Matt Hills
Autore di Fan Cultures
Sull'Autore
Matt Hills is Reader in Media Cultural Studies at Cardiff University. He is the author of Fan Cultures (2002), The Pleasures of Horror (2005) and How To Do Things with Cultural Theory (2005)
Fonte dell'immagine: Matt Hills [credit: Election Analysis]
Opere di Matt Hills
Opere correlate
Time and Relative Dissertations in Space: Critical Perspectives on Doctor Who (2007) — Collaboratore — 44 copie
Impossible Worlds, Impossible Things: Cultural Perspectives on Doctor Who, Torchwood, and the Sarah Jane Adventures (2010) — Collaboratore — 9 copie
In●Vision: The Legacy (2003) — Contributor "Televisuality without Television: Should fandom be TV-centric?" — 1 copia
Etichette
Informazioni generali
- Nome canonico
- Hills, Matt
- Altri nomi
- Hills, Matthew
- Data di nascita
- 1971-09-14
- Sesso
- male
- Nazionalità
- UK
- Istruzione
- University of Sussex
- Attività lavorative
- film studies professor
television studies professor
media studies professor - Organizzazioni
- Aberystwyth University
Cardiff University
University of Central England
Utenti
Recensioni
Potrebbero anche piacerti
Autori correlati
Statistiche
- Opere
- 8
- Opere correlate
- 6
- Utenti
- 179
- Popolarità
- #120,383
- Voto
- 3.9
- Recensioni
- 4
- ISBN
- 28
I found the first and third sections of the book the most interesting. The first, "Fans and Producers," talks about Doctor Who's "author." As a now-almost-50-year phenomenon with no clear George Lucas or Gene Roddenberry figure, Doctor Who has long resisted the idea of an "author," but Hills points out the ways in which Doctor Who is now coded (or was, anyway) as the work of Russell T Davies. Linked to this is his upsetting of Henry Jenkins's work in the seminal Textual Poachers; Hills argues that fans no longer "poach" from Doctor Who, for the fans now run Doctor Who. The discourse of the show is the fan one; there is no clear boundary between fan and professional anymore. Similar themes permeate the last part, "Quality and Mainstream TV," which looks at how Doctor Who is positioned as either a "cult" or "mainstream" television show, ultimately arguing that the distinction is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Using various media studies texts lets Hills both how useful they can be, but also where their limitations are.
I might have found an overall argument easier to find if Hills's use of transitions was smoother. He doesn't really do introductions or conclusions; rather, there are periodic paragraphs that say, "I have just argued [X]. I shall now argue [Y]." I'd rather see something that drew [X] together and explained why it was the perfect lead-in to [Y]. I know what you just argued, because I just read it!
Perhaps the most impressive thing that Hills does in Triumph of a Time Lord is create "Who Studies" as a field. Hills effortlessly quotes not just from other works in media studies, or even other scholarly works on Doctor Who, but articles in Doctor Magazine, blog posts, fanzines, reviews in the popular press, and so on, pulling them all together into a body of work that he can respond to and quote as need be. At first I was like "Really? Blogs?" but fan amateurs have thought as hard about Doctor Who, if not harder, than many academic professionals, and ignoring their work would make very little sense. Why should Hills reinvent work that has been done? Triumph of a Time Lord is the first substantial contribution to a scholarly discussion about the Russell T Davies Doctor Who; with a starting point like this, it ought not to be the last.… (altro)