Filtering by
This trans-disciplinary thesis questions how theories of generification are useful in clarifying misunderstood literature and the role of similar, f¬¬ormulaic narratives in literary business. It attempts to answer the question through four parts: defining generification and related business marketing topics; a literary case study centering on Frankenstein; a second case study on the poem “The Road Not Taken”; and, an application of the demonstrated ideas to Young Adult (YA) publishing trends of 2005-2015. The first section concludes that the presence of a formula, created through the theories of heroic journeys and archetypes, lends itself to generification in literary marketing as publishing houses attempt to find the next virally successful narrative. The first case study, focused on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, establishes the existence of generification throughout the work’s life, attributing the generification to her characterization of both Doctor and Creature as antiheroes, a purposeful overlap leading to centuries of misinterpretation. The second case study centers around Robert Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken”, concluding that in this situation generification greatly impacted both the legacy of the work and the image of the author. The section examines the role of Americanization in the confabulation of both the poem and the author, proving that the butchered interpretation greatly damages the reading of the poem. Finally, this paper takes the established concept of generification, along with related ideas such as narrative economics and formula fiction, and applies these ideas to an analysis of the YA publishing industry. It concludes that the simple existence of fandom culture creates a paradox: the fandom demands a constant stream of quality narratives, both inciting and rejecting any purposeful generification attempted on the part of the publishers.
The content of these stories is edgy, humorous, satirical (unlike this abstract), and generally absurd—all this while retaining elements of realism. “Realism” in the sense that any of these stories could occur; there are no supernatural elements contained. However, the actions and characters are so exaggerated that their purposes are to call attention to the character/societal flaws to which they reflect. The more edgy elements of these stories are not included for shock value; in fact, just the opposite. Their sparse use is purposeful to call extra attention to a certain scene or action. Often a story’s use of crude language is intended characterize these despicable actions as negative—to show that a boss should not be treating those around him like servants, for instance (as is the case in the story Fore!).
Disclaimer aside, the true intention of these stories is simple: to entertain. These are humorous pieces, aimed at poking fun at some typical college, workplace, and neighborhood drama. That’s not to say the pieces are devoid of any deeper meaning, because as described above, they seek to satirize overlooked bits of culture. However, the overarching goal of the Vermillion Comedic Anthology is to entertain readers and provide them much need escape from the stresses of the world.
Second, is/can religion be used as a lens to justify objectively oppressive things. With the novel set in 2027, this novel assumes complicity played out leading to a dystopian future where being gay and queer is illegal. Religion is the justifying indicator to push for advocacies that do more harm than good. But the objectively bad act is justifiable through the good lens of religious pursuit. With that said, is moral ambiguity used in a way to mask atrocities or justify them?
This creative writing piece is the set-up to moral ambiguity and the twists and turns that the protagonist will eventually take. To survive and thrive in this culture, what do we have to do to hide? When it comes to the exploration of religion, what components of religion justify treating people like second-class citizens? Or, what components of religion do we use unfairly to push an ideology that holistically acts against the best interest of the people?