The reader's emotion can be manipulated in a number of ways. It is apparent, for example, that an absorbing work of fiction prompts much vicarious emotional experience for the reader. Also, the experience of emotion through fiction can allow the satisfaction of a temporary escape from the less pleasant aspects of daily life. This is the sense of escapist fiction. From the crudest romance to the most spellbinding tale of high adventure, the reader is invited to suspend reality and to identify with larger-thanlife characters whose experiences command great pinnacles of emotional satisfaction. In fact, it is identification that seems crucial for the experience of vicarious emotion. If a reader can find no grounds for identification then a work of fiction seems curiously flat. Such identification is perhaps allied to the projection and empathy that allows us to gain some understanding of the emotional experiences of those around us in the everyday world. In practice the emotional effects of fiction can be powerful, lasting and even harrowing. Moreover, as Oatley (1992) suggests, it is through fiction that we came to a non-scientific, but important understanding of emotion, through verstehen.

An issue that remains and that has been enjoined more by philosophers than psychologists concerns what exactly it is that we are made emotional about when we are made emotional by fiction. If we know that something is a work of fiction, if we know that what is happening to a fictitious character is by definition itself fictitious, then how is it that we react emotionally? As Levinson (1997) puts it: "we have emotions for fictional characters; we normally believe in the existence of objects for which we have emotions; we don"t believe in the existence of fictional objects.' Neill (1993) makes an interesting analysis of this matter based on the view that our emotional responses are themselves founded on belief. He describes this as representing current philosophical orthodoxy as far as emotions are concerned. In passing it might be noted that if orthodoxy is defined as what is believed by the greatest number, then this view comes close to current psychological orthodoxy as well. Of course, the problem with respect to the emotional impact of fiction is that since I know that a fictional character does not exist in reality then how, for example, can I have beliefs about events in her fictional life so that I pity her? Neill answers this question with the suggestion that our emotional reactions to fictional characters and events are based on beliefs, although they are beliefs about what is fictionally so. It then follows that our emotional reactions to fiction are themselves explicable by a cognitive theory of emotion.

Neill makes a convincing case that pity, as a significant emotion that seems to be frequently generated by fiction, can be seen in this way. And he argues that it is reasonable to generalize from this to other emotions. The emotional reactions we have to fictional characters and events may be slightly different from those that we have to events in real life and to actual people, but we do have them nevertheless. We do pity, envy and fear for fictional characters (although we might not fear them), and such reactions can be accounted for cognitively. Of course, to have beliefs about fiction we do have to first do what the novelist and dramatist frequently wishes us to do, and that is to suspend disbelief.

Neill's is but one view. Levinson (1997) lists the entire set of possible accounts:

1. Our emotional reactions to fiction are not real.
2. We suspend disbelief, as mentioned above.
3. Our emotional reactions to fiction take as real things that we know not to exist.
4. Emotions toward objects do not need to rely on beliefs, but merely on weaker forms of cognitions. It then follows that emotional responses to fiction are like any other emotional responses.
5. To account for emotional reactions to fiction we might only need the belief that, in the fiction, the character exists. The question then becomes whether or not this means that our particular emotional reaction is also fictional.
6. It may be that when reading fiction we become irrational and so have emotions directed toward non-existent characters.
7. Finally, emotion to fiction might only be make-believe emotions (i.e., we are moved by fiction to non-standard emotional reactions). Levinson makes the point that the answer to the "paradox of fiction" could well be "all of the above", but suggests that the best single possibility comes from the idea of "make believe" emotions.

Following Radford's (1975) answer to the question, "How can we be moved by the fate of Anna Karenina?", Hartz (1999) asks "How can we be moved by Anna Karenina, Green Slime, and a Red Pony?", thereby broadening the matter a little. His general thesis, which somehow does away with the problem altogether, is that brain mechanisms in emotion do not ". . . abide by preconceived rational strictures." So, they simply do respond to the various circumstances in fiction, and there it is. This is not irrationality or inconsistency. In other words, there is no paradox of fiction.

Also, keep in mind that writings in Breton and overseas are considered separate.

Up to the 1300s, most writings were (composed) in Latin.

Old French came about from the Latin spoken in the south (of France).

Old French, during this period of time, became an international language. This was due to the French's military interests across the ocean and the French Crusades (1050-1210).

Due to the preceding fact(s), French literature emerged, illustrating militaristic views and activities. A work suggesting this statement is the “Chanson de Roland”, also known as Roland”, (circa 1100).

In example, long narratives were conveyed in groups of ten to twelve-syllable lines which rhymed and were comprised of varying lengths. (See: Chansons DE Geste.)

Other forms of French literature developed within the 1100s relative to the stories of saints and the Celtic-style romances of Chretien de Troyes.

Later on, romances and allegories became more refined. Examples include: “Roman De La Rose”, a philosophical tale; and, “Reynard the Fox”, an amusing and clever tale.

Other new forms of (French) literature continued to emerge such as the lai, also known as the animal fable; and, fabliau: (which is) a rhyming anecdotal work. (Many of the latter styles possessed themes from (classic) mythology.

Ovid's and Aesop's works were exceptionally popular. Also, “Arthurian Legend” was another highly regarded form (of literature).

The French lyric (style) poem was the result (and developed) from the songs of the Trouviers and Troubadours. (Additionally, the personal works of the French poet contributed to this style of poetry.)

Be advised, among the most significant lyric poets of the Middle Ages follow: Colin Muset, Rutebeuf, Christine de Pisan, Alain Chartier and Charles d'Orleans.

Francois Villon is an important (lyric-style) poet who composed his works (categorically) under the old French.

The (next) step to pursue in your exploration of French literature is learning more about the French drama. This form of French literature, in its (earliest) phase, was comprised of plays, religious in theme: the best-known plays being the (anonymous) mysteries. In example, the “Mystere d' Adam” of the 1100s.

Included in the Miracle Plays of the 1200s is: Jean Bodel's, “Jeu de St. Nicolas”.

