It Was On Fire When I Laid It Down
by Sylvia Bond
Book Review: In the Hunt: Unauthorized Essays on Supernatural
I’ve always had a problem with books like these, pop culture books that pop up just when a show’s popularity has reached its zenith so as to cash in on that popularity before the opportunity has passed by. In particular, since this book is about the TV show Supernatural, I have to ask where was this book two years ago, when Show could really have used the extra exposure? Nope. The book is cashing in now, just as there’s a season and a half to go, high ratings, and potentially a large audience interested in its contents. I think there’s no helping this, pop culture books are a part of the deal, only the most popular shows get them, and who am I to question the power of Capitalism? Besides which, I’m kind of flattered that they picked Show to make money off of.
The second problem I have is that anyone who would be interested in the contents of this book already knows pretty much what it’s going to say. In the before time, before the internet, being about a fan’s favorite show would have guaranteed sales. However, in the face of Live Journal, Journal Fen, Slash City, Insane Journal, Word Press, et al, this book is not like a watering hole in a desert full of fans desperate for anything about their favorite show. Fans have been saying what this book has to say, to each other, for years. As good as, if not better, and certainly with more passion. And then fans give it away. For free. So why are fans going to buy this book? Just go here or here and you’ll see what I mean. These two sites represent just a small portion of what’s out there.
The third problem I have is that books like these are usually written by non fans, ghost writers, or professionals who are paid to churn these kinds of things out by the handful without ever having seen an episode. As if what fans have to say isn’t just insufficient but almost immaterial. Otherwise, why would a bunch of professors, head shrinkers, and critics suddenly feel the need to step in and contribute at this stage of the game? There’s effrontery in deigning to make comments about a culture or an idea that one has not participated in.
To this publisher’s credit, however, in addition to the tie-in writer and others who will be moving on once the next flavor of the month hits, this shiny, well-edited book included the essays of three actual fans. In the spring of 2008, Supernatural fans were asked to submit essays as part of a competition. Three winners would be chosen, and would each receive $100 and a copy of the book. Twelve others would get a copy of the book and an honorable mention. Personally I think the entire thing should have been made up of essays written by fans, because who would know more about a show than its fans, and I’m going to stick to that, even though I figure that among the other writers at least some of them are fans. Although it’s hard to tell who as more than half seem to be pro writers who’ve never seen an actual ep.
I read the little bios at the end of each essay and made a judgment call based on that as to whether or not the contributor was a fan. Then I went back and actually read the essays, and compared that with my initial impression of each contributor, and I’m thinking I was right 90% of the time. Maybe it’s terrible of me to judge a book by the fannish component, but there you go. And here we go.
Keith R.A. DeCandido. He’s not a fan. I doubt he’s ever even seen, let alone enjoyed, more than one or two episodes. Sure he’s written two novelizations about Show. But according to the few fans who shelled out and actually read them (I did neither), his books are not just pale imitations, but ghostly-pale, see-through, not-very-good imitations of the real thing. Namely fan fiction, any example of which by its very essence of pure passion and love could kick anything DeCandido could write all over the map. Yeah, his books have Sam and Dean and the Impala in them, but his characters are talking heads and rolling wheels only. Fans have complained long and loud about why this guy gets to write novelizations when True Fans are writing better, more true-to-character, more passionate stories every day (more than 50,000 at this point), and I for one echo their complaints. For this book, he wrote the Forward, whoopitdy do.
Tanya Huff is one of the few names that I recognize. Ms. Huff is a well-respected, well known sci-fi/fantasy writer, who is, in my book, right up there with Anne McCaffrey and Joan D. Vinge. The fact that her bio says that she would give a kidney to be able to write for Show (and I hope she gets her chance) tells me that she’s a True Fan. She also comes across as the one big name among the lot, acting rather like an anchor store at a strip mall; they’re lucky to have gotten her contribution. Her essay reads a little like a college research paper with all the in-text references and the somewhat stilted structure, but she’s got her ducks in a row talking about how John Winchester is, at the same time, a good dad and a bad dad who did the best he could.
Dodger Winslow is definitely a True Fan and a big John Winchester fan. She’s well known in fandom for her verbose (and very interesting) meta discussions, as well as for her in-depth and deliciously long stories. (She still hasn’t finished Skin Deep, what’s up with that?!) I’m glad they included her essay; she’s always got something interesting to say. Hers is a smooth and polished essay about the difference between self-perception and reality. Or, to put it in context, how we (as viewers ) relate to Sammy because he seems so much like us, but how there’s Dean in us too, that we don’t even realize. Or how we would much rather be Dean than Sammy. (Sometimes it takes a glass of wine to settle me down to get inside what she’s trying to tell me, but I love reading Dodger’s stuff.)
Randall M. Jensen. He’s a Professor of Philosophy at Northwestern College in Orange City, Iowa, and because he’s a professor, he writes about various subjects, but only those that are going to contribute to his gaining tenure. Sorry, but it’s true. He’s not a fan. His essay turned out to be in keeping with that, dense and dry and scholarly, and not a whole lot of fun to read. He seemed to focus on how his ivory tower theories of the horror genre (with many quotes and scholarly references) related to Show, and the whole thing felt distant and left me cold.
Gregory Stevenson says he’s a Professor of Religion and Greek at Rochester College in Michigan. See earlier snarky comment about professors. It just takes a lot of hubris to come marching in with that official badge of professorship to a community that’s been growing strong for years without any validation at all. Thusly, he’s not a fan. His essay turned out to be scholarly as well, like a dull, re-worked college paper about “Why We Love Being Scared,” with the words Supernatural, Sam, and Dean thrown in for good measure.
Rev. Dr. Avril Hannah-Jones. Wow. Talk about a title. She’s ordained, fer crying out loud. But based on the fact that she’s an essay contest winner as well as her stated love for Dean Winchester, I’d say she’s a True Fan. While I liked the idea of her essay, that the “line between good and evil lies within the human heart,” I found essay itself a little on the choppy side. It was like she was trying to go in too many different directions in an attempt to explain how Judeo-Christian mythology fits inside of Show in time for the commercial break.
Robert T. Jeschonek wrote some stories for the classic anthology entitled Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. That he’s written for other pop culture anthologies tells me he’s not a fan and that when this well has run dry, he’ll have moved on to the next flavor of the month. However, even though he’s probably not a True Fan, I enjoyed his essay that posited that Sam and Dean are the two main monsters on Supernatural, and then how he went on to explore that at more depth. He stuck to one idea, and worked it through. At the same time, I kept wondering why he kept using all those ellipses. I’d not seen that many since I read Marilyn Ross’s Dark Shadows series. (Barbara Cartland used to use them, too, in her romance books. She was Princess Diana’s step-grandmother, don’t you know.)
Tanya Michaels writes about Dean Winchester like she knows him (and with deep affection), so I’d say she’s a True Fan. Which is proven true by her essay, a funny and insightful exploration of a Dean who is as much, if not more of a caregiver than he is an ass kicker. She’s got the inside scoop on what makes Dean tick, and she referenced episodes without being all dusty and ivory tower about it.
