of greed etc.) – JamieMadden9 years ago
This is a huge topic to cover- could you maybe narrow it down a little bit? It would really be interesting, but there is just so much to it that it couldn't be done justice in a single article. Maybe choose a few books, or an era of books to cover. – LilyaRider9 years ago
way too vague, not a good topic. – Richard Marcil9 years ago
This topic is extremely vague and difficult to cover as you are basically asking someone to explore all genres of literature form inception to contemporary times, i.e. Beowulf, or Gawain and the Green Knight, to let's say The Girl on the Train. It's too difficult and the way in which women are portrayed is intertwined with the social mores in which the stories are written. That, in fact would be an interesting topic. To look at it more from a sociological aspects--the expectations of the female heroine, and those that were thought to contradict the prototypical idealized female. – danielle5779 years ago
I think there are may writers who can write, but what makes a good writer? Its not just correct grammar and use of good words / sentences. Its more about connecting the reader to write-up isn't it? To really convey his or her message to the reader that can touch one's heart! That psychological aspect in the writing! That feel in the writing that can connect the reader with everything it can!
What makes a writer/author "good" is also subjective. Some people might find an author amazing and others will be less thrilled with their work. It might also be worthwhile to discuss the books people consider "classics" like Charles Dickens' or Jane Eyre novels. What makes them classic and who decides? – S.A. Takacs9 years ago
A "good" writer is like any other artist. Art usually provokes a reaction. Just as beauty evokes a feeling of joy and humility, art will generate a response. Not always positive and not always appreciated in its era. I think this could be an effective article if the writer focuses on touching readers' hearts. What do readers care about? It's like writing a musical piece. You compose and hope people enjoy it and get it. – Munjeera9 years ago
Some necessaries for a good writer: lateral thinking, a clear conscience, the realization that no one is objective. "Remember when you're out there trying to heal the sick that you must always first forgive them." – Tigey9 years ago
Ironically, I attempted to broach a sort of similar topic, but was asked--and for good reason--to define the term "good." I did not want to use the word "good," but I also did not want readers to become fixated on just the technical aspects of writing, which can be taught. Writing is a subjective experience. How many times have you stated, "I love that book!," to someone else responding, "I just didn't get what all the hype was about." Many times, books that "speak to us," are due to our personal journeys in life. Lastly, let's not forget the greatest writers who were told that they weren't any good, or were rejected countless times!!! – danielle5779 years ago
I think this topic will spark many subjective answers, but my perspective on this topic is that a "good" writer must be able to communicate their ideas to an audience. There are examples in literature where authors ignore existing grammar rules or traditional conventions, but because their ideas reflect themselves and their community, the work becomes useful and valid for representing a set of ideas. For example, much of Beat literature is pretty much unreadable from a grammatical perspective, but its influence on American youth and counterculture is undeniable. So if I was to further clarify your topic question, I would ask: how can an author ensure their work communicates to an audience and what steps can they take to better reflect their perspective of the world around them? Some potential answers to that question in relation to your original query might include suggestions for how the writer can immerse themselves in a community ("No man is an island"), write in the language of the community, and use that community as the writer's target audience. I think answering the "how-to" part of that question will help get to the psychological aspect you are referring to in your topic question. – Kevin9 years ago
If you were looking for a purely psychological view point I would source Rebecca Sax and her ted talk "How we read each others minds" in which she talks about how authors use psychology to relate to other people. The RTPJ portion of the brain is responsible for making moral judgements and thusly is used to determine what someone is thinking and if it is justified. As writers the question "What are they thinking?" Is essential to the craft and so we must use this part of our brains incredibly often. It would be interesting to see if that particular section of the brain is larger in artists, such as writers, than average people. – ReidaBookman8 years ago
As we all know, satire is an extremely power tool of communication, capable of exposing fraud and reaching the masses. People such as Voltaire and Jonathan Swift have written infamous satirical essays that are still read today. What modern equivalents do we have of these superstars? In what instances has humor clearly pushed an agenda? One may think of John Stewart and his work with 9/11 first responders.
Whenever I think of Voltaire, I think of a purported incident in which he submitted a bill to legislature joking that people should have to shut their blinds during the day so candle and lamp makers wouldn't have to fight the sun for competition, which was great commentary against industrial greed. More generally, though, this is a good topic to discuss. My first go-to celebrities would be Tina Fey and Amy Pohler. Their interviews and actual discussions tend to be more direct than their shows, but both 30 Rock and Parks and Recreation had distinct socio-political overtones. Fey's character Liz Lemon was an outspoken feminist and eco-critic, while Pohley's Leslie Knope highlighted the issues with contemporary government that tends to slow down or stonewall progressive change. One important aspect to consider here is that in days past, these major writers were among the only artists (as in, people involved in any art, writing, plays, music, etc) to really pay attention to, whereas now we have far more celebrities than any one person can pay attention to. Moreover, art, especially literature, was reserved for the upper class, as they were the only people both literate and able to afford to read, since mass publication didn't exist, but today, anyone can access any range of art and media for little to no money. In discussing the impact of modern equivalents, we should also keep in mind the amount of people talking and who, in fact, is listening. – Kevin9 years ago
I think the real effects of humor are that it helps the war on so much disinformation. Satire promotes the ability to think critically in a palatable form. Munjeera – Munjeera9 years ago
Great topic. I remember reading an article that said irony was dead after September 11. Thankfully that is incorrect. – Tigey9 years ago
I have had this question in my head for years, but I've never had a space to ask it. When writing a narrative, how important is it to recognize one's own positionality? When I say this term, I mean one's social makeup and characteristics — As a white, cishet, middle-class man, does it really makes sense for you to try and write about the struggles of a Latinx transwoman from impoverished rural Oaxaca? Research aside, can you really embody someone whose experience is established by their otherness?