Non-religious and morally instructional type plays were being performed by the end of the (thirteenth) century.

French prose had its start with the works of the historians. The authors include: Geoffroi de Villehardouin; Jean de Joinville; Jean Froissart; and Phillippe de Comines, (one of the more significant and last of the medieval historians.)

The late 1400s to the early 1500s marked the beginning(s) of the Renaissance in France.

Three highly-acclaimed figures emerged from the country pertinent to World Literature. They included: Francois Rabelais, Pierre de Ronsard; and Michel Eyquem de Montaigne. The authors were dominant in the 1500s.

It is apparent that Italian influence was (strongly) significant in the poetic work(s) of clement Marot and the dramas produced by (authors): Robert Garnier and Etienne Jodelle.

Not every French author was “swayed” by the (literary) style(s) of the Italians. In fact, a group of (French) poets (six in total) and known as the Pleiade reacted by rivaling the literary accomplishments of the Italians. (One poet belonging to this group (of six) was Ronsard.)

However, early in the 1600s, the (French) critic Francois de Malherbe strongly attacked the Pleiade's excesses. (Francois de Malherbe's) disposition, in this regard, has been highly significant to French literature (ever since that time).

Religious and domestic strife of the late 1500s is freely shown in the poetic works of authors: Theodore d' Aubigne', Guillaume de Bartas and Jean de Sponde.

In all seriousness, I've never really found a positive answer. I've googled the question countless times (pathetic I know) but I'm still not any wiser. I've heard vague talk from people making the point that "creative writing can"t really be taught' and "a degree won"t really increase a writer's desires to become published.' Fair enough, I thought, but I already knew that. The primary reason I went to University in the first place was to "find myself" and generally just get away from all the commotion going on back home. Maybe I should have thought about the job prospects of a writing degree a little more, but no point dwelling on them now. I had developed a passion for writing and I went with my instincts.

So I've recently graduated, and now I'm thinking "damn, what"s next?!' I emailed the careers centre and came up with this list of possible jobs:

• Newspaper journalist
• Editorial assistant
• Publishing for media, and performing arts
• Screen and radio writing
• Video game content writer
• Freelance writer with extra job to fund
• Proof reader
• PR officer
• Press sub editor
• Copywriter

I was also given this piece of advice:

Many English students write for student newspapers and magazines, get involved with student radio or film societies or volunteer in the community or local schools. For you as an English student doing a non-vocational course, the skills you develop outside your study are critical in developing a rounded CV. The combination of evidence of skills gained from work experience and extracurricular activities, as well as through your study, can help you in CV writing and job applications - and boost your employability.

During my studies, I had work experience as a football writer so I thought that would shift my CV up the employer's pile a little. As yet though, I haven't been able to find a job in the Leeds area that relates to Creative Writing.

I'm currently freelancing while working a "proper job" to keep a roof over my head, which seems to be the common thing with most writers and Creative Writing graduates I've spoken to.

So yeah, at this point of time I'm not really in the position to give advice to fellow writers on the subject of employment; I'm just looking to get a discussion going. I'm still learning, like many others, and would appreciate any words of encouragement.

Oh, and a final word: I don't regret my choice of degree by any means, and I still have a strong passion for writing despite the risky nature that comes with wanting to be a writer. As an Individual, I feel my experience through University has developed my technique and belief in my abilities, particularly seen as though all students were encouraged to share their work with a variety of audience.

On a personal level, this was definitely not a bad thing.

First of all, we accept that if a book is both old and remembered, then no modern writer can match it. We also assume that a classic was always a classic, that the society which first encountered it accepted it as such, and that therefore it must be some sort of conservative celebration of its own time and place. So we tend to lump whole centuries together. The 19th century in particular falls victim to this fate. Zola and Hugo are both bound up together in series with names like "Masterpieces of World Literature," so we see them just as two old French farts and not as two very different writers with interesting views.
So the process of making classics ends up ignoring an incredibly revolutionary leap which occurred in 19th century literature-the leap from sentimentalism to realism, which really came about thanks to Madame Bovary. And what a revolutionary leap it was! To write about life as we actually experience it and not as some sort of morality tale? It simply had never been done.

You almost have to wonder why no one thought of it sooner, but in truth, someone had probably thought of it, but Realism didn't catch on prior to Flaubert for two reasons: first, what was the point of writing about "real life" when we experience it every day? Surely literature shouldn't just reflect what we do, it should teach us valuable lessons. A condescending, pompous attitude, but one which led to the second reason why Realism didn't catch on: it was seen as dangerous and immoral. Real life, after all, is a nasty thing. It's about as easy to stuff the events of our daily existence into a morality tale framework as it is to stuff a dog into a Halloween costume. Good is not always rewarded. "Sin" is not always punished. That is the way of things, but nothing could have been more offensive to the pre-Realist mindset (particularly in Victorian England).

And that is why, while Realism caught on in France, it never achieved much of a following in England-at least not for some time. Flaubert published Bovary in 1856, and after that, Realism swept across the continent. We remember Ibsen as the controversial fellow he was, but Tolstoy was also considered a radical Realist in his day. Zola was perhaps the most radical of all, for he brought in a left-wing political component. He was the one who took it upon himself to report straight facts in literature: to remove the moralizing and editorializing and get on with the brutal realities of alcoholism, poverty, working conditions, labor strikes, etc.

But England never really took a shine to it. The Brits really had to wait until Thomas Hardy before someone was willing to tell it like it was-to say, yes, this plowman may be a good person, but that doesn't mean all of his wildest dreams will come true. Shaw as a critic championed the Realists, but his best work had to wait until the end of the Victorian era. And George Eliot? She was definitely of a more realistic frame of mind. After all, what she was really criticizing in her essay "Silly Lady Novelists" was the sentimental mode of writing. I can think of a few other notable exceptions. For instance, Anne Bronte, despite the highly romanticized writing style of her sisters, was a controversial Realist who wrote stark portrayals of alcoholism, class antagonism, etc. There was also the lesser-known George Gissing. But still, I think it's safe to say that Victorian England clung longer than most to the old sentimentalism. Britain would have to wait for George Moore and the death of Victoria for naturalism, the most controversial form of Realism, to appear.

