Blog 15

Over the past couple weeks I have struggled to understand fandom. Although we have discussed it so much during class, I am still trying to understand what fuels fandom and how fans create their own texts in order to interact with each other and place their mark on a certain show’s fan base. As I have done research for my final paper, I have gained a better understanding of fandom and fan texts. Sandvoss’s article has also been very helpful in my understanding of the subject.

For me, the most interesting but difficult quote that we had to choose from was “Fandom constitutes an (problematic) engagement in which all of a text’s aesthetic value lies with its reader; however, aesthetic values manifested in the act of reading persist (Sandvoss 31-2).” Although this quote is complicated and has a lot of meaning behind it, I examined the article to try to understand it to the best of my ability.

A very important idea to understand about the aesthetic values of text is that is it is the interaction between the author, text, and reader that aesthetic value springs from (Sandvoss). I think this goes back to the idea of intertextuality and the fact that no text exists alone. We need a point of reference (the other texts) in order to categorize specific texts. This intertextuality automatically generates in interaction between the author, the text, and the reader. It is important that readers feel a connection with the text that keeps them coming back for more. As I have begun my research for my project, I can understand why this interaction is so important. There are so many different options to choose from as far as fan works.

I have started to realize that in order to gain popularity amongst other fans, the text must be aesthetically pleasing to a large enough group of people. Keeping this in mind, each author must consider its target audience. In doing so, the author may be able to make some sort of connection with his target audience and gain an understanding of what the readers will like. This is very difficult because aesthetic value is a completely subjective measure of beauty and worth.

Going back to the quote, I think explains that fandom popularity comes solely from the reader. It is up to the readers within a fan base to determine what should be written and how it should be written because with out the readers’ approval, success is unlikely. Although this is the case, each reader will have his own opinions and aesthetic values. Somehow, enough people appreciate similar aesthetic values which makes it possible for a text to appeal to many people but also confines authors to certain guidelines. These certain guidelines and aesthetic values then live on as a reference for future authors.

Sandvoss, Cornel.  “The Death of the Reader: Literary Theory and the Study of Texts in Popular Culture.” Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World.  Ed. Jonathan Gray, Cornell Sandvoss and C. Lee Harrington.  New York: NYUP, 2007.

Blog 15

For blog post fifteen I decided to choose topic number two to write about. As Sandvoss covers in his article, “the aesthetic value is located in the interaction between reader, text, and author, which makes the ‘death of the author’ problematic for fan texts” (28-30). Problems have arisen about why fan texts are not referred to as “derivative works” because some people argue that the texts are not original works but rather just a regrouping of the authentic work. While thinking about these problems, it brings up the concept of intertextuality. This concept deals with the idea that no text exists in a vacuum, and all texts refer to other texts in some sort of way or another.

I was unclear before of the definite meaning of the term the “death of author”. I was left wondering what exactly is the idea of authorship, and does the idea of the author get completely erased during the creating of fan texts? After the discussions in class, as well as reading the article I have come to terms with the general ideas surrounding the concept. The more archontic a text becomes, the less prime an author becomes as a result. As seen by almost every fan work, fans focus on taking portions of the original text and creating their own experience. In many ways they are re-authoring the original text.

As Sandvoss notes, “multiplicity of meaning has collapsed into complete absence of intersubjective meaning” (28-30). Fandom evolves into multiple textual forms and can be explained through different types of mediums. Fan work essentially goes three different places. The three levels include beyond a text, before the text, and within the text. After looking into Sex and the City fan work, it becomes very clear that Sandvoss’ arguments apply to this text. After looking into fan work I have concluded that there really is nothing that can be considered “too much” for fan fiction. When looking into the Sex and the City fandom, I realized that the work is not based on authorship, but rather on frames of justifiable meanings. Everything on the site (i.e fan fiction, fan videos, blogs and discussions) are based essentially on potential and not based on the intended form from the initial author. Fans take the text that they have seen, and use it to take it to places that they desire to see. An example of fandom expectations that I have seen first hand on the website is the blog posts that discuss love lessons that are taken from the show. Although the show never directly gives pointers on things like dating a player, how to have a quickie, interpreting body language, or first kisses, the fans create their own interpretations after watching the original text. The fan site fills gaps that the show did not exactly cover, and create a Sex and the City realm of their very own. I think there are some examples of the “death of the author” on the site; however, the site entirely does not follow this concept.

