Media
Parisot, D. Galaxy Quest. Hollywood Calif.: DreamWorks Pictures, 1999. (Netflix, Amazon Video, iTunes)
Geek of the Week
- Fiona
-
TED Talk: “My Love Letter to Cosplay” – Adam Savage
-
Lamerichs, Nicolle. “Costuming as Subculture: The Multiple Bodies of Cosplay.” Scene (2044-3714), vol. 2, no. 1/2, Oct. 2014, pp. 113–125. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1386/scene.2.1-2.113pass:[_]1.
-
- Andrew
- Pinchefsky, Carol. “Wizard Oil: Why Do We Read Science Fiction? Does personality influence reading choice?” Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show. September 2006.
Theory and Commentary
Geraghty, Lincoln. 2005. “Creating and Comparing Myth in Twentieth-Century Science Fiction: Star Wars and Star Trek.” Literature/Film Quarterly.
Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: NYU Press.
- Excerpts from “Matt Hills Interviews Henry Jenkins” (9-36)
- Star Trek Rerun, Rewritten: Fan Writing as Textual Poaching (37-60)
- “Out of the Closet and into the Universe”: Queers and Star Trek (89-112)
Galaxy Quest showed a surprisingly positive representation of fans on screen, especially for something from 1999 (when TV shows in the last 5 years have continued to misrepresent fan communities). I was pleased that the fans’ immense knowledge and understanding of the Galaxy Quest show proved vital to the actors/crew-members ultimate success. However, they still played into the stereotypes of obsessive and unable to separate fiction from reality. In what ways could the fan community have been portrayed in an even more positive light?
In “Creating and Comparing Myth”, Geraghty states: “Ultimately, the fictional universe in which so many fans immerse themselves represents something entirely exclusive and totally at the mercy of what the producers and creators decide is appropriate. The Star Trek canon, the episodes and films, is in effect rather more constrictive and bound to set values than fans and audiences would come to expect.” Fans are not under the same constraints in their reaction and recreating of source material, as they are not beholden to studio bureaucracy. In what ways, then, do fan communities deconstruct what is considered “canon”?
In “Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers” Jenkins says the following: “Media fan writing is an almost exclusively feminine response to mass media texts. Men actively participate in a wide range of fan-related activities, notably interactive games and conference-planning committees, roles consistent with patriarchal norms that typically relegate combat— even combat fantasies— and organizational authority to the “masculine” sphere. Media fan writers and fanzine readers, however, are almost always female.” This represents two forms of fandom, affirmational (traditionally male) and transformative (traditionally female). Are these boundaries still in effect within participatory culture? Have they become destabilized?
In “Costuming as Subculture,” Lamerichs highlights the craftsmanship involved in creating cosplay outfits. She points out how “Cosplayers are often adept at many skills” (118), with the costumes as “material object that fans produce with great skill and dedication” (123) and highlights the importance of the culture around their creation when she talks about the “‘affinity group’: an informal learning space that connects participants by interest and allows them to learn from other members” (114). As cosplaying has become more ‘mainstream’ within fan communities and less of a specific subculture, companies have capitalized on this trend to mass produce articles of clothing labeled as existing specifically for cosplay. Do these items, sold by large corporations rather than created within the group, break down the importance of skill and DIY that exists at the very core of cosplaying? Do they represent something entirely different?
In “Costuming a Subculture,” the writer argues “Similarly, cosplay is anchored in a carnivalesque setting and cannot be interpreted outside of this space.” It makes me wonder that, if outside of the conventions of fan meetings or in the name of celebrating festivals, does cosplay really loses its performative and embodying features? If so, then is it the “carnivalesque setting” or a community that gives cosplay meaning and life?
“Why Do We Read Science Fiction? Does personality influence reading choice?” poses some interesting personal experiences and interpretations, as well as analyses from psychotherapists. I sometimes wonder about the similar question as well: is it because of the proximity of personalities among my friends and I that we share similar hobbies? But I am somewhat suspicious about the generalizing tendency in the “it seems that many people who read science fiction as children had similar experiences: raised outside their mother countries, moved frequently, had health problems, troubled childhoods, and/or were academically gifted. These circumstances led these people to delve more deeply into books than to reach out to other people.” Do we have some counter arguments or examples here?