British literature held out for so long for two reasons, both of which stemmed from the famed Victorian reserve. First of all, the author was blamed for the behavior of his or her characters. It was therefore his or her duty to mete out punishments and rewards. Adultery had to mean a sudden drowning or a bolt from heaven. Most of all, the Victorians were terrified at the thought of people doing what they wanted to do. For one reason or another, the thought of people decided what they enjoy and pursuing it seemed incredibly dangerous. What? Nora Helmer is leaving her husband? Surely her remorse will drive her to ruin and suicide. Or perhaps she will return in the end, a chastened but virtuous woman once more. If authors let their characters off the hook, they were seen as jail wardens who had let all the convicts escape.

Victorians were also horrified at the reality of human behavior. They preferred to think that everything we do is motivated by a sort of cold, calculated, good-evil analysis. If you were motivated to do something wrong or hurtful or stupid, it was because you had given in to the devil's temptations, but don't worry-your remorse will make you a broken person for the rest of your days. And if you did "the right thing," it meant that you had successfully denied yourself whatever it was you wanted and you could go about your miserable, virtuous way. Here's Jane Eyre, for instance, on human behavior. Jane is trying to decide whether or not to travel across Europe as the mistress of Mr. Rochester, the man she loves, or to stay put as a village schoolmarm:

"Which is better?- To have surrendered to temptation... to have sunk down in the silken snare; fallen asleep on the flowers covering it; wakened in a southern clime, amongst the luxuries of a pleasure villa; to have been now living in France, Mr. Rochester's mistress; delirious with his love half my time... which is better, I ask, to be a slave in a fool's paradise-fevered with delirious bliss one hour-suffocating with the bitterest tears of remorse the next-or to be a village schoolmistress, free and honest, in a breezy mountain nook in the healthy heart of England?"

Well, obviously the first one is much better. Any Realist treatment of the situation would allow that Jane might spend her life in "delirious bliss," without also being destroyed by guilt. But the Victorian treatment won't allow it. Jane cannot behave as a person, but as a cutout figure in a morality play. Everything she does has to be filtered through the good-evil analysis, which is why the pre-Bovary novels can come across as so morosely sanctimonious.

Now, which writers in particular am I talking about here? Most of the great Victorian novelists had already been published before Madame Bovary came out, including Dickens, Elizabeth Gaskell, Charles Reade, Trollope, Thackeray, the Brontes, and many others. But when we speak about the sentimental, romantic school, we can rule out Thackeray and Trollope, the hard-nosed satirists. What about the others? I don't mean to portray them as sanctimonious saps-they were in fact brilliant writers. What's more, most of them were "left-wing" in the sense that they were concerned by social injustice and the stupidities and hypocrisies of society. But they were not "radical." Orwell makes this point in his essay on Dickens. Certainly they were not interested in revolution, and mostly, they limited their critiques to specific institutions, such as prisons or schools. What's more, every political doctrine had to be filtered through the good-evil analysis. Here's Jane Eyre again on human equality: "I had to remind myself daily that [the poor students she teaches] were made of flesh and blood every bit as good as that of the scions of the wealthiest families." In order to understand the issue, she has to filter it through a pious adage. And even if Jane reminds herself of this daily, she doesn't seem to put it into practice.

The way she speaks of the students and their families is cloyingly patronizing. She speaks of their "simple gratitude" and delights in seeing them change from "quite torpid... hopelessly dull... heavy-looking, gaping rustics" to "docile, obliging, and amiable pupils." What she is really praising is their ability to become more like herself. Without education, Jane sees the people around her as utterly vile. She remarks: "It is a well-accepted fact that prejudices find fertile soil in uneducated minds"-an amusing statement considering how prejudiced it is in itself. This after some mean jokes at the expense of the uneducated person in question.

Not that Charlotte Bronte was unfeeling toward the working class. I haven't read her novel Shirley, but apparently it deals with the Luddite rebellion and is quite pro-worker. But she still seems to feel that things can be fixed only through the study of certain moral "laws."
Elizabeth Gaskell is better on the class front. In fact, she stands alone among the Victorians for her maturity and genuine sympathy. She portrays "rustics," for instance, who aren't on the page simply to be mocked or molded by educated people. Some of her works dealing with poverty and injustice can come off as sentimental, but she was willing to portray poor people with real emotions who might merit the reader's interest. She also went after the realities of the economic system, instead of simply addressing certain improper "attitudes." Jane Eyre (and, we can assume, Charlotte Bronte) feels she can right the wrongs of society by memorizing platitudes. Gaskell is much less simplistic, and her works are therefore more interesting. What's more, she sympathized with working and lower class movements for political and economic rights. The other Victorians tended to hold these at arm's length.
And Dickens? He is sometimes derided as the most sentimental of them all, but I think he has a realism of his own.

Particularly when he deals with childhood. His characters are outlandish, fantastic caricatures, but when you are a kid that is how the adult world appears. Everything is larger because you are so small. The tiniest accident becomes the greatest tragedy, and petty bullies become the outrageous monsters that appear on Dickens's pages. No Realist, at least as far as I know, ever wrote so well about the way children see the world, and the way injustices affect them. Also, Dickens is not so pious and moralizing. He doesn't always propose easy answers to the problems he confronts.

Probably the best way to describe the politics of the pre-Realist school would be "tolerant." Reade, Gaskell, Dickens, Charlotte Bronte, and others were "tolerant" of the working and lower classes, and they were intolerant of injustice. But keep in mind that in order to be "tolerant" of something, that thing must be distasteful to begin with. None of the writers, with the exception of Gaskell and poor, overlooked Anne Bronte, truly made an effort to understand the lower class and to see them as real people with real aspirations, real hopes, and real anger. The true rage of undemocratic social structures is missing from their work.