Work Cited:

Sandvoss, Cornel.  “The Death of the Reader: Literary Theory and the Study of Texts in Popular Culture.” Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World.  Ed. Jonathan Gray, Cornell Sandvoss and C. Lee Harrington.  New York: NYUP, 2007.

Blog Post 15

Aesthetic values are not concrete statements of fact. Instead they are a subjective measure of beauty and validity. The Sanvoss reading backs this up stating: “If we are successful, the text is normalized and “appears to be nothing more than a mirror-reflection” of the reader and his or her schemes of perception. I particularly like the comparison the reading connects between normalization of the text by the reader and reconciliation of their “object of fandom.” In this sense, the reading examines the work of an author through the contextual lens of the reader. It becomes not only the death of the author but also the birth of the reader.

The reading lists multiple different “tools” for the use of fandom as audienceship. The first two tools listed are the most pertinent to what I have seen in my fandom studies. The first two are: “a tool of pleasurable subversion” and “a rallying point of communities.” There is a definite need to fit in within a broadly defined community. However, there is also a need to define ones self among that community. For example, works of Star Trek fandom operate within the confines of the show, never venturing too far from the original text. However, within those preordained limits there is a need to push the boundaries as far as possible so that the new text can have those same qualities of innovation and creativity that the original possessed.

The conclusions drawn at the beginning of page 31 have a huge implication for fandom. “We can judge a text’s aesthetic value thus only in relation to its reader.” After reading this sentence (and subsequently rereading it a number of times to try to grasp its depth), I came to the same conclusion. Would beauty exist if no one was there to judge it? Since aesthetic value is not an inherent quality, instead superimposed by society, it then becomes up to the reader to determine if a text has the desired aestheticism. And what fans are more fit to determine a shows qualities than the most fanatically dedicated proponents of fandom?

Viewing it this way, fandom then becomes an operative mode of both creation and critique. They define the value of the original text as well as influence the creation of all new texts.

What I do not agree with from the reading is that the multiplicity of meaning that the reader provides is so vast and polysemic that it collapses into a singularity of no intersubjective meaning. Sure each different reader brings his or her own unique biases, perception and modes of thinking into their readings of a text. However, these differences from person to person are not so varied as to be an entirely different experience. For example with Star Trek, some fans might focus more on Captain Kirk whereas others might like Spock more (or any other character for that matter), and these innate differences that cause readers to have their own viewpoints and opinions about the show might lead to a slightly different experience. However for the most part there will be a tremendous overlap in viewing experience. Both fans will see the same show and perceive largely the same meaning. The difference is notable, however I believe it is overstated to presume that there is an absense of intersubjective meaning.

Death of the Reader

Aesthetic value between the different components of television definitely is portrayed well in Death of the Author. When it states “multiplicity of meaning has collapsed into complete absence of intersubjective meaning” (Sandvoss 28-30) is a perfect way of summarizing the problem that is run into by fans. Fandom sites and text written by them is a great way to have interpretation of texts and television shows. It definitely gives people a lot to talk about and think about. However, on the other side of this, it can be extremely problematic. This quote is stating how the many different responses actually begin to demean and demolish an original meaning. After all the analyzing of a certain concept in a book, what the author meant gets extremely lost in all of the thoughts and opinions that were thrown around on these sights. While the aesthetic values enhance the readership of these authors and can really entice other readers, many components are in danger of losing their original value.

