Jump to content

Talk:Buffy studies

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paxomen (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 3 April 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Whedonverse

Importance

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]

Contributors and scholarship

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 appropiately 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

  • 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

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

Is this a joke?

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