I've probably made it sound as though I'm a partisan of the Realists. That's a bit misleading. In reality, I've spent much more time reading the sentimentalists than I have the Realists. I myself have a mawkish streak, and I can understand the drive to moralize even if it grates on me after awhile. I am not at all trying to suggest that the great Victorian novelists should be downplayed in literature courses and such. Far from it. But I do feel that even the best work of these writers is affected for the worse by this sentimentalist, moralizing streak. For instance, I think the best passages in Jane Eyre can be found in the first hundred pages or so of the book-when Jane is still a child. The character hasn't yet internalized all the necessary pious platitudes, and her behavior therefore seems much more real and convincing.

Once Jane is grown, sure, she has believable emotions and reactions, but the reader has to dig through a pile of Victorian reserve and priggishness to get to them. Here's the ideal situation: to have seen Dickens, the Brontes, and all the rest plopped down in the Realist era and to have let them write about the very real anger and frustration of their characters-which are clearly there, only buried-in a world which would have let them do it.

One thing I absolutely love about poetry is that you can write about anything or anyone and be a vague as you want. You could write a poem about how much you love this girl or hate this teacher. There is no need to use the names of the person you are writing about because the beauty of poetry is it is from the heart and anyone can connect to it.

For those tough guys out there that think the poetry is for softies or girls.

I agree with you on some terms. Lovey-dovey poems … not my thing and they do not have to be! Like I said before you….can write poems about anything. Whether it is how hard you decked that guy in football or caught the winning catch. Everyone has poetry in them whether they know it or not.

I am a very athletic boy, 14 years old at the moment. My life is full of school, girls, swimming and water-polo. I have a hectic schedule and use sports as a drive for my emotions. But from my experiences writing about the sport you do really make you appreciates it much more.

Poetry is an endless connection to your soul. You hear it in rap and rock and roll. I am not saying that you will become the next “slim shady.” You can write at any time without any waiting. Poetry is a game of mind and wonder. So grab a pen and pad and roll out your thunder. You don't have to tell your friends at school. It doesn't have to be in your click or cool. Just sit, relax, clear your mind and wait. You know a bazillion words now concentrate. You scored the goal your girlfriend is hot, you mom always screaming you like your about to get shot. Time seems too really get slow, a Boom a Bang as you hand begins to fiddle. You look around to see who is there. A friend, a teacher oh well who cares. Your thoughts begin to process and your hand moves quick. You begin to form a beat… that's the trick. You end up making a line or two. Poetry can be fun for me and you. It is your turn now… toodle-loo.

A huge majority of the writers are often trapped by an illusion that structure is their ultimate goal while writing a story. Structure is a kind of God to them. Undoubtedly, structure is an inevitably important part of your story but it might as well destroy story if excessive attention is paid to it.

There is no dearth of hit movies and novels in the markets flooded with new releases. They seem to be fulfilling all the requirements of story but I feel that they seem to be contrived, uninspired and lifeless and one can feel that the writer has moved with a plan.

These kinds of writers are merely mechanics who assemble the different parts. Some linguists call them Story Mechanics. They plan the structure, syntax, length and so on and according to the prescriptive requirements contrive a story. It looks like a fancy paint job. Many of the Great Masters like D.H.Lawrence, Thomas Hardy, Stevenson, Dickens, Rudyard Kipling had perhaps never heard about the blueprints, plan, sentence arrangement because they were guided by the values they had in mind. They were the writers who could be called Story Weavers. Such writers begin with subjects or concepts they are passionate about and the structure draws its form from the material. Their characters are people before they become characters. In their stories events take place first and then they become a plot. They keep values before theme and a genre is secondary to a world they develop.

I will call these writers Storytellers or Story Weavers. Their stories have the power to captivate the mind and the fullness of human emotion. The spontaneity guides them through their story to make it involving, engrossing and mind arresting. They take you along in their world of values and emotions.

Shall we start now?

To my students I tell not to think about structure for the time being. Forget about characters, plot, theme, genre, etc. First of all try to draw an inspiration and then develop it. Next comes exposition and finally the act of storytelling.

Your inspiration can emanate from many sources: it can be an overheard conversation, a story written by somebody else, a newspaper article, a journey, a place, a real life character, an event, or an encounter, etc.

First of all a suitable environment is needed. Some writers prefer a secluded place and some write while listening to music. It is your personal choice and to suit your mood you should find or create the environment. The compromise with it may not be what you want. Tools may be chosen according to the availability or your preference. Keep one thing in mind that any creative art ought to be , by necessity, performed in seclusion, for many geniuses will come in between to comment upon the incomplete work and as a result depress the writer.

Developing the story is the second stage.

Now you try to populate the story with the people you want to keep in. Don't ever think about the end product. write a few lines about all the characters and what they are going to do in your story or what is going to happen to them in your story. Forget about style, diction, length, etc. because they will take care of themselves as you move along.

Generally, a good exposition can tell people what the story is about. It is the writer's choice whether he wants to give hints about the characters or expose them with the progression of his story. In some cases you will have to be careful about the exposition because the target group of readers may not be as well equipped in their reception as you might think. EXPOSITION if handled properly can add to the strength of the main story.

Storytelling should begin as casually as opening a packet of cigarettes or waving a hand to a passing friend. Start writing as if everything is happening in front of your eyes. Sometimes, it happens that a writer is spellbound by the grandeur of a sentence that he or she has written but immediately after that the pen stops moving because the power of the preceding sentence frightens the writer and he is trapped in the comparisons whether he or she should try to maintain the standard of the preceding sentence or write naturally. Don't ever fall into such traps because they will take you deeper into the structural maze and your story will be comprehensible only to you or a few cursed souls who might try to find out what you are trying to say. One or two amazing complex sentences can prove to be an icing on the cake but if you try to make the whole cake like that it might be nothing more than a big lump of sugar.

