Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century

Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century

Edited by

Myc Wiatrowski and Cory Barker

 Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century
Edited by Myc Wiatrowski and Cory Barker

This book first published 2013

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2013 by Myc Wiatrowski, Cory Barker and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-4933-2, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-4933-3

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword: The Once and Future Study of Popular Culture ...................... vii
Gary Hoppenstand

Preface: Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century ............................. xv

Myc Wiatrowski and Cory Barker

Acknowledgements ................................................................................. xxi

Part I

Creating Public Intellectuals: Popular Culture’s Move from Niche

to Mainstream in the Twenty-First Century ............................................... 2
Bob Batchelor

Writing Poetry about Pushpin: Chuck Klosterman and the Future

of Cultural Studies .................................................................................... 14
John Fitzpatrick

Deep Culture: Findings from Cultural Studies and Analysis .................... 26

Margaret J. King

Part II

The Joke is on You: Batman’s Antiquated Sense of Morality

in Under the Red Hood ............................................................................. 40
Walter Merryman

For Queen and Country: British Nationalism as Transmitted

through the Apocalyptic Narratives within Doctor Who .......................... 51
Tony Nagel

Conventions of Fantasy: Sex and Relationships in Dragon Age:

Origins ...................................................................................................... 58
Kate Reynolds
vi Table of Contents

Still within Boundary Walls: Parenting and Gender Conventionality

in American Sitcoms Full House and The Brady Bunch .......................... 73
Molly Weinberg

Part III

“We FBA Now”: Community Building and the Furry Basketball

Association ............................................................................................... 82
Sean Ahern

Welcome to the Twilight Zone: Experiencing the Real and Fake of Forks,
Washington through Ecotourism and Fiction Induced Tourism ............... 93
Justine Moller

Set Phasers to Extrapolate: Examining the New Cultural Role

of the Fan through Star Trek Fandom on Tumblr ................................... 109
Corrigan Vaughan

Part IV

Made in America: Masculinity and Work in Contemporary American

“Labor Reality” Television ..................................................................... 122
Cory Barker

Perceptions and Representations of Japanese Femininity:

An Analysis of Weeaboo Internet Cult Figures ...................................... 127
Anna O’Brien

Doctor Who?: Questioning the Traditional Masculine Hero .................. 137

Travis Limbert

Chuck versus the American Hero: Interrogating the Dialectic Rhetoric

of Masculinities in Contemporary American Cultural Discourses ......... 144
Myc Wiatrowski

Bibliography ........................................................................................... 161

Contributors ............................................................................................ 172

Index ....................................................................................................... 176

 FOREWORD

THE ONCE AND FUTURE STUDY

OF POPULAR CULTURE1

GARY HOPPENSTAND
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

My relationship with the study of popular culture began long before I

arrived at Bowling Green. I was an English major at the time, back in the
1970s, attending The Ohio State University. I was then taking a class in
contemporary American literature, and I well remember that the first of
our major essay assignments was to select a Twentieth-Century American
author and compare that author to another. I chose Ernest Hemingway,
because the author that I really wanted to study was the crime fiction writ-
er, Dashiell Hammett, and Hemingway seemed the closest match (certain-
ly closer than Sherwood Anderson, my second option did). I wrote my
paper and dutifully turned it in on time. When I received it back a week
later, there was a massive “F” scrawled at the top in brilliant red pen, and
if that was not embarrassment enough, the “F” was circled and underlined
several times. There was nothing else written on the paper, nothing except
a “see me” statement at the end of the paper, also scrawled in blood-red
ink.
I was mortified. I had never received such a low grade before, even in
my less dutiful days during my sophomore year in high school. I immedi-
ately set up an appointment with the professor to inquire what went so
drastically wrong. When I arrived at the professor’s office the following
day, he very much looked the part of the shaggy scholar, sandaled feet
propped up on his desk, wearing faded jeans with peace-sign patches sewn
on his back pockets (remember this was the 1970s), and sporting a flannel
shirt that probably hadn’t seen the inside of a washing machine in over a
year. I sat down in the proffered seat for students and withdrew the embar-
rassing paper from my backpack. I asked the professor what was wrong
with the essay. “Was it badly written?” I inquired. “No,” he replied. “Was
viii Foreword

it unorganized?” “No,” he said again. Was my analysis of Hemingway’s

work in any way inferior?” “No,” he stated, with finality. “Then, what was
the problem?” “With unwavering stare he told me in an emotionless voice:
“What you needed to do and what you failed to do was to explain in your
work why Hemingway is a great author in comparison with Hammett, who
was merely a pulp hack.”
The next day I dropped the class and changed my undergraduate major
to Secondary English Education.
Sometime later, I was doing research in the undergraduate library at
Ohio State when I ran across a publication that changed my life in educa-
tion forever. It was the Journal of Popular Culture, published at Bowling
Green State University and edited by someone named Ray Browne. Won-
der of wonders, the issue even featured an article on detective fiction, a
subject that was one of Ray’s most passionate scholarly loves through the
years, as well as one of my own. Nowhere in that article did it state that
detective fiction was inferior to American or British literature (i.e., “Liter-
ature” with a capital “L”).
Upon further investigation, I discovered that, in addition to being the
editor of the Journal of Popular Culture, Ray Browne was the Chairperson
of something called the Department of Popular Culture at Bowling Green
State University. I also learned that there was a graduate program in that
Department, an M.A. in Popular Culture. At the time, I remember that I
was in something of a quandary over my future. I was student teaching
nearly illiterate tenth graders the indecipherable joys (to them, anyways)
of Edgar Allan Poe at a rural Columbus, Ohio high school that boasted a
sixty percent dropout rate. Apparently, the likes of Edgar Allan Poe could
not compete with raging hormones and the mysteries of souped-up Cama-
ros. With this limited experience, I naturally had my doubts about becom-
ing a public school teacher. Therefore, I did what any other befuddled col-
lege graduate did at the time; I decided to delay my entry into the work-
force by going to graduate school. My first, and only, choice for graduate
school was the M.A. program in Popular Culture at BGSU.
My initial class at BG that fall semester in 1981 was with Ray Browne.
He was teaching a course on popular fiction, and on the first day of the
class, in walks Ray carrying a grocery bag full of paperback books. After
emptying the bag on his desk, he tells us to select a novel, read it, and re-
port on it the following week. Thumbing through the pile of books, I found
no copies of Hemingway, or Fitzgerald, or Thoreau, or Hawthorne, nor
any copies of the accepted British contingent: no Shakespeare, no Austen,
QR %URQW۴ VLVWHUV. Instead, there were only cheap paperback editions of
Mickey Spillane, Barbara Cartland, Ray Bradbury, and Stephen King. I
 The Once and Future Study of Popular Culture ix

selected a copy of a Ross Macdonald/Lew Archer detective novel, and

spent the next week reading it with unabashed delight and taking copious
notes for discussion next class period.
A few of my graduate student colleagues were quite perplexed with
Ray’s method that first day of class, mystified that no cultural or literary
theory was to ground our work, that the issue of aesthetic quality was ob-
viously to be treated as a subjective interpretation rather than an objective
truth, and that the traditional elite evaluations of the literary establishment
were to hold no water whatsoever, either in the course or with him.
What I later came to understand about Ray Browne’s methods was that
he was a type of political subverse, not “political” in the sense of Demo-
crat or Republican political, but political in the sense that he was rebelling
against the academic expectations of the humanities of that day.
As Ray defined it then (and many times later), he saw the study of cul-
ture dividing into three categories. The first category, which he termed the
“Impact Approach,” involved the analysis and evaluation of high or “elite”
art. This approach, Ray claimed, was the current standard of measure in
humanities departments across the country. Art Departments only studied
fine art, Music Departments only studied the masters, and English De-
partments only studied the literary canon. The problem with the Impact
Approach, Ray told us then (and many times later), was that it snubbed
some ninety percent of all cultural expressions. Art Departments would
ignore commercial illustration, Music Departments would ignore Rock ‘n’
Roll, and English Departments would ignore popular fiction. Ray empha-
sized this last fact with the proclamation that he wanted to know more
about what the woman in the checkout lane of the local grocery store was
reading than what the gray-haired, tenured English professor at the local
college was forcing students to read in class.
The second approach to the study of culture Ray defined as the “De-
terminist Approach.” This he likened to the work of the Marxist theorists
who saw culture as determined by ideology, and employed to manipulate
the so-called unwashed masses. Ray scoffed at this idea, claiming that if
the Determinists were correct in their argument, then every movie made
would be a box office hit, every paperback book published would be a
bestseller, and every song produced would be a chart-topper. Ray’s point
was that people themselves—the unwashed masses—had the power to
determine what they wanted, and that the producers of culture, at best,
could only hope for the best. Nothing was truly determined in cultural
production other than uncertainty.
The third approach to the study of culture, the one that Ray advocated,
was the “American Studies Myth-Symbol Approach.” Though he was the
x Foreword

first to admit that the Myth-Symbol school had its serious drawbacks, he
would also argue that its strengths far outweighed its limitations. Ray
wanted us, as his students, to examine culture and the products of culture
through the lens of symbolic representation. He wanted us to ask, “What
does it mean?” rather than “How good is it?” or “How does it control us?”
and the Myth-Symbol Approach best supported such a stance for the study
of popular culture.
Ultimately, I came to understand that what Ray Browne was actually
defining in that class was a theory of popular culture studies that was pro-
foundly anti-theory. I believe that Ray felt that theory—even the venerable
Myth-Symbol Approach—often got in the way of our true understanding
of culture, which he interpreted as being entirely popular culture.
Ray was a generalist in the truest sense of the word. He was interested
in larger connections more than he was in specific details. He was fasci-
nated by context more than he was by abstraction, and he felt that to ap-
proach the study of popular culture, one needed to know as much about the
entirety of the surrounding public culture as possible. To understand Co-
nan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, for example, Ray thought that one
needed to comprehend the nature of Victorian crime, the quality of Victo-
rian law enforcement, the values of the British working classes, the morals
of the British elite classes, and so on. Ray once told me that the effort to
study popular culture in its proper context is a lifelong occupation, that
there is no end to assessment of popular culture, only more questions to
ask when we discovered facts that answered previous questions.
To know everything about everything is, of course, impossible; this is
why we as students and scholars always seek to narrow our gaze as much
as we can in our work. Ray, conversely, always encouraged us to look
through the telescope rather than through the magnifying glass. Ray’s truth
was that truth is a very tricky thing to handle; hard to get at, but immense-
ly rewarding once revealed. Ray’s students were, in a profound sense, po-
litically subversive in their own right of the established academic order of
things, an order that did not believe in the apparent nonsense of non-
disciplinary thinking.
Ray always wanted us to see popular culture as democratic culture—as
democratizing culture—as “water to a fish,” he would often say… literal-
ly, as the entirety of our cultural expressions. He saw popular culture ex-
tending well beyond Russell Nye’s more limited concept of mass-
produced and mass consumed culture. Popular culture was what we ate,
what we said, what we thought, how we behaved. Such thinking no doubt
resulted from his work as a folklorist. The creation of culture, for Ray, was
always community driven. He railed against the narrow-mindedness of
 The Once and Future Study of Popular Culture xi

elitism and elitist thinking. He despised the concept of the literary canon,
though he himself was expert in the literature of the canon, having pub-
lished a book on Herman Melville.
Perhaps Ray’s position as an academic subversive is best summed by
his history of the Popular Culture and American Culture Associations pub-
lished in 1989, which he titled Against Academia. As his students in the
popular culture program at Bowling Green State University, whether we
really knew it at the time or not, we all were studying to be future academ-
ic subversives, just like Ray.
At least that is what the assessment of popular culture was for me dur-
ing my graduate student career at BGSU, studying with Ray Browne.
What the present holds for our field reveals something different.
The Academy today desperately needs courses in popular culture, if
only to counteract the overspecialization of the humanities. As the disci-
plines in English literature, art history, philosophy, and history move to-
wards more specific—even myopic—research trajectories, the popular
culture generalist must protest ever more vociferously against this trend by
asking the “so what” question. What is the most valuable commodity for
our expanding body of knowledge? In an era of dwindling university re-
sources—especially in the humanities—what is a better investment of time
and money: Studying an obscure, self-published novel that maybe a hand-
ful of elites read over one hundred fifty years ago, or studying the work of
a bestselling writer, read and enjoyed by millions of people worldwide?
Unfortunately, the field of popular culture studies is under siege today,
but in a different way than in the late 1960s and early 1970s when Ray
Browne and Russell Nye were fighting their own battles to develop recog-
nition for the field. Back then, blatant academic snobbery was their biggest
enemy.
I remember, for example, that when I first moved to Bowling Green in
1981 as a graduate student, I rented an old, run-down house on Liberty
Avenue and when the landlord met me to conduct an initial inspection of
the house before I moved in, he asked me if I was a grad student at BG. I
replied that I was, and he informed me that he was a professor teaching in
the Sociology Department. He then asked me what I was going to study,
and I replied that I was an M.A. student in Popular Culture studies. He
suddenly looked dumbstruck, and his attitude changed visibly. “So, you’re
going to work with that roller coaster guy,” and then laughed.” I said no, I
was going to study with Professor Ray Browne, editor of the Journal of
Popular Culture. “Well, that’s the roller coaster guy,” he again stated.
Apparently, he found some great amusement in demeaning someone who
xii Foreword

wanted to either teach or study popular culture, which seemed strange to

me for anyone who was truly serious about sociology.
I came to learn very quickly during my graduate school years—and for
the decade or so afterwards—that “authentic” scholars did not involve
themselves in popular culture. It was during those years that I came to
understand the type of intellectual prejudice that Ray Browne must have
endured for many years, but whereas I chose to disguise my own true re-
search interests at times in order to survive, Ray had miraculously pros-
pered with his courageous, even revolutionary, agenda, creating a Depart-
ment of Popular Culture, a Journal of Popular Culture, a Journal of Amer-
ican Culture, a Popular Culture Association, an American Culture Associ-
ation, and a BGSU Popular Press that at its height published thirty to forty
titles per year. Ray, of course, went on to have many, many more accom-
plishments during his impressive career, including bringing national media
attention to popular culture studies. So many accomplishments, in fact,
that I do not have the space to enumerate them all. He did all of this as that
“roller coaster guy,” that seeming buffoon to the conservative Academy.
How many of those so-called serious academics are remembered today?
Ray, on the other hand, helped to change our very perceptions of what
culture means.
Today, the fight for respect is significantly different to the way it was
in Ray’s time. During the period following Ray’s retirement, virtually eve-
ry college and university had at least one course in popular culture studies.
These courses may have been called film studies classes, or media classes,
or cultural anthropology classes, but they were all really about the study of
popular culture.
With the recent downturn in the economy, however, at major research
universities across the country, humanities programs have been hit the
hardest with the ever-growing constrictions of dwindling financial support.
Those controlling the purse strings argue that we need more investment in
the medical and hard sciences, since that is where the pot of gold is located
for the big research grant dollars. In addition, because the humanities have
been cut to the bone, programs and departments in the humanities have
turned on each other like starving wolves, determined to have that last
morsel of funding at all costs, without realizing that all are starving in the
process.
Thus, the question of academic snobbery in the humanities has ap-
peared again, but this time motivated by financial competition within uni-
versity budgets. Today, the argument is made—once more by those con-
trolling the purse strings—that if a given humanities department has only
“X” number of dollars, then this financial limitation forces universities and
 The Once and Future Study of Popular Culture xiii

colleges to make the difficult decision of what to offer and what not to
offer. Is it any wonder that the comic course fares badly in an unequal con-
test with the traditional American Lit survey course? Equally demeaning,
university departments will list a meager number of high-enrollment, bub-
ble exam lecture classes at the freshman or sophomore levels to draw in
large student enrollment numbers so that they then can justify the listing of
a senior-level Shakespeare class that enrolls only ten students. Financial
pragmatism—supported by traditional elitist thinking—is continuing to
harm the study of popular culture in ways that are both programmatically
shameful and academically counterproductive.
Yet, as bleak as the prospects are now, the future of popular culture
studies holds a certain measure of promise for graduate students, which,
again, I would argue is attributable to the legacy of Ray Browne’s vision.
Ray understood fully the power of publication in a competitive academic
environment. His creation of the Journal of Popular Culture and the
BGSU Popular Press has done a great deal to insure the prospects of
young faculty in a dwindling university tenure-track environment. What
Ray proved with the formation of these two important publication venues
was that popular culture scholarship sells many books and journals. Most
university presses that are experiencing the same belt-tightening budgets
as their departmental counterparts have learned what Ray knew: Quality
books about popular culture sell more robustly than, say, the book-length
examination of some culturally esoteric topic. Books about popular culture
also tend to find a more significant number of course adoptions than the
umpteen-hundredth study of Henry James. From large research universi-
ties, to smaller liberal arts colleges, to community colleges, new faculty in
the humanities quickly discover that peer-reviewed book publication—
even if the book is about a popular culture subject—is one of the more
important measures of hiring, promotion, and tenure, perhaps even the
most important measure. Interestingly, even so-called prestigious Ivy
League publishers have moved their own popular culture titles to print.
Yale University Press, for example, published a book in 2010 entitled Our
Hero: Superman on Earth by Tom De Haven. Can you imagine Yale Uni-
versity Press publishing something like that twenty years ago, or even ten
years ago? It is plainly obvious that print muscle—including books on
popular culture—grips the dwindling number of tenure-line positions in a
way that makes it difficult for even the most jaded academic snob to dis-
miss out-of-hand.
Finally, the future of popular culture studies rests with our current co-
hort of graduate students. Numbers do not lie, and a survey of regional or
national meetings of the Popular Culture Association reveals a healthy and
xiv Foreword

growing selection of graduate student research in popular culture. Even in

the more traditional programs and departments, graduate students at the
M.A. and Ph.D. levels are moving their work into less traditional (and I
would imagine) more rewarding areas. Thus, so long as the flow of young
scholars continues to study popular culture, to write about popular culture,
and to find jobs where they can bring popular culture expertise to the
classroom for the next generation of future scholars, then popular culture
studies—as a vital area of scholarly inquiry and employment—will con-
tinue to thrive and grow.
In closing, I know that Ray would have been very pleased with the
Popular Culture Scholars Association, whose work has brought these es-
says together, and its efforts to support popular culture research on all lev-
els. I know that Ray would have been extremely grateful to have the con-
ference from which these papers were drawn named after him. On behalf
of Ray, his family, his many friends across the country and around the
world, as well as the fine faculty of the Department of Popular Culture and
the great staff of the Ray and Pat Browne Library for Popular Culture
Studies at the Jerome Library at Bowling Green State University, I would
like to thank these scholars for honoring his memory. And I especially
would like to thank them for inviting me to be a part of it.

Dr. Gary Hoppenstand

January 2013

Notes
1
This essay was originally delivered as the Keynote address for the inaugural Ray
Browne Conference on Popular Culture on March 31, 2012 at Bowling Green State
University.
 PREFACE

POPULAR CULTURE
IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

MYC WIATROWSKI AND CORY BARKER

In the late 1960s, Dr. Ray B. Browne came to Bowling Green State
University where he founded the Department of Popular Culture, one of
the nation’s preeminent academic departments focusing on popular culture
studies. During his early years he was also instrumental in founding the
Center for Popular Culture Studies, the BGSU Music and Sound Record-
ing Archive, and what is now known as the Browne Popular Culture Li-
brary. With help from many others, notably his wife Pat Browne and col-
league Bill Schurk, BGSU became a haven where students and scholars
were given an opportunity to consider the cultural forms of their everyday
lives and to examine the everyday world around them.
Forty years later, in the fall of 2011 as historical milestones were draw-
ing near, students and faculty at BGSU reflected on the history of popular
culture studies in the United States, and noted that our everyday lives are
now much different than when Ray and others first laid the foundations for
what would become our own work. New mediums, genres, and industries
have been introduced into the complex world of popular culture and inno-
vative perspectives, methods, and models have presented new ways in
which to investigate popular texts. In light of these changes, and in order
to celebrate some landmark anniversaries, the Popular Culture Scholars
Association chose the spring of 2012 as a fitting moment to invite re-
searchers from across the world to join us in Bowling Green, Ohio to at-
tend the Ray Browne Conference on Popular Culture. At this conference,
we would consider how we are examining the prominent subjects, con-
cerns, and ideas of twenty-first century popular culture. You hold in your
hands the result of that gathering, Popular Culture in the Twenty-First
Century.
As founder of the Popular Culture Association, the Department of
Popular Culture, the Journal of Popular Culture, the Center for Popular
xvi Preface

Culture Studies, and the library, which now bears his name, there was
never a doubt that we would name our conference in honor of Dr. Browne.
His contributions to the discipline and his impact on our shared research
simply cannot be ignored. Raised in Alabama, Ray thought he saw “that
there was a great field of everyday life that needed to be studied and un-
derstood.”1 Indeed, the idea that the everyday was significant became the
foundation of his career, and he became a passionate advocate for studying
all aspects of the world around us, which he believed was vital for a civili-
zation to flourish and continue. He wrote:

Popular culture is the voice of democracy, speaking, and acting, the seed-
bed in which democracy grows. Popular culture … democratizes society
and makes democracy truly democratic. It is the everyday world around us:
the mass media, entertainments, and diversions; it is our heroes, icons, ritu-
als, everyday actions, psychology, and religion—our total life picture. It is
the way of living we inherit, practice, modify as we please and then pass
along to our descendants. It is what we do while we are awake, and how
we do it. It is the dreams we dream while asleep.2

It is this idea, that popular culture is ubiquitous, important, and essen-

tial, that was our guiding principle as we sought to bring scholars from
around the world together to examine the work we were doing in the pre-
sent moment.
As we prepared the conference in early 2012, we hoped that it would
offer a representative example of contemporary popular culture scholar-
ship, and work from a shared platform for understanding the study of pop-
ular culture as we move forward into the new millennium. That popular
culture deserves detailed discussion and analysis for multiple perspectives
is beyond question, yet we did not anticipate the response to our call from
scholars, nor did we anticipate the overwhelmingly positive reception that
first conference received. Creating this collection from the works present-
ed at the conference was never our original intention. However, many of
the scholars who presented at the conference were interested in expanding
their ideas, and continuing the dialogue begun that weekend. We hope that
the thoughts that were originally presented then, only to coalesce here, can
offer some contribution to the ongoing academic discourse surrounding
the cultural forms of everyday life.
There is a plethora of academic works on the study of popular culture.
However many of these volumes are dedicated to particular approaches,
methodologies, theories, or texts. This collection functions on a somewhat
different level. This is not a collection dedicated to a text or a methodolo-
gy, nor to great works of the discipline. It is a snapshot. It is a moment
 Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century xvii

frozen in time where we can explore the work that we are doing, and the
theories and methods we are using to do it. Readers may notice that some
of our contributors are tenured university faculty, while others are at vari-
ous points in their graduate career, and yet others (at least at the time when
first presented) are undergraduate students. This collection attempts to
gather a representative sample of the work on all academic levels by
scholars of popular culture, and to manifest in written form the conversa-
tions that began with the Ray Browne Conference on Popular Culture.
This collection brings together a variety of scholars from around North
America, a decision that was in part intentional; however, as you will see,
the scholars utilize a vast array of approaches to offer a unique and inter-
disciplinary method to studying popular culture. We hope that these works
reveal to our readers the myriad of ways in which popular culture can be
and is studied.
Astute readers may also notice that many of the scholars in this collec-
tion have connections to Bowling Green State University, the Department
of Popular Culture, and Ray Browne. This was an intentional choice,
though not one that grew out of nepotism or some elitist belief that BGSU
represents a focal point in the field. Instead, these connections to that uni-
versity or that department are in a way thematic—tying together the past
and the future. Several of the contributors in this collection were students
and disciples of Ray Browne, many of whom have gone on to teach at
various universities around the country (and the world). Other contributors
are, or were, more recent students in the BGSU Department of Popular
Culture, and received their undergraduate educations from various institu-
tions across the globe. Still others are connected to BGSU only in that they
came to Bowling Green to share in the academic discourse that we hoped
to ignite with our conference. In a way, the ties to BGSU serve as a direct
link to the past and situate the study of the field in a sort of living timeline
of scholars spreading into a vast web of influence across the globe. Yet,
these scholars link to Dr. Browne, and as we recognize where we are in the
moment and how we proceed into the future of the field, we believe that it
is important to understand the links to our past and to continue to recog-
nize Ray Browne’s contributions to the discipline.
This collection is divided into five distinct sections based on thematic
links between the articles. We believe that this sort of division gives a use-
ful form to the text and functions as a key for pedagogy. The Introduction,
written by Dr. Gary Hoppenstand (Michigan State University; Editor, the
Journal of Popular Culture), explores the necessity of popular culture
studies. He situates his understanding of the field both historically and
within the greater study of the humanities as a whole. He is, however, for-
xviii Preface

ward looking (and hopeful) as he envisions a future populated by current

and future generations of students who choose to examine popular culture
through a variety of interdisciplinary approaches and in a multitude of
academic departments.
Part I of the volume seeks to explore questions of ideology and meth-
odology in contemporary popular culture studies using three examples
from scholars who each analyze the necessities of the field utilizing differ-
ent perspectives. Dr. Bob Batchelor (Thiel College) writes on the need for
scholars of popular culture to function as public intellectuals. Batchelor
lays out an argument for not only why academics, particularly those who
study everyday texts, need to be public intellectuals, but also suggests how
to implement public intellectualism as a discipline for the scholar of popu-
lar culture. Dr. John Fitzpatrick (University of Tennessee, Chattanooga)
utilizes his training to examine how the study of popular culture is em-
ployed as a pedagogical tool in other disciplines, merging fields together
in a truly interdisciplinary way. Focusing on philosophy, Fitzpatrick exam-
ines the works of Chuck Klosterman and explores how to tie those every-
day texts to the theories and practices of philosophy as a discipline. Final-
ly, Dr. Margaret King (Director, Cultural Studies & Analysis) applies les-
sons learned as a private sector cultural analyst to examine how and why
we use our cultural constructions to achieve real world objectives. She
examines methodologies for exploring cultural artifacts and texts to find
how these everyday objects make meaning in our lives, and explores ways
to utilize those meanings in a significant and measurable way.
Part II of this collection focuses largely on contemporary examples of
analysis of one or more primary texts using a variety of approaches. Wal-
ter Merryman (Bowling Green State University) presents a textual analysis
of ideology and morality in the 2010 animated film Batman: Under the
Red Hood. Merryman explores the relationship between the characters of
Batman and the Joker, and how this relationship builds and reinforces a
particular set of ideologically informed values that on the surface seem to
create an unresolved tension. Tony Nagel (Independent Scholar) explores
questions of nationalism and national identity in the British television seri-
al Doctor Who. He examines the power dynamics inherent in the program
and parses through the complicated cultural layers to find meaning in the
program’s unambiguously nationalistic message. Kate Reynolds (Bowling
Green State University) investigates player choice, sexuality, narrative,
and virtual relationship dynamics in the video game Dragon Age: Origins.
Reynolds explores how relationships construct narratives and engage play-
ers to create meaning. Lastly, Molly Weinberg (Bowling Green State Uni-
versity) examines conventionality in unconventional family sitcoms. She
 Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century xix

argues that while Full House and The Brady Bunch were landmark series
in their subversion of family conventions in their time, they still func-
tioned to reinforce gender normative ideals.
In Part III, the articles center on the theme of community building
around, as well as fan reactions to, popular texts. Sean Ahern (SUNY,
Buffalo) explores the fan experience through the subcultural community,
known as furries, whose members appropriate and reinvent fantasy bas-
ketball in a self-serving context. Justine Moller (Brock University) re-
searches Twilight fandom and fan pilgrimages to Forks, Washington. Clos-
ing Part III, Corrigan Vaughn (University of California, Santa Barbara)
examines the nuances of Star Trek fandom in virtual spaces, specifically
on Tumblr, an online microblogging platform. Vaughn argues that virtual
fandoms can give us insight into the mass mediated world around us in an
information age.
Part IV explores issues of gender and the body in contemporary pop
cultural discourses. Cory Barker (Indiana University) explores representa-
tions of masculinity in contemporary reality television paying particular
attention to what he terms “labor reality” television programs that focus on
people performing their jobs. Travis Limbert (Independent Scholar) con-
siders how the titular character in Doctor Who reinforces and subverts the
traditional heroic modes of masculinity. Limbert uses a structural approach
to identify the Doctor as a hero, and explore how the character’s perfor-
mance may or may not create a traditionally recognizable hero. Anna
O’Brien (Bowling Green State University) analyzes the performance of
ethnically identifiable gender roles by non-ethnic peoples in her explora-
tion of online Weeaboo cult figures. Finally Myc Wiatrowski (Indiana
University) explores the creation of a new model of masculine identity in
American discourse through an analysis of the American television serial
Chuck.
It is our hope that these articles offer a useful approach to the contem-
porary study of popular culture. We believe that these works create a text
that is at once useful to the most invested scholar of popular culture yet
still accessible to the most novice students of the field. We also believe
that this collection, when taken as a whole, gives a small overview of the
types of work done by popular culture scholars on all levels today. This
work cannot possibly be as exhaustive as we’d like it to be, nor can it
show the great variety of approaches scholars today are taking to study a
vast number of diverse texts. However, we envision this collection as a
starting point of sorts, or as the beginning of a conversation. One that we
hope will continue well into the future.
xx Preface

Notes
1
Leslie Wilson, “Conversation with Professor Ray B. Browne,” Americana: The
Journal of American Popular Culture (1900-Present) 1, no. 2 (Fall, 2002).
2
Ray B. Browne, “Introduction,” The Guide to United States Popular Culture, eds.
Ray B. Browne and Pat Browne (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2001),
1.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The editors would both like to thank the Department of Popular Cul-
ture at Bowling Green State University and its faculty: Jeffrey Brown,
Esther Clinton, Charles Coletta, Becca Cragin, Matt Donahue, Rebecca
Kinney, Marilyn Motz, Angela Nelson, Kristen Rudisill, Jack Santino,
Dan Shoemaker, and Jeremy Wallach. We would also like to thank the
School of Cultural and Critical Studies and its GLUHFWRU6XVDQD3HĔD Ad-
ditionally, the editors would like to extend our deepest gratitude to the
members of the Popular Culture Scholars Association, chief among them
Travis Limbert, Brian Keilen, Chris Ryan, Mackenzie James Ryan, Sean
Ahern, Emily Davis, Becky Denes, Jacob Brown, Brittany Kinsley, Kate
Reynolds, Anna O’Brien, Broc Holmquest, Eric Sobel, Seth Brodbeck,
and Anna Wiegenstein. Additionally, we greatly appreciate the efforts of
the team at Cambridge Scholars Publishing, and Carol Koulikourdi in par-
ticular, for working with us to make this collection a reality.
Cory would like to thank his co-editor and conference co-planner Myc
Wiatrowski and his family, John and Sherry Barker, June Holcombe, and
Emily Davis, for their support and inspiration before, during, and after the
conference and planning of this collection.
Myc is gratefully to Cory for his work ethic, intelligence, and friend-
ship. Neither the conference nor this book would have been possible with-
out Cory and his boundless energy. He would also like to thank Amy
Shuman, Barbara Lloyd, Merrill Kaplan, Dorothy Noyes, Ray Cashman,
and Tim Lloyd for their inspirational leadership and impact on his person-
al and professional development. The greatest amount of thanks Myc owes
is to his family: to his wife, Laura, and his son, Lucas—for their endless
patience, compassion, and understanding.
PART I
 CREATING PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS:
POPULAR CULTURE’S MOVE FROM NICHE
TO MAINSTREAM
IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

BOB BATCHELOR
THIEL COLLEGE

To be a public intellectual is in some sense something that you are, and not
so much something that you do. Many scholars are intelligent and highly
regarded professors, but they are somehow not public intellectuals.1
—Christopher Hitchens, 2008

Recently, I attended a panel examining autoethnography as a research

tool at the Central States Communication Association annual meeting in
Cleveland, Ohio. Autoethnography is a fascinating form of qualitative
research that enables the scholar to become part of the study, thereby ad-
dressing a topic’s consequence on both the researcher and society. The
roundtable, “Autoethnography and Communication: Connection, Applica-
tions, and Possibilities,” featured nine scholars who have used autoethnog-
raphy as a line of inquiry as they pursue their scholarly dreams and aspira-
tions.
I dutifully took notes in the packed-to-capacity hotel meeting room on
the fourth floor of the ornate, historical landmark Renaissance hotel, situ-
ated within the city’s venerable Tower City complex, one of Cleveland’s
most striking skyscrapers. Despite the chilly weather outside, waves of
heat pulsed through the room. The energy of the packed space fought vain-
ly against the damp air and body heat. Many in the audience fanned them-
selves with their conference programs or other available scraps of paper in
a final attempt at finding relief.
As is often the case at academic meetings, listening to the speakers
launched a frantic, somewhat feverish number of ideas to pinball around
my brain. The room itself seemed to promote contemplation. The ceiling
dripped with multiple antique chandeliers, while mirrors lined the walls,
 Bob Batchelor 3

projecting and reflecting distorted images and glimpses of people in

motion, fanning, while others sat attentively. Panelists’ voices zinged off
every reflective surface. The room seemed almost day-dreamy. I began to
wonder: How might I apply autoethnography to my own work? Was I
willing to “open the kimono” and allow readers to witness the
vulnerabilities of an academic coping with the scholarly life in the twenty-
first century?
Imagine my surprise, then, when Andrew F. Herrmann, a communica-
tions scholar at Eastern Tennessee State University, announced in a boom-
ing voice that he was an “angry autoethnographic scholar.” Herrmann ex-
plained that he was fed up with the cloistered way his colleagues went
about dutifully talking to one another, rather than the public at large. He
criticized the communications discipline for its obsession with writing for
what he called “The International Journal of Two Readers” and chided
autoethnographers to “leap off the page” and “talk to people on the out-
side.” He lamented that his colleagues’ books were not found on the
shelves at Barnes & Noble or found on the pages of Esquire, the New
Yorker, or even Ladies’ Home Journal.2
As Herrmann explained, our world is created by words and stories,
which makes scholars uniquely qualified to participate in public dialogue.
He urged those in the session to begin speaking on a larger stage, if noth-
ing else, to counter the attack on the humanities currently being won by
the likes of talk radio blowhards and state legislators grabbing at whatever
hot button topic that might appeal to voters.3 In other words, Herrmann
advocated for autoethnographers becoming public intellectuals (PIs).
Suddenly, like an alarm going off in my head, pieces of my disparate
readings and patches of thinking about public intellectualism came togeth-
er more clearly. What became obvious is that my ideas regarding the role
of the academic community as members of the wider society were not
unique. This rationalization may have dejected me on a different topic;
after all, I am an academic. Am I not supposed to be the smartest person in
the room? What I imagined, based on the coincidence of Herrmann’s plea,
my being there to hear it, and my own work on popular culture enthusiasts
as public intellectuals, is that scholars all over the nation and across disci-
plines are making similar appeals to their colleagues, imploring them to
become activists and/or public intellectuals.
The call to arms regarding the academic community’s responsibility
for engaging in public debate is not a new topic, yet it seems particularly
urgent today. Perhaps we stand facing a watershed moment for intellectu-
alism in the US, not unlike other epic moments in the nation’s history,
ranging from interventions in World Wars I and II and entry into wars in
4 Creating Public Intellectuals

the Middle East and Vietnam to domestic challenges like race relations
and women’s rights. Even closer to home, we see the outcomes of a lack
of public discourse from reports of schools “failing” under the current
standardized management paradigm to neighborhoods chock full of fore-
closed homes, while the global banking system receives public funds to
prop up its operations. They are “too big to fail,” while the people funding
the system are too small to matter.
Put bluntly: The dummies are winning.
Okay, so in addition to using Herrmann’s remarks as third party valida-
tion for my topic, I also hoped to provide a brief model for autoethnogra-
phy, tapping into a bit of what I learned in the session. Rather than contin-
ue in this mode, however, I would like to turn to a more traditional style in
hopes that my own plea for beefed up public intellectualism will fall on
kind ears.

Why We Need Public Intellectuals

As one might imagine, research for this essay revealed that public in-
tellectuals spend quite a bit of time talking about themselves and others
deemed PIs. In fact, in 2001 legal scholar Richard A. Posner wrote a book
called Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline, published by no less than
Harvard University Press. He ranks the top one hundred PIs from 1995-
2000. Posner ranks himself number seventy.4
Since the public and media loves lists of just about every shape and
size on any topic, Public Intellectuals gained quite a bit of attention. Yet,
its underlying theme is both compelling and confounding. Posner claims
that most PIs are not very good at doing PI-related work. Instead, the so-
called thinkers most often fall back on flawed logic, display a limited un-
derstanding of statistics, and, generally, fill the airwaves with bluster and
careless blather.
But, I do not want to shoot my own case in the foot before I really get
started, so let us quickly move from Posner to another PI—the esteemed
scholar/writer Todd Gitlin. In his 2006 Raritan article “The Necessity of
Public Intellectuals,” Gitlin begs for PIs to activate because the nation is in
such a sorry intellectual state—more or less a nation of dummies, though
that word is mine, not his. In the piece, he lays much of the blame (sur-
prise, surprise) at the feet of the Republicans, calling them “the party of
unreason … devoted to unreason.”5
Gitlin provides poll data that demonstrates just how dumb Americans
are. One example is quite famous, so readers might remember it. In March
2005, an ABC News survey revealed that some two years after the Iraq
 Bob Batchelor 5

war began 79 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of Democrats still

believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. A
quick Google search and we could certainly find a glut of similar poll re-
sults… you know, the kind that simultaneously make us cringe and want
to immediately move the family to Europe, or at least Canada.
Teachers across the K-16 spectrum can attest to the weapons of mass
destruction poll numbers and add from their own multitude of personal
anecdotes to demonstrate how much the public needs to engage in more
nuanced, contextualized information consumption. For example, a mas-
ter’s degree student at a large, Midwestern state university recently de-
fended her thesis on Captain America and the withering American Dream.
She passed with flying colors, providing a critical, analytical examination
of the topic and its broader popular culture consequences. Yet, during the
general audience Q&A session, an audience member (college student)
asked about Captain America and propaganda during World War II. In the
course of asking the question, he stopped… more or less scratched his
head… and asked the collective body when World War II started. No one
in the audience of fifteen or so jumped to answer him, perhaps out of
shock, but probably some trepidation about getting the answer wrong.
Moreover, it became clear via further questions that he asked that this stu-
dent probably could not even identify the decade in which World War II
began.
A hush descended on the room for a moment. The adults present
flashed knowing looks and small shrugs. To be perfectly frank, it is painful
to find one in a situation where a student exposes some general lack of
knowledge that can be used as a marker for denigrating an entire genera-
tion of college students. Suddenly, the faculty lounge whispers and gripes
about students not reading, being unable to write a coherent sentence or
two, and not being able to communicate effectively explodes into view.
There is nowhere to hide and little constructive that one can say. Yet,
teachers find themselves in these situations almost daily. The politicians
argue about assessment markers and the cost of education, yet they do so
far removed from the classrooms where the nation’s educators find them-
selves tied up in knots over the decline of education and its consequences.
My goal, however, is not to simply point out the countless examples of
how ignorant, unreasonable, and uneducated people are in contemporary
America. I want to offer solutions, not just pile on the problems. However,
first there needs to be some analysis specifically identifying why popular
culture scholars can excel in the public intellectual function.
6 Creating Public Intellectuals

The Power of Popular Culture

The power of popular culture is in the way it connects people. One
could reasonably argue that it is in the connections with and between ob-
jects and people that the definition of popular culture resides. As an aside,
while I could dive into a lengthy explanation of how scholars have defined
popular culture over time, I am not that interested in such an endeavor.
Such an inquisition may still be relevant outside academe or in the battle
of the minutiae that takes place within the ivory towers; I find that by ob-
sessing about the definition we are often doing little more than attempting
to justify it as a field of study for those who critique that idea. A more
fruitful cross-examination might center on what aspects of culture not con-
sidered “popular” in contemporary society. The ubiquity of the Web and
around-the-clock access via handheld devices makes this an era of hyper-
popular culture, in which people not only expect, but also demand, contin-
ual entrée to mass communications.
In essence, then, popular culture is not a kind of thing, as most defini-
tions attempt to explain, like the antithesis of high art or culture. Rather,
popular culture exists in the impulses that draw members of the global
community to a person, thing, topic, or issue that arise out of the juncture
of mass communications, technology, political systems, and economic
institutions. In other words, I am proposing that we view popular culture
not as an object, say Andy Warhol’s famous Campbell’s Soup can paint-
ing, but as the interface itself that draws viewers to or repels them from
that artwork. Examining Warhol’s piece, it is not that a person says, “Wow
that is popular culture.” Instead, it is the confluence of seeing the image;
interacting with it based on one’s own life experiences; adding context,
history, experience, and personality; and then creating a new meaning of it
personally that defines popular culture.
Ray Browne once explained popular culture, saying, “It is the everyday
world around us: the mass media, entertainments, diversions, heroes,
icons, rituals, psychology, religion—our total life picture.”6 My redefini-
tion asks that we acknowledge that it is more than just the world around
us; it also includes the exchange between a popular culture object and a
person’s assimilation of the thing—all the thoughts, emotions, and man-
ners in which one consumes it.
The meaning of popular culture exists in absorption and consumption
rather than in attempting to define a tangible object as low, high, or mid-
dlebrow on a fabricated scale of hierarchies. In this respect, popular cul-
ture might be seen as a verb, not a noun, the total mental and physical in-
 Bob Batchelor 7

teraction with a topic and the new synthesis or creation that occurs as a
result of that fusion.
Returning to the notion of popular culture as a connector between peo-
ple, it is no wonder then that film and television play a central role. These
mass communications channels define and encompass our national dia-
logue. Television and film are the great equalizers—essentially providing
Americans with basic talking points across race, political ties, gender dif-
ferences, or any other demographic features that usually separate them.
The narratives, regardless of the reason they attract or repel us, give con-
text and a way of interpreting society and culture. As millions of Ameri-
cans interact with mass media, whether watching the same movies and
television shows or listening to radio programs, a common language de-
velops that opens new lines of communications.
The downside, however, is that the fascination with popular culture di-
verts attention from important challenges the nation confronts. In this
light, popular culture serves as a kind of placebo. The obsessive, loving
nature of cult objects, for example, intensifies this diversion critique of
popular culture because the focus on a specific cult influence distracts
people and, at the same time, enables them to feel good about the world
without really forcing them to directly confront critical issues.
Personally, I am tired of fighting the perceptions of colleagues who
wonder whether writing and researching about popular culture topics is
scholarly or academic enough. In contemporary America, popular culture
is pervasive. Like Neo when he decides to enter the Matrix, there is no
escape or turning back.
I asked Leigh H. Edwards, an associate professor at Florida State Uni-
versity, her thoughts about the role of public intellectuals, particularly giv-
en her place within a theory-based English department. She explained:

It would be helpful for the efforts of academics who do public intellectual

work for that work to be valued by academic departments. I say this be-
cause pop culture scholars often make substantive efforts to speak to
broader audiences, in everything from PBS documentaries to online maga-
zines like Pop Matters. But when academic departments just see that labor
as something ‘extra’ that doesn’t really count or isn’t much valued, I think
that does a disservice to the broader project of pop culture studies. Trying
to do public intellectual work should be seen as a worthwhile endeavor
within academia, and I think we have a long way to go in that regard.7
8 Creating Public Intellectuals

Popular Culture: From Idea to Discipline

Ray Browne and his colleagues brought popular culture studies into
academe, establishing it as a viable scholarly subject, and then built organ-
izations and an infrastructure that enabled the topic to grow into a true
discipline. Simultaneously, technological innovations and new mass com-
munications channels amplified popular culture’s importance and centrali-
ty globally. Browne’s pioneering work created the vital framework that
allowed the field to grow and prosper.
Yet, while the foundation Browne and his colleagues built provided a
vehicle for success, the twenty-first century necessitates a shift in thinking
about popular culture’s role. As such, a significant “pressing issue” in this
new era is for popular culture scholars to move beyond defining what pop-
ular culture is to a broader analysis that demonstrates the subject’s socio-
economic and cultural implications for the contemporary world.
My call is for popular culture scholars to use their work as a basis for
engaging with local, regional, national, and international communities as
public intellectuals. We no longer need to emphasize the quirky or offbeat
in our work to get media attention, nor should we continue to feel like sec-
ond-class academics based on what critics say about our discipline. In-
stead, popular culture scholars should capitalize on the public’s enduring
interest in the subjects we study to participate in important debates as pub-
lic intellectuals.

Popular Culturists as “Omni-Disciplinary” Scholars

When we expand our own interpretations, and simultaneously over-
come residual notions of having to prove popular culture’s importance
within academic studies, we can play a valuable role as public intellectu-
als, drawing on our strengths as multi-disciplinary thinkers, historians,
communicators, and people who naturally engage in critical thinking. As a
matter of fact, I argue that popular culture scholars are not simply multi-
disciplinary, but actually “omni-disciplinary,” a move from merely being
able to interpret across disciplines to a state of creating constant interpre-
tive and analytical frameworks that span all barriers, or as the definitions
of the words would have one believe, from “many” to “universal.”
The beauty and value of popular culture is its ability to let people ex-
plore the ideas, topics, people, and influences that matter to them most.
This exercise actually forces people to engage in higher-order critical
thinking skills involved in the formation of new ideas and impulses. As we
wrestle with our own thoughts, dreams, and aspirations through popular
 Bob Batchelor 9

culture exploration, we obtain, strengthen, and evolve our personal

worldviews or core guiding ideologies.
I believe that popular culture scholars could have an immediate impact
by helping the public better understand the necessity of humanities-based
education and the broader education system, particularly K-12 battles over
standardized management, such as the ravages of No Child Left Behind.
I asked Brendan Riley, an associate professor in the English Depart-
ment at Columbia College (Chicago) to address how academics might play
a more critical role in helping the public engage in the education system.
He explains:

The conversation about education has become very vocational in the last
twenty years, with students and the public seeing college as job-training ra-
ther than person-training. But the modern economy requires flexible work-
ers; people who can problem solve, work with others in complex ways, and
engage difficult questions creatively. All of these things arise from the
work we do in the Humanities, we just need to remind people of that—and
public scholarship is just the way to do it. As the scholars most directly
poised to bridge the town/gown divide (because we write about things peo-
ple care about), we should be on the front lines of the battle over education
in the twenty first century.8

Sounds like a budding public intellectual, huh?

Emphasizing the abilities of one intellectual group over others might
not be fashionable in the modern academic setting, where one is supposed
to create a utopian environment based on equality. Yet, popular culture
scholars train to discern the broader context of issues and topics that others
might not uncover.
For the most part, academics are trained to be specific and narrow. The
old adage “an inch wide and a mile deep” is glorified as budding scholars
are pushed to add to the body of knowledge in very precise measures. As a
result, many thinkers do not want to venture into spaces where they might
step on the toes of colleagues or bristle because they do not have the same
specialist’s knowledge of a particular topic.
Thus, a historian focusing on American history might not feel comfort-
able when looking at literature or film, even when it crosses into his or her
specific era or topic. Similarly, a communications scholar might empha-
size how messages are inculcated or reinforced in audiences, but not have
a deep understanding of history or political science to tie the fields togeth-
er. I am not saying that as popular culture scholars we stand above our
colleagues in other disciplines or have some superhero insight into the
10 Creating Public Intellectuals

world others do not possess. However, we should play to our strengths.

These examples address that point.
Brian Cogan, an associate professor at Molloy College in New York
looks at the big picture:

To make my life easier, I explain to people that we study the ‘meaning

making’ process, how people use popular culture artifacts to give them-
selves hopes, dreams, aspirations and ethical systems, but people don’t get
this easily, or the importance of Elvis as an example, in people’s lives. 9

Cogan, however, points to the power of popular culture studies, ex-

plaining:

I like to think of us as cultural barometers, we are trying a very difficult

type of analysis, looking at mostly the current mediated ecosystem and
asking questions about it, not as cheerleaders or naysayers, but asking ob-
jective questions about the ideas, stories, and artifacts that define not just
individuals, but culture as well.10

The Public Intellectual Journey

The most difficult message to send anyone in today’s world is “go do
more.” It seems that technology, from the omnipresent cell phone/smart
phone to the Internet-driven news cycle, consumes a preponderant amount
of time. Rather than enabling us to rejoice in additional free time, technol-
ogy actually forces us to take on more tasks with fewer resources. The
result is a prevailing, “always-on” mentality.
For budding public intellectuals, the battle resides in the blurring area
between what counts for tenure or prestige on an academic level and what
time and effort is left over. The stakes for many intellectuals are astronom-
ical, particularly in an era in which many tenure-track positions have been
eliminated and will never be replaced. The costs, then, of wandering out
into the PI wilderness could be too pricey to shoulder. Many young schol-
ars simply cannot risk that path, particularly when they have already bet
their futures on the narrow definition of success/tenure within the academ-
ic system.11
Thus, it is challenging for me to ask you to put yourselves on the line
without briefly discussing some of my own attempts to enter the public
intellectual realm. As a good autoethnographer, I am going to be as honest
as possible.
Summing up my experiences, if I can use a Cedar Point analogy since
Bowling Green State University sits close to the rollercoaster capital of the
 Bob Batchelor 11

world down the road in Sandusky, my own journey has been like a thrill
ride,—brief bursts of excitement and then long climbs back up the hill.
For example, as the 2000s ended, a handful of journalists stumbled
across my book The 2000s, which briefly made me a go-to person for
quotes about the meaning of the decade. For the most part, the journalists
searched for a way to encapsulate the decade via a pithy saying or provide
it with a moniker that would provide meaning. They wondered if I had
devised a name for the era or could figure out something better than “the
aughts,” which seemed to be universally despised. Although I could not
indulge them in a new name, I did try my best to provide context based on
the challenges the nation faced.
One article by an Associated Press reporter ran on New Year’s Day.
Given the relatively slow news day and fact that the New Year gives peo-
ple a hankering for looking both backward and forward introspectively,
tens of thousands of websites, newspapers, and content sites all over the
world picked up the story. My thoughts about the hangover of the Bush
years ran sandwiched between quotes from the president of France and the
premier of Australia. It was great timing, since it coincided with me be-
ginning a new career as a faculty member at Kent State University (my
bosses enjoyed the publicity of seeing the university’s name on all those
outlets). Nevertheless, any residual giddiness about spotting the quote all
over the Web soon dissipated. Nothing new materialized as a result.
Writing for popular audiences has also been an up-and-down of highs
and lows. Some articles are well received and are zipped around the Web,
while others fizzle faster than expected. If I were to characterize the effort
as a whole, I would say that as writers/scholars we sit alone with our
thoughts for a long time, attempting to make our work significant. When
both it and we emerge from the creative cocoon, we hope that someone
will recognize it for all the beauty and brilliance it holds in our eyes. Any-
one who has written for an audience knows the feeling of yearning for
something (good or bad) from a reader, to let us know that the effort meant
something more than just another line on the curriculum vitae.
Despite my modest appraisals of my personal attempts at becoming a
public intellectual, I still hold out hope that I can play a larger role. As I
tell my students, life intervenes… you do what you can with the resources
at your disposal.
Aaron Barlow, associate professor at New York City College of Tech-
nology, explains, “[W]e rue the loss of the ‘public intellectual,’ but we do
very little, actually, to return that figure to its place. It’s time we do so—
by acting the part ourselves and by rewarding, rather than disparaging, our
colleagues who try to do the same.”12 I appreciate Barlow’s hopeful tone,
12 Creating Public Intellectuals

particularly from a popular culture scholar who has written or edited six
books. His analysis of the current state of PIs is accurate and points to the
challenge of getting scholars to take on this role with gusto. Too many
departments, colleges, and universities do not value scholars who want to
succeed outside academe.
Although the odds seem stacked against the PI movement, I have sev-
eral modest strategies that may help one move into this area. The first step
in turning popular culture scholars into public intellectuals is in helping
our colleagues on tenure and promotion committees understand that this
work is valuable and necessary, in contrast to the prevailing privileging of
academic journals, the point Herrmann makes in lampooning “The Inter-
national Journal of Two Readers” mentioned previously.
Given the ability to track hit rates, unique visitors, and other metrics
via tools like Google Analytics, faculty who aspire toward public intellec-
tual status can measure the impact of their PI work, similarly to the exer-
cises undertaken to prove oneself tenure-worthy. Even at a modest, re-
gional magazine or website, for example, hit rates or circulation figures
would dwarf those figures for any academic journal. Furthermore, while
the peer review process is not the same, one could reasonably argue that
the editorial process is similar enough and done with subject matter ex-
perts, thus providing the third party validation that so much of the tenure
system revolves around.
Budding PIs can also use the Web and other technological innovations
to gain scale in a world increasingly individualized. For example, popular
culture scholars could form special interest groups of likeminded thinkers
to create video op-eds for YouTube, iTunes, or other outlets. The plain
fact is that social media channels are voracious content devourers. An in-
satiable appetite for new content might play into the tactics of a PI collec-
tive built around subject matter expertise. In fact, one could argue that this
is what news outfits currently do with pundits. The difference is that popu-
lar culture PIs would not fall into the trap Posner identifies—the curious
case of so many of today’s talking heads falling in love with talking at the
expense of thinking.
At the heart of the public intellectual journey is courage—from assum-
ing a willingness to put oneself in the public spotlight to being tough
enough to weather possible criticism as a result. Given that our strengths
are in research, writing, and presenting ideas, we should play to those tal-
ents in a courageous manner, providing context, critical analysis, and
sound reasoning on issues that establish the public agenda. While the pay-
off may seem distant if measured against traditional academic success
 Bob Batchelor 13

markers, as scholars, I argue that we have a moral obligation to use our

skills and abilities to improve the world.