This is a heady question, and the above paragraph may not be clear. Essentially, how can you know the experience of someone who has known the world differently because of their positionality as a marginalized or oppressed person? Is it really possible to understand someone's lived experience based on research or testimonials? And if it is possible, should we do it?
I find this topic fascinating. I think whoever would write this article may find useful information for this by focusing on how epistemology plays a role within the positionally of the author. (It seems implicit within the questions you are asking here.) – Matt Sautman8 years ago
This sounds heavily like the theory of auteurship. In other words, does author matter? This has been discussed time and time again, however, it's still debated today. This leads me to believe this article would still have value being written. Try to take a new, interesting angle at this topic. How you will do that, I don't know. Good Luck.
-Brad – Brad Hagen8 years ago
This is a really interesting question. I think historically, we've seen a lot of stories of the struggles of minorities framed through the eyes of a majority person. A great example of this is "A Secret Life of Bees." Lily, the main character is patently white, and expounding on her experience as a white person infiltrating the society of black people. It's a great way to frame and tell a story but it's problematic, as well. You run the risk of using the majority person, such as Lily, to justify the experience as note-worthy. Which is all to say, this is a great topic to delve into and there are a lot of angles you can come from. – PennyL8 years ago
Something else that can be addressed within this topic is the universality of human experience--that is, while we all don't have the same particular experiences, we all experience love, friendship, betrayal, uncertainty, joy, birth and death, in our own unique. Thus, though you don't share someone's specific race, gender, social position, etc., you still can enter into their experience through the emotions and experiences we share based on our shared human nature. – Allie Dawson8 years ago
This is also a question that I've been mulling over for quite some time. Even though most writers can try to empathize and place themselves into people's lives which are much different from theirs, I still don't think they can fully capture their experiences. Can you really describe how it feels like to fear for your life in occasions due to being queer? Can you really write about how it's like to low-income, starving on the streets? Truthfully I think sometimes we give writers too much credit. There are examples of writers who completely miss the mark on creating authentic characters that are from marginalized groups. – seouljustice8 years ago
What's the difference between a parallel and alternate universe? Are these important differences? Can these two terms be interchanged?
For this, you're going to need to consider a few things. First and foremost, what is the core difference? I'd say an alternate universe is a universe similar to the main one, only with one or two key differences. Whereas a parallel universe is one with all the same players, but just different events altogether occurring. Consider the Marvel Comics Universe. The 616 universe is the core reality, and there are numerous alternate and parallel realities. Something like Marvel Zombies, where there is one key event that changes everything, would be an alternate universe. On the other hand, the Ultimate Universe is totally different with completely different components and the like...but has all the core players from the main universe Ergo, parallel universe. Also consider remakes and film reboots. Genre remakes especially. Movies like the Halloween series has a surprisingly fragmented continuity by design. The first two films are core canon, but 4-6 are in an alternate universe to 7-8, with the core difference being Laurie Strode's survival and legacy. Whereas Rob Zombie's remake series is a parallel reality with nothing in common with the core films. And don't even get me started on the films with Batman. Or James Bond, even. Or...oh God...Godzilla. – agramugl8 years ago
I'd say that alternate is recognizably the same universe, while parallel is not. Alternate universes typically have generally the same general set-up as our own world, but differentiated recently in the timeline. I see this the most in DC comics: In "The Flash" CW show, there are alternate Earths with similar versions of each character (the same happen in Doctor Who, I think?). They have the same actor, but differ in personality, etc. due to some difference in their history. However, each Earth has integral events such as the particle-accelerator explosion that happen regardless of what Earth it is. This is explored more in "Crisis on Two Earths" (great DC animated movie, if you like that sort of thing) where Owlman discusses how each new Earth is created when a choice is made differently. Like, there's an Earth where Lex Luthor is good (one might call him an ALTERNATE version), one where life didn't happen at all, etc. [This concept seems to be universally geocentric throughout DC media, but whatever]. Contrastingly, Stephen King's "The Dark Tower" series mainly takes place in a world completely unrecognizable to our own, that runs 'parallel' to our own. Therefore, I'd call it a parallel world, based on its interaction and seeming disconnection to our world. [Maybe it will be revealed to be the future, but I'm not far into the series yet, ha.] A world that can't possibly be a variation of our own (a world where magic is real, the Dune universe with its melange, etc.) would typically be defined as parallel. These are just my interpretations, but I think they hold true throughout most media. The author of every work reserves the right to use the terms them interchangeably, or use one term solely. I have yet to encounter a work that uses both terms to mean a separate thing, but let me know if you find one (that would be a very interesting story!). – m-cubed8 years ago
Is there still a role for Devil's Advocacy in the age of social media trolls? Adopting a contrary position for the sake of debate has its origins in the Catholic Church and has become institutionalized in it's use in refining academic writing as an "opposing view" or antithesis. But as social media trolling begins to have real-world consequences, from violence to criminal investigations, should we retire the Devil's Advocate role once and for all? Or is there an affirmative role for a new kind of digital demon?
