Jul 13, 2010 - http://fangasmthebook.wordpress.com/ ..... as Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble to more readily purchase materials in their ... various hosting sites, and even today finding a copy or link to the work can be a difficult experience.
From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments:
Katherine Larsen Meggers-Wright, Heather J.; Hills, Matt; Handley, Christine; Michaels, Amanda; Mikhaylova, Larisa; JohnWALLISS; Coker, Catherine; Geraghty, Lincoln; Becque, Simone Fan Culture Theory and Practice Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:42:31 AM C2-Contributor_agreement.pdf
Hi all, Once again, thank you all for your participation in "Fan Culture: Theory and Practice". I'm looking forward to working with you. I'm attaching the contributor agreement from Cambridge Scholars Press. Please print out the form, sign and mail back to me at the address below. I will forward them to the publisher. We are asking for the drafts of your papers no later than December 15, 2010 and final drafts no later than March 15, 2011. (Of course we're happy to see drafts earlier than those dates!) Cheers, Kathy Katherine Larsen University Writing Program Rome Hall 561 George Washington University Washington, D.C. 20052 202 994 3941 http://home.gwu.edu/~klarsen/main.html http://fangasmthebook.wordpress.com/
The Angry!Textual!Poacher! Is Angry! Fan Works as Political Statements Introduction When Henry Jenkins published his seminal text on Textual Poachers in 1992, he conscientiously used the language of the French sociologist Michel de Certeau to talk about the acts of reading and borrowing texts. “Fandom celebrates not exceptional texts but rather exceptional readings,” he wrote i. “De Certeau’s notion of ‘poaching’ is a theory of appropriation, not of ‘misreading.’ The term ‘misreading’ … preserves the traditional hierarchy bestowing privileged status to authorial meanings over reader’s meanings.” ii Though Jenkins’ own text views fan-produced materials as an active rather than a passive form of cultural digestion, it nonetheless primarily discusses fan texts as further forms of popular entertainment or literature rather than as a conscientiously political act. Though Jenkins and academics have been more or less successful in their quest to bestow a similar “hierarchally privileged status” to fan works, further critical attention is due the fans’ own authorial intentions. The discussion of authorial intention and the text is a notable component in many critical as well as theoretical studies. Depending on what side of the debate the critic is on, the author’s intentions are either the most or the least important area of consideration. As fan works have consistently been labeled as a form of flattery if not pastiche, the relation of the derivative texts has often been subjugated in importance by the source texts. However, this attitude ignores the formidable historical dialogue of the canon. As Sheenagh Pugh and others have convincingly argued, where would Shakespeare be without Plutarch, or Milton without the Bible? The interplay of various texts— mythological, religious, classical, historical—make up most of what we conventionally think of as the basis for formulating literary ideas and thought. If the great conversation of Literature flows ever on, why is it no less so with contemporary new media? Further, the popular culture of the past two decades has been particularly fraught with political connotations. From Henry Jenkins himself testifying before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee on video games and violenceiii to Stephen Colbert’s recent “in-character performances” at the National Press Club Dinner and before the Congressional hearing on illegal immigrant farm workers, to say nothing of Tom DeLay’s appearances on Dancing With the Stars, entertainment and politics have become increasingly conflated in our 24/7 media-enhanced world. News must be entertaining and entertainment must be news; likewise, the world of fandom has been no less impacted by current events and concerns than any other popular avenue. By examining fan texts closely, we will see both exceptional readings and exceptional counter-readings of source texts as fans actively engage their chosen material with their personal politics. By this I mean that when a fan chooses to look at a work as something more than mere entertainment, they are ascribing a belief to it—one that the original author may or may not have intended. Frequently, this fan engagement will carry with it an intense emotional charge, either fannish love (most often seen displayed by fans of Star Trek) or anti-fannish hate (most often demonstrated by the anti-fans of Twilight). In both cases, attempts to address issues found in these source texts liberate the text from the author’s intentions when creating it, thus creating an alternative text some may find preferable to the original.
