In a message dated 2/20/01 2:50:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk writes:
<< I guess that's going to be a problem with any book that's going to have both an academic audience and an audience from its subject matter.<<
Nah. Just this one. Since (apart from Camille Bacon-Smith) it's the *only* book "about" fans ever professionally published, citing it as an overall authoritative source is going to bring up a bit of skepticism. When it was first published, Jenkins' work was received with a somewhat bemused attitude on the part of media fandom in general. He wasn't discounted nor his work mistrusted. He was simply one opinion, with a self-implied expertise on the subject. To collect material for his thesis, he stalked among us like a sort of Marlin Perkins, observing and taking notes. You can watch a wombat and learn a great deal. But it ain't the same as *being* a wombat.
Leah
Leah wrote:
In a message dated 2/20/01 2:50:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk writes:
<< I guess that's going to be a problem with any book that's going to have both an academic audience and an audience from its subject matter.<<
Nah. Just this one. Since (apart from Camille Bacon-Smith) it's the *only* book "about" fans ever professionally published, citing it as an overall authoritative source is going to bring up a bit of skepticism.
There are a few journal articles out there too, for those who find this kind of thing a turn on.
To collect material for his thesis, he stalked among us like a sort of Marlin Perkins, observing and taking notes. You can watch a wombat and learn a great deal. But it ain't the same as *being* a wombat.
As I understand it, he was a fan before he started working on the research that led to the book.
Una
-
Bizarro7＠aol.com -
Una McCormack