SCREEN-L Archives

May 2005, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 8 May 2005 20:24:46 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (41 lines)
Michael Kackman writes:

>Clearly, though, there's an underlying problem.  We ought to better 
>discipline the boundaries of the field -- lest the Almighty notice that 
>UNDERGRADUATES are beginning to care enough about writing to develop their 
>own journal.

Well, Sokal - one of my all time heroes - quite spectacularly outed what 
was very much a postgraduate journal in proving that its editors were 
willing to publish complete bull----, so why not give the little ones a try?

>I mean, they're not even credentialed, or anything.  Next thing we know, a 
>group of renegade youth will develop a journal of Sokol Studies.

Even though at age 31, I might struggle to qualify as 'renegade youth' 
(driving a Ford Mondeo, playing cricket and drinking Plymouth Gin with 
tonic and lots of Angostura doesn't really fit that stereotype, somehow!), 
I'd hope that I could nevertheless be considered for the editorial board!

With tongue removed from cheek, though, how is the term 'Buffy studies' 
supposed to distinguish the methodology (or -ies) used to analyse the 
cultural, industrial, economic or political effect of this particular TV 
programme from that which is used to analyse any other?  Are the people who 
do this work actually doing anything significantly different enough to 
justify the label, or does the label simply indicate the existence of a 
bandwagon?  And if the former, does it have any significance or meaningful 
application beyond analysing this one television programme?  For example, I 
wouldn't describe the research I'm in the process as starting as 'Lee de 
Forest studies' - rather, I'm using tried and tested methodologies in order 
to try and understand how this individual and the technologies he developed 
influenced the introduction of sound in the British film industry through 
his London-based franchise operation.  So I'd stick at calling myself an 
empiricist historian.  Granted, that doesn't involve any trendy jargon or 
high fallutin' posts or isms, but at least it does what it says on the tin.

Leo 

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu

ATOM RSS1 RSS2