Notes
1
Christopher Hitchens, “How to be a Public Intellectual,” Prospect, last modified
May 24, 2008.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2008/05/what-is-a-public-intellectual/.
2
Andrew F. Herrmann, “Remarks: Autoethnography and Communication:
Connection, Applications and Possibilities,” Central States Communications
Association, Cleveland, OH, March 30, 2012.
3
Ibid.
4
Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2001), 212.
5
Todd Gitlin, “The Necessity of Public Intellectuals,” Raritan, 26.1 (2006): 130.
6
Ray B. Browne, “Popular Culture as the New Humanities,” in Popular Culture
Theory
and Methodology: A Basic Introduction, eds. Harold E. Hinds, Jr., Marilyn F.
Motz, and Angela M. S. Nelson (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006),
75.
7
Leigh H. Edwards, email to the author, March 28, 2012.
8
Brendan Riley, email to the author, March 29, 2012.
9
Brian A. Cogan, email to the author, March 28, 2012.
10
Ibid.
11
Andrew F. Herrman, “‘I Know I’m Unlovable’: Desperation, Dislocation,
Despair, and Discourse on the Academic Job Hunt,” Qualitative Inquiry 18, no. 3
(2012): 250.
12
Aaron Barlow, “The Return of the Public Intellectual?” Auds and Ens, last
modified March 13, 2012.
http://audsandens.blogspot.com/2012/03/return-of-public-intellectual.html.
 WRITING POETRY ABOUT PUSHPIN:
CHUCK KLOSTERMAN AND THE FUTURE
OF CULTURAL STUDIES

JOHN FITZPATRICK
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA

Although philosophy is arguably as old as any discipline in the West, it

was a late bloomer in the field of cultural studies. I can recall as an under-
graduate in the eighties richly enjoying a course offered by the English
Department, “Critical Writing on Film.” At the time, I suspect, almost no
one would think the Philosophy Department should be offering such a
course. I suspect that there are many philosophy departments that still
think the same way. I currently teach in a department with a “Great
Books” orientation, and when I dabble in cultural studies, it is often to use
popular culture to elucidate great book ideas. For example, nothing more
clearly illustrates Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideas of the corrupt commer-
cial “civil man” whose decadence can be so mightily contrasted with our
original inspiring existence as a “Noble Savage” better than James Camer-
on’s film Avatar. However, as the realization that popular culture is useful
for elucidating philosophical thought is becoming more “mainstream,”
there has also been rise in a demand for philosophers to write more about
popular culture. In fact, two well-respected publishers, Open Court and
Wiley, have produced dozens of volumes of essays by philosophers on
popular films, books, musical artists, television shows, and other aspects
of popular culture.1
Now this essay is in its own way a departure from the usual fare.
Chuck Klosterman is not a famous musician or actor or film director; he is
a cultural critic who spends most of his efforts writing about “low cul-
ture.” Therefore, while this essay was originally written as a defense of
Klosterman’s work, I think its arguments can apply to the field of cultural
studies itself. As Chuck goes, so goes cultural studies.
 John Fitzpatrick 15

John Cusack, Fake Love, and the Possible Utility

of Low Culture
Either Chuck Klosterman grabs you or he does not. When I read the
following passage Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs, it certainly captured me.
After telling us he never expects to be in love, he offers this reason:

It appears that countless women born between the years of 1965 and 1978
are in love with John Cusack. I cannot fathom how he isn't the number-one
box-office star in America, because every straight girl I know would sell
her soul to share a milkshake with that motherfucker. For upwardly mobile
women in their twenties and thirties, John Cusack is the neo-Elvis … And
these upwardly mobile women are not alone. We all convince ourselves of
things like this … We will both measure our relationship against the pro-
spect of fake love.2

This concept of fake love strikes me as a tool that could allow us to in-
form ourselves on a whole host of issues. Klosterman is using it for show-
ing how characters in movies are more appealing than real people. First
dates would be easy, if we could stop time and contemplate our next
moves like characters in the movies, puppeteered by screenwriters, do.
Screenwriters take months to provide John Cusack’s characters with bril-
liant repartee. The idea is that women are not falling in love with the actu-
al John Cusack, but rather with some character. As Klosterman explains:

They don't love John Cusack. They love Lloyd Dobler. When they see Mr.
Cusack, they are still seeing the optimistic, charmingly loquacious teenager
he played in Say Anything, a movie that came out more than a decade ago.
That's the guy they think he is; when Cusack played Eddie Thomas in
America's Sweethearts or the sensitive hit man in Grosse Pointe Blank, all
his female fans knew he was only acting ... but they assume when the cam-
era stopped rolling, he went back to his genuine self ... which was someone
like Lloyd Dobler ... which was, in fact, someone who is Lloyd Dobler, and
someone who continues to have a storybook romance with Diane Court (or
with Ione Skye, depending on how you look at it). And these upwardly
mobile women are not alone. We all convince ourselves of things like this.3

However, this also explains what is wrong with male performances in

porno films and male characters in romance novels: Real people cannot be
expected to meet the needs of others as these mediums depict. Few women
have or want Pamela Anderson’s augmented breasts or platinum blond,
blond hair; few men have a Brad Pitt allure, which women are unable to
resist.
16 Writing Poetry about Pushpin

We can apply this insight to other media too. Reality and TV reality is
not the same thing. As Klosterman’s discussions of media illustrate, Reali-
ty TV is often less real than fictional films or TV dramas. Klosterman
finds that Saved by the Bell and Roadhouse work by using fiction to pre-
sent useful archetypes; The Real World works by presenting non-actors
who can easily be flattened into a limited number of representative per-
sonality types—the Puck, the Pedro, and others. Nevertheless, if we meas-
ure ourselves against reality as represented by TV and movie fiction or
reality TV, we come up short. Real men cannot rock the Tommy Lee look
without looking like disingenuous copies; real women are not incarnations
of an insatiable Pamela Anderson, although sadly some do try to be.
Chuck Klosterman, in his low culture manifesto Sex, Drugs, and Co-
coa Puffs, tells us early in the preface that while he believes that high cul-
ture philosophy could well be a source of enlightenment, he would rather
spend his time exploring low culture. He is unequivocally clear in this
declaration. The “elite thinkers” spend oodles of time looking at great phi-
losophers, well-regarded classical musicians, and the great books of litera-
ture. These intellectuals have little interest in exploring what every day
people are spending their time consuming. This seems odd, to Klosterman,
because what the many find of value, should be of interest to the intellec-
tuals. After all, if some intellectuals are interested in policy in a democra-
cy, then understanding what the many believe should be of great im-
portance. Similarly, intellectuals who respect the values of pluralism and
diversity should welcome Klosterman’s rigorous attempt to explicate,
evaluate, and examine low culture. If it is a liberal truism that a) no one
has a monopoly on truth, and that b) intellectuals by and large believe that
both the elite few and the not-so-elite many can benefit from exposure to
those supposedly great philosophers that make up the Western canon, why
would it seem strange if a serious examination of popular culture would
yield fruitful results? Klosterman’s work is a tribute to the idea that pop
culture can produce intellectual fruits healthier than Chuck’s Fruity Peb-
bles. I tend to accept this idea too. As Aristotle argued over two thousand
years ago, one might well begin one’s inquiry by looking at the opinions
of the wise or the many, and then trying to find if the many have any im-
portant contributions to make. While Aristotle is willing to consider the
opinions of the many, ultimately he would suggest that this project is on a
hopeless track.
 John Fitzpatrick 17

Cocoa Puffs, the Meaning of Life, and Some Things

Aristotle Thinks are True
The relationship between pleasure, happiness, and the meaning of life
has been part of Western Philosophy since its inception in Ancient Greece.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is an attempt to find the form of happiness
that is most conducive to a complete human life. Aristotle arguably finds
some usefulness in crude pleasure and low culture telling us that the phi-
losopher Anacharsis is correct in asserting that, “amusement is a form of
relaxation, and it is because we cannot toil continuously that we require
relaxation.”4 However, ultimately Aristotle thinks a successful human life
cannot be simply one of amusement.
Klosterman would hardly disagree. After all Klosterman is married,
holds down a job, and has published several books. Klosterman is hardly
some mindless seeker of pleasure. He is hardly a crack addict, even if he
makes it clear that he is not opposed to the recreational use of alcohol and
drugs, documenting periods in his life where his drug and alcohol use
seem excessive. At times, these episodes seem more than excessive. At
one point in Killing Yourself to Live, he discusses “Midwestern Power
Drinking.” He tells us that folks in the other parts of the country do not
match this: “people in the Midwest drink differently from everywhere
else.” These are not “recreational drinkers,” but rather they “stay focused,”
“work fast,” and “swallow constantly.” In my mid-twenties, I had a good
friend from Iowa, and he was definitely a Midwestern Power Drinker. A
night out with my Hawkeye pal Robert often ended in a worship service to
the porcelain goddess.
In Fargo Rock City Klosterman tells us that heavy drug and alcohol
users, they value their substance of choice for two main reasons. The first
is rather mundane—they like getting “fucked up.” The other reason is
more interesting:

It’s not just fun to be high; it’s fun to smoke pot. It’s fun to score dope and
put ice cubes in the bong and put on boring reggae records and talk with
other stoners about idiotic stoner topics. It’s fun to browse through liquor
stores and mix drinks on the coffee table and tell memorable puke stories.
There is an appeal to the Abuse Lifestyle that exists outside the product.5

In Chuck Klosterman IV Chuck tells us that while he is skeptical about

the concept of “guilty pleasures,” he finds it pleasurable to “snort cocaine
in public bathrooms,” which always makes you feel guilty. Drinking
“more than five glasses of vodka before (or during) work” is also a techni-
cally guilty pleasure, according to Chuck.6
18 Writing Poetry about Pushpin

However, for Aristotle, a happy life must center on the elevated pleas-
ure of high culture philosophical contemplation. Chuck is skeptical of this
position, and his attack on the concept of a guilty pleasure, in the non-
technical sense, demonstrates this. Chuck thinks people who consume
popular culture, from Saved by the Bell re-runs to Real World episodes,
call these activities guilty pleasures as if they would be curing cancer or
just reading War and Peace if they did not give in to these supposedly less
worthwhile pursuits. However, Klosterman’s beef aside, most Americans
do not use the term “happiness” as Aristotle intended. Cocoa Puff munch-
ing, pornography watching, and heavy metal listening Americans tend to
equate happiness with pleasure, guilt inducing or not. Aristotle is not op-
posed to pleasure, but a complete life is much more than this. It is a life of
human flourishing. A life of Aristotelian happiness is a life “well lived” or
a life of “deep satisfaction.” We might think of this as a “successful life,”
but one where success not only equates with material wealth. Having a
successful life is not simply getting rich.
Surely, Klosterman would have no objections at this point. Chuck does
not just nosh sugar cereal daily; instead, he reflects on the subliminal
premises of sugar cereal ads and their relationship to our cultural concept
of coolness and exclusivity. Perhaps it is pleasurable to eat Cocoa Puffs,
but maybe it is part of a flourishing life to think about the iconography of
consumer products in an intelligent way. I say Klosterman is no mindless
lover of pleasure. He lives some sort of intellectual life. However, Aristo-
tle argues that a happy life has much more intellectual rigor than Chuck is
willing to exert—the guy suspects that he secretly hates reading, for crying
out loud. Aristotle tells us that “the human activity that is most akin to the
gods’ activity will more than any others, have the character of happiness.”7
Klosterman’s obsession with tribute bands such as Paradise City probably
does not mirror the activity of the gods, but I do not know the activity of
the gods with any certainty. If it turns out that the gods have little interest
in rock and roll, they may well have less interest in Guns N’ Roses, and
even less interest in a sophisticated (or pseudo-sophisticated?) examination
of the importance of a Guns N’ Roses tribute band. It would be hard to see
an Aristotelian defense of devoting yourself to being a copycat of low cul-
ture, let alone elevating them to heights of cultural achievement. After all,
if Aristotle would find listening to the music of heavy metal bands a waste
of time, devoting your efforts to an analysis of tribute heavy metal bands
would seem like a an insane waste of time. Aristotle’s teacher Plato
thought that all art was third-removed from truth. Art imitated things in the
material world, which imitated their true form, which was eternal, pure,
and changeless. There is the beautiful itself, the form, or idea of beauty,
 John Fitzpatrick 19

the beautiful entities we find in the world such as celebrities like Pamela
and beautiful North Dakota farms, and artistic depictions of nature that are
copies of the beautiful entities. Paradise City actually imitates the imita-
tion of the imitation, copies the copy of the copy. How sad.

Play Pinball or Write Poetry? Cocoa Puffs or Vegan

Casserole? Bentham on Happiness
This debate about the relationship between pleasure and happiness per-
haps hits one of its most interesting debates in the history of ethics—
between John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Both men believed in he-
donism, which is the view that the good life is one that is devoted to pleas-
ure. Bentham thought that all things being equal, more pleasure is better
than less, that what we wanted in life was a greater quantity of pleasure.
When Bentham finds quantities of pleasure to be equal, he tells us that
poetry is not superior to pushpin, (pushpin is the nineteenth century equiv-
alent of pinball). Klosterman tells us that the rock critics love country acts
like Uncle Tupelo and Lucinda Williams. Yet, for every rock critic and
hipster who loves alternative country, there are a thousand Wal-Mart cus-
tomers buying Toby Keith. Keith “seems like a troglodyte,” writes about
fake cowboys, but Klosterman finds him to have genuine “middle-class
importance.” He writes with great clarity about a “completely imaginary
… nineteenth-century Lone Ranger fantasy.” However, fake cowboys are
the cowboys America fantasizes about; nobody would want to be a real
cowboy.8 There is something troubling about finding great importance in
something as silly as all this makes Keith’s work appear, but Klosterman
would hardly disapprove. As we just saw, Chuck rejects the concept of
“guilty pleasure” as a needless category. For Klosterman and Bentham,
there are only pleasures—watching Saved by the Bell and reading Tol-
stoy’s Anna Karenina—and one is no guiltier than the other is. On this
matter Bentham writes in An Introduction to the principles of Morals and
Legislation that, “[n]ature has placed mankind under the governance of
two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to pint out
what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do …. They
govern us in all that we do, in all that we say, in all that we think.”9 There
are times when Klosterman seems to echo this viewpoint. The episodes of
drug and alcohol abuse reinforce it, as do the tribute bands, and the rever-
ential treatment of heavy metal music. However, I am inclined to think
that this is not the end of the story.
20 Writing Poetry about Pushpin

Eating Peaches and Happiness

The story I have heard about the naming of the Allman Brothers Band
album, “Eat a Peach,” released after the death of Duane Allman is very
dark. Supposedly, Allman, riding his motorcycle, died in an accident with
a peach truck. Klosterman, in Killing Yourself to Live, thinks finding the
exact location of this accident is important; thinking about this death is
important. Yet, is this something worth doing? One way of evaluating this
question is through the moral philosophy of utilitarianism. Both Bentham
and his friend’s son, John Stuart Mill, were both utilitarians. Do the ends
justify the means?—the utilitarian answers yes; right actions are those that
tend to promote happiness, produce the greatest good for the greatest
number. What utilitarians disagree about is how to evaluate the ends. Ben-
tham and Mill have a serious disagreement. Evaluating whether Kloster-
man’s writing has value might not involve determining which of these
philosophers is correct, but it may be crucial for in order to determine how
important Klosterman is. Is examining the lives of dead rock stars as
Klosterman does in Killing Yourself to Live mere sensationalism, or is it
telling us something about the human condition that might well help in the
pursuit of a life of happiness? Does this examination merely titillate us, or
does it tell us something of value?

Brooks and Twain, Dylan and Phair, and John Stuart Mill
Bentham would find Klosterman’s work of value even if it were mere
sensationalism and titillation. Nevertheless, can we place Klosterman’s
work on a higher plane than this? I believe that the utilitarianism of John
Stuart Mill may very well allow us to do so. Mill suggests that there must
be both qualitative as well as quantitative elements to happiness. He tells
us he would rather be “a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, bet-
ter to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied,” thus rejecting Ben-
tham’s quantitative hedonism in favor of a more Aristotelian definition of
happiness.
One way to read Klosterman’s manifesto, Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa
Puffs, would be to find him gaining an advantage over Bentham; all things
being equal, pushpin is superior to poetry. However, this strikes me as
wrong. He writes about what the listeners of Garth Brooks and Shania
Twain find satisfying about their music, why he thinks these artists have
been so successful, but at various times he tells us that his actual prefer-
ences are quite different. In Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs he tells us that he
 John Fitzpatrick 21

regularly listens to Bob Dylan and Liz Phair, artists that high culture music
critics react as favorably to as they react negatively to Brooks and Twain.
Why the contemplative life of low culture? Perhaps Mill can help us
answer this query. Mill argues that opinions can be true, partially true, or
false. True opinions we will refuse to censor, because ultimately the truth
is useful to us. Partially true opinions we allow because we want to dig out
the truth they contain. Why allow false opinions? Mill argues in Chapter II
of On Liberty:

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth;
unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contest-
ed, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prej-
udice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not
only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger
of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character
and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious
for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real
and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.10

Thus, we must allow purely false ideas to circulate. Mill’s explanation

is that without debating our truths, we are in danger of reducing our truths
to mere prejudices and dogma. A major part of the utility of true ideas lies
not in understanding that they are true, but why they are true. What cen-
sorship does is prevent one from engaging opposing viewpoints in a free
marketplace of ideas, and Mill finds that it is only in such an environment
that actual understanding occurs. Once again, understanding why ideas are
true or false can be as or more useful than understanding that ideas are true
or false.
Low culture is inferior to high culture in the amount of truth that it
contains about the human condition, but high culture is not perfectly true,
and low culture is not devoid of truth. Klosterman’s insight is that low
culture contains elements of truth that would be tough to discern through a
study of high culture. What truths Klosterman believes we can learn from
watching Pamela and Tommy Lee fornicate in public can be explicated
through high culture, but might very well go unnoticed there. In any case,
Mill and Klosterman would argue that without some analysis of low cul-
ture, the truths of high culture would not be knowledge for us. Their value
would be reduced to mere dogma.
Chuck Klosterman IV divides into the three sections: Things that Are
True, Things that Might be True, and Something that Is Not True at All.
The book has an oddly Millian feel to it. Defending McDonald’s against
the food police in “The Amazing McNuggets Diet” offers an unpleasant
22 Writing Poetry about Pushpin

politically incorrect truth—eating junk food in moderation is unlikely to

destroy your health. Strangely, eating only Chicken McNuggets for a
week, if not done on a regular basis might be good for your health.
Klosterman tells us that in a week he consumed as many as 280 McNug-
gets or forty a day, and that he gained a pound. I looked this up the calorie
information at McDonald’s website and they report that a ten piece Chick-
en McNuggets has 460 calories; thus, forty McNuggets have 1,840 calo-
ries. Most adult men would lose weight on 1,840 calories a day (the aver-
age American male consumes 2,800 calories a day). My guess is that he
lost weight, but the four thousand milligrams of sodium in forty Chicken
McNuggets resulted in significant water retention. This is an unusual At-
kins diet, but my understanding of this is that low carbohydrate diets work,
but living this way over years would be unhealthy. However, spending a
week doing this is harmless. Similarly, discussing things that might be
true, may well lead to interesting discoveries. Nevertheless, even things
that are not true can be useful, if we learn some truth by working our way
through their details.

The Not So Amazing McDonald’s Diet

In the chapter after “The Amazing McNuggets Diet” Klosterman tells
us about seeing Morgan Spurlock’s well received documentary Super-Size
Me, and having a chance to discuss the film in Klosterman’s apartment
with Spurlock and his vegan chef fiancée, now wife, Alexandra Jamieson.
Spurlock purportedly spent thirty days buying all his food and beverages
at McDonalds, averaging about five thousand calories a day. The 6’ 2”,
185-pound Spurlock gained 24.5 pounds and had serious medical conse-
quences including liver damage. In an early scene, we see Spurlock at his
weigh-in wearing bikini briefs, and he looks like one fit dude. He has large
biceps, a narrow waste, and a large chest. To realize how well conditioned
Spurlock is consider Steve Nash, the world-class athlete who played point
guard for the NBA Phoenix Suns—who by the way is not a communist,
but then again, neither is Spurlock. Nash is 6’ 3” and weighs 178 pounds.
My own assessment is that these people are both very fit; Nash is seriously
cut, but Spurlock has larger arms and a more pronounced chest to waste V.
As the Willie Dixon blues standard goes, Spurlock the actor is “built for
comfort” (on the eyes) but not—as Nash the point guard is—“built for
speed, but he got everything that a good [vegan chef] need[s].”
Klosterman has his doubts about this documentary. After all, he ate
McNuggets for a week and may have improved his health; in Spurlock’s
documentary, we find him puking out the window of his car on day three.
 John Fitzpatrick 23

There is an element here that either might be true, or might not be true at
all. I certainly do not believe that three days of junk food would have me
puking out car windows. I often travel and eat inappropriately at restau-
rants for a few days, but I have never vomited out of the window of my car
as a result. Klosterman’s skepticism is entirely justified. My own guess is
that if Spurlock had actually done what he claimed to have done and exer-
cised as he had done in the past, he would have gained a few pounds, but
suffered little health loss. This is what his doctors predicted. Spurlock
could lose weight during thirty days at McDonald’s—if he wanted to. Su-
persize the zero calorie coffee, unsweetened iced tea, or diet coke and save
a thousand plus calories a day. Pick the chicken or fish over the beef; Fi-
let-O-Fish is 380 calories, Angus Mushroom and Swiss is 780 calories.
After all, anyone heard of Jared “Subway” Fogle? He lost two hundred
pounds on a fast food diet. Klosterman smelled a rat, but did not bother to
follow it through to conclusion. However, he did smell the rat, and my
intuitions are that this is a particularly stinky rat.
Nevertheless, notice how this examination of the amazing McNuggets
diet and a subsequent celebrity interview has high culture implications. Is
the fast food industry a major villain in American health or merely a con-
venient target? Given our current difficulties in providing affordable
health care, this is not a trivial issue. Given the costs to human freedom
and ultimately human happiness that significant regulation of the food
industry would entail, the issue is a serious one indeed. This highlights
Mill’s point made earlier. It is only through a rigorous free market of ideas
that we can discover new truths, and there is no reason to assume that an
examination of low culture cannot provide some.
Ultimately, this is the point of all of Klosterman’s work. Maybe Garth
Brooks and Pamela Anderson have something positive to teach us. Maybe
they do not. However, learning why they do not would be a positive thing
to know. If no one is willing to give a critical high-culture examination to
low culture, whatever truth is there to discover is unlikely to be exposed
by a low-culture examination. The only way to know that poetry is more
valuable than pushpin is to give pushpin the same quality of examination
that poetry gets, and compare the results. Thus, there is much to be said for
Klosterman’s high-culture examination of low culture.

Cultural Studies: A Modest Defense

I hope what I have offered you here are some good reasons to read our
volume and, of course, Chuck Klosterman’s original work. I hope we have
engaged in good philosophizing. However, if this is correct there should
24 Writing Poetry about Pushpin

be room in academia for those who wish to expand the canon and make
room for the writing of poetry about pushpin. I love the Great Books and I
have been told that Ray Browne loved them as well. However, as John
Stuart Mill has argued so well, no one has a monopoly on the truth, and to
the extent that a great philosopher like Aristotle is right about many things,
to read Aristotle dogmatically is to do him a grave injustice. However, to
treat the canon dogmatically is to do it a great disservice as well. I think
there are at least three observations argued for in this essay relevant to
cultural studies.
First, there are great thinkers and there are Great Books, but popular
culture can help make them relevant and interesting, and this is how stu-
dents learn. After all, Seinfeld and Philosophy has sold hundreds of thou-
sands of copies. This is huge. Such exposure to philosophical ideas has the
potential to bring the great thinkers and their ideas to a wider audience.
Second, a talented cultural critic, like Chuck Klosterman, can find in-
teresting insights in the films of John Cusack, and there is no reason tal-
ented academics cannot mine for gold in the same manner. I have seen
several presentations at the Ray Browne Conference on Popular Culture
that made this point. I hope my co-authors and I have managed to do so as
well.
Third, the issues that can be brought to the table via this medium are
important. How much of our reality is TV reality? How bad is fast food for
the health of the nation? As I write this, New York City is discussing ban-
ning large cups of soda. No one will confuse Morgan Spurlock or Chuck
Klosterman of rivaling the importance of Plato or the History of Christian-
ity to the West, but their debate is topical and important.
A final point of caution; it really must be writing poetry about pushpin.
I think well-disciplined discourse about what is not obviously important at
first glance could be fruitful, and I have argued this point at length. How-
ever, it is more than possible to discuss unimportant things in uninteresting
ways; the bloggers I read on a regular basis can be counted on two hands.
There are lots more that I think are wasting their time and their reader’s
time. Moreover, given the general attack we in the humanities face, we
must police ourselves carefully to not give ammunition to our opponents.

Notes
1
This essay is based on and draws heavily from both my presentation at the 2012
Ray Browne Conference on Popular Culture and my previously published work.
See: John R. Fitzpatrick, “Writing Poetry About Pushpin,” in Chuck Klosterman
and Philosophy: The Real and the Cereal, ed. Seth Vanatta (Chicago: Open Court,
2012), 195.
 John Fitzpatrick 25

2
Chuck Klosterman, Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: a Low Culture Manifesto (New
York: Scribner’s, 2003), 2.
3
Ibid.
4
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 2nd edition, ed. Terrence Irwin (Indianapolis:
Hackett, 1999), 163.
5
Klosterman, Fargo Rock City: a Heavy Metal Odyssey in Rural North Dakota
(New York: Scribner’s, 2001), 61.
6
Klosterman, Klosterman IV: a Decade of Dangerous Ideas and Curious People
(New York: Scribner’s, 2006), 277-278.
7
Aristotle, 166.
8
Klosterman, Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: a Low Culture Manifesto, 175-176.
9
Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, in
Utilitarianism and Other Writings, ed. Mary Warnock (New York: Meridian,
1974), 33.
10
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, in Utilitarianism and Other Writings, ed. Mary
Warnock (New York: Meridian, 1974), 180-181.
 DEEP CULTURE:
FINDINGS FROM CULTURAL STUDIES
AND ANALYSIS

MARGARET J. KING
CULTURAL STUDIES AND ANALYSIS

We humans are an extremely important manifestation of the replication

bomb, because it is through us—through our brains, our symbolic culture
and our technology—that the explosion may proceed to the next stage and
reverberate through deep space.1
—Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, 1995

Overview
As a cultural analyst, I have spent my career exploring and explaining
popular culture as part of the larger human system. Based on that experi-
ence and the resulting expertise, I want to begin by saying that culture is
far easier to experience than it will ever be to explain. Because culture is
as deeply ingrained as our collective guidance system, explaining the en-
gineering behind it is a major new enterprise. I head a think tank whose
subject is “deep culture,” taken at a high theoretical level: that of human
behavior and the outcomes of that behavior. That is, the study of culture,
past, present, and future. This is culture in its broadest inclusive scope—
with a small “c”; the whole of ideas and expression that drive human life
across eons. The shorthand version resides in three elements: biology, the
brain, and behavior. As Ray Browne put it, “our total life picture” as it has
developed through evolutionary time.2
Deep culture is not just the province of power relations, politics, “cul-
ture wars”, or the issues and conflicts of the moment. This is humankind’s
cultural history extending over millennia. Prehistory included, if we can
find sufficient artifacts to the point when we first became Homo sapiens.
To study culture is to study ourselves and to appreciate the forces that
drive us at all levels. In philosophical terms, it is the most thoroughgoing
and universal way to “know thyself.”
 Margaret J. King 27

Theory, of course, begs to be tested and that calls for the real-world da-
ta of applied praxis. Therefore, we work with corporate clients on all as-
pects of culture from space exploration to fast food to diamonds and theme
parks. It is an eye-opening journey. Such an expansive subject domain
shows real data in action. Therefore, we build models that have to work on
the ground in actually creating the shape of popular culture and taking it to
the streets. I have learned this time frame goes back about two hundred-
fifty thousand years to examine my academic assumptions in light of the
adage that, “[i]n theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.”
Human culture as we recognize it today evolved only about fifty thou-
sand years ago—when people arrived at the point when we were thinking
symbolically, acting creatively, and developing modern language. Modern
human behavior is rooted in shared universals; those persistent patterns
shared across all groups of people throughout the history of humanity no
matter how isolated the group. Examples are language, religion, art (fig-
uration), music, mythology, numbers, nepotism, cooking, play, games,
jokes, and rituals of hygiene, competition, celebration, and death. That is
our database and it is a deep one—at least fifty thousand years for tool
artifacts, and thirty-two thousand years for what modern humans recognize
as art in cave paintings.

Culture Effects
As a cultural analyst, I study the effects of culture on decision-making
at an unconscious level. That means taking the most complex system in
the universe—besides the brain itself—that of human culture and trying to
make it simple: to bring clarity to complexity. Academics like to look for
complexity; clients in business, culture, and government, however, need to
see things more starkly in light of their applied goals to profile the human
equation, for the human factors. Fortunately, complex systems tend to run
on a few simple rules. We attempt to derive from human experience what
these rules are and why and how they evolved. We call this The Playbook.
This rich resource is compiled as the result of sifting and organizing mass-
es of evidence from across hundreds and even thousands of years. Culture
operates as an integrated system evolving over time. Its purpose: to solve
problems and maximize preferred states, or ideals. To match these goals,
cultural analysis must do more than describe a collection of artifacts, per-
sonalities, events, and histories; it has to distill what all this material
means to us on a daily basis in thinking, decision making and acting. Ex-
ploring some studies from CCS&A’s casebook (mainly for US corpora-
28 Deep Culture

tions, nonprofits, and communications) can elucidate how this kind of

analysis works.

What is Culture?
What is culture? It is the mental DNA of the human race and the long-
est-running invention of humankind. However, there is a further question:
What is culture for? With a small “c,” and without prejudice, the shared
mental software allows us to think, make decisions, and behave in socially
productive ways. Therefore, it is a problem-solving device from the time
language and jewelry—among the first artifacts of culture—were invent-
ed. Language for idea sharing and jewelry as the original material culture,
designed, exchanged, and displayed to show off relationships in three di-
mensions.
This is very basic stuff. We do not think about it consciously because
we do not have to and we should not have to —culture (the root of the
term is cultivation and nurturing) is implanted and automatically growing
in our heads from about the age of five. The cultural software thus trans-
planted grows all our lives and changes, but the basic themes and values
persist as remarkably stable, remaining constant and recognizable within
any cultural group. Academically, it is the perfect cross-disciplinary train-
ing. Culture is a huge system (probably the largest human system possible
to imagine), where all domains are involved and connected in a neural
network resembling an enormous common brain. We all live in our heads
all of the time making it difficult to appreciate from any objective stand-
point.
As a cultural analyst, my job has been to “do the math” on this system
and explain it, mostly to large organizations—United States businesses,
museums, NASA. Cultural analysis is not the Frankfurt School critique. It
is not an evaluation or judgment, nor even a power analysis, but culture
itself that needs definition and explaining. In advance of critique, you first
need to know what human beings are built to think and do, before deciding
what a good or a dysfunctional society looks like. We call this the Human
Brief. So I picked mainstream culture, which was not at all popular in the
1960s, middle-class Disney-driven formats, because the marginal only
makes sense when you know what mainstream looks like: The middle de-
fines the margins. US culture tends toward the middle (culturally and po-
litically); the sixty-eight percent middle of a standard deviation model. Or
as Gandhi put the matter poetically, “[a] national culture resides in the
hearts and in the soul of its people,” not in just a small fraction of its “cul-
tured” elite, but resonating population-wide.
 Margaret J. King 29

American Culture
America lives in the middle as a society. This is a simple statement, but
a powerful one. Our culture is not purist or extremist; this is why Ameri-
cans have never been subscribers to “isms.” Purists in lifestyle, religion,
even diet, hang out on the fringes, extreme only by comparison to the solid
center. This is because in our culture, “But I am different” is in fact a
mainstream view. We seek out our differences to build up individual iden-
tity, without defining what we share. The shared value set is what defines
where any culture really lives, as its living and breathing profile.
Cultural Studies & Analysis looks at culture in the opposite way from
focus group research. Instead of a snapshot vision of products or issues,
we seek out behavior histories over very long periods, from four centuries
for American culture to thousands for human universals, for the abiding
values that will not be changing anytime soon. As for the cultural univer-
sals, anything people have been doing for thirty-five thousand years we are
not going to stop doing any time soon. This is why we never study
trends—they are ephemera. By the time business jumps on them, they are
gone. Clients want and need to understand the longer game—consistent
patterns of behavior over time.
Take computers: A high-tech device used overwhelmingly for what we
have been doing for thousands of years, communicating our thoughts,
from the trivial to the powerful, to people in our circle of life. Word pro-
cessing and the Internet put computers into the category of “culturally use-
ful” and therefore into our homes. No longer were they the sole domain of
science and math, which was the original predicated use. We think of our
era as an age of technological breakthroughs, but the real world-changing
advances in technology all happened in the ancient world: fire, the wheel,
writing, sea navigation, astronomy, math, agriculture, and horsepower.
Computers are a very new invention built on these past leaps. Culture is
the creation of the social mind building collective intelligence over eons. It
is the aggregation of intelligence and innovation that makes possible the
world’s cultures as the repository and record of human mental capacity.
As members of this aggregate mindset, Americans have an odd view of
our own culture. We do not think we have one. “We are all different” is
the US cultural mantra; therefore, there cannot be a single set of beliefs we
all share. Ironically, it turns out that everyone in America believes the
basic tenet that we do not have any shared beliefs. We are, it is argued, a
nation of unique individuals; we simply do not all believe the same things.
We believe this, of course, because our shared culture impels us to believe
it. We are all different, exactly like everybody else. Within this paradox
30 Deep Culture

resides the American prime directive: The individual is the base unit of
American culture. That fact alone makes us different from virtually any
other culture ever invented. It explains why we are not a culture based on
blood, tribe, ethnicity, or religion. Instead we are a nation built on a set of
ideas available to anyone willing to make them their own.
By “make them their own,” I mean that a founding statement like “All
men are created equal” will be debated and redefined by the collective
mind, so the meanings of “all” “men” and “equal,” each generation will
make their own. This is what makes America simultaneously attractive
and dangerous to other cultures—not because of what we do, but because
of the way we think. Our most dangerous export is neither weapons nor
media nor genetically modified crops, but our ideas about the role of the
individual in society and in securing that individual sphere as safe from
interference, by rule of law. In this respect alone, the mindset of global
culture is increasingly an American one. The basic American formula has
also been shaped over time by innovation and invention imports, making it
constantly richer and increasingly viable.

The Seven “Shoulds”

Cultural beliefs that drive our choices operate below the conscious
horizon, so it is the near-invisible nature of culture that leads us to believe
we do not have one. Therefore, whereas culture is rarely articulated in
words, it is clearly expressed in behavior. Examining American popular
culture over generations, the record of what we have consistently “voted”
for in the most meaningful way possible, with our time and dollars, makes
it possible to identify consistent patterns of behavior over time. Behavioral
patterns spotlight not just what we value, but far more important, why we
value it. From this database, the Center has identified, among others, the
top seven drivers of choice that all Americans share. These meta-drivers
make the first cut in the decision-making process well before the con-
scious process even begins. These fundamental shared ideals are funda-
mental because they shape all other ideas. They are front and center in
every perception, silently at work behind every decision. We call them
“Shoulds” because they reflect our assumptions of how the world “should”
be. Moreover, they are distinctively American in assumption, value, and
belief.

The Seven “Shoulds”: Cultural Beliefs that Drive American Choice

1. Individuals should determine their own destiny.
2. Individuals should control their social and physical environment.
3. Actions should be judged in a moral light.
 Margaret J. King 31

4. Authority or “Bigness” should be viewed with suspicion.

5. We should have as many choices as possible.
6. Anything can and should be improved.
7. The future should be better than the present.

Our unconscious assumptions about how things should be are what set
us apart from other cultures and drive our choices in everything from pub-
lic policy and our social agenda to the everyday consumer choices we
make. The same playbook drives the entire gamut of choices, high to low
alike. Many cultural critics (both outside and inside the US) tend to deni-
grate American culture as trivial and I believe it is because they do not
understand it. One of our most successful cultural innovations is the theme
park invented by Walt Disney in mid-1950s. It took a while to realize that
this was one of our major culture artifacts and has little to do with thrill
ride. All destination parks tend to be lumped together, but they are not the
same. Six Flags runs on a teen dynamic of when you need to challenge the
tactile world and test your limits. It is our evocation of the aboriginal
walkabout, or the Amish Rumspringa.
Disney, however, created something new, the ultimate cultural artifact,
an all-encompassing walk-around museum built to hold every style of art
and artifact from history and global culture. Its premise is a distillation of
American values and that is what makes it successful here and worldwide.
Yet, you have to get the theme park out of the amusement park category
for this to go anywhere cultural. It is inductive logic, finding or devising
the right file folders to hold very diverse kinds of data.3 Moreover, this
artifact is an amazing collective artwork, covering the national timeline
and spatial expanse, going to the essence of America to display both what
Americans like about ourselves and what foreigners find most attractive
about us.4 To address another critique, Disney parks are not about authen-
ticity; the original Main Street from Disney’s childhood Marceline, Mis-
souri is not the mental construction we all know and love. Disney’s Main
Street, USA, based on Walt’s memories interpreted through the artistic
vision of Disney Imagineers such as Herb Ryman and Harper Goff, served
as one of the inspirations for the National Historic Trust Landmarks pro-
gram to preserve (what was left of) Main Streets in our towns and cities. It
is not reality, but in Umberto Eco’s term, hyper-reality, more “authentic”
even than the original. How? Because it condenses the core values within
a heavy symbolic case, making the abstract visible in three dimensions
squarely in the plastic arts tradition. In the Main Street case, nature imitat-
ed an entirely popular commercial art form.
32 Deep Culture

Cultural Analysis
Deep culture is an invention, the longest-running, most successful in-
vention ever devised. It is the most fascinating subject of all time, because
it is all about us: Where we have been, how we developed, why we are
here, where we are headed. Popular culture opens a wider compass on
technology, habitual and creative behaviors, inventions, material culture,
writing, character, and class formation. With due respect to museums, this
has to be far more than a collection of objects, events, and themes. It must
be analyzed, ordered, modeled, given cosmic weight. Culture is the body
of evidence by which we can come to understand the dynamic of our civi-
lization (or any other). However, we still need some way to decode what
all this information has to tell us, which is more about the way we think
and act than historical record. What we are trying to get at is the software
of the mind (to quote Geert Hofstede in Culture and Organization) that
works far below conscious awareness, and for that aim, culture is the pro-
gramming.5 Moreover, as the program that shapes everything we think and
do, it is running silently. It not only drives how we solve problems, but
what and how we identify as a problem in the first place.
The goal of cultural study and analysis is not to advance our command
of ever more material, but to understand why and how we use tools and
techniques to achieve our consensus objectives, because culture is a con-
sensus reality, operating by collective agreement. This requires transmut-
ing knowledge, raising it up several levels into intelligence, by processing
what we know toward that goal. Culture in analytical mode is the toolbar
to get us there. I would add a caveat. So much of cultural commentary
comes under “true but not helpful”; museums are prime offenders, produc-
ing masses of information without making sense of it in any way that is
deployable. This is the situation mainly because museum collections are so
interesting in themselves—for the expert, scholar, and collector—but for
the larger human picture, they remain displays, only obliquely connected
to the “brain, biology, and behavior” platform of culture. The questions
they raise for the museumgoer remain after the visit: So what? What does
this mean to my family, my future, and me? How can I make transforma-
tive use of these images, artifacts, and information in what I do and where
I want to go?

Case Study: Jewelry

Take the example of jewelry. Museums display it and describe it in
terms of materials, artistry, styling, age, and origin—all pertinent points,
 Margaret J. King 33

but not clarifying. What is never addressed is first, why it was important to
the people who made it; and next, and more to the point, why it should be
important to us today. Shortly after we founded Cultural Studies & Analy-
sis, a major jewelry chain asked how they could sell more jewelry. Every
business question seems to start out this way. Nevertheless, it is not a
problem frame; increased sales are not a goal, they are an outcome of a
clear understanding of how people actually use the product in their social
and emotional cultural matrix. More widely, the question is “How do peo-
ple find value in jewelry?” Understand that core question and the answer
to the original “more jewelry” question becomes clear. The jewelry indus-
try, taking their cue from anthropology, calls this category “personal
adornment.” That is a descriptive assessment. It is not false, simply super-
ficial. The industry thought they knew what people wanted. How? Because
they directly asked the (mostly male) buyers. They had focus-grouped this
question to death so that they “knew” the answer. People wanted good
jewelry at a reasonable price, a walking model of the rational buyer para-
digm.
That is how they were selling it, with the four “C’s”—Clarity, Color,
Cut, and Carat [weight], it made industry sense because that is how they
buy jewelry. The problem was that their 4Cs ads were not working well.
Mainly because the public does not buy jewelry for any of the same rea-
sons jewelers do. We do not ask people why they do things, because they
do not know. Our subconscious brain, under the influence of culture,
makes the decision for us up front, only then handing the final cut over to
our consciousness. “Facts” are generated by the conscious brain to validate
decisions already made at a deep subconscious level. The larger the pur-
chase–diamond jewelry qualifies—the more the unconscious rules. Mar-
keting literature repeatedly demonstrates this key paradox of rational be-
havior.
So instead, we study what people do, because subconscious actions ex-
press belief. It is a matter of evidence versus testimony. Whenever what
people say and what they do fail to match, you are better-served paying
attention to what they do. It is the far more reliable data set. Our data focus
is therefore, again, what really counts in people’s lives by exchange for
their time, wealth and attention. Therefore, we looked at what kind of jew-
elry was created and traded across cultures and over time. Jewelry is a
human universal because every culture has it. It is also cultural since every
cultural group shapes in its own image the iconic form and symbolic use
of the classic jewelry piece.
This is the most human of artifacts because it is closest to the skin and
there is evidence humans had jewelry well before we had clothing. The
34 Deep Culture

oldest known jewelry to date is a set of one-hundred-thousand-year-old

beads made from Nassarius snail shells, found in South Africa, as recount-
ed in The Rational Optimist.6 Deep research spanning time and cultures
revealed not just what jewelry looked like as adornment, but went to that
ultimate cultural purpose. In the entire history of jewelry as a human in-
vention, it has served one starring function: to mark relationships, both
personal and hierarchal. If you do not believe this, ask any woman about
her jewelry. She will tell you what each piece represents and especially
who gave it to her and what it means in her life—before what it is made
of, or even what it cost. That is a major clue that led us out of the business
book of cost and carat weight into the rich domain of relationships. More-
over, relationships are female, far more than male, territory. That is why
the classical jewelry piece is the wedding ring, invented by the ancient
Egyptians (woven from Nile river reeds), and popularized by the Romans
(wrought of iron to symbolize the strength and durability of the relation-
ship).
As said before, if people have been doing something steadily for mil-
lennia, there is little chance they will stop doing it tomorrow. While ap-
pearance and format may change, the hardcore functions persist in every-
thing from campfires and coffee houses to corporate boardrooms. Context
is not studied nearly as carefully as artifacts, but immediate surroundings
are key to human thought and behavior. In fact, our surroundings lock in a
“short-form options” agenda, from mental to emotional to physical. Place
is everything and everything happens in place (physical or mental) mode.
We studied the dynamic of jewelry stores to determine the factors in play
there, especially for men.
Drawing from this research for our client, our advice was not to sell the
jewelry, but sell the importance of the relationships the jewelry represent-
ed, the core meaning. Reminded of the relationship, people already know
jewelry is the appropriate gift. Following the “cultural logic” of the prod-
uct’s value, they did and sales increased nearly twenty percent in the first
quarter. That analysis shifted the way jewelry was advertised for a while,
but the average ad agency creative director is 28-years old and hates doing
anything that is been done before. Therefore, we are beginning to see
beautifully art-directed but ineffective jewelry ads cropping up again. It is
only a matter of time. Eventually in this creative cycle, we return and ex-
plain what jewelry means all over again.
For cultural analysis, jewelry became a general-purpose tool because,
as a human universal, jewelry’s lessons apply across cultures. Understand
the meaning of another culture’s jewelry and you have charted a hierarchy
of important relationships. This maps how their culture is either similar or
 Margaret J. King 35

different from our own. This artifact class does double duty; not only as a
window into someone else’s culture, but a mirror on our own as well. How
and for what reasons do we decide to take on topics from the running list
of human activities, values, and beliefs? We ask this question about every
research topic. It must do more than describe. It has to have a dynamic, a
push factor to lead outcomes for analysis. Culture is economical, it does
not waste much; it is all for the human purpose. It is our job as field ex-
perts to figure out what that particular purpose could be, not just to de-
scribe what we see.7 We have to connect the dots that lead to a higher
plane, or the “why” questions based on human purposes. This approach
differs substantially from market research, social history, or cognitive sci-
ence, but consolidates their more limited concerns by a richer baseline.

Cultural Values: Outcomes

Client questions need to be approached not as a business problem but
as a cultural one. At their core, all business problems are cultural prob-
lems; this glowing core needs to be taken apart. Cultural imperatives,
those “prime directives,” run so deep as pre-assumptions, as psychology
puts it, we do not really have any way to see them, except as live evidence,
the visible expression of our deepest ideas about how the world should be.
Every business enterprise plays some role in setting out and answering
these imperatives. As a means to the preferred state, culture gives us an
evolving set of tools passed through generations, adapting over time as a
problem-solving system that grows up in and fits itself to context and envi-
ronment. In this sense, culture is organic, adaptive, and evolutionary; what
remains stable is its purpose as a great, shared guidance system common
to every group on earth at every stage of human development. Culture is
also a system of ideals extracted from the day to day, whether in the home,
backyard, shopping mall, on the road, at work, in the sports stadium,
health club, movie theater, or theme park.
As a research group, most of our time goes to untangling and clarifying
American culture for Americans. This sounds like a strange mission until
we remember that Americans do not think we have a culture until we trav-
el to other places that have a different one. At that point we can then see
by contrast, which is the reason most recognized experts on national cul-
tures are foreigners to the cultures they document; from Dickens and de
Tocqueville to Max Weber, Gunnar Myrdal, Vladimir Nabokov, Alistair
Cooke, and Michael Foucault. Culture is the X-Factor in economics as
well as every other human endeavor of resource management and alloca-
tion. X references the set of elements that “cannot be reduced to mathe-
36 Deep Culture

matical analysis.” 8 Cognitive finance, which operates by cultural, not

technical, logic, does not depend on the Rational Actor theory but on cul-
tural ideals like “The Future Should Be Better than the Past.”
When the future is not better or brighter, we start to look for scape-
goats. For example, in economic downturns we subconsciously believe
what applies to economies applies equally to individuals, raising their
class as social capital (the great American imperative gone worldwide).
Human factors are part of culture built by us and for us. We ourselves are
the measure of all things. In order to understand a system you must first
understand the system it fits into, in ecologist Howard Odum’s schematic.
People do not adapt to technology, they adapt technology to their own
behavior following the Human Brief.9 Unless the latest innovation or in-
vention fits the brain, biology, and behavior, it is not going to fly. Medi-
cine, for instance, has an endemic problem in that compliance for all med-
ications is barely fifty percent overall. It is amazing that medical technolo-
gy does such a subpar job of engineering pill taking to happen within the
matrix of dozens of other human routines. Unless designed to fit into that
pre-existing matrix, any therapy will prove unsustainable. That is not an
encouraging prognosis for healthcare efficacy unless drug designers can
shift their engineers’ perspective to include the critical human factors that
drive behavior below our own conscious horizon.
National debates about public transportation and cutting down on oil
imports are framed in terms of road engineering and logistics, when they
should be cast in the terms of personal mobility—both physical and so-
cial—the number-one priority of all Americans. We create products that
do not sell because we do not understand how people use or value them
without the Human Brief. Ad agencies believe that their role is to “create
need” when need is pre-existing and their true role is to identify it as natu-
ral inclination. The ad agency quest for the magic “emotional connection”
to product, brand, and experience is typically undertaken without a con-
scious understanding of the fundamental cultural values that underlie and
power those compelling connections. (Don Draper, the creative ad head
from Mad Men, occasionally gets close but without knowing why.)
We frame social problems in terms of race, when most obstacles to so-
lution are based on assumptions about class. Our home worldview drives
American foreign policy because we subconsciously believe this is the
natural order of things, not just at home but worldwide. Such assumptions
too often underlie culture clashes that block mutual benefit fixes. Studying
culture, especially popular culture, means never retiring. Retirement would
be impossible, first, in a mental enterprise where the brain cannot be
turned off. Second, because there is no endpoint to the constant stream of
 Margaret J. King 37

data that defines human life, history, behavior, and thinking. Culture is a
work in progress, so its study is the eternal project. If there is one thing
that I have learned it is that you cannot understand another culture unless
you first understand your own. Explaining it is a tricky path. However,
grasping the middle of the curve is essential for the margins to make any
sense. You do not have to like it, or even agree with it, but you do have to
understand it. Popular culture provides that generous platform.