Amy Garvey. The very fact that she wants to buy an Impala (and who doesn’t?) tells me she’s a True Fan. Which shows through every sparkling word of her essay, a fun-to-read and fan-affirming piece that demonstrates not only her understanding of the characters and Show, but her talent in writing down what’s in her head in an engaging and interesting way.
Sheryl A Rakowski is an essay contest winner so thusly a True Fan as well as self-titled Supernaturalphile. I love that about her and I don’t even know her. Her essay is a rather deep and dense piece about Dean’s role as the sacrificial care-giver, and how the fact that the boys need each other is both a strength and a weakness, but it’s done so well, that I got far inside of it before I knew what was happening. Her yen for written expression should be encouraged. (And I’m not just saying that just because we both came to love Show in 2007, which is very late by fannish standards.)
Mary Borsellino says she’s a writer who likes to stay up past her own bedtime. Has also done interviews with the cast and crew of Show, so I’d say she’s a True Fan. At the same time, her essay was a little bit all over the map, incessantly trying to connect elements of Buffy to characters in Supernatural, claiming that any horror show that is post-Buffy, must, as a matter of consequence, be riding on the shoulders of a giant. Hate to put out your candle there, but I’ve never actually watched Buffy, only heard tell of it, so the comparison was lost on me, as well as coming across as rather forced and pushy. Plus, the subtitle of this essay was “Supernatural’s Excluded Heroines,” yet the essay also talked about Gordon, and John, and Caleb, and never seemed to come to any real conclusion about anything.
Jacob Clifton is an Austin novelist who also writes for Television Without Pity (TWOP), a wesbsite that typically rips Show apart without mercy, so I’d say not a fan. His essay also included many Buffy references, and hey, Joss Whedon RULES, right, but enough is enough. Yet. At the same time, this essay got to the heart of the matter about how Show takes masculine tropes of action and drama and puts them inside of a dreamy, feminized landscape, which was a new idea for me. Nicely done.
Carol Poole is a psychotherapist who got her MA from Pacifica Graduate Institute in Carpinteria, California. Her bio indicates that she’s one of those writers who seems to pick up on the next best thing and write about just to makes sure she gets enough published articles for tenure, so, not a fan. However, her essay, which was an in-depth exploration of the elements of the Pilot ep and how the fact that Mary Winchester, mother extraordinaire, burned to death on the ceiling 22 years before set into motion the never-ending journey of saving people, hunting things, was pretty good
Emily Turner works with the Order for Transformative Works (OTW), which, if you didn’t know, is the first large-scale, all inclusive project that aims to collect and protect the works of all fans everywhere. This woman is a TRUE FAN. Just check out their website. I thought her essay was the grittiest of the lot, taking on important fannish subjects that you only get glimpses of around corners when no one is looking, namely slash, wincest, homoeroticism, and the idea that Sam and Dean’s transgressions of living off the grid allow fans to do likewise when creating fanworks.
Jamie Chambers is the guy who’s writing the RPG for Supernatural. I hate to say this, but anything he’s going to come up with for the role playing game is not going to match what’s in fans’ heads when they read and write fan fiction. I don’t think he’s a fan, but, surprisingly, I did like his essay about the romance of poverty that is rife in Supernatural.
Heather Swan is a writer of lots of things, but not a fan, I think. And I thoroughly did not like her essay built of overly-constructed, meant-to-be clever faux letters and memos. It was messy and contrived, to boot.
Jules Wilkinson does a lot including working on the fan site supernaturalwiki.com, which is where I go to get the info I need, I can’t tell you how many times. You don’t work on something this comprehensive unless you’re a True Fan. Plus, she talked about the Impala incessantly (which I adored), waxing poetic about black metal and the history of the car and how it connects with the Winchester’s history; her essay is more than an essay, it’s a paean to Metallicar.
Mary Fechter admits to being currently obsessed with Supernatural, but not in the next-flavor-of-the-month kind of way. I’d say she’s a serial monogamist and True Fan. Her essay proves this out. It’s about the Impala and Dean and Sam and everything cool as she relates them all together.
Tracy S. Morris’ bio makes her come across as a writer who seems to be more interested in being clever than being a fan. However, admittedly, I enjoyed her essay about the Colt as a magic object and metaphor for John Winchester’s journey very much, and laughed out loud more than once.
Amy Brener wrote about Gordon Walker, vampire hunter, and for that alone, I can tell she’s a True Fan, because Gordon only appeared in four eps in three seasons, so, you have to be a True Fan to even know he existed. He’s dead now, sadly. Her essay was a grand exploration of Gordon Walker and how he creates a spotlight by which we can better understand Sam and Dean. (But damn those ellipses anyhow.)
Maria Lima writes a lot, has a soft spot for The Trickster (who only appeared in two eps – THUS FAR!), and appears to adore both Sam and Dean equally, so she’s a True Fan. I like how her essay focused on The Trickster, and then explored both eps he was in in depth, and then summarized that Sam and Dean are stronger together than apart, in spite of what The Trickster thinks. This lady knows her stuff, I’d say.
Shanna Swendson writes both contemporary fantasy and contributes to pop culture when the opportunity arises. Probably not a fan. And definitely her essay was on the dry side, slogging its way through a discussion of the legends present in a thick chunk of the episodes from Season 1. Problem is, the legends in Supernatural have already been discussed at length, and much more amusingly, elsewhere.
London E. Brickley is one of three essay contest winners and therefore a True Fan. I envy her time spent in the Arctic with nothing to do but watch Show and measure penguin poop. Her essay was an interesting discussion about what is truth, and how it might, just might, be found on the internet.
The runners up who got an honorable mention on page 275 are all True Fans, simply by the very fact that they spent time and energy preparing the essays for rejection by a pro publication like this one: Mary F. Dominiak (Bardicvoice), Amanda R. Hauck, Lee. C. Hallman (Gwendolyn Grace), Laura Kilmartin, Samara Jensen, K. Hanna Korossy, Onuma (Anna) Lakamchua, Dawn Nyberg, B.J. Peterson (bjxmas), Michelle Shavlik, Diana Taleski, Shannon Zufer.
The only name I recognize here is K. Hanna Korossy, who not only writes marvelously warm gen fic, but who also writes meta that shoots from the hip in a sharp, smart, concise manner that is entirely readable. The fact that she wasn’t included in the final work means that the essays in the book (especially by non fans) were picked on the basis of being catchy or clever rather than real. Plus, if she’s not in the book, then I question the criteria by which the fan contest essays were judged.
I’m really honored to have been asked to write this review. As a True Fan, I think I was selected to give visibility to this collection of essays about the Show, and perhaps because I am known for being somewhat of a softie when it comes to Show, giving the benefit of the doubt, and preferring to rave rather than criticize. Sadly the publishers didn’t know of my eccentric squick about books like this one.
|
|
Sylvia Bond is a ten-year technical writing veteran with too many degrees under her belt to count. She lives in Colorado, but does not ski, preferring instead to spend her money and time at the annual Great American Beer Festival, taking road trips across the United States, and reading historical fiction from the comfort of her fluffy green arm chair. She has been involved in fandom since 1993 and been writing fanfic since approximately 1993. What she finds most amazing about fandom (besides the open heartedness of fans and the sheer amount of creativity) is how visible fandom has become. “In my day,” she says, “we had to hide behind P.O. boxes to get fanfic. But nowadays, people wear t-shirts that shout their affiliation and share their shiny toys on the internet.” It’s a wonderful world.
