The Binnacle

I had an email today to say that one of the flash fiction pieces I wrote for my MA has been accepted for publication in The Binnacle (the University of Maine creative writing journal). They had over 500 subsmissions, apparently, and only accepted 30 pieces so I'm really pleased about that.

Lit Review: Section Two

After all that stressing about the encoding/decoding section of my PhD I had a meeting with my supervisor today and I don't need to meet with him about this section again! He's quite happy with it and I can move on to the next one. Fanfic, here I come.

The Pygmy Giant

Two of my short stories have been accepted to an online magazine. One is up already: http://thepygmygiant.com/2011/11/08/archaeology/ and the other should be up in the next couple of weeks. I'm waiting to hear back from a couple more places, and am thinking of submitting a few more things to a few other sites too.

On Anti-fans

A few people said they wanted to hear more about anti-fans after one of the last posts I made so I thought I'd copy and paste that section from my lit review. I did refer to anti-Fowley fans elsewhere in lit review but I haven't copied that here (I can if anyone wants to see them). Hopefully what I've got here will make sense (though further changes will be made to it after the last meeting with my supervisor) and you'll find it interesting.



So far, I have discussed preferred meanings and how fans of a show decode meanings in a variety of ways and dependent on a range of factors. Before I begin the next section and examine the literature surrounding fan fiction, I wish to turn to anti-fans and non-fans of a series, and ask whether we can also learn something about a text from the ways in which they read it.

Jonathan Gray raises an important critique of reception studies, arguing that by focusing so intently on the fan it distorts our “understanding of the text, the consumer and the interaction between them. […] To fully understand what it means to interact with the media and their texts, though, we must look at anti-fans and nonfans too” (2003, p. 68). In his analysis of The Simpsons’ fans, anti-fans and non-fans, Gray proposes we imagine the text as an atom:

Right at the very centre of the text, in its relatively stable nucleus, first we find the aptly named ‘close reader’[1] […] such a reader ignores the text’s outlying regions and interactions with other texts, and chooses instead to remain in a realm of supposed denotation and stability, determined that here, at the very centre of the text, lies the key that will unlock the entire work, answering the multiple mysteries of the atom. (2003, p. 69)

Moving further from the centre of the ‘atom’ we encounter the fan, who actively looks ‘outside’ the nucleus to intruders and intertexts, yet whom we can count on to be aware of and close to the text. And beyond the fan is the anti-fan, whom Gray refers to as ‘electrons’. Gray suggests that although fandom and antifandom could be positioned on opposite ends of the spectrum they perhaps more accurately exist on a Mobius strip: “many fans and antifan behaviours and performances resembling, if not replicating, each other” (2005, p. 845). He further argues that the anti-fan can provide an “interesting window to issues of textuality and its place in society” (p. 71) as anti-fans, as well as fans, construct an image of the text – and moreover an image strong enough to cause them to react against it. In discussing The Simpsons’ anti-fans, he notes that he

found a fascinating near-perfect correlation between loving or disliking The Simpsons and seeing it, respectively, as critical of America and American life, or as yet another symbol of crass American cultural chauvinism. This correlation had little to do with differences of culture or predispositions to America, but rather to a difference in the text itself as perceived by close or ‘distant’ readers. Particularly for anti-fans who have not watched the show and yet judge it so vehemently, a textuality is born into existence in large part separate of what might be ‘in’ the text as produced. ‘Oppositional’ readers in Hall’s terminology are one thing, but anti-fans may not even be viewers in the sense of people who have watched a show. Thus while much analysis of texts is steadfastly stuck to close reading, if we can show that people engage in distant reading, responding to texts that have not been viewed, and more importantly if we can track exactly how the anti-fan’s text or text stand-in has been pieced together, we will take substantial steps forward in understanding textuality and in appreciating the strength of contextuality. (2003, p. 71)

Catherine Strong, in her paper on Twilight anti-fans, suggests that one useful application of the study of anti-fans is in “examining the role they play in enforcing the dominance of certain taste cultures” (2009, p. 5). She argues that cultural hierarchies are not created just through certain forms of culture being praised, but also by the denigration of other forms. Anti-fans’ attitudes to Twilight, for example, naturalise the position of feminine culture at the bottom of the cultural hierarchy (2009, p. 10). The taste cultures enforced in X Files fandom are, I would suggest, intelligence, scientific enquiry, critical thought and liberal ideals. Yet anti-fans of the series seem consider the show’s fans to be gullible, paranoid conspiracy-theorists who believe willy-nilly in ghosts, UFOs and hidden government agendas. Richard Dawkins said, in his 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture:

soap operas, cop series and the like are justly criticised if, week after week, they ram home the same prejudice or bias. Each week The X Files posts a mystery and offers two rival kinds of explanation, the rational theory and the paranormal theory. And, week after week, the rational explanation loses. But it is only fiction, a bit of fun, why get so hot under the collar? Imagine a crime series in which, every week, there is a white suspect and a black suspect. And every week, lo and behold, the black one turns out to have done it. unpardonable, of course. And my point is that you could not defend it by saying: “But it’s only fiction, only entertainment.”
Let’s not go back to a dark age of superstition and unreason, a world in which every time you lose your keys you suspect poltergeists, demons or alien abduction. (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins/lecture_p12.html)

Similarly, David Whitehouse in his review of Fight The Future suggests that science in the series is weak and critical thinking is pushed aside but that is okay “just as long as you stop being gullible in the real world which I am afraid is what many X-Files fans fail to do” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/146482.stm). This image of The X Files (and X Files fandom) constructed by anti-fans contrasts sharply with that constructed by fans, but it is interesting in what it tells us about the perceptions of anti-fans. As Gray notes, “a study of antifandom and what it ‘does’ to the text […] could illuminate fandom and nonfandom too, allowing us to place and distinguish their own characteristics and textualities” (2005, p. 845).