The Future of Cultural Analysis

What are the prospects for US culture in the future, both realized and
researched? First, thanks to US popular culture’s wide reach, global cul-
ture follows a distinctly American template. The leading values centered
on individual creativity, achievement, and potential make the American
model at once attractive and dangerous. While political science and inter-
national relations center government and NGOs as the primary agents of
national identity, it is really culture, in its leading popular formats, that
leads.
My doctoral research at the East-West Center (Honolulu) dealt with
these cultural factors in cross-cultural learning by posing the detective
novel as the ideal culture transfer format. This genre is purpose-built be-
cause it must clearly portray and animate cultural norms in order to show
how these are first violated and then restored by the crime and the detec-
tive. That, together with the fact that this type of fiction has been a leading
best seller over time, suggests its power for this role of culture learning.
This is one example of a problem frame for future study. In what ways do
people understand other groups: and how can we design or discover these
channels? Discerning and describing the emerging outlines of this world
culture will be the next megaproject. The project will consist of tracing the
historical patterns of influence, conflict, and confluence from Hispaniola
in 1492 to see how US culture interfaces and engages in the jet age and
beyond—for example, in the ongoing growth of world music, or the en-
gagement of Islamic and Western mindsets and imagery.10
The rules of world “hegemony” are more complex than the obvious po-
litical rubrics. They depend on the embedded cost/benefit propositions
active in the import and export of goods, personalities, experiences, art,
ideas, and ideals and their carrying stories and channeling. These dynam-
ics, some bold, others subtle, can explain why the metric system might
work in Europe and Asia, but never took hold in the US, because the is-
sues are not just technical or power-based, but cultural; how and why peo-
ple use and value things. Based on how tradition is viewed in light of im-
38 Deep Culture

ported ideas, groups (ethnicities, communities, countries) act as empow-

ered agents of change in the ways they pick and choose what to adopt (and
what not to) from the marketplace of cultures. The wisdom of “crowds on
culture” determines the cost/benefit ratio of new ideas, domestic and im-
ported alike.
Because the cultural drivers of choice operate at a subconscious level,
at our Center we work to make the invisible visible. By addressing real-
world problems, corporate or nonprofit, we are operating with real data,
the record of how consumers of products, concepts, and ideas have made
those choices real by investment—with their time, energy, and money. By
observing such outcomes of the black box of culture, we can identify con-
sistent lifeways that yield insights into the unconscious shared assump-
tions of who we are, how we got here and where we are going.

Notes
1
Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: a Darwinian View of Life (New York:
Basic Books, 1995), 136-37.
2
Leslie Wilson, “Ray Browne,” 14 Conversations with Scholars of American
Popular Culture, ed. Leslie Wlison (Hollywood, CA: Press Americana, 2006), 40.
3
Deductive reasoning is more straightforward, starting first with the file folders
into which papers are sorted by the labels they fit. Data must fit itself in around
preset folders.
4
Margaret King and J.G. O’Boyle, “The Theme Park: The Art of Time and
Space,” in Disneyland and Culture: Essays on the Parks and Their Influence, eds.
Kathy M. Jackson and Mark West (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co.,
2001), 5-18.
5
Geert Hofstede, J. G. Hofstede, and Michael Minkov, M. Culture and
Organization: Software of the Mind, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw Hill, 2010).
6
Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (New York:
HarperCollins, 2010).
7
This is a “wicked tricky” problem, since what we see is a function of what our
culture prepares us to see.
8
Robert Shiller, “The Dismal Science’s Odd New Allure.” Slate, quoted in The
Week, February 4, 2011, 42.
9
Another terms coined to denote the cultural playbook, but for universal human
culture.
10
For a topic range, see for example Metal Rules the Globe: Heavy Metal Music
around the World, eds. Jeremy Wallach, Harris M. Berger, and Paul D. Greene
(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011); Richard Francaviglia, Go East,
Young Man: Imagining the American West as the Orient, (Logan, UT: Utah State
University Press, 2011).
PART II
 THE JOKE IS ON YOU:
BATMAN’S ANTIQUATED SENSE OF MORALITY
IN UNDER THE RED HOOD

WALTER MERRYMAN
BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY

Batman is a man of convictions. The 2010 animated film Under the

Red Hood presents a unique opportunity for the audience to examine the
motivations and goals of Batman via his relationship with a new villain,
the Red Hood, and his most common enemy, the Joker. Batman is forced
to answer what is perhaps the most intuitive question one may ask when
watching a Batman adaptation: Why does Batman not kill the Joker?
There are certainly moments when it would be possible. Although ex-
tremely dangerous, the Joker is rarely depicted as capable of physically
threatening Batman. Under the Red Hood holds Batman accountable for
his actions in relation to the Joker and explores how Batman’s largely un-
stated motivations and goals affect the criminals he pursues and the people
he works with. Ultimately, Under the Red Hood demonstrates that Batman
holds himself ideologically accountable to a categorical imperative. What-
ever his very human and emotional response to external events, Batman
limits his physical action to something that will always be acceptable to
him regardless of context. This makes Batman an ideologue. He is not a
practical man. The question of why Joker remains alive continuously reaf-
firms this, as a practical solution to the Joker’s threat would be for him to
die. This dilemma offers an insight into Batman because it does not rely on
violence to resolve the plot. Under the Red Hood’s major accomplishment
is explicitly addressing moral and emotional challenges that occupy many
Batman narratives, but are often left unexplored.
The scenarios and dilemmas hinted at in the film require a clear under-
standing of what fighting crime entails for Batman. As a hero, he is not a
self-contained system that judges criminals and renders punishment. His
narratives are about the apprehension of criminals. Therefore, Batman’s
sense of purpose is limited to apprehension and investigation but does not
venture into the realm of judgment and punishment. The film also raises
 Walter Merryman 41

questions about the validity of Batman’s existence. The early part of the
film depicts two great failures on Batman’s part: allowing Jason Todd to
die and allowing a criminal to fall into a pit of acid, inadvertently creating
the Joker. Such failures raise the issue of whether or not Batman is actual-
ly helping Gotham. Under the Red Hood forces Batman to justify his right
to assert himself as a hero in order to overcome his past mistakes.
The visual style of this animated feature is very conservative. There is
little fantastic imagery. Apart from a few of the chase scenes, the film
could have been live action. This conservative style reflects Batman’s
characteristics as a superhero, in that he is not actually “super”. Instead,
his heroism stems from his lack of special powers, relying on his practiced
close quarters fighting abilities, detective skills, and material wealth to
sustain him. Still, the film takes advantage of the animated form with
flashbacks that convey back narrative to the viewer without slowing down
the present plot. By using this technique, the film covers a lot of ground in
seventy-five minutes. The animation also emphasizes Batman’s moments
of brilliance. When Batman leaps through the window of a car, the viewer
watches a lull in the movement on screen and realizes just how far Batman
has pushed himself to compensate for a lack of super-human power.
Under the Red Hood stands apart as a darker and more violent install-
ment among Batman adaptations, immediately setting itself up as targeted
for mature audiences. The prologue depicts the brutal murder of Jason
Todd, the second person to serve as Robin, at the hands of the Joker.
Paired with this obvious shift in content is a change in the traditional ma-
jor voice actors. Kevin Conroy, who voices Batman and Bruce Wayne in
almost every animated feature, television series, or video game, does not
voice him here. Instead, Bruce Greenwood provides the voice of the Dark
Knight. This same phenomenon applies to the Joker. Mark Hamill has
long been the voice of the Joker in much the same was as Conroy has
voiced Batman. However, in this adaptation John DiMaggio provides the
voice of the Joker. The Joker is also depicted as physically intimidating, a
rather unusual choice that, when paired with his new voice, sets the viewer
on edge. This distinct Joker is marked by his physical dangerousness and
an exceptionally inflamed desire for personally committing homicide.
These shifts are not representative of a continuing trend; both Hamill and
Conroy have reprised their standard roles since Under the Red Hood’s
release.
The difference in these two major characters and the brutality of the
prologue is jarring enough that viewers with previous experience with
adaptations of the Dark Knight will realize that Under the Red Hood
stands on its own by design and uses this isolation from other narratives to
42 The Joke is on You

address the issue of Batman and Joker’s unending rivalry directly. The
film’s plot pits the titular hero against a new crime lord in Gotham. This
new arrival wears, as his name would suggest, a red hood, a disguise used
by various criminals in the past. The Red Hood sets himself up as a quasi-
righteous criminal who takes control of the drug trade in Gotham but stops
the sale of drugs to children. This attempt to control crime juxtaposes
Batman’s methods by the Red Hood’s willingness to kill and use firearms.
The villain is an intuitive alternative to Batman’s rigid vigilantism that
comes to mind when it seems like crime can never be stopped.
The character of the Red Hood is not new. Most notably, the Red Hood
is an origin story for the Joker, seen through a flashback. The Joker’s con-
dition is the result of a fall into a pit of acid in a scenario that recalls Tim
Burton’s 1989 live action film. In the factory, Batman suddenly grows
faint, and he approaches another faintly drawn figure wearing a suit with a
red mask and cape. When Batman tries to handcuff the original Red Hood,
he falls into a pit, the faint image fading into the acid below. When a more
solidly colored Batman walks into the shot again the viewer realizes that
this odd tangent was actually a flashback, and the faintly drawn characters
are Batman’s memories of the past. The Red Hood tells Batman that the
factory is “the site of your first great failure. Maybe your greatest, but cer-
tainly not your last.”1
The Joker is locked up in Arkham Asylum in the beginning of the
movie, secured in a straitjacket in isolation. Under the Red Hood gives a
faithful depiction of Joker’s relationship with his secondary home; that is,
he is only there because he has not escaped yet. The Joker is introduced
into the plot as a source of information on the new Red Hood. Batman’s
interrogation of the villain gives a strong insight into their relationship.
The Joker's detention assists the scene's dialogue. For once, Batman trusts
that the Joker means what he says. Despite this unusual stability, Batman
clearly remains in a disadvantaged position during the encounter. By the
end of the conversation, it is clear that Batman is unwilling to kill the Jok-
er. Although Batman indulges in violence that would be illegal for a legit-
imate detective, he will not cross a certain line. The Joker is clearly aware
of this, and this knowledge protects him. Batman’s limited expression of
agency functions as the Joker’s favorite running joke. The Joker wants to
push Batman into doing something that goes against his beliefs, making
Batman’s ideology into a joke. That is really the point. It is not about kill-
ing Batman, at least not this time. It is about breaking him by forcing him
to break the rule sets that govern his worldview.
During the interrogation Joker taunts Nightwing, the original Robin,
seeking to get a rise out of Batman; “Oh Bird-Boy, you’re so much less
 Walter Merryman 43

fun now, all grown up and in your big boy pants. Still better off than his
replacement, right? Even tougher makin’ with the yuks when you’re worm
food.” The Joker succeeds in provoking Batman by mentioning Jason;
Batman throws him into a wall and chokes him, but that is as far as he will
go. Despite the fact that Batman could kill the Joker, he will not, and the
Joker knows it. He pushes Batman even farther, asking “You gonna do it
this time? Or you just gonna put me in another body cast for six months?”
The Joker looks down on Batman as he asks this question; and that Bat-
man is holding him off the ground does not matter—the Joker holds all the
cards. Whatever the context, the Joker will never lose everything because
for some reason, Batman will not kill him. The scenario where the hero
must decide between having mercy or indulging in a natural response to
antagonism and loss is not a question for Batman. He defines himself by
the answer always already being restraint. The Joker is disappointed when
Batman drops him.
The name the Joker implies a façade. He wants people to break their
code of conduct, proving that their inadequate morals are a joke. The Joker
is so chaotic and violent that he appears completely amoral, though this
should not be confused with being necessarily arbitrary nature. Joker’s
sadistic behavior is infamously unpredictable and even counterproductive
to his criminal schemes; he acts in such as way that he pushes all people,
law-abiding and criminal alike, into extreme situations where their moral
and ethical codes, whatever they may be, prove inadequate. He is dedicat-
ed to moral and ethical corruption. His name alludes to his effects rather
than his personality. The Joker enjoys when people turn against them-
selves above all else, making the people he meets the real joke. This is
why he constantly wants Batman to kill him. If the Joker were to die at the
hand of Batman then the Joker would be victorious—and Batman knows
this. The Joker uses Batman’s abstract motivations against him by nudging
him more and more toward fatal violence. Restraint defines Batman,
which makes the Joker determined to use this quality against him. The
Joker’s ability to perceive such abstractions in a person’s behavior allows
him to make the chaos he brings effective at emotional destruction as well
as physical.
The Joker’s motivations are mysterious. His behavior may be attribut-
ed what Walter Benjamin describes as self-alienation, a state of mind
where “[alienation] that has reached the point where [mankind] can expe-
rience its own annihilation as a supreme aesthetic.”2 This alienation is the
source of Joker’s exceptionally perverse sense of humor as well as the
primary effect of his violence against others. As a villain, the Joker must
remain alienated to maintain his function. Although the film explains why
44 The Joke is on You

he looks the way he does, there is no explanation for why the Joker acts
the way he does. Any moment of grounding would make the Joker relata-
ble, which must be avoided for him to remain so threatening.
Once Joker has asserted his position he points out that he would never
be behind something as monumental as the Red Hood without taking cred-
it. Not only does Joker want to create chaos, he wants people to know he
created it. Batman has the chance to confront the Red Hood about his
methods near the midpoint of the film. Although crime in Gotham has
gone down, Batman does not find the Red Hood’s rise to power comfort-
ing. The new vigilante-cum-crime-lord has clearly taken the position that
the ends justify the means, while Batman appears far more concerned
about how the means reflect on the individual. The Red Hood’s lack of
concern about his immorality allows him to take a much more physical
approach to fighting crime than Batman. The Red Hood’s questioning of
Batman’s effectiveness makes the viewer wonder if Batman is doing any-
thing more than playing mind games with criminals by restraining himself
from fatal violence. Batman accuses the Red Hood of being no better than
the criminals he is so eager to kill off to control crime, “You’re stealing
territory from Black Mask …. You’re becoming a crime lord.” The Red
Hood does not disagree: “Yes, you can’t stop crime, you can only control
it. That is what you never understood. You want to rule them by fear, but
what do you do with the ones who aren’t afraid? I’m doing what you
won’t, I’m taking them out.” While Batman seeks to affect crime at large
with abstract deterrents, the Red Hood simply starts killing people. This
leaves the viewer with the option of either righteous consistency that is
clearly imperfect or brutal effectiveness. The Red Hood’s methods are
based on bodily experience. When set against Batman this effective alter-
native elucidates the gap between the abstract and the literal, in this case
being the ineffectiveness of abstract deterrents compared to literal deter-
rents. In this scenario, the tension may also be seen as the difference be-
tween the ideal, which Batman pursues, and the practical methods the Red
Hood uses. Certainly, the Red Hood finds his methods more effective at
achieving a noble goal, declaring, “I’m cleaning up Gotham. More than
you ever did.”
The climax of the film contains the obligatory fighting sequence be-
tween the Red Hood, now revealed to be the supposedly dead Jason Todd,
and Batman before culminating in a lengthy conversation where Batman is
forced to explain himself to someone who died for him and his way of life.
The scene is the result of an elaborate trap set up by the Red Hood, which
brings Jason, the Joker, and Batman together. This encounter unveils the
startling revelation that Jason’s new homicidal persona is the Red Hood.
 Walter Merryman 45

Jason now resembles the criminals he claims to be controlling more than

the hero he once was. He has lost touch with Batman’s perspective entire-
ly, consumed by the painful emotions he experienced because of his
“death” at the hands of the Joker.
Although his willingness to use firearms and kill already set him apart,
Jason becomes progressively more unhinged when he encounters the Jok-
er. Jason beats the Joker with a crowbar, recalling the brutal prologue
where the Joker beat him with the same instrument. Furthermore, the hero-
turned-criminal displays symptoms of his creator in extreme violence and
elaborate schemes. The Joker is even forced to admit that he has “been
bamboozled.” The continuity of the Red Hood identity foreshadows this
progression. Jason and the Joker are bound together both by a shared sense
of identity and by a shared methodology. The Joker’s violence and lack of
restraint demonstrate their effectiveness on Jason’s body in the beginning
of the film, an event Jason’s mind cannot escape and now seeks to recre-
ate. In writing about the spread of cruelty, Maggie Nelson invokes Lionel
Trilling’s 1948 diary entry, “[i]t is possible that the contemplation of cru-
elty will not make us humane but cruel; that the reiteration of the badness
of our spiritual condition will make us consent to it.”3 In failing to escape
the trauma of his youth, Jason consents to the normalcy of such cruelty. It
is likely a rejection of this idea that motivates Batman’s refusal to treat
certain criminals more violently. Any indulgence in cruelty and violence
can only make more cruelty and violence possible. For Jason, Batman’s
ideology died at the end of Joker’s crowbar. Jason admits that his death
remains a factor in his current actions when the Joker asks him who he is,
responding only with, “Something you helped create.”
The Joker’s psychological work manifests when Jason insists that
Batman should have killed the Joker to avenge his murder. Such an act is
everything the Joker ever wanted. Jason’s interaction with Batman draws
out details of their thoughts on vigilante justice. Jason’s status as a former
hero and partner forces Batman to answer questions about his methods and
limitations. The Joker’s taunts of “You gonna do it this time?” may be
ignored, but a challenge from a protagonist requires that Batman offer
himself up for scrutiny. For once, the audience has a relatable figure to
validate their question and do the asking.
The widening rift between Batman and Jason becomes clear when
Batman apologizes to Jason for letting him die. Batman sees this as a fail-
ure to live up to the standards he holds for himself. A real hero and a real
friend would have been there. Jason finds Batman’s apology reprehensi-
ble, “I don’t know what clouds your judgment more, your guilt, or your
antiquated sense of morality.” His antagonism toward Batman’s view
46 The Joke is on You

gives voice to Jason’s hostile new perspective, which represents the trap
Batman fears should he allow himself to distribute retribution rather than
limit himself to vigilante enforcement. Jason has experienced the fall that
Batman actively attempts to avoid by refusing to indulge his emotional
urge to kill the Joker.
When Jason finally reveals why he returned it comes as a question,
“Bruce, I forgive you for not saving me, but why, why on God’s green
earth is he still alive?” Jason insists that the evil the Joker represents is
something that should not continue. He makes the Joker the exception to
all the rules, arguing that killing the Joker would be a righteous decision
based on “the graveyards he’s filled, the thousands who’ve suffered, [and]
the friends he’s crippled … I’m not talking about Penguin, or Scarecrow,
or Dent. I’m talking about him, just him, and doing it because he took me
away from you.” Batman responds with, “You don’t understand. I don’t
think you’ve ever understood …All I’ve ever wanted to do is kill him. But
if I do that, if I allow myself to go down into that place, I’ll never come
back.” Jason challenges Batman’s lack of revenge and seeks to create a
new category of criminal for the Joker. The appeal goes beyond what the
Joker deserves and pushes Batman to articulate his emotional response to
Jason’s death. Batman may acknowledge that the Joker has far more agen-
cy and a far longer history of violence than other villains do, but the re-
sponse Jason seeks is beyond Batman’s conception of himself and his role.
Batman does not refuse to place the Joker in his own category of criminal
because of the Joker’s traits or because of what he did to Jason. Batman
refuses to place the Joker into a different category of criminal because that
would legitimize, perhaps even necessitate, actions that goes against Bat-
man’s “antiquated sense of morality” and could possibly undo Batman’s
ability to categorize altogether. Batman would become the chaos that the
Joker embodies.
Batman’s refusal to place the Joker in his own category of criminal
prevents him from acting differently than he would than toward other
criminals. Fighting the fear of turning into something like Jason requires
that Batman hold himself to the incredibly difficult categorical imperative.
This hard line prevents a fall down a slippery slope brought on trough the
re-categorizing of criminals based on emotional experience. Batman only
allows for what is always acceptable and never allows for something that
would violate his moral imperative. This creates a stability that Jason can
no longer experience or even believe in. Such conceptual security means
nothing to someone who feels the raw pain of life and death as acutely as
Jason does.
 Walter Merryman 47

Batman’s reliance on such a standard makes his vigilantism more black

and white than the retributive fashion Jason would follow. Batman’s
sometimes-used title “detective” describes the limits of his agency as well
as the extent and style of his abilities. Enforcement, not punishment, is the
goal. Batman names his enemies as criminals; there are no further distinc-
tions. The goal of this methodology is to preserve a sense of order in the
criminally overwhelmed Gotham rather than take vengeance on criminals.
The threat of the Joker will persist in this system. His agency will continue
to exhaust the demonstration of Batman’s abstract motivations and ideo-
logical methods. However, Batman remains a man of his convictions and,
rather than change, seeks to succeed where he previously failed. Batman
would rather spend his whole life chasing the Joker than kill him. The ad-
equacy of his morality is not measured by the status of the Joker. The ade-
quacy of Batman’s morality is measured by the status of Batman. All of
his morality centers on himself and his body rather than a possibly more
intuitive focus on the always already identified criminals he pursues. Bat-
man, on the other hand, must continuously reaffirm his detached nature.
As a result, there is no third alternative for the Joker. He will be locked up
or killed. Since Batman will never kill the Joker, he will always escape
again. Events that may drive a less controlled person to pessimism and
extreme violence do not have the same impact on Batman. Under the Red
Hood represses the emotional and human part of Batman (and the charac-
ter of Bruce Wayne) almost entirely. There is only Batman and, unfortu-
nately for the Joker, he has no sense of humor. In the one scene of Bruce
Wayne, appears in front of Wayne Manor while the graves of Bruce’s par-
ents and the presumed body of Jason Todd are visible. Bruce Wayne is
nothing more than the set of circumstances that create Batman.
The burden of impossible catharsis in the face of catastrophic violence
leaves Batman just as alienated as the Joker from any sense of “humanity.”
Batman supports an impossible standard that refuses to allow him to live
out inescapable parts of the human condition. Under the Red Hood empha-
sizes Batman’s repressed, or absent, desire for revenge. This scenario
forces Bruce Wayne to become subservient to Batman. Batman is less the
secret identity than Bruce Wayne is a façade. Jason is one of the few peo-
ple who clearly have a personal relationship with Batman, validating his
challenge at Batman's lack of revenge. For Batman the personal is too
dangerous though. The human condition is not something that can be
adapted to; it must be entirely indulged or entirely repressed. Under the
Red Hood conspicuously lacks a romance plot that often appears in Bat-
man movies, such human interaction would be out of character for Bat-
man. Where Joker’s alienation serves to negate limitation and break peo-
48 The Joke is on You

ple, Batman’s alienation uses limitation to maintain ideal conduct impos-

sible for a more empathetic person such as Jason. Batman restricts his
physical response to emotional stimuli and outside events to maintain his
sense of self and his place in Gotham's order of crime and punishment.
These physical restrictions are only possible because Batman remains cut
off from the feelings of anger and resentment that motivate Jason's violent
return. Batman maintains abstract standards determined by an idea of right
and wrong instead of acting according to feelings a normal person would
have, making his response to events categorical instead of fluid and open
to change.
Categorical standards resist an arbitrary nature and a sense of justice
determined by an emotional response to events. By refusing to express
agency beyond catching and investigating criminals, Batman preserves the
existing legal system rather than totally undermining it the way other vigi-
lante narratives often do. Batman refuses to recreate Gotham in his image;
rather he has created himself in the image of a consistent system. The dif-
ficulty with this assertion is the fact that Batman exists at all. Arbitrary
individuals assuming the role of detective does not make for a consistent
system of justice. Furthermore, Batman’s failures in allowing the original
Red Hood to fall into acid (and become the Joker) and allowing Jason to
die exacerbate the fear that such illegitimate heroes may cause more harm
than good. There must be a standard for success for such a vigilante to
exist. This necessity makes the Red Hood’s challenges to Batman’s meth-
odology more serious. This forces Batman to confront the possibility that
he may never be effective enough to justify his practices.
This tension of the possible necessity of changing his methods or risk-
ing failure comes to a head when Jason gives Batman a gun (making Bat-
man look clumsy for once) and threatening to shoot the Joker if Batman
doesn’t shoot Jason first. “I’m going to blow his deranged brains out, and
if you want to stop it, you’re going to have to shoot me …It’s him or me,
you have to decide.” This sequence tests Batman’s adherence to his mantra
of not killing by implying that he will be directly responsible for at least
one death. Batman must accept that by not killing he is allowing someone
to die. However, there is an obvious third choice for once: Batman can do
nothing. He does not have to accept responsibility for Jason’s murderous
actions. He does not have to save the Joker, especially at the cost of killing
his friend. This seems like it should have been obvious to Jason, especially
after Batman apologized for letting him die. Jason’s test is strange, for all
his abilities and cleverness in arranging this trap; his test is fundamentally
flawed. With nothing left to believe in and only resentment to feel, Jason
has become unhinged and seeks to make Batman just as broken as he has
 Walter Merryman 49

become. However, Batman’s refusal to kill the Joker in the past makes it
clear that he will not kill to prevent further killing. When Jason realizes
Batman is walking away he tries to shoot him, but Batman manages to
make his gun misfire, succeeding in a near impossible situation.
This is arguably a moment of ascension for Batman; where his past
failures are physical failures; this is a moment of superb physical success.
When Jason attempts to shoot Batman, he dodges the bullet and throws a
Batarang directly into the barrel of the gun. When Jason tries to shoot
again, the bullet explodes in the barrel. Where the film began with Batman
failing in a situation he obviously could not win, it ends with his success
when it seemed impossible. Dodging bullets is Superman’s gig. Batman’s
physical ascension comes with a clear change in animation. Almost as if
time slows down, the viewer sees the bullet travel slowly through the air,
leaving ripples behind it. Batman’s movement is similar; his figure be-
comes shadowy, leaving trails of his image behind him as he moves faster
than the bullet coming at him. Batman’s superhuman movement couples
with the fantastic imagery usually associated with animation. When the
Dark Knight rises above the failures bound to his human body in the past,
the animated form he occupies in Under the Red Hood gives a superhuman
show of it. This scene effectively resolves the issues of Batman’s possible
ineffectual nature. He is physically capable of living out his abstract stand-
ard. Just as he would not be responsible for Jason killing the Joker, Bat-
man is not responsible for a man falling on his own or preventing some-
thing that happened when he was elsewhere. Batman is responsible for
establishing a high standard for his body and direct experience of success
and failure. This is necessary to remain consistent with his rigid practices
and beliefs. While his ideological success remains sound based on his con-
sistent restraint, the physicality of the matter settles when Batman finds a
way out of the predicament.
The Joker reads the scene immediately after it happens, “I can’t believe
you got him … I love it. You managed to find a way to win. And every-
body still loses.” The Joker’s insight is startling, both for its clarity and for
the implication that the Joker does not care who wins as long as they keep
playing. This is the inevitable result of Batman’s refusal to put him down.
The Joker can really only be stopped by killing him. However, Batman is
able to temporarily defeat the Joker by not killing him. The playing field
between them will constantly return to its original state in a zero-sum
game. The Joker cannot kill Batman either, since then his experiment
would end. This forces him to look to the person closest to Batman, Robin.
The uncharacteristically brutal murder of Jason Todd is the culmination of
the Joker's attempts to provoke Batman. Although the Joker has proven
50 The Joke is on You

Batman’s beliefs to be insufficient, Batman is not the one who stopped

believing, rather Jason becomes the joke played on Batman, and Batman’s
beliefs are the joke played on Jason. The Joker seeks to protect the narra-
tive and the rivalry between him and Batman. Furthermore, he seems to
understand the situation better than Jason ever did, and his insights have a
history of aiding him in his manipulation of Batman and events in Go-
tham.
The Joker’s insight certainly shines through when Jason is talking to
Batman in the end. He laughs at the scene, it really is tailor made for him.
Joker laughs because Robin has proved Batman’s ideology is a joke. There
is no ideology at the end of a crowbar. It is all a joke. In the narrative of
Batman, Jason, and the Joker there is only a cycle of belief, loss, and pain.
This chaotic relationship is all the Joker seeks, as it forces Batman to
watch someone who believed in his ideals in fall to pieces. Therefore, the
Joker looks to Batman, laughing, and asks, “Who’s got a camera? Get one
of me and the kid first, then you and me, then the three of us, and then one
with the crowbar.” Batman may be able to survive the effects of the Jok-
er’s crowbar, but is forced to admit that his protégé cannot. Batman’s own
survival relies on his alienation. Batman can only continue as long as he
does not feel anything. When the Joker tries to goad Batman into homi-
cide, he is also pushing to discover what it takes to make Batman human.
The trauma of his childhood protects Batman more than anything else
could. Jason does not have such benefits. The Joker wants the crowbar in
the picture because that is what the rivalry centers around. All perceptions
of security and faith disappear under the feeling of death. As long as Bat-
man stands, the Joker will be there to break down his ideology.

Notes
1
Batman: Under the Red Hood, directed by Brandon Vietti (2010, Burbank, CA;
Warner Home Video, 2010), DVD. - All dialogue quoted from the film.
2
Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological
Reproduction, Third Version” in The Cultural Studies Reader, 3rd Edition, ed.
Simon During (New York: Routledge, 2007), 74.
3
Maggie Nelson, The Art of Cruelty (New York: W.W. Norton and Company,
2011), 7.
 FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY:
BRITISH NATIONALISM AS TRANSMITTED
THROUGH THE APOCALYPTIC NARRATIVES
WITHIN DOCTOR WHO

TONY NAGEL
INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR

Filmmakers and the media alike know the narratives that drive an audi-
ence to view a movie or frame a major news story. The two groups have
been using these narratives to constantly create or remake films that will
pay off at the box office or add weight to news pieces/coverage. Among
these narratives is the apocalyptic setting where the end of the world or
civilization is imminent. In this chapter, I will examine the apocalyptic
narrative implicit in the television series Doctor Who, and will explore
how the narrative underscores importance and prominence of British na-
tionalism and exceptionalism. Through this analysis, I will show how the
actions of the Doctor, the titular character in Doctor Who, directly relate to
an ideological view of superiority for British identity, which then reinforc-
es British nationalism.
Within the formula for an apocalyptic narrative, we find numerous
conventions, including the end of the civilization and perhaps the world;
an unstoppable force; an enemy not given representation equal to those
trying to survive the apocalypse; or an unforeseen problem/event brought
to the apocalyptic scale. As Torin Monahan states:

Prophecies of the apocalypse circulate and multiply with incredible fre-

quency, velocity, and profitability. In some respects, concerns over the im-
pending destruction of the world are ancient obsessions and well-worn
mythological motifs, which wax and wane according to technological
changes, historical contingencies or significant turning points on arbitrary
calendars.1
52 For Queen and Country

Monahan provides an excellent view of how and why the apocalyptic

narrative continues to thrive without us having met with an actual apoca-
lypse. As changes occur in society, whether technological, historical, or
otherwise, the narrative must also change to adapt to the current societal
expectations and fears. The constant changing societal fear leads to an
explanation as to why the rehashing of popular apocalyptic narratives
thrives. Some, such as Wheeler W. Dixon, believe that apocalyptic narra-
tives thrive because they attract an audience looking for death rather than
life.2 Both the need for an updated narrative and the desire to watch death
(represented by already existing narratives) rather than life (represented by
new, created narratives) come together to create a time-tested formula. In
his book, Visions of the Apocalypse: Spectacles of Destruction in Ameri-
can Cinema Dixon argues that:

I feel that we are experiencing a global cultural meltdown, in which all the
values of the past have been replaced by rapacious greed, the hunger for
sensation, and the desire for useless novelty without risk. Indeed, in all our
contemporary cultural manifestations as a worldwide community, we seem
“eager for the end.”3

The audience's desire for an ending continues throughout Dixon's

book. Dixon points out that, as a culture, we celebrate the dead and look
back on vintage films and actors/actresses for remakes. Even long dead
celebrities appear in new advertising and events. Examples of this in popu-
lar culture range from deceased product spokesperson Billy Mays being
used to sell numerous products on television to rapper Tupac Shakur per-
forming “live” at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Annual Festival
nearly sixteen years after his death.
However, if these apocalyptic films from the history of cinema have
such appealing narratives, then why remake them for a new audience? The
answer comes in a very important part of the apocalyptic narrative. The
narrative is not only a story that audiences will flock to see, but it is also a
vehicle to represent larger cultural ideals. The basic narrative that drives
the film 2012 often repeats throughout the history of film. Other relatively
recent films that follow a similar narrative structure include Deep Impact,
Armageddon, The Day After Tomorrow, Knowing, and The Happening.
All of these films showcase a world in which nature contains the rise of
the apocalypse and each of these movies are a spiritual remake of some
predecessor. The narratives these films contain are different, but they all
share a common central theme of humanity triumphing over nature. How-
ever, the narrative cannot just exist in one film or form. Instead, the narra-
tive adapts to changes in societal fears. Deep Impact and Armageddon
 Tony Nagel 53

both came during the approach to the year 2000 and played on the societal
fear of the end of the world. The Happening and The Day After Tomorrow
debuted as the effects of global warming were coming into the spotlight;
they exploited the societal fear of nature striking back at humanity.
Although each of the above examples is from the film industry, the
same can be said about productions on the small screen. In 2005, the BBC
re-launched the popular science fiction series Doctor Who. This series
follows the travels of the Doctor and his companions as they travel
throughout time and space, solving problems and preventing catastrophes
along the way. One episode may feature the Doctor and his companion(s)
trying to escape from an exploding star while another may have them bat-
tling against a group of aliens bent on the destruction of Earth and humani-
ty. Regardless of the content of each individual episode, the series also
features a story arc that carries across a multiple episodes and seasons. In
the six-plus seasons of the rebooted series (as of this writing), the story arc
is consistently driven by an apocalyptic narrative that ultimately forces the
Doctor to save all of humanity and sometimes all of existence.
Amid the apocalyptic narratives of Doctor Who, the series regularly
highlights British nationalism. The series’ production home is in the Unit-
ed Kingdom and many stories take place in the country, with a general
focus on London. Not only does the setting make the United Kingdom the
heart of the entire series, but it also indicates that there is no greater place
for alien life to attack than the U.K., thus positioning that nation, at least
contextually, as the greatest country on the planet. The series’ main char-
acter, the Doctor, embodies this strong sense of nationalism. The Doctor
refuses to use violence as a weapon and protests the use of guns by other
characters in the series, particularly the most prominent American charac-
ter, Captain Jack Harkness. The Doctor is the embodiment of what it
means to be British, while other characters around him are by and large
not held to the same restrictions—or standards. Doctor Who’s nationalism
is likely at least partially related to the fact that the BBC is a government
broadcasting entity that does make decisions on what content is produced
and distributed, or that the series caters to a viewership that is, in its first
run, made up entirely of British citizens. Yet these arguments do not take
in account that the BBC’s programming also airs around the world, and
programs like Doctor Who have a large following outside of the United
Kingdom. A series like Doctor Who then becomes the perfect vehicle to
represent a grand sense of British nationalism not only to the primary au-
dience living within the country’s borders, but those living outside them as
well.
54 For Queen and Country

Doctor Who’s Apocalyptic Season Finales

The climax of Doctor Who’s usage of apocalyptic narratives and repre-
sentations of British nationalism are particularly visible in the series’ sea-
son finales. Each of these episodes provides an end to the season’s story
arc and presents the terror and trauma of an apocalypse in its climax. The
season one series finale finds the Doctor, Captain Jack, and companion
Rose all transported into a space satellite in different, deadly reality shows.
The Doctor is on Big Brother, Rose is on The Weakest Link, and Captain
Jack Harkness finds himself on What Not to Wear. Each of these series is a
British-born reality show that has traveled outside of those borders and
found international airing success, including versions for American televi-
sion. This episode takes place in the future during what the Doctor calls
the “fourth great bountiful human empire,” and the satellite controls all
television broadcasts. This link associates British television as being the
superior and the only broadcasting needed for the entire world. Through-
out the episode, Captain Jack carries a firearm of some sort; he uses a con-
cealed firearm to free himself from What Not to Wear. The Doctor briefly
holds a firearm after his escape from detainment, but almost immediately
throws the firearm into the hands of a television producer when asked,
“Please don’t shoot!” The Doctor’s action of throwing his firearm into the
hands of another, rather than using it to forcefully get information, is a
prime example of how he reinforces his protestations about the use of
guns, and connects British nationalism to non-violence.
Eventually, it is revealed that the Daleks, one of the Doctor’s primary
nemeses, are controlling the satellite in order to grow their numbers and
destroy Earth. Before the Daleks reach the satellite, the Doctor tricks Rose
into going into the TARDIS and sends her back home to keep her safe—as
he said he would—from what is clearly a life-threatening situation. As an
honorable and brave representation of the British, the Doctor fights to the
death, but he will not be made a liar or risk the lives of his companions.
The unstoppable Dalek army races towards the Doctor and when finally
pushed to destroy all of the Dalek race and humanity in the process, the
Doctor admits he would rather be a coward than a killer and accepts his
fate. It is only then when Rose reappears in the TARDIS, having gained
temporary abilities, and helps save the Doctor. It is important to note that
the American, Captain Jack, is killed in the battle with the Daleks but is
resurrected by Rose, a British woman, after she destroys the Daleks. This
event shows that an American firepower and guns-a-blazing attitude is not
necessarily the best way to handle conflict; not only are the British the
ones that save the world, they also save an American from himself.
 Tony Nagel 55

The finale of season two begins with the apocalyptic narrative, as de-
scribed by Rose. As she takes a bus ride, Rose recounts her trips with the
Doctor before announcing, “… this is the story of how I died.” The epi-
sode features the arrival of ghosts all throughout London, once again the
center of all alien and odd happenings on Earth. The ghosts come to Lon-
don thanks to an organization called Torchwood that attempts to open a
world that does not register on any of their special machines. The Doctor
follows the signal from the ghost machine to Torchwood and encounters a
small army. Before leaving the TARDIS to confront the gun-toting group,
Rose protests “they have guns,” to which the Doctor replies “and I don’t,
which makes me the better man.” This is a continuation of the nonviolent
ideal discussed previously, which the Doctor embodies, and represents
something quintessential Brit.
The Doctor gets a tour of Torchwood and attempts to stop the next
ghost shift, but three employees decide otherwise and give the machine
maximum power. This time though, instead of ghosts we find out that
Cybermen, another group of long-standing Doctor Who villains, crossed
through a parallel world to attack Earth and remake it in their own image.
However, the narrative takes an even further turn towards apocalyptic dis-
aster when the machine opens to reveal a group of Daleks also bent on the
destruction of the Earth and its inhabitants. The Daleks and the Cybermen
are both on a mission to be the sole inhabitants of Earth and either destroy
or assimilate the human inhabitants, starting, of course, with London.
The Doctor immediately confronts the Daleks and once again is inter-
rogated about his choice of weapon, the sonic screwdriver. The Daleks
wonder how the Doctor will escape their presence with such a pitiful
weapon, to which he replies that he prefers the screwdriver because “it
doesn’t kill, it doesn’t wound, and it doesn’t maim.” Eventually, the Doc-
tor is yet again forced to make a choice: Save himself or save humanity.
He of course chooses the latter, but in the process, loses Rose, first through
her death and ultimately her resurrection and subsequent teleportation to a
parallel world. The Doctor saves humanity, yet loses his companion and
romantic interest in the process. Still, his success and ability to move on
from tragedy only further reinforces a certain kind of British exceptional-
ism.
The third season finale sees another Time Lord, the Master, attempt to
bring about the apocalypse. In order to achieve his goal of destroying hu-
manity, the Master targets and takes control of what he views as the most
powerful role on Earth—Prime Minister of Great Britain. The Master’s
choice of occupation again places Britain and its people as the most pow-
erful within the series’ world. The Master’s plan is to allow an alien spe-
56 For Queen and Country

cies enslave the inhabitants of Earth by disguising their arrival as a public

meeting that is to result in the sharing of technology. The President of the
United States makes sure to meet with the Master in order to explain how
he, the President, will take control of the meeting and not the Prime Minis-
ter/Master. The meeting scene reinforces the arrogance and presumed
power-hungry nature of the United States as typified throughout the series.
Of course this does not sit well with the Master, and when the President
attempts to lead the broadcast meeting with the aliens, the beings (con-
trolled by the Master) kill the President.
After enslaving the entire planet and crippling humanity, the Master
plans a war with the entire universe. At the last moment, with the planet
and the whole universe or the brink of cataclysm, it is revealed that Martha
Jones, the Doctor’s companion, spread the word—or the gospel—of the
Doctor, resulting in all of humanity thinking of him at once, allowing the
Doctor to regenerate and prevent the Master from moving forward with his
plan. After reversing time and subduing the Master, the Doctor refuses to
allow his enemy to be dealt with in any manner other than his personal
observation. However, when his girlfriend shoots him, the Master refuses
to regenerate in order to avoid a lifetime of “imprisonment” with the Doc-
tor. In this instance Martha, another British citizen, helps bring the Doc-
tor—and the entire world—back from the precipice of disaster and defeats
the man who would dare embody Great Britain’s highest position. Mean-
while the Doctor further reinforces his stances on non-violent conflict res-
olution.
In the series’ fifth season finale, the Doctor travels to England in 102
A.D. in order to find something known as the Pandorica, buried beneath
Stonehenge. The Pandorica houses the most deadly warrior in the galaxy.
Once the group reaches the Pandorica, it begins to open and Stonehenge
broadcasts the event to the entire galaxy, summoning all of the Doctor’s
enemies. Despite some confusion over the Pandorica’s mystique, the Doc-
tor, the most feared being in existence, stands firm as numerous ships start
to converge on his location. In this scene, the Doctor, the quintessential
Brit, is so powerful that no one is capable of standing up to him. Eventual-
ly, however, he discovers that the Pandorica is actually a prison specifical-
ly built to house him by a number of his enemies who believe he could
destroy the universe. With the Doctor trapped inside the Pandorica, a
TARDIS-related accident causes the universe to begin collapsing. The
Doctor devises a plan to restore reality, even though it results in him never
existing. The plan works and the Doctor is gone, though of course only
temporarily. Amy, his new companion, helps bring him back to life
through their deep personal connection. Here, yet again, the Doctor saves
 Tony Nagel 57

all of existence without resorting to physical violence; instead, he uses his

supreme intellect.
Amid the cataclysmic events of these respective season finales, there
are repeated themes and story beats that bolster the ideals the Doctor rep-
resents. Among them are his avoidance of violence and weapons, his supe-
rior intelligence, his accountability, and his willingness to sacrifice himself
to protect those for whom he cares. All of these traits come together to
define the Doctor and rationalize the motivation behind his actions. The
Doctor is not aggressive and weapon-crazy like the American Captain Jack
Harkness, he is not arrogant and greedy like the President of the United
States, and he certainly is not the genocidal Daleks or Cybermen. The
Doctor resents violence, uses intelligence to solve nearly every problem he
encounters, and values the lives of all living things. The locations and the
events within Doctor Who bolster the link between Great Britain and the
Doctor (and many of his companions), further cementing his (and their)
place as a representative for important national ideals. The TARDIS (a
vintage British police box) also alludes to the character’s allegiances and
connections to Britain, despite his alien origins. This relationship estab-
lishes the importance of British success and triumph, even amid dire,
world- and universe-ending circumstances. If the Doctor, an alien being of
superior intelligence and ability, comes to Earth only to mimic British life
and ideals, then the greatest country and people on Earth could only be the
British, correct? Within the borders of Great Britain (and to a lesser extent,
all of the United Kingdom), these scenes and ideals reinforce nationalism.
Outside the country, they serve to position Great Britain and the United
Kingdom as influential, noble, and powerful.

