BRUNEL UNIVERSITY

FILM AND TELEVISION STUDIES

SCHOOL OF ARTS

What is the relationship between film studios and online fan activity?

A study of Warner Brothers and the Harry Potter franchise.

by

Lisa Boyles 1010332

Supervised by Milly Williamson

A Special Project submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the BA (Hons.) in Film and Television Studies

Contents Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2

INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS FANDOM? 3

CHAPTER ONE: WHAT IS FANDOM IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET? 7

CHAPTER TWO: WHAT IS FANDOM IN THE WORLD OF CULT? 20

CONCLUSION 31

BIBLIOGRAPHY 34

Acknowledgments:

First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation supervisor, Milly

Williamson, for her never-ending encouragement, guidance and support throughout

this process, and also her drive to push me to create the best piece of work humanly

possible.

I am thankful to all of my lecturers over the past three years who have never failed to

inspire and motivate me throughout my time at university.

I am very grateful to Brunel University and the British Film Institute for access to

their libraries and online resources.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents; whose never-ending encouragement is one

of the main driving forces behind my passion for writing since childhood and for their

support in the lengthy writing process of this dissertation.

Introduction: What is Fandom?

Since the introduction of the Internet in contemporary culture, fandom has received

increasingly more notice in academic study. From the notion of pathological fanatics,

to triumphant resistors against large media corporations, academic critiques of

fandom present problematic and conflicting notions about fan activity and behaviours.

Fandom has become a significant cultural activity in modern society, and its

emergence can be attributed to a variety of influential factors. Fandom is widely noted

as resulting from the rise in celebrity culture, one of the newer versions of fame in

modern society. David Giles describes the different types of fame that have existed

throughout history, which include, ‘spiritual fame (in the eyes of God), worldly fame

(in the eyes of the public) and, more recently, the fame of the moment (2000:3) The

stars of today are more commonly referred to as the aforementioned celebrity, whose

authority is negligible but whose doing and being generates a vast amount of interest

within the public and media (Marshal, 2006:108). As individuals gain a significant

presence in the media and public domain, they become an object of scrutiny or praise

by the viewing public. Public members who are heavily invested in the lives of these

individuals often declare themselves as fans, however fandom is not necessarily

restricted to specific individuals. Supporters of Football teams also often declare

themselves as fans of the team, and fandom is often associated with films (Star Trek

and Star Wars being common examples), television programmes, music groups and

even genres of entertainment.

However, fan activity has also derived from the materialisation of mass media

over the last century, from print to newspapers, to radio, film and television. There is

significantly greater access to news and media, through a variety of platforms. It can

be consumed at the local newsagents, in a bookshop, at the cinema, on a home

television set, in the car with the radio on and from computers or devices with Internet

access. This alongside the development and increase of literacy across the population,

especially in Western society, has resulted in increased accessibility to literature and

texts. With the ability to consume a large and diversified media, audiences have the

ability and the opportunity to choose what they engage with and, as a result, become a

fan of. Cult fandom has developed as a reaction to their loyalty of these texts,

especially texts that do not possess high status in cultural hierarchy. The fans can

therefore claim these as belonging to them, despite legal status often saying

otherwise. The development and convergence of technologies also encourages

participation and increases the range of activities that fans can engage with. This

investigation into fandom is significant because of the diversity and complexity of

fandom, including the existing research that currently surrounds it. However this

research has not yet succeeded in providing a balanced and comprehensive view of

fandom's often conflicted complexity. Therefore this thesis shall analyse the main

concerns surrounding fan activity, using specific case studies within the Harry Potter

fandom to reflect on existing academic opinions and how are arguably one-

dimensional the majority of them are.

Studying the Harry Potter phenomenon serves as a chance to demonstrate

how the emergence of fandom, the activities of fans and the academic studies of this

subject merges with an actual case study. Harry Potter began as a book series written

by British author JK Rowling. It was published by Bloomsbury between the years of

1997 and 2007 and was adapted to film by Warner Brothers between 2001 and 2011

once it had proven its self a global success. Warner Brothers is currently a subsidiary

of Time Warner, the largest media merger of all time between Time and Warner

Communications, proving an idyllic example of the immense authority that has the

ability to overpower fandom. The franchise has grown to become a worldwide

cultural phenomenon, which includes the selling of over four hundred million copies

of the books to date, and all eight films are placed fourth to thirty-ninth in the top

grossing films of all time. Harry Potter even has a theme park in Orlando and a studio

tour in London. The reasoning behind choosing Harry Potter as the main focus of this

thesis is because it presents an opportunity to investigate the staggering dichotomy of

a franchise’s visual representation being owned by a large media conglomerate placed

alongside the ordinary fans being eager to actively engage with this material using

their developed competencies with new media.