So far then, Gray considers anti-fans to be those who actively dislike a cultural item. I would suggest that further to this idea of anti-fans of a programme, we should also examine anti-fans of aspects of a programme. As a member of The X Files fandom I know viewers who identify as fans, and who have attended conventions, collect memorabilia and have read the X Files novels and comic books, yet who have never seen seasons 8 and 9 and have no desire to do so. I would contend that these fans are anti-fans in the sense that Gray discusses them (that is, they engage in ‘distant readings’ of the seasons and respond to texts which have not been viewed) but they do so with an intimate knowledge of the prior seasons and the paratexts surrounding the series.[2] I would suggest that this is different to the “angry or upset fan discussion [which] often bordered on antifandom” that Gray noticed in his study of the Television Without Pity forums (2005, p. 847). The fan relationship with a text is a complex one and, as I have discussed elsewhere in this chapter, fan decodings of texts may result in readings which fans are unhappy with. I contend that fans respond to those readings by recoding meaning using meta, picspams, fan vids and fan fiction. The ‘anti-fan fans’ that I am discussing here, however, fail to engage with the text even in order to reclaim it – they are aware of the text through discussion with other fans, reviews or fan fiction, but have not and will not view the source text itself.[3]

Another category of anti-fan which must be discussed in this context is one which I have previously referred to – the fans (mainly shippers) who hate Diana Fowley. Of all the characters in the series she is perhaps the most vilified, and while these kinds of anti-fans are closer to the upset or angry fans of Gray’s study I would suggest they transcend those labels because of the amount of vitriol they direct at Fowley. Fans who are upset or angry at a turn a series takes often take that frustration out on the shows’ producers. Derek Johnson in his study of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fandom noted that many fans vilified Marti Noxon, who managed Buffy’s sixth season while Joss Whedon (Buffy’s creator) worked on Firefly. Noxon was criticised for producing ‘angsty and depressing’ episodes akin to soap opera and melodrama, and “assigned the blame for the series’ perceived dalliances in devalued, feminised storytelling forms” (2007, p. 292). With The X Files, however, anger at Fowley is directed at the character herself.[4] Examining why, as I will do later in this thesis, would prove fruitful in understanding what anti-fans of an aspect of a programme can tell us about readings of that programme.

Gray also argues that the attitudes of non-fans to a text should lead scholars to assess the impact this has on the study of texts, for

the very nature and physicality of the text changes when watched by the non-fan, becoming an entirely different entity […] Until now, media and cultural studies have often been content to ask what power or effects a text may have, how an audience might resist a text or what role context plays, but non-fan engagement with the televisual text denies us the existence of the solitary, agreed-on text with which to anchor such discussions. (2003, p. 75)

For Gray, non-fans are those are indifferent to a text but still (occasionally or frequently) view it. I would argue that by its very nature The X Files interrupts the ‘dip in, dip out’ form of viewing. Johnson notes that the series “combined one-off ‘genre’ episodes centred on a single investigation, with an ongoing and increasingly complex ‘mythology’ narrative” (2005, p. 105).  While she does then go on to argue that “this dual narrative structure enabled the series to be accessible to the casual viewer, while simultaneously rewarding the loyal viewer with character and story development” (ibid) I would argue that the series blurred the lines between the stand alone ‘monster of the week’ episodes and the underlying ‘mytharc’ narrative, thus resulting in the viewer requiring a greater deal of knowledge about the series than could be gleaned from infrequent viewings. Instead I would argue that non-fans of the series are aware of it predominantly through references to the show in pop culture. It has been widely noted that The X Files was a pop culture phenomenon, with references made to it in The Simpsons, Felix the Cat, Bones, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and many other popular texts (Delasara, 2000; Gradnitzer and Pittson, 1999; Kozinets, 1997). At the height of its popularity in the 1990s it would have been difficult for most in the Western world to be unaware of the series, even if their awareness of it reached only as far as an understanding of the series as a show about aliens. As Gray notes, many programmes are part of a common language, and they grow through media talk to something “more than just the moment(s) of viewing” (2003, p. 76). References to The X Files’ in song, television drama, cartoon series and newspaper headlines all tell us something about the perception of The X Files in the world outside of fandom.

___________________

[1] I would suggest that the ‘close reader’ does not exist within fandom, but instead in a professional relationship to the show/s – those academics, critics and reviewers who focus on the text itself rather than fans who engage with fan communities and paratexts. Indeed, many reviews of The X Files discuss its strong female character, yet this notion of Scully is widely contested within fandom itself.

[2] Interestingly, urban dictionary defines anti-fans as “any fangirl/boy who purports to be a fan but who is actually engaged in dissing down, covertly or overtly, the object of a fandom, often for hidden agendas of their own” (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=anti-fan) while fanlore notes that anti-fans were sometimes “fans who became increasingly disenchanted and finally angered or repelled by canon or fanon developments” (http://fanlore.org/wiki/Anti-fan).

[3] A study of fanfiction written by fans who have not seen seasons 8 and 9 would, I suggest, prove fruitful in understanding how these fans respond to what they perceive to be the problem with the text.

[4] Chris Carter is blamed for bad writing by some fans, but these seem to be fans who have some sympathies with the character.

Research and The Big Bang Theory (though not necessarily at the same time)

I've had a really productive couple of weeks research-wise. I sent the second draft of my lit review section on encoding/decoding off to my supervisor last week (and got a reply today asking if I'm free to meet Thursday). It's now up to 18,000 words and I'm pretty happy with it. It's a lot better than the first draft and I think I've got some things in there that could be really useful for my work. One of the things I was looking at while reading was anti-fans, and I posted a poll to the LJ X Files comm asking people about their opinions of fic by people who haven't seen all of the series. What I've argued in the lit review is that what I think Jonathan Gray leaves out in his work on anti-fans is the fans who are anti-fans of a specific aspect of a series - the Fowley anti-fans, or end-of-series anti-fans, for example. They have in-depth knowledge of the series, write fic, engage with fan communities, but dislike (or even hate) specific things about the series. I think they are different to the anti-fans Gray talks about, and I think they're really interesting in terms of studying what fans can tell us about the series they watch. I'm still formulating some of my ideas on this, but I think it could be an interesting area, especially when it relates to fans who write post The Truth or post series (or post S7) fic when they haven't seen S8 and 9. (If anyone's interested I can go into more detail on what Gray says about anti-fans.)