Notes
1
Torin Monahan, “Marketing the Beast: Left Behind and the Apocalypse
Industry.” Media, Culture & Society 30, no. 6 (2008): 813.
2
Wheeler W. Dixon, “The Tyranny of Images,” in Visions of the Apocalypse:
Spectacles of Destruction in American Cinema, (London: Wallflower, 2003), 2.
3
Ibid.
 CONVENTIONS OF FANTASY:
SEX AND RELATIONSHIPS IN DRAGON AGE:
ORIGINS

KATE REYNOLDS
BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY

Bioware, a Canadian game development company, has experimented

with offering various identity categories in its role-playing games, or
RPGs, for several years. In 2003 the game Star Wars: Knights of the Old
Republic offered character customization in the form of gender, skin color,
and character appearance, the chance to engage in a heterosexual flirtation
and separate endings based on whether a player decided to play as a “light-
side” Jedi or a “dark-side” Jedi. Building on this format, 2007’s Mass Ef-
fect offered the same level of character customization and allowed players
to consummate a relationship with the player’s choice of available ro-
mance options; this had some impact on certain story lines of the game,
but no overall effect on the game’s conclusion. Finally, 2009’s Dragon
Age: Origins, a medieval fantasy game, offered increased character cus-
tomization (you can tinker with any physical feature of the character) and
same-sex relationship options in addition to the heterosexual options.
While the romantic relationships are an option rather than a requirement,
should a player pursue relations, this can have a major impact on the final
battle and the epilogue of the game. Same-sex relationships are possible,
but the heterosexual relationships are narratively privileged. However,
although Dragon Age: Origins narrative privileges heterosexual relation-
ships, this privileging is ultimately in conjunction to the game’s devotion
to fantasy genre conventions.
As an RPG, Dragon Age: Origins has a clear and strong narrative that
guides the many hours of game play. The player controls a character in
this narrative known as the Warden. The player is presented with options
for how to deal with major game events and these decisions usually influ-
ence the overarching narrative in important ways. Though the player does
retain narrative control in some aspects, this control is limited to certain
 Kate Reynolds 59

pre-ordained events in the game, so the narrative follows a specific path;

the player is only allowed to make choices at forks in the narrative, rather
than determining the entire narrative itself. This type of narrative resem-
bles “choose your own adventure” books that presented the reader with
varying options for how to conduct their own adventure, though most of
the option often resulted in death.
Dragon Age: Origins offers new types of storylines that a player can
choose from, differing from previous RPGs with similar plot progressions.
Many of these revolve around relationships in which the Warden can par-
ticipate. While forgoing a relationship is an option, one of the novelties of
the game is the ability to choose relationships. This was one aspect of the
game praised before its release, especially the ability to choose the “gay
option.” Like “choose your own adventure” books, it is possible to read
the endings first and base decisions on which ending a player wants to
receive. Some relationships require delicate handling if the player is pursu-
ing certain goals. Reading Dragon Age: Origins as a storybook allows a
thorough textual analysis where the fantasy story privileges romantic rela-
tionships.
While the Lord of the Rings novels serve as a good example of the fan-
tasy genre, many scholars have taken up the task of defining what fantasy
is rather than what it is not has been. Brian Laetz and Joshua Johnston
devised several classification rules that a work must follow to exist within
the fantasy genre. First, “fantastic narratives are essentially fiction,” a
straightforward requirement that Dragon Age: Origins easily fulfills.1 Set
in the fictional medieval nation of Ferelden, populated by humans, elves,
dwarves, and dragons, the game firmly resides in the realm of fiction. The
next requirement, that, “[t]he sort of thing that can make a work fantastic,
like wizards and dragons must be prominent in the work—they cannot be
minor details,” is just as readily fulfilled.2 As the name Dragon Age: Ori-
gins suggests, dragons are an important element in the game and the War-
den’s party of followers includes mages, dwarves, and elves for the major-
ity of play-through.
The next three requirements of a serious fantasy can be summed up
quickly. The fantastic elements must not be allegorical, they must not exist
only to be mocked and lampooned, and the content must not be considered
merely absurd rather than fantastic.3 In other words, the fantastic elements
must be taken seriously for explicitly what they are rather than as allego-
ries or jokes. In Dragon Age: Origins, dragons are again, no laughing mat-
ter. Although there is humorous banter between characters at times, the
game treats fantastical content very seriously. It is difficult to mock a
dragon as it roasts the Warden’s party in less than thirty seconds. Though
60 Conventions of Fantasy

other fantastic creatures are less ferocious, it is still necessary to take them
seriously for the Warden to survive throughout the game.
The last requirement that Laetz and Johnston outline deals directly
with the portrayal of supernatural content. They argue that myths must
inspire the content; that no large group of people can still believe in this
content when it is published; and finally that “either this content must have
been believed by the people whose myth it derives from or the audience
believes that these people believed in it.”4 These tenets do apply to older
fantasy. Tolkien's work largely relates to Western European legends and
folklore from the Middle Ages, which are clearly myths (such as the tales
of King Arthur) which no one currently believes in, though people do be-
lieve that others once believed in them. However, here I would argue the
fantasy genre is evolving and certain works are no longer based on actual
mythological traditions.
The fantasy genre is now a transmedia phenomenon spanning books,
television programs, movies, and video games. As a genre that once might
have been more firmly entrenched in mythology and garnered attention in
the decades following Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings series, fantasy texts
now borrow from one another. This represents an evolution of a genre
spurred on by the media’s portrayal of medieval cultures. Trigg argues
that, “[i]ncreasingly, we come to recognize a scene as medieval because it
resembles other cinematic medieval scenes, whether serious or parodic.”5
For example, audiences might expect that a woman living in the woods or
countryside will be taken as a witch. Continuing this argument, the simi-
larity between the fantasy and the medieval world “reminds us of the ease
with which many authors cross from one to the other. The borders here are
very porous and the question of historical accuracy often drops out of the
picture completely.”6 Fantasy worlds increasingly connect to other fantasy
worlds, without direct ties back to historical mythological origins.
Following this logic, Dragon Age: Origins still qualifies as a fantasy.
Though its ties to historical mythology are mostly non-existent, its ties to
other fantasy worlds are strong. The cities and landscapes presented in
Dragon Age: Origins look similar to those in other fantasy productions
released in the last ten years. The fantastic elements along with a recog-
nizable ‘medieval’ environment and a recognizable “restore the land” nar-
rative combine to create a world and story that is easily classifiable as a
fantasy to almost any player.
The narrative of Dragon Age: Origins employs many fantasy conven-
tions, which include an exceptional hero, a loose confederation of friends,
a quest to restore the king, and an overall goal of restoring the land against
the threat of an invading villain. The game establishes the Warden as the
 Kate Reynolds 61

exceptional hero through an origin story that is determined by the race and
vocation of the Warden. The three races offered during this customization
process are elf, dwarf, or human, along with class (vocation) options like
rogue, warrior, or mage. Based on these decisions, six separate origin sto-
ries exist: city elf, Dawlish elf, dwarf commoner, dwarf noble, circle
mage, and human noble. The details of the origin stories are superfluous as
they all end in the same way; the Warden is invited to join the Grey War-
dens, a mystical group of warriors created to fight Darkspawn, a race of
evil, tainted beings.
After establishing the Warden’s origin story, the narrative resumes a
single strand for all players. This next phase of the game’s introduction
involves the Warden’s initiation into the Grey Wardens. The Warden and
two other candidates travel into a mystical forest, fighting Darkspawn and
returning with three vials of Darkspawn blood and some old Grey Warden
treaties. If braving the wild was not trial enough, the candidates must then
consume the Darkspawn blood to become a true Grey Warden. Naturally,
the Warden is the only one to survive this aspect of the initiation process,
setting the Warden apart from the average warrior
The final phase of this introduction involves a giant battle and sets the
goals for the rest of the game. During the Battle of Ostagar, a battle fought
between men led by King Cailan against the Darkspawn, the Warden must
light a fire to signal for reinforcements. Unfortunately, once the signal is
lit the Teryn Loghain, the King’s second-in-command leads the reinforce-
ments to retreat, leaving the entire contingent of Grey Wardens, the King’s
army and the King to die. The Warden awakens in a hut in the forest after
the battle, one of the only surviving members of the Grey Wardens. The
Warden faces an old treatise between the three races of Ferelden, Alistair,
another Grey Warden, and a witch named Morrigan. Moving forward, the
Warden is tasked with several goals tied to the fate of Ferelden. First, the
Warden must visit the dwarves and elves to rally support to the Grey War-
den’s fight against the Darkspawn. Then the Warden must rally the sup-
port of the humans, which involves exposing Loghain as a traitor for his
crime against the kingdom, restore a new King to the throne, and finally
rid Ferelden of the current wave of Darkspawn.
This narrative may seem like a typical fantasy story, but alternate gen-
der and sexuality options problematize this construction. Fantasy is often
a patriarchal world of strict gender roles and feudal lords; a world in which
female heroes are an exception rather than the rule, and gay heroes are
virtually unheard of. The addition of a female or gay male character might
initially seem to disrupt and transform the traditional fantasy world. How-
ever, in the case of the female hero, “[t]he emphasis remains on the indi-
62 Conventions of Fantasy

vidual woman rising above a system that keeps her down—triumphing

over it, reversing expectations—rather than in cultural revolution or inno-
vation and oppressive structures continue to provide the basis for represen-
tation.”7 Throughout Dragon Age: Origins this idea is on-display when a
player decides to use a female character. When beginning the Grey War-
den initiation quest, the other initiates, all male, comment on the unusual
appearance of a female Grey Warden, and many non-playable characters
(NPCs) comment on this throughout the game. Tolmie further explains
that “[i]n many contemporary fantasy novels, much as in many medieval
sagas and romances, literary heroines remain at their best when rising
above external conditions that are against them in gender-based ways.”8
Playing as a female character further establishes the character as excep-
tional, rather than having a large influence on the storyline or the world the
story in situated in.
Sexuality, on the other hand, is not commented on in-game, but creates
a significant impact on the storyline of Dragon Age: Origins. There are
four romance options in the game depending on whether the character is
male or female. If the player is male, the options are Morrigan (a human
witch), Leilana (a human female bard), Zevran (a male elfin assassin), or
Queen Anora (a female human). If the player is female, the options are
Alistair (a human male knight), Leilana, or Zevran. Engaging in a relation-
ship with a character involves gaining a high approval rating, which can be
accomplished by acting in a way that a character approves of through dia-
logue options, or giving a characters gifts that they appreciate. Certain
characters are easier to bed than others are, and some have more impact on
the story than others. These relationships are further complicated by the
initial race of the Warden. The human race is the race of privilege in
Dragon Age: Origins, which is most evident through looking at the races
of potential partners and the heterosexual relationships presented to the
male/female human noble.
Though there are three races represented in the game, there are only
two races that a Warden can have romantic relationships with various hu-
mans and a lone elf. Though the Warden may travel with a dwarf, there is
no possibility of romancing one. This as privileges the human race in spe-
cific ways. In her book, The Lesbian Fantastic, Phyllis Betz discusses that
in fantasy, “[s]exual relationships as presented in these works tend to pair
human and closely human characters; elves and humans for instance. More
exotic couplings, like those found in ancient myths, seem to be ignored.”9
In this sense, though humanoid, dwarves are human enough to be offered
as a potential sexual partner for the Warden. This does ignore the fact that
the Warden can be played as a dwarf, but it does expose a bias suggesting
 Kate Reynolds 63

that perhaps the game developers did not expect many people to play as
dwarves, especially when more options are available for people play a
human Warden.
Playing as a human male offers the largest amount of relationships
available in Dragon Age: Origins, the human male is able to initiate four
relationships rather than three for female characters. This fourth relation-
ship option of Queen Anora is also limited only to the human male and is
not available for any other races. As mentioned earlier, King Cailan, the
King of Ferelden, is killed in the initial sequence of the game, leaving
Anora a widow and creating an opportunity for men of noble blood. A
human male can marry Anora and become the new King of Ferelden.
Though this is one relationship where there is no opportunity to engage in
sex and the pairing is portrayed as a marriage of convenience, it is still an
opportunity that dwarf or elf Wardens are not able to take advantage of.
Similarly, a human female with a high enough approval rating can marry
Alistair, half-brother of King Cailan, to become the Queen of Ferelden
while a female elf or dwarf must either lose Alistair or become his mis-
tress if he becomes king. Within the heterosexual relationships offered, to
achieve marriage, the human race is privileged above the dwarves and
elves.
There is not a same-sex option for marriage within Dragon Age: Ori-
gins and the options are limited, but the relationships that do exist are open
to all races, though there is a similar bias towards humans concerning the
number of potential sexual partners a Warden may take. During the human
noble origin story, the Warden can have sex with either Iona (an elven,
female servant) or Dairren (a human, male noble) regardless of the War-
den’s gender in this origin quest. This provides an early opportunity to
establish the Warden’s sexuality, though it has no impact on the major
storyline or other romance.
For female characters, Leilana is the same-sex option and has previous-
ly has same sex relationships, while Zevran is the option for male charac-
ters. Though they are different in many ways, both characters are in the
rogue class, rather than mages or warriors. Mages and warriors are classes
open to both men and women, but these classes are gendered as feminine
and masculine. Warriors are the physically strong characters of the game,
while the mages are physically weak but mentally strong. The three char-
acters classed as warriors are all depicted as burly men, while the two
characters classed as mages are women, relegating masculinity and femi-
ninity into various realms of physical strength. The rogue class is the only
class that has both male and female characters. It is a class where strength
couples with agility and cunning, a liminal class straddling the physical
64 Conventions of Fantasy

strength of the warriors and the mental magic of the mages. The classifica-
tion of Leilana and Zevran as rogues indicates their own liminality in
terms of gender and sexuality. Neither is portrayed as overtly masculine or
overly feminine, which can be considered a positive portrayal of queer
sexuality, when compared to exaggerated stereotypes of the butch lesbian
or the flamboyant gay.
While these same-sex options are largely stereotype free, it is interest-
ing that Zevran is an elf instead of a human. Remembering the bias of hu-
man heterosexual relationships, Zevran’s race seems to say that this option
is not as meaningful or equal as a gay relationship with a human might be.
Zevran has also been criticized as the gay option for male Wardens. Zev-
ran often boasts of his sexual conquests in early instances of the game and
as one early reviewer writes, “[u]nfortunately, Zevran hits a number of
stereotypes as well. For one thing, Zevran isn’t interested in anything more
than casual sex while heterosexual romantic interests are direct about
wanting a monogamous, long-term relationship.” 10 Zevran is by far the
easiest character to sleep with, requiring only a sixty percent approval rat-
ing, which is lower than the approval-rating requirement for sleeping with
any other character. Zevran may be the easiest character to sleep with, but
one of the most difficult to successfully romance. With persistence, how-
ever, he comes around and does commit to a loving, monogamous rela-
tionship with the Warden, just like the rest of the romance options do.
The inclusion of these relationships within the game affects the out-
come of Dragon Age: Origins in various ways, although perhaps none as
dramatic as the female relationship with Alistair. If a player obtains
knowledge about the possible endings of Dragon Age: Origins from vari-
ous guides, then two options present themselves with the relationship with
Alistair. If the Warden is non-human, the relationship becomes complicat-
ed upon meeting Queen Anora, who is looking for a noble mate to support
and strengthen her claim to the throne. Convincing Alistair, who is half-
brother to the deceased king, to marry Queen Anora, fulfills the quest of
restoring a proper king to the throne and forces Teryn Loghain, the traitor,
off the throne. However, if the non-human Warden is engaged in a rela-
tionship with Alistair, the relationship generally ceases upon convincing
Alistair to marry Queen Anora. If the player instead chooses to support
Queen Anora against Loghain, but does not convince Alistair to marry
Anora, then the Warden may continue her relationship with Alistair, but
forcing Loghain to relinquish the throne is more difficult.
Options that are more interesting present themselves to a human fe-
male Warden. Though a human female Warden has both options described
above, the Warden can also convince Alistair to marry the Warden instead
 Kate Reynolds 65

of Queen Anora. This allows the Warden to marry the prince and become
a queen/princess, a stereotypical fairytale ending, until presented with two
more options. If the Warden marries Alistair, he must either die or cheat
on the Warden. This is due to the nature of the Archdemon, the leader of
the Darkspawn. As Morrigan explains to the Warden near the end of the
game, the Archdemon is almost immortal. Once slain, its spirit passes into
the nearest Darkspawn, enabling it to survive throughout the ages. The
only way to kill it definitively is to isolate the Archdemon from the horde
of Darkspawn and have a Grey Warden strike the last blow. When this
happens, the spirit is drawn into the Grey Warden and both the Archde-
mon and the Grey Warden that strikes the last blow are killed.
If the Warden is in a romance with Alistair, then he will automatically
cast the killing blow and die in place of the Warden. However, this semi-
tragic ending can be averted. Morrigan, the witch, presents the Warden
with another option. She knows of a dark ritual to trap the Archdemon’s
spirit in the body of an unborn child instead of the Warden. Of course, for
the ritual to work, Alistair must impregnate Morrigan. The Warden and
Alistair can continue their relationship after the ritual takes place, but there
are no other relationships where some level of betrayal is necessary for the
relationship to continue. The overarching narrative of the game forces the
player to choose between the Warden’s life, Alistair’s life, or a physical
indiscretion in this particular romance.
For the male Warden, the options seem less drastic. If the Warden is in
a relationship with Morrigan, Leilana, or Zevran, that relationship can con-
tinue for as long as the Warden pursues it. The Warden’s decision regard-
ing Morrigan’s proposal has an impact on which characters stay with the
Warden till the end of the game and which characters survive, but the ro-
mance relationship is not as key to the killing of the Archdemon. For ex-
ample, refusing to impregnate Morrigan causes her to leave the party. This
is only detrimental if the Warden is engaged in a romance with Morrigan,
or if the player frequently uses Morrigan in battle. However if the Warden
is already in a romance with Morrigan, then having sex with her one more
time may not seem like that much of a favor. Refusing Morrigan’s offer
also does not mean that the Warden has to die. If a player wants the War-
den to live and continue a relationship with another character, then the
player can sacrifice Alistair, who then dies in the Warden’s place. If the
player does want to keep Morrigan in the party, wants to keep Alistair
alive and the Warden is in a relationship with a different female character,
then the Warden can ask Alistair to have sex with Morrigan instead. No
sacrifice of any kind is necessary to continue a lasting relationship as a
human male.
66 Conventions of Fantasy

The relationships described above impact the narrative in different

ways, which leads to a variety of different endings based on the various
decisions the player must make toward the end of the game. Amidst these
endings, the Warden becoming the King/Queen of Ferelden is the most
traditional ending, and it necessitates a heterosexual relationship. In addi-
tion, the relationship fulfills two quests with minimal effort, restoring a
proper king to the throne and going a long way towards restoring order to
Ferelden Here the latter goal is the most interesting. By cementing a heter-
osexual relationship through marriage, the Warden also performs and rein-
forces the norms of the kingdom, restoring Ferelden to its “natural” order
where heterosexual relationships are expected and encouraged. Since the
royal marriage is the only marriage option in the game, this tacitly equates
heterosexual marriage and power.
The lack of ability to marry a same-sex partner in Dragon Age: Origins
can be considered a slight. It is a given in society that the end goal for het-
erosexual relationships is marriage. Regardless of the fact that some heter-
osexual couples do not marry, the expectation is still often there from fam-
ily, friends, or other societal forces. Weighing the same-sex endings re-
quires defining what the ideal ending for a same-sex relationship might be.
While the recent goal of the LGBT movement has been to win same-sex
marriage rights in the United States, that movement has met with limited
success and is not supported by the full spectrum of LGBT individuals,
some of whom view marriage as a failed heterosexual institution. Howev-
er, while it is somewhat difficult to come to a universal description of what
an ideal same-sex relationship would look like, it is easy to describe what
it is not. Early depictions of gay relationships in media often presented the
tragic gay, a character often killed at the end of a narrative, or sentenced to
live alone after the death(s) of his lover or friends.
In recent decades, there has been a shift away from the narrative of the
tragic gay. In “Compulsory Happiness and Queer Existence,” Heather
Love argues that “[t]he dark plush interior of the closet has recently been
subject to inspection and remodel; tragic love, life in the shadows and har-
rowing loneliness have been tossed out to make room for lighter and airier
versions of gay life.”11 What sets these new depictions apart from previous
images is the quality of life available after coming out of the closet. Love
specifically looks at the life of ex-Governor of New Jersey, James
McGreevey as evidence for this. After a scandal involving a married
McGreevey and a male aide and McGreevey’s own resignation, his auto-
biography celebrates the life he has now made as a gay man with his life
partner. To Love, “[w]ith its focus on ordinary love, longevity and his par-
ent’s marriage, McGreevey’s dream is situated in our own historical mo-
 Kate Reynolds 67

ment—what has recently been called the era of ‘gay liberalism’.”12 This
.

era has ushered in, as Lisa Duggan describes it, a “new homonormativity”
which is defined as a “politics that does not contest dominant heteronor-
mative assumptions and institutions, but upholds and sustains them.” 13
Therefore, while not every individual may support gay marriage, in this
era of “new homonormativity” it is a common goal of the LGBT move-
ment, along with an added emphasis on love and stability.
Looking at the same-sex relationships within Dragon Age: Origins re-
quires a comparison of both the tragic gay and new homonormativity. Nei-
ther of the same-sex options in Dragon Age: Origins have a tragic ending
(unless the player sacrifices the Warden in the final battle). The Warden is
seen as in love and happy with either Leliana or Zevran and the rest of the
characters in the Warden’s party support the relationship. If the Warden is
faithful to Leliana or Zevran until the end of the game, the epilogue re-
flects the importance of the relationships to the Warden. If the Warden
maintains a same-sex relationship with Leliana, the epilogue indicates that
the Warden and Leliana continue adventuring together for some time,
which is similar to the epilogue for a same-sex relationship with Zevran.
This is not a tragic ending for these relationships; instead, it celebrates the
love between the Warden and her/his lover. This is very different from the
tragic gay punished for his/her sexuality. The same-sex relationships af-
firm the Warden’s sexuality and represent an overall positive portrayal.
Through the lens of new homonormativity, these relationships are also
mostly positive. The relationships between the Warden and Zevran and
Leliana center on love, not sex, and are as stable as possible in a land rav-
aged by evil creatures. At one point, once a player’s approval rating is
high enough, Zevran offers an earring to the Warden as his pledge of mo-
nogamy and love. Though Leliana has no physical token of her affection
to gift the Warden, she constantly verbally pledges her love and devotion
promising to stay by the Warden for as long as the Warden will have her.
However, these relationships are not equal to the relationships of the War-
den/Alistair romance or the Warden/Queen Anora romance in several
ways that new homonormativity would demand.
First, there is the public nature of the relationships where the Warden
becomes King/Queen. The King/Queen relationship option allows the
Warden to declare herself/himself as a heterosexual member of society to
the entire kingdom and to declare that love publicly. Traditionally, mar-
riage was just a public announcement to the community of the love and
commitment between two people; playing as a same-sex character does
not afford a similar opportunity for a public announcement of love or sex-
uality. If the Warden is engaged in a same-sex relationship, it is only per-
68 Conventions of Fantasy

ceived as such in the safety of the Warden’s camp. The Warden's sexuality
is not discussed or acknowledged outside of camp and in a public city set-
ting. In this way, the relationship closely resembles a closeted relationship.
The relationship exists, but only in the private realm. Although this is
similar to the way that some of the opposite-sex relationships are por-
trayed, there is still that option of marriage for two of the heterosexual
relationships. Of course, the second critique is that marriage is not an op-
tion for the same-sex couples in the same way that it is available to the
King/Queen heterosexual relationship. If the new homonormativity up-
holds and desires dominant heteronormative assumptions and institutions,
then the impossibility of same-sex marriage in Dragon Age: Origins is felt
as a lack and something to be desired.
In keeping with the goals of the game, the same-sex relationships are
problematized in other ways. The Warden can still restore a proper king to
the throne and restore the land while in a same-sex relationship but, like
the female hero, this creates a slight paradox. While the Warden attempts
to return Ferelden to its natural order, the Warden does not conform to that
order. In restoring order to Ferelden, the Warden is placed outside of the
heteronormative society that she/he helped restore. The epilogues indicates
that if the Warden pursued a relationship with Leliana the pair continues
adventuring together, roaming the land. While the couples remain together
and happy, it is telling that neither the Warden and Leliana nor the Warden
and Zevran can settle down within the confines of society’s rules.
Despite these criticisms, Dragon Age: Origins is one of very few
games that feature positive portrayals of openly queer relationships, one of
few games where these relationships are considered important to the narra-
tive, and one of the only games that openly depicts a same sex couple en-
gaging in sex. When discussing lesbian portrayals in literature, Betz quotes
Marilyn Farwell saying, “[t]he lesbian character in popular lesbian fiction
offers a sense of power to hungry lesbian readers who have encountered
little either inside or outside of school which portrays them with anything
but disdain.”14 Although the lesbian and gay relationships in Dragon Age:
Origins may not carry the same weight as some of the heterosexual rela-
tionships, they can still be valued as a positive portrayal of two women (or
men) falling in love. Also, despite criticisms from conservative groups,
Bioware has continued to offer same-sex relationships in its RPGs such as
Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2.
Offering these options in other games indicates the success of the rela-
tionship model in Dragon Age: Origins and understanding the purpose of
these relationships is a key to understanding their role in bridging the gap
between the player and the game. Many critics are mindful of the strong
 Kate Reynolds 69

relationship between the fantasy reader and the fantasy author. Todorov
first mentions this relationship in his early structural analysis of the fanta-
sy genre. To Todorov, there is a key moment of hesitation where the read-
er digests the fantastic and resolves it, “so that the event is acknowledged
as reality, or so that the event is identified as the fruit of imagination or the
result of an illusion.”15 The reader plays a key role in accepting the fantasy
or rejecting it outright, shaping the categorization and comprehension of
the fantastic text.
Other critics have further theorized the relationship between the fanta-
sy reader and the fantasy author. Farah Mendlesohn argues that the fantasy
genre is full of devices to lure the reader out of reality and into the world
the fantasy is set in. The author writes for an ideal reader, who
Mendlesohn describes as actively engaged in “construct[ing] a fictional-
ized self who can accept the construction of the rhetoric of a particular
fantastic text.”16 This ideal reader is the one who is able to comprehend
fully the experiences presented in fantasy novel. In order to appeal to this
type of reader, a writer must use specific techniques to “depict the particu-
lar environment in the fullest detail. Such depictions of setting, behavior,
and appearance give credibility to a time and place that at first seems ex-
traordinarily different.”17
Strategies for enticing a reader into a specific fantasy world can vary
from offering a map of the world at the beginning of the text, to providing
an index at the end of a novel, to indulging in extremely detailed descrip-
tions of environment. Dragon Age: Origins employs these and other strat-
egies to draw the player into the game. Whenever a player needs to travel
from city to city, a map of the world provides a red line depicting the
Warden's path. A player also can receive “codex entries” by looking at
different objects and books throughout the game. Entries can describe the
mundane contents of a schoolchild’s notes or a summary of a book on a
bookshelf. These entries serve to establish a larger picture of the kingdom
of Ferelden and the history of the kingdom up until the present invasion of
Darkspawn.
Most of the techniques described are something that books can provide
to some extent, but video games are capable of engaging players in differ-
ent ways than novels. While Dragon Age: Origins does have a narrative
structure similar to that of a fantasy novel, the player interaction in the
world of Ferelden is something that a novel cannot achieve. Customizable
characters are a device to ensnare further the player into the fantasy world.
A player also invests time and emotional interest in their customized crea-
tion, an interest sustained by the game’s offering of important “customiza-
ble” decisions throughout gameplay.18
70 Conventions of Fantasy

As an extension of this, offering the chance of romantic relationships

anchors the player in the fantasy world by providing “real” or relatable
elements in a fantastic world. Besides the Dragon Age series, the Fable
series also offers a variety of relationships. Unlike Dragon Age: Origins,
the relationships in Fable do not directly influence the narrative of the
game. However, a player is able to marry and have sex with almost any
male or female NPC in the game, which occasionally results in realistic
results such as the main character contracting a sexually transmitted dis-
ease. With a wider variety of relationships available, player agency in-
creases, which in turn can increase interest and absorption into a given
fantasy world. The variety of relationships offered appeals to a variety of
different audiences, expanding the player base and level of participation
for a game as well.
In Dragon Age: Origins, player agency is celebrated in the epilogue.
At key moments throughout the main quest, a player is asked to take sides
in certain events. These decisions are re-played to the player, with expla-
nation of how the player’s decision affected Ferelden. If the Warden is in a
relationship, scenes of that pairing are among the decisions shown in the
epilogue montage. This emphasizes the value of relationships within the
game; however, it also mentions that none of the relationships last. The
most the Warden can hope for is that the relationships last “for a time.”
The epilogue for each romantic ending follows the same format. First, the
epilogue mentions the quality and happiness of a relationship. This is fol-
lowed by the phrase “for a time” and reference to the Warden’s disappear-
ance (perhaps so he/she could continue the fight against Darkspawn).
While clearly not the ideal “happily ever after,” this portion of the epi-
logue does respect the overarching narrative of Dragon Age: Origins and
carefully allows an opening for a sequel, Dragon Age: Awakening (re-
leased in 2010). In most fantasy stories, the hero's return to everyday life
brings various successes and failures. Returning once again to Lord of the
Rings, Frodo Baggins is incapable of feeling comfortable in his home once
his quest is over. Too much has happened for normal life to be the same.
For the Warden, still tainted with Darkspawn blood, this is doubly the
case. The Darkspawn blood shortens a Grey Warden’s lifespan; a Warden
typically only has thirty years to live after they join the Grey Wardens.
Once Wardens reach that thirty-year mark, they begin to travel, trying to
die in battle with Darkspawn before the tainted blood kills them.
Although we can assume that this is the fate that awaits the Warden
(and we can hope that this is the only reason that the Warden might leave a
lover), the release of Dragon Age: Awakening negates this ending and the
relationships of Dragon Age: Origins. Dragon Age: Awakening follows
 Kate Reynolds 71

closely after the end of Dragon Age: Origins with a Darkspawn attack in
the previously unexplored nation of Orlais. It is possible to import a save
file from Dragon Age: Origins, which means that a player can keep their
already customized Warden from one game to the next. However, alt-
hough the Warden can be carried from game to game, extraneous love
interests are left behind in Dragon Age: Awakening. If the Warden from
Dragon Age: Origins is transferred, the Warden travels with a completely
new set of companions in the sequel with no references to the previous
companions in the original game, essentially erasing the Warden’s deci-
sions and relationships from the previous game but progressing the narra-
tive and the Warden’s overall understanding of Darkspawn.
This sequel demonstrates the lack of importance of player agency to
the continuing storyline of the Dragon Age series, choosing instead to pro-
gress the narrative. The sequel grants the Warden an opportunity to learn
more about Darkspawn than ever before, taking the Warden one step clos-
er to the completing the goal of eradicating Darkspawn forever. This fol-
lows the plot of many fantasy novels where destroying evil becomes much
more complicated than originally thought. However, while Dragon Age:
Awakening can be seen as the narrative sequel to Dragon Age: Origins, it
is only so in the overarching narrative of the Warden’s fight against the
Darkspawn, since none of the minor stories or the romance companions
from the first game transfer into the second.
Overall, what the sequel tells us is that the Dragon Age games are
more concerned with progressing the overarching narrative of the games
rather than remaining faithful to the minor storylines and relationships in
Dragon Age: Origins. The availability of new quests and new companions
in Dragon Age: Awakening undermines the emphasis placed on the com-
panion stories and companion relationships from the first game. Although
the possibility of relationships was emphasized before the release of
Dragon Age: Origins, ultimately this is a technique characteristic of the
fantasy genre, meant to engage the player in a fantastic world. While the
relationships are interesting in their portrayal of heterosexual and same-
sex relationships and the way those interact with the narrative, these rela-
tionships are ultimately meaningless in the face of the overarching narra-
tive of the Dragon Age series. Although the inclusion of different romantic
relationships appeals to a wider range of gamers, the devotion to the over-
arching narrative demonstrates the ways that Dragon Age: Origins adheres
to the definition of a work of fantasy, rather than a game devoted to intro-
ducing new types of relationships to video games.
72 Conventions of Fantasy

Notes
1
Brian Laetz, and Joshua J. Johnston, "What is Fantasy?" Philosophy and
Literature 32 (2008): 162-163.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid, 166.
5
Stephanie Trigg, "Medievalism and Convergence Culture: Researching the
Middle Ages for Fiction and Film,” Parergon 25, no. 2 (2008): 101.
6
Ibid, 102.
7
Jane Tolmie, "Medievalism and the Fantasy Heroine," Journal of Gender Studies
15, no. 2 (2006): 148.
8
Ibid.
9
Phyllis M. Betz, The Lesbian Fantastic: A Critical Study of Science Fiction,
Fantasy, Paranormal and Gothic Writings (Jefferson, London: McFarland, 2011),
15.
10
Lyle Masaki, "The Sexuality in ‘Dragon Age Origins’ includes a gay option,"
AfterElton, October 30, 2009, accessed January 20, 2013.
11
Heather Love, "Compulsory Happiness and Queer Existence," New Formations
63 (2008): 53.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Betz, 19.
15
Tzvetan, Todorov. The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre
(Cleveland, London: The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1973), 157.
16
Betz, 106.
17
Ibid.
18
Dragon Age: Origins is not unique in this aspect. Fable I, II and III, another
fantasy RPG, allows for character customization through its morality based
decisions. The appearance of the main character in those games varies depending
on the morality of the character’s actions. At extremes, the character resembles a
traditional devil or glows in addition to having a halo above his head. This draws
players into the fantasy world based on their expanded and continued agency.
 STILL WITHIN BOUNDARY WALLS:
PARENTING AND GENDER CONVENTIONALITY
IN AMERICAN SITCOMS
FULL HOUSE AND THE BRADY BUNCH

MOLLY WEINBERG
BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY

The Brady Bunch and Full House present families that appear uncon-
ventional, from their respective opening theme songs to the narrative con-
tent. However, these families are not as out of the ordinary as they might
seem. When taking a closer look at the presentation of gender roles, par-
enting attitudes, styles, and expectations, these popular sitcoms do not
escape heteronormative and conventional notions of family. They in fact
display highly gendered parenting and gendered worlds within family
structures. These families are only true families through the reinforcement
of what I define as, “boy worlds” and “girl worlds.” What do I mean by
boy worlds, girl worlds, and gendered parenting? I am defining gendered
parenting as parenting that demonstrates strict segregation between sexes.
In other words, parents construct certain spaces and places, behaviors,
topics for discussion, and acts, for girls, while others are reserved for boys.
The Brady Bunch and Full House portray gender as something learned
through role modeling and the presence of receiving advice and lessons, or
being disciplined by parents. The implications of these binaries reinforce
hegemonic definitions of gender, leaving out other representations and
maintain a system of exclusivity for those that do not adhere to these gen-
dered scripts.

Unconventional Families in their Historical Contexts

I position The Brady Bunch and Full House within their respective his-
torical contexts, specifically the 1960s and 1980s. Television often acts as
way of representing culture, so it can be a critical tool in discussing histo-
ry. In this example, the interdisciplinary nature of studying television be-
74 Still within Boundary Walls

comes apparent, merging history with sociology, media studies, and popu-
lar culture. The Brady Bunch aired from 1969-1974, a historical era when
the sexual revolution and the women’s, civil rights, and anti-war move-
ments challenged social and political norms. Resistance to the values of
parents was a common display on television, as programs such as All in
the Family depicted the generational gap of ideologies between hippies
and their parents.
With social change surrounding the family in the 1960s, society wor-
ried about how gendered parenting. Thus, The Brady Bunch acts as a form
of nostalgia for a more politically and socially stable time. This nostalgia
serves as a way of maintaining hegemony, demonstrating that traditional
values can still have power over the counterculture movement. The Brady
Bunch resembles popular 1950s sitcoms such as Leave it to Beaver and
Father Knows Best that defined the nuclear family, domesticity, and stere-
otypical gender roles as paramount to everyday family life.
Family values defined much of popular culture of the 1980s as well.
However, Full House takes place in the late 1980s during a time when
more women were beginning to work outside the home, which meant that
men would be filling new roles. Though one reading of Full House may
highlight the series’ innovative portrayal of single fatherhood, when taking
a closer look, it is evident that through gendered parenting, the division of
household labor, disciplining children, and advice giving all reinforce tra-
ditional values. Some television of the 1980s like Full House totally wrote
out the mother figure within their narratives about families at home be-
cause of more women in the workplace. Although Danny Tanner’s wife is
dead, she is still often ignored and mostly nonexistent.1
Danny socializes his daughters through gendered training by showing
them that one member of the family should take it upon themselves to
cook and clean and that domesticity is key in any family. He always main-
tains the domestic realm, even in an opening sequence where he washes
the car. Though Full House depicts the men in the home, it draws on tradi-
tional notions of femininity to do so. This may actually seem like progress
that men fill these social roles. However, most of the labor falls on one
member of the family, like a stereotype of a mother and wife cooking and
cleaning. The gendered parenting is problematic because the men train
their daughters that one person should keep a house.

The Opening Theme Songs

The Brady Bunch displays how families of Mike and Carol were not
true, wholesome families until they merged, until the man met the woman.
 Molly Weinberg 75

From the very first lyric, two distinct worlds are set up and then unified to
create a family, the merger of the masculine and feminine worlds. Howev-
er, later within each episode, even though the worlds merge, their gen-
dered worlds stay intact. The opening theme song of The Brady Bunch
states:

They were four men, living all together, yet they were all alone. Till the
one day when the lady met this fellow and they knew it was much more
than a hunch. That this group would somehow form a family, that’s the
way we all became the Brady bunch.2

The use of the word somehow demonstrates that single parenting can-
not possibly exist on its own. This implies that for a true family to exist,
both a mother and a father must be present. The Brady Bunch suggests that
the Bradys are only a “true” family once they exist inside the framework
of a heteronormative marriage. In addition, when thinking about the con-
struction of physical space, the house that redefines the family belongs to
Mike, the father. The females move into the physical world of the males,
which reinforces male dominance in a new, combined space.
A traditional conceptualization of the family defines marriage between
a man and a woman; this heteronormative binary serves as a basis for how
the children are raised as gendered subjects. Other lyrics in the opening
theme song point towards the girls having “hair of gold, like their mother”
and Mike Brady being “busy with three boys of his own.”3 The females
are defined by their physical characteristics and appearance, and while
Mike’s assertiveness and busyness demonstrates that he was doing a good
job of handling all of his boys alone, it also suggests something was not
quite right. He needed a wife to improve his life, and his family.
Visually, each character resides in a separate box. These boxes are
tightly crafted with no room to escape. They act as gendered prisons of
masculinity and femininity and the characters do not come out of their
boxes to interact with each other. The merging of all of the characters,
which creates a family, is still restricted with each character in their own
space. At first, we see Mike Brady and his three sons and then Carol Brady
and her three daughters. This presents a separate gender binary from the
start.
Meanwhile, the opening lyrics of the Full House theme song empha-
size the unpredictability and anxiety about the changing era:

Whatever happened to predictability? The milkman, the paperboy, the

evening TV? When did I get to living here? Somebody tell me please. This
76 Still within Boundary Walls

whole world is confusing me. When you are lost out there and you are all
alone, a light is waiting to carry you home. Everywhere you look.4

These lyrics portray a time of change that seems to be overwhelming,

concerning, and most importantly, scary. The lyrics demonstrate that his-
torical social change can often compromise individual identity. There is,
however, a solution for this anxiety: home and family, a collective identi-
ty. The lyrics reinforce the idea that through family, we can get through
everything and we will always have our family to rely on. The home is
defined as the ultimate source of family bonds, and reinforces the desira-
bility of a pleasant, stable family. Most importantly, in the context of gen-
der, family is the place where girls learn how to be girls and boys learn
how to be boys.
In addition, the portrayals of the girls and the men of the house are pre-
sented through the performance of gendered activities. DJ talks on the
phone while lying on her bed. Her younger sister Stephanie is surrounded
by stuffed animals and wearing a pink tutu. She lets out a sigh as if she is
bored and restless, or worse, helpless. Later seasons show DJ painting her
nails and holding up a sweater and Stephanie carrying a pink lunchbox. On
the other hand, the men of the house are portrayed as highly active. Joey,
Danny, and Jesse, play soccer, guitar, or go fishing; only sometimes are
they with the girls, who need to be taught these actives.

Sitcom Structure, Conflict, and Gendered Parenting

In order to understand how gendered parenting operates within these
series it is important to understand that conflict is a key structural compo-
nent to any sitcom. Within Full House and The Brady Bunch, gendered
parenting acts as a way of mediating conflict. For example, this is apparent
during the episode “Joey Gets Tough.” Throughout the series, Joey is de-
picted as a “soft” father figure, rather than the tougher disciplinarian that
Danny Tanner represents. In this episode, Stephanie and DJ want to stay
up late to watch MTV and they beg Joey to let them. Stephanie and DJ end
up taking advantage of Joey and getting their way. When Danny comes
home, he says to Joey that he must hold to his convictions and put his foot
down to be a stricter parent. This is another example of fatherhood being a
learned process. Joey tries to embrace a tougher, more disciplined version
of himself, but is unsuccessful; his strict persona upsets a surprised DJ.
This reinforces the idea that in order to be a true family, one needs both
the soft and lenient and the forceful and strict. When Danny tells Joey how
to be a strict parent, it is as if Danny is proving his masculinity (and re-
 Molly Weinberg 77

moving Joey’s). When Joey explains to Danny that the girls took ad-
vantage of him, he speaks in a quiet, soft voice and Danny calls upon no-
tions of being a wimp, which is a label commonly associated with femi-
ninity. Jhally and Kimmel explain that one of the biggest threats to mascu-
linity is to be called “pussy” or “mama’s boy” which is reminiscent of
stereotypical representations of femininity.5 Therefore, a man fears com-
parisons to women, which further reifies the hegemonic patriarchal struc-
ture that exists in our culture.6 In other words, “[b]eing a man means not
being a sissy, not being perceived as weak, effeminate, or gay. Masculinity
is the relentless repudiation of the feminine.”7

Mediating the Outside World

Television parents not only discipline their children in ways that reify
traditional gender roles, but they also teach them lessons. Parenting and
family serve as a primary method of socialization for young children com-
ing of age and the home serves as a place for digesting issues that arise in
contexts outside of the family. When the children come home from school
and activities, they bring with them their social life and outside problems.
The show’s thirty-minute story usually centers on what goes on outside of
the home and how the home can be vital and beneficial to a child’s coming
of age, because the home is where the issues are managed. Janet Wool-
lacott cites Mick Eaton who explains that, “the narrative form of situation
comedies is organized around an ‘inside/outside’ dichotomy.”8
One of the clearest examples of the outside world merging inside the
home is the episode centers around DJ being “dumped” by her boyfriend.
During this episode, DJ gets her heart broken for the first time. Danny says
that maybe DJ needs a woman to talk to about this kind of topic. There-
fore, the conflict can only be mediated when Becky, Jesse’s girlfriend,
steps in to have the “girl talk.” She tells DJ that she is beautiful and will
find a very special boy soon, when she least expects it.9 This reinforces the
heteronormative model of finding a male partner, and that beauty is central
to how girls understand their gender identity. None of the men of the
house can deal with topics as intimate and personal as beauty and dating
advice; not even the feminized Joey with his lax disciplinary style. The
implications of Naomi Wolfe’s “the beauty myth” represents serious reali-
ties that women are educated about at a young age. This is another avenue
in which gendered parenting operates and it undercuts the potential for
family solidarity.10
In these examples, Becky is called upon to bestow the beauty and self-
esteem advice labeled as “girl problems,” while Joey, though a man, dis-
78 Still within Boundary Walls

plays a soft and lenient conventional feminine portrayal of discipline, and

is chastised for doing so. Therefore, femininity is necessary in order to
have a true family, so substitute moms are employed when real moms are
absent.

Gendered Parenting in Physical Spaces

On both Full House and The Brady Bunch, parents give advice to their
daughters and sons in their bedrooms. Both Becky and Joey’s emotional
conversations with DJ take place in the bedroom. Physical spaces add to
visual image of a show, but also create a mood and even an ideology.
Haralovich explains:

The home is a space … for family cohesion, a guarantee that children can
be raised in the image of their parents. Dolores Hayden describes suburban
housing “as an architecture of gender, since houses provide settings for
women and girls to be effective social status achievers, desirable sex ob-
jects, and skillful domestic servants, and for men and boys to be executive
breadwinners, successful home handy men, and adept car mechanics.”11

The girls’ bedrooms on both shows are filled with pink wallpapers, bed
sheets, dolls, feminine toys, and stuffed animals. These spaces are defined
as “safe” and intimate, in which private parental and gendered advice will
be internalized more substantially. Gendered parenting relies on intimacy
to make gendered claims. These spaces are also detached from other fami-
ly members and actions taking place within the house, so they can be a
place of concentration for both parents and children. When the family
members see that DJ is upset, they call upon Becky to talk to her and make
it clear that the other family members should not come into the feminized
space where the female advice-giving is occurring.
Spaces are also gendered through representation of exclusivity. In The
Brady Bunch episode “A Clubhouse is Not a Home,” Carol and Mike ar-
gue over whether the girls can play in the clubhouse that the boys create.
The girls make a strong feminist statement that they are going to protest,
with picket signs until the boys let the girls play in the clubhouse. The
boys simply laugh it off, mocking the picketing. This bold statement actu-
ally mocks second wave feminism and shows that in this case, it is diffi-
cult to integrate the girls into a masculine space.
The idea that girls are not permitted for girls to enter certain spaces is
problematic for Carol and she tells Mike, “I bet if the boys wanted to play
with a dollhouse, there would be no problem.” Mike responds by saying
that he would “take them to a psychiatrist” if that was the case. Mike ar-
 Molly Weinberg 79

gues to Carol, “[s]ometimes a man just needs place of his own!” Mike and
Carol’s argument about whether the clubhouse is suitable for girls reflects
that their opinions and values are, at least in this instance, defined by their
gender (which then gets passed down to their children). At the end of the
episode, the girls decide that they will create their own clubhouse. Howev-
er, Carol and the girls have so much trouble hammering the wood and cre-
ating the layout that Mike and the boys watch from the window, mocking
them; this only further reinforces the traditional gender dynamics. Kristen
Pike explains that the Brady Bunch displays the “‘taming of girls’ activist
impulses in favor of femininity.”12 The men eventually step in and take
over construction of the girl clubhouse, noting, “[d]on’t you know that
men get thirsty when they are working? Go get us some cookies and lem-
onade!” The hegemonic status quo is reinforced once again as the women
go back to the kitchen. Reasserting the proper separation of gendered
spheres mediates a solution to this conflict. This example illuminates the
way in which hegemony operates: by acknowledging dissent, but then
taming it and justifying the hegemonic status quo as common sense. 13
Gitlin writes:

Hegemony operates through the solutions proposed to difficult problems.

However grave the problems posed, the episodes regularly end with the
click of a solution, a defiant smile, an I-told-you-so explanation. The char-
acters we have been asked to care about are alive and well, ready for next
week, however deeply the problem is located within society … the heroes
must attain a solution that leaves the rest of the society untouched.14

Here, hegemonic constructions of gender and gender relations shape

controversial and complex issues into simple solutions. On The Brady
Bunch and Full House, the status quo is only disrupted enough to cause
small episodic conflicts, only to be reinforced yet again.
Through the gendered parenting of the opening theme songs and narra-
tive content within the episodes, the institution of marriage, heteronorma-
tivity and masculine/feminine binaries are repeatedly constructed. In both
the 1960s and 1980s, when social and political change were afoot, The
Brady Bunch and Full House tried to ground viewers to remember a more
traditional time when norms were not being questioned. The Brady Bunch
mocks feminism, reinforcing the status quo, and tells us that boys do one
thing, occupying one space, and that girls do another. On Full House, sin-
gle fatherhood cannot exist without traditional masculine and feminine
representations through household labor, “girl talk,” and disciplining chil-
dren. However, gendered parenting on Full House and The Brady Bunch
also portrays gender as learned, rather than natural. This in fact contradicts
80 Still within Boundary Walls

hegemonic structures because if gender is learned then there is the possi-

bility of learning gender neutrality and androgyny. In essence, because
gender is learned, there could be many progressive and innovative ways of
teaching gender roles to young children. More recently, these issues have
been taken up by twenty-first century sitcoms such as Will & Grace and
Modern Family.

Notes
1
Susan Faludi, Backlash: The Undeclared War against American Women (New
York: Crown, 1991), 156.
2
Sherwood Schwartz, The Brady Bunch Theme Song, Television, 1969, The Brady
Bunch.
3
Ibid.
4
Jesse Frederick, Everywhere You Look, Television, 1987, Full House.
5
Tough Guise: Violence, Media and the Crisis in Masculinity, directed by Sut
Jhally (Media Education Foundation, 1999); Michael Kimmel. Guyland: The
Perilous World Where Boys Become Men (New York: Harper Press, 2008), 45.
6
Tough Guise: Violence, Media and the Crisis in Masculinity.
7
Kimmel, 45.
8
Janet Woollacott, “Fictions and Ideologies: The Case of Situation Comedy” in
Media studies: a Reader, 2nd edition, eds. Paul Marris and Sue Thornham (New
York: New York University Press, 2000), 284.
9
John Bowab, Full House: “A Little Romance,” 1989.
10
Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth: How Images Of Beauty Are Used Against
Women. (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing, 1991).
11
Mary Beth Haralovich, “Sitcoms and Suburbs: Positioning the 1950s
Homemaker,” in Critiquing the Sitcom, ed. Joanne Morreale (Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University Press, 1989), 74.
12
Elizabeth Nathanson. “Independent Study: Family, Television and the American
Sitcom,” Lecture in class from Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA, Spring 2011.
13
Nathanson, “Independent Study.”
14
Todd Gitlin, “Prime Time Ideology: The Hegemonic Process in Television
Entertainment,” in Television: the Critical View, 6th edition, ed. Horace Newcomb
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 587-588.
PART III
 “WE FBA NOW”:
COMMUNITY BUILDING AND THE FURRY
BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION

SEAN AHERN
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
AT BUFFALO

In early February 2012, I found myself perusing the sports board of

4Chan. Enamored by the mix of feverous, hyperbolic fandom—that, at
times, bordered on the obscenely racist—and the boatload of topical sport-
themed Internet memes, I scrolled through the front page until I found a
thread that seemed out of place. This thread started with a single image: A
mash-up of the classic National Basketball Association logo and an an-
thropomorphic female bunny dunking on a basketball hoop accompanied
by a hyperlink and the words “we FBA now” in the comment section. Cu-
rious, and trusting my virus protection program, I clicked on the URL. The
link took me to a WikiFur (the Wiki for furries) entry on the Furry Basket-
ball Association. With team names like the Albany Alphas, the Williams-
burg Minutemen, the Montana Howlers, and Biloxi Mudpuppies the 24-
team league (complete with weekly transactions, general managers, mock-
up home courts, and uniforms) play an 80-game season without ever set-
ting foot on a real-life court. Instead, the season is based entirely on a dice-
rolling system. Created as a back-story for J. Mateo Baker and his online
foursome, Buck Hopper, the Furry Basketball Association has grown to
include art that incorporates fictional draft picks, game-changing mo-
ments, and team rosters while including both male and female characters
on the court—be they reptilian, marsupial, or mammalian.1 This chapter
analyzes the FBA as a part of the online furry community that negotiates
insider and outsider statuses, digital fandom, and fan appropriation of
dominate cultural texts on a daily basis. The appropriation of cartoon char-
acters and sports culture subverts dominant codes, much like those ex-
plored by Dick Hedge on punks in Subculture: The Meaning of Style.
Looking at the online presence of furries, I will also use the work of Doro-
thy Noyes and Henry Jenkins to explain the communal activities of furries
 Sean Ahern 83

and the insider versus outsider relationships within specific niches of the
“furry community.” Finally, I will use the works of Bertolt Brecht to ex-
plain the power of sport to build a culture that mixes the anthropomorphic
avatars of furries with mainstream sports to create a new text out of famil-
iar cultural objects.
Academic works on the furry fandom are rare, with a majority of exist-
ing works relating to the fields of sociology and psychology. Kathleen
Gerbasi et al. in “Furries from A to Z” compiled interviews with furries
and non-furries to create a typology of a typical furry in hopes of debunk-
ing popular images of furries as depicted in Vanity Fair (2001) and the
CSI episode “Fur and Loathing” (2003) in particular.2 However, the arti-
cles frame the interviews collected during a furry convention through the
lens of “species identity disorder,” an extension of gender identity disor-
der, and complicates the connection to the disputed disorder by ranking
responses to identity questions based on a yes or no binary that further
entrenches furry stereotypes rather than remove them.3 The application of
gender identity disorder also flies in the face of arguments that gender is
culturally constructed, and placing the discussion in terms of a mental dis-
order makes the participants seem less than human, even if that was not
the intention.4 While the information collected gives insight into the ty-
pography of a furry (primarily male, college-aged) it does not adequately
speak to the performance within the fandom as a subculture reacting to
cultural mechanisms. Marla Carlson’s “Furry Cartography: Performing
Species” analyzes the fandom alongside other performances of subcultural
style that stands alongside my argument about the FBA’s placement out-
side the confines of traditional sports and sports fandom.5
A large part of my analysis includes the use of folklore studies to look
at how people create communities and groups through shared experiences.
Dorothy Noyes’s “Group” and Mary Hufford’s “Context” help to elucidate
at how communities actively work to present themselves to the public
through organized events and everyday activities. Extending the ideas of
Noyes and Hufford to online interactions, we can look at how virtual so-
cial networking can allow for the creation and expression of specific ideas
across temporal and geographical distances.
My intent is to look at how the subculture of furries appropriates cul-
turally relevant texts and instead of creating borders between specific fan-
doms (NBA vs. Furries), meld the two groups together to create something
new. I am hesitant to call the FBA a “fantasy” sports league since I believe
that it goes past the boundary of watching sports and winning bets through
the action of others and instead, allows the user the ability to create their
own characters that are an extension of their personal desires as sports fans
84 “We FBANow”

mixing various other interests. The FBA is a cornerstone of a larger com-

munity that is multi-faceted and broad ranging. Instead of looking at the
basketball fantasies of a few, we need to look at the FBA as not just a
fandom, or a performance, or a subculture—but all of these conceptualiza-
tions all at once.

Furries as Community: Origins and Online Fandom

Internet subcultures allow for communities of people to come together
on a global platform to express specific feelings and ideas to each other in
a way that was, arguably, more difficult before the development of Inter-
net. The ease of access makes for greater proliferation of outside ideas and
communities once considered underground or more difficult to find. In the
furry subculture, members use their own particular totem animal to match
their personality in online and offline interactions. Though it started in
hotel room parties at sci-fi conventions in the 1980s, furriedom now has its
own dedicated conventions. The largest, Anthrocon, has grown since its
inception in 1997 and continues annually in Pittsburg, PA.6 The normali-
zation of online communication and community websites like FurNation
and FurAffinity permits users to post art and animations or avatars that
present identities to the outside Internet community. Alongside the online
interactions, some members of the community create “fur suits”—full
sized representations of characters created by some members of the com-
munity—for offline interactions at conventions and group activities. Art
and fursuiting create a sense of belonging and an identity outside of the
online community. In “Group,” Noyes discusses the intricate relationships
inherent in the creation of communities, examining the complex networks
created by participants and the public performances, which help to rein-
force their place in the overarching culture.

