ENGL 130: Sequelitis and Toxic Fandoms Annotated Bibliography Topic/Research Question: Fandoms are, perhaps, at their most vocal when rejecting a new addition to a franchise the fandom has formed around

Subject:EnglishPrice:11.86 Bought3

Share With

ENGL 130: Sequelitis and Toxic Fandoms Annotated Bibliography Topic/Research Question: Fandoms are, perhaps, at their most vocal when rejecting a new addition to a franchise the fandom has formed around. Even when a new work is critically acclaimed, fans may reject it for a variety of reasons. The question is why some self-described fans of works are so quick to reject sequels of beloved classics, for stated reasons that are occasionally at odds with critical opinion? Sources: Jones, Bethan. “Producing and Branding Gender in Comics: My So-Called Secret Identity and the Ambivalence of an Alternative Address.” Palabra Clave, 20, 4, 2017, 1073-1104, DOI: 10.5294/pacla.2017.20.4.9. Accessed 15th of September, 2019. Summery: Bethan Jones’ article, “Producing and Branding Gender in Comics: My So-Called Secret Identity and the Ambivalence of an Alternative Address,” is focused on discussing the creative process, and reception to, the comic My So-Called Secret Identity. It is described as being written in a direct response to the oversexualization of female characters in superhero comics, something which both the author of the comic, Will Brooker, and Jones both are uncomfortable with. Jones goes on to describe how the team behind the comic was composed mostly of women, in an attempt to invert industry norms, and how the comic has been almost entirely funded thanks to the donations of those who enjoy it and support the femminist ideals it represents. Jones is clearly supportive of the comic, but is quick to admit that she does have a personal connection to Will Brooker. However, this does not keep her from shying away from the criticism My So-Called Secret Identity has faced. Those who are critical of the work frequently point out that this femminist comic is actually written by a man, and a man who has significant cultural influence at that. Despite this, Jones is quick to point out that Brooker has not been on the receiving end of as many vitriolic attacks as women authors and actors have in his place. Jones concludes that the comic’s success with critics could be dependent upon a man being the comic’s spokesman, though the comic should still be seen as a progressive work nevertheless. Much of this article can be helpful in analyzing the critiques those with a femminist perspective have on the modern comic-book industry (and by extension, the various multi-billion dollar superhero franchises). Furthermore, it can also be used to show how people can still reject works which appeal to their viewpoints, and the reasons they may have for doing so. Lyden, John. “Whose Film Is It, Anyway? Canonicity and Authority in Star Wars Fandom.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 80, 3, September 2012, 775-786, 10.1093/jaarel/lfs037. Accessed 15th of September, 2019. Summery: In his article, “Whose Film Is It, Anyway? Canonicity and Authority in Star Wars Fandom,” John Lyden argues that modern fandoms are more or less equivalent to religions, which helps explain why some fans are so quick to reject changes or additions to franchises which they are fans of. Using the example of Star Wars, which Lyden argues to be perhaps the best example of this phenomena, he dissects the fandom’s response to the infamous “Special Editions,” the “Han Shot First” movement, the Prequels, and how entire websites exist solely to host edits of the movies that put them in line with what the fans believe to be the “true” movies. Additional analysis is put toward analyzing the relationship the fandom has with George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars. Lyden describes how the fandom both seems to despise Lucas for how he has, as the years progressed, seemingly destroyed destroyed what made Star Wars great. However, Lyden also argues that much of the fandom greatly respects Lucas, as one might a messiah or prophet, and that the Lucas that made the changes to the Special Edition is not the “real” Lucas, in a metaphorical sense. This article can be used to help explain why fans, who are obsessive and, in Lyden’s opinion, religious in their adoration of a franchise, can reject additions or changes to the work, even changes done by the work’s original creator. Plante, Corey. “Kelly Marie Tran Harassment Proves Many ‘Fans’ Don't Understand Star Wars.” Inverse, 6 June 2018, www.inverse.com/article/45643-star-wars-fans-harassed-kelly-marie-tran-off-instagram. Accessed 16th of September, 2019. Summery: In his article, “Kelly Marie Tran Harassment Proves Many ‘Fans’ Don't Understand Star Wars,” Corey Plante writes in response to the infamous harassment actress Kelly Marie Tran received by those critical of her performance in Star Wars Episode XIII: The Last Jedi. He conflates these people with those who made edits removing her from the movie, review bombed The Last Jedi on Rotten Tomatoes, which he describes as “toxic critics.” Plante argues that these harassers are not “real” fans of Star Wars, as they fundamentally misunderstand what he describes as the film’s message of inclusion. While this article is not