The relationship between the text, author and reader is a very delicate one. If the readers do not get very into the text, there are no responses or bustle about the work. The bustle and hype about these works is what gives the authors such great success. The more the authors work gets out, the more readers want to get their hands on the work. So the readers, essentially, are a huge part of the authors success. Word of mouth and these fans interacting will create a love for the work that an author cannot create. So, if there are a lot of fan sites and discussions, an author should be ecstatic.

The author needs to watch not to overindulge these different theories that are being placed on the internet. While authors should not hinder this activity, they should also not egg it on. Too much of this can ruin the authors chance at a future book. Sometimes if the original meaning gets lost, the fans forget that they are not the authors. Then, when the next piece of work comes out, if the outcome is not what they expressed on these sites, the fans take it personally. J.K Rowling and her Harry Potter series is a perfect example of this. Many fans were talking about certain characters that should be together, such as Snape and Hermoine. The fans would also make certain predictions about what characters were going to die off, and how the ending was going to go. These fans are die hard and take these comments very seriously. The original meaning of some of the text was lost in all of the analyzing on these sites. So, when the final books came out, many readers were upset that what actually happened in the book was “wrong” because of what was talked about on these sites.

So, I feel that the relationship between reader, author and text is crucially important to the survival of books and reputation, it can also be the downfall of its future.

Sandvoss, Cornel.  “The Death of the Reader: Literary Theory and the Study of Texts in Popular Culture.” Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World.  Ed. Jonathan Gray, Cornell Sandvoss and C. Lee Harrington.  New York: NYUP, 2007.

Blog 15- Sandvoss Article

I chose to analyze the following statement for this blog post:

Fan objects operate in a “field of gravity” (with or without an Ur-text) through which fundamental meaning is gained through fan-created “paratexts,” which infringe on the text and its meaning making process (Sandvoss, 22-4).

In my own mind, this statement seems simple. What this says to me is that the meaning of a text is created through the reader. It seems as though this meaning exists in its own space while, at the same time, infringing on the original text. This is likely because the meaning created for individual fans can vary from the meaning meant by the author. In addition, fans further their individual meaning of the text through their extensions of the text in the form of fan-videos and fan-fiction. Fan-videos and fan-fiction so far seem to be the best insight into the individual meanings that a text can create for different people. This directly plays on the idea of fan creations infringing on the original text because they are often new creations meant to further a specific meaning for the fan, while at the same time including many elements of the original text.

Because I chose to do a reality television show (American Idol), the meaning of the text and the way fans create their own meaning of the text have been a little more difficult to discover.  One thing I have noticed from looking at some of the American Idol fandom is that the fans are especially critical. There is a large group of fans that focus solely on which contestants and judges they dislike. The auditions aired at the beginning of each season are another hot topic among the fans. The above quote seems to function within the American Idol fan community through exactly this. Fans sometimes even completely ignore the original meaning of the show. I noticed something similar in reviewing some of the recaps provided on the fan website (televisionwithoutpity.com). The fans that write the recaps are often extremely critical of the smallest aspects of the show, such as the host, the guest performers, and the way the results are given. I plan on looking over more of these recaps to try and see how different fans pick out and analyze different parts of the show.

At the same time, it seems like this aspect of the fandom could have greatly influenced the meaning of the show as it is now. As fans reacted more and more to aspects of the show like the terrible auditions in the beginning, the meaning of the show was changed to include more of this. Shows like American Idol really provide fans with a unique experience. Fans can influence the show in real-time and are still able to experience the surprises, twists, and turns that accompany any good show.

Works Cited:

Sandvoss, Cornel.  “The Death of the Reader: Literary Theory and the Study of Texts in Popular Culture.” Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World.  Ed. Jonathan Gray, Cornell Sandvoss and C. Lee Harrington.  New York: NYUP, 2007.