What Is Textual Liberation? Jenkins’s view of fan works as textual poaching presupposes the hierarchical ownership of the text, that is, the traditional (Marxist) theory that intellectual property can be owned, bought, and sold. When fans create fan works, they are poaching the intellectual property from its rightful owners to buy, sell, or trade in another market, bypassing the hierarchical model and creating a new, democratic model of textual trade. Rather like latter-day Robin Hoods, fan-authors steal from the rich (corporations) to give to the poor (other fans). However, to many fans, a source text is not solely a property, inanimate and lifeless, but a living thing all its own. As such, to create derivative works from a source text is not even to poach it—as this too would imply an ownership model—but to expand upon it. To engage with the text, to transform it, is in some instances to liberate or even to rescue a text by providing alternate or variant readings and thus forming new texts. However, these new texts are viewed as additional, not ones that supplant the
original. Thus in many cases you will see the language used by fans to describe their engagement is one of collaboration: they are “playing in someone else’s sandbox,” “borrowing” and “returning” toys, and otherwise acknowledging that though they are creating new texts, they are not the originators of the source material. In fact, a disclaimer acknowledging the legal owners of source text is a frequent and indeed expected part of the new work. When viewed in this manner, the interactivity of textual models separates; as Jenkins notes, fans transform from passive consumers to active creators, while the text becomes a resistant reading of its source material. The terminology of “resistant reading” likewise assumes a hierarchical mode of ownership, with the fan-creator resisting, ignoring, or otherwise not in alignment with the supposed intentions of the text-creator. In the democratic model, it is assumed that authors and texts are, if not exactly equalized then at least less beholden to owners of textual property. What does this then mean, to liberate a text? First of all, it means that the fan author is intentionally setting out to defy the original text-creator’s own intentions to offer a critical or resistant reading, and even to pointedly subvert the text. Secondly, by rewriting the text, the fan-creator has opened the original text to clearly show readings that were present in the original text, but have been extensively clarified through the new text. A great and well-known (and well-downloaded) example is “Buffy vs. Edward, Twilight Remixed” by Rebellious Pixels. iv This popular fanvid, disseminated through YouTube and other video websites, intercuts footage from the popular television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer with that of the 2008 Twilight film adaptation. Though hardly a seamless rendering, particularly with regards to lighting and costume, the chosen clips interpolate pieces of dialogue from both works to form a story in which Edward Cullen becomes obsessed with Buffy Summers. He follows her around school, to the bewilderment of herself and her friends. Buffy confronts him multiple times, until Edward finally admits to a romantic attraction to her. Buffy is disgusted, warns him off, and when his unwanted attentions turn into threats, she stakes him. Rebellious Pixels, a self-described aca-fan, describes the fanvid thus: In this remixed narrative Edward Cullen from the Twilight Series meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer at Sunnydale High. It’s an example of transformative storytelling serving as a profeminist visual critique of Edward’s character and generally creepy behavior. Seen through Buffy’s eyes, some of the more sexist gender roles and patriarchal Hollywood themes embedded in the Twilight saga are exposed in hilarious ways. Ultimately this remix is about more than a decisive showdown between the slayer and the sparkly vampire. It also doubles as a metaphor for the ongoing battle between two opposing visions of gender roles in the 21ist century. Here the aca-fan has purposefully stated that their creation is a critique of popular media and a liberation—or even transformation—of “sexy” hero to stalker. Though it is perhaps better articulated than other such works, it is by no means an isolated creation. Many fans, when interacting with texts, will consciously do so as a critique, either of the text, the author, or sometimes both. In the cases of some works, the identity of the textual creator is so inextricably linked with the text itself (e.g. Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Stephenie Meyer (The Twilight Saga), George Lucas (Star Wars), and Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek)) that to critique one is to critique the other. Likewise, some creators will view a critique of the text as a comment on themselves no matter the context of the initial comment or debate. For these reasons, it is all the more important that a text be separated from its author. Liberating the Text as a Political Act Extricating a text allows the individual elements of it to be examined more closely: characters, plot tropes, miseen-scene and design, etc. As with any examination, a holistic view creates new and different ways of seeing the bigger picture. For instance, the genre of “mashup” music and videos, in which two or more songs or film clips are combined, demonstrate both the areas of overlap within the texts as well as showing more broadly exactly where and how they differ. In her excellent study of fan works, The Democratic Genre, Sheenagh Pugh discusses at length the concepts of working within the canon of source texts. The canon is for bending and shaping according to the fanfic writer’s preference, but the “love”— i.e. basic respect for it—is important. That doesn’t mean supposing the canon to be perfect. […] Fanfic writers do not speak or think of “my characters” as Anne Rice does in her anti-fanfic statement. But they do speak and think of “our characters”, a shared resource that the whole community of that fandom feels it knows and cares about. You can set the story in a different timeline, cross it with other fictions, write before it began or after it ended or even make it go in a
