Topics

For decades, audiences have witnessed pieces of text translated into film adaptations, such as Dracula, Murder on the Orient Express, etc. Writer participation within the film making is usually nonexistent or very minimal, which is found to be strange considering they are the ones who have created the story, characters, etc. Literature translating to film will most likely continue but should the writer be more involved within film making?

The recent Disney / Pixar film Turning Red has been widely celebrated not only for being enjoyable, but for showcasing a touching and realistic portrayal of teenage girlhood, with all its joys and sorrows. However, it also sparked an immediate negative response from a wide variety of critics saying they felt the intended audience was "too narrow" or "not relatable enough."

Women and racialized people have had to watch films intended for white men for as long as the medium has existed, and still enjoy movies without being the exact target audience. What is it about movies intended for other audiences that make otherwise enjoyable movies, such as the delightful Turning Red, so uncomfortable for the white male audience?

There seems to be a current fascination by streaming platforms and TV networks with the idea of creating a mini-series based around recent historical events. These flashy productions range from exploring Elizabeth Holmes' meteoric rise and fall from grace, the strange and shady business practices behind the business wework, and of course, the shocking true story of Anna Delvey, who scammed her way into the upper echelon of American pop culture. What is it about these topics that is making streaming platforms so excited? Is it as cynical as simply wanting to make a quick buck out of flashy, recognizable content with A list talent? Or, is there something deeper? A cultural fascination with being able to voyeur over the 1% and their public scandals?

superhero comics can be very hard to break into because they have years of (often convoluted) continuity that people feel they need to understand in order to fully engage with the comics. Why do comics insist on linking connecting everything into a confusing mass of continuity, and how can we make it easier for new and potential readers?

When the first season of Stranger Things was released in 2016, one of the strongest appeals of the show was its tight focus on its small group of characters and one major setting. Each subsequent season of Stranger Things has expanded the number of characters and settings in significant ways. With this in mind, has the overall narrative of Stranger Things gotten too big to fully develop and explore its characters in the same way that Season One did? The upcoming season four looks to have at least three different character groups in different settings including the town of Hawkins, a city in California, and a prison camp in Russia. An article could explore or trace which settings and characters are added to each season, and if they were properly utilized in the story/narrative.

Short stories form the backbone of almost any literature and creative writing class, either because students read or write them. Either way, they are analyzed–sometimes to the point of death, but we hope today's literature students and teachers are moving past such tendencies.

Of the myriad of short stories that exist, classic and contemporary, what are some that should belong in any canon? In particular, discuss contemporary stories or collections not getting attention right now, that should be. To go along with this, what are some universal themes, character traits, or tropes that make a short story "work" better than it would if it were written in longer form? Do some topics or themes lend themselves better to short form, and why?

Can authors and auteurs play with the past without perpetuating ignorance and false narratives within our history. Take the lack of political stance in Marie Antoinette (2005) for example and the films dismissal of Marie's involvement in the French Revolution.

Many times in television, TV shows air way past their expiry date. That is to say, it got old, it got ridiculous, and it's still airing. Other times, genuinely good shows have been cancelled despite a good following. Sometimes, a show is cancelled after several seasons, perhaps due to lack of ideas and not wanting to 'milk the cow' so to speak. Other times, a show is done to death regardless. This article should explore why. Explore what makes both happen. WHat are the network's incentives to keep a show running? Do ideas have anything to do with it, is it what they believe audiences want? An agenda? All three? When, ideally, should be the time to cancel a show or keep it going.

Seinfeld was a trailblazing show when it came to new wave comedy. Elaine Benes consistently sticks out as a reinvention of the "typical" woman throughout the show because she is extremely strong, sex positive and self aware for the time. She primarily spends her time with Jerry, George and Kramer, the men of the show, but she is consistently depicted as an equal, both in the comedic sense as well as their day to day lives. How did this depiction of an everyday woman set the scene for more characters to be written like this? Do you think her character suited the show and did its due diligence to women in the US? What could have been done differently?