Never miss an update. Subscribe to Pink Raygun by Email or subscribe via RSS
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=554d4422-0e36-4d1d-8253-1a572bda011b)
Bardicvoice was kind enough to give me the following link, which will direct you to the essays that didn't make the cut, including K. Hanna Korossy's, Bardicvoice's, and everyone else's. Isn't it better when it's free?
http://www.smartpopbooks.com/supernatural/essays….
As always, Syl, you are pithy and shoot straight from the hip yourself when it comes to your reviews. I was considering purchasing this book, but you've made me decide to save my pennies for something else related to my beloved show. Why? Because I am a True Fan, and only want to read essays by like-minded fans. Besides, when I think of "essays," I can't help but think of English assignments, and that gives me junior high school flashbacks. Brrrr! No thanks! I appreciated your in-depth, excellent review!
Hey thanks for the compliments! Yeah, you could find this information anywhere out on the web, and also use the link to read the 12 that didn't make it in – which are probably just as good as anything that made it into the book.
Just go to SPN Heavy Meta and you can drown in discussions about Show, with no word limits or filters or anything. Just pure passion.
Fans have been talking about this stuff for years, YEARS, and giving it away for free, so why would someone want to make money on it now? .
Okay, yes. People like to make money, I understand that. Plus there's the cachet of being actually published, and who doesn't want that? Still.
You are always a smart shot from the hip. Never let the confusion shut you down. Just shoot and sort out the pieces later!
Repeating what Robin said. I can't believe the cut out BardicVoice and K Hanna Korossy. They have true fan voices as well as intelligence and insight into Show and the boys. They have name recognition amongst fans….the one who would be buying the book.
Exactly! I can understand the publishers wanting variety, but I think they sacrificed to that goal by including too many essays that might have been clever and twisty but that had no body, no, soul, and very little passion. And then leaving out ones that did have those things, and thus, cutting into the very thing they're looking for: profits.
Personally, I think there's a paradigm shift going on in the publishing industry, which is slow to react to the fact that there are more ways to get access to interesting things to read than in a pro book.
Thank you for a well thought out and honest review. I appreciate the fact that you did a review for each author, and that you were up front about your bias against pop culture books like these. I also find nothing appealing about these types of books, but the idea of a book a fan essay is something I might invest in.On a side note I could only get the Meta in Supernatural wikispaces link to work the others were no good.
Sure, a book that has fan essays is always worth investing in, I just wished there'd been more of them in this one.
Sorry the links weren't working. Here's the one for the OTW:
https://secure.transformativeworks.org/
And the Meta in Supernatural link has as its very first link the SPN_heavy meta, but here it is again:
http://community.livejournal.com/spn_heavymeta/
Enjoy! (Hope they work!
Regards,
Sylvia
Wow. This is, hands-down, one of the worst reviews I've ever read. Of anything. Ever. You actually based your valuation of the material on whether the essays were written by FANS? And THIS based on (apparently) whether they've written FAN FICTION? Or whether they were interested in the minutiae of the show? Seriously?
Let's take a look at one of your reviews of the writers… (actually the basis for reviewing whether several of the writers were fans)… "Randall M. Jensen. He’s a Professor of Philosophy at Northwestern College in Orange City, Iowa, and because he’s a professor, he writes about various subjects, but only those that are going to contribute to his gaining tenure. Sorry, but it’s true. He’s not a fan."
As a philosophy professor, I can tell you that contributing an essay to a pop culture book DOES NOT and (in 99% of cases) CANNOT help you get tenure. It is much more likely to HURT your chances of getting tenure (because it may be considered "non-serious" work). I'm sure the same is probably true for Religion professors, Classics professors, and well, pretty much everyone else with a job in academia–which, as your review shows, you know nothing about. Most professors who write such things will not list them on their CVs. It's not a shame thing–it's just that it has absolutely nothing to do with their academic careers. If that doesn't make them fans, I don't know what does.
Go back to technical writing and fan fiction.
Dear Buck Slabchest,
Yes, indeed, I did base part of my evaluation of each essay on whether or not the person seemed to be a True Fan, because, naturally, I felt that only a True Fan would be able to get to the heart of the matter on this subject. And yes, I did base my opinion on whether I felt the people who wrote essays loved Show. This is my review, so that's my perogative.
However, I then went back and read the essays, and found out that even non-fans can write something interesting. Case in point, my comments about Jacob Clifton or Tracy Morris. Some essays weren't good, though, no matter the person's fannish status.
I never based my evaulation of any essay on whether or not that person had written fan fiction. In the case of Dodger Winslow and K. Hanna Korossy, their ability to write great fan fiction is mentioned in relation to their ability to write great meta, not as the source for my positive evaluation of an essay.
And you're right, I don't know a whole lot about academia, only enough to assist me in making the decision years ago not to pursue it. Besides, as any intelligent person could tell you, there's more than one way to teach than in a classroom.
Then, to your last point, if they're describing themselves as a professor of this-and-that, then what they're writing would be, by anyone reading it, associated with their professional career, and be supposedly worth of being listed on a CV. Otherwise, why are they describing themselves as professors? Either they've done the work as a professor or they've done it as a man or woman on the street. They really can't have it both ways.
Listen, thanks for stopping by. Your passion and anger and umbrage at my little review of a little pop culture book is impressive.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
PS. I've never stopped being a tech writer or a fan fiction writer.
Sir, I happened to enjoy her review as a fan of Supernatural that does read meta. I thought Sylvia got to the heart of the matter and didn't let her bias against the "non-fans" let her not enjoy their essays if she thought they were good.
Your tone in your post is very offensive and troll like. The all caps don't help your case. Another poster Dorothy did a much better job of pointing out her view without attacking the reviewer.
Aren't you the sweet thing, standing up for me like this. Thank you.
While we're on the topic, just for kicks, let's see what 5 minutes of research will turn up…
Randall M. Jenson holds the rank of associate professor, and Gregory Stevenson appears to be a full professor. Do you know what that means? Yes, it means they already HAVE tenure. As for Carol Poole, she's not a professor at all; she's an independent psychotherapist. Do you know what THAT means? That's right: it means tenure doesn't mean a thing to her.
See what a little research can turn up? It's what real writers do.
Buck you clearly didn't recall that she actually READ the book. She simply went through and looked at the bios to get a feel for who seemed to be "true fans" and she shared her opinions on who was here in her review. Her review was based on what she read in the essays though.