The final point is to reread and rewrite what you have written. In some cases editing by a better qualified person may be helpful but if you are sure that your words are deliberately arranged by you to convey a particular meaning or sense, then don't go for it. Spellings, spacing and other formalities can be performed by any editing software or by a learned person. In some cases your distorted grammar is the requirement of the story. My main objective in writing this paper is to convey a clear message to the writers or the aspiring writers to start writing with a deaf year to reviewers or critics because I have concluded that "A critic or a reviewer is a creature who tells a writer what you have written." Though he or she as a critic or a reviewer might be miles away from the reality. Don't laugh! I also tell the writers what they have written.

Controversy is a key factor in all of the movements in American literature. Mark Twain, who is often said to be the father of the American voice, used it to spawn a countrywide contempt for the rich and the prejudiced. Ethnic minorities used personal injustices and history to show that the white man was not always justified in his actions. Women writers were a controversy in themselves, and used their gender as a tool to empower other women. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries there were several influential literary movements: realism, naturalism, regionalism, modernism, the Harlem Renaissance, feminism, and postmodernism. These traditions are still popular writing styles, but with so many of them the defining line between each becomes blurred as writers venture into more than one style. These movements are a break from the tradition that was created by each preceding generation.

For many years, whenever a new collection of “American literature” was released there was a gaping hole in its pages: the part that should be filled with stories, poems, essays, and excerpts written by the multiple ethnic populations that exist within the U.S. borders. As early as the 1970s literary acceptance arrived to African American, Latino American and American Indian writers. American literature is still integrating the works of other nationalities such as East Indian Americans, Asian Americans, and those of Middle Eastern descent. American literary values are being forced to change as these cultures and other movements such as gay pride and global awareness are gradually being accepted by more and more people.

The question remains: what will the current generation add to American literature? A few of the most popular trends in the twenty-first century have crossed over from the late 1990s. Feminism has taken on a new approach in humor as can be seen by novelists Janet Evanovich and Sophia Kinsella, both of whom have written separate series built around the antics of women trying to make it in a man's world. There is also the ongoing fascination with the mystical and magical. Harry Potter is possibly one of the most popular series written in this century or the last. In fact, many speculate that J.K. Rowlings's series has boosted reading among children worldwide: “She [Rowlings] and Harry [Potter] brought us together as readers in a way we hadn't been for some 165 years” (Kirkus 12). What then is there left to write about?

Having a human quality is necessary to literature-the struggles, beliefs, victories and failures of the American people are the truest depiction of the United States. It is of little surprise then that ethnic literature has become as popular as it is. African American literature extends as far back as the late 1860s. However, it did not receive much attention until Booker T. Washington came into the spotlight. Washington represented one end of the spectrum of African Americans. He portrayed the black population as a kind, loving group of Americans who did not hold slavery against the United States. At the other end of the spectrum was W.E.B. Du Bois, a man who spoke of the anger of the black people and demanded equality (Lauter). In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries it is the African American woman's voice that is being heard. Women like Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and Nikki Giovanni are speaking out as women of color.

Not only do these African American women write about what it means to be black, but they write about their lives as American citizens; all three have won awards and written autobiographies; all three have been honored by the NAACP, which was co-founded by Du Bois. What is important about these women is their contribution to American literature. They have emerged from the stereotypical roles of black women into household names. Both Angelou and Giovanni are known primarily as poets and Morrison as a poet, novelist, and essayist. African Americans are proud of their heritage and want to share their experiences, stories, and talents. The change in ethnic writing since the 1860s has been extensive for African Americans. After the Civil War African American literature was about reconstruction of the South, then it changed as a call went up for retribution. This was followed by the demand for equality. Now literature produced by African Americans is a celebration of what the culture has transcended since coming to the United States as slaves. African Americans often depict themselves, especially in contemporary literature, as family oriented, comical, and as a self-confident race.

While African Americans have had a long history in American literature, they are not the only ethnic group creating a niche in the literary world. One of the fastest growing literary minorities is Latin Americans. In his article “Between Tradition and Innovation” Edmundo Paz Soldan discusses the changes in Latino literature and what current challenges Hispanic writers are facing in the twenty-first century: “Lost in a world of mass media, in a storm of digital images and frequencies, we struggle to make ourselves heard” (16). With all the forms of technology that have emerged in the last two decades it is a challenge for any writer to keep the public's interest. Soldan encourages writers, whether they be of Hispanic heritage or not, to continue their efforts in the form of the novel. “Through the novel, one can explore in greater detail the human conscious as well as subconscious by dialoguing with and transcending our historical context” (17).

With this advice, Soldan goes on to discuss the biggest challenge for writers: the lack of new material because people fail to change with the times. “Traditions that do not constantly renew themselves become stagnant. There is nothing healthier for a culture than an attitude of recognition of the great artistic works of the past, coupled with a playful irreverence, and a constant rejection of that same past” (18). It is important for any writer, no matter their cultural background, to adjust to society, change, and growth. Yet, this seems to be especially difficult for certain minority groups.

Latino Americans are caught in a snare between their heritage and the modern loss of culture that is very popular in the United States. A Hispanic heritage is rich with culture, traditions, gender roles, and stereotypes. What Soldan is urging Latino writers to do is remember the past without missing the present and embracing the future; keep the colorful clothes, the unique accents of the language, and the values of the culture alive, but incorporate the essence of contemporary times, individuality, and self-expression into the writing. In Multilingual America Alide Cagidemetrio writes of the importance of language and the fact the use of one's native tongue helps a person define himself as an individual with something unique and special to offer. The lack of recognition of heritage in accounts of American literature is a crucial point in Cagidemetrio's work. “The notion of the "cultural island" of each language group is furthermore established precisely by the omission of any relationship between literary expression and American historical context” (xii).

The latest trend among Latino writers is the merging of both cultures-their American background and their ancestry. Among these writers are Demetria Martinez, a poet, and Sandra Cisneros, a novelist. Martinez focuses much of her writing on the struggles to be both American and Chicano, as well as the confusion of trying to be both at different times instead of at the same time. Sandra Cisneros, famous for her novel The House on Mango Street, incorporates the strong, surviving spirit of Latino-American women into her work and illustrates the humorous, often sarcastic, mannerisms of street-smart Latinas (Renner 44). Both of these minority writers use the many aspects of their culture to make their writing have an authentic appeal. Their contributions to American literature are vast, even if their work sometimes goes unrecognized as literature.