Week 15

I completely agree that everything is inspired by something else. No single idea spawns from nothing, instead something from the past triggers its creation. This idea applies for all aspects of life including factual based thinking such as science. One great example of this comes from one of the most important human discoveries. Everyone has heard of the famous story of how an apple falling from a tree prompted Isaac Newton to develop his theory of gravity. The same theory of nothing being created in a vacuum may also applies for works of writing. Even though something may be considered an original piece of work it may not be as original as people believe. Although this may be a confusing idea to wrap one’s head around, once it is really thought about it makes all the sense in the world. To begin with, saying that all works are inspired by other works does not mean that everything is plagiarized. Plagiarism is typically when one form of media is copied from an already existing media. From the perspective of Sandvoss it is not that everyone is copying from each other, but instead everyone is using their experiences with other things to be the main muse of their creation.

First, let us discuss what is meant by experiences. Experiences is a very general word that may cover a large array of categories. The first and maybe the most important experience a person may have is knowledge. What a person knows or studies will with out question interpret what they see and how they interpret everything. A perfect example of this is the differences that will be shown from a person with a psychology background versus someone with a sociology background. The person with the background in psychology will pay special attention the individual characters, making sure their facial expressions are appropriate, and ensuring their mannerisms are reflective of their personality. On the other hand, a person with a sociology background will place more interest in the interactions between characters or the community with the characters.

It is also important to not that many shows actually stem from other shows. Of course there are the obvious examples of spin offs. However, there are also many shows that came into existence because of other shows. There is no doubt in my mind that Star Trek did not influence the creator and writers of Battle Star Galactica. Does it not make perfect sense that someone who watched Start Trek came up with either his or her own interpretation, or even another fictional parallel universe? What Sandvoss is attempting to say is that nothing came from nothing, and this is an important concept to understand when trying to interpret shows. If one cannot understand where something came from then they will not be able to understand what is trying to be said.

Blog 15- Sandvoss

The concept that I chose to discuss is:

Fan objects operate in a “field of gravity” (with or without an Ur-text) through which fundamental meaning is gained through fan-created “paratexts,” which infringe on the text and its meaning making process (22-4).

I’ll admit that when I first read the Sandvoss article, I didn’t fully understand what he meant by this, but since talking about it in class and then re-reading the article, I hope I have a better grasp on it!  I think that what he’s talking about is intertextuality and the fact that texts are made up of many elements that “infringe upon the text” by violating its authorship (Sandvoss 23).  The “field of gravity” that he is talking about includes all of the different texts and parts of texts that make up the basis of fandom for a particular text (Sandvoss 23).

On page 22, Sandvoss discusses intertextuality and the blurred lines that form the boundary of a text.  He explains that elements of a text are not limited to the things that were originally written or intended by the author of the text.  For example, an element of textuality can be an actor—which removes the author from the equation entirely in most cases, because usually the scripts, storylines, and characters of a show are not written with a specific actor in mind.  The actor can bring elements to a text that the author never intended at all, and fandom towards an actor can extend into the other shows and movies they have starred in, as well as their personal lives.  He then goes on to talk about the media of delivery impacting the textual boundaries, blurring them even further.  Eventually, the fans become the creators of the textual boundaries by choosing a unique combination of textual elements to base their fan work off of.  This, I believe, it what forms a “paratext” (Sandvoss 23).  Different levels of fans use different  combinations of textual elements—some may focus solely on the original text, loyal to the way the author intended it, whereas some may base their fandom more loosely on all adaptations of the original text, slipping further from the original text until it is almost expendable.  Texts do not exist in a vacuum.  They always refer to other texts and to the culture that surrounds them, so it is impossible to read just one text on its own.

This concept doesn’t relate as much to Gilmore girls (which is the show I’m researching for my paper) because of the fact that Gilmore Girls is not a text that has been referenced in many other texts, did not originate from a novel, doesn’t have any big stars in it, and has not been adapted or remade into a movie or anything.  It’s pretty much its own entity.  It relates only in a general sense because it is influenced by the texts made before it, and by the culture in general.

