A friend suggested to me the other day that A Bug's Life was essentially a film about a Marxist revolution. I am not well-read in Marx but I can see some similarities, however, the grasshoppers didn't own any means of production – they merely used their power and threats of harm to force the ants to produce for them. I thought it was an interesting idea though – and thought it would be a cool idea to analyse the film through the lens of some classical social theory or liken it to a certain political/social structure.
With the advent of online streaming services, is the television platform nearing its end? If so, how much longer can the platform last? If this topic was picked, the writer could research evidence leading to the conclusion that TV will die out soon or if it still has many years left to go.
I think that is a very strong possibility. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
There's been speculation that this could happen--but only if there are not so many competitors for streaming. With Twitter and Facebook livestreams, each channel (and Disney) getting their "go" on, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Netflix completing with content, and so on, customers may be disgusted and just pirate, or have large groups to share the services. – IndiLeigh7 years ago
With the death of television I'm seeing an emergence of broadcast streams. The appeal of tv for the older generations was in part that they don't have to think about or choose what they're watching-- Just put on your favourite channel and sit down. Reruns are fine, and it's a god way to get introduced to movies they might have otherwise not given a chance. I can see specific tv channels turning into company hosted streams, perfect for mindless entertainment when you don't feel like paying attention. – Slaidey7 years ago
After Naruto ended, it didn't take long for a sequel- Boruto- to emerge from the woodwork. The manner in which Ukyo Kodachi and Mikio Ikemoto portray the women/girls in their creation is vastly different from Kishimoto stylistically; this can be seen in the way that they dress, the way they talk about boys, or just their behavior in general. Why the sudden need for the sexualization of young Kunoichi, and how does it differ from Kishimoto's method of expressing femininity throughout the Naruto franchise?
In a nutshell, sexting is very pernicious for all the teen generation regardless of their ages and natures. Once a guy tastes sexting, it becomes an open habit that the teens find hard to overcome. Keep your teens away from social media, dating websites and apps and especially keep strict eyes on the cell phone usage of your children by monitoring them through monitoring applications. – Nicki Marie7 years ago
I haven't watched Boruto and I'm still finishing Naruto but the whole way through Naruto I've found the representation of women terribly underwhelming and in most cases disturbing. It'd be a good article to draw in readers by making a comparison between the two. "What's different, what's not, and what should change?" – Slaidey7 years ago
Personally, i think they try to keep up with the current world trend, i suppose with the current world now thing are more open compared to previous generation. – Aaron38897 years ago
Compared to gay and lesbian teen fiction, sales of gay-themed books for younger children remain “very dicey and very different”. It has been proven that the majority of the LGBTQI people who have come out across social media have had an incline since their younger years. This topic is in no way advocating for strong gay-themes, but in line with the short film “In a Heartbeat”, themes of love and social acceptance should be made available to anyone who is questioning, without fear of prosecution.
That isn’t to say that there is no gay-themed literature circulating. A quick google search, across all ages, will list must-reads.
But there still persists a closeted mentality in revealing characters to be gay. It wasn’t until after the series had finished, that J.K. Rowling announced that Dumbledore was homosexual. Outside of mainstream literature, the only medium I have ever witnessed open homosexuality has been within comic books. Furthermore, many mythologies exhibit homosexual themes, and even consist of deities who were openly gay, or bisexual in nature. The very philosophers who have contributed to societies mainstream thinking, and understanding, partook in homosexual acts and love; Socrates, and Plato to name a few — and even wrote about gay love.
There are many factors that can answer why gay literature is still only mentioned quietly, even in today’s age many countries are still very conservative. But with the rise of opinionated millennial’s, who for our very credit ask why we must be a certain way, this stodgy mindset could change – in no small part to social media, and online influencers.
It’s time we brought more focus to these types of literature, and have them available for those in the community, or who may be questioning. But where do we start?
We start by writing some great fiction, and getting it self-published. If you know of any writers, or stories, message them below so that someone questioning or who is actively seeking gay-themed content, can connect with a character not usually seen in mainstream media. It's time this genre came out of the closet.