different direction. But in the end you must work with a particular set of people and whatever situation you put them in, they must behave and speak like themselves. v (Emphases mine.) Pugh later goes on to describe the differences between an “open canon”—in which a source text is still growing and is thus incomplete, as in a television series that is still being actively aired—and “closed canon” in which the source text is assumed to be complete, as with singular films, non-serial novels, or television series which have ended. By working outside of the canon, fan creators are able to expose those elements that are problematic or desirable for critique. For instance, through the above example of the “Twilight Remix,” the troubling aspects of Edward Cullen’s behaviors—breaking into a teenage girl’s home to watch her sleep, a confession of a desire to kill—stand in stark contrast when presented from the point of view of a character (Buffy) who views him as both loathsome and a threat than from the view of one who views him as sexually attractive (Bella, in both film and books). Other genres of fan texts likewise seek to address some aspect of the source material that the fan finds lacking. For instance, many fan writers will introduce original female characters or expand upon the history and background of canonical female characters in stories whose source texts lack noteworthy women, such as in The Lord of the Rings or in Star Trek. In both of these texts, women are present but play smaller roles than the overwhelmingly male cast. In times past, fans viewed this as par for the course, as mainstream media assumed that women were silent consumers. In the past decades this has changed, and while female characters are still less omnipresent than men in popular culture, there are many more than there were previously—to the point that newer texts that overlook this aspect are even more sharply critiqued. An example of this is the Livejournal community Where No Woman. Subtitled “Un-Erasing the Women of Star Trek,” they are a self-described “community for fanwork dedicated to the women of Star Trek, particularly those of the 2009 film. [Their] ongoing mission: to seek out personalities not defined by […] husbands and sons, to explore the lives lived only off-screen, to boldly go where all of these women should have gone before. vi Community members will often post “picspams” or long lists of screen-captured images of the women characters seen in the background of the 2009 film and of the other television series—and there are a lot of women in the background of the these texts, including many human women of color as well as aliens and alien women of color. Of particular note is the character Gaila, the green-skinned Orion woman shown briefly romantically entangled with Kirk. It is never explicated in the film, but Trekkers will note that canonically, Orion women in the original series were the submissive dancing girls and otherwise quite literally sexual slaves to men. The appearance of one in a Starfleet uniform—and two Orion women in Starfleet generally, per the deleted scenes—denotes a notable shift on the part of screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. Likewise, Gaila’s popularity in fandom is absolutely rampant, as she is often depicted as a best friend, love partner, and general Girl Next Door Who Is Even More Sexually Liberated Than Kirk to... pretty much every other character. Her popularity is particularly noteworthy considering that a close look at the film intimates that the odds of her being among the survivors of Star fleet are on the miniscule side. But since it’s never addressed canonically, viewers will perceive that Gaila is alive, well, and thriving in fandom. By rewriting or creating new stories for these characters, fan authors are choosing to take a political stance, in this case a feminist one. As we will see below, a series of case studies will show that many fan works act as a method of redress for the fans. Case Study 1: Marion Zimmer Bradley and Contraband While most creator-authors (a term I use to denote the creator of a truly original work and not fantext) at best enjoy their admirers’ activities in fandom, and at worst actively pursue them to end it, very few are actually interested in engaging with it meaningfully. One of those few was the science fiction author Marion Zimmer Bradley, who said of her own most famous fictional world, that “I didn’t invent Darkover, I discovered it.” Bradley herself had long been active in science fiction fandom from the 1940s on, writing, publishing, and editing numerous fanzines before finally making the jump to “pro” writing in the 1950s. Herself an active participant in Tolkien fandom vii as well as Star Trek fandom viii, the immense popularity of Bradley’s own Darkover series transformed her from a fan-author to a creator-author of some renown. From the 1970s through the early 1990s, Bradley actively engaged with her fans and their fan works by editing and publishing in Darkover-themed fanzines, holding contests for fan works created from her universe, and finally