I've also been thinking about The Big Bang Theory. I've recently, as I mentioned before, started watching it and am actually enjoying it. But there are some things I find very problematic. The first of these is the trans-bashing we get in a few episodes. For those of you who haven't seen the series, before Penny moved in opposite Leonard and Penny the apartment was occupied by a black transvestite. This is referred to a couple of times in a few episodes, such as:

Leonard: Anyway, I went upstairs and knocked on the door.

Large Black Transvestite: Yeah?

Past Leonard: Dr. Cooper?

Transvestite: No, you want the crazy guy across the hall.

Leonard: In retrospect, that was clue number two.

And I really don't like the suggestion that a trans person should be the crazy one. I was reading a few blogs earlier today, and one of them said The only ep of the show I ever caught had trans-misogyny and the character being mocked was Black. I couldn't believe I had friends who think themselves "allies" who raved about how great this show was. I would consider myself an LGBT ally, and I do not find the trans references at all funny. Other aspects of the show I do, and so I'm trying to reconcile my dislike of this kind of humour with the show itself. I think it's possible to do so - as long as you're aware of the problems with what you're watching and recognise that for all you enoy it there are issues - but it is something I've been giving a lot of thought to

Another thing I really, really dislike is Howard and his attitude towards women. Partly I dislike this because it conforms to the 'geeks are socially awkward misfits who can't get girls' stereotype and up until S3 there's very little character development, but mainly I dislike it because I find it offensive. Lines like

“Love is not a sprint, it’s a marathon. A relentless pursuit that only ends when she falls into your arms. Or hits you with the pepper spray.”
“Sit with her. Hold her, comfort her. And if the moment feels right, see if you can cop a feel.”
“There’s a whole new crop of female grad students about to put on just enough winter weight to make them needy and vulnerable.”

are supposed to be funny but I think they end up alienating quite a few people - mainly women - who find no place for themselves in TBBT just as they find no place in the predominantly male geek culture of the real world.

And in The Killer Robot Instability, where the following exchange takes place between Howard and Penny

Penny: I am saying it is not a compliment to call me doable. It’s not sexy to stare at my ass and say, “Ooh, it must be jelly ’cause jam don’t shake like that.” And most important, we are not dancing a tango, we’re not to’ing and fro’ing. Nothing is ever going to happen between us. Ever.

Howard: Wait a minute. This isn’t flirting, you’re serious.

Penny: Flirting? You think I’m flirting with you? I am not flirting with you, no woman is ever gonna flirt with you, you’re just gonna grow old and die alone.

the audience are supposed to feel sorry for Howard because his feelings have gotten hurt. (Penny does actually apologise to Howard towards the end of the episode, after which he tries to hit on her [again] showing a distinct lack of character development and pissing me off even more.) I am enjoying the bulk of the series, don't get me wrong, but I wish they'd lay off the trans jokes and the misogyny and give us some cool female geeks. The audience would thank them for it.

Pottermore

Well, I got into Pottermore! Found the clue, found the magic quill and registered on the site. I just have to wait for the welcome email now, which I'll get sometime in August or September I think. Very interested in looking at the site and seeing how it encourages fan involvement.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two (Spoilers)

I was supposed to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two with a friend on Wednesday, but I couldn't wait so decided to see it on my own last night. I was really, really excited about seeing the film. I re-read the books again a few weeks ago and enjoyed them, though some aspects of the series I found more annoying than I had previously - perhaps because I hadn't read the books for a while, and hadn't read the entire series back-to-back in such a short space of time before. But, nevertheless, I was very much looking forward to the film. And I have to say, I preferred the book.

Before I go on, I want to say that I did actually enjoy the film. There were many scenes I thought were extremely well done: the casting of protective spells over Hogwarts; said spells slowly cracking and breaking; every scene with Professor McGonnagall in (I adore Maggie Smith); Snape's memories, and especially when he finds Lilly's body; the dragon; the quality of the acting; the final scene before the epilogue with Harry, Hermione and Ron standing on a ruined bridge; the music; the cinematography. There's a lot to be said about what is good and well done in this film.

However, there was a lot that I wasn't that keen on, mainly the amount that they changed. It felt like a very different film to the book, and given how closely most of the other films have stuck to the books this was a big departure.What annoyed me the most was the way all bar the main three characters were treated, especially in the battle scenes. Two things that struck me (and stayed with me) the most when reading the book were Fred and Lupin and Tonks' death. Fred dies just after Percy is reunited with the family. Percy, who admits that he was wrong, that he belongs with what's left of the Order and Harry, fighting Voldemort. For the Weasleys to be reunited, and then to be ripped apart again (and the injustice of it being Fred to die rather than, say, Percy) so quickly shocked me. I couldn't believe that JKR had done it. But as much as I didn't want her to have done it, Fred deserved a better death in the film than the one that we saw. Likewise Lupin and Tonks. Their relationship was barely mentioned in the film - we only find out about Teddy when Harry mentions him in the Forbidden Forest. They are such an important part of the series, and the way we find out about their death (Harry walking alone, unspotted, through the Great Hall. The Weasleys surrounding Fred, and Lupin and Tonks laid out, together) brings tears to my eyes even now. But we didn't have that in the film and I'm not sure a casual viewer would even have known who they were.

And speaking of battle scenes, what on earth was the final fight between Harry and Voldermort all about? That should have taken place inside, people watching Harry and the dark lord battle it out, people watching Voldemort die and knowing that Harry had killed him. While I can certainly appreciate the effects, it still felt wrong. Harry is, after all, the hero. And part of being a hero is for there to be people around you to see that you're the hero. Which leads me onto my next complaint - no house elves! No Gawp! (And hardly any Hagrid - I really did think they weren't going to include him at one point.) That's such an important part of the book, especially when you consider the politics we have in the background of the house elves/slaves being inferior to humans. This is clearly most typified in Kreacher's relationships with wizards and half-bloods, and yet we didn't even get to see his change of heart and the solidarity that we see in the books between wizards, half-bloods, house-elves and even giants.

I was also disappointed that they neglected to mention much of Dumbledore's backstory. That aspect of the books was one of the most interesting to me. It made Dumbledore much more of an ambiguous character, and raised lots of questions about his sacrificing Harry to destroy Voldemort. Yes, we get an inkling that Dumbeldore wasn't all he seemed, but that was from a brother who's rarely appeared elsewhere in the films and really meant very little.