Brazilian samba schools, Philadelphia mummers’ clubs, or Swiss amateur

theatrical societies need year-round planning, rehearsal, and material prep-
aration to put on their elaborate annual performances. All this labor and the
fund-raising that must accompany it remobilize local networks, keeping up
many ties that might otherwise slip into desuetude. In making work, the
voluntary association also fosters recreation: the choir rehearses, then goes
for a drink. Often a formalization of an existing network, the voluntary as-
sociation creates a further base for dense multiplex sociability—for what is
affectively defined as ‘community’.7

Noyes’ analysis of group applies not only to public displays of a commu-

nity in a traditional performance space, but to the Internet as well, where
 Sean Ahern 85

community members are able to present themselves to a larger, global

audience. Internet subcultures such as furries use the web to help further
the public image of their culture. Websites such as FurNation and FurAf-
finity allow for the expression of fandom through art, forum postings, and
user-created stories.
As stated on the about section of the Anthrocon website, furries are a
part of what is known as Furry Fandom, an “artistic and literary genre that
is practiced and enjoyed by tens of thousands worldwide.”8 It also states
that the community is comprised of those employed in technical fields as
well as professional sports mascots, puppeteers, animators, and other vari-
ous types of artists.9 I argue that the Furry community is based in folkloric
ideas of performance, as many of the online interactions develop around
identifying with an alternative character that is distinctively the creator’s
own in accordance with communal norms. The members of the communi-
ty, as the Anthrocon website suggests, come from a wide range of back-
grounds and re-create their culture in various ways—from literature, to art
and costuming, to name a few. Further, Furry Fandom is a type of folklore
as defined by Dan Ben-Amos in “Toward a Definition of Folklore in Con-
text”:

They have searched for a way to describe folklore as a static, tangible ob-
ject. The enumerative definitions consisted of lists of objects, while the
substantive definitions regarded folklore as art, literature, knowledge, or
belief. In actuality, it is none of these and all of them together. Folklore
does contain knowledge, it is an expression of thought, formulated artisti-
cally, but at the same time, it is also a unique phenomenon which is irre-
ducible to any of these categories.10

The furry community incorporates multiple storytelling forms to ex-

press their culture online and at conventions. Like Ben-Amos, Mary
Hufford argues that the act of performing is a staged behavior that is like
“events framed as being of a different expressive order than behaviors
outside the frames.”11 The characters created in the furry subculture move
away from the norm and develop within a base of knowledge established
inside the community. As Hufford states, “we contextualize our cultural
productions, giving them substance, necessity, and meaning. Through a
host of contextualizing practices we erect frames and frameworks that both
tie narrative ones and facilitate untying.”12 Through online interactions and
creations of their characters, the members of the furry community estab-
lish a frame of reference that gives context to their online interactions with
their characters and other members of the community.
86 “We FBANow”

With that said, furry fandom is often stereotyped for their sexual or
“yiffy” illustrations of cartoon characters that depict personal fursonas in
erotic situations. It is a dubious claim to fame, and when coupled with the
creation of personal fur suits it opens the subculture up for ridicule from
the depths of the Internet. Both SomethingAwful.com and 4Chan have
openly mocked the subculture for their more sexually minded members.
Both websites actively scoff at the furry community, with SomethingAw-
ful often collecting and re-posting online submissions from multiple furry
forums as a part of their “Weekend Web” series—highlighting the com-
munity in a less than positive light. Outside of their own community, fur-
ries are mocked. Their culture is viewed as offensive to the outside world,
while certain outliers are often highlighted to the uninitiated television
viewers or Internet users. There is a sexual nature to artwork and culture of
furry fandom, but it is important to remember that it is not the only aspect
of this much-maligned online community. Like slash fiction, these indi-
vidual uses of primary texts change at the individual level and do not often
relate to the whole group. As Jenkins writes about Trekkers in “Television,
Fans, Poachers, Nomads,”

These fans [Trekkers] often draw strength and courage from their ability to
identify themselves as members of a group of other fans who shared com-
mon interests and confronted common problems. To speak as a fan is to
accept what has been labeled a subordinated position within the cultural hi-
erarchy, to accept an identity constantly belittled or criticized by institu-
tional authorities. Yet it is also to speak from a position of collective iden-
tity, to forge an alliance with a community of others in defense of tastes
which, as a result, cannot be read as totally aberrant or idiosyncratic. In-
deed, one of the most often heard comments from new fans is their surprise
in discovering how many people share their fascination with a particular
series, their pleasure in discovering that they are not ‘alone.’13

Like many fandoms, different sub-groups create their own spaces with-
in the overarching ideas of the furry subculture. There is a play between
insider and outsider status and the reasons for becoming a part of the Furry
Fandom run the gamut from the sexually minded art found on Deviant Art,
FurAffinity, or FurNation to hanging out at conventions like Confurence
and Anthrocon. The FBA brings these disparate parts of the community
together. The FBA also works as a microcosm of what the Furry Fandom
stands for; it is a mixture of familiar cultural texts seen through an anthro-
pomorphic lens.
The use of “we FBA now” (a common phrase within the /sp/ board to
denote the type of fans or most interesting sports league/player/news item
at the moment) both mocks the sports board meme but also brings forth
 Sean Ahern 87

the “hated” enemies of 4Chan and their appropriation of “straight” culture

for their own uses. The members of the furry community are a “spectacu-
lar subculture,” stealing the images of animals (particularly the cute and
cartoonish type) for their own use as online personas, or fursonas. Furries’
appropriation of sports imagery undermines masculine ideals of sport,
posing a threat to normative views of culture and athleticism. As Hebdige
asserts, “[s]ubcultures are both a play for attention and a refusal, once at-
tention has been granted, to be read according to the Book.”14 Like the
punks that Hebdige examined, furries go against societal norms through
their association with anthropomorphic characters, sexual themes, and
creation of fur suits for public interactions at conventions.15 It is a removal
of normativity for a more entertaining existence—furry fandom and its
cultural symbols create a feeling of discomfort to the outsider—that some-
thing has been taken “too far” or out of its original, safe context. By read-
ing a text outside of the prescribed boundaries of mass consumption, sub-
cultural appropriation introduces alternatives uses of the mass produced
product for an individual or community ostracized for its willingness to be
different.16

Podcasts and Draft Picks: The FBA Online

The Furry Basketball Association began after online role-plays and in-
teractions on the text-based role-playing game TapestryMUCK with Buck
Hopper (aka Baker).17 As a part of his fursona’s back-story, Buck Hopper
played basketball as a member of the Layleaux Thrust. Hopper’s back-
story and the league’s origins were both fleshed out on his FurAffinity
account.18 The FBA began play on November 2009 using a dice rolling
system to create scores for games, player stats, and rankings for an eighty-
game season using 24 teams. The winner of the 2009 season was the
Huntsville Mayors; however, the league members expanded its history to
date back to 1961. The created history includes specific teams and titles
along with classic speeches from the vaults, SportsCenter-esque radio
spots, and commissioner notes posted on Bucky Hopper’s FurAffinity
profile. The members of the community created a system to score games
and develop player stats; they operated a draft and produced posts that
include post-game interviews with furry players on a plethora of teams;
and established a shared history of the league. These actions reflect the
ability of the Internet to create new texts out of old cultural ideas through
collaboration.
Bertolt Brecht states that by embracing popular culture, artists and sub-
cultures can learn from mass entertainment to create popular texts that are
88 “We FBANow”

not only innovative but entertain the “sporting” public. Speaking about
soccer games in Germany in 1964, he writes:

When people in sporting establishments buy their tickets they know exact-
ly what is going to take place; and that is exactly what does take place once
they in their seats: viz. highly trained persons developing their particular
powers in the way most suited to them, with the greatest sense of responsi-
bility yet in such a way as to make one feel that they are doing it primarily
for their own fun.19

Brecht asks artists to leave their cultural “garrets” and learn from mass
entertainment. For members of the furry fandom who are already ostra-
cized because of stereotypical understandings of the subculture as animal-
istic and sex-crazed perverts, to work inside the confines of their own
communities would only further creates confusion and differences be-
tween specific groups. The application of basketball to furry fandom
through the creation of the FBA brings well-known sport to a new context
of Internet-based subcultures. This reworks and re-contextualizes the idea
of what it means to be a fan of sport, how one interacts with a cultural text,
and how it applies to one’s own personal lifestyle. Like the fursonas, the
FBA develops from online interactions between members of the communi-
ty and manifests from the chance rolling of die for game outcomes and
player stats; this bridges the gap between the real-world NBA and the sub-
culture of furries. The players that are drafted into the FBA and their crea-
tors are not limited by their athletic prowess and instead are able to ex-
press their relationship with sport through alternative outlets. The FBA
also offers a complicated representation of the stereotypical image of fur-
ries as presented through mass media that combines a known text with a
less known culture. Insider and outsider statuses develop through the role-
playing of the draft, veteran players’ appearances on podcasts, and artist
renderings of specific teams and players in action on the court. These
members of the online community merge their disparate hobbies and skills
into a new text.
Even for furries, who are active in other parts of the larger fandom, the
FBA leans on a specific knowledge base of sports; the league is filled with
jargon-y stats and game recaps created by Baker under the guise of coyote
T. Matt Latrans. The podcasts of T. Matt Latrans provide further access to
the fantasy world of the FBA. This is a comical combination for some, but
the FBA is an extension of the role-playing present on the FurryMuck
boards and the art projects that the fandom participates in online. The
games are created and acted out on podcasts and Google Documents while
artists’ creations help bring the events to life.
 Sean Ahern 89

The “Notes from the Commissioner” post on Buck Hopper’s FurAf-

finity page include recent box scores for games held on March 29, 2012
(the Alaska Arctic lost to the Santa Fe Whips 113-114). It also includes
injury reports (Dhole forward Vincent Wei is out for 28 games with a bro-
ken leg in a loss to the Biloxi Mudpuppies), and a link to the most recent
game sheets hosted on the Furry Basketball Association server.20 In addi-
tion, these updates include stories from members of the community writ-
ing about their favorite players, coaches, basketball fursonas, and fictional
news items. 21 The March 26, 2012 report posted on Buck Hopper’s ac-
count includes a reference to the murder of Trayvon Martin and the recent
picture of the Miami Heat wearing hoodies to protest the killing of the 17-
year old by George Zimmerman on February 26, 2012. Since the murder
of Martin, news anchors (most notably Fox News’ own Geraldo Rivera)
have stated that the youth’s style of clothing was just as dangerous as the
color of his skin.22
Klaus Korber (Doberman, G, TAL) tweeted a picture of the Tallahas-
see Typhoons wearing hoodies. The tweet included the message #WeAre-
TrayvonMartin. It came as a surprise to furry sports media not used to
FBA stars drawing attention to what most consider a human matter. How-
ever, 2K made it clear he did not see it that way. He spoke with FBA
blogger T. Matt Latrans (Coyote) in a phone interview an hour after the
tweet. “This isn't about species. This is about prejudice,” Korber said when
asked why he had the photo taken. He went on to say, “Trayvon was sin-
gled out for how he looked. That's something we can understand, too.”
When asked about his own experience with prejudice, he said:

When you're a Doberman, everyone expects you to be mean. I've had peo-
ple walk to the other side of the sidewalk when they saw me coming. I've
been pulled over by the police because of how I look. I don't understand
the divisions humans have placed upon themselves. But I do know what it's
like to be singled out within your own species. That's why I felt it was so
important we showed our support for Trayvon.23

While the world of the FBA may be insulated within the Internet, ap-
propriation of real world news events helps to pull popular culture into this
other venue for new uses. The fact that Mateo posted this news item on his
FurAffinity account inside the world of the FBA not only appropriates
popular news items for the use within a imagined space, but points mem-
bers of the digital community towards the injustices of the real world. Alt-
hough many were most likely aware of the murder of Martin, those inside
the fandom may not be aware of the actions of the Miami Heat, who pho-
tographed themselves in black and white hoodies in support of Martin. In
90 “We FBANow”

this case we see the FBA reaching outside the confines of the fandom into
“human affairs” (as stated in the news release) to add a voice to the real-
world tragedy.
The example of the Trayvon Martin murder allows the FBA, in some
ways, to move outside its digital community and towards real-life dis-
courses, but also towards the politics of race and performance online.
Baker, by having “FBA Star” Korber speak through the commissioner
report transforms the news items in unforeseen ways in a new venue. By
beginning his statement with “as a Doberman,” the character of Korber
relates the cultural stigmas of race to his own interactions off the court.
Furthermore, the writer of the commissioner report reminds the reader that
the divisions in the “human” world are missing in interactions in the world
of furries, yet at the same time implies that the two groups co-exist. The
characters of the FBA, race, gender, and anthropomorphism collide. The
news item is written around and for the fandom and added to the canon of
the world as both an act of protest and a historical point within the com-
munity that politicizes the performance of the characters in the communi-
ty.

Conclusion
The FBA allows for the performance of identity though a new lens by
incorporating athletic competition into the role-play and artistic creations
of furry fandom. The furries who participate in art, podcasts, and league
transactions create a community that is concerned with complicating not
only the generalizations and stereotypes of furries, but also the fans of
sport. Analysis of fan communities like the FBA helps create a better un-
derstanding of how popular culture texts are redefined by the individual
and the group. Additionally, that redefinition of fandom through the crea-
tion of leagues and characters reconstructs the boundaries of acceptability
in the realm of entertainment and pleasure. While some fans apply their
love of specific teams and players to art and forum posts, furry sports
leagues like the FBA allow for the creation of one’s own hero with their
own detailed past. Similar furry sport groups dedicated to hockey and
NASCAR also exist on FurAffinity. The characters and the leagues are
created on spreadsheets and in the artists’ minds, however they serve a
specific purpose: to expand this fandom past the ordinary and into new and
innovative realms. The furry fandom allows fans to mix and mash mass
media texts into new forms that more clearly account for individual inter-
pretations and builds a multi-faceted community with its own created his-
tory, players and characters on and off the court.
 Sean Ahern 91

Notes
1
“Buck Hopper--WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia” Wiki, WikiFur, accessed
January 21, 2013, http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Buck_Hopper.
2
Kathleen Gerbasi et al., “Furries from A to Z (Anthropomorphism to
Zoomorphism),” Society & Animals 16, no. 3 (August 1, 2008): 199.
3
Ibid, 201.
4
Fiona Probyn-Rapsey, “Furries and the Limits of Species Identity Disorder: A
Response to Gerbasi Et Al.,” Society & Animals 19, no. 3 (January 1, 2011): 296.
5
Carlson, “Furry Cartography,” 199-208.
6
Marla Carlson, “Furry Cartography: Performing Species,” Theatre Journal 63,
no. 2 (2011): 195–196.
7
Dorothy Noyes, “Group,” The Journal of American Folklore 108, no. 430
(October 1, 1995): 468.
8
Douglas Muth, “Just what IS ‘Furry’ Fandom?” Anthrocon:The World’s Largest
Furry Convention. Anthrocon Inc. March 28, 2006. Accessed 17 Jan. 2013, http://
www.anthrocon.org/about-furry.
9
Ibid.
10
Dan Ben-Amos, “Toward a Definition of Folklore in Context,” The Journal of
American Folklore 84, no. 331 (January 1, 1971): 9.
11
Mary Hufford, “Context,” The Journal of American Folklore 108, no. 430
(October 1, 1995): 531-532.
12
Ibid.
13
Henry Jenkins, “Television Fans, Poachers, Nomads.”The Subcultures Reader
/RQGRQௗ1HZ<RUN: Routledge, 1997), 507.
14
Dick Hebdige, “Posing…Threats…Striking…Poses: Youth, Surveillance, and
Display.”The Subcultures Reader, 404.
15
Dick Hebdige, Subculture: The Meaning of Style (Methuen & Co, 1980), 91–92.
16
Carlson, “Furry Cartography,” 199.
17
“Furry Basketball Association.” WikiFur. n.d. Accessed January 21, 2013.
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Furry_Basketball_Association
18
Ibid.
19
Brecht Bertolt, “Emphasis on Sport.” Cultural Resistance Reader (New York:
Verso, 2002), 183.
20
Buck Hopper, “Thursday, March 29--BuckHopper’s Journal,” Fur Affinity [dot]
net, Ferrox Art LLC. March 29, 2012. Last Accessed January. 18, 2013.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/3314126/.
21
Buck Hopper, “Userpage of BuckHopper.” FurAffinity[dot]net. Ferrox Art LLC.
n.d. Accessed January 18, 2013. http://www.furaffinity.net/users.buckhopper
22
“Heat Don Hoodies in Response to Death of Teen,” ESPN.com. Last modified
March 24, 2012.
Accessed January 21, 2013, http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/
7728618/miami-heat-don-hoodies-response-death-teen-trayvon-martin.
23
Buckhopper, “Monday, March 26--BuckHopper’s Journal,” Fur Affinity [dot]
net. Ferrox
92 “We FBANow”

Art LLC. March 26, 2012. Accessed January 18, 2013. http://www.furaffinity.net/
journal/3305019
 WELCOME TO THE TWILIGHT ZONE:
EXPERIENCING THE REAL AND FAKE
OF FORKS, WASHINGTON THROUGH
ECOTOURISM AND FICTION
INDUCED TOURISM

JUSTINE MOLLER
BROCK UNIVERSITY

Introduction
Vampire texts are not a new phenomenon in youth culture, but the texts
and fans are changing. Fans of the popular Twilight series have moved
beyond the pages of the books and frames of the films to experience the
actual towns the series is set in. To this day, fans of fictional texts have
traveled to P.E.I to take in the beautiful landscapes of L.M Montgomery’s
Anne of Green Gables, to New Zealand to experience the world where
Peter Jackson filmed his epic adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien’s The Lord of
the Rings series, and to Romania to see the locations of various Dracula
adaptations. Visiting these locations allows for a connection with the spac-
es and the texts on various levels. Fans can go see where their favorite
characters met, fought, fell in love, lived, and died. They can see the hous-
es, the towns, and the signs of all the “real” locations. However, they are
not the exact locations from the books, nor do they exist as represented in
the films. For Twilight, these places and spaces are an inspiration of sorts,
what Stephenie Meyer based her stories on. Sue Seeton refers to this sort
of tourism as “film induced tourism.”1 Film induced tourism is similar to
literary tourism. Many of the films discussed by her, and in this chapter,
are adaptations of books. Fans experience the towns in similar, yet very
personal, ways. I couple the tourism described here with firsthand
knowledge from my own experience of being a Twilight fan and visiting
Forks, Washington.
The fiction-induced tourism happening on the Olympic Peninsula in
the state of Washington, thanks to the Twilight franchise, demonstrates an
94 Welcome to the Twilight Zone

exceptional trend that blurs the lines between the consumption of natural
and constructed environments. Fans have started traveling to Forks, Port
Angeles, and La Push, Washington to see the “real” places from their fa-
vorite movies and books. Forks, specifically, used to rely on and encour-
age ecotourism, but struggled with their economy due to a diminishing
logging industry and endangered species concerns.2 With the release of
Twilight, fans started flocking to Forks and the town quickly capitalized on
the tourism. Forks, Port Angeles, and La Push understand their purpose as
places of pilgrimage for Twilight fans. They present what Joseph Pine and
James Gilmore call the “real/fake” wherein the town presents its self as a
Twilight town for fans to experience, something beyond the books and
films that is not quite real or fake.3 The towns provide a place to experi-
ence what they really are—a small logging town famous for being the set-
ting of Stephenie Meyer’s international bestselling book—not just what is
seen or read in the texts. Ecotourism is still present in Forks and the great-
er Olympic Peninsula through its mountainous and oceanic beauty. The
shift, however, demonstrates how media and popular culture influence
tourism, and contributes to society’s habitual mass consumption and mis-
understanding/misuse of natural resources. The overlap of ecotourism and
fiction induced tourism occurring in Forks contributes to a postmodern
experience in which fans explore the real and the fake through nature,
simulation, and construction.

What is Twilight?
To understand what fans are looking for in Forks, one must understand
the texts. Stephenie Meyer, author of the Twilight Saga, gained inspiration
for her series from a dream. After the dream, she began to write what
would become Twilight, and was encouraged by her family to work to
have it published. The main character of the series is a young, female
“loner” whom Stephenie and millions of others girls claim to identify with.
Bella Swan falls for a handsome, mysterious young man, Edward Cullen,
who turns out to be a vampire. Meyer chose Forks as her primary setting
because she researched the town with the highest rainfall in America. Her
vampires needed rain and clouds to allow them to be out in the daylight.
She visited Forks and the surrounding area to get a better idea of the town
and continued writing. The Twilight series consists of four novels: Twi-
light (released October 2005), New Moon (August 2006), Eclipse (August
2007), and Breaking Dawn (August 2008). These four bestselling novels
were subsequently adapted into five major motion pictures beginning in
2008 and concluding with Breaking Dawn—Part 2 in the fall of 2012.
 Justine Moller 95

Twilight rejuvenated vampire-lore and became a worldwide phenome-

non. It is not the first popular vampire franchise to have a cult following,
but it has garnered a special following and even controversy. Over the last
several decades many vampire-based novels, films, and television series
have garnered a strong fan base. Some examples include the From Dusk
Till Dawn franchise, the Blade franchise, John Carpenter’s Vampire series,
the Underworld franchise, Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles (and their
subsequent films), Charlaine Harris’ Sookie Stackhouse series (and the
HBO series adaptation True Blood), and the Buffy the Vampire Slayer film
and television series. However, the teen phenomenon that is Twilight and
its “Twihards” developed beyond simply reading the books, watching the
films, or participating in online communities.4 They trek from around the
world to Forks and surrounding areas.
Women, especially young girls, dominate the fan base. The Victorian
nature of the courteous Edward charms women, and the “every-girl” quali-
ties of Bella allow identification with the clumsy, introverted outsider.
Twilight does not follow many of the typical tropes of vampire texts. 5
Meyer decided to have her vampires sparkle in the sun rather than burn,
and her vampires can choose to feed on non-humans. The Twilight vam-
pires do not sleep, and can only be killed by other vampires. Some have
powers, such as Alice’s ability to see the future and Edward’s ability to
read minds. In addition, rather than the sexualized nature of vampires as
seen in other texts, Twilight preaches abstinence and self-control. This
manifests with Edward waiting for marriage before consummating his
relationship with Bella, and Dr. Carlisle Cullen saving humans rather than
hunting and feeding off them. Further, the Cullen’s are one of few vampire
covens that stay together as a family rather than a set of vampires and
makers. This story, town, and author garnered all sorts of fans and tourism.

Twilight Tourism: Beyond the Books and Films

Fans flock to Forks to see where it all took place. By 2006, after the re-
lease of the first novel, fans began to visit Forks to see the locations where
Bella and Edward’s love story blossomed. The fact that the fans initiated
this trend before the town realized they could capitalize on the text points
to Barry Brummett’s distinction of a reactionary text rather than proac-
tive.6 The fans saw the possibility for more in Forks and created a context,
from which they found meaning. Tourists stopped in at the Visitor’s Cen-
ter to learn where they could find the fictional Swan and Cullen houses.
They asked to see some of the non-fictional locations such as the commu-
nity hospital where Dr. Cullen works, the police station where Charlie
96 Welcome to the Twilight Zone

Swan works, Forks Outfitters where Bella works, and the Forks High
School. The Chamber of Commerce acknowledged the growing number of
tourists and developed fan tours. Thus, I analyze the town as a text react-
ing to a new context.
Tourism escalated very quickly, and eventually sky rocketed with the
development of the first film in 2008. In a 2010 article, Cynthia Willis-
Chun notes that the fans started going in handfuls in 2007, and 2008 saw
18,485 guests total. However, this barely compares to the 16,000 people
that visited in July of 2009 alone. In 2010, 73,000 fans signed in at the
Forks Visitor Center.7 Tourism generates significant revenue for the town,
yet there are some concerns as to how long this trend will last and how the
town can prosper without fiction induced tourism. Fortunately, the town
received $531,246 in sales taxes in 2011 and put those revenues towards
construction projects including the school, clinic, and housing.8 The tour-
ism enhanced the town’s appearance and still encouraged visitors to expe-
rience its natural beauty.

More than Just a Twilight Town:

The Natural Environment and Ecotourism
Before Twilight, adventure and nature tourism dominated the Olympic
Peninsula. Forks and the surrounding area initially developed as a logging
community. In the 1930s, the introduction of the Olympic Loop Highway
created access to what used to be secluded and difficult to reach small
town. This paved the way for expansion of the timber industry and com-
mercial trading. However, the 1980s and 1990s saw a reduction in the log-
ging industry coupled with environmental disputes, in addition to a nation-
al recession. Forks’ industry quickly diminished.9 The Twilight phenome-
non and subsequent tourism revitalized the town’s economy. The area is
lush with beautiful mountains and surrounded by the ocean, rivers, and
streams. These natural locations and other constructed sites work in tan-
dem to create a special experience for visitors. Both work as what Sue
Beeton calls “markers” for Twilight fans and adventure tourists. The town
works as a postmodern space by inviting a curious pastiche of popular
culture consumption and production. Fans experience the town through the
consumption of goods, souvenirs, and more. They can produce new mean-
ings in the town that extend from the books and films. For example, the
Dazzled by Twilight store uses artificial grass and trees to create the mead-
ow and forest described in the book.10 It also constructs twinkling lights on
the ceiling to appear as stars.11 Fans take pictures laying in the “meadow”
like Bella and Edward did in the books and films.12 This type of consump-
 Justine Moller 97

tion blurs reality and fiction, and the combination of nature and construc-
tion makes this possible.
Forks is comprised of various natural landscapes, situated between
mountains and beaches. There are many ecotourist activities that work
separately from, and some that work in conjunction with, the popular Twi-
light sites. David Bruce Weaver describes Ecotourism as a “form of tour-
ism that fosters learning experiences and appreciation of the natural envi-
ronment, or some component thereof, within its associated cultural con-
text.”13 Forks is marketed as ideal for everyone. There are beaches to surf;
trails to hike; rainforests to explore; rivers to fish and kayak; and places to
hunt and camp. It is themed as a sort of adventure tourism. Ultimately, this
adventure theme partners with the experiential tourism of Twilight fans
seeking out natural and constructed “markers.” The natural environment is
an essential part of the series’ setting. The town is part of a larger cultural
context in which fans experience nature and the constructed environment
to foster different meanings.
Ecotourism also refers to nature tourism in that the visitors are interest-
ed in the sites’ natural history. Fennell notes that these visits incorporate
education, recreation, and adventure.14Unlike exotic destinations, Forks’
ecotourism does not “other” its space; it embraces the adventure to be
found in the variety of natural resources and Twilight related locations.
Fennell further notes Ziffer’s description of ecotourism as tourism “in-
spired primarily by the natural history of an area, including its indigenous
cultures.”15 Tourists go to the Olympic Peninsula to see the natural history
and beauty. This is very similar to fiction-induced tourism in that fans go
to see the history and beauty inspired by the texts that become more than
real to them. Fans explore the Quileute Nation of La Push when visiting
First Beach—a popular site from the series. The Quileute tribe that Jacob
Black belongs to in Twilight is not fictional. They are a real tribe that lives
on private land as a sovereign nation. The Quileute people are a communi-
ty based strongly on tradition, culture, and heritage. The Visitor’s Center
provides a handout pertaining to proper etiquette on Quileute land and
policies regarding photos, filming, and sketching. First Beach is an im-
portant site for fans, as well as to the Quileute Tribe members. Visitors are
asked to respect their traditions, privacy, and land. The natural history of
the land overlaps with the fictional story by Stephenie Meyer, and fans or
nature tourists can experience it all.
Furthermore, ecotourism incorporates and encourages conservation and
sustainability. For example, Forks has hunting restrictions, specifically for
endangered animals. Fennell clarifies differences between nature tourism
and ecotourism, noting that ecotourism contributes to conservation and
98 Welcome to the Twilight Zone

directly provides “revenue to the local community sufficient for local peo-
ple to value, and therefore protect, their wildlife heritage area as a source
of income.”16 The local community has prospered from the increased rev-
enue from tourism. Forks uses its natural environment to appeal to tourists
and advertise the town as the base for the popular Twilight series. This
leads to mass tourism of a space to enjoy undeveloped natural areas and
the constructed locations related to Twilight.
The experiences in Forks combine nature and culture. Julie Kalil
Schutton notes the human desire to be one with nature.17 She refers to so-
ciety’s practice of treating nature as separate from everyday culture, and
seeing nature as our real culture. Schutton argues that it is problematic to
see ourselves as outside of nature. Despite this binary, Forks works to
bring nature into culture by capitalizing on its ecotourism and fiction in-
duced tourism simultaneously. Women dominate the Twilight fan base and
the Chamber of Commerce recognizes this. Correspondingly, they have
developed a “Guy’s List” of things to do in Forks. The list includes several
suggestions: beaches, fishing, rain forests, and hunting. By acknowledging
the gendered distinctions, it is clear that nature and constructed sites are
important aspects of the town’s tourism.
Twilight induced tourism may dominate Forks’ economy, but ecotour-
ism is still very much a part of it. As David Bruce Weaver noted in his
discussion of ecotourism, there is an “appreciation of the natural environ-
ment, or some component thereof,” and an association with cultural con-
text when discussing film induced tourism.18 For example, First Beach in
La Push is a beautiful beach surrounded by cliffs and forests. This beach
can be toured and admired for its natural beauty while also being con-
sumed by a Twilight fan as an “authentic” experience of a space/place
from the novels and films. First Beach is where Bella first hears the leg-
ends of the “cold ones.” She is listening to the Quileute tale about vam-
pires, specifically how they are not allowed to cross onto Quileute land.
We eventually learn that Edward is a cold one, and Jacob is an important
member of the wolf pack that protects the Quileute land from vampires.
This blurring of reality and fiction reflects the overlap of ecotourism and
fiction induced tourism.

The Town as a Text

The landscape and natural environment of Forks work in tandem with
the rhetorical narrative constructed by the town, specifically by its Cham-
ber of Commerce and the company Dazzled by Twilight. Barry Brummett
claims “[t]exts are sites of struggle over meaning” and are influential.19
 Justine Moller 99

Forks is an interesting text in that it utilizes its natural and artificial land-
scape to encourage ecotourism as well as fiction induced tourism. The
tourism of Forks historically relied on what Alan Bryman describes as
“intrinsic narratives” that focus on their natural resources, but recently
shifted to an extrinsic one that exploits a fictional reality for Twilight
fans.20 Sue Beeton notes, “[t]he popular media of the day influences the
appeal of travel destinations and activities through constructing or rein-
forcing particular images of those destinations, and acting as ‘markers’.”21
Fans experience the natural space as something more than the environ-
ment. They experience it as a fictional reality beyond the pages of the nov-
els or frames of the films.
Fans travel for an “authentic” experience in which they can embody
the meaning gained from visiting “real” sites or “markers.” The Miller
Tree Inn, a bed and breakfast, doubles as the Cullen House for visitors and
includes a separate room furnished as Dr. Cullen’s office. The owners and
operators allow tours for non-occupants for a small donation. When fans
first started visiting Forks, the Police Station would allow them to go up to
the intercom and ask to speak to the fictional Chief of Police Charlie
Swan. Initially, one of the officers on duty would pretend to go get him
while another would act as Charlie. After a few minutes, they would pre-
tend to get a call and leave. Furthermore, at the hospital, visitors were
formerly allowed to ask the nurses to page Dr. Cullen.22 These experiences
create something “real” for the fans while working through the fictional.
Dr. Cullen does not exist, but the hospital does. This blurring of reality
provides an experience beyond what is just physically in Forks. Barry
Brummett refers to this as an “open” or “diffuse” text in which people
create meaning from their individual experiences based on other signs and
uses. The act of going to the town and seeing physical sites reflects a dif-
fuse text in that there are no clear boundaries as to what or how to experi-
ence the spaces.23 Fans consume, talk, share, and exchange during their
visits but each see and interpret Twilight signs and artifacts differently.

The Experience Economy:

What is Real and What is Fake in Forks?
Ecotourism and film-induced tourism do not exclusively encourage
physical consumption. While there is an abundance of Twilight souvenirs
sold in Forks, there is still something beyond the tangible being consumed.
Tourists consume the spaces and places in various ways. According to
John Urry’s concept of the “tourist gaze,” tourists seek to visit a place that
offers an atmosphere different from what they are accustomed.24 Michel
100 Welcome to the Twilight Zone

Foucault has referenced the gaze as “socially organized and systema-

tized.”25 This includes the natural and constructed environments of places
such as Forks. Fans of Twilight go to see and experience forms of “specta-
cle” in the themed town. Those who visit for adventure tourism consume
the natural space differently. Both forms of tourism allow visitors to
“transform” and be “transformed by their gazing.”26 The beautiful beaches,
mountains, forests, and rivers of Forks provide escapes for outsiders who
are looking for something different from their everyday. Correspondingly,
the fictional experience of Forks allows fans to absorb something beyond
the pages of the books, and beyond the mere appearance or physicality of
the spaces. For example, fans visit Forks High School, where Bella and
Edward meet in the novels. They take pictures outside even though it is
not the school depicted in the films. Fans are gazing upon a real space
made fictional in the novels and films, but one that becomes more real to
them when they can visit and interact with it in its natural environment.
This blurring goes beyond just the tourist gaze of seeing something
outside of our everyday to seeing imaginations come to life. The town of
Forks is a real town that Stephenie Meyer chose to base her stories on. She
re-imagined them in her books, and they were further re-imagined in the
film series. The town is not fictional, yet it embraces the fictional adapta-
tion of itself by labeling houses that reflect descriptions in the books. Fans
come to see the sites that match the texts. They embrace the façade pro-
duced by the town and the Chamber of Commerce.
Forks, Port Angeles, and La Push are places that operate as what Jo-
seph Pine and James Gilmore describe as the Real/Fake.27 They are what
they say they are; the real place that Twilight was based on. However, they
are not true to themselves; they manipulate the sites to work within the
context of Twilight. The town’s “aesthetic acknowledges its fakeness”
making it a real/fake.28 Stephenie Meyer chose these places as the setting
of her Twilight Saga. Yet, they are not exactly what she describes or what
is seen in the films. Forks does not simulate the books or films; it stages an
authentic experience of the town Twilight was based on. The aesthetics of
the experience are natural. As Pine and Gilmore claim, “[t]here’s no such
thing as an artificial experience. Every experience created within the indi-
vidual is real, whether the stimuli are natural or simulated.”29
The Chamber of Commerce chose locations that closely match Mey-
er’s descriptions and designated them as tourist sites. One must go to
Forks to experience it. This is exactly what fans are doing. They are going
to see the real Forks, La Push, and Port Angeles that have been re-
imagined in the books and films. While there, fans can imagine Bella and
Edward walking down the halls of the high school, driving down the
 Justine Moller 101

highway to Port Angeles, and dining at Bella Italia. They can imagine Bel-
la and Jacob sitting on the beaches of La Push by doing it themselves. Fur-
thermore, the Visitor’s Center in Forks has two pick-up trucks in the park-
ing lot. One is labeled “Bella’s truck from the Twilight book series,” while
the other is identified as “Bella’s truck from the Twilight movies.” They
are very similar, but one matches Stephenie Meyer’s description, the other
is the actual one used in the films. The two different trucks call attention to
the constructed nature of Forks and blur the boundaries of what is real or
true.
Forks is what it says it is because it only claims to be what Stephenie
Meyer based her stories on: the real Forks. However, Forks presents loca-
tions like the Black House as Twilight sites even if they do not match the
film or book. The Black House is the fictional house of Bella’s werewolf
friend, Jacob Black. A red house resembles Meyer’s description of the
Black house in the novels. The house serves more of a monetary purpose
for the town and an experiential one for visitors. Tourists can rent the
house for vacation or simply take pictures of it (and a replica of Jacob
Black’s motorcycle). Another site, called the Swan House, is a small house
that resembles the description in the books. However, the family that owns
it has only agreed to put a sign out front that says, “Home of the Swans”
rather than invite people to disturb them.
Some of the spots are similar to the popular texts, which explain why
the Miller Tree Inn posts excerpts throughout the house describing the
Cullen House from the books. The Miller Tree Inn almost exactly matches
the description of the Cullen House, so the Chamber of Commerce dedi-
cated it as a tour site. The Chamber of Commerce claimed these as sites of
recognition for fans and extended their purpose beyond an original func-
tion. The “real” and “fake” of the sites provide a meaningful experience
for their visitors. Fans can see the real town knowing this is what Ste-
phenie saw and imagined Bella and Edward living in. They can look past
the façade to embrace the fictional reality they came to experience. Most,
if not all, of the Twilight tourists know that Forks was not the shooting
location for the films. Forks is not full of replica film sets or exact repre-
sentations of novel descriptions. The Chamber of Commerce website is
also clear in noting its distinction from the films. Regardless of their ve-
racity, fans make meaning from seeing “markers” of their favorite films
and novels. The fans share a fluid experience of these spaces and signs.
Visitors see behind the façade the town constructs. Forks, Port Ange-
les, and La Push recognize their uses for visitors whether it is for their
natural or constructed landscapes. The fans interact with the locales be-
yond their original purpose. Sites work rhetorically on visitors through
102 Welcome to the Twilight Zone

their construction, organization, and involvement. For example, Bella Ita-

lia, the restaurant known for Bella and Edward’s first date in Port Angeles,
identified itself during the tourism boom with a sign that announced
“Home of Bella and Edward’s first date.” The sign is gone, yet visitors
frequently seek to experience the restaurant as described in the book. Pa-
trons can dine where Bella and Edward did and still eat the mushroom
ravioli as Bella did. The town of Forks and Port Angeles provide a place to
experience what they really are not just what is told in the novels or seen
in the films. The mushroom ravioli was initially a seasonal dish at Bella
Italia but became a regular dish after the restaurant’s popularity grew.
Now, the ravioli is mass-produced and a portion of the sales goes to a
community group linked with the natives. The dish has transcended the
books and films.

Consumption, Narratives, Embodiment, and Engagement

Fans create personal identities through their fandom and consumption.
Stacy Holman Jones notes that personal narratives are a “situated, fluid,
and emotionally and intellectually charged engagement of self and oth-
er.”30 She goes on to state that there has been a “rethinking of the relation-
ships among texts, performers, audiences, and contexts.”31 There is a con-
nection between the personal and the cultural occurring in Forks. Tourists
can surf, swim, hike, kayak, camp, and more in Forks, and connect with
the natural environment. Fans connect with the environment in different
ways than they do their typical home environment. Visitors engage with
the places they experience, as well as the people within them. They can
enact their “Twi-hardness” through clothing and paraphernalia or simply
explore the natural environment.
Fans visiting Forks enter a space in which everything is rhetorical,
from the motel signs to the landscapes. Sonja Modesti notes Greg Dickin-
son’s statement that “[a]s bodies are performed or enacted, rhetoric then
becomes embodied.”32 The natural and constructed environments work on
fans in that they find meaning through performing or experiencing the
“real” Forks. The real Forks—as the town that Twilight is based on—is
where people get the fictional Forks, or the one the Chamber of Commerce
wants them to see. Audiences can consume the real and the fake, the natu-
ral and the constructed. For example, one of the motels in Forks had a sign
that read “Edward Cullen did not sleep here” which reinforces that Edward
Cullen is not real and did not stay at that motel. However, it also refers to
vampire-lore (the fact that they do not need to sleep) and provides an inti-
 Justine Moller 103

mate connection with the space in which vampires and the text become a
part of the tourist’s reality.
Similarly, before the border between La Push and Forks there is a sign
that says “Treaty Line” and “No vampires beyond this point.” This sign
refers to the pact the cold ones have with the werewolves in the Twilight
series. The other side of the sign says “Welcome Twilight Fans” and fans
are encouraged to take pictures with it. The Dazzled by Twilight Tours also
stop at this location as part of their Twilight Tours. Now, fans can go be-
yond the words and visit the real places that have adopted the fictional
reality. The welcome sign for La Push appears a little further down the
road. La Push becomes werewolf territory for fans through these “mark-
ers.”
Fans can also become part of a participatory tourism trade by dressing
up in costumes, or Twilight themed apparel. Some take signs and other
paraphernalia to hold in pictures. These actions become a type of embodi-
ment. Modesti extends this by stating that the body “gives to and takes
meaning from its narrative settings.” 33 As such, Forks becomes part of
reality and something different at the same time. It is open for fans to im-
pose meaning while simultaneously persuading its visitors to engage in
certain ways with it. The town and its visitors work through Barry Brum-
mett’s notion of discrete and diffuse texts. The books and films are dis-
crete texts with “clear boundaries of time and space.”34 However, the fans
rewrite their own narratives through their experience in Forks. Brummett
refers to this as creating renewed meanings.35 Here then the town becomes
a diffuse text where the boundaries are less clear. Fans rewrite the original
text. For example, Alisha reported on her blog “After the bite… All things
Twilight”, that she and a friend went to Port Angeles to the department
store that Bella and her friends go to in the first novel.36 In the book, Bella
leaves her friends and wanders to a bookstore down the road. Alisha and
her friend went to a bookstore down the street that does not match Meyer’s
description perfectly, but because of its proximity, they imagined Bella’s
relationship to it and posed for photos nearby. They participated in con-
structing their own narrative in a real space.
The rhetoric of Forks reflects what Brummett describes as implied and
explicit.37 The town persuades visitors through various methods and dif-
ferent levels of awareness to experience it in a certain way. The website
has a separate tab for Twilight that combines both nature photos as well as
the pictures of fans and “markers.” Knudson et al. claim that tourism is a
discourse among three sets of actors: “tourists,” “locals,” and “intermedi-
aries.”38 This implies that there is the creation of a narrative by all of those
involved. The Chamber of Commerce website for Forks uses images of
104 Welcome to the Twilight Zone

people enjoying nature to demonstrate how the space can, or should, be

enjoyed. This page displays the tourist locations from the novels and films.
The website uses what Brummett calls “direct tactics” in that it makes
“explicit appeals” to encourage certain forms of tourism.39 The Twilight
tab encourages tourism to Twilight “markers” and related experiences such
as souvenir shops and photo-ops.
Business owners, workers, locals, and local fans contribute to the spec-
tacle of Forks for its visitors. The website, tours, Visitor’s Center, shops,
and restaurants tell the story of the town as the “real” Forks from the
books and films through its employees, images, and construction. The
marketing for Forks goes beyond revenue to include identity formation
and meaning making through shared experiences with locals and tourists.
These texts and sites use pictures, words, and items to convey a sense of
connection and experience provided by the town and its “markers.” For
example, Sully’s Drive-In sells the “Bella Burger” and “Twilight Punch”
on their regular menu. The “Bella Burger” shares no connection with ei-
ther the films or novels other than in its name, but the “Twilight Punch” is
lemonade with strawberries that look like dripping blood in the cup, served
with a pair of vampire teeth. Places like Sully’s and other shops and restau-
rants in town become part of fans’ identity formation. The Chamber of
Commerce promotes the Twilight experience through a multitude of busi-
nesses and attractions. The Visitor’s Center distributes a “Forks’ Bites”
handout with a list of places that are significant to the series or serve Twi-
light related items. This intertextuality works to promote tourism and con-
sumption.
Nature works as a backdrop to these Twilight themes. The state of
Washington’s website even describes Forks as “an active arts community
with fast-running rivers, temperate rain forests, and miles of primeval
shoreline nearby. The enchanting Hoh Rain Forest, legendary steelhead
fishing, and dramatic coast are the perfect setting for your own adven-
ture.”40 Forks and Washington promote their natural environment as some-
thing different from the culture we live in, similar to Schutton’s argument.
Yet, tourists and fans experience the peninsula in a way that incorporates
nature as part of their culture. From the rainy town to the vast beaches,
visitors explore a natural and constructed world that is real and brings the
imagination (the fictional) into reality. The tourists and fans transform the
spaces they inhabit. They do not just inhabit them; they embody them. It
becomes part of their identity. Meaning is deeply rooted in human connec-
tion through sharing a passion for Twilight, exploring the space, and taking
the tours. Fans and tourists experience this on different levels in Forks and
the Olympic Peninsula in general.
 Justine Moller 105

Visiting the Olympic Peninsula: A Postmodern Experience

There is more than just gazing occurring in Forks. Visitors are explor-
ing and experiencing the town and surrounding area with all of their sens-
es. John Urry believes that our postmodern world has led to a loss of dis-
tinction between representation and reality.41 Forks is now a representation
of Twilight. By taking on this fictional context, the real town is obscured
or lost. Even some citizens of the small town are engrossed in the town as
a Twilight text so much so that they alter their everyday experience. For
example, Twilight Central is a store near the high school that acts as a
flower, gift, and craft store while also offering Twilight tours. Further,
Twilight Tours in Forks is an independent company that runs tours all year
long. Many businesses rely on the popularity of Twilight as well as the
revenue that Twilight tourism brings to their small town. The town repre-
sents itself as a Twilight text, encouraging fans and citizens to step back
from reality.
Jean Baudrillard's work on simulacra and simulacrum further demon-
strates the effect of language and other sign systems on our experience of
reality. He is not concerned with what is real or fake, but that there is
meaning found in experiencing a simulated environment. Baudrillard’s
fourth order of simulation claims, “instead of the simulation referring to
the real life referent, we increasingly begin to experience real life in refer-
ence to other images or representations which are more ‘real’ to us.”42
Forks works as a representation of Twilight that becomes more real than
just a logging town on the Olympic Peninsula. The town becomes more
real as a Twilight text for fans when provided with significant “markers”
such as homes, workplaces, restaurants, bookstores, and relevant settings
to experience. Forks (as a real town) and Twilight (as a text) become more
real through simulation, performance, embodiment of fictional settings,
and the suspension of disbelief seen by visitors.
Fans that visit the hospital and police department and speak with em-
ployees are able to take part in the simulation as well. Simulation enhances
at least once a year when the town and visitors celebrate Stephenie Meyer
day. At the weekend-long celebration in September, fans buy tickets to
meet look-a-likes, share with other fans, and even walk around with card-
board cutouts of their favorite characters. These events, dinners, and pho-
to-ops contribute to a simulated “true” Twilight experience. Stars of the
films do not show up, but the look-a-likes bring the characters to life.
Simulation acts as an outlet for fans to express themselves and share with
other fans.
106 Welcome to the Twilight Zone

Fans interact with each other as much as they do the space when in
Forks. The natural and constructed spaces are full of what Brummett refers
to as intended and unintended meanings for visitors.43 As Knudson et al.
note, “[J]ust as a place’s landscape is the built up consequences of a
place’s identity process, so too is tourism the practice of deciphering iden-
tity clues in the landscape of the place.”44 The landscape of Forks allows
for identity formation through its natural environment, but also through
fiction induced tourist sites that re-appropriate the land into fictional reali-
ties. The natural environment’s cultural significance stems from the books
and films. An example of an unintended meaning is First Beach in La
Push. Homes and schools on native land surround a vast ocean front
beach. The beach becomes more important to fans that recognize that Ja-
cob, Bella, and her friends spent time on the beach throughout the books.
When on the beach, fans can look out at the landmasses, rocks, and cliffs
and imagine Bella jumping off one of them like she does in New Moon.
The natural environment acts as an escape because it is different from our
everyday. Nevertheless, it also has cultural meaning to those who know
the texts.

Conclusion
Tourists and fans flock to Forks with different motives and for individ-
ual experiences. They work through the natural and constructed environ-
ment to obtain meaning. The tourism of Forks no longer relies on simply
intrinsic narratives. The town allows extrinsic ones that exploit a fictional
reality for Twilight fans while still providing an experience of the natural
environment. Ecotourism and fiction induced tourism allow for a post-
modern experience in which the real and the fake are confused. The fake
replaces the real, and allows the fictional narrative to be experienced
through the environment. Instead of simply learning about the natural
landscape, people visiting Forks now can learn about the places and spaces
of meaning making from Twilight. Moreover, some of these spaces are
natural environments, so a blend of tourism occurs. Schutton claims that
popular culture teaches us to emphasize nature’s “use value”; however, in
Forks, tourists value the popular, fictional, and the natural.45 This, ironical-
ly, emphasizes the use value of nature as the backdrop for the series. The
town encourages a fictional reality in which the real becomes fake, and
consequently becomes real again through the natural environment and
constructed spaces. Forks is overwhelmed with Twilight referents. The
constructed and natural environments contribute to the blurry experience
of fictional realities in this small timber town. Twilight themes conceal the
 Justine Moller 107

original context by encouraging a real/fake environment. Narratives de-

velop from of the natural and fictional locations. Furthermore, fans are not
just consuming material goods. The town takes the fictional Forks from
the novels and films and turns it into something not quite artificial, and not
quite authentic.