In “Wizard Oil,” Carol Pinchefsky proposes that the audience who reads science fiction tends to love complexity. While the genre encapsulates change, SF speaks to those who often experience alienation. The article, however, reads as an opinion rather than providing concrete evidence to support its claims. How does personality correlate with reading choice? Is there a certain personality type that gravitates towards SF? Would it be possible to invent a personality test that classifies a type of SF that the reader would be interested in?
Galaxy Quest is a film that resurrects canon in a spin-off continuation as a result of the adventure; it’s a bit reminiscent of fanfiction and fandom creations. With its colorful tropes, the film reads as a parody of science fiction media as well as the fandom that springs from its creation. Why is there a lacking of media such as Galaxy Quest? Why is there a tendency to focus on fandom’s negative tropes? Is capitalizing on fandom just a corporate, money-making scheme?
Henry Jenkins, along with John Campbell, in “Out of the Closet & into the Universe: Queers & Star Trek,” assert that “we need to create a context where fan politics may be acknowledged and accepted as a valid contribution to the debates about mass culture” (92). Why are fan-views often neglected, disregarded, or ignored altogether? How may fan politics be approached in an academic context?
In “Wizard Oil,” Pinchefksy wonders whether certain personality configurations predispose individuals to be drawn to particular kinds of literature. Using the Myers Briggs personality inventory, she argues that NTs (thinking/intuitive types) have a tendency to be drawn to SF because of their admiration of the craftsmanship and system building required to bring a world heretofore unseen into being. She also argues that certain kinds of alienating early life experiences—the nurture side of the issue—would make people more likely to enjoy SF. Do you think there’s merit to these claims? And if these are the qualities possessed by the SF reader, what sort of qualities do you think the SF writer possesses?
In “Creating and Comparing Myth in Twentieth Century Science Fiction: Star Trek and Star Wars,” Geraghty argues that Star Trek and Star Wars, respectively, adopt nostalgia oriented myths in order to create a history permeated by ideology. In Geraghty’s estimation, what role do these myths play?
In “Matt Hills Interviews Henry Jenkins,” Jenkins describes some of the difficulties and benefits of being both a fan/academic who writes on fan culture. Jenkins articulates that “religiosity” is important to fan communities, but is clear to distinguish this from religion as it’s typically understood. Jenkins argues that a fan’s emotional connection to the object of their fandom, and how they identify with the values it espouses, is crucial for how fans, but not academics, make sense of these cultural objects. How do you understand the reluctance of academics to discuss an emotional connection to their objects of study? In addition, is there room for affect in academia?
I like the cosplay article about Geek of Week. I have cosplay some Middle Ages knight in my undergrad. This is an interesting experience for me. In my point of view, cosplay can make a person be the other guy which they never could be. For example, I cannot become a knight in modern society. Knight is all gone and their armor and weapon are meaningless to modern military produce. On the other hand, because of the social progress on sanitation, no one wants to interact with a real dirty knight in the Middle Ages. However, it does matter for people like me who have a dream of the knight and cosplay can realize my dream in some way. My case is same with people who want to cosplay characters from the Star War or hero form DC. Cosplay is also a presentation of another side of you. In our regular life, we are restricked by our identity. As we change our ID by cosplay, we might change our behavior and relax. However, in China, sometimes cosplay is relating to sexual issues, is there any way to solve the problems?
Henry Jenkins‘ book about games, fans and the culture behind it really inspired me, especially the chapter “Star Trek Rerun, Rewritten: Fan Writing as Textual Poaching.” Fan based on their understanding of the plot and write their own story. It is cool and still popular in both China and Japan. I used to write my own vision of one of SF novel. I enjoy writing my story based on the original plot or making my own mod on SF games. However, I am wondering if any fan-made story become more popular than the original one, what could the author do to protect his right from fans?
After watching the Ted Talk by Adam Savage, I am curious if K-8 grade schools might consider incorporating costume design somewhere in their curriculum. Children will not only learn technical design skills for constructing their masks, weapons, etc. but also develop creative problem solving and social skills. This could potentially be groundbreaking for children on the autism spectrum who have trouble with traditional / normative communication and socializing.