a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal, it is an example of an opinion piece on the subject of fandoms, which give a peek into the psychology of the people who compose them. While I personally agree with Plante’s opinions, it is important to acknowledge that he is setting boundaries upon what defines the Star Wars fandom in his mind. Proctor, William. “‘Bitches ain’t gonna hunt no ghosts’: totemic nostalgia, toxic fandom and the Ghostbusters platonic.” Palabra Clave, 20, 4, 2017 1105-1141, DOI: 10.5294/Pacla.2017.20.4.10. Accessed 15th of September, 2019. Summery: William Proctor addresses, in his article “‘Bitches ain’t gonna hunt no ghosts’: totemic nostalgia, toxic fandom and the Ghostbusters platonic,” the psychology behind toxic fandoms, and whether or not it is as widespread as it often appears to be. Analyzing the response to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot, Proctor argues that the film received such a negative response thanks to the the “totemic nostalgia,” which he defines as a protective affection for something, on the part of the long time fans of the work. Proctor uses examples of how important the original Ghostbusters was to many longtime fans, helping to give them purpose in many cases. Proctor argues that to many fans, the reboot is a slap in the face as it strips away what they loved about the original and effectively states that they are getting rid of the old, which these fans grew up with, and replacing it with the new. Furthermore, while Proctor does not dismiss the harassment and misogynistic criticisms facing the film, he nevertheless argues that these “toxic” fans represent a minority of the backlash. He even goes so far as to posit that the controversy could be partially fabricated, in order to distract against more pertinent criticisms of the film. This article is useful as it posits an explanation for fan backlash without taking a specific side in the debate. Proctor tries to show both sides equally, and attempts to clear up what he views as some misconceptions regarding understanding the situation. “Sequelitis.” TV Tropes, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Sequelitis. Accessed 15th of September, 2019. Summery: This is a different piece than previous entries as it is not an article, but a wiki-page with a large number of contributors. It is a page on “Sequelitis” on the website TV Tropes, which serves as a wiki for cultural tropes and trends. The page begins with a definition of sequelitis, a collection of possible explanations, and then provides hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of various sequels, reboots, prequels, and other additions to media which have had backlash from the fandom (from the point of view of the contributor). This page is incredibly interesting and useful as the examples given are, in a sense, a fandom’s distaste in a work distilled into a paragraph or two. Furthermore, some examples given have responses below them where supporters of a work jump in to defend a piece which is on the receiving end of some criticism. In a sense, it serves as a very good idea on where the fandom’s conversation and opinion on a piece is currently at. Analysis/Conclusions: These sources all provide different points of view on the idea of toxic fandoms and cultural rejection. I can certainly compare and contrast “Whose Film is it Anyways” and “Bitches ain’t gonna be hunting no ghosts,” which offer similar, but ultimately different explanations for fandom psychology. Both are intently focused on fan identity, agreeing that it is when fans perceive their identity found in a work to be threatened that they lash out. However, they differ in their perspectives on how said fan identity is formed. Lyden’s article asserts that fans prize the original experience of a work in a near religious light, whereas Proctor’s views fans as being driven by an almost parental/protective instinct towards a work. These different perspectives toward fan psychology are perhaps best used when examples of the explained behavior can be seen in an example. Plante’s opinion piece, as well as the TV Tropes page both contain a number of examples of psychology described by Lyden and Proctor. In Plante’s piece, one can see the behavior of a fan which prizes the original works of a franchise, as described by Lyden. Furthermore, the protective instinct described by Proctor can also be seen in Plante, as he rushes to defend his chosen work from “haters.” Furthermore, Jones’ article is helpful in providing a commentary on measured critical responses, whether some people are more “respected” and less prone to criticism in culture, and other similar concepts. After looking at various professional opinions and textual evidence from online fandom discourse, it is clear to me that much of the hostility found in fandoms toward new additions to a work stems from the identity a fan has in the work being threatened by the new addition. This can manifest even when the new addition is critically lauded, putting the fans at odds with what the “professionals” view to be a high quality work. Going forward, some additional opinion pieces, perhaps offering contrary opinions to Plante, could prove helpful. Citing a hostile discourse in a fandom would be very illuminating when looking for evidence of different types of responses.