professionally publishing with DAW Books a set of twelve anthologies of fan-written stories. In most of these works, the fan-authors did not seek to subvert Bradley’s writings. Far from it, many of them wanted their works to be read favorably by Bradley—which she largely did. In a few cases, she would even say of a story, “yes, this is canon now.” ix The truly remarkable thing about Bradley and her fans, called the Friends of Darkover, is that this sizeable community of fans, who altogether published some seventy group newsletters, several dozen zines and other small press publications, as well as other ephemeral matter, did so pretty harmoniously for over two decades. x This activity ended abruptly in 1992 when a fan named Jean Lamb wrote a novel starring one of Bradley’s minor characters. Nina Boal, then editor of the fanzine Moon Phases in which the book was printed, described Lamb’s feeling as of being “convinced Marion wasn’t paying enough attention to Danvan. And it was like he was a real character, a person” whom she had to rescue from the author in order to “do right by him.” xi Called Masks, the work was published as a lengthy issue of the fanzine and disseminated amongst the subscribers, who probably numbered around a couple of hundred readers. The custom among fans at the time was to send Bradley herself any zines inspired by her work. Bradley read the novel and then wrote a response to Lamb, commenting on what she thought worked and what didn’t, and closed saying she had enjoyed the book. Reportedly, Lamb felt spurned, and when Bradley announced the forthcoming publication of her next Darkover novel, entitled Contraband, threatened to sue, saying that Bradley had stolen material from Masks. Nervous, her publisher dropped Bradley’s book contract, and the novel was not published. Heartbroken, Bradley moved to dissolve the Friends of Darkover, and they ceased all publication efforts. Currently, even the DAW anthologies are out of print, possibly due to lingering legal issues. This case has been among the most-discussed incidents in fan publication history, as it is one of the few cases where a fan work has directly cost the creator-author income. Though seemingly nothing was published about the episode in any of the trade journals, letters and debates about it appeared for quite some time in several fanzines, as well as being referenced in later message boards and online discussion groups. Almost twenty years later, the case is still cited as a cautionary tale to both authors and fans. That said, more recent conversations about what happened frame the “Contraband Incident” as something in which both the fan and the author are at fault. This revisionist view of media will be further explored below.
Case Study 2: The Phantom Edit Particularly in the last decade, the widespread influence of media through the Internet has increasingly been treated as less dangerous and more as an aspect of additional promotion. For instance, the fanworks in megafandoms such as Star Trek or Star Wars couldn’t do significant monetary damage to their creator-authors if they tried, and most companies known this. Early efforts to discourage fan-works and websites on the Internet have all but disappeared in the age of Google; instead it has become more common for fans to display links to vendors such as Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble to more readily purchase materials in their fandom of choice. Mike J. Nichols’s notorious reworking of Star Wars I, known popularly as The Phantom Edit and disseminated through the Internet in 2000 and 2001, has hardly hurt the DVD sales of George Lucas. In fact, reportedly Lucas himself praised Nichols’s film, at least until numerous media outlets such as Salon.com and NPR, etc. began reporting that the fan version was superior to Lucas’s own. Before Nichols’s identity was known, some speculated that the editor was indie darling Kevin Smith, whose well-known films starring slackers and fanboys often include profanity-laden fan critiques of Lucas’s films amongst others. Daniel Kraus, writing for Salon.com, said that the mystery “added to the mystique and appeal, for materialized from out of nowhere was a good film that had been hidden inside the disappointing original one -- perhaps the film that every adult "Star Wars" fan had been hoping "Episode 1" would be.” xii The film itself is a shortened version of Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace and removes many of the sequences and characterizations that frustrated fans found particularly annoying or egregious, such as the pod-racing scene with young Anakin Skywalker and the thickly accented, foolish character Jar Jar Binks. However, when the popular and fan praise for The Phantom Edit became a little too loud, or perhaps too close for comfort, Lucas and Lucasfilms Ltd. reversed their initial position. Nichols’s film was quickly removed from the various hosting sites, and even today finding a copy or link to the work can be a difficult experience. Though The Phantom Edit is not a political work itself, but the responses it provoked, in many ways, are. At the most basic level, the dialogue between creator-authors and fan-authors is primarily a discussion of control—a control of characters, a control of worlds, a control of money. And in the perceptions of others, who is really the one in control? Legally
speaking, it will always be the one who holds the copyright (and the lawyers and their bank accounts) but in the eyes of the viewer, for instance, who is the “real” Jar Jar Binks? The annoying, racist comic-relief Jar Jar, or the subtitled koan-quoting Jar Jar? Some fans might prefer, to borrow from The Mythbusters, to reject your reality and substitute our own.