Anyone who is claiming to be writing knowledgeably on a subject ought to actually BE knowledgeable on the subject. So I see nothing wrong with wanting to read essays about Supernatural by people who are actually knowledgeable about the show itself as opposed to just passing through testing out a pet theory. So yes they should be fans. They can also be writers, professors, astrophysicists – but they should be fans, otherwise they are going to miss important things going on underneath the surface that only someone who follows something closely would notice.
Emma — yes, she read the book… with the stated bias that only "True Fans" should be writing about the show. And you trust her to be objective? Really?
Dear Buck Slabchest,
Wow. You really are worked up about this, aren't you. Well, I appreciate your honesty, it's hard come by in this world of ours.
Anyway, to your point, I didn't look up information about anybody's life. I went off the bios that were in the book only. I mean, I could have looked up the professors and stuff, as they probably would have had information about them on the internet somewhere. But this would have been a waste of time, not to mention not fair to everyone else who didn't, wouldn't, and don't have a tidy little description of them out in the ether.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
Quite right–why worry about anything as petty as facts when you're slagging someone's motivation for writing essays?
Dude. Chill. I couldn't look up everyone, so I didn't look up anyone. I played the hand that I was dealt: I went by what was in the bios only. Besides, it was funnier that way.
Thank you, Emma! That's exactly right. I made judgments about each person's True Fan status, and found out that that was not the best criteria by which to judge the quality of an essay. It was like a little bet with myself, and sometimes I was wrong, and sometimes I was right. And each time I was wrong, I admitted it. So there, Buck Slabchest!
Anyway, you're right about the other thing too, I would rather read something written by a True Fan, because passion and heart and soul can take an essay a whole lot further than someone who's just out for what's hot at the moment.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
I appreciated reading this review, as I plan to read this book, but I also, like others, have to call you on the assumptions you're making. Sometimes "true fans" see their show in very particular ways — that doesn't mean that what they have to say isn't worthwhile, far from it — but it also doesn't mean that others can't say things about the show that are meaningful as well. Academics often use different interpretive frameworks than fans, and as a result, they sometimes see different things. Restricting discussion of a show to True Fans is a good way to restrict the kinds of things that get said (always recognizing that True Fans are a diverse group). I definitely plan to write on Supernatural myself — I'm both a True Fan, and an academic, and I love the idea of combining two things I love. But I also think things like "American Idol," "The OC," and "The Price is Right" are worthy of analysis, and I'm not a fan of any of those things. Nor do I have to be in order to speak about them, and, hopefully, say something interesting about them.
Dear Dorothy,
Certainly you have a point here, and I agree. Anyone is allowed to write about whatever they want, however, and wherever they want to, including professors and mechanics and fans and non fans. I think the point I was trying to make with my review is three fold.
First , that pop culture books like this tend to appear on the horizon just as things are going well for a show, and they cash in on that success. Now, I understand that if there's money to be made, people will find a way to make it. I myself have purchased pop culture books like this, as well, so I'm hardly one to do the whole pot/kettle argument. At the same time, pop culture books feel like thinly disguised hyenas to me. So, the book itself irked me.
Then there was the premise by which it was published, and in the way it asked fans (and the call did go out to fans last spring) to put their thoughts and words up for submission – only the lucky few would be included, and the rest would be rejected. Now, granted, any publisher is allowed to set its own criteria for inclusion into any book it publishes, but in light of the fact that fandom has talked about all of this subject matter for years, and that all of this type of discussion is out there on the internet, well, it seemed somewhat odd of them to try and corner the market on something that is available for free everywhere else. Rather like they'd tried to bottle air and sell it
And third, and this is personal and subjective, to be sure, I'd rather read something about fandom that was written by a fan, or by someone who was attempting to understand what it means to be a fan, than to read something by a non fan who's just out to support their own agenda.
Thank you for your insightful comments.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
Thanks for the review! Just for the record, I =am= a very big fan of the show. Sorry that your friends didn't like my books.
Hi Sylvia, this is the person who didn't know your feelings about books like this and wanted to send you a copy for review because I thought you might appreciate it/like it; I'm also the in-house editor on the title (AND a *Supernatural* fan).
It’s always a bit of a questionable proposition for someone involved in a book to respond to a reviewer, but I did feel kinda compelled to comment on a couple of non *In the Hunt*-specific things.
I wanted to start, actually, with the idea that doing something "for the love" (doing something with passion) and doing something for money are mutually exclusive—that the main and driving force behind these books is solely money, that publishers aren’t sometimes fans too, who own all the DVDs and rewatch all the episodes, who read (and even write) fanfic, who deeply respect and value fandom and everything it has to offer. *Supernatural* is at a ratings high now, but when the book was conceived and put on the schedule a year and half ago—when the commitment to doing the book was actually made—that wasn’t the case. It was just a great show, with passionate fans, that we thought (because of it’s depth, and it’s quality) was worth spending the time and energy on to create a book. Would we have done it if we didn’t think we could make some money? Well, no, because we’re a business—and we like to eat. I’m just lucky enough to be able to pay for my meals by doing things I feel passionate about, like working on this book. And I specifically seek out writers for our Smart Pop titles who feel the same way.
Which brings me to the second comment I wanted to make: I don’t know if charging for something means it’s implying that similar, free things are value-less. Obviously, in publishing this, we’re making a statement—that we think the contents, the work the authors etc. have put into it, is worth enough for you to pay a couple of bucks for it. That seeking out contributions from novelists like Tanya who might not otherwise have taken the time to write about the show, and some of the best-written work by fans who don’t normally write professionally, and having it all edited and put together into an attractive bound package, is value-added. If you agree, fabulous—buy it. If you don’t, fine—don’t buy it. But I hate to think doing so somehow *devalues* the work fans are doing for free. And honestly, I don’t think it does. I think it *encourages* that work: by potentially introducing meta to fans unfamiliar with the concept; by eliciting more of it (through, say, last year’s contest) that the writers can share with other fans however they so choose.
And one last idea I wanted to call into question: that great fiction writers, fan- or otherwise, always also make great non-fiction writers. Yes, I agree there’s a connection between smart fanfic and smart meta—that it uses the same mental muscles. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that person can take the same ideas that infuse their fiction, turn them around, and create a well-structured, compelling non-fiction piece from them. And that’s what we were looking for in putting together this book: passion for and knowledge of the show, plus the ability to communicate that passion and knowledge in interesting, surprising, and effective ways. Am I saying that there’s not plenty of free meta out there that does just that? Absolutely not! I’m saying that the value we think we’re adding is giving you a collection that’s all like that. I’m saying that we’ve tried to put together a collection that will interest and surprise you, even *if* you’ve got spn_heavymeta on your livejournal friends’ list and live and breathe *Supernatural*. Whether or not we’ve succeeded—well, that’s not for me to say. That’s what reviews are for.
Dear Leah,
No, you didn't know, and how could you? But I appreciate your taking the time to write and add your comments here. Publishing houses always seem so lofty to me, so it's nice of you to come by and brave the "never respond to the reviewer" rule.
