If you want to read
background info on the development of the U.N.C.L.E. series, this is a great
source. Cindy also surveys fan reactions with a sampling of actual giddy
fans (like me). Tons of references contemporaneous with the series.
All of this fannish stuff is
in the center of a bigger context, the story of a creative concept (call
it a “site”) that goes forth from its inceptors to integrate with its various
processors and bounce around in the heads of its perceivers, who also get into
the act by responding in ways that affect the original inceptors.
In other words, the show was
developed with lots of input from varying sources, but it wasn’t a “closed”
system or a finished work like a piece of sculpture or other “high art.”
Not only did U.N.C.L.E. (as a concept and an intellectual property as well as a
TV series) develop and change at the creative end, it was also influenced BY
THE FANS. As we all know, U.N.C.L.E. fandom was the prototype for media
fandom to come.
This fan attention not only
proved the value of the concept to the “owners” (NBC, Arena, etc) but also
demonstrated a possessiveness (it’s MY show) that we also see today in our
discussions of wearing black turtlenecks or the “flame wars” about if a new
U.N.C.L.E. movie will live up to our expectations/demands.
But this is also a reference
work. I was able to follow the various discussions of “theories of
creative art” with some concentration. Personally I believe in objective
reality, including that a single-author thing (sculpture, novel, song, etc) has
one “correct” meaning – that intended by the author. But of course
if that meaning “gets across” to the consumer, is another discussion. And
the more fingers in the creative pie, the more “meanings” can be passed along,
to be unpacked (“read” in literary terms) by the consumer. And the
greater the variance in consumers, the more likely various meanings or messages
are perceived (whether originally intended or not).
The concept of a work/text is
a great fit for U.N.C.L.E., with its give-and-take between fans, creators, the
media, and the rest. It seems with every voice the “site” had a chance to
become both more specific and more diffused (a diffusion which eventually
led to cancellation). Yes, fans “read into” works, especially those works
into which the fans invest themselves.
On the bottom of page 291,
when Walker discusses how the interplay between writer-creator-fan-consumer
keeps a “site” active in the public mind, it reminded me of that line
Dr McCoy says at the end of STAR TREK II about the
(temporarily) dead Spock: “He’s really not dead ... as long as we
remember him.”
Thanks to Dr Cindy for all
the tons of work involved. If you haven’t had to write a “survey and
criticism”-type research paper, you have NO IDEA how involved, draining, and
attention-demanding such a process is. She does a fine job of not just citing
things, but giving enough references that I, although out of the game for a
while, could get the gist of the cited idea, but also see how it fit into the
point or narrative she was writing.
If you want to learn more
about U.N.C.L.E. and are also willing to confront extensive discussion of ideas
and art concepts, as well as media culture, this is a great book for you!
PS: The cover art is pretty cool too, showing kids
watching the show as if it’s being broadcast from a short distance away, in the
distance. In a minute the agents will run off the street set and through
the living room. Isn’t what we all wished would happen to us? Cindy writes, Suzi Lovett, a fan artist who has illustrated many MFU fan zines,
created the cover art. She did a really nice job translating my vague idea into
concrete reality and I am extremely grateful.
No comments:
Post a Comment