Lionel Shriver’s controversial speech about cultural appropriation has made headlines around the world. But the debate need not be a binary one – novelists might approach characters from other cultures as ‘thoughtful tourists’.
The president of the Thomas Wolfe Society explains why Law had his work cut out for him when he agreed to portray a man who was “a hydroelectric plant of emotion.”
Chernobyl’s liquidators have come up with some intriguing ways of dealing with what they’ve gone through – without directly confronting painful memories.
Characters with Down syndrome are extremely rare in novels and rarer still are stories written from their point of view. But people with disabilities have an equal right to belong in narrative fiction.
Some parents worry their teens’ obsession with dark fiction means they’ll grow up and overthrow the government – like Katniss Everdeen in Hunger Games. How real is this concern?
The distinctions between highbrow and middlebrow fiction are as old as literature itself. So does the current spat over such terms mean anything in the long term for works of literature? Unlikely.
Italian novelist Elena Ferrante has been called “one of the great novelists of our time” and her Neapolitan novel cycle “an unconditional masterpiece”. But the author herself remains an intangible figure.
You might have thought that the world’s most prestigious prize for fiction was a level playing field. In fact, rule changes have made it much easier for big publishers to dominate.
Is the line between truth and fiction clear when it comes to history? And if not, is there scope for historians and novelists to re-engage, with a view to learning from – rather than bludgeoning – each other?
Can history and fiction really be kept separate? A special edition of journal TEXT examines historical fictions and fictional histories. Here, the editors map out the contested territory.