Regarding whether publishers are or are not fans, it's sometimes hard to tell. I've seen so many books like this, typically they get churned out without the least bit of consideration for the heart and soul of the fandom. There's nothing to really convince me that the supposedly "fannish" writers weren't ghost writers just out to make a a buck, joining a bandwagon while the joining was good. So, in not knowing that you were a fan, too, which would have colored my review, I went with what I read and saw and felt and had experienced.
I love the idea of how you conceived this book, and part of me wishes that I'd know when I wrote my review, because yes it would have influenced me. Which is why I didn't seek any additional info out because I wanted the book to be able to stand or fall on its own merit. I think, personally, that the book can stand for those who like their meta polished and edited and in a nice binder. And, I must re-emphasize how clean the book was, well-edited and organized, plus I really did like the cover; the Impala looked cool. And kudos to you for being able to work with something you love; it's a position many would envy.
The very nature of publishing a book, however, any book, is the act of taking a stand. You make yourself and your firm the arbiters of quality; you're telling the public that they can pay you $15 so you can tell them what's good. Which implies (however vaguely) that what's not in the book didn't make the cut and is therefore not good. That's the nature of the publishing beast, but you can't pretend that you're not making a value judgment. Plus, most, if not all, fans know about meta. We get hammered with it all the time; this fandom seems to thrive on it. Which is why this book at this point in the life of this show, felt a bit like someone in the publishing industry had suddenly decided to validate Show by telling us what was cool and interesting about it. As if we didn't already know.
I don't know where I said that great fan fiction writers make great meta writers, exactly. I think my mention of Dodger Winslow's and K. Hanna Korossy's talent in both areas in the same sentence may have created this assumption; sorry if I wasn't more clear. Actually, you usually get writers who are good in one area or the other.
I don't think your sales are going to be overly affected in a negative way by my review. Sure some people aren't going to buy who would have because of it. But others, who weren't intending to buy it, might be pissed at what they feel is a negative review and buy the book just to prove me wrong. So those two should balance each other out. Plus, reviews like mine and conversations like this one create buzz that the search engines pick up on, which, in the long run, creates exposure for you and that's good for business. Long live Capitalism!
Best Regards,
Sylvia
Sylvia: Do you realize how nonsensical this statement is?
"The very nature of publishing a book, however, any book, is the act of taking a stand. You make yourself and your firm the arbiters of quality; you're telling the public that they can pay you $15 so you can tell them what's good. Which implies (however vaguely) that what's not in the book didn't make the cut and is therefore not good. That's the nature of the publishing beast, but you can't pretend that you're not making a value judgment."
Do you realize that you're saying that *every* book that has ever been written or sold — every novel, every dictionary, every how-to book, everything — is "a value judgment" that everything that is not within that book's pages is "not good"?
By writing "The Old Man and the Sea," by that reasoning, Hemingway was actually arguing that Henry James was "not good." Or by writing "Outliers," Malcolm Gladwell was "making a value judgment" that "The Audacity of Hope" was "not good."
If people can't produce a work — a book, a play, a movie, a song — without arguing that everything else is crap, then we're all going to be a lot worse off. It's the same snotty attitude that lets 16-year-old punk rockers complain about how their formerly favorite band has "sold out," that the real value isn't in the work itself but in the implied moral purity (or "true fanness") of the creator.
I appreciate you making your perspective clear; I just think it's soul-killing.
But Sylvia's still right. Even with something as supposedly neutral as a dictionary. Samuel Johnson's dictionary was just one of many that competed for funds and publishing when it was being written in the 1700's. The simple fact that it won the financial backing to allow for it's completion over it's many rivals was a form of editorial decree that Johnson's dictionary was a superior work from others being collated at the time, and therefore an indirect indictment of all the others as being inferior.
How do I know this? A combination of Google, High School History, and Blackadder.
Dear Fred,
The original discussion had to do with the book's publication over on-line fannish works, not every other book in existence. Leah had asked whether the publication of her book meant that anything related to the topic that was available for free had no value. I answered that since she's publishing a book, that that was a value judgment that excludes on-line fannish writing. Not that every other book written was bad.
And I didn't argue that her book meant that every other publication was crap, only that the publishing of that book, as a matter of course, was making a value judgment. And making a statement that it had something newer and better to offer than what was already out there. Which happens, I think, every time something new is published – the writer or artist or whoever is saying, what's there is not enough, I'll make more. Which is part of the heart of creativity, and hardly a soul killing perspective.
Best Regards,
Syliva
“Publishing houses always seem so lofty to me, so it's nice of you to come by and brave the ‘never respond to the reviewer’ rule.”
Some people don’t respond due to loftiness—but I expect that as many others don’t respond because, really, what can one say that doesn’t sound defensive?
And don’t get me wrong—I certainly wouldn’t dispute the fact that not everyone involved in publishing pop culture books are doing it because they love the property the books are about. Or that, if they do love the property, they necessarily appreciate fandom. (Though I would argue, as I think a few people have pointed out briefly here, that not being involved in fandom doesn’t preclude loving the property or having something valuable to add.)
But this bit, I don’t know that I agree with:
“The very nature of publishing a book, however, any book, is the act of taking a stand. You make yourself and your firm the arbiters of quality; you're telling the public that they can pay you $15 so you can tell them what's good. Which implies (however vaguely) that what's not in the book didn't make the cut and is therefore not good.”
Absolutely there’s a value judgment involved in choosing to publish one thing and not another—but it’s not like we titled the book “The Best Fan Writing on Supernatural,” you know? I never thought of it as saying what’s already out there was not good; I always thought of it as saying, well, there’s a lot of fantastic stuff out there, and here’s some other stuff that’s also good (and that, hopefully, includes some things you’ve never thought of before, or new twists on things you’ve thought about a hundred times already—which is what any writer tries to do, whether they’re getting paid for their work or not, right?). I never looked at it as a competition, or as a zero-sum game.
I also think that you’re overlooking whole groups of fans who aren’t “Fans”—people who watch *Supernatural* (maybe even religiously) but *aren’t* involved online, whether because they don’t know all the ins and outs of online fandom or because they don’t feel like they fit in or relate to or like online fandom. There are a lot of people watching *Supernatural*, and I don’t think they’re all participating (or lurking) in online fandom, not by a long shot.
And lest I give the wrong impression—I think all the passionate comments this review has inspired is fantastic (or at least I did once the initial sting faded!). Granted, I’m looking forward to a few other reviews hitting, both Fan and professional (and reviewers that are both), but in the meantime, the discussion’s been pretty fascinating. If I had it to do all over again, I'd still ask if you wanted a review copy.
Dear Keith,
Thanks for being a good sport. And yeah, most fans I have spoken to on the matter do not like your two Supernatural novels. When then read them, fans ask themselves (among other things) who are these characters and what are they doing in my fandom? There's no relevance to the characters we see on screen, and, more importantly, there's no emotional payoff, which is what fans (who are the people who would be buying these books) are looking for. And if they can't get what they want from your novels, then they're going to keep giving and receiving it from each other. In fan fiction. Which they will anyway.