I think this is an important discussion to have. As even though there are a plethora of queer characters that are occurring in literature, if they are the protagonist in literature it is often only unspoken, or allegorically suggested, and if they are openly queer then the text as a whole gets sidelined into Queer Literature, rather than remaining as mainstream literature. I think this is a disservice to today's youth that do appear to be more open minded and accepting. As with feminist literature, it really is only through the immersion of queer protagonists in mainstream literature and television that significant changes will start to occur. – SaraiMW7 years ago
We see people refer to the need for more diverse characters, and of course it is important to hear from a broad range of people, who all have different backgrounds and opinions, but is it important that these characters are always linked to social justice? Every time we have an action story with a female lead like Mad Max: Fury Road, Atomic Blonde, Star Wars: The Force Awakens etc, it turns into a tirade about how this character is monumental and never been done before, and young women everywhere should look up to this characters because there aren't any other female action stars (despite everybody else saying the same thing).
This topic is not intended to question the validity of diverse character, but rather investigate the effects of social justice on these characters. Is this layer of social justice harmful to these characters? If we introduce these characters without strong political and moral lectures, will audiences be more likely to embrace these differences?
An example that could work as a starting point could be The Simpsons: The character of Smithers is homosexual, but he isn't a protected species like social justice would dictate. All facets of his character, including his sexuality, are made light of. A few years ago, The Simpsons was listed as the most influential show for homosexual representation and the breaking down of homosexual stigma. Is it possible that social justice is standing in the way of diversity? I think it would be very interesting to look at the effects of social justice on the advancement on diversity and how we should move forward with more diverse characters.
Thank you for this topic; I think there's a lot of mileage to be gotten out of it. You raise a valid point, and one I agree with. As a personal example, I have a physical disability. Therefore, I would like to see more people with disabilities represented in the media. But I *hate* it when characters with disabilities only exist to be "inspirations," or to promote social justice. In my view, we all exist to grow into ourselves, to find our purposes, and to be decent people. We're not meant to use each other just so one group can feel better about itself. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
I long for the day when characters are portrayed simply as people, regardless of whatever 'differences' they might have. A great idea for a topic. – Amyus7 years ago
Ideally a role should include both individuality and the person's interaction with society. To have a character without examining the individual's place in society would be an odd omission. Remember the show Remington Steele. It had a mystery to solve in each episode and a feminist arc back over each season back in the 80s. The show Campbell's today is a funny sitcom that shows interactions across race/gender/generations in a hilarious way today. I think the best characters on a show are a combination of the two aspects of a person, not to mention how a person is in one's family. Another example would be Big Bang Theory. Smart, successful people but struggling in love, life and legacies from their families. – Munjeera7 years ago
This is something I've always felt but never put into words. By over-emphasizing on social justice, we take away from the identity of a character. This is especially true whenever a lead is not a heterosexual white male. It's as if the character by itself is not interesting or strong enough to stand without the stigma to be PC. – superdilettante7 years ago
Master of None is a great combination of a person's life with some commentary on racism thrown in as would normally happen to a person of color. Bring It On is another movie that touches on a social justice theme but concludes in a surprising direction. Snowpiercer and Hell or High Water are two movies that portray the males leads in unusual ways. CSI had a coroner who had prosthetic limbs and he was portrayed without social justice themes throughout his tenure. There are successful movies and TV shows that do have diverse characters without social justice themes. The question here can be likened to if someone takes an example of a single character on TV who is not married, they are usually portrayed as searching for a partner. Can a single person ever be portrayed without the search for a significant other? The dating lives of single characters form the basis of so many characters on TV. Why can't single characters be portrayed as happily single and not dating? Because dating is a normal part of single life ad makes for fun TV viewing. Racism is a normal interaction in daily life and often forms the basis for a POC's life trajectory. Sobering but true. Also true is that it does make for interesting viewing. Whether that interest translates into actual action and effectively leads to change is another story. – Munjeera7 years ago
I completely agree Munjeera that racism and other forms of bigotry are part of daily life for some, and obviously that is a topic that is worth exploring; but I think it should be about maintaining balance. If you only show all members of a minority as victims, it sends a message to those people that they will forever be victims. It is like the handling of gay characters in Glee. Every gay character was a victim. They were always defined by their minority status and how society oppressed them. It then instills the notion in young (in this instance gay) people that they will never achieve anything because everyone is out to get them. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
Hi AGMacdonald,
Absolutely agree 100% that portrayals of diversity are trite with the idea that social change is not directed by individuals and their respective communities. But I don't think we should overestimate the influence of the media, rather we influence media. Media feeds our appetites not the other way around. Audiences are comfortable with the idea of diverse characters as victims or comedic targets rather than heroes or characters that have contributions to make. As for instilling in people, young and old, that these stereotypes are acceptable, people need to take responsibility for their viewing habits. I personally have made the decision to crtically examine entertainment for myself and my children and speak out against victimization roles. I do seek out forms of entertainments, plays and movies, that do offer nuanced and critical portrayals with complex characters. The more we support these types of high quality entertainment in its various forms, the more our responsible choices will have an impact on the entertainment industry. We need to stop enabling and blaming the media for their immature portrayals and start being mature and responsible in how we respond. Media will offer diverse characters with depth and nuance when we start demanding it. – Munjeera7 years ago
Absolutely agree. It's such a complicated issue, which is why it will make for a great article. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
For most avid manga-readers, there have been times when a joke has gone right over our heads, or it has seemed like a character is speaking repetitively. The main culprit of this is the way that Kanji resists interpretation. Research and analyze how Kanji's inability to be interpreted in a way that is universally accessible has affected art and pop culture as it relates to universal cultural understanding.
