![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I presented my paper yesterday--at eight in the freaking morning. The panel was interesting, and I think the paper went well. I'm pleased with the response I got, and people seemed sincere when they complimented it after the discussion. I'm more convinced than ever that I want to make it into a book, and I've got about a billion things I want to write about. I know there are books out there on Buffy the Vampire Slayer scholarship. Does anybody know of any books that are solely about Angel?
Yesterday, one of the panels I went to at the conference featured a paper about Discovery Channel's The Haunting and how the whole series is an exercise in denial. That is, it appeals to America's bloody past of Native American genocide, the Civil War, slavery, witch trials, and the like, and then offers people the chance to put it in a "safe" place and deny that that is America's past/heritage. It was a really good and interesting paper, and I thoroughly enjoyed it and the points it raised. Afterwards, as we left the room and walked to the elevator, I was talking to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
agnespennyworth about similar shows like Haunted History on the History Channel and I made an off-hand comment of how "I used to watch crap like that all the time."
The woman walking in front of us instantly corrected us, though she didn't actually turn around to talk to us. "It's not crap. It's Popular Culture. But it's not crap." And she was really strict about it, and apparently upset that I would call such shows crap at the Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association conference.
Except, of course, those shows (The Haunting, Haunted History, Ghost Hunter, T.A.P.S., Paranormal State, even In Search Of...) are crap. They've got shitty production values. They insist they are factual and accurate when they clearly are not. A few of them are flat out cons. They either use actors to portray "real people" or they use people who are clearly gullible and unstable to turn a buck. Just because they might be worth discussing in a popular culture context doesn't make them any less crap. I don't think these are mutually exclusive designations. Even the guy presenting the paper acknowledged it's a shitty show, and part of a sub-genre of television that's pretty laughable.
Yesterday, one of the panels I went to at the conference featured a paper about Discovery Channel's The Haunting and how the whole series is an exercise in denial. That is, it appeals to America's bloody past of Native American genocide, the Civil War, slavery, witch trials, and the like, and then offers people the chance to put it in a "safe" place and deny that that is America's past/heritage. It was a really good and interesting paper, and I thoroughly enjoyed it and the points it raised. Afterwards, as we left the room and walked to the elevator, I was talking to
agnespennyworth about similar shows like Haunted History on the History Channel and I made an off-hand comment of how "I used to watch crap like that all the time." The woman walking in front of us instantly corrected us, though she didn't actually turn around to talk to us. "It's not crap. It's Popular Culture. But it's not crap." And she was really strict about it, and apparently upset that I would call such shows crap at the Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association conference.
Except, of course, those shows (The Haunting, Haunted History, Ghost Hunter, T.A.P.S., Paranormal State, even In Search Of...) are crap. They've got shitty production values. They insist they are factual and accurate when they clearly are not. A few of them are flat out cons. They either use actors to portray "real people" or they use people who are clearly gullible and unstable to turn a buck. Just because they might be worth discussing in a popular culture context doesn't make them any less crap. I don't think these are mutually exclusive designations. Even the guy presenting the paper acknowledged it's a shitty show, and part of a sub-genre of television that's pretty laughable.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I agree with you about those crap shows.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
That should be comprehensive. Also, try asking at the Buffyology Yahoo Group. Rhonda Wilcox is the queen of all things Buffy Studies. If it's out there, she knows about it.
From:
no subject
I think I might go for this...
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
Glad it went well
If you want to pursue this further, then publish your ideas in short bursts. Check out slayageonline.com: they've journals, links to journals and a link to the Slayage 3 conference later this year. BTW, on the editorial board: David Lavery is a nice guy, and Sue Turnbull and Gerry Bloustein are also very nice (the two Aussies). Gerry Bloustien's son is a local comedian and a writer (he took my class one semester).
Also, I have a CFP on apocalyptic television, if you want to see it. Oh wait, it's here. Refractory(http://www.refractory.unimelb.edu.au/) is peer-reviewed which is what you ultimately want. And your ideas are exactly what they like. Oh, and they're nice people. We've had some weird discussions over pasta about the Power Puff Girls and PC vs. Mac.
Again, well done.
From:
Re: Glad it went well
From:
Re: Glad it went well
And if you ever come DownUnder for a conference, let me know. We can do coffee.