If you're going to write another Supernatural novel, you'd come across as a bigger fan if you wrote like you cared about what happens to Sam and Dean and the Impala. Instead of just using them as two-dimensional cut-out pieces of your plot to be moved around for some showy finale.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
Don't get me wrong, I love reading spn_heavymeta, but sometimes fandom feels a bit claustrophobic, and I think it's interesting to read things about show by outsiders. I'm enjoying reading the book. That said, I admit the main reason I bought it was because I assumed other fans would be reading and discussing and I wanted to understand what they were talking about, so it's all about fandom for me in the end.
The dearth of discussion so far says a great deal about the growing irrelevance of books. I, myself, with 20 years as a used book dealer, rarely read books anymore, though I spend more time reading now than ever before.
Interesting review. Thank you.
Dear Maryann,
Hey, you're more than welcome and thanks for coming by. I agree with you about the fact that there seems to be a paradigm shift in the nature of book publishing (as well as newspapers and magazines) where readers have so many options as to where they can get their information, they almost don't even have to buy a book or a newspaper or a magazine. Which doesn't make the "printed" word (or the quality of it) any less important.
Interesting about the dearth of discussion about the book, but I guess since there's always so much that seem to be being produced in this fandom, fans hardly have time for what's new today let alone trying to keep up with what came out yesterday.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
To start with, I'm glad that you enjoyed my essay. But I do feel uncomfortable with the idea that you valued the book based on whether the writers were 'true fans' or not. Especially since you don't set out your criteria for what makes a true fan. It seemed to me that you based your assessment of “true fan” arbitrarily . And because you base your dislike of the book on the fact that it wasn't free and a fan effort, I feel that you decided that you wouldn't like the book before you even cracked the cover.
My own fan cred is probably as long as yours. I have a separate, fannish pen name for that part of my life. Fifteen years ago it wasn't as accepted as it is now for a professional writer to write fanfiction on the side. Some noted authors still frown on it. (I too would give my kidney to write for SPN. I'm saving my right lung in case Joss ever needs it.)
Since I come down on both sides of the fannish spectrum, I thought I'd explain to you why a book like this is worth spending money on. (For space reasons, I have to split it into a two-part comment)
Part the second:
When you pick up an anthology like this, you get something that has been thoroughly edited and polished to improve the quality. If I had posted my original essay to a meta website, it wouldn't have been as good (Mine went through three rounds of revisions). Yes, you can find meta on the web. You can also find fiction on the web. Just because you find fiction and fanfiction on the web for free doesn't mean it's edited and polished (some are, some aren't). It doesn't mean you should stop going to your local bookstore to buy Tanya Huff.
Which brings me back to your review. I really feel that if you had spent more time with the actual essays (instead of focusing on our 'true fan' status) you might have found the effort more worthwhile.
Do True Fans have more value than professional scholars and writers? Case in point is the swan death of newspapers because folks are getting their news from blogs instead of buying dead trees. Blogs are written by folks who are passionate True Fans of the issue, be it politics or restaurants. These True Fans are not filtered by the professional publishers who have boats not to rock and standards to uphold; True Fans report it all and they report the stuff folks really want to hear and know about. Why? Exactly because they are True Fans and they “get it”. But Blogs can be dicey because that passion can be nutty or even illiterate exactly because they are not filtered by any editing by the exact same professional publishers. The newspapers see the numbers plummeting and are shifting nervously from foot to foot and whispering to each other that something may be wrong with the herd.
So you get this book, which is edited and slick but has deliberately included True Fans as contributors.
Dear Cpilz,
Okay, you're cracking me up here. "Something may be wrong with the herd?" Hilarious. Sometimes I think that's exactly how the publishing industry (and many big businesses) think about the public at large, just a large, unruly bunch of hungry consumers who will eat anything put in front of them. And when they don't, in come the antibiotics. Okay, don't know where I'm going with that one, but I think I'm on a cow metaphor kick today.
I like your question about the value of fannish writing; why is it that the publishing industry dismisses it so readily when all along it creates the kind of buzz that they would pay good money for? And have. All along, they keep paying ghost writers and non fannish types to make and create things they hope to sell to fans. When all along fans are making and creating and then giving it away. I think that's what upsets and confuses them the most, that it's all free today. And tomorrow. And the day after that.
Plus fannish writing has no filters and is driven by passion, and accepted on quality alone. Quality that is judged by the individual reader, not some guy in a suit in New York somewhere. Who has, incidentally , been determining what the bookstores hold for years, and having seen what's in there, I'd say either he's falling down on the job and he needs to be replaced. Which he has been. By fans.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
Part the second
Sylvia did good; a review of the articles (which she did independently of their True Fan status) and then a clever and funny review of their True Fan status. Did anybody really think we were going to be fooled into thinking professional writers and scholars could pass as True Fans without them actually “getting it”? A True Fan can always tell the difference and the professional publishers would love to understand how to copy or create it.
Dear Tracy,
Actually, I was quite looking forward to reviewing this book and quite prepared to like it, seeing as it was about my favorite subject. But, at the same time, I could not deny my feelings about the kind of book it was.
My criteria for who and who was not a "true fan" was personal and subjective, but not at all arbitrary, unless it's arbitrary to go with one's gut instinct. We all make judgement calls about people every day, going on what we know, what we've experienced, and what we can infer from additional input, which was, in this case, the bios. Which gave me enough, I felt, to go on as to whether or not that person was a true fan. I wagered with myself that I would be 90% right, and I'm not sure that I'll ever know for sure, except for the people who've written in protesting or supporting their status. You make a good point about my definition of a True Fan, so here it is: A True Fan expresses passion for and knowledge about their subject, whatever their subject might be. If the bios gave me a positive feeling about the person's fan status, I went with it.
I read the essays (read them twice, in fact) and made my evaluation on them based on the essays alone. Sure, I started out with the whole fan/not fan idea, but then I went on to judge each essay on its own merit. Which, surpisingly, did not jive with my internal hypothesis that the essays written by true fans would always be better. So I was proven wrong there sometimes, which I indicated in my review when it happened.
About your other point, now that's the interesting one. Like you, I have a long fan cred, and more than one fannish penname, and probably like you, I've been on both sides of the fannish publishing equation. I've worked on stories that went into zines, and I edited stories for zines, so I know what it's like to have a story go through an editing process (more than one round, none of which are going to be pleasant), as well as struggling with a writer who I can't connect with because my idea of what's polished writing does not match theirs. I also understand and value the filtering/editing process in publishing something, and Strunk and White are my good pals as far as guidelines for good, strong, written English. (Sometimes Strunk and White go off the rails a bit, but you know what I mean). I'm right there with you on this, there's value to be had and quality to be produced.