Case Study 3: NuTrek Fandom The final case study will focus on the 2009 Star Trek film fandom, often referred to as NuTrek. Star Trek fandom is among the longest-lived, the most studied, and the most active. Historically, Star Trek fandom is perhaps bestknown as being among the progenitors of slash fiction, even the name of which originates from the fandom itself. Slash is a specific genre of fan fiction in which two (or more!) characters, most often male, engage in homosexual relationships, and derives from the punctuation mark, the slash, inserted between the initials of the characters involved, for example K/S for Kirk/Spock stories. These stories began to circulate in the zines of the 1970s. Prior to the reboot film’s release, there was sizeable speculation as to how director J.J. Abrams would handle the issue. After all, in 1979 Gene Roddenberry, himself the creator-author of Star Trek, slipped a reference into his official novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Explicating the Vulcan term t’hy’la, he noted that the word was used by Spock to describe Captain Kirk, and that it meant “brother,” “soulmate,” and finally, “lover.” Writing as Captain Kirk, he notes the “rumors” that he and Spock were lovers, before concluding that he, Kirk, has “always found his best gratification in that creature woman.” xiii This being the sentence that launched a thousand (million) fics, active readers noted that, linguistically speaking at least, Kirk would have to have had some experience with males (or other sexual life forms) in order to even make the informed conclusion of “best” gratification. To the surprise of many audience members in 2009, Abrams chose to portray Spock in a relationship after all— with Cadet Uhura instead of not-yet-Captain Kirk. Interestingly, a number of fans and others were shocked and outraged to find that Spock was portrayed in a romantic relationship with a woman—and sadly, not because they were angry that he wasn’t paired with his t’hy’la Kirk, but because more prosaically, he was with a black woman. Characterized by the term “Uhura Racefail,” the issue became another item in the lengthy Racefail 2009 debacle. xiv The Uhura Racefail, specifically, is defined by the numerous online articles and blog posts that decried the black female character Uhura’s and actress Zoe Saldana’s “aggression” towards white male character Spock and actor Zachary Quinto. Her behavior is described variously as “attacking” or “raping” him in the turbolift scene. An illustrative example reads: I will admit, it was a sexy scene. But imagine we switched the genders. A young woman is in an emotionally compromised state, having witnessed the murder of a parent and the genocide of her people. She is on the verge of some kind of breakdown. So she goes into a turbolift to head to her quarters, and who should appear but Male Crewmate? Male Crewmate starts caressing her all hotly, kissing her face, saying, “Hey, baby. What can I do for you? You look sad. You look like you need some comfort. Luckily I have some comfort…in my pants.” All right, that’s not exactly what Uhura said, but it’s clearly what she meant. And when the genders are reversed, the scene gets kind of creepy. Actually, hell with that. It’s creepy when Uhura does it! What kind of person tries to take advantage of another person like that? I wouldn’t be all that surprised if Kirk tried something like that, but Uhura? Just give Spock a hug and be done with it! You don’t have to sexually assault him to make him feel better, Uhura!xv The actual scene in the film referenced is as follows: Spock, having witnessed the death of his mother and the obliteration of his planet, walks into a turbolift. Uhura follows him. The doors close, and she presses a button; the turbolift stops. She embraces Spock, says “I’m sorry, I’m so sorry,” and kisses him. He hugs her back and buries his face in her shoulder. “What do you need? Tell me. Tell me,” she says, tearing up. He looks away, restarts the turbolift, and says “I need everyone to continue performing admirably.” She nods, says “Okay,” and kisses him again before leaving. Now, the first response to those who would make the claims regarding the “sexual aggression” in this sequence might well be “What movie were YOU people watching?” The second response would be to look at authorial intentions. To many, the Uhura/Spock relationship would seem to canonize his heterosexuality at the expense of the
