I was actually rather disappointed by this book. While the tone is densely academic, the
structure and coverage seems undisciplined.
For example, why are a few specific stories covered in such depth? Neither objective more qualitative reasons
are given for their selection or any specific reason why they are chosen as
representative, examples of important themes, or… anything? This is a big fandom there needs to be a
reason other than whim to choose only a handful of works to focus on in each
chapter.
In chapter three the authors also choose and describe one
theory of why “straight” women (a questionable assumption-slash-stereotype) write
homoerotic fan-works, but does not mention the many others or give a reason for
picking this one. Nor is the later discussion of specific works based substantially
on this theory. Or any other obvious framework. Qualitative research has
developed well beyond the narrative essay but this book is essential just one
enormous narrative essay, with a structure and path of the prose determined
seemingly based on the author’s personal enthusiasms and implicit biases.
As a person with a non-academic interest in this subject,
but plenty of familiarity with scholarly works and assessing theses – I found
little in the way of original contributions.
It is a fair summary of the subject but what does it contribute beyond
that? It is written too inaccessibly to
be a book to introduce people to these ideas for the first time, but is
unlikely to reveal anything new to readers already somewhat au fait with JohnLock. Ultimately
SHERLOCK’S WORLD describes much but illuminates little.
Review copy courtesy of Netgalley, 3/5
No comments:
Post a Comment