Plus, this publisher did the work of gathering writers together, of filtering through what was available, and they did the work polishing and editing (with assistance from Supernatural TV, as stated by the cover), and they deserve to make the profit off of that effort of providing a service of filtered, screened, edited, cleaned up essays. Rather like how grocery stores provide us with pre-killed, pre-cleaned, pre-wrapped steaks; we didn't have to go out and kill the cow, but for a price, we can still eat red meat. The publishing industry saves us, in effect, from having to do our own hunting. Although, at the same time, some would tell you there's more satisfaction in taking down and dressing one's own game. Likewise, there are some who would prefer to create their own filters and make their own call as to whether something is good or not. Personally, I don't have time to do that much reading, so I rely on rec lists and word of mouth to show me what cream has risen to the top, and my good pal Amalthia telling me to go read something right away or else. she is, in effect, my publisher. I read what she suggests, for the most part.
If the question of filtering and editing had been the main question here, then perhaps the publisher could have pulled essays from the ranks of fandom, a call for papers perhaps from among the fannish throng, filtered out the best of the best from that, then edited and polished the final selections, and then published that collection. Then I'd say they had something with a whole lot more heart and soul. What I have a problem with is the fact that three-quarters of the way through this particular show's initial run, this book comes in like nothing had ever been written and discussed, proporting to have collected the best of the best for our reading pleasure. The fact that the publishers did include some fan essays, and did reach out to fans at all indicates their awareness of the power of fannish writing. The publishing industry is slow to learn new things, I think, but when they learn them, they learn them well.
You can't get Tanya Huff anywhere else but a bookstore, but you can get fannish ideas from all over the place, unfiltered and raw and yours to accept or reject, as you will. I think that's one of the main differenes between the publishing industry and fandom at this point. I think we're in the midst of a paradim shift of access and distribution of information.
Thank you for your comments today. I appreciate your insight.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
PS. I can't spell to save my life! Paradigm is spelled with a g! And all my other errors are popping up at me now. Where's my editor?? Oh, the irony.
Dear Cpilz,
Thank you kindly for that. I really did try to be as objective as I could be, but of course, my past experiences colored that. I love your gutsy idea here that true fans "get it" and that publishers want to replicate that. I think, like I've mentioned elsewhere, that the publishing industry is experiencing a paradigm (spelled right this time!) shift, and we'll see many more changes before it's all done.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
I really appreciated the review, including the comment on my essay. I think you're absolutely right: "I found essay itself a little on the choppy side. It was like she was trying to go in too many different directions in an attempt to explain how Judeo-Christian mythology fits inside of Show in time for the commercial break." There was so much I wanted to write and the word limit was so … limited! I have lots of ideas about the portrayal of Good and Evil in pop culture, especially in shows like Buffy and Angel and Supernatural that actually include demons and the occasional angel or PTB (and Quantum Leap with God taking over the experiment, and even Charmed which I hate myself for watching). So when given the chance to talk about popular theodicy I couldn't shut up.
That's one reason I am very glad that the competition was held. I had vague thoughts about Supernatural and theodicy floating around in my head, but it was the competition that got me working on them seriously. I also got three other SPN-fans to read through my essay several times before I submitted it and their help and suggestions made it much better – I wouldn't have bothered with that if I'd just been blogging. And it is nice to be published, although it's not the sort of thing I'm going to show to my congregations. Most of them would definitely feel that this was a waste of my time as minister that they pay for!
The 'Rev. Dr' thing – I left that up to the editors. I told them what my title was and said they could use it if authors were using titles, and ignore it if they weren't. I tend not to use it in daily life – it seems a bit silly and pretentious. That might be the Australian in me.
And I am absolutely and utterly a True Fan. At least I'm going to claim that status. The other part of me writes fanfiction, occasionally channeling Pastor Jim Murphy.
Dear Avril,
I KNEW you were a True Fan, I just knew it! : D
Thanks for coming by to confirm, as well as to add your thoughts to the pile.
It's good that the fan essay competition was helpful to you in getting your thoughts together, I know for me an externally dictated deadline can be most useful in getting me to settle down and do some real work. And certainly, too, word limits can be helpful when trying to sharpen the edges of something; you start to pare down everything to an essential level. At the same time, it sounds like your essay was a little bit more complex than what you had room for. If you increased your word limit, and allowed yourself the room you needed, I’ll wager you could find a venue for your ideas.
I thought your title was very impressive; it certainly was in keeping with your topic and made me want to mind my “p’s” and “q’s” around you.
And you channel Pastor Jim!? I love him, he's such n undersung and underficced character, and what an influence he must have had on the Weechesters. (Is underficced a word? I think it is now.)
Best Regards,
Sylvia
At some point I want to write a book on pop culture and theodicy, that would include an expanded version of this essay. Sadly, I haven't yet found the spare time (being a minister is hard work!) – it might have to be a long-service leave project.
I love Pastor Jim. I think he's fascinating: someone who knows the truth about what's out there; who supports the Winchesters; who has a room full of weapons – and who yet seems to be an absolutely, honest-to-God, pastor. The bit we saw of him, his line that "salvation was made for sinners", shows a good man and good pastor. So, how did he get there? How does he still believe in and serve God while being part of the hunting community? (I don't believe his origin story in the comics.)
And then he dies! I don't have a lot of role models in my shows – clergy are either evil or dead.
But I did get some lovely Pastor Jim fanfic written for me as ordination presents, so I can't complain too much.
Seriously, I think if you had the time and the space, you could so easily write something interesting and deep, and you'd be a True Fan all the while, so it would be meaningful. : D
There's so many untold truth's about Pastor Jim's life…I share your impression and questions about him. Like, how did he meet John Winchester in the first place, and was he a hunter before he met him, or is that how they met? Was it he who blessed the amulet that keeps Dean safe? What other part did he play in the Weechester boys' lives? Everything. I envy you your ordination present, that's a very special gift.
And yeah, I know what you mean about role models…Tina the Angry Tech Writer from the Gilbert cartoon is the only one I have….And she's got a pointy head!
Best Regards,
Sylvia
Lisa and I are new to Supernatural with the currently running season. We tried it at the beginning, but gave up about 4 episodes in.
Because of this, every time I read the name "Pastor Jim," the only thing I can picture is Christopher Lloyd's character from Taxi.
"Uhhhhhhhhh – Sammy! I goofed!"
Holy crap. I actually know two people in the book! O_O Mary B is a fellow Tart — she did a number of awesome interviews with writers, producers, and actresses on the show. You might not have liked her essay so much, but you might still want to look at the interviews.
And I did some work for Jamie Chambers a whiiile back, for Dragonlance. Tis a small world. XD
(Will post more in a sec — how did you get intensdebate to let you post such a long post, Sylvia?? It won't let me! *pout*)
Good review; candid but fair, and thorough.
For myself, I can see merit in not being a fan and writing about Show from an outsider's perspective, for a fresh view. Still, I see nothing wrong with preferring the essayists be more fan than not, too, as that means they are likely to understand things that may mean something complteley different to an outsider. There are certainly things that I have encountered in life that I saw very differently once I got inside than I did when I first encountered it! You reviewed based on what you want/expect out of this sort of work, which I feel is as it should be. If True Fan insights are what you want, then I don't see as anyone should give you guff over esperessing what you want as a consumer in your review — that's what reviews are for, by and large, and it seems odd to me for anyone to expect otherwise. 