Notes
1
Sue Beeton, Film-Induced Tourism (Tonawanda, NY: Channel View
Publications, 2004).
2
Christine Mitchell, “Forks, Washington: From Farms to Forests to Fans,” in The
Twilight Mystique: Critical Essays on the Novels and Films, eds. Amy M. Clarke
& Marijane Osborn (McFarland & Company Inc. Jefferson, N.C. 2010).
3
Joseph Pine and James Gilmore, The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and
Every Business is a Stage. (Harvard Business School Press. Boston, Massachusetts,
1999).
4
Twihard is a colloquial term given to die-hard fans of the Twilight series.
5
Vampires are typically unable to go out in sunlight, can be killed by stakes and
crosses, sleep in coffins or underground, have no reflections, fear garlic and silver,
have to be invited into a human dwelling, feed on humans, and can be killed by
humans.
6
Barry Brummett, Rhetoric in Popular Culture (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications, 2006), 114.
7
Cynthia Willis-Chun, “Touring the Twilight Zone: Cultural Tourism and
Commodification on the Olympic Peninsula,” in Bitten by Twilight: Youth Culture,
Media, & the Vampire Franchise, eds. M.A. Click,, J.S Aubrey, and E. Behm-
Morawitz, (New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 2010), 262.
8
This is according to the Forks Chamber of Commerce Visitor Center handout
given to me during my visit.
9
Mitchell, 191.
10
Dazzled by Twilight was a company that ran stores in Port Angeles and Forks.
They offered Twilight tours and sold merchandise and memorabilia.
11
Staci Chastain (owner of Alice’s Closet in Forks, WA.), personal
communication, April 17, 2012.
12
Port Angeles, WA location of Dazzled by Twilight as seen on “Discover Forks,
Washington” Forks Chamber of Commerce, Inc, http://www.forkswa.com/.
13
Chris Ryan and Jan Saward, “The Zoo as Ecotourism Attraction – Visitor
Reactions, Perceptions and Management Implications: The Case of Hamilton Zoo,
New Zealand,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12, no. 3 (2004): 247.
14
David A Fennell, Ecotourism, 3rd ed. (Routledge: New York, NY, 2008), 19.
15
Ibid, 21.
16
Ibid, 20.
17
Julie Kalil Schutton. “Chewing on the Grizzly Man: Getting to the Meat of the
Matter,” Environmental Communication 2, no. 2, (2008).
18
Ryan Saward, 247.
108 Welcome to the Twilight Zone

19
Brummett, 93.
20
Alan Bryman, The Disneyization of Society (London: Sage Publications, 2004).
21
Beeton, 4.
22
Staci Chastain (owner of Alice’s Closet in Forks, WA.), personal
communication, April 17, 2012.
23
Brummett, 106-107.
24
John Urry. The Tourist Gaze (London: Sage Publications, 2002).
25
Tony Blackshaw and Gary Crawford, Sage Dictionaries of Leisure Studies
(Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2009), 210.
26
Daniel C. Knudsen, Charles E. Greer, Michelle M. Metro-Roland, and Anne K.
Soper, “Landscape, Tourism, and Meaning: An Introduction,” in Landscape,
Tourism, and Meaning, eds. Daniel C. Knudsen, Charles E. Greer, Michelle M.
Metro-Roland, and Anne K. Soper (Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing
Company, 2008), 3.
27
Pine and Gilmore, The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every
Business is a Stage.
28
Ibid, 37.
29
Ibid, 36.
30
Stacy Holman Jones, “Autoethnography: Making the Personal Political” in
Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. N.K. Denzin, and Y.S Lincoln (Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2005), 773.
31
Ibid.
32
Sonja Modesti, “Home Sweet Home: Tattoo Parlors as Postmodern Spaces of
Agency,” in Western Journal of Communication 72, no. 3 (2008): 202.
33
Ibid.
34
Brummett, 106.
35
Ibid.
36
“After the Bite…All things Twilight” (Blog), January 19, 2012, accessed
February 13, 2013, www.afterthebite.com/Forks-Twilight-Tour-Port-Angeles---
Port-Book-News-2528522.
37
Brummett, 106.
38
Knudsen, Greer, Metro-Roland, and Soper, 4.
39
Brummett, 118.
40
“Washington, the State” Washington Tourism Alliance, accessed February 13,
2013, http://www.experiencewa.com/cities/forks.aspx.
41
Urry, The Tourist Gaze.
42
Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1994), 4.
43
Brummett, 106.
44
Knudson, Greer, Metro-Roland, and Soper, 1.
45
Schutton, 2008.
 SET PHASERS TO EXTRAPOLATE:
EXAMINING THE NEW CULTURAL ROLE
OF THE FAN THROUGH STAR TREK FANDOM
ON TUMBLR

CORRIGAN VAUGHAN
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA

Introduction
When microblogging platform Tumblr made its debut in 2008, its
founder, David Karp, was only twenty-two years old. A child prodigy,
who had, with his parents’ consent, dropped out of high school at age fif-
teen and by age seventeen moved to Japan for five months by himself,
Karp was fascinated by the newly emerging idea of “tumblelogs.”1 The
concept of the tumblelog was that of a short-form blog that allowed for
brief posts and contrasted with what he considered more complicated web-
sites like Blogger and Wordpress. He was struck by the number of people
he knew who would sign up for a blog, and then never use it due to the
complication of the platform or the pressure to write lengthier and more
time-consuming posts. Seeing that no one was taking advantage of the
opportunity to create a platform for tumblelogging, Karp created Tumblr.
A few short years later, Tumblr continues to increase in popularity, and
has become an enormous force for fandom. Its interface provides a simple
way for users to find and disseminate content. Internet fandom communi-
ties, such as fans of Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Supernatural, have em-
braced the ease and speed with which Tumblr allows images and infor-
mation to spread. Tumblr user Falyn, age sixteen, explained, “I am drawn
specifically to Tumblr because it is very easy to find and connect with
fandoms there.”2 User Ella, age twenty, said, “I enjoy that Tumblr is most-
ly image oriented, and as a visual artist that appeals to me.” Nineteen-year-
old user Sadie summed up the appeal of Tumblr by explaining, “Tumblr is
easy and friendly, meaning the function and the people on it.” These sen-
timents seem to be shared by a considerable portion of the largely young
110 Set Phasers to Extrapolate

and social media savvy group of fans who have made Tumblr their fandom
home.
Fandom on the Internet is not a new development. In that sense, Tum-
blr is not a revolutionary website by any stretch of the imagination. The
speed at which it has replaced more established fandom sites like
LiveJournal and fan forums as the central hub of activity for many fans is
impressive, however. Furthermore, the crowd it draws is not necessarily
typical of the stereotyped image of the fan in popular culture, or even of
the more balanced portraits created by recent scholars. Tumblr fans seem
to represent a new generation. The majority of these fans ranging from age
sixteen to twenty-two, the Star Trek fandom on Tumblr is young. It is di-
verse, with many non-white participants, as well as members from coun-
tries like the Philippines, Poland, Denmark, and beyond. They are living
examples of Star Trek’s “IDIC” philosophy: infinite diversity in infinite
combinations. These fans don’t just dedicate hours to fandom; they are
connected all day every day, most electing to keep a browser tab open to
Tumblr at all times while they do other things.
In other ways, members of the Star Trek fandom on Tumblr fit quite
neatly into the descriptions and definitions of scholars like Henry Jenkins
and Robin Roberts. They are incredibly social, often becoming partici-
pants in other fandoms simply because other Star Trek fans post about
them.3 Their views on sexuality often deviate quite sharply from the heter-
onormative expectations and standards of society. They engage with the
text beyond simply accepting what the writers of the movies and the series
give to them. They are activists for what they consider canon, willing to
defy the series creators when they deviate from what the fandom accepts.
In examining the ways in which Star Trek fans on Tumblr fit or deviate
from the portraits of fans that theorists and popular culture have developed
over the years, I began to wonder about not only the characteristics of this
new wave of fans, but their social influence. Beyond simply sharing com-
mon interests, I wondered, what draws people to Star Trek fandom on
Tumblr—a sense of belonging, shared values, the superficiality or the
depths of connections? Additionally, does this fandom have any impact on
the world beyond Tumblr, or is it simply a space in which the rules of the
larger society do not apply for a little while? Initially, I was certain that
these fans would prove to be an incredibly transgressive group, harnessing
the powers of technology and community to overthrow hegemonies and
challenge the status quo. After more in depth conversations with fans, it is
clear that, while fandom and seemingly progressive ideals go hand in
hand, the transgressive power of the fan is more complicated.
 Corrigan Vaughan 111

In this chapter, I examine the constructions of the fan proposed by pre-

vious fandom theorists, looking at how these constructions dialogue with
one another, and attempt to develop a framework for the modern, scholarly
idea of fandom. I then present my own findings, gathered through a broad
survey of 128 Tumblr users and a smaller and more focused set of fifteen
interviews with specific fans. I put these findings into dialogue with the
theorists discussed previously and see how the theoretical portrait of the
fan matches up with my findings in the area of Star Trek fans on Tumblr. I
look at the social influence of these fans, particularly when it comes to
challenging heteronormative ideals in society. Robin Roberts’s book Sex-
ual Generations questions whether Star Trek fans are in fact particularly
progressive, and whether they are able to change anything in society. 4
Christine Scodari echoes this point, going so far as to say that fans’ affini-
ty for “slash” fiction is a symptom of an entirely hegemonic predisposition
toward males and devaluing of female characters.5 My suspicion was that
Star Trek fans would not think of themselves as perpetuating negative im-
ages of women or sexist tropes. After all, as Roberts explains, “Star Trek
reveals America’s complex and contradictory relationship with feminism.
For many viewers and the show’s creators, however, Star Trek is a posi-
tive force for women.”6

Theoretical Constructions of Fandom

Frederik Pohl once said, “[i]t is very difficult to explain science-fiction
[fandom] to anyone who has never experienced it. The closest analogy,
perhaps, might be to the ‘cellar Christians’ of pagan Rome, small, furtive
groups of believers, meeting in secret, shunned or even attacked by outsid-
ers, or as fans came to call them, the ‘mundanes’.”7 Nearly all scholars
who have studied fandom in the waves of fan theory that began to diverge
from the rigid and unfavorable portrait painted by Theodor Adorno and his
Frankfurt School peers have acknowledged that fans are not simply con-
sumer dupes, nor are they mere passive recipients of mass culture. While
of course there can be no broad, sweeping statement for the interpretive
abilities or inclinations of all fans, as a group, it is clear that they engage
with the text even after the television set is turned off or the movie theater
is in the rearview mirror. If this were not the case, the texts that spawn
such allegiance would cease to exist. It is only because of the profitability
of fandom that producers keep on creating for that niche market.
In his afterword to Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated
World, Henry Jenkins submits, “[w]e should no longer be talking about
fans as if they were somehow marginal to the ways the culture industries
112 Set Phasers to Extrapolate

operate.”8 He argues that even the term “fan” is beginning to lose its cul-
tural and scholarly relevance as fandom becomes subject not just to sym-
bolic inversion, but to actual cultural inversion. Consumer industries have
begun to start addressing their adherents by other names—early adopters,
prosumers, loyals—but they all mean the same thing: fan. Fandom and its
values are now central to the mechanisms of capitalism and consumerism;
hardly marginalized the way they were in the past. This is not to say that
all stereotypes and degradations of fans have faded from the public con-
sciousness, but that consumer industries have found ways to let people
interact with texts without being othered by the stigma of fanaticism. “As
fandom becomes part of the normal way the creative industries operate,”
Jenkins says, “then fandom may cease to function as a meaningful catego-
ry of cultural analysis. Maybe in that sense, fandom has no future.”9
Naturally, in an article about Star Trek fandom on Tumblr, I am not
going to begin with the assumption that fandom studies are on their way
out. Jenkins larger point, however, is an important one. Fans are an inte-
gral part of the contemporary consumer industry, and entertainment texts
are produced with the understanding that viewers will not simply turn on
the TV, watch, shut off the TV, and forget everything they saw. Fans are
expected to talk about it on social media websites, to circulate theories
about the next part of the story arc, to buy the merchandise, to attend the
events, and so on. The ever-increasing popularity of Comic-Cons and oth-
er such events and conventions throughout the United States in recent
years is a testament to the extent to which fandom has been embraced by
consumer industries—especially considering the mainstream films that
now rely on events like Comic-Con to create buzz amongst consumers. It
no longer pays to marginalize the fan.
Ilsa J. Bick, in her article Boys in Space: “Star Trek,” Latency, and the
Neverending Story, criticizes Henry Jenkins for giving fans too much cred-
it for their independence from consumer culture and societal hierarchies in
Textual Poachers. She writes, “[w]hether one is a poacher or not, surely it
escapes no one’s notice that these fans, re-invoking authoritarian institu-
tional hierarchies in their own organizations, are being actively courted by
an entertainment industry mindful of the consumer dollars in their bulging
pockets.”10 In Fan Cultures, however, Matt Hills warns against the perils
of looking at fandom as a fan versus capitalism dualism. He argues that the
relationship between the fan and consumer industries is much more com-
plex than a simple “good fandom” versus “bad consumption” binary. The
fans place within consumer culture is fraught with both positive and nega-
tive associations, and Hills even complicates the ideas of cultural power
that we generally use to discuss the fan. He notes that discussions of cul-
 Corrigan Vaughan 113

tural power “assume that power can be located in one group or another,
and/or that power operates systematically.” Hills breaks down the binaries
by which we have come to understand fans and their relationship to con-
sumer industries, to academics, and to culture. He tosses the simplistic
definitions of fandom as a site of struggle out the window and argues that
one must dig a little deeper to understand that the fan is located both with-
in and without these institutions and ideals. He presents fans as “ideal con-
sumers,” whose interests and buying habits are delightfully predictable by
those who would cater to them, but as simultaneously holding “anti-
commercial beliefs” that present a great contradiction.11 He suggests that
we should get comfortable with such contradictions.
Keeping Hills in mind, it is still important to understand how fandom
does, in fact, function as an interpretive community that sees itself and is
seen by others at least on some level as warring with the power bloc. Rob-
ert V. Kozinets writes, “[t]he notion that consumption based subcultures
are often associated with deviant behavior is often valuable because it
helps clarify the moral order that is being resisted and negotiated.”12 It is
not just Star Trek fans, but consumption based subcultures in general, that
are considered challengers of the status quo. In the case of Star Trek, the
fans are not simply pulling this resistance to dominant ideologies out of
thin air. The show’s creator, Gene Roddenberry, wanted it that way. Alt-
hough network restrictions and the limitations of society’s acceptance of
non-mainstream ideals hindered him from achieving some of his progres-
sive goals—like having an openly homosexual character in a Star Trek
series—he deliberately kept open to interpretation things like the sexuali-
ties of Trek’s characters. The centrality of sexuality to Trek fandom will be
explored more fully in the next section, but it is worth getting a basic grasp
on in the meantime.
Robin Roberts refers to the process by which the producers of science
fiction are able to challenge ideologies of race, sexuality, and so on, as
extrapolation and defamiliarization. Extrapolation refers to the practice of
“speculating from what exists, what might exist.”13 As an example, be-
cause Star Trek takes place three hundred years in the future, its creators
can look at the current racial climate (in America, specifically), and specu-
late as to what the natural course of events would lead us to in the future in
regards to race relations. In Deep Space and Sacred Time, authors Jon
Wagner and Jan Lundeen discuss the anti-marital bias of Star Trek’s Orig-
inal Series (TOS), placing the series in the context of the 1960s when so-
cial critics were taking aim at the “repressive” institution. They write,
“[n]o central character aboard the original Enterprise has a spouse or per-
manent partner either on or off the ship …. Neither do they have children,
114 Set Phasers to Extrapolate

siblings, or parents who play significant roles in their lives.”14 From the
social milieu of the 1960s, the creators of Star Trek could extrapolate a
vision of the future in which there was plenty of free love to go around,
and no familial bonds to tie them down. Extrapolation keeps the show lo-
cated in the issues of the day, even as it takes place in a distant future.
The other process described by Roberts, defamiliarization, involves
“making the familiar seem new and strange, cognitively different.” 15
Through this process, also called “cognitive estrangement,” we are able to
step out of our concepts of familiar events and see them through a differ-
ent lens, due to some form of distancing from the subject. While Star Trek
was never able to have a human homosexual character, it was able to deal
with issues of gender and sexual orientation by introducing alien charac-
ters that could change sex or that lived in a society sans gender distinc-
tions. Of course, this need for the viewer to experience cognitive es-
trangement in order to process issues of sexuality is not without its prob-
lems, but that, too, is approached in the following section. Roberts’s point
is that extrapolation and defamiliarization enable the Star Trek viewer to
engage with certain ideas that might otherwise make him/her uncomforta-
ble, but are perfectly acceptable when placed in the context of an Other or
of a time centuries in the future.
The processes of extrapolation and defamiliarization, paired with Gene
Roddenberry’s penchant for ambiguity in his characters’ sexualities, make
Star Trek an ideal text for fandom. In the 1990s, when The Next Genera-
tion (TNG) was airing, Americans were seeing homosexuality come to the
cultural fore in debates over gay marriage and the new “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell” policy enacted by President Clinton. In the present, nearly the exact
same issues that inspired Roddenberry to press subtly issues of gender and
sexuality that are central to our national conversation, and a new wave of
fans are interacting with and contextualizing Star Trek accordingly.

Sex, Gender, and Sites of Struggle

Quite astutely, Robin Roberts points out in Sexual Generations that
Star Trek fans perceive the show as a “positive force for women,” despite
its contradictory messages. Indeed, my research into the fans on Tumblr
reflects this. Seventy-one percent of the fans surveyed said that they be-
lieved Star Trek challenged societal norms, values, and expectations, and
seventy percent thought that most or all Star Trek fans challenged those
things. There is a clear sense amongst fandom participants that Star Trek
and its fans push the boundaries of what is acceptable in mainstream cul-
ture. When pressed on what aspects of society Trek fans challenge, con-
 Corrigan Vaughan 115

structs of sexual orientation and gender came up in every response. In

terms of sexuality, Star Trek fans on Tumblr seem to practice what they
believe the show preaches, often eschewing heteronormative ideas of sex-
ual orientation and gender. Many take issue with the terminology itself,
responding to my questions with answers like, “I don’t believe in sexual
orientation,” or identifying their sex using terms such as “neutrois.”16 Only
fifty percent of respondents identified solely as “straight.” Seven percent
identified as gay or lesbian, two percent as asexual, and a surprising thirty-
six percent as either bisexual or pansexual.
It is hard to discern cause and effect here. Are people with societally
marginalized sexualities drawn to Star Trek for its progressivism, or is the
text made progressive by these marginalized viewers? Certainly, Roberts
might argue that, to an extent, the fans make Star Trek into a progressive
text more than Gene Roddenberry was ever able, despite his noble at-
tempts. Famously, for example, the first episode of TOS featured Majel
Barrett as second-in-command to Captain Christopher Pike. The network
and test audiences could not accept a woman in such a position of power,
nearly equal to the man. Barrett’s character was rewritten in the rest of the
series as a passive nurse who quietly pines for Mr. Spock. This is just one
of many instances in which Star Trek—particularly TOS—failed to live up
to Roddenberry’s and the show’s later fans’ expectations of progressivism.
Therefore, it would seem reasonable to say that the fans have constructed,
in some ways, the idea of Star Trek as a feminist text.
Still, many scholars are critical of the extent to which fans can truly
challenge existing hegemonies. Where Jenkins focused on the incorpora-
tion/resistance struggles of the fan, scholars that are more skeptical see
fandom and its practices as further manifestations of social and cultural
hierarchies.17 As Jonathan Gray explains, in the eyes of many second wave
scholars, fandom is not considered a place of “extraordinary emancipation
and reformulation of gender relations,” but is a “continuation of wider
social inequalities.”18 Christine Scodari’s essay on slash mirrors this con-
cern. She sees slash not in the Jenkinsian light, in which it functions most-
ly as a means of seeing equals in partnership without gender getting in the
way, but as a more problematic reflection of “patriarchal, hegemonic ste-
reotypes of competition of women.” 19 To Scodari, slash represents the
societal tendency to favor males, and perpetuates the sense of competition
between women.
Some fans are just as skeptical of the power of fandom to incite any
form of meaningful change. Stella accuses Star Trek fans of essentially
talking a big game, but failing to take any incisive action towards chang-
ing things outside of the fandom world:
116 Set Phasers to Extrapolate

I think that most Star Trek fans understand what the show represented at
the time, and because of that they themselves probably hold those beliefs
and opinions. I think, in the long run it will make a difference in that they'll
teach their children these things, and their children will teach their chil-
dren, but I don't think any of them are doing much more than sitting around
being angry about the things they don't like. Like, Star Trek fans were an-
gry about the passing of Prop 8 and they were vocal about it, but what did
they actually do other than sit at home and blog about it.

Likewise, Bence, a twenty-year-old male from Hungary said that he

believed Star Trek fans hold a lot of influence amongst fandom peers, but
are not doing much to impact non-fans. He explained that Star Trek fans
on Tumblr were very into LGBT rights, and that he remembered them
very actively posting about California’s Proposition 8, but that he was not
sure that they had done anything other than blog about it. He and others
were equally cynical about what good the Star Trek franchise itself does in
advancing human rights and other causes. Bence points out that the show
(TNG) was seen largely as entertainment, and thus those that did/do not
interact with the text to the extent that fans do were not necessarily going
to catch subtexts that the fan fiction writers and shippers noticed.20
As the fans seem to acknowledge, the key to the progressive nature of
Star Trek is often what is in the silences of the show. Geordi LaForge’s
troubles with women, the close relationship between Kirk and Spock, the
seemingly blatantly flirtation of two male Deep Space 9 (DS9) charac-
ters—none of these things explicitly point to the homosexuality or pansex-
uality of the characters, but their ill-defined sexualities leave room for the
fan to impose his/her own readings of the relationships.
Despite the reality that Trek’s progressiveness does lay in its ambigui-
ty, its fans still expressed indignation and even anger at the show’s meager
attempts at questioning gender and sexual orientation. The producers of
DS9 acknowledge that the homosexual relationship they had created be-
tween two characters was derailed by the network, who insisted they throw
in a female love interest to, in essence, prove one of the characters’ hetero-
sexuality. In a TNG episode, Riker falls for an alien of a race with no de-
terminate gender. Despite the “masculine” appearance of the character, it
was a woman who played the role. Even Jonathan Frakes, the actor who
portrayed Riker, was critical of the show’s producers for not having the
gumption to let him fall in love with a character that was “more obviously
male.”21
Perhaps the most contentious episode of Star Trek dealing with sexual-
ity was the TNG episode in which Beverly Crusher fell in love with an
alien who not only had no particular sex, but could also inhabit different
 Corrigan Vaughan 117

bodies, making it possible for it to be sometimes female and sometimes

male. At one point, it inhabits Riker’s body, and Dr. Crusher proceeds to
have sexual relations with him, even though the alien is using the body of
a platonic friend. When the alien swaps into a female body, though, Dr.
Crusher cannot get past her hang-ups. She delivers a speech that acknowl-
edges as much, which the writers most likely meant as a nod to fans, a way
of telling them that they would allow the relationship if they could, but
society—and the network—was not ready for it yet. Instead, fans were
insulted. In the end, the incident played to them as homophobic, and as
reinforcing what Roberts refers to as “compulsory heterosexuality.”22
In his article “Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the Meanings of Star
Trek’s Culture of Consumption,” Robert V. Kozinets explains,
“[l]egitimizing articulations of Star Trek as a religion or myth underscore
fans’ heavy investment of self in the text. These sacralizing articulations
are used to distance the text from its superficial status as a commercial
product.”23 While I shy away from the idea of Star Trek fandom as reli-
gion, Kozinets makes a valid point in that fans do hold to certain aspects
of Star Trek as sacred, raising up fandom canon as a core truth. In doing
so, for better or for worse, they distance themselves from the commercial
aspects of the program, raising perhaps unrealistic expectations of its con-
tent. This presents an interesting dichotomy, then. Fans expect the show to
openly challenge and defy the status quo, but, by their own accounts, fans
do not seem to openly do so themselves. This is not to say that they hide
their sexualities or their opinions on these matters. Notably, though, al-
most half admitted to being more transparent with their Tumblr friends
than with friends they know “IRL” or in real life. In addition, the consen-
sus among the devotees I interviewed was that real world impact is not the
strong suit of the Tumblr Trek fandom. When asked how much the Tumblr
Star Trek fandom actively influenced the world beyond Tumblr, Australi-
an fan Alissa lamented,

Unfortunately I do not think that Star Trek fans have impacted norms much
outside of fandom. Inside, the change has been really remarkable and
they've changed the way people look at fandoms. But the line between fan-
dom and the outside world is, as all people (like myself) who post NC-17
gay kinky fanfiction [sic] online under a pseudonym know, a strong one. I
suppose a case could be made that encountering slash at all affects you
even if you're not in fandom yourself, but I think that's still a relatively low
number of people, and that for most who do it's just a matter of 'some girls
like to see two guys doing it' and nothing more world-shattering than that.
118 Set Phasers to Extrapolate

Cady, from Napa, California similarly explained, “[m]ost of those with

whom I interact don't seem actively engaged with stuff in the real world.
Maybe it does not count as challenging the status quo if it is not active, but
I think Trek fans tend to have unusual mindsets and views of the world. I
do think we have a positive impact on the world through fandom, in the
way we can accept each other. I don't know how much of that bleeds
through to RL though.” She added, hopefully but self-deprecatingly,
“Maybe we'll grow up to do good things?”
The self-effacing nature of fan responses to their own influence sur-
prised me. In the initial surveys that I sent out, many wrote glowing as-
sessments of their fandom as a whole, celebrating the ways in which it
made them feel accepted and created in a no-judgment zone that not only
tolerated, but also accepted and celebrated, free expression. The extent to
which these fans still feel stuck in their own communities is telling though.
On one level, it reaffirms Matt Hills and other scholars’ hypotheses that
fandom is not the radical site of emancipation that scholars of the late
1980s and early 1990s painted it to be. On another level, it challenges the
notions of scholars like Bick, who seem to see fans as unaware of their
positioning within existing social hierarchies. These fans are not delusion-
al. They see their fandom as a community first and facing down the Man is
not a priority, much as it would not be for most groups of friends.

Conclusion
I am by no means discounting the idea that fan or slash fiction, and
other incarnations of interpretive activities carried out by fans are meant
to, at times, have broader significance than plain, entertainment value. It is
clear in the works of many, if not all, modern theorists of popular culture
that bringing a message to the table is important to plenty of Star Trek
fans. Jenkins lists several fan fiction authors (Siebert, Land, Bates) who
published their work specifically to give value to female characters like
Nurse Chapel and Lieutenant Unhurt, who were underdeveloped in the
actual series.24 The fact of the matter is that, while it is unfair to place up-
on fandom in general the burden of being a site of hegemonic struggle,
there are those who embrace that challenge. What it seems to come down
to for many of these users, though, is that their lives are sites of struggle.
With fifty percent identifying as something other than straight, only about
nine percent feeling comfortable enough to talk about Tumblr with real-
life friends, and with forty percent admitting that they are more transparent
about their lives and interests with people they know online than they are
 Corrigan Vaughan 119

with people they know in real life, it is not surprising that Tumblr fandom
is a safe haven.
In an era in which LGBT rights are at the forefront of cultural discus-
sions, Star Trek fandom on Tumblr fits nicely into more recent fandom
theory, in which the focus shifts away from issues of power struggle to-
ward broader questions of how fandom reflects and deals with the “social,
cultural, and economic transformations of our time.” In compiling all of
my research, I realized that I had been sucked into the trap of looking at
the fan in dualisms. I expected to see containment and resistance. I ex-
pected to see the tensions between high and low culture. I expected con-
sumer culture to clash with fan culture in tangible ways, to see capitalist
hegemony as the root of sexual repression these fans were fighting. All of
these things were there to some extent, but they were not the main story.
The main story lies in how Star Trek fandom on Tumblr influences partic-
ipants’ understandings of the world around them. The emotional bonds we
form with members of fandoms inherently affect the ways in which we
view our social and political world—the candidates with whom we sympa-
thize, the causes we choose to champion, the visceral reactions we have to
pop culture texts, and where we see ourselves as fitting into society.
Interacting with Star Trek fans on Tumblr revealed some interesting
and telling glimpses into where the fans position themselves within society
and what they perceived as their influence. Like Tumblr’s creator, this
fandom is young. Still marginalized by its peers, this fandom is unaware of
its own centrality to American culture. Further, it is working with a new
medium. The rapid-fire circulation of content on Tumblr spreads images
and ideas at breakneck speeds, saturating this new generation of fans in
these pop culture texts to an extent never seen before. Of course this flood
of fan information is going to shape their—and by this, I mean our— un-
derstandings of the world around us.

Notes
1
Doree Shafrir, "Would You Take a Tumblr With This Man?" The New York
Observer, January 15, 2008, accessed February 13, 2013, http://www.observer.
com/2008/would-you-take-Tumblr-man?page=1.
2
The names of the Tumblr users I surveyed and interviewed in 2011 have all been
changed.
3
Many of the respondents credited Tumblr for introducing them to texts of which
they then became fans.
4
Robin Roberts, Sexual Generations: Stark Trek: The Next Generation and
Gender (Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999).
120 Set Phasers to Extrapolate

5
Christine Scodari, “Yoko in Cyberspace with Beatles Fans: Gender and the Re-
Creation of Popular Mythology,” in Fandom: Identities and Communities in a
Mediated World, eds. Jonathan Gray, Cornel Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington
(New York: New York University Press, 2007).
6
Roberts, 2.
7
Frederik Pohl, “Astounding Story,” American Heritage 40 (September-October
1984), 48.
8
Henry Jenkins, “Afterword: The Future of Fandom,” in Fandom: Identities and
Communities in a Mediated World, eds. Jonathan Gray, Cornel Sandvoss, and C.
Lee Harrington (New York: New York University Press, 2007), 361.
9
Jenkins, 364.
10
Ilsa J. Bick, "Boys in Space: "Star Trek," Latency, and the Neverending
Story," Cinema Journal 35, no. 2 (1996): 43-60.
11
Matt Hills, “Fan Cultures Between Community and Hierarchy,” in Fan Cultures
(London: Routledge, 2002), 29.
12
Robert V Kozinets, "Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the Meanings of Star
Trek’s Culture of Consumption," The Journal of Consumer Research 28, no. 1
(2001): 67-88
13
Roberts, 2.
14
Jon Wagner and Jan Lundeen, Deep Space and Sacred Time: Star Trek in the
American Mythos (Westport, CT & London: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 98.
15
Roberts, 3.
16
“Neutrois is an identity used by individuals who feel they fall outside the gender
binary. Many feel Neutrois is a gender, like a third gender while others feel
agendered. What they have in common is that they wish to minimize their birth
gender markers.” See Neutrois.com, accessed February 13, 2013.
17
Jonathan Gray, Cornel Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington, “Introduction: Why
Study Fans?” in Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World,
eds. Jonathan Gray, Cornel Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington (New York: New
York University Press, 2007), 6.
18
Ibid.
19
Scodari,51
20
Oddly enough, while fandom participants themselves seemed to think Star
Trek’s influence was limited, due to its niche audience, Kozinets points out that,
“Regarding its cultural impact, a 1994 Harris poll found that 53 percent of the
American public considered themselves to be Star Trek fans.” While certainly 53
percent of Americans are not diehard fans who dissect each episode and read
between the lines for progressive subtext, the broad audience for the show does
indicate that perhaps it has more influence than even its most devoted adherents
give it credit for. See: Kozinets, 69.
21
Roberts, 118.
22
Ibid, 108.
23
Kozinets, 67.
24
Scodari, 48.
PART IV
 MADE IN AMERICA:
MASCULINITY AND WORK IN CONTEMPORARY
AMERICAN “LABOR REALITY” TELEVISION

CORY BARKER
INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Over the 2011 holidays, I spent a substantial amount of time watching

television with my parents. They do not have the most refined television
tastes (and they will be the first to admit it), but I was surprised to see that
some of the obnoxious reruns of CSI: Miami they used to watch were re-
placed by the likes of Pawn Stars, Storage Wars, and American Pickers. I
never thought they would escape David Caruso’s melting face, and I cer-
tainly did not expect them to shack up with basic cable quasi-documentary
reality programming in the great Caruso’s absence. However, as I watched
my parents watch these programs, I began to realize that they saw some-
thing in the likes of Storage Wars and American Pickers that I had only
sort of thought about before, but not really considered in a larger context:
these are series that celebrate “normal” people (and typically men) work-
ing. Sure, the portrayal of labor in Pawn Stars or Storage Wars is not ho-
listically realistic; it is edited, manipulated, and crafted to fit within the
constraints of a typical 22-minute or 42-minute block of programming.
Nevertheless, for a great deal of television viewers in this country, those
people like my parents who might be a little older and who don’t know or
care about Mad Men or Homeland, these series represent the power of
individual labor and the success that comes from it.
Of course, my parents are not alone in their love for these series. For
the week ending on January 22, 2012, Pawn Stars (2, 3), American Pick-
ers (7), Storage Wars (8, 11), and Gold Rush (10) all were among the top
12 most-watched series on basic cable. Half of the top 10 series that week
were what I call “labor reality programs.”1
Even though they might not have been in the top 25 most-watched se-
ries on basic cable, there are a slew of other labor reality programs that
keep cable networks afloat. Here are the ones I could come up with just
 Cory Barker 123

through cursory research: American Restoration; Hardcore Pawn; Auction

Kings; Storage Hunters; Auction Hunters; Oddities; Mounted in Alaska;
Ice Pilots; Ax Men; Big Shrimpin’; Ice Road Truckers; IRT: Deadliest
Roads; American Loggers; Saw Dogs; Deadliest Catch; Dirty Jobs; Storm
Chasers; Swamp Loggers; Sons of Guns; Treasure Quest; Verminators;
South Beach Tow; Operation Repo; Black Gold; Bear Swamp Recovery;
Lizard Lick Towing; Shipping Wars; Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force;
Dog The Bounty Hunter; and, of course, Hillbilly Handfishing.
There are probably so many other series I am not thinking of, and that
does not even include offerings like Cake Boss, NY Ink, or any other series
that might be focused on people doing their jobs amid reality television’s
brand of partially manufactured drama. It is clear to see that this labor-
centric format has been—and still is—especially lucrative for television
networks. Some of these series are more “real” than others (many, like
Hardcore Pawn, are quite ridiculous) and the barometer for success is very
small on basic cable, but the fact that all the series I listed are still airing or
are scheduled to air new episodes tells us that viewers care about labor
reality programs.
As a culture, we have always been interested in sneaking a peak at
worlds we would never experience in our own lives. That leads us to
space, alternate realities, and all kinds of places that only the imagination
can concoct. Escapism cannot be underestimated, and the media often cel-
ebrates it. At the same time though, we are similarly excited to highlight
the everyday and the typical; I would argue we are especially excited to
celebrate the “normal” people who make this world tick.
This is why so many of our television series follow normal jobs: po-
lice, lawyers, doctors, office workers, etc. Labor-centric narratives provide
a solid, stable framework to develop each episode and the first three allow
writers to put lives in danger, but there is also something to be said for our
desire to latch on to people doing a job. Fictional cops and doctors are not
often as relatable to our local beat cop or family physician, but the codes,
rhythms, and familiarity are there.
Reality television producers figured out that they could offer audiences
something even better: “Real” people doing even more “real” jobs. Some
of the jobs are dangerous (Deadliest Catch comes to mind here) and there-
fore not anymore relatable than Doctor House or Horatio Cane. One could
argue that the difficulty of the job has less impact on the “relatability” of
the people doing said job. However, when members of The Deadliest
Catch team/cast actually died, the substantial outpour of support and emo-
tion suggests that audiences do care and relate to those people just as
much, if not more, as they do fictional characters. Furthermore, while cer-
124 Made in America

tain labor reality programs are so heavily edited and stuffed full of unreal
footage that it is hard to say the individuals starring in them are still labor-
ers in the traditional sense, and not simply performers. Still, the allure of
seeing “real” people doing “real” jobs, presumably because they literal-
ly need to—as in, it is how they make a living—does exist.
What is interesting to me about this boom in labor reality programs is
the timing. Some of the series I listed have been around for an extended
period; going back even further, we can come up with examples like
Cops that highlight our desire to watch “real” people make a difference in
the world through their profession. Yet, most of the labor reality programs
I provide here came on the air within the last decade; there has been an
increase in the number of labor reality programs.
We could identify a few basic industrial factors for this boom. Basic
cable networks are a part of a highly competitive market predicated on
copying the success of your competitors. In addition, making a labor reali-
ty program is not too expensive. “Inexpensive” plus “solid chance to suc-
ceed” are two phrases all networks are looking for in 2012 and beyond. I
am sure these are true for the folks running A&E, History, Discovery, and
all those networks bunched together on everyone’s cable packages.
However, the current cultural and socioeconomic circumstances make
these successes particularly fascinating. If we have always enjoyed taking
a peak into the lives of normal citizens doing their part to keep our nation
running, our recent obsession with labor reality programs takes our interest
a few steps further. I would argue that the desire to see more labor-based
reality programming is, in some way, tied to our fears about the state of
the economy, jobs, and the unknown future. More than ever, the “real”
people doing “real” things are worth celebrating. Not only are they doing
interesting things to keep the world turning, but also they literally still
have a job.
Robert Sklar suggests that big cultural events, The Great Depression in
particular, disrupted “some of the oldest and strongest American cultural
myths” and Hollywood was cunningly adept at reflecting those disruptions
in films that followed the Depression era.2 Taking Sklar’s lead, we could
argue that the recent economic collapse similarly destroyed some of Amer-
ica’s big cultural myths, particularly those myths such as “hard work
equals success” or “American ingenuity”. Yet, like Hollywood knew how
to calibrate its content in the post-Depression era, labor reality programs
celebrate those important, but damaged cultural values and perhaps help
sooth fears and paranoia. We can watch the tough guys of Deadliest Catch
take a beating to feed their families; we can spotlight manifest destiny as
American drivers take on the most dangerous roads and locales in Ice
 Cory Barker 125

Road Truckers or IRT: Deadliest Roads; and we can latch on to the fact
that many of these programs feature American boldly in the title.
In 2012, there is no guarantee that anyone can get a job. President
Obama’s State of the Union address, the Republican nominees’ stump
speeches—they are almost all about job creation. That is wonderful in
theory, but millions of people are terrified that there are not many jobs
available. We want to be laborers, but cannot. Then, television is full of
laborers and not just fictional ones who work in constructed environments.
In that sense, watching television programs about people doing labor re-
minds us that our country is still driven by labor and people still have the
capability to work. Although I made the joke about my parents’ viewing
habits, the viewership demographics for the most popular reality shows
tells us that young people (in the 18-49 or 25-54 demographics) are there
too. Without ethnographic research I cannot know if older viewers (like
my parents) enjoy these shows because they evoke a certain Baby Boomer
“greatest generation” pride or connection to those who still to strive to be
“the best” or work hard for their dinner, but even just talking to viewers in
my family, I get that impression.
We like to think about television and all media as an escape, a way to
get away from our problems. There is certainly truth to that, so when peo-
ple write stories about 3D Blockbusters saving us from the dregs of our
broken political system and fractured economy, it makes sense. However,
in this instance, I think television viewership is telling us something else.
We might be “escaping” into jobs that we could never personally have, but
we are still latching on to people and ideals that we believe are supposed
to power our society. Watching something like Deadliest Catch reinforces
our cultural beliefs about labor, about masculinity, and even about Ameri-
ca as a whole. It tells us that despite the current slump, there are remnants
of the kind of society and kind of people we once had and will likely need
again. Real people, doing real jobs.

Notes
1
Robert Seidman, “Cable Top 25: ‘Jersey Shore,’ ‘Pawn Stars,’ Drew Peterson
Movie Top Weekly Cable Viewing,” TV By The Numbers, last modified January
24, 2012, http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/01/24/cable-top-25-jersey-shore-
pawn-stars-drew-peterson-movie-top-weekly-cable-
viewing/117362/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=F
eed%3A+Tvbythenumbers+%28TVbytheNumbers%29.
2
Robert Sklar, Movie-Made America: A Social History of American Movies (New
York: Random House, 1975), 195-196.; Much scholarship has been written on the
reflection of the ideological impacts of 9/11 in popular culture, perhaps most
126 Made in America

famously in Susan Faludi, The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11
America (Metropolitan Books, 2007).
 PERCEPTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
OF JAPANESE FEMININITY:
AN ANALYSIS OF WEEABOO INTERNET
CULT FIGURES

ANNA O’BRIEN
BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY

Japan is significant because of its complexity: because it is non-Western,

but refuses to any longer to be our Orient; because it insists on being
modern, yet calls our kind of modernity into question.1
—David Morley and Kevin Robins

A number of terms ranging from the pejorative (e.g. ‘Wapanese’ and

‘Weeaboo’) to the descriptive (Japanophile) have emerged to describe a
more than casual interest in Japanese culture by white and non-Japanese
people.2 The intense interest in and debate about Japanophilia is reflected
in the reception of ostensibly “Weeaboo” women on YouTube. Through
examination of videos made by a few prominent figures in the “Weeaboo”
scene, specifically MissHannahMinx, Magibon, and Yukapon, as well as
the user responses and second-hand accounts describing and reacting to
these videos, this chapter aims to articulate the tension between the per-
formance of identity and contemporary Orientalism.
There has been great interest, both in scholarship and in the media,
about the “new” consumption of Japanese material culture in the United
States since the 1980s. David Morley and Kevin Robins read this phenom-
enon as one marked by the West’s attempt to maintain hegemonic control
despite the changes in the market that destabilize the East versus West
dichotomy routinely used to categorize modernity as a distinctly Western
trait. Morley and Robins assert, “[o]ne response is to see [Japanese tech-
nologies] as the postmodern equivalents of Zen and kabuki. Like ‘tradi-
tional Japanese culture,’ they too embody the exotic, enigmatic, and mys-
terious essence of Japanese particularism.”3 In this view, the fear of lost
128 Perceptions and Representations of Japanese Femininity

power has resulted in a form of techno-Orientalism, in which Westerners

fetishize and exoticize Japanese culture.
In conjunction with the development of an American fan base for Jap-
anese popular culture, various Internet communities structured around the
active consumption of Japanese cultural products have emerged. Often
present in online discussions of Japanese culture on English language sites
is the issue of over-active, “obsessive” white connoisseurs. Minor Internet
celebrities have achieved notoriety for their production of viral videos,
consistently lambasted as an extreme form of Japanophilia.4 The perfor-
mances by these non-Japanese white women are often perceived as egre-
giously stereotypical attempts to appear and act “Japanese.” The response
to these performances on YouTube has been, in significant measure, one
of extreme antagonism.5 These figureheads of Weeaboo are often not only
accused of inauthentic interest or failed execution of particular aspects of
Japanese culture, but are also judged harshly on their physical appearance
and attention-seeking behavior.
Further complicating these displays of Japanophilia is the issue of gen-
der—nearly all of the most (in)famous YouTube users commonly deemed
“Weeaboo” are young women. Encyclopedia Dramatica (an open source
site dedicated to documenting and parodying Internet culture) links to us-
ers who are cited at the bottom of the page. Interestingly, all of the users
linked to exemplify this phenomenon are women.6 Of the women that En-
cyclopedia Dramatica considers Weeaboo, all are also cross-listed with
sexually derogatory categories such as “camwhores” and “attention
whores,” and are the subjects of extensive objectification in discussions
about their videos.7
To address online performances of Japanese culture by white women,
it is necessary to situate the discussion in relation to other analyses of the
intersection of Orientalism and gender. In his seminal work, Orientalism,
Edward Said argues that Western men were ultimately responsible for the
objectification that typifies this view of the East:

Orientalism itself, furthermore, was an exclusively male domain like so

many professional guilds with sexist blinders. This is especially evident in
the writing of travelers and novelists: women are usually the creatures of a
male power-fantasy. They express unlimited sensuality, they are more or
less stupid, and above all, they are willing.8

To Said, Orientalism operates through the Western male gaze. Misog-

ynist views of women (and more specifically, female bodies) were used to
analogize and degrade the conquered Oriental world.
 Anna O’Brien 129

While the patriarchal hierarchy undoubtedly underpins much of the

postcolonial discourses and should be acknowledged as a formative and
enduring force in Orientalism, some criticize Said for his relatively ho-
mogenous view of the population that has contributed to the force of
Western culture in the construction of Orientalist narratives and stereo-
types. In response to this view, Reina Lewis investigates the creative role
that women played in Orientalist discourses in the nineteenth and twenti-
eth centuries in her work Gendering Orientalism: Race, Femininity, and
Representation. The book offers a critique of monolithic views of Orien-
talism that ignore or simplify the role of women in constructing systems of
oppression.9 Lewis’s recognition of women as creative agents in construc-
tions of the “Other” is helpful in grounding the discussion of performances
of Japanophilia by Western women on YouTube.
Images of the “Orient” as conquered and feminine in character rein-
force the conception of Asian women as foreign objects meant for Western
consumption.10 As Yen Le Espiritu notes, the portrayals of Asian females
as sexually available are strengthened by the stereotypes of Asian men
being emasculated and unable defend their women.11 The relationship be-
tween the United States and Japan, in terms of the political history that is
very much still a part of the American national consciousness, is especially
ripe for the application of this type of Orientalism. Internet open-source
encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Dramatica compile these stereotypes,
grounding them occasionally in Internet-lore, but often resorting to repli-
cation of traditional racist attitudes. While the readers likely consider the
following quotes from the official Encyclopedia Dramatica entry on Japan
as racist hyperbole, if not outright parody, the colloquial discourse about
Japan reflects this presupposition of emasculation:

Before being raped by the atom bomb, Japan was busy doing just that to in-
ferior countries, but with a Katana instead of the mighty power of the atom.
After the USA's rampage, however, it has degraded into what you see now
…. Now all the men in Japan look like women and actively play the part.
Instead of boning the most fabulous babes on earth and breeding a new
generation of ass-whipping samurai, these quasi-men prefer whacking off
to cartoon characters, playing with toys, and having hours of gay sex each
day.12

Tropes of submissive sexuality and hyper-femininity ascribed by the

Western world to Japanese women in particular also thrive online. The
entry goes on to refer to the sexuality of Japanese women:
130 Perceptions and Representations of Japanese Femininity

Japan (from the Spanish japón, meaning "Hoe-land") is a cheap sex zone in
the Pacific Ocean …. All their men enjoy the company of their obedient
women …. Japanese culture also states that you must select the prettiest
young girls, and turn them into "geishas" (vicious sluts who are supposed
to entertain whoever pays for them).13

While these intend to be humorous, there is an obvious, disturbing un-

derpinning of racism and Japanophobia, as well as notable resemblance to
scholarly discourse about the one-dimensional view of Asian women as
submissive and sexually available.14
Weeabooism, especially in the form of performances of Japanese fem-
ininity by white American women online, provides a new object for the
examination of contemporary Orientalism. To various Internet communi-
ties, MissHannahMinx, Magibon, and Yukapon are models par excellence
of Weeaboo culture. Although scathing, inflammatory remarks are com-
monplace on YouTube, the incredible number of comments and the degree
of negativity, on these women’s pages is astounding. In addition to the
ubiquitous commentary about their looks, MissHannahMinx, Yukapon,
and Magibon are subject to wild claims about “real life” information, as
well as criticism for their performance of Japanese identity. Race becomes
a crucial factor in this phenomenon, as their behavior and self-styling are
consistently recognized as representative of Asian, rather than white,
women. Because of the great deal of attention and debate that sparked by
their “true” identities as white women, Weeaboo cult figures highlight the
role that ethnicity and race play in the contemporary views of Japanese
culture. While there are clearly new developments that inform these views,
how might these performances on YouTube relate to historical Orientalist
views of Japanese women?
MissHannahMinx has over 109,000 fans on Facebook, and over 80
videos, many with over one million views. 15 According to Encyclopedia
Dramatica,

MissHannahMinx is a 20-something big-titted, Philly-living Weeaboo at-

tention whore who makes YouTube videos about Japanese shit nobody
cares about …. She targets the Weeaboo and Japanese audience to most
successfully profit off her wonderful “personality traits.”16

In her videos on YouTube, Hannah Minx unabashedly exhibits Japan-

ophilia. In most videos, she includes a definition of a Japanese word and
gives examples of its potential use, using pictures and household items.
Despite the neutral content, the camera focuses on her face and chest.
Many YouTube comments, as well as other Internet commentary such as
 Anna O’Brien 131

memes, assert that the Japanese words in Hannah Minx’s videos are not
the most important feature of her videos:

I like that fact that you're using the latest technology to reach out around
the world and to teach thousands of people... something. (OK, I haven't re-
ally been paying attention to the words exiting your facemouth.)
–CraandMackerel

Simultaneously, they tend to enjoy Hannah Minx’s appearance because

it is evocative of Japanese culture:

She sure looks like one of those mangacartoons ive seen :p they had her as
model. The big eyes is most telling.
–Thetheohdin17

Magibon does not have as active a presence currently; however, she

too has garnered a great deal of attention. Of the videos currently viewable
on her YouTube channel, 24 have over one million views.18 Unlike Han-
nah Minx, Magibon’s videos are not often so overt in their Japanophilia.
Instead, her videos highlight the way in which viewers may project Japa-
neseness onto the female body. Many commenters swoon over her looks,
which they consider to exemplify Japanese physiognomy:

This is why I want to move to a different country half the girls where i
come from cant even compare to a fraction of this girls looks... mmm japa-
nese <3
–dracowulf219

In most of her videos currently available, she gazes up at a webcam si-

lently with a look of amusement. When she does speak Japanese, her at-
tempts are subject to withering ridicule because of their inadequacy. Ency-
clopedia Dramatica articulates the incredulity that many commenters seem
to have toward the celebrity that Magibon has become:

How have such antics granted her fame, you may ask? Well, it is always
carried out while showing off some decent cleavage, and speaking exclu-
sively in Pre-school Japanese, not to mention using camera angling tricks
to make herself look like an underaged and innocent loli.20

Yukapon is not yet as notorious as either Magibon or MissHan-

nahMinx. Most interesting about Yukapon, who according to her personal
website lives in Missouri, are the video performances on her channel.21
She dresses up in Japanese cosplay outfits, and performs dances to Japa-
132 Perceptions and Representations of Japanese Femininity

nese pop songs in a room full of Japanese paraphernalia. According to

commenters on her videos, her Japanese is very advanced.22 For example:

I LOVE your videos. You're so cute and have really nice voice. I won-
dered: do you live in Japan or are you planning to? It seems you have
learnt Japanese well. Keep it up :)
–Meanman332

What sets Yukapon apart from Magibon and MissHannahMinx is that

many of her commenters appear to be other young women who are inter-
ested in Japanese culture and admire her clothing and dance moves:

where do you get your clothes? I wish I had clothes like that I love kawaii
things and you are really cute ^.^
–Vanillasnowflakes

All of these young American women are read by commenters as im-

personators of Japanese femininity because of their interest in Japanese
culture and language, as well as their fashion, makeup, vocal intonation,
and behavior. Most common are comments about the size of the women’s
eyes, deemed either “cute” or “fake,” or their reliance on camera angles
and eye makeup. Not only do the videos by these women give visual rep-
resentation of how the audience understands the defining traits of the fet-
ishized “Other,” they also represent the understanding of this by the pro-
ducer. Recognizing the agency that these women have in their aesthetic
choices, the videos, intended for public consumption, might be read as a
purposeful representation of Japanese femininity.
Common visual cues between MissHannahMinx, Magibon, and Yuka-
pon are hairstyles (long, dark straight hair, worn either down or in pigtails)
and heavy makeup. The allusions to fetishized Japanese femininity may
also be found in the approach to language, which is high-pitched and
breathy, and (if not in Japanese) mimics stereotypical Japanese accents.
Holly Devor’s Gender Blending: Confronting the Limits of Duality offers
a summary of cultural assumptions about feminine behaviors. In order to
appear non-threatening, and thus feminine, women may “keep their arms
closer to their bodies, their legs closer together, and their heads less verti-
cal than do masculine-looking individuals. People also look feminine
when they point their toes inward and use their hands in small or childlike
gestures.” 23 This vision of femininity demonstrates attempts to appear
“cute” through kneeling with legs together, positioning below the camera,
looking up at the camera with wide unthreatening eyes, and child-like
mannerisms. The props occasionally used in these videos are generally
 Anna O’Brien 133

soft Japanese dolls or stuffed animals with huge eyes; they appear in the
video in traditionally feminine ways through gestures like hugging and
petting, and through descriptions of cuteness, which allude to nurturing.
The YouTube commentary makes clear that these videos provide some
sort of titillation. In the case of MissHannahMinx, the sexually provoca-
tive nature of her videos is represented by the extent of responses about
her large chest and low-cut shirts. While the others do not so egregiously
display their cleavage, the videos of all three women emphasize their bod-
ies. In the videos of Magibon the lack of content (she is often silent and
motionless), means that she simply appears before the viewer to be visual-
ly consumed. In Yukapon’s videos, her body is on full display in her danc-
es, and she dresses in cute, infantilizing outfits that include short skirts,
and occasionally thigh-high tights. 24 The resulting sexualization of the
women, who are perceived as projecting certain Japaneseness in their vid-
eos, shows a reliance on the type of exoticization normally reserved for
Oriental women.
Can we interpret this phenomenon positively? Some may view these
performances as analogous to cosplay, and a way of performing gender
similar to drag. This view acknowledges the creative aspects of the pro-
duction of videos and performance of identity. In the spirit of Donna Har-
away’s A Cyborg Manifesto, Craig Norris and Jason Bainbridge argue that
the common adoption of a hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine persona of
one’s own gender in cosplay enables transgression of cultural norms. Fur-
thermore, they suggest that cosplay creates a “liminal identity” that, much
as if the anonymity of avatars online is “capable of transcending cultural,
racial and gender boundaries and stereotypes.”25 Others may view this as a
form of “racial cross-dressing” that inherently privileges the fluidity of the
white identity. In White Like Me: Racial Cross-Dressing and the Con-
struction of American Whiteness, Eric Lott finds that racial cross-dressing
reinforces racial constructions of the other. Lott focuses on performances
of blackface, and “how necessary this process is to the making of white
American manhood. The latter simply could not exist without a racial oth-
er against which it defines itself and which to a very great extent it takes
up into itself as one of its own constituent elements.”26
To many people, the attempt to appear Asian is an inherently racialized
act, though often it is not perceived as such. In Secret Asian Man and Oth-
er Invisible Asians, Misa Oyama explicitly refers to the differing views of
blackface in comparison with that of “yellowface.” Unlike the history of
blackface, yellowface has been free of guilt for the mainstream population,
“which helps explain its acceptability in mainstream productions up until
Miss Saigon.” The complacency with this commodifies race, and “the ease
134 Perceptions and Representations of Japanese Femininity

of transforming a Caucasian actor into an Asian character contributed to

the notion that Asian-ness could be donned at will.”27
Similarly, in Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social
Networking, Theresa Senft comments on the supposed freedom that comes
with the interaction online:

Cyberspace ethnographer Lisa Nakamura demonstrated how users given

the option of being ‘anything’ online often opted to drag racist and sexist
roles such as subservient geishas and overaggressive samurai. Nakamura’s
critique of “identity tourism” on the Net echoed earlier feminist scholar-
ship on sex tourists who often understand their activities as ‘naughty fun’
rather than as commercialized exercises of power, in part because of the
far-from-home locales in which they transpire.28

Though Senft’s argument is not explicitly addressing the racialized as-

pect of these performances, her examples parallel perfectly the stereotyp-
ing performances of Japanese femininity by Weeaboo women.
While the video performances of Magibon, Yukapon, and MissHan-
nahMinx may be improvements on the stereotypical representations of
Asian women that were so common in the twentieth century, the specific
nature of the fetishization of Japanese women online suggests that many of
the old stereotypes live on. In fact, close analysis of these videos may offer
insight into the way in which white women view Asian women. Rather
than simply looking at the male response to these videos, it is important to
parse out the view of Asian femininity under the Western female gaze.
These Western women, playing the role of hyper-feminine Asians, do little
to subvert Orientalist stereotypes. Instead, it seems that stereotypes and
fetishization of Asian women are channeled through these performances
and appropriations of Asian feminine identity. Furthermore, young Ameri-
can women attempting to play with or embody the Western Japanese fan-
tasy confirms the heterogeneity in the construction of postcolonial and
Orientalist narratives and representations that Reina Lewis sought to estab-
lish.29
While these women may not intend their love and performance of Jap-
anese culture to refer to race, their performances may be read as born of
the same sentiments as yellowface. Acknowledging the subjective experi-
ence of identity performance in these videos does not excuse these acts, or
imply that they are inoffensive. Instead, it is essential in exposing the rac-
ist stereotyping underpinning views of Japan and Asian women in con-
temporary culture. In fact, the modern Western world is still very much
concerned with the racialization of Japanese culture. As Morley and Rob-
ins write, “what is significant about Japan is its ethnicity and the fact that
 Anna O’Brien 135

it is the first non-white country to have inserted itself into modernity on its
own terms.”30 Through examination of these Weeaboo camgirls, it is pos-
sible to illuminate some of the ways that racism and Orientalism are insid-
iously present in an oft-neglected and disparaged aspect of Internet cul-
ture—the viral video.
The women who make these videos should not be dismissed as merely
brainwashed victims of white patriarchy that have no choice but to appeal
to Orientalist tropes in order to survive or prosper. For the women in Lew-
is’s book operating in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, Oriental-
ist painting and rhetoric was one of the few acceptable means of public
expression. Modern women who choose to act Japanese on YouTube are
not so limited. Whether these performances are consciously racist, or
products of patriarchal concerns with control of femininity, or simply a
coincidental convergence of Asian stereotypes and performances of sexu-
ality on YouTube is up for debate. In any case, the pervasiveness of Japa-
nese stereotypes in the performances by cult celebrities on YouTube un-
doubtedly contributes to the body of evidence that suggests Orientalism is
still firmly embedded in American culture.

