I find it fascinating that academics and critics find ire
with textual “poaching.” The engagement seems like a loose link to any kind of
textual/literary analysis. While the results vary dramatically, the process
seems ironically similar; finding significance within narrative cues,
developing theory about what the text seeks to imply, etc. If anything, fan
writing has brought to light some of the work scholars have done in otherwise
secluded circles. Reading a piece like Richard Dyer’s “White” and his analysis
of Night of the Living Dead shows
engagement with text that fans enthuse over. While maybe variant in quality, I
find it plausible fans are looking into the text of The Walking Dead in similar fashion. It seems inevitable that this
notion ultimately evokes discussion of high and low culture, trash and taste.
It’s worth noting the proliferation of fan writing and its
prowess in popular culture when considering the link between Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the Twilight series and Fifty Shades of Grey. Buffy as
the original canon, Twilight as
rudimentarily fan-fiction based on Buffy,
and Fifty Shades as fan-fiction based
on Twilight. These links show the
same transaction as Jenkins notes between Star
Trek and Demeter, except the
popularity of the vampire series links capital reward for appropriately timed
releases. I guess the question that stands out for me is what can we assess of
a culture in which fans recreate narrative texts to fit their desires? What
does it mean that individuals are allowed rewrite texts they don’t like, to
receive the gratification they find as a better fit? Andrejevic highlights some
of these aspects that occur sometimes instantaneously today between viewer
audiences and scriptwriters. With the rise of social media usage, a platform
like Twitter allows for interactive engagement during viewing that places the “boards”
at a much closer distance to creators and producers. The hiatus that was once
prevalent between fans and producers has significantly been reduced, heightening
the potency of fan outcry and subsequent reaction from textual creators.
Krystle, I think you bring up a really good point about the ways in which the fannish writing that emerges from the kind of “textual poaching” that Jenkins talks about can actually become legitimated as popular, standalone works of their own. It's interesting to note that "poaching" as a storytelling strategy is not only prevalent today in fannish circles but has actually been around forever - as just one example, Shakespeare himself took plots, characters, and settings from other stories, not to mention the sheer number of adaptations of Shakespeare that abound now.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the blurry distinctions that you point out between fan writing and academic scholarship are becoming more recognized in fan studies circles - Paul Booth's 2017 book Digital Fandom 2.0, for example, discusses the way that fan "meta" writings and academic writing are similar, and the parallels between fandom and academia.
Krystle, I also think it's worth noting here that it has become easier for fan writers to get their work out to other fans. I feel like this can explain some of Fifty Shades' growth due to the success of Twilight and knowing that the story originated as Twilight fan fiction. I'm glad to see some recognition of Buffy's influence on these what I would consider to be lesser texts though so thanks for that.
ReplyDelete