If True Fan insights are what you want, of *coures* that's going to be your focal point! And I think you did a good job of letting others who feel the same know whether they will get what they want out of the Work. 
Wolfie – do you have a link to the interviews you would care to share? THX!
Be happy to!
There's this one with Sera Gamble:
http://www.sequentialtart.com/article.php?id=345
And then the rest are linked here, on Mary's site:
http://maryborsellino.com/monkeywench/supernatura...
I do not know. Sometimes it lets me, and some times…it does not. Very mysterious.
Maybe if you bribed the webmaster? : D
Hey, thanks for the kind words, and the links as well. I figured I was as honest as I could be, which would be better in the long run than trying to sugar coat it, and just being nice to be nice. Which helps the reader not at all, when trying to decide what to spend their hard earned money on. Take care, and again, thanks for the links, I'll be sure and check those out!
Best Regards,
Sylvia
There was this one too, written and edited by fans, self published:
http://www.supernaturalwiki.com/index.php?title=E...
(yes, I do have an essay in there)
Thanks for your honest review of In The Hunt, I will end by buying it because, well, it's Show and Fellow Fans (even if not all), but I don't expect to read in it anything that I haven't read already in fandom by the same people
I totally agree with WolfenM above, you were very clear about your focus and reviewed accordingly!
Hey there! I'm glad you enjoyed my essay, though I hope to correct your assumption that I am not a True Fan. I watched Supernatural from the very first episode in Season One, being as how I've always been obsessed with ghost stories and folklore—and even enjoy creeping around supposedly haunted sites every now and then: http://www.jamiechambers.net/2006/06/trip-to-hell...
Two weeks after the first episode, I ordered a season one promo poster off of eBay that we hung up in our offices, because I knew from that moment I would love to work on a game based on the show. It was our good luck charm, because after a year of asking we scored the license. That kind of dedication, and being willing to personally shell out money to get to work on official material should count for something, right?
I agree that my take on Supernatural may not match everyone's expectations. But I don't work on licensed material unless I care about it. I'm not part of the online fan community, but only because I don't have much time for that anymore.
It's a strange place to be considered not a fan just because I'm working on official material. Just understand that my love of the show is WHY I'm working on it! But hopefully I've earned a little more fan-cred in your book. Take care!
Dear Jamie,
Thank you so much for coming by and clarifying this for me. To me, it was important because non-fans seem to talk about Show as an abstract idea, rather than with love or passion or affection, and official material often seems to be worked on by people for whom it is just another job. And with your explanation, which counts for a LOT, I stand corrected. You were one of the ones I wasn't sure of, or didn't feel sure of, so I really appreciate knowing for sure now. And really, it's only one woman's opinion….strongly stated, of course, but just one woman. : D
And I really enjoyed your description of your fannishness, yes, indeed, those are very much in keeping with a True Fan! I'm going to check out the link to your haunted escapades, as well, since I love to do that sort of thing myself. Never wrote it up though because I didn't get any paranormal activity at all! Not even a flashing light.
I'm glad you got the license for your game, I hope it goes well for you, and that it has been fun to work on.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
Sylvia,
No worries! I'm just glad that you actually enjoyed my piece, since it was written for the fans. I hope that also means you might check out the RPG — since I've tried to make it a fun and informative read even for the non-gamer fans. Even the visual design the book is meant to reflect the aesthetic of the show. (All of the pictures look as if they were paperclipped, stapled, or taped to the page.)
I just got done watching tonight's epsidoe. Things are getting awful dark this season!
Dear Jamie,
And they'll get DARKER still, if I had my way. A veritable angstfest of doom and gloom and struggle and tears! Let it BEGIN!
Best Regards,
Sylvia,
PS. I'll be sure to check out your RPG, it sounds interesting! And if you're interested, I could recommend to you some very very good gen fic. : D
I really enjoyed your review. But something bugs me : HOW on earth, didn't you watch Buffy (or Angel) ? You have to watch it. Maybe you will not like it but you just have to watch it. Buffy is to Supernatural/Sci Fi TV what what Louis Armstrong is to jazz.
Oh my, Tom. You and my sister both have the same thing to say. I'll confess, I have seen a few eps (the musical one, oddly), but without the continuity of seeing the whole series, a lot of the cleverness of it was a tad lost on me. I think at the time, I was deep, deep into Dark Shadows, which eclipsed everything else. I did see the movie in it's original run, if that helps any. : D
Regards,
Sylvia
Hi. I’m one of the professors who failed to earn the title of a True Fan. Can I suggest that we academics who write about pop culture really aren’t mercenaries looking to capitalize on a show that’s hot at the moment? As someone else has said, this sort of writing really doesn’t help our careers. It might even hurt. And, at least in my experience, there’s not a lot of money to be made in contributing to books like this. In some cases, contributors aren't even getting paid.
Stay tuned for the rest….
I think I get why you’re not wild about my chapter. In part, I think it’s because I do have another agenda when I write. But it’s not to get tenure. Instead, it’s because I’m a fan of my field (philosophy) as well as a fan of Supernatural. If you want to accuse me of that, I’ll plead guilty. I do love the show. I never miss an episode. But I love the show as the kind of fan I am—and I write about the show as the kind of writer I am. I’m a weird sort of person, clearly, since I love philosophy so much that I’ve spent my life on it and moved to small town Iowa so I could keep doing it. I’m okay if you don’t dig my chapter, but I succumbed to the urge to say a bit about who I am and why I write, since that’s become part of the discussion. And since I've been obsessed with all manner of speculative fiction since long before I was a philosopher, I don't want to be seen as someone who doesn't care about what I love.
Dear Randy,
Thank you very much for coming by to join in the discussion. I appreciate you clearing up for your fan status, and yeah, your essay was a little dry for me, but I respect and support your right to express your love for Show in any way that you see fit.
Sometimes I forget that my fangirl squee/obsessive diatribes/analytical paeans are not the only way to be joyful over Show. It’s just that my experience has been exactly the way I explained it, with academics and professions seeming to come out of the woodwork just as things are going well, in an attempt to increase their visibility by validating something fans have been doing for years.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
I realize I'm rather late to the party here, but I just want to mention that DeCandido et al. strike me as the sort of people who have been, are, and will be fans of about 90% of everything in the relevant genres. I'm like this too, and it makes perfect sense to me that they'd write tie in novels or essays or whathaveyou about many different shows in quick succession. The idea that True Fans must stay true to one show rather than liking horror/sci fi/fantasy/CW shows/whatever in general is silly. (And, for what it's worth, Nevermore, Decandido's novel, struck me as kind of badly written with a horribly trite motivation for the villain, but it did demonstrate significant knowledge of the show.)
I was just browsing and came across this review posted quite some time ago … actually a lot of the runner-ups are fanfic writers … Yeah, I recognized K Hanna Korossy, too. But, Dawn Nyberg, also goes by Dawn N and she has written tons of SPN fic, man one of her stories on FFnet "Between the Shadows" has something like 1400+ reviews. I didn't mind the book, but have to admit I would have liked to have had some of the runner-up essays included, but it was nice reading them online when they were available.