If the paper comes across as suggesting that I think vids are stand-alone entities, that's a failing on my part, since I rather decidedly don't think that; I think of vids as narratives that respond to other narratives, in some of the same ways that some written narratives respond to other narratives, and I think that doubleness, that determined intertextuality, is precisely what many fans like about vids (both watching them and making them). I see vids as requiring a particularly intense version of the kinds of close reading strategies that many fans engage in with the original shows, which is why non-fans are sometimes baffled by them. But this is really a subject for another post! :)
no subject
If the paper comes across as suggesting that I think vids are stand-alone entities, that's a failing on my part, since I rather decidedly don't think that; I think of vids as narratives that respond to other narratives, in some of the same ways that some written narratives respond to other narratives, and I think that doubleness, that determined intertextuality, is precisely what many fans like about vids (both watching them and making them). I see vids as requiring a particularly intense version of the kinds of close reading strategies that many fans engage in with the original shows, which is why non-fans are sometimes baffled by them. But this is really a subject for another post! :)