The first chapter of this thesis attempts to analyse the online fandom of Harry

Potter in regards to Jenkins’ theory of convergence culture (2006) and his notion of

the development of technologies and the invention of the Internet allowing fandom an

opportunity to evolve into a more significant cultural trend. However the chapter will

also elaborate upon a variety of criticisms to Jenkins’ idealistic view, including Milly

Williamson’s ideas of the construction of hierarchy in fandom (2005:119) and

Gwenllian-Jones’ contention of fan activity as a creative outlet of appreciation

(1995:166). Following from this will be a discussion of the conflicting financial and

cultural economies of fandom, as presented by John Fiske (1989) and the

complexities that these often create. These debates are considered through case

studies of two active fans, Claire Fields and Heather Lawver, who opposed the control

of Warner Brothers in an attempt to maintain their own fan-sites, and how the studio

responded to these issues of copyright and fandom.

Chapter two then attempts to develop upon the works of Jenkins by discussing

his suggestions of textual poaching in fan activities (1992) as a means of challenging

negative fan stereotypes. This is then developed by a further discussion of Williamson

and Gwenllian-Jones’ elaborations of the conflicts in fandom. The chapter then seeks

to explain these points through a detailed case study of TeamStarkid’s production of A

Very Potter Musical. This parody production serves as example of fan loyalty, textual

poaching, copyright infringement and a film studio taking advantage of fandom by

using it as a marketing tool. Particular focus shall be placed upon the legal dispute

between popular online sensation TeamStarkid and Warner Brothers, and the

compromised agreement that came as a result of this. Therefore this chapter attempts

to understand the shift from TeamStarkid as resistors of media control to acting as a

bridge between the studio and fellow fans.

At the end of this thesis, the issues, debates and conflicts that surround fandom

and their online activities will be highlighted and discussed, in an attempt to make

clear the issues that exist with current academic study on the subject.

Chapter 1:

What is Fandom in the age of the Internet?

The online fandom of Harry Potter has arguably become a clash of two different

contrasting cultural values. The development of technology and online media has led

to what Henry Jenkins describes as a “convergence culture” (2006:2). Jenkins

summarises convergence culture as,

Where old and new media collide, where grassroots and corporate media intersect, where the power of the media producers and the power of the consumer interact in unpredictable ways. Sinnreich summarises Jenkins’ book as discussing the ways in which modern

developments in the media have led to changes in “communication infrastructure,

organisational logic, media consumption habits, and the balance of cultural power”

(Sinnreich, 2007:44). Jenkins thinks this new cultural shift appears to have benefitted

the practices of fandom. He see’s it as a huge transformation which empowers fans

and online users, giving them more control over their fandom. However, there are

multiple examples where this has led to confrontation with the copyright owner. This

shall be explored in more depth through a study of the fan-websites of the Harry

Potter franchise. For Jenkins, these websites are an example of the counter culture

impulse of fandom, and how it opposes culture control. This chapter will therefore

also be considering whether Jenkins’ argument makes sense by studying different

approaches.

There has been much criticism of Jenkins’ seemingly idealistic view of

online participation and fan culture by academics in recent years. In her work on

vampire texts Williamson notes that Jenkins has a tendency to ignore any conflicts on

the Internet; so as to not complicate his view of an all-inclusive fan space

(Williamson, 2005:127). Through in-depth research, she highlights the construction of

hierarchy within the Anne Rice fandom, between those who deem themselves as

‘official’ fans and the ‘unofficial’ fans. This distinction has been found to create some

hostility, as well as the “formation of restricted networks rather than expansive

cultural communities” (121-2); which contradicts Jenkins’ apparently utopian ideas of

fandom. Williamson produces a more comprehensive view of fandom by supplying

examples of how fandom can also build upon community as well as fandom.

Jenkins often chooses to overlook hierarchies within fandom; however his

later book does dedicate a chapter to two of the conflicts surrounding Harry Potter.