Like Latino writers, American Indian writers are caught between the traditional and modern worlds. “Native American” literature was established in the twentieth century. Often it was focused on the injustices the American Indian tribes had suffered from the U.S. government. In the twenty-first century the narrative is changing into stories of regaining lost cultures. Most of the tribes found within the United States were forced to assimilate to white Christian ways. Now the younger generations are trying to reconcile their native cultures, traditions, and languages with the contemporary world they are living in. Authors like Elizabeth Cook-Lynn and John E. Smelcer believe it is important to give credit to their tribes for the stories they tell, because they are often based in the myths and legends of their ancestors (Seeds 134). When asked what he believed contemporary Native American literature was influenced by Smelcer said: “American Indian literature speaks of current socio-political and socio-economic conditions, of the loss of identity, and frequently of the loss of languages and traditional values and beliefs (Seeds 138). The accounts of American literature often misrepresented American Indian writers and their works. As appreciation of American Indian literature grows, the American people will fully accept the written works of all American tribes as true literature.

American Literature is more than Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, Edgar Allan Poe, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman. There are also the remarkable writers of ethnic backgrounds: Charles Chestnutt, Alice Walker, Lucy Tapohanza, Zora Neale Hurston, and Janice Mirikitani. Each of these ethnic writers deliver something different in their works. Chestnutt focused much of his writing on the hardships of the light-skinned Negro shortly after the Civil War. Walker, famous for The Color Purple, wrote actively of the continuing ordeals for African Americans in the United States. Tapohanza, a Navajo poet, uses the imagery of the Navajo reservation and her native traditions in her writing and yet keeps it relatable to people of all nationalities. Hurston was something of an early feminist as well as an African American female writer. She used dark humor to make her characters come to life. Mirikitani is a Japanese American who has written about the World War II internment camps, something that does not get much attention in American literature. All of these writers, and many more, are important to American literature because they capture something that would be left out: the realities of each ethnic culture from its own point of view.

Each avenue of ethnic literature is faced with its own specific challenges that must be overcome. That is what the emerging ethnic trend is really about: conquering the challenges that heritage and American culture present. With all the different minorities that inhabit the United States it is important that each of them honors their cultures without living in the past. This, in itself, is controversial. It is hard to hold on to roots when there are so many people, particularly the Anglos, denying any language but English, denouncing any particular clothing style that is derived from another culture, and observing primarily western European holidays. Even with these obstacles, the ethnic trend is growing and changing. Dr. Connie Jacobs, a professor at San Juan College and instructor of American Literature, observed that the biggest change in ethnic literature is that it has more voices. “We have more and more groups coming in. There are amazing writers coming out from all over the world. It's not just about being ethnic anymore-it's about the human experience.” That seems to be the best way to describe all literature: discovering and revealing the “human experience.”

The human quality is definitely captured in gay literature. There has been a worldwide exhibition in gay pride since the 1960s, and finally the publishing market is picking up on this new trend in literature. This particular emerging trend is still in the newer phases of literature and as of yet has received very little attention. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) literature is developing and expanding more every day. There are publishing companies dedicated to the sole purpose of manufacturing “queer” literature. Bywater books is a small publishing company that was developed by lesbians in 2003. It now has 30 titles to its credit and continues to grow every year (Bywaterbooks.com). Other, larger, publishers like Avon and Random House are forming new imprints in order to cater to the emerging GLBT trends. Unfortunately, the gay community is controversial, especially here in the United States, but despite the opposition to gay pride the market for this type of writing is only growing. Jacobs a professor at San Juan College and instructor of American Literature, says: “People want to be heard. Everyone has a voice and now they have the authority to use it.”

The gay community is using literature as just one of many ways to confront the conservative politics that keep them from being equal citizens, just as women in the feminist movement used literature to expand awareness of their desire for equal treatment. GLBT literature allows the gay population to express itself and be recognized by the rest of the American public. The GLBT stories that are being published depict characters who are just like the heterosexual population with that one difference: their sexuality. They have jobs, families, stress, and illness. There is still the misconception that AIDS is a “gay” disease-meaning mostly homosexuals are infected by AIDS. While it is still extremely common in the gay community, AIDS is hardly an orientation specific disease. As Natalie Hope McDonald, a journalist for the Advocate, describes in an article she wrote on the topic of AIDS and literature: “The heart of an era is defined by the manner in which creative people collectively respond to a history and cultural change” (32). Both gay and straight writers came together at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic to deny the belief that AIDS afflicted strictly the homosexual population. Nearly forty years later, AIDS is still a common theme behind gay literature.

GLBT literature is only one of the few controversial issues being written about in the twenty-first century. The United States is well known for the Iraqi War and the high death toll. This, too, is causing a stir in the literary world. It seems that a loss of national faith has had an impact on literature and many writers are using the war as a focal point when writing about the government. Just as there was a sense of disillusionment after the first world war, and then a loss of patriotism after the Vietnam War, again the American people are divided on the subject of hostile conflict. This is reflected as memoirs of ex-soldiers are being published, and advocates protesting the war produce scathing essays and analysis of the global impact the Iraqi War has had. To this end, the United States Government has basically become the scapegoat, tyrant, and “monster” much depicted in the naturalism trend of the mid-twentieth century.

Just as soldiers and everyday citizens are using conflict literature to attack the U.S. government, there are still other writers who are simply attempting to explain the war. It is a difficult task to write about a war that is still on-going without being able to explore the government's records. Yet, many writers are doing just that. As Brian Hanley, a critical essayist, writes: “When writing about a campaign from the past, scholars look at a variety of sources-amongst the more valuable are official war records, memoirs, and contemporary news reports.” John Keegan published Iraq War in 2004 in which he discusses the military tactics and operational warfare, as well as the state of Iraq prior to U.S. invasion (Hanley 362).