Something valuable about a writer is their ability to tell complex, unique stories, some of which involve horrific plots, traumatic events, etc. Is there ever a point when writing an experience an author does not know becomes insensitive, doing that experience injustice? For example, take the book Little Bee. A white man wrote about a Black girl immigrating to England all on her own. The story was beautifully told, but was it his to tell? How does one define what makes it okay and what doesn't? If he told the story accurately enough, in terms of the experience of being an immigrant, is it okay? Or does the fact that he is a white man automatically make the story less valuable, as it did not come from someone who knows the experience? On the other hand, many authors include smaller, less important plot points, such as a parents’ divorce, or a death in the family. If the author has never experienced those things, does the story feel less genuine? Does the emotion seem dull? Does it do that experience justice? Does a lack of experience make a story worse or insensitive? Consider where these limitations may lie, if any. Many authors do face backlash for writing about topics they have no experience with, but is that also not one of the most important parts of writing- to explore the unfamiliar?

Why is it that Marvel and other action-based franchises such as DC tend to ascribe at least one distinct social cause to each film? Is it a return to the overly simplistic style of prescriptive storytelling that was popularised in fairytales? Films such as Captain Marvel or series like the Falcon and the Winter soldier directly focus on social issues that are in current discourse (broadly feminism and anti-war sentiments). Though there seems to be more focus upon grey areas between the black and white, good guy bad guy format that originated in the comic series there is still very little complexity given to such large issues. Is it important for films such as Black Panther, which has had a great impact on the Black Lives Matter movement and provided much needed diversity in representation, to be released? Or are they simplifying complex issues, fitting them into a three act structure that has the potential for sequels, to market them to a specific demographic? Though both sides can easily be argued, it remains important to consider how prescriptive binary morality of good and bad can affect social movements, especially when displayed in films that have an immense global reach.

'The Wiggles' are an Australian children's music group that was formed in 1991. Around 1997 they sold a self financed show to Disney Channel Australia and became a hit. They broke into the USA market in 1998 with successful airing of their show and touring. In 2017 they signed a deal with NBC Universal to be available to 58 million American households. To say they are doing well is an understatement. But why, and how, did a children's band win a national poll?

Triple J Hottest 100 has been around in different forms since 1988. In 2022 2.5million votes had been submitted for the selection of this years selection. The selection of music is limited to favourite Australian and alternative music of the previous year. The tipping lead was actual Kid Laroi and Justin Beiber's collaboration. Although largely a popularity vote it is still considered a great honour to be selected onto the top 100 list.

So again, why is a children's TV show even in the running? For whatever reason The Wiggles were invited to perform on Triple J in 'Like A Version,' which is for a band to cover in their own style another's work. The Wiggles covered Tame Impala's 2012 song Elephant while also infusing it with a chorus from their song Fruit Salad. That is the song that won.

What happened? Well two main thoughts are: it is nostalgia or it was a joke. Both of these are interesting to pursue at a deeper level.

If this is about nostalgia is this a response to the pandemic life of the last few years? A reach backwards to a simpler time and a happier world? What is it about nostalgia that drives a response stronger than any other factor? Is there a rise in nostalgia driven popular culture due to the pandemic? I'm not actually sure there has been. Instead most of the discussion about nostalgia was happening five years ago around the endless remake and reboot of film and TV.

If it is not nostalgia is it a joke? What is it about Australian culture that drives the desire to use humour in every place? A recent TV show that actively challenges concepts around Indigenous rights and Settlement, 'Firebite', uses humour to tackle colonisation. Is humour then more important in Australian popular culture than any other approach? Is this the defining characteristic of Australian popular culture.