“Galaxy Quest” remains one of my all-time favorite films, but the plot is nearly identical to the film “The Three Amigos”…which is also on my list. I am curious why this concept continues to come up again and again in cinema: washed-up actor becomes a reluctant hero in a real-life drama that was initially thought to be just another screen role. Fascinating.
Why do I read science fiction? I’m not sure I could answer this in less than 10 pages, but in short…I like to escape reality and imagine future worlds.
1. The essay on modern mythology, Star Trek, and Star Wars made me think of a question that’s always haunted me when it comes to the study of both mythology AND science fiction To wit, why do discussions about myth-making seem to favor these two franchises – and in particular Star Wars – at the expense of others? We’ve read a number of texts in this class with their own fanbases, and their own dense mythologies, but I’m not reading essays about how Dune or Blade Runner have something profound to say about the Hero’s Journey. I almost wonder if it has to do with the fact that, by nature of the fact that these two franchises were designed to appeal to the broadest possible audience (see earlier comments about network television) that makes their concepts at once simple and complex, easily understood and ported over into something like a discussion of mythology. What do you think?
2. Galaxy Quest is a stone-cold classic and as close to a perfect movie as they come. And I agree that its portrayal of fans and fandom is sweet, endearing, and generous. However, given the last few years or so of fandom, where issues regarding fans believing they own a property, or harassing creators, or any number of things I could name, there are elements of Galaxy Quest that feel…if not dated, then definitely lacking. And yet, it’s such a good movie that it’s hard to fault it for not seeing what was coming. But this has me thinking – do fans of science fiction and science fiction culture have a responsibility to address and incorporate problems with fandom into their own narratives of fandom? Why or why not? Which fans have more of a responsibility vis a vis their own privilege?
3. You can reboot one science fiction television show a la GALAXY QUEST – THE ADVENTURE CONTINUES. What do you choose, why do you choose it, and how do you incorporate changes in science fiction culture and fandom?
It’s interesting to examine the world of cosplay, particularly now that “nerd” culture is so popular among a more mainstream audience. How has its growing popularity affected it?
Has the rise of social media and social media “stars” affected cosplay negatively or positively? Is it considered more basic to do cosplay for social media because images can be manipulated with filters and photoshop?
What role does identity play in cosplay? Is a cosplayer’s “true” identity revealed through their costume, or does it exist without and beyond their costume, or both?
Cosplay is one aspect of fandom that I’m conflicted about. Contextually, as an originally Japanese artform it makes sense. Anime was born from a desire to represent other looks: the animated medium allowed stories and characters that a homogenous society was incapable of portraying in a live-action format, and as such cosplay was a natural evolution. Much in the way that drag is not a misogynistic caricature of the feminine but rather an expression of the inner woman, cosplay was an evocation of the inner Sailor Moon or Naruto. Cosplay was dark-haired, brown-eyed Asian people dressing up in blond hair, wings, blue contact lenses, and exaggerated make-up.
The problem lies in its translation – not to say that when cosplay hit the “West” it became racist or entered the same sphere as blackface, but the fantasy was no longer felt.
TaLynn Kel wrote an article that got picked up by HuffPo ( https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/as-a-fat-black-woman-cosplay-has-tried-to-make-me_us_57e555b9e4b09f67131e4149 ) in which she describes the main problem I have with cosplay in America, which is not a problem with cosplay but rather a problem with the available properties in which to cosplay. As TaLynn points out, as a “fat black woman” there are limits to what you can portray. As a skinny Japanese girl, donning a blond wig with ponytails and buns to become Sailor Moon is no thing – that’s kind of the point of Sailor Moon as a Japanese feminist icon. But as a thicc woman of color in America: who are your characters? Who do you model? As TaLynn mentions in the same article: she had no one to base a cosplay look on – even Storm is skinny as fuck – so she started doing Fat Black Femme versions of other characters. Fat Black Femme Thor. Fat Black Femme Archangel. Fat Black Femme Wolverine. And I think it’s fucking lit. But the fans? The same fans that lost their shit when the doctor regenerated as a woman?
We need to talk about toxic fandom, y’all.