Notes
1
David Morley and Kevin Robbins, Spaces of Identity. (Oxfordshire: Taylor &
Francis, 1995), 171.
2
The meanings and use of these words deserve further discussion. Throughout this
paper, I will try to use neutral descriptors that are still reflective of the language
used in the communities.
3
Morley and Robbins,169.
4
Perhaps more accurately described as ‘cult figures.’
5
For examples of this, see “Wapanese,” Encyclopedia Dramatica, accessed
February 15, 2013, https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Wapanese.
6
Encyclopedia Dramatica is infamous for its offensive humor and has been shut
down and censored intermittently for this reason. Its relevance to the topic at hand
is due to its reputation as the source for collecting information about Internet
subcultures, the force of its commentary, and its popularity.
7
For examples of this, see “Magibon,” Encyclopedia Dramatica, accessed
February 13, 2013, https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Magibon, “MissHannah
Minx,” Encyclopedia Dramatica, accessed February 13, 2013, https://
encyclopediadramatica.se/MissHannahMinx, accessed February 13, 2013, and
“Pixyteri,” Encyclopedia Dramatica, accessed February 13, 2013, https://
encyclopediadramatica.se/Pixyteri.
8
Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978), 207.
9
Reina Lewis, Gendering Orientalism: Race, Femininity, and Representation
(New York: Routledge, 1996), 22.
10
Said, 207.
136 Perceptions and Representations of Japanese Femininity

11
Yen Le Espiritu, Asian American Women and Men: Labor, Laws, and Love.
(Plymouth, United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008), 102.
12
See: “Japan,” Encyclopedia Dramatica, accessed February 7, 2013,
http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Japan.
13
Ibid.
14
For in-depth discussions on intersections between race and gender, see Yen Le
Espiritu, Asian American Women and Men: Labor, Laws, and Love (Plymouth,
United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2008).
15
For more see MissHannah Minx’s YouTube channel: “MissHannahMinx,”
YouTube, last accessed February 13, 2013, http://www.youtube.com/user/Miss
HannahMinx.
16
“Personality traits” leads to the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry on breasts. See:
“MissHannahMinx,” Encyclopedia Dramatica, accessed February 7, 2013,
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/MissHannahMinx.
17
Comments on MissHannahMinx, “JWOW – Fluffy Cloud,” YouTube, June 30,
2011, accessed February 13, 2013, http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=_
BQWQxOqg8s.
18
For more, see MRirian’s YouTube channel “MRirian’s Channel,” YouTube, last
accessed February 13, 2013, http://www.youtube.com/user/miriran.
19
Comments on MRirian, “‫↓ۼ‬18‫ۻ‬,” YouTube, accessed February 13, 2013,
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=Gty73p4AYuA.
20
“Magibon,” last accessed February 13, 2013.
21
For more see: “NyappyChocoChan’s Channel,” YouTube, accessed February 13,
2013, http://www.youtube.com/user/NyappyChocoChan/.
22
Comments on Yukapon, YouTube, video no longer available.
23
Holly Devor, Gender Blending: Confronting the Limits of Duality
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), 51.
24
“NyappyChocoChan’s Channel,” last accessed February 13, 2013.
25
Craig Norris and Jason Bainbridge, "Selling Otaku? Mapping the Relationship
between Industry and Fandom in the Australian Cosplay Scene." Intersections:
Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific 20 (2009).
26
Eric Lott, Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working
Class (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 476.
27
Cynthia G. Franklin, Ruth Hsu, and Suzanne Kosanke, Navigating Islands and
Continents: Conversations and Contestations in and Around the Pacific: Selected
Essays (Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 2000), 91.
28
Theresa M. Senft, Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social
Networks (New York: Lang, 2008).
29
Lewis, 25.
30
Morley and Robins, 171.
 DOCTOR WHO?:
QUESTIONING THE TRADITIONAL
MASCULINE HERO

TRAVIS LIMBERT
INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR

If the recent blockbuster hit The Avengers is any testament, heroes and
heroic tales are very popular. Besides being potential money generating
machines, heroes symbolize virtuous or villainous cultural values. Heroes
embody concepts of gender, reflecting pinnacle forms of masculinity and
femininity. Heroes, wildly successful in today’s zeitgeist, have a long tra-
dition of popularity. It is for these reasons heroes should be studied to fer-
ret out cultural beliefs. In this chapter, I discuss how the Doctor, the pro-
tagonist of the BBC television show Doctor Who, represents an alternative
conceptualization of heroic masculinity.
Doctor Who first aired in 1963. The Doctor appears mostly in serial-
ized television, but also exists in film, books, and radio. The television
show went on hiatus for almost two decades but returned in 2005 thanks to
fan support. This is how a show created by public broadcasting survived
for half a century.
The narrative of Doctor Who follows the main character the Doctor.
He is a Time Lord, a humanoid-looking alien of immense intellect with a
personal soft spot for humanity. The Doctor travels through time and space
in his TARDIS, a time machine disguised as a blue vintage British police
box. He also has a sonic screwdriver, a mystical wand-like gadget that can
unlock anything. The main crux of the show involves the Doctor using his
space-time traveling ability and wit to aid those in trouble and help prevent
catastrophic events, especially those that threaten Earth and/or humanity.
Focusing on the show for my analysis, I explore how the Doctor relates to
American cultural notions of hero, as well as gendered notions of mascu-
linity.
I posit that the story of the Doctor is one of the few modern hero narra-
tives that align with Lord Raglan’s scale.1 Raglan’s scale takes a structur-
138 Doctor Who?

alist approach to heroic narratives in an attempt to create a litmus test for

identifying what makes a hero. He created the scale by studying a multi-
tude of heroic tales, boiling them down to their narrative components, and
creating a list of steps to determine heroes. While Raglan’s scale aligns
with historical and mythical heroes, it rarely fits many contemporary he-
roes. The main issue within Raglan’s scale involves the last third of his
constructed steps. These steps are concerned with the hero falling out of
favor, facing some sort of death, and the aftereffects of the hero no longer
being around. The majority of recent heroic tales, mostly over the last
hundred years, seem to lack these endings or death-related narratives.
Even popular heroes who occasionally die (such as Superman) do not stay
dead for very long.
These steps are lacking because most contemporary heroes cannot die.
This could be due to an American sensibility towards death or that most
heroic narratives are part of a capitalist system tied to some sort of con-
sumption. Whether it is film, television, video games, comics, novels, or
any other medium, the hero rarely ever meets his or her demise because
there tends to be a serial element to American popular culture. It is eco-
nomically difficult to keep selling Superman stories every week when he
is dead—though DC tried. This means that even the few heroes who die
tend to return quickly fashion to be profitable once more. This compulsion
to keep heroes alive creates issues for structuralist analysis of heroes like
that of Raglan’s work. It also complicates comparisons of modern heroic
concepts to historical ones. Despite these issues, I feel that the Doctor is
one of the few contemporary heroic examples who actively exhibit ele-
ments from the last third of Raglan’s scale, due in large part to the charac-
ter’s ability to regenerate.
The Doctor is the last living Time Lord, since he was instrumental in
destroying the rest of his race during the destructive Time War. Time
Lords not only have the ability to travel through space and time, but also
the ability to regenerate their bodies. When a Time Lord is mortally
wounded, s/he will regenerate into a complete new body without ceasing
to exist. As long as a Time Lord regenerates, s/he is immortal, even though
s/he technically dies. As of this writing, the Doctor has regenerated ten
different times, which has proven a convenient plot point when a new ac-
tor takes on the role. While he technically and narratively lives on, I find
these regenerations to be more than mere symbolic deaths or actor switch-
es. They are complete changes to not only his physical looks, but also oth-
er important characteristics like personality, favorite foods, and fashion
preference. The Doctor does in fact die, but he still lives on. He looks dif-
ferent with altered personality traits, but he is the same hero, with the same
 Travis Limbert 139

history, the same memories, and the same storyline. His re-
birth/immortality is quite the paradox, but this paradox allows him to fit
multiple elements of the Raglan scale all at once, unlike many other he-
roes.
Using Raglan’s scale, the Doctor meets criteria for sixteen of the twen-
ty-two steps. I breakdown the Doctor’s narrative in the same fashion that
Raglan discussed heroes in his work, listing how the Doctor meets the step
and listing the step number in parentheses.2 The majority of the Doctor’s
origins are left purposely unknown, preventing any knowing of how he fits
within the first three steps. He has an unusual birth/conception as an alien,
and his regenerations mirror a rebirth (4). His race, Time Lord, is consid-
ered godlike throughout the universe (5). Very little is told about his
childhood (9) and he is exiled/goes to Earth where he becomes its guardian
(10). 3 Most of the show’s narrative arcs take place within step 11, with the
Doctor defeating various opponents and problems.4 He marries River Song
in 2011’s “The Wedding of River Song” (12) and multiple times, he
achieves peace for the Earth and universe (13).5 There are references to
long periods of peace thanks to the Doctor’s actions (14) and at times he
prescribes laws about how alien races should interact with the Earth or
behave (15). In “The Pandorica Opens,” the Doctor is sealed away within
the Pandorica (16) when the races of the universe feel that he is too power-
ful and a threat to their respective existences (17). He has died ten times
(18) and a few times his death has been in space or on top a tall building
(19). We learn in “The Doctor’s Daughter” that he has a daughter and in
“The Rebel Flesh” that he has a clone, neither of which succeed him (20).
His body is never buried since he always regenerates (21), and there are
several locations that mark his feats (22).
By this account, the Doctor scores sixteen points out of twenty-two on
Raglan’s scale, the same score as Theseus and one less point than Hercules
and Romulus. His narrative is complicated because of the format of the
television serial, various writers over several decades, issues of time trav-
el, and his regenerations. This allows the Doctor to commit numerous he-
roic acts and change over time, yet remain the same hero. While other he-
roes experience variations in character, often those variations are not seen
as canon or not happening to the exact same character, (e.g. alternative
universes in DC Comics) whereas almost of all the Doctor’s variations are
still seen as occurring within the same character and continuity.
The narrative paradox of regenerating despite dying allows the Doctor
to fit with parts of the Raglan scale that many other contemporary heroes
do and cannot. Contemporary popular heroes tend to have American ori-
gins, while issues of death are overlooked or avoided in American cultural
140 Doctor Who?

products. It is no surprise that the Doctor, being a different type of hero, is

distinctively non-American (he of course is not an American hero at all, as
the BBC produces the series). The fact that the Doctor lives on slightly
undermines this point about death, but still allows the narrative to address
issues of death and morn for him, even if for only a short time.
The Doctor also varies from other heroes in his representation of mas-
culinity. This begs the question: Why does the Doctor’s relation to hero-
ism and masculinity even matter? Heroes represent cultural ideals, which
include aspects like masculinity and femininity. By a physical comparison,
the Doctor’s physical representation is different from that of other con-
temporary heroes. His physical appearance is not depicted as an idealistic
body or a hyper-masculine body like other heroes (e.g. Superman or Bat-
man), nor has he ever been particularly physically strong either. The first
few Doctors were older men in their sixties and occasionally displayed
feebleness. The two most recent Doctors are very lanky, geekish men, with
one in his late twenties and the other in his early thirties. The Doctor is not
an embodiment of a traditional idealized masculine body.
Not only is the Doctor not a physically typical hero, but his attire also
complicates traditional notes of masculinity. At various points, he wears
excessively long scarves, a piece of celery, bowties, 3-D glasses, and coat
covered in question marks. These fashion choices are not traditional mark-
ers of manliness. While comic book heroes might wear bright colors and
tights, these markers compensate with hyper-masculine bodies, which the
Doctor does not have. The tights accent their bodies, revealing how mus-
cular and powerful these heroes are. A hero’s garb can heighten the hero’s
masculinity, as well as accessories. Yet, the Doctor does not carry a gun,
sword, or other weapons, which tends to be masculinizing accessories for
heroes like The Punisher, John McClane, and James Bond. Instead, the
Doctor has his sonic screwdriver, which gets him out of many difficult
situations, but is not a weapon. The Doctor lacks these traditional cues to
overt masculinity, further distinguishing him for other heroes.
The way he accomplishes his heroic feats is also different from many
other heroes. Although the narrative of the show explores the Doctor as a
dangerous and sometimes dark fellow, he rarely engages a foe directly.
Superman’s greatest critique is that he can solve any problem by punching
it hard enough, Batman brawls with henchmen, Hercules clubs a few ene-
mies and kills the rest with Hydra-blood tipped arrows, and even Frodo
stabs a few Orcs. The Doctor is different because he solves most of his
issues two ways: through his wit or by convincing others to fight on his
behalf. The Doctor is more of a cerebral hero instead of a physical hero,
wherein he saves the day through his brilliant wit instead of physical
 Travis Limbert 141

might. The Doctor does not fight his foes in the traditional sense, nor is he
very physical.
This does not mean that the Doctor is not heroic, however. I would
align the Doctor’s modes of engagement with that of more histori-
cal/religious heroes like Jesus due to how they interact with their foes.6
This is very apparent in the episode “A Good Man Goes to War,” where
the plot involves the Doctor assembling an army for combat. Throughout
the episode, the Doctor never engages in physical contact nor does he at-
tack anything, despite repeated threats. He simply outsmarts or outmaneu-
vers his enemies, and when that does not work, someone else steps in a
takes a swing for him. The larger narrative that drives “A Good Man Goes
to War,” one that refers to the Doctor as this good man, is about the army
the Doctor raises based on debts people owe him. He gets others to do his
dirty work (and sacrifice their lives) for him, while he does no direct
fighting of his own.
What should then be made of a heroic character that does not directly
engage with enemies nor outwardly embodies traditional masculine mark-
ers? Elizabeth Bell, in her discussion on the evolution of the befuddled
hero within television, inadvertently summarizes the Doctor when writing:

Currently, however, we are witnessing a cultural shift which blends these

two kinds of protagonists, producing the nonconformist hero who is both
macho and vulnerable, wise and befuddled. He is not purely a hero, for he
creates his own problems and displays sometimes alarming ineptness. Even
his friends recognize the absurdities of his situation. Yet he is not purely a
clown either, for he solves the problems with his own resourcefulness and
skill. He is, furthermore, unswervingly dedicated to protecting justice, even
at great cost to himself.7

Her discussion of a hero who embodies these dualities is applicable to

the Doctor. Narratively, the Doctor is the dangerous, dark, godlike alien
that many sentient beings throughout space and time fear, yet is a lovable
goof who people adore. He is the most brilliant character on the show, yet
says things like “wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey” and will defend how his
bowtie or fez is “cool.” He can solve the deepest secrets of the universe,
but is often perplexed by the emotions expressed by the companions who
travel with him. He is highly intelligent, yet childlike in his mannerisms.
He embodies of these dualities and is a paradox onto himself. This also
ties into his representations of masculinity discussed previously; the Doc-
tor is able to assert his power and dominance yet at the same time appear
vulnerable, distant, and silly. Despite all of this, like Bell suggests with the
befuddled hero, the Doctor constantly puts himself in danger for the sake
142 Doctor Who?

of others. He is not quite a clown or trickster, yet is constantly willing to

sacrifice himself to save a planet of people he adores.
While the Doctor represents an alternative form of masculine heroism,
it should not be overlooked that he is representative of British culture. He
can be read as an agent of national pride or an agent of cultural colonial-
ism, similar to Klaus Dodds’ argument about James Bond.8 Dodds argues
that popular cultural products can embody fantasies of imperialism and
colonization, long after the Empire has lost the agency to act out these
concepts. This practice helps placate the nation with the loss of its Empire
and agency within the globalized world. Instead of fretting over the loss of
their global agency, the citizens vicariously relive their old national status
through the consumption of popular culture. Dodds uses James Bond as an
example of this phenomenon, citing Bond as a cultural hero who embodied
the ideas of British imperialism prior to World War II, and who acted out
these beliefs in a world after the decline of the British Empire. James Bond
was a way for England to relive its previous notions of agency, after the
loss of that agency. Doctor Who, a program produced by the BBC, can
also be viewed this way. The Doctor is a British cultural hero, acting out
ideal forms of British masculinity, while at the same time emphasizing an
importance on Great Britain’s role in the globalized world. Doctor Who
repeatedly centers England as the most important part of the world
throughout time, one that the Doctor constantly visits and saves. This
highlights England’s importance in the world and over the course of time.
The Doctor is also distinctly British, in his speech and mannerisms, de-
spite being extraterrestrial.
The Doctor symbolizes a different type of hero from those normally
depicted in the United States; however, he is still a hero nevertheless. The
Doctor’s long history, spanning over fifty years of television, as well as
movies and books, allows him to represent different conceptualizations of
the hero. Yet, narratively he has remained the same hero, an every chang-
ing and encompassing paradox that somehow remains constant while nev-
er the same. In an increasingly globalized media world, it is important to
considered narratives that are imported. In the end, the Doctor’s heroic
attributes remain; he still selflessly defends humanity, the Earth, and other
space cultures from annihilation from various nefarious villains, all while
being an eccentric goof.

Notes
1
Lord Raglan, “The Hero of Tradition,” The Study of Folklore, ed. Alan Dundes
(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1965), 142-57.
2
Raglan, 145.
 Travis Limbert 143

3
The Doctor is exiled to Earth during the story-arc titled The War Games during
the 1960s; it is also referenced throughout the series that he is the protector of
Earth and/or humanity.
4
This includes the majority of the Doctor Who episodes.
5
While this happens throughout the show, a scene from fifth season premiere,
“The Eleventh Hour” quickly displays multiple foes that the Doctor has defeated to
save the Earth, implies that the Atraxi should not only be afraid, but also refrain
from interfering with the Earth because it is under the Doctor’s protection. This not
only reinforces the Doctors protective role over the Earth and humanity, but also
reflects the times of peace that he has established.
6
Jesus and Moses both fits surprisingly well in Raglan’s scale. Yet both of these
men are not known for directly engaging foes in combat or tests of strength.
7
Elizabeth S Bell, “The Cultural Roots of Our Current Infatuation with TV’s
Befuddled Hero,” The Hero in Transition, eds. Ray Browne and Martin Fishwick
(Bowling Green: Popular Press, 1983), 194.
8
Klaus Dodds, “Screening Geopolitics: James Bond and the Early Cold War Films
(1962-1967),” Geopolitics 10, no. 2 (2005): 266-86.
 CHUCK VERSUS THE AMERICAN HERO:
INTERROGATING THE DIALECTIC RHETORIC
OF MASCULINITIES IN CONTEMPORARY
AMERICAN CULTURAL DISCOURSES

MYC WIATROWSKI
INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Chuck versus the Introduction

In the immediate aftermath of the Virginia Tech Massacre in April
2007 critics began to attack nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz
for “wondering aloud why [the murdered] students did so little to defend
themselves” on the April 17, 2007 edition of his radio program.1 These
responses from critics led Boortz to ask of his audience: “How far have we
advanced in the wussification of America?”2 This commentary by Boortz
caused many, particularly right leaning, Americans to question the mascu-
linity of American ideology, and caused some to suggest that the students
who were victims of the attack were unable to respond to the situation
because they had been emasculated. In 2010, Democratic Pennsylvania
Governor Ed Rendell made similar claims (though of a less inflammatory
nature) in an interview when responding to the weather-related postpone-
ment of a NFL football game. He said, “[m]y biggest beef is that this is
part of what's happened in this country … I think we've become wussies ...
we've become a nation of wusses.” 3 These statements, and others like
them, are representative examples of a current rhetorical trend within the
cultural discourse concerning the demasculization and wussification of
American society, with a predominant emphasis on the individual Ameri-
can male. Within these instances are an implicit dialectic tension created
by a bipartite understanding of masculinity, a binary that at once challeng-
es and reinforces the dominant ideals of maleness.
Susan Jeffords writes that the traditional mode of masculine ideology
“represents itself as a ‘separate world,’ one that poses survival—finally the
survival of masculinity itself—as depending on the exclusion of women.”4
While I agree with Jeffords to an extent, I would modify her assertion to
 Myc Wiatrowski 145

state that traditional masculine modes require the exclusion of feminine

agency. That is to say, women physically can, and indeed must, be present
in traditional modes of maleness. In this form, the female is presented as
antithetical to the male, so masculinity is conceptualized as directly oppo-
sitional to femininity. It is only through this juxtaposition of male and fe-
male that masculinity can be constructed, after which women—and their
associated traits—are removed as agent. This removal of agency forces
women to be, as Laura Mulvey would put it, the bearers, not makers, of
meaning. 5 In short, hegemonic masculinity may be best described as a
culturally conceived identity created through the juxtapositional exclusion
or domination of the feminine as agent. From this construction of a tradi-
tional, self-reliant, actionable ideology of the masculine, we can begin to
compose the other half of a compound masculine identity. Arguably, we
can see the hegemonic form of masculinity as being the self-sufficient
hyper-masculine form described above by interrogating Jeffords supposi-
tion. Reading this representation as one half of a whole allows for the pos-
sibility of understanding the rhetoric of the wussified or emasculated male
in opposition to this mainstream ideology—a culturally hypo-masculine
male. Where traditional forms of maleness are self-sufficient, actionable,
and anti-feminine, the emasculated male is reliant on others, with an espe-
cial reliance on women, and is coded as feminine through, amongst other
things, a lack of agency. From a culturally dominant point of view this
“wussification” rhetorical device, while reductive, eschews positive por-
trayals of non-traditional masculinity—coding this form of maleness as
epicene based on the a perception of “contemporary” man’s reliance on
women and his refusal to act—in favor of a more traditional masculine
representation that is largely isolated, predominantly independent and
solely male.
Yet, it would seem as if there exists a dialogic tension in the cultural
discourses relating to these American concepts of masculinity. It is clear
that Boortz and Rendell attribute value judgments to this multilateral con-
ception of masculinity where traditional, hegemonic ideals of the male are
assigned positive value, and non-traditional ideologies are viewed as nega-
tive—to the point of being assigned deprecatory modifiers such as
“wussification.” However, it appears as if this alternative, “wussified”
form of masculinity is growing within American cultural productions and
shown in a more positive light. Intentionally counter-hegemonic portrayals
of the American male are increasingly common, with this representation
being particularly evident in genres where hyper-masculine representa-
tions have been the historical norm.
146 Chuck versus the American Hero

The spy genre, and its customarily masculine, heteronormative poster-

boy James Bond has typically been associated with the tactics of exclu-
sionary hegemonic masculinity where concepts of the feminine are
shunned as agent, and the ability to act is generally coded as male. Never-
theless, recent trends within the spy genre subvert these conventional ex-
pectations and complicate the role of traditional masculinity. The counter-
hegemonic utilization of inventions within the genre, such as the inversion
of more traditional gender roles or the intentional disregarding of mascu-
line conventions, is increasingly more frequent. Television series such as
Alias, Burn Notice, Kim Possible, La Femme Nikita, and Totally Spies as
well as films such as D.E.B.S., Hanna, and Salt all offer a plethora of ex-
amples of the subversion of genre norms in contemporary cultural produc-
tions. In these texts the male spies are frequently unwilling (or unable) to
perform the traditionally self-sufficient modes of masculinity that one
might expect from a Bondian model; while simultaneously female spies
are often called upon to perform as agent, frequently executing and partic-
ipating in actions which are generally conceived of as particularly mascu-
line (e.g. killing, torturing, and withstanding torture).
Within the aforementioned texts, there are instances of subverted gen-
dered norms associated with both the spy genre and traditionally hegemon-
ic conceptions of masculinity. However, an examination of any one of
these texts may reveal only select elements of these inventions and per-
haps an implied cultural acceptance of alternative (or perhaps even egali-
tarian) gender roles. To understand the dialogic and dialectic tensions in-
herent in cultural discourses of masculinity requires a text that represents a
multitude of the elements contained in both traditional and non-traditional
notions of the masculine. While I recognize that encompassing the whole
of a cultural discourse in a singular text is an impossible task, I believe
that texts that contain multiple elements of this cultural discussion offer a
greater opportunity to understand the discursive elements of these dialectic
tensions. For the purposes of this investigation, NBC’s television program
Chuck is perhaps the ideal text for exploring cultural discourses pertaining
to masculinity in an American context, particularly within the first two
seasons that will be the primary focus of this study. In this chapter, I will
show how Chuck portrays ideologies associated with both sides of a bipar-
tite model of masculinity, yet clearly favors a more liberal, counter-
hegemonic approach to ideals of the masculine norm. I posit that Chuck
operates in the ongoing cultural conversations about masculine identity in
America and tenders a counterargument to the likes of Boortz and Rendell;
where their debatably dominant rhetoric characterizes non-traditional mas-
 Myc Wiatrowski 147

culinity pejoratively as “wussified,” Chuck positions this arguably epicene

form of male identity as both positive and valuable.

Chuck versus the Methodology

Although I believe that Chuck offers an ideal opportunity to explore
contemporary elements of American rhetoric of the masculine, interrogat-
ing cultural discourses through textual productions can be problematic. No
one text can be truly representative of a culture as a whole, nor can it fully
encompass the entirety of the cultural conversation in which it operates.
Some scholars have attempted to associate the “objective” popularity of a
text with its ability to participate in cultural discourses; however, I find
that approach to be fundamentally flawed. If we assume popularity exists
on a scale related to its quantitative consumption, and that this scale corre-
lates to a text’s position with the cultural zeitgeist then a majority of texts
would fail to be relevant in terms of expressing cultural ideology or partic-
ipating in cultural discourse. That is to say, if we assume the measurable
consumption of a text is representative of its place in the cultural hierarchy
we lose the ability to talk about most texts that fail the test of objective
popularity. Although it is important to recognize that a relationship be-
tween measurable consumption and cultural influence does exist, we can-
not base an analysis solely on the calculable statistics for popularity and
we must assume that all texts operate, to some extent, within the cultural
discourse on equal footing. To be more precise, a program should not be
deemed culturally relevant based solely on the industry standards of meas-
urable consumption (e.g. Nielsen Ratings), but should be investigated in
terms of how any given program operates within the cultural discourses in
which it is created and maintained. Yet, while only understanding the con-
text of a program may be problematic, we still must recognize its place
within the productions of a culture as important. Discerning how Chuck
fits within the landscape of popular texts is necessary to understand how it
dialogically represents elements of maleness in American culture, particu-
larly with relation to the dominant understandings of traditional masculini-
ty and representations of the “wussified” male.
Chuck premiered on September 24, 2007 and served as the lead-in pro-
gram for NBC’s Monday primetime lineup through its first four seasons.
When Chuck debuted, the program aired in the Monday night lineup at
8:00pm, where it largely remained with the exceptions of a few episodes
during seasons one and three before moving to Friday evenings at 8:00 pm
for its final season in October 2011. Largely, Chuck was a critical success,
if not a financial one.6 The first several seasons received broadly positive
148 Chuck versus the American Hero

reviews, but failed to thrive in the ratings. Season one was the #65 ranked
television program in the United States for the 2007-2008 broadcast sea-
son in terms of average Nielsen Rating.7 Season two saw a decrease to the
#71 ranked position for average overall rated program; in season three this
trend continued and saw further decrease in popularity where it finished
the season ranked #82 overall.8 During its fourth season, Chuck’s ratings
stabilized, as it finished the season ranked #83 in total viewership. How-
ever, that number dropped dramatically in its fifth and final season to fin-
ish as #137 ranked program.9 While Chuck largely failed to meet the in-
dustry standards of what we may call a popular television program, it
nonetheless participated in the ongoing conversation in which it was con-
ceived and operates.
In terms of genre, Chuck belongs to the action-comedy genre, working
in the particular subgenre of the spy, perhaps existing in a niche of spy-
comedy genre (much like Get Smart). Like many other contemporary ac-
tion-comedies, it follows an hour-long, weekly formula centered narrative-
ly on recurring characters in variety of environments. Set primarily in lo-
cales throughout Los Angeles, California, Chuck focuses chiefly on four
regular characters. At the center of the recurring cast are two CIA partners:
the eponymous Charles “Chuck” Bartowski and Sarah Walker played by
Zachary Levi and Yvonne Strahovski. As the series begins, Chuck is an
“every-man” character who acts as the series protagonist; he is a workaday
underachiever who never completed college and remains employed in a
retail job at the Burbank Buy More as part of their “Nerd Herd,” a thinly
veiled fictionalized version of Best Buy’s “Geek Squad.” On Chuck’s
twenty-seventh birthday, he receives an encrypted email from a college
friend who, unbeknownst to Chuck, works for the CIA. When he decodes
this message, it embeds the only remaining copy of a secret government
program, the Intersect (which contains military intelligence and interna-
tional secrets), directly into his brain. This event triggers his initial meet-
ing with CIA agent Sarah Walker who begins investigating his connection
to the government’s loss of the program. Sarah is shrouded in mystery
throughout much of the first and second seasons of the series. She main-
tains a variety of cover jobs with a primary cover as Chuck’s girlfriend,
which allows her to carry out her mission: protecting and working with
Chuck until the CIA is able to recover their secrets. The tension between
this unlikely pair, both romantically and professionally, forms the series’
primary narrative focus.
However, other characters play significant roles through the arc of the
series. Of particular note are NSA agent John Casey and Buy More em-
ployee Morgan Grimes, played by Adam Baldwin and Joshua Gomez re-
 Myc Wiatrowski 149

spectively. Casey, like Sarah, is tasked by his agency with protecting their
interests in the now secret Chuck project, defending the secrets Chuck
carries in the Intersect. Morgan, conversely, operates largely outside of the
spy world throughout the first several seasons of the series and, as Chuck’s
best friend, is often the one of the elements that grounds Chuck to his “re-
al” life while simultaneously acting as an outlet for comedy within the
series. There are additional members of the cast which return with great
frequency, however it can be safely said that these four characters (Chuck,
Sarah, Casey and Morgan) largely form the core of the cast who return
each week to participate in spy adventures and reveal in social situations
wherein expected cultural norms may subverted and restored, often for
comedic effect. It is both within this primary cast, and through a series of
guest stars that we are able to witness and understand elements of the dia-
lectic tension inherent in the bipartite masculinity of contemporary Ameri-
can discourse. Through the portrayals of these characters, we can see a
non-traditional, or counter-hegemonic, form of masculinity, chiefly in the
individual of Chuck, compared and contrasted to multiple representations
of traditional hegemonic masculinity.

Chuck versus the Beefcakes

R.W. Connell writes that, “[t]rue masculinity is almost always thought
to proceed from men’s bodies—to be inherent in a male body or to express
something about the male body.”10 Indeed, the concept of the strong mus-
cled man is recognized as the dominant paradigm of masculine representa-
tion in the hegemonic discourse of traditional gender roles.11 This concept
of a strong-bodied individual and the nature of the male body are indelibly
linked in contemporary studies of the masculine to ideas of aggression,
power, and control.12 Chuck Bartowski is representative of none of these
traits. He lacks the large muscles, the aggressive nature, and the masculine
ideals of power and control. Instead, Chuck is a young, scrawny, white,
suburban nerd and though it is possible to read the young white male as
stereotypically representative of Western masculine patriarchy, the nerd
stereotype is “hardly a portrait of white male superiority.” 13 Chuck, as
leader of the Nerd Herd within the framework of the show, is inextricably
linked to the dominant cultural ideologies associated with the nerd, which
is to say, “[n]erd is still used in the pejorative sense.”14 However, the pro-
tagonist’s lack of hegemonic masculine prowess is not to say that these
dominant representations of the masculine are not presented within the
text. On the contrary, virtually every episode of this program places
Chuck’s version of the masculine, a version which lacks the traditional
150 Chuck versus the American Hero

markers of maleness, into direct comparison, and often directly conflict,

with this hegemonic mode of Connell’s true masculinity.
Beginning with the premiere episode, Chuck engages with a series of
masculine foils who challenge him, both in his ability to perform hege-
monic masculinity and in terms of heteronormative masculine sexuality.
These self-reliant characters fulfill the traditional mode of masculine iden-
tity by modeling “themselves after cowboys of the Wild West, mountain
men, and various other pre-modern figures imagined living free of societal
authority and can be understood as rebelling against the constraints and
conformist pressures of modern life.”15 Most notably amongst this group is
Bryce Larkin, played by Matthew Bomer. Bryce plays a central role in the
series, as he is the CIA agent who sends the Intersect to Chuck via email.
His bodily masculine identity, as well as its associated aggression, is evi-
dent in the opening scene of the premiere episode in which a battered and
bloodied Bryce is able to defeat nine armed agents while eluding many
more with a combination of martial skill and parkour while stealing the
Intersect. He slows after being shot, and even then, he is still able to send
the stolen program to Chuck. Larkin exhibits the hegemonic masculine
identity in what Susan Jeffords calls “the normative body that is enveloped
in strength, labor, determination, loyalty and courage—the ‘hard body.’”16
The clear militarism, sheer power, and masculine control of the body dis-
played by Larkin in the opening scene is set, through a series of cuts,
against Chuck’s inability and lack of desire to speak with women, his lazy
attitude toward his status as an underachiever, his unexciting life, and his
laissez faire attitude toward his personal and professional goals. We could
classify Chucks masculine identity in terms of what Jeffords calls the “soft
body [which] invariably belong[s] to a female.”17
Bryce is much more significant in the mythology of the show than
simply as a onetime comparative foil. Bryce was Chuck’s college room-
mate who stole his girlfriend and was responsible for having him expelled
from Stanford. However, their relationship is even more complicated than
that. During their time together at Stanford, the CIA recruited Bryce and
attempted to recruit Chuck a year later. In an effort to save his friend
Bryce acted through subterfuge, framing Chuck for cheating and getting
him expelled from the university in the process. Bryce said of Chuck’s
potential to be a spy “[he’s] a good person, he’s got too much heart for this
kind of work, he’s no operative. You can’t put him out in the field, he
won’t survive!” The powerful, assertive, aggressive Larkin saves Chuck
from himself, in large part by removing his ability to act. This removal of
agency recalls the hegemonic mode of masculinity discussed previously
which necessitates the removal of female agency; in this case, Bryce act-
 Myc Wiatrowski 151

ing on Chuck’s behalf, particularly without his knowledge, effectively

renders the eponymous character emasculated.
Furthermore, Bryce is representative of the sexual frustration of the ep-
icene Chuck character. Bryce not only begins to date Jill, Chuck’s then
girlfriend, after his expulsion from Stanford, he is also the former lover of
Sarah Walker, Chuck’s CIA partner. The first season slowly reveals that
prior to the events of the pilot episode Bryce and Sarah were long-term
lovers. The romantic connection between Bryce and Sarah, particularly
their sexually consummated relationship, further distances Chuck from his
ability to perform normative masculinity. As the series progresses through
the first two seasons the tension between Sarah and Chuck stems largely
from their cover as a dating couple. They perform the elements of a heter-
onormative relationship, but are unable to consummate their act, regard-
less of the emotional attachment the narrative implies. When Bryce Larkin
returns to Sarah’s life, the show implies to the audience that he resumes
his role as her sexual consort, further frustrating Chuck’s place within the
hegemonic masculine order.
Bryce is not the only character against which Chuck is compared in
terms of masculinity. In season two, a secondary foil Cole Barker is first
introduced as an enemy agent, but is soon revealed to be MI6; he assists
Chuck, Sarah, and Casey with a mission to capture a secret enemy device.
However, Chuck's actions during the course of the mission cause Cole,
Sarah, and Chuck to be captured by enemy agents and threatened with
torture. As with the introductory scene with Bryce, the torture scene intro-
duces the Cole character as hard bodied man able to easily withstand tor-
ture through strength, labor, and determination, whereas Chuck cries out
that he “can’t take it anymore” as Cole is whipped. During the scene, to
protect Chuck’s identity, Cole describes him as a “pathetic weakling, [who
shouldn’t be] sent on assignment and [can’t] withstand torture” before
Chuck faints when threatened with a needle. After their inevitable rescue,
enemy agents again capture Cole, where he is once again forced to endure
torture. Like Bryce before him, a bloodied Cole escapes from their custo-
dy, disables nine enemy agents, and returns to the team to protect Chuck.
Once more, the hegemonically dominant, hard-bodied male emasculates
Chuck.
Chuck is constantly compared to characters such as Bryce and Cole.
These heroes both represent the self-sufficient, dominant ideals of tradi-
tional modes of hegemonic masculinity. They are, as Holt and Thompson
suggest, the:

man-of-action characters [like] James Bond, Dirty Harry, Rambo, [and]

Indiana Jones … [who] always operate outside the official rules and con-
152 Chuck versus the American Hero

straints of the organizations that pay their salaries, and they always become
embroiled in conflicts with their superiors for not playing “by the rules.”
But in the end, they prove to be the only men who have the sufficient po-
tency to vanquish whatever villain is threatening the social order. In these
celluloid morality plays, the same happy ending is forever repeated: the he-
roic superman vanquishes the diabolical foe, proves his manhood with pa-
nache, restores the moral order, saves society (and the very institutional
system whose rules he has defied), gets the girl, and then takes his well-
deserved seat at the pinnacle of a patriarchal status hierarchy.18

Often, these heroes overshadow Chuck’s few moments of traditional

masculinity. For instance, when Chuck twists his ankle attempting to save
Casey and Sarah from a squad of villains, Cole takes a bullet in his back to
shield Sarah from gunfire. These characters frequently save Chuck and/or
Sarah from torture or death, and are often a source of the villain’s frustra-
tion. The presence of these men-of-action allows the audience to weigh the
value of hegemonic masculinity and gives voice to these ideals within the
contemporary cultural discourse. Yet, while they emasculate Chuck to a
degree, their presence is still problematized by operating in a world where
Chuck is the primary hero. This discrepancy will be reconciled later, suf-
fice it to say that the hegemonic masculinity presented by these charac-
ters—while often portrayed positively, and usually at the expense of
Chuck’s ability to perform the same type of masculine identity—it is not
performed to the exclusion of all others male identities within this particu-
lar text.

Chuck versus the Beard

In addition to Chuck’s perpetual emasculation through comparison to
the more traditional male, he also has his masculinity brought into ques-
tion through his relationship with Morgan Grimes. For much of the first
two seasons Morgan is the primary focus of each episode’s sub-plot that
generally revolves around the Buy More and/or Chuck’s personal life.
Occasionally Morgan is tangentially related to the main plot of the narra-
tives (e.g. Chuck’s spy missions). However, in these early episodes he is
rarely actively involved. Like Chuck, Morgan is largely portrayed as an
effeminate male in that he lacks any agency within the primary narrative
of any given episode within the first two seasons.
Chuck and Morgan’s relationship forms around a long shared homoso-
cial intimacy usually played out in references to popular culture items such
as films and video games. In speaking about homosocial relationships in
film, Justin Wyatt states that these narrative pairings are generally nested
 Myc Wiatrowski 153

within the contexts of broader heteronormative assemblies where “a more

intimate relationship [can be] advanced by the ‘safety’ of the larger heter-
osexual male group.”19 Yet the relationship between Chuck and Morgan is
more isolated, operating in an idiosyncratic way, separated from any ties
to a heterosexual male social group. It is in this context that “homosociali-
ty unconstrained by [the] social conventions [of the group] can foster a
homosexual relationship.”20 This is not to say that the audience is intended
to read this particular relationship as a homosexual one, nor that such a
reading would necessarily be coded negatively. Nevertheless, the close-
ness of the pair outside of the socially expected custom of a heteronorma-
tive social group functions in such a way as to identify them in opposition
to the self-sufficient masculine ideal. Indeed, Morgan and Chuck often
function as a unit wherein knowledge and dependency are shared between
the two, to the point that Morgan is frequently upset when he discovers
that Chuck is keeping secrets from him. While this relationship exists as
one of the elements that humanizes the now computerized Chuck and
keeps him grounded outside of the spy-world, it simultaneously affects
Chuck’s ability to perform exclusionary hegemonic masculinity by perma-
nently linking Chuck to Morgan in a symbiotic relationship of perpetual
reliance and problematizing the sexual identity of Chuck, particularly with
relation to Sarah.

Chuck versus the Giant Blonde She-Male

The implied romantic relationship between Chuck and Sarah is com-
plicated at best. Throughout the first two seasons, the duo lives a fantasy
relationship as their cover so that Chuck has protection at all times. This
faux relationship prevents Chuck from forming real heteronormative rela-
tionships with other women while simultaneously inhibiting the genuine
emotional and sexual relationship between him and Sarah that becomes
implicit within the narrative. Chuck is forced to control the sexual impuls-
es he experiences for Sarah in order to maintain the status quo. Occasion-
ally Chuck attempts to break out of this controlled mode of sexuality by
ending his faux relationship; however, these attempts to assert his sexual
identity with other women always lead to situational circumstances which
cause him to fall back into the mode of controlled sexual impulses and
reenlist in the fictitious Chuck/Sarah romance. Miranda Brady links this
idea of controlled sexuality to the American woman. Where manliness or
foreignness can be explicitly sexual, controlled or lack of sexuality, like
that displayed by Chuck, is identified with female American sexual identi-
ty and is related to cultural anxieties about family values.21 It is possible to
154 Chuck versus the American Hero

read this controlled emotional state as the domination and exclusion of

feminine agency. Women are unable to act on their sexual desires because
their agency has been subdued and they must operate in a world where the
hegemonic masculine identity has control over all bodies, both male and
female. Broadly, Chuck and Sarah portray inverted gender roles with re-
spect to the norms expected of American culture and of the spy genre.
Actually, I would argue that Sarah is the most frequently used foil for
comparison to Chuck in terms of the performance of traditional modes of
hegemonic masculinity.
Indeed, Sarah is the most prevalent spy in Chuck’s life and his primary
handler. When Chuck is frequently in trouble, generally Sarah is able to
extricate him from that trouble. While Chuck is frequently unable or un-
willing to act, particular in the manner expected of a spy, Sarah is an ex-
pert. One of Chuck’s failings in the performance of hegemonic masculini-
ty discussed earlier is his inability to act with the necessary aggression. In
particular, Chuck absolutely refuses to take the life of another person. Sa-
rah, on the other hand, has no qualms about justifiable murder and is ex-
ceptionally ruthless when necessary. The premiere episode closes with a
display of Sarah’s aggressive brutality in action, showing her viciously
subdue and kill two enemy agents. An enemy agent discovering Chuck’s
identity as the Intersect drives the plot of an episode near the end of season
one. Sarah summarily executes the unarmed agent with a single gunshot to
the head in order to protect Chuck’s identity. She then lies to Chuck and
tells him that the enemy agent has been arrested and will be imprisoned
forever. These scenes of extreme brutality are coded as masculine because
they display exceptional aggression, power, and bodily control.
Yet, while Sarah is coded as masculine through her ability to act and
the subsequent the actions she takes, we must acknowledge that she is a
woman and fulfills the physical roles of femininity—though with particu-
larly masculine representations. That is to say, Sarah is physically styled
according to the fantasy female figure created through the male gaze.22
She is simultaneously looked at and put on display for the audience in a
traditionally feminine exhibitionist mode where she serves as erotic spec-
tacle.23 This Mulvian expectation is fulfilled generally by placing Sarah in
lingerie, allowing the audience to watch her dress, voyeuristically reveal-
ing her bare skin in a sexualized manner. Laura Mulvey suggests that
when these moments occur within a text the woman’s “visual presence
tends to work against the development of the story-line, to freeze the flow
of action in moments of erotic contemplation.”24 Yet, when these situa-
tions do occur, particularly when Sarah is on display for the audience, it is
rarely portrayed as simply the presentation of an object for erotic contem-
 Myc Wiatrowski 155

plation. In fact, she is also masculinized to an extent. For instance, in the

pilot, the audience is invited to watch Sarah dress as she prepares for a
date with Chuck. The camera erotically moves over her semi-nude form as
she dresses, but lingers on particular preparations for the evening—the
strapping on of knives, the concealment of poisoned pins, and the wearing
of contoured body armor. Generally, when Sarah acts as erotic exhibition-
ist for the audience, she is also forced to display elements of the mascu-
line—she presents pseudo-phalluses such as knives and guns in these
scenes with alarming frequency offering semiotic testimony of her aggres-
sive hegemonic masculine nature.
Furthermore, unlike Chuck, Sarah is not required to control her sexual
identity. Her sexuality is evident in her romantic relationships, particularly
with Bryce Larkin. Where Chuck is limited in sexuality, and forced into a
controlled sexual identity though his faux relationship with Sarah, she is
able to decide freely whom to sleep with and when. She acts as sexualized
agent within the text while simultaneously removing any agency from
Chuck. Miranda Brady would have us believe this codes Sarah as other,
particularly exotic, foreign, and dirty. 25 However, in this particular text
Sarah is more representative of an inverted Mulvian binary where the dy-
namic between her and Chuck presents a sexual imbalance split between
female/active and male/passive. 26 Sarah acts as a challenge to Chuck’s
ability to perform traditional displays of hegemonic masculinity, marking
him as a “wussified” male unable to conform to the traditionally expected
norms. Yet Chuck is able to perform a counter-hegemonic form of mascu-
line identity that incorporates some traditional elements of the Mulvian
ideal.