It is interesting to note how certain genres or styles are inexplicably linked to specific eras in history. For example, fantasy video games, movies, shows or franchises such as the Witcher, Game of Thrones, and others are often stylized to reflect Medieval era.
In the same way, the Steampunk aesthetic is rooted in Victorian England pieces.
It would be an interesting analysis to explore how Medieval literature such as the Canterbury Tales, Troilus and Criseida, Sir Gawin and the Green Knight and others held fantasy elements in their foundation which laid the groundwork for it becoming a framework for modern fantasy works.
In the same way, the steampunk elements pulled from the Victorian Era can be analyzed in context of the boom of the industrial revolution.
What was the path to these connections of era and aesthetic? Where were its modern origins? And what is it about these historical movements in society and literature that made them withstand modernization while preserving these core elements?

The love triangle is a well established trope. The most common version is for three people to connected through love, decisions and actions that will determine a final pairing of two. There are many versions and alternatives of these tropes, but they are all largely beloved by readers and viewers. What is it about the love triangle that is so appealing? Is it that it provides a voyeuristic pleasure of imagining yourself in the position of the desiree? To be so desired and pursued by not one but two people? Is it just that the level of anticipation is increased as now there are multiple ways to introduce sexual tension in their interactions? Is it simply that it makes good character foils to highlight the protagonist's own qualities?

In fandom the obsession with "shipping" couples is a huge driving point for fan-fiction. Whether it is about the impending wars or the impending threesome, it is also about the distinction of choice. Should Carrie have ended up with Aiden? Should Buffy have just had a threesome with Spike and Angel (the comic series in fact implies she'd have been down with that)? Even beyond the main characters there is a lot of repositioning of characters to end up with others. This has also occurred to great affect in better representations of the LGBTQIA community by showing a variety of love options. But again, why do we get so engaged as fans in these love triangles, and with wanting our preferred match to occur?

Love is an universal theme. It is a vital ingredient, whether we are talking romantic or platonic. But viewers love complicated love. Why can't love be honest and straight forward? Well obviously that would make less of an interesting story for many shows. But is this representation of complicated love healthy? Are love triangles real things? Why is it normalised that it is okay to string along two perfectly decent people because you can't make a decision or have an honest conversation?

The love triangle – an interesting topic to break apart.

To consider certain qualities like sexuality in a protagonist as being off limits just because you're not in the community is a restrictive mindset but a very real reality for some creators. For instance, Toshimichi Mori, a video game creator, is just one example of someone who nearly placed a gay couple at the forefront of their work but changed their mind at the last second out of fear of backlash.

Allison Burnett is another example of this, but one where he wrote a gay protagonist, anyway: as a straight man, he was afraid to let anyone know about his heterosexuality out of fear of criticism because of his novel Christopher about a gay man. "Burnett’s editor was under the impression that he was working with an important, new gay writer from the get-go. Burnett was advised by his agency not to correct him. For the better part of a year, Burnett 'hid in the straight closet' and let audiences invent their own image of him in their minds." ((link) This hesitance is unfortunate in the sense that it promotes gatekeeping. You don't need to be a part of a minority to spread awareness about it or represent it in a story.

As long as the straight writer is self-aware and respectful, there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to write LGBT characters. Rainbow Rowell is a perfect example of a successful woman who's written about gay men while also being married to a man.

Fantasy worlds, especially in a post-Tolkien setting, have tended to be peopled by many of the same types of beings: elves and dwarves, humans and orcs, giants and halflings. Many of these races, however, are reflective of real-world stereotyping at best and racism at worst. While of course most contemporary authors presumably do not mean to emphasize these negative associations and are merely utilizing shorthand inherent of the fantasy genre, the historical context of some of these races (especially evil or primitive races) still lingers. Steps have been taken by some, such as the publisher Wizards of the Coast, to challenge established norms of fantasy races and their characterizations. Nevertheless, the majority of fantasy still adheres to these popular tropes.