A more extreme, or at least a more obvious, example would be the example of Pride and Prejudice that we discussed in class.  The Jane Austen novel is the original text, and had a huge fan base on its own.  Then there is also the movie adaptation made in 1995 with Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy.  After that, Pride and Prejudice fandom and fan fiction started changing to accommodate new textual elements from this new movie that had nothing to do with the original text.  Another popular adaptation is the more recent 2005 movie.  Fans of the novel are most likely going to be viewing these movie adaptations (as well as reading other fan texts, adaptations, etc. that aren’t as mainstream) and all of these things are going to affect the fan works that they produce.  They are going to probably include textual elements from all of them, possibly even without realizing it.  This is a prime example of the type of intertextuality that Sandvoss talks about.

Sandvoss, Cornel.  “The Death of the Reader?  Literary Theory and the Study of Texts in Popular Culture.”  Fandom:  Identities & Communities in a Mediated World.  Ed. Jonathan Gray, Cornel Sandvoss and C. Lee Harrington. New York:  NYUP, 2007.  19-32. Print.

“Death of the Author”

Death Of The Author theory is the idea that the interpretations of the textagreed with and intended by the creator of the text are not the only valid interpretations of that text. No matter how many times the author states their case, there’s always going to be a large portion of the readers who will have their own very different perspective. And they’re always going to be able to find something in the text to help their case, whether the author intended it to be there or not. While fans are entitled to their own interpretation, that does not mean they are always right. The writer’s original intention should usually be considered first; they’re the ones actually putting their thoughts down and getting them published, after all. This doesn’t mean that fans have to worship at the writer’s feet. Works have to stand by themselves and there is a limit to what authorial intent can change. In the end when words and images clearly show that no author can actually be 100% right within his/her text. On the same note, and most importantly, if words and images clearly shows an author can confirms within in the text the fans who truly into the whole fandom might not have a whole bunch to say but either way in my opinion you’re are in a kind of lose-lose situation because of the various opinions.

Basically when an author produces a piece of work there’s this notion comes up that all of the work isn’t even original because the author has his own set of influences the he bases his text off of. In addition, you take those experiences the author has been through and blend it in with the experiences that the reader or audience has been through and there’s a whole bunch of misinterpretation going on because everyone thinks differently and has been through things and seen a lot of different issues. The death of the author comes into play right here because there is no point in even having an author present a particular issue because it’ll be taking many different ways and I’m pretty sure that it will not be the way the author intended it to be. So the authors are kind of removed from text while everything is just up in the air for the audience to have their way with.

The Death of the Author presents the disagreement that there is no such thing as the “Author” of a text, whose ideas are not entirely original; the author issubject to several influences when writing. It is not the author but language that speaks, therefore, the text requires an analysis of language and meaning, rather than a speaking voice. Once the author is removed, it is within the reader of the text that anything goes as far as the text is concerned, which leaves it open to multiple interpretations by the reader, making the author seem an less powerful and useful with his ideas and words.

urtext

An urtext is an original text or piece of work, typically pertaining to literature or music. Thinking too much about the origins of an urtext can be rather confusing. It can be even more confusing trying to identify urtexts. Unless an author is referring to a historical event or another author’s writing, couldn’t any of their writing be an urtext? Or should it be assumed that by this point in time, there is no such thing as an original script in literature, because there is an urtext out there somewhere? Oftentimes, fans of music, literature, or television (particularly serial television shows) use the text to draw their own conclusions about the particular medium they are analyzing. It is through this analyzation that fans create paratexts, and try to puzzle together supposed hidden information between author, and viewer.  A paratext is a concept of literary interpretation. The concept is that the work of the author has had work added by outside sources. These fan based  paratexts can be found whether an urtext is present or not. Paratexts are created more often when there are urtexts, because the fan can interpret information from the familiar urtext reference, to create a deeper meaning. In his article The Death of the Reader? Cornel Sadvoss describes the way fans use paratext and create what he calls “a field of gravity” which may or may not have an urtext, but still corresponds to the original meaning of the text. Also from Sandvoss’ article, he recognized some of the criticisms surrounding paratexts. Sandvoss quotes Gray saying, “Paratexts infringe upon the text, and invades its meaning making process. Paratexts can be found on various fan sites and various other fan outlets.

