Jump to content

Talk:Buffy studies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Importance

[edit]

And you folks delete my articles. First the Sprite (computer graphics) article, then Essjay, now I find this... Sigh. --John Lunney 19:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take heart. I've written several articles about important political and social movers and shakers in the 18th and early 19th centuries only to have them "speedily deleted" because they were "not notable enough." Perhaps not notable enough for people who actually consider a stupid teen drama to be high academic fodder, but they were all certainly notable enough in their own time and notable enough in our time to have their memoirs been cited in several biographical works and to have their accomplishments mentioned in several non-fiction (and even fiction). Wikipedia's soi dissant "editors" are just a bunch of uninformed beardos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.225.132 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look around and as far as I can work out there's no similar article on Shakespear studies or Dickens studies. Surel any relevant information should go into the Buffy article rather than here, in the same way that the study of classic authors do not merit their own article, but informs their main article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.12.102 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. We live in an increasingly anti-intellectual age, and that something like this passes for "academic study" is only further evidence of it. --38.129.239.174 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors and scholarship

[edit]

I have removed the section 'Contributors and scholarship' for now. I can't help thinking that this list might not accurately represent the available scholarship, and might have been biased either by one (or more) editors fave writings, or by scholars themselves adding in their contributions. There is a place in this article for this section, but only when it is more convincingly presented as adequately and appropriately reflecting available scholarship as opposed to including a random list of a few writers/writings. Even if vanity has not been an issue so far, IMHO presenting it as it has been done in the past would only encourage vanity to become an issue. The section I removed is found below. - Paxomen 05:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Among the academic contributors to the study are Yale University's David Graeber, professor of anthropology ("Rebel Without A God"); University of Maryland's Asim Ali, Department of American Studies ("Community, Language, and Postmodernism at the Mouth of Hell"; GraceAnne A. DeCandido, M. L. S. ("Rupert Giles and Search Tools for Wisdom in Buffy the Vampire Slayer"); Stanford University's Brian Thomas, a doctoral candidate in ecology ("Vampire Ecology in the Jossverse"); Steven C. Schlozman, M. D. (""Vampires and Those Who Slay Them"); Beth Braun, of the Journal of Popular Film and Television ("The X-Files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Ambiguity of Evil in Supernatural Representations"); and Deborah Netburn of the New York Observer ("Media Studies Does Buffy—And Buffy, as Always, Prevails").

Selected scholarship

[edit]
  • Early, Frances and Kathleen Kennedy, Athena's Daughters: Television's New Women Warriors, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2003.
    • Early, Frances. "The Female Just Warrior Reimagined: From Boudicca to Buffy": 55-65.
    • Tjardes, Sue. "If You're Note Enjoying it, You're Doing Something Wrong": Textual and Viewer Constructions of Faith, the Vampire Slayer": 66-77.
    • Parpart, Lee. "Actions, Chicks, Everything: On-Line Interviews with Male Fans of Buffy the Vampire Slayer": 78-91.
    • Chin, Vivian. "Buffy? She's Like Me, She's Not Like Me --She's Rad": 92-102.
  • Heinecken, Dawn. "Chapter Five: Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Body in Relation." In Warrior Women of Television: A Feminist Cultural Analysis of the New Female Body in Popular Media, by Dawn Heinecken. New York: P. Lang, 2003: 91-131.
  • Hopkins, Susan, Girl Heroes: the New Force in Popular Culture, Pluto Press Australia, 2002.
  • Inness, Sherrie A. (ed.) Action Chicks: New Images of Tough Women in Popular Culture, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
  • Karras, Irene. "The Third Wave's Final Girl: Buffy the Vampire Slayer." thirdspace 1:2 (March 2002).
  • Magoulick, Mary. "Frustrating Female Heroism: Mixed Messages in Xena, Nikita, and Buffy." The Journal of Popular Culture, Volume 39 Issue 5 (October 2006).
  • O'Day, Marc. "Beauty in Motion: Gender, Spectacle and Action Babe Cinema." In Action and Adventure Cinema, by Yvonne Tasker. New York: Routledge, 2004: 201-218.
  • Ono, Kent A. "To Be a Vampire on Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Race and ("Other") Socially Marginalizing Positions on Horror TV." In Fantasy Girls : Gender in the New Universe of Science Fiction and Fantasy Television by Elyce Rae Helford. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000: 163-186.

Physics of the Buffyverse

[edit]

Would The Physics of the Buffyverse (2006) by Jennifer Ouellette, ISBN 0143038621 belong in this article? MaxVeers 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not got this book just yet but I would guess that it probably ought to be mentioned, along with The Existential Joss Whedon: Evil and Human Freedom in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Angel", "Firefly" and "Serenity." Also later this year two more books will be published, The Psychology of Joss Whedon: An Unauthorized Exploration of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly and Undead TV: Essays on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.-- Paxomen 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke?

[edit]

OMG Is this actually a serious article?! --dllu 21:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this actually considered to be an academic sub-field? It seems absurd and unlikely.

[edit]

I have to agree with the dissenters here. I don't think "Buffy Studies" is anything beyond a term given, probably by overly enthusiastic fans, to the collection of papers and books written about the show, which differs significantly from an actual academic field of study. Tv shows come and go--as this one surely has--and many other cultural productions do what Buffy the Vampire Slayer does in terms of hidden narratives, symbolism, analogies and so on. It simply isn't that exceptional. There are many other tv shows that could be given their own "field of study" if Buffy the Vampire Slayer is given its own: All in the Family and other Norman Lear shows, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Simpsons, and so on. I'm not sure if this is accepted as even an academic sub-field--it seems very absurd if were to be. I've done a little research and it seems like at best there are a few courses offered at a few universities by a few scholarly fans, but nothing like an entire sub-field.

Therefore, I've changed the introduction to this article. I think one of us should find a legitimate source that verifies this as an academic sub-field. One is not offered in the article, only links to essays done about the show and some classes about the show. Alialiac (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't say why this series merits such academic study, or other special attention, in contrast to the other series listed above. Hires an editor (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University papers

[edit]

There are the list of papers. It would be interesting to have a link for each of those papers.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buffy studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buffy studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Buffy studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buffy studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buffy studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffy_studies&oldid=1206470800"