But is an author in 2022 who includes an unfavorable caricature-turned fantasy race in their story responsible for its negative history? Are contemporary vampires, who are largely praised for the wide variety of lifestyles and peoples they can represent in fiction, meant to be equated with Rowling's goblins, who are often criticized as being an anti-Semitic stereotype? Are we far enough removed from Tolkien and his fantasy archetypes so entrenched in the fantasy genre that they have left their racially-charged roots behind? Is it useful to keep reverting to using monolithic races such as elves, dwarves, and orcs as literary shorthand for character traits? Or do new races which are not monolithic needed to keep fantasy from stagnating? Is that even possible?

In short, what are the advantages and disadvantages to continuing to use established fantasy races in the genre?

"Lady Mechanika" is an independent comic book written by Joe Benitez, telling the story of a woman having lost all her memories. More importantly, she doesn't remember what happened to her as a child, as she'd been the victim of horrific experiments that have left her deeply scarred. Her limbs (arms and legs) were replaced by prosthetic limbs made of metal and her eyes have turned red, with the sclera now black.

The main character is shrouded in mystery, which is one of the main themes of "Lady Mechanika". The identity crisis she's going through shoves challenges and obstacles in her quest of finding out the truth about her past, although it raises questions that shouldn't be ignored: is it that important to find out about your past, despite it being horrific enough to blow your mind, while you could just rebuild your life and move forward?

Shouldn't it be better for the main character to rid herself of the shackles of the past and look forward to the future?

It would be interesting to confront these questions in regard to the main character, who is so focused on her quest for identity throughout her adventures in the world created by Joe Benitez that it might seem borderline obsessive. While she has every right to find out the truth about her past and why she's been mutilated, going through such ordeal could also be seen as torment or being a glutton for pain.

In the world of movie musicals and musical episodes of TV shows, characters process their emotions and make decisions through song-and-dance numbers. The protagonists of these stories often seem to have an uncanny ability to influence people around them and make them break into song and dance.

In Encanto, Mirabelle's gift seems to be making her family sing about their feelings, especially when they don't want to talk about them: she makes Luisa admit she's nervous about the Pressure, she gets the whole family to sing about Bruno, etc.
In the High School Musical series, Troy Bolton turns a basketball practice into a song-and-dance number because he can't stop thinking about musical theatre. Then he convinces all of his friends to work at a country club even though it's hard.

In The Greatest Showman, P.T. Barnum uses the power of song-and-dance to turn his group of social outcasts into the greatest show on Earth and to convince Zac Efron's character to join his team.

If the songs are diegetic (the characters are aware they are singing and dancing), they are conscious choices by the characters, so they can be considered part of the characters' development. If the songs are non-diegetic (only the audience is aware of what's happening), they are mainly plot devices.

Other examples include Zooey's Extraordinary Playlist, The Flash/Supergirl crossover "Duet," and The Magicians' annual musical episodes.

Analyze the narrative impact of these characters and their musical influence. Does this phenomenon work better as character development, a plot device, or a combination of both?

Many well-known female authors have published their works under male-presenting or gender-neutral pennames; Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot), The Brontë Sisters, J.K. Rowling. In the male-dominated world of literature, it was a way to have their works heard. In more recent times, however, we are seeing an increase in men publishing under neutral or female-presenting names. Todd Ritter, who published "Final Girls" under the name Riley Sager, Dean Koontz who published as Deanna Dwyer, Ian Blair as Emma Blair, and so on. There have been arguments that these are to create a neutral approach to the story, or to simply distance the author's personal life from their work. However, many people have expressed dissatisfaction with this, saying that men's voices are already dominant, and it's not right for men to take up more space by publishing under a female pseudonym.

This topic asks: is it alright for an author to disguise or misrepresent their gender in their name? Does that thought apply only to men writing under female names? And if it is determined to be acceptable, does that effect similar discussions around ethnicity and heritage?

Discuss the context and content of the popular show Euphoria, most widely watched by adolescents. Consider its graphic depictions of sex, drugs, and self-harm. Many of the actors on the show have issued trigger warnings. Does the show romanticize self-harm, drug use, etc? With it's music-video esque film style, does it glorify these issues? Or does it normalize them in a way that makes viewers feel less alone?