Another common form of textual interpretation created by fans of a piece of work are hypertexts. The name hypertext comes from the Greek word “hyper” which means above, beyond, or outside. Hypertext has come to describe a text which provides a network to other texts that are outside and beyond itself. There is a lot more evidence of hypertext present on fan sites. While I have been perusing through fan sites researching for essay number three, I have noticed there have been a lot of fan interpretations. Many of the interpretations come from fans taking a certain scene, and looking deeply into what was said/done. The fan would then continue to explain a different meaning than what was shown on the episode, or even begin making predictions about future episodes. This can be rather distracting, and often causes a heated debate among fans on the site.

Hypertext and para text interpretations often take away from the authors original piece of work. Both involve interpretations of the author’s work which often times is not their true meaning. It distracts from the actual piece of text, and can alter the meaning and impression of the over all piece of work. I am happy to say that I have not found either of those things in any other place than fan sites, and hope I don’t run into them in the future.

Blog 15: Sandvoss Article

With a plethora of television shows to choose from that is within our grasp, there is practically a show for each and every taste. Fans have existed throughout the era of television with its ever popular shows and addicting plots and it can only increase with the development of even newer shows – hence, the birth of fandom. The world of fandom is a niche, where fans have made their own communities, established bonds with people who are just like them, and shared their opinions and unique creations for their own entertainment. However, even with the unlimited freedom that fans have in such communities, not all fan creations lose the true meaning behind
the original text for there are some fans that stay loyal to the essence of the show.

In his article, Sandvoss explains how fans operate. When fans begin to like a certain show or an actor/actress, they are more likely to refer to other forms of media such as videos and magazines to further gather more information about their newfound favorite. Couple this with the fact that the use of the Internet is almost second nature to us in this day and age, fans have an even greater access to such things as Youtube videos, Internet articles, and anything else that fans happen to come across just with the mere touch of a “Search” button (Sandvoss 23). Internet use has fueled the fast-growing numbers of fan fiction and fan videos everywhere, creating a “field of gravity, which may or may not have an urtext [the original text] in its epicenter” (Sandvoss 23). Instead, fans begin to use all of the other sources they have in their midst besides the original text, picking and choosing the details they want to include from several different media and rejecting what they don’t like. In doing so, fans begin to create what is known as a “paratext, [which] infringes upon the text, and invades its meaning-making process” (Sandvoss 23). This paratext derives its structure based on an archive, thereby changing the overall meaning of the text and ultimately making the original expendable (Sandvoss 23).

While this is a prominent idea in the world of fandom, Gilmore Girls fans do not alter the plot’s meaning. Most fans frequently base their creations on the actual show itself since there are no movies and/or popular adaptations that can influence and recreate the way fans write their stories. As such, the original meaning behind the text is rarely lost for the show.

However, there have been common themes that do spring up quite often in Gilmore Girls fan fiction. One of these themes is Rory having an illegitimate child of her own. The condition in which this situation happens is always different for Rory, sometimes with a different guy altogether. But, whether these fans borrow ideas from each other’s works and incorporate their own ideas into the mix is a definite possibility. Still, these works do not recreate the original plot or change it in any way because these stories are well beyond the text’s boundaries. Therefore, while the idea of borrowing ideas here and there can be seen from Gilmore Girls fans, the true meaning of the show is never lost, discouraging Sandvoss’s idea of fan-created paratexts.

Works Cited:

Sandvoss, Cornel. “The Death of the Reader: Literary Theory and the Study of Texts in Popular Culture.” Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World. Ed. Jonathan Gray, Cornell Sandvoss and C. Lee Harrington. New York: NYUP, 2007.