#tricoding-trekkie

[rtffanculture]

Engaged: Representation of Fans in Media

Henry Jenkins “Get a Life!: Fans, Poachers, Nomads” describes the way fans go from passively enjoying a show to actively participating in their fandoms as poaching. In Jenkins terms poaching is when fans take what they enjoy and find useful from the show and in turn create goods and works for others to enjoy (Jenkins, 23-27).

In Associated Press (AP) “Fans Trek to New York to Experience Sci-Fi Show” fans are represented as enthusiasts willing to create and engage with the show of their affection. The forms of poaching displayed in the clip constitute a myriad of ways fans engage with Star Trek as a property. By building sets and props as well as paying to walk around and engage with the replica sets of the Starship Enterprise from Star Trek, as well as showing up in hand-made costumes, fans are no longer passively enjoying Star Trek, but actively participating with the show (AP, 0:20- 0:22).

The video represents fans as being from all walks of life and all different ages, as well as showcasing older fans sharing their love of the show with their children (AP, 1:05- 1:17). The tourists who visit these sets have different goals for doing so, such as attempting to relive their childhood (AP, 1:28- 1:35), getting to feel they are part of the show (AP, 0:25- 0:34), or even just to research and take notes to build props for cosplay (AP, 1:45- 1:55). The video presents these fans in an interesting light; it does not attempt to ostracize fans for enjoying Star Trek and attempts to rely upon information to the public about ways they may enjoy the attraction as well.

The fascination and frustration that comes with participating in fandom are also demonstrated in the video (Jenkins, 23-24). The sets built by James Cawley were initially made for fan movies based on Star Trek (AP, 0:17 - 0:19). However, he stopped using the sets for this purpose when Paramount Pictures and CBS Studios sued another studio in California (AP, 0:46 - 0:53). By participating in fan films, Trekkies showcase an ownership for the text they feel they have as consumers, while by suing fan studios both Paramount and CBS display the ownership they believe they have as producers (Jenkins, 30).

This further employs the struggle both fans and studios have for their properties and as Jenkins has stated the studio rewards fans who passively enjoy the property and punishes those who actively engage and create works based on the property (Jenkins, 25). Both fans and producers have different ways they interpret the text, with fans wanting to participate further with the text and poaching what they enjoy from the material and producers wanting fans to interpret the text at face value so they may contain full ownership of the property.

Work Cited

Jenkins, Henry. "Get a Life!: Fans, Poachers, Nomads." Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge, 1992. N. pag. Print.

Associated Press. "Fans Trek to New York to Experience Sci-Fi Show."YouTube. YouTube, 24 Aug. 2016. Web. 11 Sept. 2016.

[rtffanculture]

Best Practices for Studying Fans

In Fan Privacy and TWC’s Editorial Philosophy published by Karen Hellekson and Kristina Busse, the guidelines for ethical practices when citing transformative works for academics explains in precise detail in what practices are and are not desirable in the field of fan studies.

Although, I agree with Hellekson and Busse that it is our duty as acafans not only to analyze fanworks and fan community but to protect the community we analyze, be it by protecting author identities or requesting permission for the usage of fanworks (Hellekson and Busse par.1). I feel there are still certain guidelines missing when analyzing transformative works. While reading their article, I could not help but wonder how we as academics would be able to cite works by fans, who have either abandoned their work or have disappeared from the face of the earth. As Hellekson and Busse have stated in their article (Hellekson and Busse par. 15) how do we obtain permission for works when fans disappear, are difficult to contact, or die?

I feel the best way to do so would be to examine the works, in this particular example fanfiction, that are left behind and review when they were last published by their authors, where they are published, and if they are still published in their original domains or are archived.

First, we need to establish a timeframe of when fanworks are off limits. I feel a period of two to three years from the last update or the last story published by an author is efficient as it allows the author enough time to return to their work. As well as giving academics a significant amount of time to contact the author to require permission for the usage of their work (Hellekson and Busse par.12).

Next, we should only pursue works that are available on their original sites or are archived on sites such as Archives of Our Own. This practice is ethical for the reason that it allows academics to use the works as they are still on their original sites, and give authors who may not wish for their works to be public a chance to delete their existing works. If academics employ sites such as the Wayback Machine to find aged fanworks, it is possible they are finding works the authors have deleted and didn’t want to save on the internet, and this goes against our code of conduct in assuring we protect the works of fan authors (Hellekson and Busse par. 18).

These propose best practices ensure that the original authors have control of their works and require acafans to require permission and show respect to both the fans and the works that they study (Hellekson and Busse par. 6). By using these practices, I believe not only will better research occur but a stronger relation with academic and fans when it comes to researching an area we both enjoy, the works of artists within fandoms.

Work Cited

Hellekson, Karen, and Kristina Busse. "Fan Privacy and TWC’s Editorial Philosophy." Organization for Transformative Works. Organization for Transformative Works, 5 Dec. 2009. Web. 04 Sept. 2016