An excellent topic suggestion so you have my approval. As one who is presently learning Japanese I can certainly attest to how difficult Kanji can be to interpret, let alone translate (I use the term 'translate' advisedly). A small suggestion - it might also be worth noting that there are some young Japanese who have problems with interpreting Kanji. – Amyus7 years ago
this sounds terrific, there's a lot of phrases both serious and comedic that get muddied very easily by translation and shedding some light on some striking examples would be an interesting read for sure. – alliegardenia2 years ago
The medical drama "House," starring Greg Laurie, burst onto the scene several years ago with an engaging and intriguing premise. A true medical detective, Gregory House seeks the answers to dangerous physical and mental conundrums that threaten to steal his patients' lives. The show featured many rare diseases and fascinating patient stories, leading scores of viewers to tune in each week.
However, some of those viewers had a love-hate relationship with the hit series' main character. Gregory House is anything but your stereotypical friendly, warm, family practitioner. He doesn't care about his patients; he takes their cases because said cases are "interesting." A pit bull has better bedside manner than this man. House is also a drug addict and a consummate jerk to anyone he comes in contact with. He flaunts authority, breaks rules, and is perhaps unrealistically self-absorbed. His personality, or lack thereof, led some viewers to change the channel while others said things like, "If I'm sick, call Dr. House" (a once-popular saying on Facebook Flair).
With these two elements of the show in mind, consider how House–its premise and protagonist–has influenced our perceptions of medicine. Is House a realistic physician? Does he, or his show, prompt us to be more sympathetic and empathetic toward our doctors and other fellow humans? Does House make medicine look like a noble profession, or is he a medical Sherlock Holmes whose intelligence and curmudgeonly ways are used as gimmicks? For those who are loyal House fans, what kept them coming back for eight years?
I've never watched 'House' although it's notoriety is such that even I, stuck out in the boondocks that is the Midlands (UK), have heard of it and know what the series is about. Perhaps I should give it a go, especially as Hugh Laurie (not Greg) is an exceptionally fine actor and superb musician, as well as a great comic, writer, raconteur...etc. Well, you get a thumbs up from me for this great suggestion for a topic. – Amyus7 years ago
Why did I say Greg? Must've been thinking of the character and actor at the same time. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
I wouldn't be surprised if Doc Martin made house calls even to the Midlands (Amyus). Might be worthwhile considering his antics (or snide demeanor) for a more nuanced article (Stephanie). – LFreire7 years ago
I was a huge fan of the show for a good portion of my junior year of college, but once it was removed from Netflix and I didn't watch it anymore I began to realize just how unrealistic it was. It's a good show, but it certainly shouldn't be taken 100 percent seriously in terms of medical accuracy. – Sarah Bish7 years ago
True, and that's a legitimate concern with medical shows. We have reality versions now (like Untold Stories of the ER), but even those are scripted. I'd enjoy seeing whoever writes this, talk about the medical side of House as well as the characterization/drama side. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
Visual culture is the aspect of culture expressed in visual images. Visual culture includes but is not limited to advertising, buildings, photographs, movies, and apparel. Today tattoos are no longer considered a symbol of rebellion or subculture, but a form of self expression. We proudly adorn them on our skin for others to see. In recent years there have been fine art exhibitions that feature photographs of tattoos by famous tattoo artists. For example in 2015 the auction house Guernsey offered a collection of 1,500 images by some of the worlds foremost tattoo artists. But does the fine art community actually see tattoos as fine art, or decorations to permanently wear?