I really missed the Ravenclaw Tower scene which we get in the book. I really enjoyed reading that and was disappointed that it wasn't in the film. Plus I thought that the Grey Lady scene was too long for what was, pretty much, the ghost telling Harry where to find the diadem. We could have had that much more quickly - especially as we didn't get any of the Grey Lady's backstory.

Essentially, it felt to me like the entire film was purely about Harry and Voldemort, and for me that's never been what the series is about. It's about friendship and love and trust and definitely not solely about one boy's crusade to kill the dark lord (who also hugs people when they join him. Don't even get me started on that). This is something I definitely want to think about more - I have some thoughts on it, but they're in that just-being-formed stage - but it's an important point to me.

All in all I think this film felt too rushed, while Deathly Harrows Part One felt too drawn out. I felt like there should have been a better balance between them, because so much was skipped over in Part Two that really (I think) should have been in there. I'll probably go see it again, just because now I know what to expect I can probably enjoy it more, but I'm still sad that it didn't live up to my expectations. I wish they were releasing extended versions on DVD that had more in them than they could manage with the films.

Torchwood: Miracle Day Part 1 (Spoilers)

O.M.G.

I have to admit that as much as I've been really looking forward to this series, I have had mixed feelings about the move away from Wales. I know that any series needs to grow and change, but it's so rare to have a series set very obviously in Wales (Who, for example, is produced by BBC Wales and filmed in Wales, but you wouldn't necessarily know that from watching it. It's a very big part of Torchwood's identity though, and my worry has been that Americanising it would take away some of what makes it unique and such a hit. Plus, I'm Welsh. I like seeing my country on screen and recognising a vast majority of it). I still have mixed feelings on it, though I did like how much we saw of Wales in tonight's episode, and the various references ("I have to pay for this bridge"). I can't deny though, that working in conjunction with a US production company does mean we get some awesome effects. The whole helicopter scene was absolutely amazing! Ridiculous in an OTT action film kinda way, but you kinda expect that from Torchwood.

I think the shot of Gwen with gun in one hand, earmuffed baby in the other is possible one of the best shots I've seen this year. Jack's reveal was well done, and Bill Pulman's acting was stellar - a very different role for him. I really like the storyline as well. I'm curious to see where it goes - humanity might start fighting among themselves when food runs scarce, but they're not going to starve to death. What effect might that have on society?

The previews for the rest of the season also looked awesome. I've very much looking forward to seeing what we get over the next few weeks.

The tie I will be wearing to graduation

Is it wrong that I'm more excited about wearing this than I am about actually graduating?

"I do not gaze at Scully" The Rain King: The X Files' Response to Laura Mulvey

This was written for the 2011 round of xf_is_love. I'm writing this much later than I'd have liked to, mainly because I forgot I was posting today until yesterday, and so it's therefore shorter than I'd like it to be. There's a lot more I could say about the male gaze and The X Files, but if you take a look at the bibliography you'll find some of the articles out there covering this in more depth than I am in this essay.




This essay begins with an anecdote about how it’s possible to see The X Files everywhere. Most of you probably know I’m a PhD student, and my research question looks at why X Files fans (on the whole) love Scully and hate Fowley. The thesis will, eventually, go into a lot more detail in a lot more areas, but that’s the basis of my research. Because it’s a PhD I have to do a lot of reading, and on the train to university one morning last year I was reading Laura Mulvey’s Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (1975), an important text in the field of feminist film criticism. Mulvey’s article makes political use of Freud to move film theory towards a more psychoanalytic framework, and I find it heavy going. But the area of most interest to my research, and this paper, is her concept of the ‘male gaze’. She argued that the way in which classical Hollywood cinema was constructed placed the viewer in a ‘masculine subject position’, with the woman on the screen as the object of desire. Women are inevitably a subject of this gaze, rather than active participants or even instigators of a gaze. And while I was reading, I kept thinking of our favourite duo. I’m sure by this point you can work out why. While I was doing my reading, I came across this: “within the film text itself, men gaze at women” which reminded me of this:

HOLMAN: I've been envious of men like you my whole life. Based on your physical bearing, I'd assumed you were... More experienced. I mean... You spend every day with agent Scully a beautiful, enchanting woman. And you two never, uh...? I... confess I find that shocking. I... I've seen how you two gaze at one another.

MULDER: This is about you, Holman. I'm here to help you. I'm perfectly happy with my friendship with Agent Scully.

HOLMAN: So according to your theory I walk in there, tell her I love her and the drought will end?

MULDER: Just tell her how you feel. And Holman. I do not gaze at Scully.

Which led to me sending a very excited text to cadiliniel about the male gaze and how I was able to see X Files references everywhere. (It also led to some strange looks from the other people in the carriage as I laughed to myself.) Beyond this realisation though, were some more serious questions: is Mulder’s comment to Holman in Rain King a serious reference to Mulvey’s concept of the male gaze? Were the writers planting an in joke that only students of pop culture – and perhaps those who were most interested in how women are depicted in The X Files – would get, while keeping shippers happy at the same time? And if so, does their response to Mulvey hold up? This essay is an attempt to answer those questions by examining three main areas: how Scully is depicted in the series; whether Scully possesses a ‘female gaze’; and how Mulder (and the audience) gaze at Scully. I’ll look at the first of these to begin.

One of the ways in which Mulvey argues that women function as objects of the male gaze is through their depiction as glamorous, sexualised beings. Scully, certainly in the early seasons, is almost never coded as sexual. She wears little make-up, keeps her hair short and as anyone who follows http://fucknoshoulderpads.tumblr.com/ will know, wears some appalling pant suits. Even in later seasons, when her dress sense has improved, she can be found wearing over-sized t-shirts with leggings and jeans and hiking boots. Scully does not, it seem, pay overmuch attention to her appearance. There are far more serious things to worry about.