long Kirk/Spock fan history. (Although in typical fan-fashion, the new slash One True Pairing for reboot fandom is now Kirk/Bones, with many pointing to the intercutting footage of Spock re-ordering the crew rolls so that Uhura is onboard the Enterprise instead of another ship, and Doctor Leonard “Bones” McCoy stowing a suspended Kirk aboard at the same time.) Unlike many other character pairings discussed in fandom, the Spock/Uhura romance was placed there by the director and the writers, per numerous interviews in the media as well as DVD commentary. Early promotional interviews for the forthcoming sequel in 2012 also state that the characters’ romance will be one of the central plots in the film. In this case, authors wishing to liberate Spock and Uhura from the intentions of Abrams’s text would be committing numerous political “isms” that fans and fanworks are seldom known for. As an aca-fan myself, I thus find these readings to be both very interesting and very discomfiting. Conclusions Liberated texts sometimes become a new source unto themselves, which can be subsequently adopted not only by other fans but even by the creator-authors themselves. Jean Lorrah, a popular fan author in early Star Trek fandom, later went on to write endorsed, officially licensed novels for the franchise; many of what began as her speculations on Vulcan society and custom were adopted first by fans and later by other writers of Star Trek materials. Marion Zimmer Bradley referred to her world of Darkover as a “shared universe,” a term which would later be adopted by other fan-turned-pro authors like Jacqueline Lichtenberg. As both Jenkins, Pugh, and others have noted in their work, fandom is not a passive pursuit: it is a creative one. The impulses to ascribe meaning, to discuss, critique, and debate, are not just scholarly activities but fannish ones as well.
i
Jenkins, Henry. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge, 1992. p 284.
ii
Ibid. p. 33
iii
Jenkins, Henry. “Professor Jenkins Goes to Washington.” Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: NYU Press, 2006. iv
v
Buffy vs. Edward: Twilight Remixed. URL: http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/2009/buffy-vs-edward-twilight-remixed Pugh, Sheenagh. The Democratic Genre: Fan Fiction in a Literary Context. Glasgow: Bell and Bain, Ltd. 2005. Pp 66-67.
vi
Where No Woman Community, About page. URL: http://community.livejournal.com/where_no_woman/profile
vii
She edited Anduril, what would become a single-issue fanzine revolving around The Lord of the Rings. One of the stories in that zine, written by her, was entitled “A Meeting in the Hyades” and was a crossover story with her own world of Darkover. It describes her own character, Regis Hastur, who would later become a protagonist in several of her novels, meeting Speranzu—a man whom readers will recognize as none other than Aragorn.
viii
Bradley wrote at least two Star Trek stories, both published in fanzines. The first, a lengthy Kirk/Spock pre-slash story “The Immovable Object,” appeared in the zine The Other Side of Paradise, no. 2. The second, a short femmeslash piece entitled “Cross Currents”and pairing Christine Chapel and Janice Rand, appeared in the zine Obsc’zine no. 4. ix
e.g. Patricia Floss’ “The Other Side of the Mirror.” This story appeared in The Other Side of the Mirror, DAW Books, 1987.
x
See also: Coker, Catherine “The Friends of Darkover: An Annotated History and Bibliography.” Foundation: The International Review of Science Fiction: 104 (2009): 42-66. xi
Private interview with Boal. November 26, 2009.
xii
Kraus, Daniel. “The Phantom Edit.” Salon Magazine, November 5, 2001. URL: http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/11/05/phantom_edit/index.html xiii
Roddenberry, Gene. Star Trek The Motion Picture: A Novel.New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979. pp 6-7.
xiv
Racefail 2009, aka the Great Cultural Appropriation Debate of Doom, was a lengthy discussion that took place online throughout 2009 regarding the implicit, explicit, complicit and otherwise any-plicit racism of science fiction books, culture, fandom, and criticism. It originated with a post on Elizabeth Bear’s journal discussing the issues of writing “the Other” and cultural appropriation. An excellent resource describing the episode in detail can be found at the following article: “RaceFail 09.” URL: http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=RaceFail_09 xv
Mlawski. “Nyota Uhura, Date Rapist?” Posted May 18, 2009. URL: http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/05/18/nyota-uhuradate-rapist/