If the day comes that the million dollar paying critics accept tattoos as fine art the art industry will change drastically. Once tattoo artists become renown and their time to make work gets valued to the point of museum or major gallery level commissions, what will previously experienced collectors of art say or do? They can't collect tattoos, and their value depreciates over time as skin ages. How do tattoos break into the fine arts world with these limitations? Are images of tangible tattoos enough or will they always face some form of stigma? – Slaidey7 years ago
Cultural iconography is expressed through tattoos; from anime to tribal symmetry, the fact that an individual is able to create an expression of their identity of which is cultivated by their upbringing and society fits the definitions of what we are calling art. The issue is the canvas used, human skin. I have personally known individuals who's skill was originally cultivated through the root cause of their profession; a painter or visual artist, who became good enough to become a tattooist. They already think like, and behave like a painter who has made the choice to focus on tattooing as a means of ether, exploring a new medium, or a way to practice art while being able to pay the bills. If the art was instead done on a canvas there wouldn't be any difference in question. There is no way of owning an original, so as far as galleries are concerned, photography is the only way to create a "market" of sorts outside of the tattoo parlors themselves. I don't believe there to be an arbiter of taste, the event that is human expression does not depend on this or that critics opinion; it has been said that the writing on the bathroom wall is a more pure form of artistic expression than that of the person who creates with premeditated intent, especially when pecuniary gain is to had. On the other side of the issue, some go into tattooing due to the ease of "paint by numbers" techniques, the people who going to it with the mindset of making money and social status tend to produce lesser quality work than those who apply themselves due to their own passion for the art, this happens in all areas of expression. – LelandMarmon7 years ago
Why do fans pair characters together? With shows like "Once Upon A Time", where a multitude of fairy tale characters interact with one another, fans have developed a term called shipping. Shipping is the act of fans pairing two characters together in a romantic relationship, regardless of it happening in the show or not. Shipping can even reach past genres, with some fans pairing characters from two different shows. With so many ships that fans support, sometimes aggressively, it brings up the question as to why. What is the psychological reasoning behind wanting to pair characters together?
This is a fascinating phenomenon and a really curious question. Nice topic! – PMGH7 years ago
We recently published a relevant article: https://the-artifice.com/phantom-of-the-opera-shipping-fandom/ – Misagh7 years ago
While strolling through a Comic Con, people may notice big name artists adjacent to newer artist throughout the main racetrack, known as artist alley. The bigger name artists are protected by the company they work for. An example would be Jim Lee, currently working for DC comics. He can draw Batman and make prints to sell at these conventions without facing legal ramification. How does a newer artist trying to get to the level of Jim Lee, make art without facing copyright infringement or similar legal penalties? They need to get their name and brand established by making work, but if it is copyright protected how can they get away with making prints of it anyway?
This is a really interesting topic. Do copyright restrictions get in the way of artists being creative and channeling their talent? Does this mean that the quality of comics are decreasing due to artists fearing that accidental similarities could be deemed a copyright infringement? – Courtney7 years ago
Fan service has become a staple of modern Hollywood films, and while it's great to see the characters from previous iterations of your favourite franchises, it is also important to have fresh original ideas to go with them. The Force Awakens was criticised for doing this to much: for not just including characters and setting, but for reproducing complete story beats and plot devices. So, the question I would like to see explored is: How much is too much when it comes to fan service?
Fan service has always been ingrained in very legendary franchises. It may be best to look at other examples as well.
– BMartin437 years ago
Renoir claimed that he "painted with his pr*ck" and chastised his female models for appearing like they were "thinking too much." Picasso was a known womanizer, with multiple mistresses one after the other while actively avoiding divorcing his wife in order to prevent her from gaining half of his net worth. Rodin refused to marry his life-long mistress, hooked up with Camille Claudel who eventually went mad and was confined, destitute, to a sanitorium after her affair with him ended. Yet blockbuster exhibitions of these artists, such as the worldwide #Rodin100 exhibitions at over a dozen museums this year, continue to laud the genius of these "great men", without even a nod to their misogynistic personal histories. If men should be standing up and talking about how they will change in the wake of #MeToo, are there ways we should change in how we talk about the historical men who perpetrated abuse upon the women in their lives?