Chuck versus the Gaze

That the audience is meant to identify with Chuck is never in question.
He is an everyman character who is unhappy in his retail job, who ques-
tions his place in society, and who represents the average twenty-
something American man. Yet there is a logical conundrum inherent in the
constant emasculation of the hero in a text like this, especially one who is
presumably a surrogate for the audience. Other main and secondary char-
acters perpetually undercut Chuck yet he is also the lead protagonist. Pre-
senting him through these epicene characterizations offers testimony to the
existence of a wussified male in contemporary American rhetoric. Howev-
er, Chuck’s portrayal is not intended solely to verify the existence of this
concept within the cultural discourse. Chuck embodies the emasculated
male, conforming to the rhetoric of the man unable to perform hegemonic
156 Chuck versus the American Hero

masculinity in order to subvert this belief. That is to say, even though

Chuck is unable to perform the expected function of a man or a spy in
terms of the cultural or genre expectations, he does present an alternative
methodology for performing as a masculine hero.
If we view the hegemonic masculine ideology as the rebel style hark-
ening back to ideas of the American West—creating the man-of-action
stereotype that Chuck is so often compared to—then Chuck is representa-
tive of a separate form of masculine ideology, one that Holt and Thomp-
son refer to as the bread winner model of masculinity.27 In this model, the
masculine is represented by “men [who] work hard and are dependable
collaborators in a corporate environment.”28 For the breadwinner type, the
self-sufficient model supposed by Jeffords is eschewed in favor of a more
collaborative, reliant version of masculinity. This form of masculinity also
need not rely on the body as a source of identity, and so eliminates the
dependence on the true masculinity mode put forth by Connell. Indeed this
mode is largely free of the typical markers of hegemonic masculinity that
are incorporated into the characters against which Chuck is compared. Yet
what marks this model as distinctly masculine? If we place hard work into
the mode of action and Chuck is incapable of having agency, how then can
he be identified as masculine? The answer is that Chuck’s agency is never
truly denied, only his agency insofar as the dominant form of exclusionary
hegemonic masculinity is concerned.
To be clear, I have done a great deal of work here to show that Chuck
is unable to perform ideal maleness, and this is in large part because he is
performing a counter-hegemonic form of masculinity largely based on the
bread winner model. His actions are not typical in terms of the conven-
tions of the spy genre or in terms of the dominant masculine model, but he
is the predominant narrative agent through the course of the program. His
agency develops not based on his ability to perform maleness physically in
terms of body or sexuality, but instead on his ability to see what others
cannot. That is to say, Chuck is gifted with a privileged sight—a sight that
goes beyond the conventions of hegemonic masculinity or the spy genre,
and it is in this respect he is coded as hyper-masculine. Associating
Chuck’s ability to see what others are unable to through what Laura Mul-
vey terms the masculine gaze is the primary way in which we can under-
stand his performance of masculinity as valid, even in light of his inability
to perform hegemonic ideals.
Mulvey states that the male is tied to agency diegetically through his
privilege to look—that is to say within the screen story a man’s ability to
see is precisely what ties him to agency, and so to masculinity in the heg-
emonic mode.29 Chuck’s gifted vision is twofold within the narrative of
 Myc Wiatrowski 157

the program. The first layer of his vision is identified by the fact that, for
the first two seasons, he is the only character to possess the Intersect. The
computer program embedded into his brain allows him to “flash” when he
sees an object or person on which the Intersect contains information. This
ability to see what others cannot is largely the impetus for most of the spy
missions, allowing the covert team to create a plan of attack. This narrative
device brings Chuck into the spy world, allowing him to live out the power
fantasy of hegemonic masculinity where by a happy accident makes him
the most valuable man in the world and places him at the center of the
narrative universe. This hyper-gaze codes Chuck as hyper-masculine, giv-
ing him the knowledge and vision far beyond the other more typical bodily
masculine representations within the text.
However, the Intersect is not the only method by which Chuck is gifted
with a hyper-gaze. Chuck, as surrogate for the audience, also has the gaze
of the audience—and it is through this relationship that he is revealed to
have an innate knowledge beyond that of the other characters presented
within the narrative frame of the program (and even beyond that given to
him by the Intersect program). Meaning, Chuck exists in a world that
shares the same pop culture texts as our own, and he has an intimate
knowledge of this world that he uses to his advantage. He utilizes this
privileged gaze based on what could be called popular knowledge, which
allows him to perform tasks beyond those of the other agents who are
more traditional in their genre and masculine conventions. This paradigm
of using an alternative gaze is established in the very first episode where
Chuck utilizes his knowledge of computers and computer viruses to dis-
arm a bomb. As the pilot episode draws to a climax Chuck, Sarah, and
Casey are standing before a bomb with only seconds before it detonates.
Sarah and Casey discuss all of their training about bombs and are ultimate-
ly impotent in terms of being able to save the day. Chuck utilizes his privi-
leged gaze to see beyond the whole of the bomb and diffuse it by exploit-
ing its parts. He uses the computer that controls the bomb to log onto a
pornographic website known to give computers hard-drive killing viruses.
This site disables the computer and the bomb allowing Chuck to save the
day. The ability to see beyond the complicated trappings of the spy world
and utilize knowledge perceived to be uncommonly common within the
framework of the show again codes Chuck as hyper-masculine through his
gaze. It is these abilities, to see beyond what others see, that allow him to
save the day in virtually every episode and repeat the man-of-action suc-
cessful conclusion wherein he “takes his seat at the pinnacle of [the] patri-
archal status hierarchy.”30
158 Chuck versus the American Hero

Chuck versus the Conclusion

The form of masculinity that Chuck exhibits is alternative to the exclu-
sionary hegemonic masculine mode that is typical for the spy genre. Chuck
exhibits multiple elements in the ongoing American cultural discourse
relating to conceptions of masculinity. This television program acknowl-
edges the hegemonically normative mode of maleness through characters
like Bryce Larkin and Cole Barker, and these conceptions allow the ideas
of Boortz and Rendell to be heard within the discourse of the masculine
ideology. The text even goes so far as to critique Chuck’s non-traditional
form of masculinity in terms of the pejoratively labeled “wuss.” However,
placing the eponymous character in Chuck within a dominant position
narratively allows us to see alternative male ideals not as epicene, but as
masculine—and ultimately the show positions this form positively, as a
valid representation of male identity. As a text, Chuck is valuable because
it is largely representative of the dialectic tensions inherent in a bipartite
conceptualization of masculinity. It allows the voice of dominant mascu-
linity to be heard and seen, and it shows us the stereotype of the wussified
male that Boortz and Rendell fear is overtaking American cultural ideolo-
gies.
Yet Chuck answers the fear of that stereotype by insisting that alterna-
tive masculine representations are not to be devalued. Indeed, they are
representative of a paradigm shift in masculine construction. No longer
should we see the hard-bodied he-men similar to James Bond, Dirty Harry,
Rambo, Indiana Jones, Bryce Larkin, and Cole Barker as the dominant
form of masculinity. Instead, these characters have come to represent an
extreme at the edge of the spectrum of masculine identity, characters that
have had their place usurped by the workaday everyman who toils hard, is
a provider, and acts a dependable collaborator in a more egalitarian, poten-
tially gender-neutral model. Chuck through its use of hyper-gaze positions
the nerd identity positively and gives it cultural value in terms of mascu-
line identity. Lori Kendal writes that narratives such as this “depict the
incorporation of the previously marginalized nerd identity into closer alli-
ance with hegemonic masculinity, demonstrating the increasing legitimacy
of expertise in computers as a form of masculine prowess.”31 In the dis-
course of American masculinity, Chuck allows all sides to be heard. We
are experiencing a complicated cultural shift in the role of traditional mas-
culinity, with Chuck favoring a more liberal, counter-hegemonic approach
to ideals of the masculine norm, perhaps one that we can identify with the
wussified nerd-geek stereotype. As Bryce tells Chuck upon their first
meeting in 1999, “the next millennium belongs to the geek.”
 Myc Wiatrowski 159

Notes
1
Neal Boortz, “Daily Program Notes of the Neal Boortz Show,” Neal Boortz:
Somebody’s Gotta Say It, Cox Media Group, April 18, 2007, accessed February
13, 2013, http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2007/apr/18/2007-04-18/.
2
Ibid.
3
Kevin Horrigan, “Are We Wussified? Let Me Count the Ways,” Post-Gazette,
January 12, 2011, accessed February 13, 2013, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/
11012/1117170-109.stm.
4
Susan Jeffords, The Remasculinization of American: Gender and the Vietnam
War (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), 168.
5
Laura Mulvey, Visual and Other Pleasures (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1989), 15.
6
Chuck garnered critical acclaim from a number of media sources including
Robert Bianco, James P. Monday, Rob Owen, Christopher Rose, Maureen Ryan,
and Rob Sheffield.
7
ABC Television Network, “I.T.R.S. Ranking Report,” ABC Medianet, June 17,
2008, accessed February 13, 2013, http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx
?id =061708_07.
8
ABC Television Network, “I.T.R.S. Ranking Report,” ABC Medianet, May 19,
2009, accessed February 13, 2013, http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.
aspx?id=051909_05; Bill Gorman, “Final 2009-10 Broadcast Primetime Show
Average Viewership,” TV by the Numbers, Zap2it, June 16, 2010, accessed
February 13, 2013, http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com /2010/06/16/final-2009-10-
broadcast-primetime-show-average-viewership/54336.
9
Nellie Andreeva, “Full 2010-2011 TV Season Series Rankings,” Deadline.com,
Penske Media Corp, May 27, 2011, accessed February 13, 2013, http://www.dead
line.com/2011/05/full-2010-11-season-series-rankers/; Bill Gorman, “Complete
List of 2011-12 Season TV Show Ratings: ‘Sunday Night Football Tops, Followed
by American Idol, the Voice, and Modern Family,” TV by the Numbers, Zap2it,
May 24, 2012, accessed February 13, 2013, http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/
2012/05/24/final-list-of-2011-12-season-tv-show-ratings-sunday-night-football-
tops-followed-by-american-idol-the-voice-modern-family/135747/.
10
R.W. Connell, Masculinities (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005),
45.
11
E. Anthony Rotundo, American Manhood: Transformations in Masculinity from
the Revolution to the Modern Era. (New York: Basic, 1993), 222-25.
12
Steve Neale, “Masculinity as Spectacle: Reflections on Men and Mainstream
Cinema,” in Screening the Male: Exploring Masculinities in Hollywood Cinema,
eds. Steven Cohan and Ina Rae Hark (London: Routledge, 1993), 11.
13
Ron Eglash, “Race, Sex, and Nerds: From Black Geeks to Asian American
Hipster,” Social Text 71, no. 20.2 (2002): 50.
14
Ibid, 60.
15
Douglas B. Holt and Craig J. Thompson “Man-of-Action Heroes: the Pursuit of
Heroic Masculinity in Everyday Consumption.” Journal of Consumer
Research 31, no. 2 (2004): 436.
160 Chuck versus the American Hero

16
Jeffords, Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity in the Regan Era (New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1994): 24-5.
17
Ibid.
18
Holt and Thompson, 429.
19
Justin Wyatt, “Identity, Queerness, and Homosocial Bonding: the Case of
Swingers,” in Masculinity: Bodies, Movies, Culture, ed. Peter Lehman (New York.
Routledge: 2001), 55.
20
Ibid.
21
Miranda Brady, “The Well-Tempered Spy: Family, Nation, and the Female
Secret Agent in Alias,” in Secret Agents: Popular Icons Beyond James Bond, ed.
Jeremy Packer (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 113.
22
Mulvey, 19.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Brady, 113.
26
Mulvey, 19.
27
Holt and Thompson, 427.
28
Ibid.
29
Mulvey, 19.
30
Holt and Thompson, 429.
31
Lori Kendall, “‘White and Nerdy’: Computers, Race, and the Nerd Stereotype,”
Journal of Popular Culture 44, no. 3 (2011): 505.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABC Television Network. “I.T.R.S. Ranking Report.” ABC Medianet.

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., published June 17, 2008.
http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR. aspx?id =061708_07.
ABC Television Network. “I.T.R.S. Ranking Report.” ABC Medianet.
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., published May 19, 2009.
http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR. aspx?id=051909_05.
Adler, Alison. “Chuck versus the Truth.” Chuck. Episode no. 108, first
broadcast November 2, 2007 by NBC. Directed by Robert Duncan
McNeill. Burbank, CA: NBC, 2008. DVD.
Afterthebite. “Forks Twilight Tour: Port Angeles - Port Book and News.”
After the Bite… All Things Twilight (blog), published on January 19, 2012.
http://www.afterthebite.com/ Forks-Twilight-Tour-Port-Angeles---Port
-Book-News-2528522.
Alvermann, Donna E. “Fandom and Critical Media Literacy.” Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy 43, no. 5 (2000): 436-446.
Andreeva, Nellie. “Full 2010-2011 TV Season Series
Rankings,” Deadspin.com, Penske Media Corp, published May 27 2011,
http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/full-2010-11-season-series-rankers/.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 2nd edition, edited by Terrence Irwin.
Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1999.
Barlow, Aaron. “The Return of the Public Intellectual?” Auds and Ens, last
modified March 13, 2012. http://audsandens.blogspot.com/2012/03/
return-of-public-intellectual.html.
Batman: Under the Red Hood. Directed by Brandon Vietti. 2010.
Burbank, CA: Warner Home Video, 2010. DVD.
Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press, 1994.
Beeton, Sue. Film Induced Tourism. Tonawanda, NY: Channel View
Publications, 2004.
Bell, Elizabeth S. “The Cultural Roots of Our Current Infatuation with
TV’s Befuddled Hero.” In The Hero in Transition, edited by Ray
Browne and Martin Fishwick, 188-95. Bowling Green: Popular Press,
1983.
Ben-Amos, Dan. “Toward a Definition of Folklore in Context.” The
Journal of American Folklore 84, no. 331 (1971): 3–15.
162 Bibliography

Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological

Reproduction, Third Version.” In The Cultural Studies Reader, 3rd
Edition, edited by Simon During, 59-80. New York: Routledge, 2007.
Bentham, Jeremy. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation, in Utilitarianism and Other Writings, edited by Mary
Warnock. New York: Meridian, 1974.
Berger, Albert I. “Science-Fiction Fans in Socio-Economic Perspective:
Factors in the Social Consciousness of a Genre.” Science Fiction
Studies 4, no. 3 (1977): 232-246.
Betz, Phyllis M. The Lesbian Fantastic: A Critical Study of Science
Fiction, Fantasy, Paranormal and Gothic Writings. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2011.
Bianco, Robert. “Critic's Corner Weekend: ‘Simpsons’ Gala,
‘Chuck’” USATODAY.com. Gannett Co. Inc, published January 10,
2010. http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/criticscorner/2010-01-
07-critics-corner_N.htm
Bick, Ilsa J. “Boys in Space: ‘Star Trek,’ Latency, and the Neverending
Story.” Cinema Journal 35, no. 2 (1996): 43-60.
Blackshaw, Tony and Gary Crawford, Sage Dictionaries of Leisure
Studies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2009.
Boortz, Neal. “Daily Program Notes of the Neal Boortz Show.” Neal
Boortz: Somebody’s Gotta Say It. Cox Media Group, published April 18
2007. http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2007/apr/18/2007-
04-18/
Borow, Zev and Matthew Lau. “Chuck versus the Lethal Weapon.” Chuck.
Episode no. 216, first broadcast March 9, 2009 by NBC. Directed by
Allan Kroeker. Burbank, CA: NBC, 2010. DVD.
Brady, Miranda. “The Well Tempered Spy: Family, Nation, and the
Female Secret Agent in Alias.” In Secret Agents: Popular Icons beyond
James Bond, edited by Jeremy Packer, 111-31. New York: Peter Lang,
2009.
Brecht, Bertolt. “Emphasis on Sport.” In Cultural Resistance Reader,
edited by Stephen Duncombe, 183-185. New York: Verso, 2002.
Browne, Ray B. “Introduction.” In The Guide to United States Popular
Culture, edited by Ray B. Browne and Pat Browne, 1-4. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 2001
—. “Popular Culture as the New Humanities.” In Popular Culture Theory
and Methodology: A Basic Introduction, edited by Harold E. Hinds, Jr.,
Marilyn F. Motz, and Angela M. S. Nelson, 75-84. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.
 Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century 163

Brummett, Barry. Rhetoric in Popular Culture. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage Publications, 2006.
Bryman, Alan. The Disneyization of Society. London: Sage Publications,
2004.
Buck Hopper. “Monday, March 26--BuckHopper’s Journal—FurAffinity.
net.” FurAffinity.net. Ferrox Art LLC., last accessed January 18, 2013.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/3305019/
—. “Thursday, March 29--BuckHopper’s Journal—FurAffinity.net.”
FurAffinity.net. Ferrox Art LLC., last accessed January 18, 2013
.http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/ 3314126/
—. “Userpage of BuckHopper.” FurAffinity.net. Ferrox Art LLC., last
accessed January 18, 2013. http://www.furaffinity.net/users.buck
hopper.
“Buck Hopper--WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.” Wiki, WikiFur. Last
accessed January 21, 2013. http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Buck_Hopper.
Carlson, Marla. “Furry Cartography: Performing Species.” Theatre
Journal 63, no. 2 (2011): 191–208.
Chander, Anupam & Madhavi Sunder. “Everyone's a Superhero: a
Cultural Theory of ‘Mary Sue’ Fan Fiction as Fair Use.” California
Law Review 95, no. 2 (2007): 597-626.
Cofell Saunders, Anne. “Chuck versus the Alma Mater.” Chuck. Episode
no. 107, first broadcast November 5, 2007 by NBC. Directed by
Patrick Norris. Burbank, CA: NBC, 2008. DVD.
Cogan, Brian. Email to the author (Bob Batchelor), March 28, 2012.
Connell, R.W. Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 2005.
Dawkins, Richard. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. New
York: Basic Books, 1995.
Devor, Holly. Gender Blending: Confronting the Limits of Duality.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989.
“Discover Forks, Washington” Forks Chamber of Commerce, Inc. http://
www.forkswa.com/
Dixon, Wheeler W. “The Tyranny of Images.” In Visions of the
Apocalypse: Spectacles of Destruction in American Cinema, 1-20.
London: Wallflower, 2003.
Dodds, Klaus. “Screening Geopolitics: James Bond and the Early Cold
War Films (1962-1967),”Geopolitics 10, no. 2 (2005): 266-86.
Dragon Age: Origins. Edmonton: Bioware, Electronic Arts, 2009.
Dragon Age: Awakening. North America: Bioware, Electronic Arts, 2010.
Edwards, Leigh H. Email to the author (Bob Batchelor) March 28, 2012.
164 Bibliography

Eglash, Ron. “Race, Sex, and Nerds: From Black Geeks to Asian
American Hipster.” Social Text 71, no. 20.2 (2002): 49-64.
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. North America: Bethesda Studios, Bethesda
Softworks, 2k Games, 2007
Espiritu, Yen Le. Asian American Women and Men: Labor, Laws, and
Love. Plymouth, United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Inc., 2008.
Fable. Lionhead Studios, Microsoft Studios, 2004.
Fable II. Lionhead Studios, Microsoft Studios, 2004.
Fable III. Lionhead Studios, Microsoft Studios, 2004.
Faludi, Susan, Backlash: The Undeclared War against American Women.
New York: Crown, 1991.
—. The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America.
Metropolitan Books, 2007.
Falzone, P.J. “The Final Frontier Is Queer: Aberrancy, Archetype and
Audience Generated Folklore in K/S Slashfiction.” Western Folklore
64, no. 3/4 (2005): 243-261.
Fedak, Chris. “Chuck versus the Gravitron.” Chuck. Episode no. 208, first
broadcast November 24, 2008 by NBC. Directed by Allison Liddi
Brown. Burbank, CA: NBC, 2010. DVD.
Fennell, David A. Ecotourism. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008.
Fitzpatrick, John R. “Writing Poetry about Pushpin.” In Chuck Klosterman
and Philosophy: The Real and the Cereal, edited by Seth Vanatta, 195-
206. Chicago: Open Court, 2012.
Franklin, Cynthia G., Ruth Hsu, and Suzanne Kosanke. Navigating Islands
and Continents: Conversations and Contestations in and around the
Pacific: Selected Essays. Honolulu: College of Languages, Linguistics
and Literature, University of Hawai'i and the East-West Center, 2000.
Franklin, Jeff, Rob Dames and Bob Fraser. “A Little Romance.” Full
House. Episode 211, first broadcast January 13, 1989 by ABC.
Directed by John Bowab. Burbank, CA: Warner Home Video, 2005.
DVD.
Franklin, Jeff and Leonard Ripps. “Joey Gets Tough.” Full House.
Episode 207, first aired November 25, 1988 by ABC. Directed by Jeff
Franklin. Burbank, CA: Warner Home Video, 2005. DVD.
Frederick, Jesse. Everywhere You Look, Television, 1987, Full House.
“Furry Basketball Association.” Wikifur. Last accessed January 21, 2013.
http://en.wikifur. com/wiki/Furry_Basketball_Association.
Gerbasi, Kathleen, et al. “Furries from A to Z (Anthropomorphism to
Zoomorphism).” Society & Animals 16, no. 3 (2008): 197–222.
 Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century 165

Gitlin, Todd. “The Necessity of Public Intellectuals.” Raritan 26, no. 1

(2006): 123-36.
—. “Prime Time Ideology: the Hegemonic Process in Television
Entertainment.” In Television: the Critical View 6th Edition, edited by
Horace Newcomb, 574-595. New York: Oxford UP, 2000.
Gorman, Bill. “Final 2009-10 Broadcast Primetime Show Average
Viewership.” TVbytheNumbers.com. Zap2it, published June 16, 2010.
http://tvbythenumbers. zap2it.com /2010/06/16/final-2009-10-broad
cast-primetime-show-average-viewership/54336
—. “Complete List of 2011-12 Season TV Show Ratings:
‘Sunday Night Football Tops, Followed by American Idol, the Voice, and
Modern Family.’” TVbytheNumbers.com. Zap2it, published May 24
2012. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com /2012/05/24/final-list-of-2011-
12-season-tv-show-ratings-sunday-night-football-tops-followed-by-
american-idol-the-voice-modern-family/135747/
Gray, Jonathan , Cornel Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington, eds. Fandom:
Identities and Communities in a Mediated World. New York: New
York University Press, 2007.
Gutierrez, Zachary “Spokker Jones -- The Weekend Web: Furry Forums.”
SomethingAwful.SomethingAwful LLC., last accessed May 7, 2012.
http://www.somethingawful.com /d/weekend-web/furry-forums.php.
Hall, Stuart. “Notes on Deconstructing the Popular.” In Popular Culture:
A Reader, edited by Raiford Guins and Omayra Zaragoza Cruz, 64-71.
Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2005.
Haralovich, Mary Beth. “Sitcoms and Suburbs: Positioning the 1950s
Homemaker.” In Critiquing the Sitcom, edited by Joanne Morreale, 69-84.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1989.
Haraway, Donna. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and
Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” In Simians,
Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, 149-82. New York;
Routledge, 1991.
“Heat Don Hoodies in Response to Death of Teen,” ESPN.com. Disney
Publishing Group, last modified March 24, 2012. http://espn
.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/7728618/miami-heat-don-
hoodies-response-death-teen-trayvon-martin.
Hebdige, Dick. “Posing…Threats…Striking…Poses: Youth, Surveillance,
and Display.” The Subcultures Reader. New York: Routledge, 1997.
—. Subculture: the Meaning of Style. Methuen & Co, 1980.
—. “Subculture and Style.” In The Cultural Studies Reader, edited by
Simon During, 429-440. New York: Routledge, 1993.
166 Bibliography

Herrmann, Andrew F. “‘I Know I’m Unlovable’: Desperation, Dislocation,

Despair, and Discourse on the Academic Job Hunt.” Qualitative
Inquiry 18:3 (2012): 247-55.
Hitchens, Christopher. “How to be a Public Intellectual,” Prospect, last
modified May 24, 2008. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2008/05/
what-is-a-public-intellectual/.
Hofstede, Geert, Hofstede, J. G., and Minkov, M. Culture and
Organization: Software of the Mind, 3rd edition. New York: McGraw
Hill, 2010.
Holman Jones, Stacy. “Autoethnography: Making the Personal Political.”
In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N.K Denzin and Y.S.
Lincoln, 763-791. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications,
2005.
Holt, Douglas B., and Craig J. Thompson. “Man-of-Action Heroes: The
Pursuit of Heroic Masculinity in Everyday Consumption.” Journal of
Consumer Research 31.2 (2004): 425-40.
Horrigan, Kevin. “Are We Wussified? Let Me Count the Ways.” Post-
Gazette.com. PG Publishing Co. Inc., published January12, 2011.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/ 11012/1117170-109.stm
Hufford, Mary. “Context.” The Journal of American Folklore 108, no. 430
(1995): 528–549.
Jeffords, Susan. Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity in the Regan Era.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1994.
—. The Remasculinization of American: Gender and the Vietnam War.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1989.
Jenkins, Henry. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers. New York: New York
University Press, 2006.
—. “Television Fans, Poachers, Nomads.” In The Subcultures Reader,
edited by Ken Gelder, 130-144. New York: Routledge, 1997.
—. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New
York: Routledge, 1992.
Johnson-Smith, Jan. American Science Fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate and
Beyond. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 2005.
Katz, Jackson. “Advertising and the Construction Of Violent White
Masculinity: From BMWS to Bud Light.” In Gender, Race and Class
in Media: A Critical Reader, edited by Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez,
261-269. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2011.
Kendall, Lori. “‘White and Nerdy’: Computers, Race, and the Nerd
Stereotype,” Journal of Popular Culture 44, no. 3 (2011): 505-524.
Kimmel, Michael. Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become
Men. New York: Harper Press, 2008.
 Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century 167

King, Margaret, and J.G. O’Boyle. “The Theme Park: the Art of Time and
Space.” In Disneyland and Culture: Essays on the Parks and their
Influence, edited by Kathy M. Jackson and Mark West, 5-18. Jefferson,
North Carolina: McFarland & Co., 2001.
Klemmer, Phil and Corey Nickerson. “Chuck versus the Dream
Job.” Chuck. Episode no. 219, first broadcast April 16, 2009 by NBC.
Directed by Robert Duncan McNeill. Burbank, CA: NBC, 2010. DVD.
Klosterman, Chuck. Fargo Rock City: A Heavy Metal Odyssey in Rural
North Dakota. New York: Scribner’s, 2001.
—. Klosterman IV: a Decade of Dangerous Ideas and Curious People.
New York: Scribner’s, 2006
—. Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto. New York:
Scribner’s, 2003.
Knudson, Daniel, et al. Landscape, Tourism, and Meaning. Hampshire,
England: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2008.
Kozinets, Robert V. “Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the Meanings of
Star Trek’s Culture of Consumption.” The Journal of Consumer
Research 28, no. 1 (2001): 67-88.
Laetz, Brian, and Joshua J. Johnston. “What is Fantasy?” Philosophy and
Literature 32, no 1 (2008): 161-172.
Lewis, Reina. Gendering Orientalism: Race, Femininity, and
Representation. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Lott, Eric. Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American
Working Class. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Love, Heather. “Compulsory Happiness and Queer Existence.” New
Formations 63 (2008): 52-64.
Masaki, Lyle. “The Sexuality in ‘Dragon Age Origins’ Includes a Gay
Option.” After Elton. Logo, last modified October 30, 2009.
http://www.afterelton.com/blog/lylemasaki/sexuality-in-dragon-age-
origins-to-include-gay-option.
Mass Effect. North America: Bioware, Electronic Arts, 2007.
Mass Effect 2. North America: Bioware, Electronic Arts, 2010.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism: On Liberty; Essay on Bentham. Edited
by Mary Warnock. New York: Meridian, 1974.
Miller, Matthew, and Scott Rosenbaum. “Chuck versus the
Beefcake.” Chuck. Episode no. 215, first broadcast on November 2,
2009 by NBC. Dir. Patrick Norris. Burbank, CA: NBC, 2010. DVD.
Mitchell, Christine M. “Forks, Washington: From Farms to Forests to
Fans.” In The Twilight Mystique: Critical Essays on the Novels and
Films, edited by Amy M. Clarke & Marijane Osborn, 189-201.
Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Company Inc., 2010.
168 Bibliography

Modesti, Sonja. “Home Sweet Home: Tattoo Parlors as Postmodern

Spaces of Agency.” Western Journal of Communication. 72, no. 3 (2008):
197-212.
Monahan, Torin. “Marketing the Beast: Left Behind and the Apocalypse
Industry.” Media, Culture & Society 30, no. 6 (2008): 813-830.
Monday, James P. “Chuck: The Top 10 Everything of 2008.” TIME.com.
Time, Inc., published November 3, 2008. http://www.time.com/time/
specials/packages/article/0,28804,1855948_1863395_1863405,00.html
Morley, David, and Kevin Robins. Spaces of Identity. Oxfordshire, UK:
Taylor & Francis, 1995.
Mulvey, Laura. Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
UP, 1989.
Muth, Douglas. “Just what IS ‘Furry’ Fandom?” Anthrocon: The World’s
Largest Furry Convention. Anthrocon Inc., last accessed January 17,
2013. http://www.anthrocon.org /about-furry.
Nathanson, Elizabeth. “Independent Study: Family, Television and the
American Sitcom.” Lecture in class from Muhlenberg College,
Allentown, PA, Spring 2011.
Neale, Steve. “Masculinity as Spectacle: Reflections on Men and
Mainstream Cinema.” In Screening the Male: Exploring Masculinities
in Hollywood Cinema, edited by Steven Cohan and Ina Rae Hark, 9-
19. London. Routledge: 1993.
Nelson, Maggie. The Art of Cruelty. New York: W.W. Norton and
Company, 2011.
Norris, Craig, and Jason Bainbridge. “Selling Otaku? Mapping the
Relationship between Industry and Fandom in the Australian Cosplay
Scene.” Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific 20
(2009).
Noyes, Dorothy. “Group.” The Journal of American Folklore 108, no. 430
(1995): 449–478.
Owen, Rob. “Tuned In: Gifts of the Season.” Post-Gazette.com. PG
Publishing Co., published December 21, 2008. http://www.post-gazette
.com/pg/08356/936737-67.stm
Pike, Kristen. “Girl’s Gone Liberated? Feminism and Femininity in
Preteen Girls’ Media, 1968- 1980.” PhD diss., Northwestern
University, 2009.
Pine, Joseph and James H. Gilmore. The Experience Economy: Work is
Theatre and Every Business is a Stage. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press, 1999.
Posner, Richard A. Public Intellectuals: a Study of Decline. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2001.
 Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century 169

Probyn-Rapsey, Fiona. “Furries and the Limits of Species Identity

Disorder: A Response to Gerbasi Et Al.” Society & Animals 19, no. 3
(January 1, 2011): 294–301.
Raglan, Lord. “The Hero of Tradition.” In The Study of Folklore, edited by
Alan Dundes, 142-57. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1965.
Ridley, Matt. The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves. New York:
HarperCollins, 2010.
Riley, Brendan. Email to the author (Bob Batchelor). March 29 2012.
Roberts, Robin. Sexual Generations. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press, 1999.
Rosen, Christopher. “OMFG: The Top Ten Television Shows of 2008.”
Observer.com. The New York Observer, published December 17,
2008. http://www.observer.com/2008/o2/omfg-top-ten-television-show
s-2008
Rosenbaum, Scott. “Chuck versus the Breakup.” Chuck. Episode no. 203,
first broadcast October 13, 2008 by NBC. Directed by Robert Duncan
McNeill. Burbank, CA: NBC, 2010. DVD.
—. “Chuck versus Santa Claus.” Chuck. Episode no. 2011, first broadcast
December 15, 2008 by NBC. Directed by Robert Duncan McNeill.
Burbank, CA: NBC, 2010. DVD.
Rotundo, E. Anthony. American Manhood: Transformations in
Masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era. New York: Basic,
1993.
Ryan, Chris and Jan Saward. “The Zoo as Ecotourism Attraction – Visitor
Reactions, Perceptions and Management Implications: The Case of
Hamilton Zoo, New Zealand.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12, no.
3 (2004): 245-266.
Ryan, Maureen. “The Top TV Shows of 2008 - The Watcher.” The
Watcher - All TV, All the Time. Chicago Tribune Blog, published
December 17, 2008. http://featuresblogs.chicago tribune.com/entertain
ment_tv/2008/12/lost-battlestar.html.
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
Schutton, Julie Kalil. “Chewing on the Grizzly Man: Getting to the Meat
of the Matter.” Environmental Communication 2, no.2 (2008): 193-
211.
Schwartz, Josh and Chris Fedak. “Chuck versus the Intersect.” Chuck.
Episode no. 101, first broadcast September 24, 2007 by NBC. Directed
by McG. Burbank, CA: NBC, 2008. DVD.
Schwartz , Sherwood and Skip Webster. “A Clubhouse is Not a Home.”
The Brady Bunch. Episode 106, first broadcast October 31, 1969 by
170 Bibliography

ABC. Directed by John Rich, Paramount Television and Redwood

Productions.
Schwartz, Sherwood. The Brady Bunch Theme Song, Television, 1969,
The Brady Bunch, by Peppermint Trolley Company
Seidman, Robert. “Cable Top 25: ‘Jersey Shore,’ ‘Pawn Stars,’ Drew
Peterson Movie Top Weekly Cable Viewing.” TV By the Numbers, last
modified January 24, 2012. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/
01/24/cable-top-25-jersey-shore-pawn-stars-drew-peterson-movie-top-
weekly-cableviewing/117362/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_
medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Tvbythenumbers+%28TVb
ytheNumbers%29.
Senft, Theresa M. Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of
Social Networks. New York: Lang, 2008.
Shafrir, Doree. “Would You Take a Tumblr With This Man?” The New
York Observer. Last accessed May 2, 2001. http://www.observer.com
/2008/would-you-take-Tumblr-man?page=1.
Sheffield, Rob. “We Like to Watch.” Rolling Stone (1035), 20 September,
2007. 44.
Shiller, Robert. “The Dismal Science’s Odd New Allure.” Slate.com,
quoted in The Week, 2011, Feb. 4, 42.
Sklar, Robert. Movie-Made America: A Social History of American
Movies. New York: Random House, 1975.
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. Biowares, LucasArts, 2003.
Stallybrass, Peter, and Allon White. The Politics and Poetics of
Transgression. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.
Todorov, Tzvetan. The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary
Genre. Cleveland, OH: The Press of Case Western Reserve University,
1973.
Tolmie, Jane. “Medievalism and the Fantasy Heroine.” Journal of Gender
Studies. 15.2 (2006): 145-158.
Tough Guise: Violence, Media and the Crisis in Masculinity,
Documentary film, directed by Sut Jhally (1999).
Trigg, Stephanie. “Medievalism and Convergence Culture: Researching
the Middle Ages for Fiction and Film.” Parergon 25, no 2 (2008): 99-
118.
Urry, John. The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage Publications, 2002.
Vaughan, Corrigan. “Ethnographic Survey of Star Trek Fans on Tumblr.”
California State University, Fullerton, 2011.
Wagner, Jon & Jan Lundeen. Deep Space and Sacred Time: Star Trek in
the American Mythos. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998.
 Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century 171

“Washington, the State” Washington Tourism Alliance. http://www.

experiencewa.com/cities/forks.aspx
Willis-Chun, Cynthia, “Touring the Twilight Zone: Cultural Tourism and
Commodification on the Olympic Peninsula.” In Bitten by Twilight:
Youth Culture, Media, & the Vampire Franchise, edited by M.A. Click
et al, 261-280. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 2010
Wilson, Leslie. “Conversation with Professor Ray B. Browne,”
Americana: The Journal of American Popular Culture (1900-Present)
1, no. 2 (2002).
—. “Ray Browne.” In 14 Conversations with Scholars of American
Popular Culture, edited by Leslie Wilson, 39-48. Hollywood, CA:
Press Americana, 2006.
Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth: How Images Of Beauty Are Used Against
Women. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing, 1991.
Woollacott, Janet. “Fictions and Ideologies: The Case of Situation
Comedy.” In Media studies: a Reader, 2nd edition, edited Paul Marris
and Sue Thornham, 281-296. New York: New York University Press,
2000.
Wyatt, Justin. “Identity, Queerness, and Homosocial Bonding: The Case
of Swingers.” In Masculinity: Bodies, Movies, Culture, edited by Peter
Lehman, 51-65. New York, Routledge: 2001.
 CONTRIBUTORS

Sean Ahern is a Ph.D. student in the American Studies program at the

State University of New York at Buffalo, in Amherst, New York. His area
interests include popular music, popular sport, fandom, and gender and
sexuality. Ahern is a graduate of the Communication Studies program at
Colby-Sawyer College and the Popular Culture Studies graduate program
at Bowling Green State University where master’s thesis examined mass
communication metaphors within the music of punk band The Clash. Sean
is an editorial board member for The Journal of Fandom Studies and is the
assistant editor that oversees the music department of the popular culture
website The Electric Feast.

Cory Barker is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Communication and

Culture at Indiana University where he focuses on television, television
branding, and audiences. He received his M.A. degree from the Depart-
ment of Popular Culture at Bowling Green State University. He freelances
as a television critic in various circles of the Internet.

Bob Batchelor, Ph.D., is James Pedas Professor of Communication and

Executive Director of the James Pedas Communication Center at Thiel
College. A noted cultural historian and biographer, Bob is the author or
editor of 24 books, including John Updike: A Critical Biography and
Gatsby: A Cultural History of the Great American Novel. He is a member
of the editorial advisory boards of The Journal of Popular Culture and the
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning and is
Director of Marketing & Media for The John Updike Childhood Home
Museum in Reading, PA.

John Fitzpatrick, Ph.D., is a lecturer in the Department of Philosophy

and Religion at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga. He has interests
in the work of the 19th Century British philosopher John Stuart Mill, so-
cial and political philosophy, ethical theory and applied ethics, and the
history of philosophy ancient/modern. He has taught courses in introduc-
tion to philosophy, logic and critical thinking, symbolic logic, ethical theo-
ry, medical ethics, business ethics, professional ethics, the history of phi-
losophy, and Western humanities. He is the author of The Political Philos-
 Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century 173

ophy of John Stuart Mill: Balancing Freedom and the Collective Good
(Continuum Press, 2006). Recently Dr. Fitzpatrick has published his latest
book Starting with Mill (Continuum Press, 2010).

Gary Hoppenstand, Ph.D., is a professor teaching in the Department of

English at Michigan State University. As a graduate student, he studied
with Professor Ray Browne, one of the most important scholars involved
in the creation of popular culture studies at the university level. Hoppen-
stand’s major research areas are genre and formula studies in fiction and
film, and in young adult literature. He has published numerous books and
articles, and has won many awards for his teaching and research.

Margaret J. King, Ph.D., is a nationally recognized expert on culture and

human factors. Her studies include a wide range of publications including
theme parks, museums, the popular arts, consumer values in the United
States and across cultures, social history, education, critical thinking, and
creativity. As a cultural analyst, her expertise is the study of human cultur-
al history to determine shared values over long periods for their effects on
decision-making and behavior. Dr. King is Director of the Center for Cul-
tural Studies & Analysis, a think tank based in Philadelphia, and has the
first graduate degree in Popular Culture (1972).

Travis Limbert is an independent scholar and earned his Master’s from

Bowling Green State University in Popular Culture Studies in 2012. Travis
was the Treasurer for the Popular Culture Scholars Association (2011-
2012) and helped organize the First Annual Ray Browne Conference on
Popular Culture. Travis’s academic interests include games and gaming
communities. He also dabbles in television and film, with on focus on
gender studies.

Walter Merryman is a graduate student at Bowling Green State Universi-

ty pursuing an M.A. in Literary and Textual Studies while serving as an
instructor in the General Studies Writing program. He attended Bowling
Green for is undergraduate as well, receiving a BA in English. His inter-
ests, at this point, focus on ideology and its relation to the body. This is
motivated by an interest in writers such as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and
Albert Camus. His undergraduate thesis was on J.D. Salinger's Franny and
Zooey. Batman is his favorite superhero.

Justine Moller received her Master’s degree in Popular Culture from

Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada in 2010 with honors.
174 Contributors

She has since gone on to complete a Post Graduate Certificate Program in

Public Relations at Niagara College. Her research interests include film,
genre, literature, audiences, and meaning. Her past work has focused on
Twilight, southern fiction and Nicholas Sparks’ novels, as well as The Die-
fenbunker as an historical Canadian space of memory.

Tony Nagel is a graduate of Bowling Green State University with his B.A.
in Communications. His research fields focus on marketing, promotion
and advertising, and rhetoric. An entrepreneur and consultant, Tony has
developed his personal interests in popular culture and applied the
knowledge to his professional body of work. Whether it is comic books,
television, science fiction, or gaming, you can routinely find him enjoying
and researching simultaneously.

Annamarie O'Brien is a Master’s student in the Department of Popular

Culture at Bowling Green State University, and is a member of PCSA. She
has presented at Popular Culture conferences in the United States and
Canada on the topics of image and text hybridity in the circulation of im-
agery in Internet communities, as well as the production and consumption
of video content online.

Kate Reynolds graduated from Oklahoma State University with a Bache-

lor's in English and a minor in Gender and Women's studies. Her under-
graduate thesis examined marriage on the moon, looking at utopian sci-
ence fiction novels and the various configurations of officially sanctioned
relationships. As a graduate student at Bowling Green State University,
her interests have shifted to include cyberfeminism, queer theory, and rep-
resentations of femininity in video games. She is currently busy examining
role-playing video games and the ways these games allow gender play,
and ultimately, if all gamers are secretly cyborgs (yes).

Corrigan Vaughan is a Ph.D. student in the department of Film & Media

Studies at University of California, Santa Barbara. An avid television fan
with interests spanning from Bonanza to Teen Wolf, Corrigan’s academic
interests center around fan practices and responses to popular texts. In
addition to spending her summers on research projects in South Africa,
Northern Ireland, and at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba
Linda, CA, Corrigan recently served on the editorial board for California
State University, Fullerton's student journal The American Papers and
interned as an editorial assistant at American Quarterly. She currently con-
 Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century 175

tributes popular culture commentary with a scholarly spin to the web-

site The Electric Feast.

Molly Weinberg is a graduate student currently pursuing her Master's

degree in Popular Culture Studies at Bowling Green State University with
expected graduation in 2014. Her research interests include gender, family,
relationships, and sexuality in television, film, and popular music. She has
a Bachelor's degree from Muhlenberg College in Media and Communica-
tion with a minor in Women's Studies. Molly has experience in Radio,
Marketing/Public Relations, and Journalism, has interned in the Education
Department at The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, and is origi-
nally from Boston, Massachusetts. She also enjoys playing the guitar and
acting in theater and film.

Myc Wiatrowski received his bachelor’s in English and Comparative

Studies from The Ohio State University where he specialized in Folkloris-
tics and received his master’s in Popular Culture from Bowling Green
State University. He recently earned an MBA from the College of Busi-
ness Administration at BGSU where he furthered his understanding of
popular texts as both consumer and vernacular culture. In 2013, he joined
the Department of Folklore and Ethnomusicology at Indiana University as
a Ph.D. student and associate instructor.
 INDEX
2012 (film) .................................. 52
aesthetic...................ix, 43, 100, 132
Alias .......................................... 146
All in the Family .......................... 74
America ............. vii-ix, xi-xiii, xvii,
xix-xx, 4-5, 7, 9, 15, 18-9, 22-3,
29-31, 35-7, 53-4, 57, 73, 94,
111, 113-4, 119, 122-5, 128-30,
132-5, 137-40, 144--49, 153-56,
158
American ...................... see America
American Pickers ...................... 122
Anne of Green Gables ................. 93
architecture .................................... 8
Aristotle.............................. 16-8, 24
Armageddon (film) ...................... 52
authentic ................. xii, 31, 98, 100,
107, 128
authenticity .................................. 31
autoethnography ................... 2-4, 10
Avatar (film) ............................... 14
avatar (online) .................. 83-4, 133
Batman
Batman ...................... 40-50, 140
Joker .................................. 40-50
Robin ....................... 41-2, 50bbc
Under the Red Hood .......... 40-50
BBC ..................... 53, 137, 140, 142
Bioware ................................. 58, 68
Bowling Green State University......
vii-viii, xi, xiv-xv, xvii-xix, xxi,
10
Brady Bunch, the .................... 73-80
Browne, Ray............. viii-xvii, xx, 6,
8, 24, 26
Buffy the Vampire Slayer............. 95
Burn Notice ............................... 146
capitalism .................................. 112
Captain America............................ 5
Cedar Point .................................. 10
Chuck ................................... 144-58
class
social........................ x, 8, 19, 28,
32, 36
video games ...................... 61, 63
colonialism ................................ 142
consumption ............. 5-6, 87, 94, 96
99, 102, 104, 113, 117, 127-9,
132, 138, 142, 147
Cyborg Manifesto, a .................. 133
Day After Tomorrow, the (film) .. 53
DC Comics ............................. 138-9
D.E.B.S. (film) ........................... 146
Deep Impact (film) ...................... 52
democracy ............................ xvi, 16
Disney ................................... 28, 31
diversity ............................... 16, 110
Doctor Who
companion ................. 53-57, 141
Doctor Who ................ 51-7, 109,
137-43
Doctor, the .............. 51-7, 137-43
TARDIS ...................... 54-7, 137
Dragon Age
Dragon Age: Origins ......... 68-72
Dragon Age 2 ......................... 68
Dragon Age: Awakening ..... 70-1
education .............. viii, xvii, 5, 9, 97
erotic................................. 86, 154-5
evolution.............................. 60, 141
Facebook ................................... 130
Faludi, Susan ....................... 80, 126
family ..................... 5, 32, 66, 73-80
94-5, 101, 123, 125, 153
fan...................... 15, 82-90, 93-107,.
109-19, 128, 130, 134, 137
fandom....................... 82-90, 109-19
Father Knows Best ...................... 74
 Popular Culture in the Twenty-First Century
Fargo Rock City .......................... 17
feminine ................... 63-4, 75, 77-9,
129, 132-4, 145-6, 154
femininity .............. 63, 75-5, 77, 79,
127-35, 137, 140, 145, 154
feminism .............. 78, 111, 115, 134
film .................... xii, 7, 9, 14-16, 22,
24, 40-5, 49, 51-3, 93-106, 112,
124, 137-8, 146, 152
Forks, WA ............................ 93-109
Frankfurt School................... 28-111
Full House .............................. 73-80
Furry Basketball Association ..........
82-92
gay ................... 59, 61, 64, 66-7, 77,
114-5, 117, 129
gender................. 7, 58, 61-4, 73-80,
83, 90, 114-6, 128-9, 132-3, 135-
7, 146, 149, 154, 158
Hammett, Dashiell...................... viii
Hanna (film) ............................. 146
Happening, the (film) ............... 52-3
HBO ............................................ 95
healthcare .................................... 36
Hebdige, Dick ....................... 87, 91
hegemony/hegemonic........ 37, 73-4,
77, 79-80, 110-11, 115, 118-9,
127, 145-6, 149-58
Hemingway, Ernest ...............vii-viii
Homeland .................................. 122
humanity ...... 27, 47, 52-6, 137, 142
humor ....................... 43, 47, 59, 130
Internet ...................... 10, 29, 82-90,
109-10, 127-35
Jeffords, Susan ....... 144-5, 150, 156
Jenkins, Henry ......... 82, 86, 110-12,
115, 118
Killing Yourself to Live ......... 17, 20
Kim Possible ............................. 146
Klosterman IV ..................17, 21, 25
Klosterman, Chuck ................. 14-25
Knowing (film) ............................ 52
La Femme Nikita ....................... 146
labor ............................ 7, 74, 79, 84,
122-26, 150-1
177
language .............. 7, 27-8, 105, 128,
132, 135
Leave it to Beaver ........................ 74
lesbian ..................... 62, 64, 68, 115
LGBT ....................... 66-7, 116, 119
Lord of the Rings, the ............ 59-60,
70, 93
Mad Men ............................. 36, 122
Martin, Trayvon .................... 89, 90
Marxism ....................................... ix
masculine.................. 63-4, 75, 78-9,
87, 116, 132-3, 140-2, 144-58
masculinity ............. 63, 75-7, 122-5,
137-42, 144-58
Mass Effect
Mass Effect ............................. 58
Mass Effect 2 .......................... 68
McDonald’s .............................. 21-3
McGreevey, James ...................... 66
Meyer, Stephenie ............... 93-5, 97,
100-1, 103, 105
Mill, John Stuart ..................... 19-24
modern/modernity .......... 9, 27, 111,
118, 127, 134-5, 137-8, 150
Modern Family ............................ 80
Mulvey, Laura ........... 145, 154, 156
NASA .......................................... 28
National Basketball Association ......
22, 83, 88
New York ......................... 10-11, 24
Omni-disciplinary.......................... 8
pastiche........................................ 96
Pawn Stars ................................ 122
political.......................... ix-x, 6-7, 9,
28, 37, 74, 79, 119, 125, 129
politics ............................. 26, 67, 90
Popular Culture Scholars
Association ................ xiv-xv, xxi
postmodern ......... 94, 96, 105-6, 127
private..................... xviii, 68, 78, 97
public
agenda..................................... 12
announcement ...................... 67-8
bathrooms ............................... 17
broadcasting.......................... 137
culture ....................................... x
178
consciousness ....................... 112
consumption ......................... 132
debate/diaogue/discourse ............
3-4, 87
engagement ................... 9, 102-3
funds ......................................... 4
intellectual ........................... 2-13
interest ...................................... 8
meeting ................................... 56
performance/display ............ 83-5
135
policy ...................................... 31
scholarsip.................................. 9
school .................................... viii
spotlight .................................. 12
transportation.......................... 36
queer.................................64, 66, 68
race
alien ..................... 54, 116, 138-9
commodification................... 133
human ................................. 7, 28
politics ....... 36, 90, 113, 130, 134
relations ............................ 4, 113
stigma ..................................... 90
in video games ..................... 61-4
racism .................................130, 135
Raglan, Lord........................... 137-9
Ray Browne Conference on Popular
Culture ....................... xv-xvii, 24
resistance .............. 74, 113, 115, 119
Rice, Anne................................... 95
Roddenberry, Gene ................ 113-5
Said, Edward ............................. 128
Salt (film) .................................. 147
Seven Shoulds, the ................... 30-2
sex ............... 63-65, 67, 70, 78, 86-8
114-6, 129, 134, 151, 153-5
Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs ...... 16,
17, 22, 26
Sexuality
heterosexuality ............. 58, 62-4,
66-8, 71, 116-7, 153
homosexuality ............. 113-6, 53
pansexuality....................... 115-6
sexuality ............. 61-4, 67-8, 110
Index
113-6, 129, 135, 150, 153,
155-6
Star Trek
Captain Christopher Pike ...... 115
Captain James T. Kirk .......... 116
Deep Space 9 (DS9) .............. 116
Geordi La Forge ................... 116
Mr. Spock .......................... 115-6
Next Generation, the (TNG) .......
114, 116
Star Trek ........................ 109-120
Original Series(TOS) .... 113, 115
Star Wars
Knights of the Old Republic .... 58
Storage Wars ............................. 122
structuralism ............... 69, 76, 137-8
subculture ....................... 82-92, 113
subjectivity ........................... ix, 134
teachers/teaching ............ viii, xi-xii,
5, 14, 18, 77, 80, 116
technology ............. 6, 10-11, 26, 29,
32, 36, 56, 110, 131
television ..................... 7, 14, 16, 24
41, 51-2, 54, 60, 73-5, 77, 86, 95,
111-2, 122-5, 137-9, 141-2, 146,
148, 158
Totally Spies .............................. 146
TV .............................. see television
Torchwood .................................. 55
tourism
ecotourism ....................... 93-108
tourism .................................. 134
True Blood ................................... 95
Tumblr ................................ 109-119
Twilight ................................ 93-108
West/Westernization ... 14, 16-7, 24,
37, 60, 127-9, 134, 149
Will & Grace ............................... 80
YouTube ....................... 12, 127-136
Zimmerman, George ................... 89