Likewise, though her social life is referred to briefly in season one and she does go out on a date in Jersey Devil, her position as Mulder’s partner removes much of her sexuality: they have little life outside of work, she leaves her date early to help Mulder on a case and both rarely mention a social life. As Hodges notes: “If anything, then, the show seems to go out of its way to desexualize Scully in the first season, though she is, of course, not completely divested of her femininity—it’s just not a central attribute of her character” (2005). Indeed, much has been made of how Scully is depicted as a strong female character in both fan and academic analyses of the show. Popular press discourse noted her scientific background, her job (as an FBI agent she was considered a woman in a man’s world) and her strength of character, and fans likewise commented upon these attributes. Gina Rumbaugh notes that “Scully is also someone with whom women can identify […] as a contemporary woman who faces challenges and doubts and who endeavours to achieve a fulfilling life” placing emphasis not upon Scully’s appearance, but on her ability to face up to challenges and doubts, and overcomes them. 

Chris Carter has said that

Scully's point of view is the point of view of the show. And so the show has to be built on a solid foundation of science, in order to have Mulder take a flight from it... If the science is really good, Scully's got a valid point of view... And Mulder has to then convince her that she's got to throw her arguments out, she's got to accept the unacceptable.

Carter argues that Scully is the lens through which The X Files is viewed by the audience; she is our link to Mulder, to the X Files, to the mytharc. And that suggests that a great deal of power lies with Scully. Far from being the object of male gaze, it is she who holds the gaze, both in terms of her power as an investigator, and by forcing the audience to focus on what she focuses on. Hodges notes that

In the pilot episode, Scully is established as the series’ connection to the rational and the real. She enters the series at the same place and time as the viewer—the viewer, like Scully, is expecting to “debunk the X-Files project.” She is the original screen surrogate and, through access to her inner thoughts as projected by the case reports that she writes while investigating with Mulder, she serves as the voice with which the viewer can originally identify.

Scully’s positioning as a medical doctor and FBI investigator further allow her to serve as an authoritative voice, as well as allowing her a gaze of her own under which to instigate inquiries: as Rhonda Wilcox and J.P. Williams note in “’What Do You Think?’ The X-Files, Liminality, and Gender Pleasure,”: “while women on screen often passively represent the body, Scully actively examines it.”

Mulvey argued that films were centred around a “main controlling figure with whom the spectator can identify. As the spectator identifies with the main male protagonist, he projects his look onto […] his screen surrogate, so that the power of the male protagonist as he controls events coincides with the active power of the erotic look, both giving a satisfying sense of omnipotence.” But this fails to take into account those viewers who don’t identify with the male protagonist. There are lots of them watching The X Files. They identify much more strongly with Scully than with Mulder, and Scully is equally as able to project her look onto him as he is to project his onto her. Hodges, however, argues that both Mulder and Scully serve as ‘screen surrogates’ for the viewers. Mulder’s worldview is valued over Scully’s rational one, something which neither fans nor critics have failed to realise. Mulder is right most of the time, and Scully’s scientific explanations almost never pan out. Yet, particularly in the first season, the voiceovers which Scully gives when writing up her case notes lend her credence and authority, marking her as equally worthy of our attention. But does this actually make Mulvey’s analysis of the male/female binary as problematic as we might think? Wilcox and Williams argue that Scully’s investigative gaze is disempowered as a result of the show’s inversion of traditional gender roles. While Scully representing rationality and science (the realm of men) may allow her more authority, her failure, episode after episode, to see the supernatural explanation that Mulder does results in the disempowerment of her gaze.

More problematically, Scully is often coded as the object of the male gaze. Irresistible and Milagro and both examples of this, but it is to the Pilot that I wish to return. In her analysis of classical Hollywood Cinema, Mulvey contended that

the film opens with the woman as object the combined gaze of spectator and all the male protagonists in the film. She is isolated, glamorous, on display, sexualised. But as the narrative progresses she falls in love with the main male protagonist and becomes his property, losing her outward glamorous characteristics, her generalised sexuality, her show-girl connotations; her eroticism is subjected to the male star alone. By means of identification with him, through participation in his power, the spectator can indirectly possess her too.

And parts of this will certainly sound familiar to X Files fans (falling in love with the main male protagonist, anyone?). The Pilot episode opens with Karen Swenson as object of viewer gaze and male character gaze. Clad only in a nightgown she runs through a dark forest, camera focusing on her legs in close up, and her body in long shot. Tripping, she falls to the floor and lies there, lit by a bright light, as a boy walks towards her. Leaves swirl around them, and then we fade to white. Following this, we see Karen lying on the ground, face down. She is surrounded by men in positions of authority as they take photos and examine her dead body. But the scene then switches to Scully who, as I have already mentioned, is the lens through which the audience view The X Files. Hodges notes that the dynamic in this scene is complicated (one reason why The X Files is such as interesting text to examine in terms of gender): far from women being the victims, as depicted in the earlier scene, we get Scully – calm, collected and quite able to recognise and challenge the true motives of the men in front of her.

So far so good, one might think. We do, at least, have a strong female character who can stand up for herself. But then, of course, we later get a lot of scantily-clad Scully who rushes into Mulder’s motel room worried about lumps on her back. The setting up of this scene much more closely aligns with Mulvey’s idea of the male gaze: the viewer is treated to shots of Scully disrobing, standing in front of the bathroom mirror wearing only her underwear and a close up of her lower body. The framing of the scene when she enters Mulder’s motel room also positions Scully as an object of the viewer, and the male protagonist’s gaze Mulder quite obviously gazes at Scully as she asks him to examine her back, and the viewer has no choice but to do the same. Hodges notes that the scene does two things:

it makes Scully vulnerable and sets her up as an object for the gaze of both Mulder and the viewer. Up to this point in the episode, Scully is portrayed as strong and confident. In this scene, however, she is portrayed as emotional, and the emphasis on her mostly naked body highlights her femininity […]she is reduced to her naked body parts by the scene. Scully is no longer Mulder’s equal, and what disguised her femininity—namely her clothing and “macho” attitude—is shed. In this scene Scully is an object of erotic pleasure, both for Mulder and for the viewer.

Regardless of whether Scully is depicted with a lack of ‘feminine’ attributes, or as a scantily-glad young woman, she is consistently made an object of the male gaze by the structure of the text. This is further evidenced in the number of attractive women lists that Gillian Anderson, in her role as Scully, has topped. And references to the ‘thinking man’s crumpet’ clearly code Scully as a desirable, sexual being.