A really interesting topic. I suppose part of the issue is separating the myth from the truth also, because it is also important to consider the context of the period when even though artists often portrayed themselves as "free" they were heavily reliant on the support of their patrons, and ultra-masculinity was a trait that was accepted and admired, note that artists of the period that were tainted by the brush of being "homosexuals" were often less lauded publicly. However, that said a lot of this does not account for the ongoing reiteration of these men's misogynistic behaviours as either acceptable, or worse part of their their "genius". A complex discussion to have, but a worthy one to highlight this need to consider the social cost of lauding the unacceptable. – SaraiMW7 years ago
It could be argued that communication is the central component of human life. It is necessary for every function of society, and verbal communication is what sets us apart from other species on Earth. With advancements in technology, communication has become easier than ever before. A person on the other side of the world can be reached in an instant, with the click of a button. There are however complications with online communications. Implications of messages are sometimes misconceived; there is an absence of gestures, tones and human actions that help translate meaning. The response of social media is to introduce Emojis, which help to counter these absences.
The ease of online communication could be seen to discourage people from participating in real life human interaction. It could be argued that the emergence of online dating positively or negatively impacts romance. Voice your opinion on the matter and answer the question, "Does social media enhance or hinder our communication skills?".
Social media has allowed for people to form real life friendships with people they would have never met otherwise. Friendships with people with similar interests which I believe enhances communication skills. – amberhall8 years ago
Social media acts as another facet to communication and gives us a wider platform on communication, considering all positives and negatives. – Paris Williment8 years ago
I do believe that Social Media does have its place in society but many people are becoming addicted to social media and it is starting to affect relationships and work prospects. – Sazadore8 years ago
I acknowledge that there are negatives in communicating so easily and regularly on social media and it is that it can negatively impact our own social skills in everyday environments. However, I think it's important to see the benefits it has for people who lack the skills to communicate as easily as everyone else. People with anxiety, depression and other disorders benefit from it immensely as they can chat with people regularly online. It provides an environment safe and secure enough for them to not feel anxious, yet also provides them with the communication essential for healthy human development. It's a stepping stone for them. – Sidney8 years ago
In theory social media is great: A chance to meet interesting people from around the world and share ideas. In reality, it is being used as an Orwellian tool to stifle any kind of conversation (even down to unpopular opinions of books, film and TV); and because the whole thing is some faceless person on a computer, it's so easy to dehumanise people with different opinions so we don't feel bad when we publicly shame them, or get fired from their real life jobs. It's not particularly social. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
Social media can be toxic or beneficial depending on the way that it is utilized.If there is an excessive amount of use, it will definitely hinder our abilities to socialize in reality- causing us to lack the ability to communicate in reality or, perhaps, have a growing social anxiety. But there is the argument that individuals with anxiety and depression have found comfort in communicating online because there is less pressure without the face-to-face interaction. Again, it really depends on the circumstances. – Jay Dinh7 years ago
One of the best things about music is that there are so many genres, sub-genres, and artists to listen to. Whichever genres and artists you like, certain songs stick in your head and become favorites for many different reasons.
One reason a song can become a favorite is, the song tells a story. This concept goes all the way back to ancient ballads of nations like Ireland and Scotland, the Psalms of David, the oral traditions of Africa and Native America, etc. Since those ancient times, story-songs have developed into genre-specific phenomena. You can find a lot of them in country music, and Broadway musicals are built on them. Many religious songs, from hymns and spirituals to praise tunes, are taken directly from verses and stories found in holy books.
Examine the similarities and differences found in specific types and genres of story-songs. How do they work (how does a Broadway show tune tell a different story than, say, a country hit)? What does a song need in order to tell a good story–and conversely, what types of stories work best set to music? What are some of the best current and classic examples of the union between song and story?
You'd be strapped to find a gaming review that doesn't address grinding. Grinding is usually a process of gaining character experience, including repetitive tasks such as farming items or engaging in enemy battles. Over and over and over again – ad nauseam. In recent JRPGs, the concept of auto-battle has been introduced. In games such as Square Enix's Bravely Default and Atlus' Persona 4, the player is granted the ability to create an enemy-shattering battle strategy. This strategy, once plugged into the game's battle system, can be automated. No more memorizing moves or smashing X. The game plays itself.
By eliminating the need for grinding, does the inclusion of auto-battling present an upgrade for JRPGs? Or does automating battle systems cheapen the game and ultimately result in developer-condoned cheating?
Possible approach: Comparing and contrasting auto-battle in other games.