The United States Government is not being attacked purely for its involvement in the Iraqi War. There is quite a bit of controversy surrounding the American people and the government for being wasteful of fossil fuels and greedy in their need for the best that technology has to offer: bigger and better vehicles, larger televisions, cell phones that have to be upgraded constantly. Capitalism in the United States is even outgrowing the country itself as more and more jobs are being outsourced to other countries. Perhaps many people would not consider writing that concerns fossil fuels, economy, and ecology to be literature, but it is nevertheless being written about and is very much the source of controversy throughout America. Many writers are taking an aggressive approach to discussing the current circumstances of the United States and the harmful effects overuse of fossil fuels and a lack of concern about the environment are having on the country. According to Jacobs these are the controversies that will continue to arise during the twenty-first century. When asked about what trends she wants to see grow more in this time period Jacobs responded with: “Social justice. It doesn't matter if it's people, obviously they are the first concern, but the environment and animals are important, too.”

The government may be a main target in American literature when it comes to “social justice,” but more commonly the people who are suffering are the subject of this type of writing.. The hardships of the people living in the U.S. have always been a main issue in American literature. In the early twentieth century “wage slavery” and a call for socialism became the controversial fuel that drove Upton Sinclair to write The Jungle (Lauter 606). Such topics continue today as minimum wage remains low and living expenses high. Many writers, like Sinclair, use partial-fiction, stories similar to real events, to illustrate the more deplorable living and working conditions in the United States. Other emerging trends that follow these same general lines include such topics as: the high-drop out rate in American high schools, the lack of financial ability to go on to college, and the welfare system in the United States. In fact, it seems that a new call for socialism is at work, as is expressed by journalist Manning Marable in his article “A New American Socialism.” Marable discusses the flaws of past socialist movements and how it needs to be reorganized in order to be effective in the United States. “…we should examine the practical problems confronting American working people and racial minorities and respond with a series of political interventions that actually empower the oppressed.” He goes on to discuss that the people have a voice, whether they be feminists, anti-racists, minorities, or of the gay community-everyone has an opinion and therefore a voice. Anti-government literature is not a new trend, but the issues behind the anger and dissension have changed with the times.

As minority writers, GLBT literature, and anti-government campaigns gain support and encouragement another new trend is emerging. Global literature is one type of writing that is still, as yet, obscure, but gaining in strength and numbers. The interest in other cultures is growing in the United States. Bollywood, an Eastern Indian themed style, has emerged across the media forums. Music, movies, and television shows are catching on to this trend. While literature surrounding this is slow to emerge, it is sure to catch up. Also, social awareness of the hardships going on in other countries is becoming more and more important to Americans, especially to the younger generations.

For the generations who lived through both of the world wars there seems to be a common distrust of people of Japanese and German heritage; those who grew up during the era of the Korean War followed by the Vietnam War a general anger is still held for Korean and Vietnamese Americans. It is a trend to distrust and accuse those whose nationalities have been at war with the United States. However, with global literature this strong distrust has been broken in the younger generations. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, it is amazing that there is not more anger and suspicion of all people of Middle-Eastern descent. Of course there is a fear; however it does not seem as rampant as the apprehension of Japanese Americans was during World War II.

Global interest is picking up and is being written about. Whether it is the Rwandan incident or a massive natural disaster destroying far-off cities, the American people are paying attention. Survival stories are a favorite theme among readers and movie-goers, as is obvious with such books as: From Baghdad, With Love and Hotel Rwanda. These two novels are both inspiring accounts of people who chose to sacrifice in order to protect the innocent. From Baghdad, With Love is the story of one American soldier's battle to bring a stray dog from Iraq to the United States. Hotel Rwanda is the account of a man who gave sanctuary to over 2,000 refugees when the Rwandan government collapsed and chaos reigned. Both novels are based on real event and promote global awareness as well as heroic actions taken by everyday people. While these themes could be found in many novels, it is the true stories that drive global literature and force Americans to take more notice.

Capturing the reader's interest is obviously the most important job a writer has; without the reader, the writing is pointless. What makes this easier on the writer is the fact that there are so many different people populating the United States. Diverse styles, genres, and trends allow for the various tastes that make up the consumers. With every trend that has been discussed in this paper, there is a reader interested in it-therefore providing the need for such literature. At the heart of American literature are the American people and all their diversity. Ethnicity, homosexuality, political standing, environmental awareness, social justice-these are all key factors in emerging American literature, and all are subject to controversy. Literature is a reflection of the life and times of the writers. Controversy is simply disagreement on an issue that has multiple strong feelings from numerous people. Of all the emerging trends there isn't a single one that hasn't been surrounded by some amount of conflict. Even some of the controversies blend together in emerging literature: gay characters of ethnic descent; an American who protests the Iraq War goes abroad only to discover there was so much he was unaware of in the world and becomes an activist for third world countries. These types of blending of controversial issues are just another type of new American literary trends. There is a history behind American literature that continues to feed each new generation of writers and the many different types of writers: ethnic, gay, conservative, liberal, feminist, and those who focus their attention globally instead of nationally.

American literature is a broad term for the written works that give the history of the United States a more personal touch. People of every skin color, religious background, sexual orientation, and political standing have a voice, and opinion, and the instinctive knowledge of what their fellow Americans want to hear. Yet, there are only a few who are truly brave enough to confront the issues they oppose and put their names to it. Literature is driven by controversy, but controversy is driven by people who want to be heard.

I can manage getting up quite early, brush teeth, shower, put on clothes and stuff a kind of breakfast down my throat, then hurry on my way to work. But to put in several pages before all this? I can manage sliding into my writing chair behind my laptop in pyjamas at what I deem ungodly hours like 5 or 6 o'clock to punch away. But keeping an eye on a clock to ensure I slide behind an office desk on time while dreaming up other lives and events? Can you manage that?

