"How come most people don't see it?": Slashing the Lord of the rings

Social Semiotics

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 43-62

  Allington, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Audience; Discourse analysis; Discursive psychology; Fans; Interpretation; Readers; Reception; Rhetoric; Slash; The lord of the rings

Indexed keywords

EID: 43249141105     PISSN: 10350330     EISSN: 14701219     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10350330601124650     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Allington, D. 2005. Re-reading the script: a discursive appraisal of the use of the "schema in cognitive poetics. Working with English 2:1-9 [accessed 14 March 2006]. Available from www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/working_with_english/Alling-ton_30_11_05.pdf; INTERNET.
2. Allington, D. 2006. First steps towards a rhetorical psychology of literary interpretation. Journal of Literary Semantics 35(2): 123-44.
3. Ardagh, P. 2006. Anyone seen my library? The Guardian Review, 25 February: 16.
4. Barker, Martin. 1993. Seeing how far you can see: On being a "fan" of 2000AD. In Reading audiences: young people and the media, edited by D. Buckingham. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press: 159-83.
5. Billig, M. 1991. Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
6. Brooker, W. 1999. Internet fandom and the continuing narratives of Star Wars, Blade Runner, and Alien. In Alien zone II: the spaces of science fiction cinema, edited by A. Kuhn. London and New York: Verso: 50-72.
7. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Translated by Richard Nice. London: Routledge.
8. Cherry, B. 2006. So we said screw it and wrote it ourselves: Creative ownership, gendered narratives and slash fiction in the on-line Star Wars fan communities. Paper presented at the Slash Fiction Study Day, de Montfort University, 1 March.
9. Culler, J. 1975. Structuralist poetics: Structuralism, linguistics, and the study of literature. New York: Cornell University Press.
10. de Certeau, M. 1988. The practice of everyday life. Berkeley and London: University of California Press.
11. Edwards, D. 1997. Discourse and cognition. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
12. Edwards, D., and Potter, J. 1992. Discursive psychology. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
13. Edwards, D. 2001. Discursive psychology. In How to analyse talk in institutional settings: A casebook of methods, edited by A. Mc Houl and M. Rapley. London and New York: Continuum: 12-24.
14. Empire, K. 2006. Pop idols trade licks: Online "fanfic" trend sees rock stars united in lust. The Observer Review, 26 Febuary: 3.
15. Fiske, J. 1989. Understanding popular culture. London and New York: Routledge.
16. Fiske, J. 1992. The cultural economy of fandom. In The adoring audience, edited by L. Lewis. London and New York: Routledge: 30-49.
17. Foucault, M. 1981. The order of discourse. Translated by Ian McLeod. In Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader, edited by R. Young. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul: 51-78.
18. Frosh, S. 1999. What is outside discourse? Psychoanalytic Studies 1(4): 381-90.
19. Gracia, J. J. E. 2000. Relativism and the interpretation of texts. Metaphilosophy 31(1/2): 43-62.
20. Green, S., Jenkins, C., and Jenkins, H. 1998. Normal female interest in men bonking: Selections from The Terra Nostra Underground and Strange Bedfellows. In Theorizing fandom: Fans, subculture, and identity, edited by C. Harris and A. Alexander. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, Inc: 9-38.
21. Gwenllian Jones, S. 2002. The sex lives of cult television characters. Screen 43(1): 79-90.
22. Hall, S. 1980. Encoding/decoding. In Culture, media, language: working papers in cultural studies, 1972-79, edited by S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe and P. Willis. London: Hutchison: 128-38.
23. Hills, M. 2002. Fan cultures. London and New York: Routledge.
24. Hills, M. 2005. The pleasures of horror. London and New York: Continuum.
25. Holloway, W., and Jefferson, T. 2005. Panic and perjury: A psychosocial exploration of agency. British Journal of Social Psychology 44(2): 147-164.
26. Jenkins, H. 1992. Textual poachers: Television fans and participatory culture. New York and London: Routledge.
27. Livingston, E. 1995. An anthropology of reading. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
28. Long, E. 1992. Textual interpretation as collective action. In The ethnography of reading, edited by J. Boyarin. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press: 180-211.
29. Machor, J. L., and Goldstein, P., eds. 2001. Reception study: From literary theory to cultural studies New York and London: Routledge.
30. Mailloux, S. 1989. Rhetorical power. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
31. Merrick, H. 1997. The readers feminism doesn't see: Feminist fans, critics, and science fiction. In Reading audiences: young people and the media, edited by D. Buckingham. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press: 48-65.
32. Miall, D. S., and Kuiken, D. 1998. The form of reading: empirical studies of literariness. Poetics 25: 327-41.
33. Morley, D. 1992. Television, audiences, and cultural studies. London: Routledge.
34. Morley, D. 1999. The Nationwide audience: Structure and decoding (1980). In The 'Nationwide' television studies, edited by D. Morley and C. Brunsdon. London and New York: Routledge: 111-291.
35. Pearce, L. 1997. Feminism and the politics of reading. London, New York, Sydney, and Auckland: Arnold.
36. Penley, C. 1991. Brownian motion: Women, tactics, and technology. In Technoculture, edited by C. Penley and A. Ross. Minneapolis and Oxford: University of Minnesota Press: 135-62.
37. Perelman, C. 1979. The new rhetoric and the humanities: Essays on rhetoric and its applications. Translated by William Kluback. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
38. Perelman, C., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press.
39. Pugh, S. 2004. The democratic genre: Fan fiction in a literary context. Bridgend: Seren Books.
40. Ross, S. 2002. Super(natural) women: Female heroes, their friends, and their fans. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin.
41. Salmon, C., and Symons, D. 2001. Warrior lovers: Erotic fiction, evolution, and female sexuality. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
42. Short, M. 1993. To analyse a poem stylistically: "To Paint a Water Lily" by Ted Hughes. In Twentieth century poetry: from text to context, edited by P. Verdonk. London and New York: Routledge: 7-20.
43. Shotter, J. 1991. The rhetorical-responsive nature of mind: A social constructionist account. In Against cognitivism: Alternative foundations for cognitive psychology, edited by A. Still and A. Costall. 2nd ed. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf: 56-79.
44. Silverman, D. 1993. Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text, and interaction. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
45. Staiger, J. 2005. Media reception studies. New York: New York University Press.
46. Stein, A. 1998. Minding one's P's and Q's: Homoeroticism in Star Trek: the Next Generation Genders 27 [accessed 14 March 2006]. Available from www.genders.org/g27/g27_st.html; INTERNET.
47. Woledge, E. 2005. Decoding desire: From Kirk and Spock to K/S. Social Semiotics 15(2): 235-50.