I think this topic will be particularly interesting to pursue considering the general focus on the story in JRPGs. Is it the case that JRPGs care more for story than they do for gameplay and does this affect whether we view Auto Battle as an upgrade? The option to Auto Battle in some entries in the Fire Emblem series seems particularly interesting, considering the series is notorious for its difficulty and strategy elements. – Lbrook47 years ago
Look into how using specific tropes can help a writer to make their characters more recognisable for their target audience. Discuss how tropes are often used in mainstream media in order to quickly assemble a cast of characters and how playing with peoples expectations of tropes makes for engaging storytelling
Website http://www.seofreetips.net/blog
Business Email [email protected]
About Me:- I am Internet marketer, blogger and social media expert I share my knowledge about SEO at seofreetips.net Ask me any question related to SEO, Link Building and Online Money making.
FB Profile: - https://www.facebook.com/seo457
Twitter:- https://twitter.com/nekrajb1
Google Plus https://plus.google.com/+NekrajBhartiyaBoss
Intagram https://instagram.com/nekrajB
Wordpress https://bloggingtoolreview.wordpress.com/
Tumblr http://seofreetips.tumblr.com/
Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVGxDRvKsxhwptSqQ8ALPbQ
Pinterest https://pinterest.com/nekrajbhartiya
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/nekraj-bhartiya-74a4b7112/
– seofreetips7 years ago
What causes people to buy certain books, is it the author, the title or the book cover? Publishing houses aim to sell books and in doing that they are conscious of what is on the book cover. From the font of the title and authors name and any pictures that represent what the book is about, the publishers arrange all of this so that the cover will catch the eye of a potential buyer. So, do people focus more on how the cover looks or are they more interested in the actual story of the book?
On Goodreads, I occasionally come across readers who buy a book because of how gorgeous the cover is - and they later find out it's just a bad story in a pretty wrapping. (I myself have been guilty of this, which now makes me wary of buying a book based solely on its cover.) But I do think the author's name is a big factor; if you've read a good series/standalone by a certain author, you're more likely to purchase their newest publication, perhaps without even looking at the new story's synopsis because it's expected the newest venture will be just as well-written or funny or action-packed as the last one. Even if it's a flop or not as great, copies will still sell solely based on the success attached to the author's name. For example, I know people who bought J.K Rowling's "The Casual Vacancy" simply because of her name on the cover, even though they were warned it was nothing like Harry Potter and they inevitably hated or gave up reading it. – Karen7 years ago
Good topic. So good that a really interesting book of scholarly essays has already been compiled on the subject. It's worth checking out if you're interested in paratextuality of this kind: Judging a Book by its Cover: Fans, Publishers, Designers, and the Marketing of Fiction (2007), ed. Nicole Matthews & Nickianne Moody. – ProtoCanon7 years ago
Obviously people are going to judge a book by its cover. We shouldn't, but it happens all the time. Covers are designed to grab our attention with the most marketable facets of the book. The only real way to combat a bad cover is good buzz circulating around the book community. – AGMacdonald7 years ago
Nice topic. We all can't help but judge a book by its cover occasionally. A good cover and title grabs our attention it makes us pick it up and read the description. I've noticed that I am more likely to buy or check out a book with a cover I like, but only if the story sounds interesting to me. I still pick up books even if I'm not a fan of the cover. – TooBusyReading7 years ago
This is a really interesting concept. In my study of black female street lit (sub genre of crime fiction), I noticed some interesting tensions between the cover of the novels - which were often hyper-sexualised , bold colour and graphic images - and the content of the books, which were much more nuanced and complex. This relationship, and the context of these books readerships - which are generally young black females, was really interesting to consider. Looking at specific examples of authors, genre and readerships would be really interesting to develop this concept! Thanks for bringing this up – izsy7 years ago
It's quite true, we certainly do judge books by their covers, and sometimes they can be so misleading. You might be interested in am essay called 'The Clothing Of Books' by Jhumpa Lahiri. She speaks about her experiences with books covers, both good and bad. – Ferix7 years ago
When I buy print copies, content and cover are equally determining factors. If the cover doesn't fit my tastes, I usually go for the cheaper e-book version. I have never bought a book solely because it looked nice, though. Definitely an interesting topic. – captom7 years ago
Magazines also try to entice potential readership with tantalising misleading covers. Book covers, with many now reverting to simple monochrome with just the title and author’s name, played an important part in attracting me to science fiction adventure fantasy stories. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan5 years ago
The women in Faulkner's novels are volatile characters (as most characters in his books are), but in a different way. The women are often stronger, more brusque, and generally independent, traits that the men in the novel wish they had. Specifically looking at The Sound and the Fury and As I Lay Dying, how do the women appear more "masculine" than the men they interact with? How does their masculinity positively and negatively affect their relationships with others?