I kind of see what point you have, but I think you need to be a bit more specific. Do you have a specific instance that shows how devil's advocacy has "real-world consequences" that could support this argument well?
– Suman8 years ago
I think an additional consideration for whoever writes this could also be how to handle trolls/Devil's Advocates in an academically sound and ethical matter in order to avoid whatever "real world consequences" you are referring to – Kevin8 years ago
I like the essence of this topic, but it seems too willing to dismiss the value of playing devil's advocate in an abstractly general sense simply because a very specific type of devil's advocate is exhausting its value. In other words, the topic seems too willing to dismiss the concept of contrarianism because there are people who misuse it. Suppose, hypothetically, that we got rid of all devil's advocates, what would happen then? Would people be prohibited from making opposing claims and arguments? – IsidoreIsou8 years ago
I think whoever writes this should be specific about *Where* they see these devil's advocates. As, echoing what Kevin said, the internet troll started out as a form of devil's advocacy but has since become something else. (There is a good PBS idea channel video about this topic). If we're talking about real life discussion though, there's potential for a useful form of this rousing. – Mariel8 years ago
For writers who enjoy the challenge of writing flash or microfiction. Why do you enjoy it? Which format do you prefer? Hemingway's six-word stories? 100 word stories? Flash fiction format?
This is a very interesting and relevant topic to fictional writing, but I think I would steer away from questions that would prompt the writer to write in the first person such as "Why do you enjoy it?" because it may give the article a strong "blog" vibe. – Opaline8 years ago
I like this topic but I'm not sure that it has enough of a focus. Rather than writing generally about flash and microfiction, perhaps you could limit the topic to the rise of flash and microfiction in the literary scene or its ability to influence media due to its condensed capacity and a growing impatience for longer works due to the rise of social media. – luciahmiller8 years ago
I agree with luciahmiller; this is an interesting topic since flash fiction is growing within the writing commuinty, but I think it would be more focused, like luciahmiller says, if you focus on a specific part about flash fiction. – seouljustice8 years ago
Many of the old "classic" writers chose to write all their work by hand first and then type, if typing was available at all. Has the use of the computer and typing improved writers ability to perform their craft? Do writers today who choose to write long hand have an advantage?
Typing definitely reduces the amount of time spent for writing. However, some writers who choose to write longhand do so because it's their work habit. I think writing longhand helps them spot errors more because looking at a screen might be more difficult for some writers. – seouljustice8 years ago
The act of writing with an instrument in hand infuses one's heart and soul into the work. It is like a tear sliding down the cheek: you feel it. Typing is more like work - just getting it on the page. Forming letters, words, and phrases in ink from a perfectly proportioned pen with the color that fits the mood allows the writer to bleed out on the page. No keyboard can replicate the bond that ink from the hand creates.
– ajforrester758 years ago
The writer might also look into the way the brain works when handwriting versus typing. Handwriting is more engaging than typing. You can cross out words and write small notes to yourself as you go along. There are ways to do that in a word document; however, it really isn't the same. – krae298 years ago
It may be individual. For example, when I write with a pen, it makes me feel kind of secure. Not just because, unlike with computers, I’m sure my writing will not be accidentally erased or deleted but also because it gives this unexplainable feeling of close friendship with pen & paper) It’s the kind of feeling you have if you prefer printed books over e-books. It also makes my piece feel more real, for some reason. Writing longhand is time-consuming, it’s true. But for someone like me, it reduces anxiety, which is more important to me (if only I don’t feel the deadline’s breath against my back – then the anxiety is inevitable, anyway :)). So, I usually write my stuff down and then put my headphones on with some Aretha playing and start typing it on my computer almost automatically – weirdly enough, I enjoy typing as a separate activity which I cannot properly combine with the writing process that requires concentration deeper than one I have when just typing comments or messages.
Plus, papers with handwriting gain even sentimental value through the years.
I suppose, I’m a bit old-fashioned and embarrassingly not ‘technology-fluent’ as for a millennial (first time calling myself this way)). I guess, the perfect option for me would be a typing machine – a vague compromise between velocity and cosiness. Unfortunately, I would still have to either type it once more on my computer or use some damn good scanner and a bunch of software tools to convert images into text so I could put my work on the net and have it mobile. So, objectively, it’s most beneficial to do it all A to Z on the computer, but, from an individual point of view, writing with one’s hand has some personal advantages. The evolution of technology has played a crucial role here, but the evolution of people in the context of their readiness or refusal to accept those changes is what really should be examined.
– funkyfay8 years ago