At the start of this essay I posed some questions that I was hoping to answer: is Mulder’s comment to Holman in Rain King a serious reference to Mulvey’s concept of the male gaze? Were the writers planting an in joke that only students of pop culture – and perhaps those who were most interested in how women are depicted in The X Files – would get, while keeping shippers happy at the same time? And if so, does their response to Mulvey hold up? The honest answer is I don’t think we’ll ever know. I would love to be able to say that Carter and co. were throwing a reference to Mulvey out into the big wide world of fandom, and given the amount of what Jonathan Gray calls ‘intertextuality’ (the idea that texts are shaped by other texts) it would be nice to think they were. The writers clearly aren’t stupid people, and they don’t treat the audience as though they are either. It’s certainly possible that someone on the staff had come across Mulvey’s idea and thrown it into the pot. After all, they’ve done it with the Bible (Amor Fati), Frankenstein (Post-Modern Prometheus) and Star Wars (Jose Chung’s From Outer Space), and looking at the language used in Rain King (gaze instead of look, for example) there might be an argument to make that say they were. But I’m leaning more towards the conclusion that it was simple coincidence. Nevertheless, it was an interesting question to ask and has made for what I think is an interesting analysis of The X Files. The answer to the last question, I would argue, is also a no. While much has been made of Scully’s depiction as strong female character, as I’ve mentioned throughout this piece, there are problems with the way she is coded in the series. Mulvey suggests that “Woman then stands in patriarchal culture as signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his phantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing them on the silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning.” The female characters in The X Files are firmly placed as bearers of meaning. Samantha doesn’t make meaning through being abducted; she is the bearer of a much larger meaning, which is slowly revealed through the course of the show. Likewise, Scully is the bearer of meaning – in a much more literal way. In two separate instances she holds something inside her which carries meaning that other, male, characters would do anything to have. The microchip implanted in her neck in Season 2 bears a much more malignant meaning than does William in the last two seasons, but in both of these instances Scully does not make the meaning they hold. Despite all of this though, the writers try. And returning to the quote that opened this essay, it is important to note one thing.

HOLMAN: I've been envious of men like you my whole life. Based on your physical bearing, I'd assumed you were... More experienced. I mean... You spend every day with agent Scully a beautiful, enchanting woman. And you two never, uh...? I... confess I find that shocking. I... I've seen how you two gaze at one another.

While Mulder’s response is to tell Holman that he doesn’t gaze at Scully, Scully is not there to say the same thing. Holman doesn’t accuse Mulder of levelling the ‘male gaze’ at Scully; rather he recognises the way that they look at each other. The equal gaze that illustrates partnership, not domination.

Bibliography
Ginn, Sherry. 2005. Our Space, Our Place: Women in the Worlds of Science Fiction Television. University Press of America
Helford, Elyce Rae. 2000. Fantasy Girls: Gender in the New Universe of Science Fiction and Fantasy Televison. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Hodges, Lacy. 2005. “Scully, What Are You Wearing?”: The Problem of Feminism, Subversion, and Heteronormativity in The X-Files. MA Diss. University of Florida
Inness, Sherrie A. 1999. Tough Girls: Women Warriors and Wonder Women in Popular Culture (Feminist Cultural Studies, the Media, & Political Culture). University of Pennsylvania Press
Lavery, David, Hague, Angela and Cartwright, Maria. 1997. Deny All Knowledge: Reading the "X-Files". Faber and Faber
Lipsky, David. 1997. “Chris Carter As The Beast Within.” Rolling Stone Magazine. Accessed at http://millennium-thisiswhoweare.net/cmeacg/crew_interview.php?name=Chris%20Carter&id=41
Mulveyr, Laura. 1975. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen v.16 (3): 6-18.
Rumbaugh, Gina Boyer. 2008. X-chromosomes within The X-Files: An Examination of Celebrity Role Models Agent Scully and Gillian Anderson, VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft c& Co. KG
Scodari, Christina., and Felder, Jenna, L. 2000. “Creating a pocket universe: "Shippers," fan fiction, and The X-Files Online.” Communication Studies: 51 (3)
Wakefield, Sarah, R. 2001. “‘Your Sister in St. Scully’: An Electronic Community of Female Fans of The X-Files.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 29.3: 130-37.

Dr Who: A Good Man Goes to War (spoilers)

I've been speculating for a while who River would be - top two contenders were the Doctor's first (?) love (the Dr's Wife, which is a whole other entry!) and Amy's daughter. So that didn't surprise me. I thought the reveal was well done, and when I first watched it I loved it, but on reflection I'm not sure how I feel. On the one hand - yes, it's very cool. On the other I kinda feel it takes away some of River's...Riverness. I mean, she is a great character. I love how she's written and I love how she's acted. But it feels as though her being Amy's daughter somehow negates that - she's cool because she's Amy's daughter and therefore is less of a great character in her own right. If that makes sense. I do hope that we get to see more of River as a character and not as a mystery though. And I'm going to have to rewatch this series again soon.

Acafan Conundrum

If I am writing a paper on slash (which I am) and if I have written slash myself (which I have) and if I'm talking about acafandom and being aware of/sympathetic to the way in which fandom and slash writers have been discussed in previous scholarship (which I will be), should I make it clear that I've written slash?

I'm a bit torn. On the one hand I want to make it clear that I'm active in fandom and am aware of the way fandom has been treated previously, and so have taken steps to ensure that I am treating slash writers ethically and not making judgements or sweeping generalisations about them. In that respect I feel like I should position myself as having written slash (if not prolifically) as a justification (of sorts) for my metholodolgy. On the other, I don't know if coming out and saying I've written slash would affect me as a (future) academic. Henry Jenkins has said on his blog that he's written slash, but I don't know if he's ever talked about it in 'proper' academic work (book chapters, journal papers, etc.). Plus, Henry Jenkins is big in the academic world while I'm not. It might be easier for him to say he's written slash than it would be for someone just entering the field.

It's a toughie.