And do you know what puzzles me most? Nowhere do I find any mentioning of revision. If you know when he put in his revising and rewriting; the pruning, the cutting, the adding and rephrasing and so - please enlighten me. You see, as an aspiring writer I am so interested in finding out how published, successful writers like him managed to juggle their career with a job. Aren't you?

It is a mystery to me. Whom I'm talking about? Oh - just Anthony Trollope, dear, you know.

1. It withstood the test of time. It must have lasted for a long time, not for a few years or so. I would say that any book from 50 years ago with recognized value is most definitely a classic.
2. It is a original piece. Anything that has not completely been invented out of the mind of the author is not a classic. Any rewrites or parodies are not classics. Versions adapted for younger or older audiences are also not original only the first manuscript by the author and EXACT COPYS. Even typos must be rewritten!
3. It comes in all genres from all countries and from all time periods. Not one book in particular but you cant just say only books from America are classics or books from the 1700s are classics, or that only fiction books are classics.

I thought it may be helpful if a made a small list of classic books and their authors.

• Gibson- Old Yeller
• Twain- Almost any story
• Hitchcock- Almost any story
• Melville- Moby Dick
• Baum- The wizard of Oz
• Shakespeare- Any play
• Wells- The time machine
• Aesop- Any Fable
• Forbes- Johnny Tremain

Obviously I have left out many classics but almost every classic is good and worth reading!

Tragedy in theater began in the 500's B.C. Aristotle, the accepted authority on the definitions of theater genres, defined tragedy as being serious and dignified. He also stated that, in a tragedy, the protagonist is a great, idealized, heroic character who experiences a ruinous change in fortune. The reversal of fortune can be caused by many different things, but is usually caused by a mistake or by a character flaw such as pride or greed. Often, this mistake or character flaw (or mistake caused by a character flaw) leads to a chain of unfortunate events that leads to the character's downfall. This downfall is usually death-not only the main character's death, but the deaths of all of those whom he loves, and often all of those whom he hates as well. It is ironic that, in tragedy, there is hope until the very last moment-sometimes even beyond the last moment-that the hero will prevail. Of course, he never does.

Take, for example, Macbeth. Macbeth, a successful war general, becomes thane of Cawdor-a position of Scottish Nobility. A group of witches prophesied that he would become King of Scotland. Giving in to his wife's urgings (and to his own pride) he kills King Duncan and assumes kingship. Macbeth, the heroic character, starts out above the common man and rises still higher-he has wealth, and he is king of a nation. Soon, however, the ghost of a man he killed appears to Macbeth, and he teeters on the brink of insanity. He has the family of Macduff, the only person Macbeth thinks can oppose him, killed. Macduff, in response, helps to raise an army to defeat Macbeth and bring his tyrannical, unstable rule to an end. In the end, Macduff personally slays Macbeth in battle by removing his head. Macbeth's early rise to kingship is crushed by a mistake-killing the family of Macduff. Thus, a character who started out far above the common man-a hero, an idealization of a man-falls all the way to death. As such, the story of Macbeth is a tragedy.

While Macbeth, a tragic protagonist, was a noble hero, the protagonist of a comic work is an ordinary, often likable, man. Comedy, which began about half a century later than tragedy, is typically more lighted-hearted than tragedy, though this is not always the case. Comedies show the inherent weakness of man-and man overcoming this weakness. Family tensions, social tensions, and mistaken identity are oft-used themes in comedy. Comic protagonists possess many small weaknesses that often land them in trouble, but most characters achieve happiness of some form by the end of the story. The plotline of a comedy is often far more complex than that of a tragedy-there are many, many small plots woven in among the main plotline. With every new plot comes at least one new character, resulting in a tangled web of characters and stories. This web often ends in marriage or in some other happy outcome for one or more of the characters.

The Merchant of Venice is one of Shakespeare's most famous comedies. It is, in the way of comedy, filled with an intricate web of plots. One of the major plots focuses on Bassanio, an ordinary person who is deeply indebted to many people. He wishes to marry a young, rich, beautiful woman named Portia, but he needs money for gifts and transportation to her abode on the island of Belmont. He goes to his best friend, the almost-fatherly figure Antonio, for a loan. Unfortunately, all of Antonio's money is tied up overseas. So Antonio goes to Shylock, a Jew, for a loan. He gets the loan for Bassanio, and, after a minor test (on which he was assisted by Portia) Bassanio and Portia are betrothed and Bassanio's servant, Gratiano, is betrothed to Portia's servant, Narissa. Antonio, after a series of unfortunate events that nearly leads to his death, forgives all of Bassanio's debts to him, and Bassanio can use Portia's money to pay off the rest of his debts. Bassanio, who begins in debt, ends in prosperity, thus the story is a comedy.

But Bassanio's is not the only story in the Merchant of Venice-the story of Shylock is far more tragic. In a paradoxical way, comedy relies on tragedy; in both comedy and tragedy, the best laid plans always go awry. Tragic and comic characters undergo many trials. Bad things happen, people die, love is lost, and fortunes disappear. Both are filled with deception, prejudice, alienation, and rejection-but in a tragedy, the hero eventually succumbs to these adversities, while in comedy, the hero manages to rise above these things and to become a better person as a result. Shylock faces the unfair prejudices of most Venetians, as he is a Jewish money lender. He is very wealthy and successful, despite this prejudice. By the end of the story, however, he has lost his wealth, his daughter, and his religion-he was forced to convert to Christianity. His decidedly tragic story is an integral part of the Merchant of Venice-a comedy-proving that tragedy is an essential part of comedy.

Shakespeare was a brilliant writer who understood both comedy and tragedy very well. He understood that one could truly not exist without the other. Tragedy-the fall of a hero to some unfortunate demise-and comedy-the rise of an ordinary person from poor circumstances to happiness-are integral parts of each other. Tragedy can have some lighthearted moments, while comedy does not need to elicit a single laugh. Shylock is a vital part of the Merchant of Venice, but one would be hard-pressed to laugh at the things he endures in the story.