Posted on May 24, 2019


Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture [Henry Jenkins] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The twentieth anniversary. Textual Poachers has ratings and 34 reviews. Sarah said: I loved this book and am currently fangirling Henry Jenkins. Which is something I would like. Review: Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture by Henry Jenkins. Gregg Rickman. FILM QUART Vol. 46 No. 4, Summer, (p. 63) DOI: .

Author: Vobar Kagakree
Country: Myanmar
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Sex
Published (Last): 16 November 2007
Pages: 179
PDF File Size: 4.25 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.67 Mb
ISBN: 567-1-22397-364-3
Downloads: 46097
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kagaktilar

Theory-wise, the book is fairly light, and focuses on in-depth studies of particular cases. May 31, Sarah rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: More importantly, they have vastly different theses.

Could they read my mind? This cover embodies the new aesthetic of photo-manipulation, which remains controversial among some fans but which has also represented a clear demonstration of the way that fans turn borrowed materials into resource for their own collective expression.

It’s a bit academic in spots I still don’t know what a meta-text is but it’s a well thought out, researched, fan-friendly portrait of our sub-culture. Want to Read Currently Reading Read.

Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture – Fanlore

Supplementing the original, classic text is an interview between Fans tend henyr view these studies as incomplete because of the fandom community that exists outside the formal structure of a convention that is rarely discussed.


Mar 04, Liz Dehoff rated it really liked it. I think the academic slant is just another aspect of fandom as a whole. His treatment of slash is reasonable and different. Got Textual Poachers — and you’re right, he got everything right. So, even as fan studies has suggested the centrality of women to fan culture, the media industry clings to somewhat outmoded understandings of what kind of people are fans.

Both of these books look at slash fiction in detail, with txtual using explicit excerpts. Rejecting stereotypes of fans as cultural dupes, social misfits, and mindless consumers, Jenkins represents media fans as active producers and skilled manipulators of program meanings, as nomadic poachers constructing their own culture from borrowed materials, as an alternative social community defined through its cultural preferences and consumption practices.

Aug 29, Vivienne rated it it was amazing Shelves: It’s rather uncomfortably outdated, though, appearing before the internet became a fannish locus.

Textual Poachers Turns Twenty! — Henry Jenkins

Save me from my friends as much as my enemies! While this book was originally written init’s still relevant to contemporary pop culture studies and if anything provides a fascinating tfxtual perspective that allows the reader to understand contemporary fan movements and use of technology better through the context of reading the book.


What makes fan writing different. In the middle of my Patron 2.

But, in all seriousness, Jenkins does an excellent job sussing jenmins an ethnography of fan culture in a way that is both respectful and critical, that recognizes that it is playful, play with purpose, and a consumer tactic that is important to understand.

For non-fans, a well-written and warm introduction to fandom and fannish practices. The selection of these figures was a challenge: Television Fans and Participatory Culture on the cover: TNG as well as fans of other shows He just had disappeared for nine months.

This is some literary theory book that goes way too in depth of fan fiction, actually taking it seriously. And similarly, it’s rather informal in regards to its ethnography. She said protecting the artist.

Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture

A lot henrh fans I know like his book quite a bit better. As a teenager, I’d read Star Trek: What’s not to love? Sep 30, Bob rated it really liked it.