The X Files - Twenty Years On

The abstract for the above journal has been revised and sent! Just got to keep all my fingers crossed that it gets accepted, and that I can get ethics committee approval from uni for it (I'm planning on questioning/interviewing fans under the age of 16 so I need to put a good proposal forward to the committee). I am a little worried that I'm going to take on too much if it does get accepted, but the stuff I'd be looking at for the paper links directly to the research I'm doing on my lit review, and first drafts don't need to be in til January next year, which gives me plenty of time to work on it. Plus, I'm doing a PhD on The X Files. I can't pass up an opportunity to submit something to a journal that's doing a special edition on that very topic!

In other news, the slash book chapter I'm writing seems to be going well. I've had lots of thinky-thoughts on it, which have translated into about 6000 words of notes, and that's without any quotes from my interviewees or their fic in there! One thing I do need to find though, are femslash writers in the Twilight fandom. It's a long shot, I know, but do any of you happen to know anyone who'd be interested in being interviewed?

PhD Meeting

I met with my tutor on Wednesday to go over the first draft of the encoding/decoding section of my lit review. He was broadly pleased with it, which was good. He's said a couple of times now that I won't have a problem with the writing itself, I just need to a) be more critical and b) be more assertive in locating my work. I've got to submit another draft in June/July and that'll be it for this section. He's also wangled it so that I don't have to submit a methodology essay in June. It doesn't make sense for me to do it now because I'm a part time student so while the full timers will be moving onto the methodological work next academic year, I won't be doing it for another 18 months or so. It makes more sense for me to concentrate on my lit review now. I'm very pleased by that.

First World Problems

Writing lit reviews is hard! I don't want to write mine anymore. I want to go sit outside in the sun and read some fiction not go over critiques of Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding model and work out how to fit them all into an 8000 word section.

In other news, my pony is too small and my diamond-encrusted saddle rubs my arse when I ride.

Erotic Adaptations Conference Review

The erotic adaptations conference I presented the X-Files paper at went well, though I almost didn't make it because I was feeling so ill. I took the Monday off work, dosed myself up on drugs and practised reading the paper even though I really didn't want to. The drive up (all 4 hours of it) wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, though I think in large part that was due to having driven up there in November so I knew what to expect.  I was sharing a room with a friend of mine so met her at the hotel where we practised our papers and vegged out a bit before heading into Leicester to meet some of her friends. I headed back for an early night, and to take more drugs, and the following morning it was up early and trying not to get lost (again) on our way to the university.

The conference itself, or what I heard of it, was really interesting. I was on a panel with a girl who talked about The Odysey and a friend of mine who talked about Sherlock/Robert-Downey Jr. Jude Law slash. My paper seemed to go down well and a lot of interesting questions were asked, though by that point I was quite frazzled and couldn't really think of any good answers. The conference organiser asked me to send him a copy of my paper as it's relevant to his research, and he's considering putting a book collection together which I will submit the paper to. I have to confess to bailing at lunchtime though and heading back home. I didn't think I'd last much of the afternoon and wanted to get home before it got dark, though I was really disappointed to miss some of the papers that were being presented.

I've uploaded a copy of the paper I presented to my LiveJournal. It can be found here: http://xf-meta.livejournal.com/2316.html

The X Files Porn Parody Review

I watched it purely for academic purposes, I swear! But it was interesting. The Mark Snow-esque music was a nice, if weird, touch (it was very clearly modelled on the original theme tune, but it sounds so off when you're used to the real thing), and the opening credits were really close to the actual credits. Including the agents (it still feels weird calling them Mulder and Scully) bursting through a door, and taglines like 'knowledge denied' and 'the truth will be reborn'. Kimberley Kane does do a passable Scully - in terms of looks at least, though Anthony Rosano's Mulder less so.

I will freely admit to cringing through a lot of it. I kinda really didn't want to watch it, but did at the same time. The sound quality on my copy wasn't great, and the picture was in black and white on the TV (in colour on the laptop but my laptop has a habit of crashing when I ask it to do complex things, like play DVDs) so I had to put up with that.

Pencils! The Poster! Arlene!

I kept replaying all the lines in my head, the way Mulder and Scully would really say them. Since when would Mulder tell Skinner he'll call him when he knows more?! I paused the DVD - out of habit - when I went into the kitchen to get my soup, then realised I'd paused it on a porn scene. A very long porn scene between Skinner and his secretary. I'm not a prude, really, I'm not - but there's a big difference between reading PWP and watching it, especially where any XF characters are involved!

1013 Carter Way! Mulder making porn jokes! Mulder making more porn jokes! Scully explaining Mulder's behaviour (albeit in a very un-Scullylike way)!

"You've been acting distant for a few days now." This is like fic! Ok, I know they will ATTHS in this, but so much fic has M&S talking about their feelings, why someone's distant, beforehand.

This could so easily be a casefile on the show. Minus the huge amount of sex, obviously. Crowley, sex magic - the writer definitely did his job.

Sleepy Time Suites Hotel! Oh it gets better =D They have adjoining rooms. And Mulder walks in on Scully naked. "I wasn't peeping he said." He lies. Aw, I actually like these characters. They're not the real deal, but the way it's been done is definitely a testament to how much the writer/producer loved the show.

Even the camera angles are similar to the ones used on the show. Close ups of door knobs (and other knobs, but we never saw those on TXF) and the like. And Mulder watching porn, of course.

They have Mulder being cryptic, as ever.

How many times have we had this dialogue:

Special Agent Fox Mulder. This is Special Agent Dana Scully. May we come in?" And to be fair the delivery wasn't that bad.

Talking about Scully settling down in a few years. It's reminiscent of that scene in Home. You know. That scene.

This Scully isn't as badass as our Scully. Her delivery is much less forceful and self assured.

Their first suspect even looks like an XF villian.

A surveillance scene! Wonder if there's an iced tea in that bag... And Mulder talking about scripture. Is there nothing he doens't know? Even if this Mulder isn't our Mulder.

Mulder saying "Let's see how spooky he is"? ROFL!!

Torches and dark rooms. Plus MS music and shadowy images of someone there, watching our heroes.

Mulder's response to Scully's "just the bedroom": "Must be where the magic happens."

They really did their work on copying the poses. There are a couple that look like they've come straight out of promo posts.

Did the 'Mulder, we're leaving' bit remind anyone else who's seen this of HTGSC?