1. Please, define "stronger," "brusque," and "independent." Examples will be greatly appreciated. – T. Palomino2 years ago
2. Please, elaborate the following: "traits that the men in the novel wish they had." Do these men actually say that or is it implied? Or is it something you, as a reader, perceive? – T. Palomino2 years ago
3. Please explain the following: "Women in Faulkner's novels are volatile characters, but in a different way." Different from what? From men? – T. Palomino2 years ago
Whatever happened to the good ole' bank job? A small team of dedicated villains who cased the job, drew up meticulous plans and (sometimes) got away with the loot. These days we are used to seeing technological spectaculars with the villains often touting hardware and computer systems equal to, or even superior to, that of the Police. The Bank Heist has been a popular movie theme since the days of silent film making, but times move on and so do the brains and specs behind the operation. 'Bonny and Clyde' (1967) showed the simple, violent approach to robbing a bank; 'The Italian Job' (1969) had a more lighthearted spin and instantly made the Mini car into an icon. In more recent years we've had 'The Bank Heist' (2011) a Canadian comedy and the Las Vegas-style showmanship of 'Now You See Me' (2013), whilst the British films 'The Bank Job' (2008) and 'The Hatton Garden Job' (2016) both harked back to old school techniques. Of course the list is endless and these are just a few examples. Explore the evolution of the bank heist and not just in terms of the advance in technology over the years, but also look at the characters involved, what their motivations are and why we, the international viewing public, retain a fascination for such villainy. It's not always about the money!
For this, I define "fandom" as the content – the book, show, movie, etc. – well-loved by fans. But some fans say their fandom has been ruined by other fans. Whether a fandom can be ruined for a fan is, of course, subjective; it's more interesting to consider why the fans say the fandom is ruined for them, how it's even possible, and what fans can do about it. Examples may include H.P. Lovecraft's books and, more recently, Rick and Morty.
I would suggest a few more examples of how some fans can be considered to ruin fandom for other fans. What might be viewed as enthusiasm by some fans might equally be considered obsession by others - such as Star Trek fans who love their shows so much that they buy Star Trek pyjamas; and how far can fandom go before it becomes idol worship. All fans are 'guilty' of overdoing it in other fans' eyes or conversely failing to take their fandom seriously. You're right when you state that it is subjective. I'd also suggest looking at how some fans who don't have the money to buy official merchandise can be very creative in making their own props and costumes. An example of this would be the incredible costumes made by some Dr.Who fans in Latin America (where the show is titled 'Doctor Mysterio') who did so simply because they had no ready access to official merchandise. – Amyus7 years ago
Interesting topic. I ran into this as recently as last night when the second episode of Once Upon a Time season 7 aired. Fans are already griping and moaning about the writers' decision regarding Hook (won't spoil it if you haven't seen it). Reading all that griping had me bummed because I thought, "They've got a point; this could be the death knell for my favorite series." But then I thought, that's stupid. I still love the series, and in cases like this, what matters is what I think. Then again, being a fan isn't as fun if a bunch of other fans are dissing your show, your movies, your books...whatever. I'll be interested to read about these and other thought processes, and the conclusions different fans of different media come to. – Stephanie M.7 years ago
I think you should use a more formal definition of the term fandom or even give a few definitions. It will help someone writing this topic really get a grasp of what you are trying to ask here. Also, I think if you do write this topic you should consider writing about things that are similar and not so broad. For example, writing about H.P. Lovecraft and J.R.R. Tolkeins. Or comparing Rick and Morty, Adventure Time and The Regular Show. It will help you keep focused and it could be neat to see if any of the fandoms overlap for similar shows or similar genres. – IAmToast7 years ago
Here's what I'm thinking: Fan A and Fan B watch Rick and Morty. Fan A throws a riot in a McDonald's because of the show. Fan B says that the show is now "ruined" for him, and gives Fan A as a reason. That's an example; I may not have a clear definition, but the definition doesn't matter. The author who takes the topic can use whatever terms they want. – noahspud7 years ago