Tyler: Critical Fandom and “The Price”

Critical Fandom and “The Price”

In “From Transformative Works to #transformDH: Digital Humanities as Critical Fandom,” Alexis Lothian uses the concept of fandom to analyze the practices of digital humanities (DH) scholars. In doing so, she argues that scholarly debates mirror debates within fan communities, positioning DH scholars as “fans” of their object of study. Just as fan communities critically engage with their fan object by drawing attention to race, gender, or sexuality, DH scholars do just the same. Although this comparison may seem a bit gimmicky, Lothian showcases how knowledge production outside the academy can provide a set of tools for transforming the academy’s institutional structures.

            “Vids” are one of the ways Lothian compares fan communities to DH scholars. Popular on YouTube, vids are “remixed videos set to music” that typically focus on the relationship between two characters (378). Vids are “transformative” by nature because they involve a modification of the original text and create a new level of meaning. However, Lothian argues that vids also critically engage with fan objects and call attention to the “problematic aspects of fannish love” (379).

            “The Price” is a vid that critically engages with fandom through a feminist lens. The vid centers on the representational trope of “manpain” in which male protagonists lose lovers or family members to elicit audience sympathy (378). In most cases, minor (typically female characters) die for the sake of the man’s story, implying that female death is simple “the price” men must pay. By compiling a variety of sources, the vid demonstrates that several popular media texts utilize this trope, creating a sharp critique of many fan objects. Ultimately, “The Price” critiques both the media industry’s reliance on haggard representational tropes and the way in which fan communities tend to fetishize implicit misogyny.

            Ultimately, Lothian argues that DH scholars should engage in critical fandom practices. Although some may deeply love and respect DH, they must be willing to critique the power structures that uphold DH and the academy in general. For Lothian, “The Price” demonstrates the ways in which scholars can begin to transform their objects of study. However, scholars must also be open to critique, particularly about their “institutionally legitimated position” (387). By taking after critically engaged fandom, scholars can begin to critically engage with the more problematic aspects of DH scholarship. However, this call to action makes me wonder: Would critical fandom take place within the power structures of the academy? In other words, to critique DH (and the academy in general) would scholars have to go through the traditional publishing route which would, in turn, boost their CV and improve their chances of tenure, etc. etc.?