There are some parts of this that remind me of GenderBender. The threesome with Lilith in the alleyway (along with cheesy dance music!).

Porn dialogue is so bad! It's a good job most XF fic writers are better than porn film writers.

I love how Mulder jumps from cult killings to Lilith to the killer being Lilith herself. Oh how true that rings to the real Mulder.

Never thought I'd hear Scully utter the words 'Satan's whore'...

Woah. She actually looks like Scully when she's doing the autopsy. That is scary.

There was a line that said "Stomach contents include..." and I was really hoping that last word would be pizza! It was a very Bad Blood moment.

Oh, Mulder's drugged again! And saved by Scully. Nice nod to gender roles there!

Someone on Haven commented wondering whether Barton's 'bugger you' comment to Mulder is a nod to slash. I'm not sure if it is, though I like the idea. And I think the writer would be aware enough of fic to do it.

Morley Meat Factory!

Clangs in the machinery - that reminds of the bit in Squeeze where Tooms comes down the ventilation shaft but all you hear for a while are clangs and bangs.

The metamorphosis into Scully is similar to Eddie Van Bludnht's turning into Mulder.

Would the real Mulder have given Barsons up so quickly I wonder.

"That's quite a story Agent Mulder." Such a Skinner comment!

Don't run away from me Mulder. I'm not running. I'm walking. Calmly. Lines straight out of fic.

Oh and Mulder turns up at Scully's place. I was expecting a through the keyhole shot like in Small Potatoes. Especially with the 'is everything ok?' comment.

And there's hand holding! And talking about Samantha and knowing what happened to her! They really did set this following canon didn't they. Apart from Mulder telling Scully the best part of his day is when she walks into the office. And there's Mulder confessing his love, and not wanting to ruin the frieship or the progessional relationship! ATTH Forehead Sex!! Aw. That's actually a kinda sweet kiss. A lot of people on Haven commented that it's what CC should have given the fans. Not sure if I agree with that, noromo that I am, but it's more than we got in the series. And kinda better done. At least it's acknowledged, rather than being kinda slotted in in between MOTW and Mytharc. Wow. The next scene is much more than we got in the series! Still can't quite bring myself to watch them actually, y'know, make the beast with two backs. It is Mulder and Scully after all. Kinda. But the music is much more romantic than typical porn music. Which is good. Haha, Scully says 'goddamnit' quite a lot. I keep expecting it to be followed by 'Mulder' - that'd be more like what we're used to.

Oh dear. Scully saying 'it's really big' creased me up! Fic is coming true.

I've only just noticed that Scully's wearing her cross! While having sex!

Since when has Mulder had a foot fetish??

There is a Never Again Tattoogasm face! Oh dear me, that cracked me up.

Why didn't they cover up the tattoos the guy playing Mulder has? Not to sound horrible, but they don't look like particularly well done tattoos, and they've played pretty close attention to most other things (see: pencils, poster, cross). Why not that?

Anyone watching me watching this scene (which has gone on for bloody ages, by the way) would think I was watching some kind of slasher, necrophiliac thing. Seriously - I'm sure my face will stay this way if the wind changes!

Ew! Cum shot.

But at least there's snuggling at the end. Unlike most porn films I'd have thought! Mulder and Scully look very happy.


Behind the Scenes Footage
Kimberley Kane seems to have taken a lot of notice of GA's acting - 'Scully acts with the eyes'.

They both say there's on camera chemistry, good chemistry, between the two actors. The way they interact is actually a lot like how GA and DD interact in interviews - lots of looking at each other to confirm what's being said, etc.

Kimberley Kane was a fan of the show and the movies and wants to get the box sets. She says she was going to watch it all, but the cool thing about XF online is that you can't pirate it or find it online anywhere(!).

They both watched episodes to prepare, including the pilot, the first 8 eps and the movies. Kimberley Kane said she read the script for the parody - she'd been offered Scully roles before and didn't take them because they were too cheesy - but she psyched to get this as New Sensations does good parodies.

There was a question asked about the easy/hard parts of character portrayal. The big thing they talked about was the sexual tension building through the parody between Mulder and Scully. By the end Kimberley wanted to have an explosive, passionate sex scene. She said it was important to build up that Mulder and Scully will have sex and it will rule!

Interviewer asks why they didn't become a couple on the show! Kimberley says they did, but they weren't a good couple - good partners but there was a scewed dynamic between them. Anthony commented that they had such disparate energies even after the consumation of the relationship; Mulder is extreme, Scully reserved. He does say they had a good counterbalance though. He said it's similar to how him and Kimberley work off each other. Plus Kimberley is hot as fuck (which reminded me of Froike's 'remotely plausible' comment!).

They mention they get 4 hours of sleep each day - it's like the real XF!

Kimberly also refers to rolling stone cover and says for so many people there was the "fantasy to see Mulder and Scully together so we're going to be fulfilling that fantasy in this movie."

(Side note: Anthony knows the difference between an incubus and a succubus!)

He talks about this Mulder being a complex character - or as complex as can be in a porn parody. He says there's a mix of belief and cynicism and that duality gives him grit. He's a threat to the rest of the agency as he'll go to where it's spooky and clandestine in search of answers. He also says for once he's not a dork (in a porn parody) which I thought was interesting - Mulder can be pretty dorky =D

There was a big black freeze with 'What about the tension?' written on it!

Both actors comment on how the tension builds and the way they (1013) wrote it into the eps kept on creating more and more tension, but also gave depth to the relationship. They said it would be interesting to see how that plays out while shooting the parody - they don't get to the sex scene til 6th day so that plays on the sexual tension.

(The cameraman doing the interviews seriously does not know anything about TXF. He was going on about how it was all paranormal and then they brough the aliens in because Mulder didn't want to believe and they had to find a way to make him, or something! I kinda want to write in and tell him exactly where he's gone wrong.)

All in all it was interesting to watch. The sex scenes were tedious after a while - the few that I started to sit through I got bored with - but the casefile was interesting and could easily have come straight out of the series. Hearing about the behind the scenes stuff was really interesting, though I'd have loved to hear from the writer - why he did it, how much of a fan he was of the show, etc.