Through detailed case study’s he demonstrates the disagreements between the studio

and fan run websites in regards to copyright laws, but he also discusses the action by

teachers, librarians and book publishers in their effort to have the books banned in

fear of their negative influence. This second conflict, however does not acknowledge

fan culture. The librarians and teachers merely serve as a form of authority, which the

fans are claimed to be opposed to. Jenkins is merely offering a small

acknowledgement in the direction of conflict, however he always endeavours to bring

his argument back to ideas of resistance. This allows Jenkins an opportunity to

quench the notion of the fan as a “social misfit” (Jenkins, 1992:10). This earlier

Jenkins text, Textual Poachers (1992), was a response to, and form of resistance

against, the prevalent negative stereotypes of fans in society. It served as a means to

defend the culturally pathologised, however it almost completely ignored any

potential notion of hierarchy or conflict within fandom. His views of fandom have

developed slightly over the years as he approached Convergence Culture, where he

argues that sections of corporate media are adopting fan practices for cult as a method

of wooing. However, he still possesses a rose-tinted view of fandom, and largely

overlooks conflict.

However, Williamson believes that justifying fans as rebels instead is a step

too far. She also argues that it does not hold up as well years later, noting, “fan culture

has taken a far more accepted place in the field of cultural legitimation” (2005:92).

The notion of fans as rebels has become less accurate in recent years owing to film

and television executives seeing fans as a lucrative demographic. As aforementioned,

they will purposely attempt to woo cult fans to attract them to their niche television

programs and films so as to ensure their product continues on the airwaves.

Audiences have a lot more variety of channels and programs in recent times, therefore

studios need to ensure that they have a loyal and dedicated fan base, otherwise they

risk cancellation by alienating a potential audience. There is still conflict between

corporate media, such as films studios, and fandom; however as later in this chapter

will prove, there is also collaboration. Whilst Williamson finds Jenkins’ notions quite

far fetched, Gwenllian-Jones disagrees strongly with Jenkins view of fans as

grassroots activists. She claims that fan activity “stems not from resistance to

capitalism but rather from an imaginative engagement” with the material (Gwenllian-

Jones and Pearson, 2004:xvii). In her view, considering fans as productive is not

overly important. In modern culture, production and consumption have become

almost interchangeable (168). She highlights that the binary of

“production/consumption, fan/producer, powerful/powerless” (176) are too narrow

and do not encapsulate the real (often conflicting) nature of fandom and creative fan

works. She does however agree that fans are not motivated by financial means, that

there is a “distaste” towards using fandom as means of making a profit (171).

In his article “Understanding Popular Culture”, Fiske outlines his binaries of

the financial and economical aspects of culture. He notes that society is,

Not consumption, it is culture – the active process of generating and circulating meanings and pleasures within a social system: culture, however industrialized, can never be adequately described in terms of the buying and selling of commodities (1989:23). His argument is that culture should not be about commercial gain, but about creative

expression. However, he also notes that two co-existing yet contrasting economies

still thrive in our society; and these are the “financial (which circulates wealth in two

subsystems) and the cultural (which circulates meanings and pleasures)” (1989:26).

To help make this notion easier to understand, he provides a summary of the idea in

the format of a table,

Financial Economy Cultural Economy

1 2

Producer: Production Studio Program Audience

Commodity: Program Audience Meanings/Pleasures

Consumer: Distributor Advertiser Itself

(1989:26).

This model helps to explain why there are disagreements existing between fans and

studios. There is a contrast between what he argues culture should be, and what it

actually is. Both have conflicting cultural values with the studio producing their films,

and similar products, for financial purposes and active fans seeking to share their

thoughts and creations as art-for-arts-sake. Both of these models have a tendency for

hierarchy. Williamson’s case studies of vampire fandom’s demonstrates that fans can

also reproduce these two conflicting, sets of values, just within the cultural economy

of “audience” or fandom itself. Fiske’s design is therefore a helpful, yet simplistic,

method of understanding Bourdieu’s models of culture (1984; 1993). Fiske’s design,

however, does not explore the complexities in Bourdieu model in any great detail.

Williamson argues that Fiske misinterprets Bourdieu by suggesting “fans operate

against a single monolithic dominant taste”(Williamson, 2005:99).

This chapter’s first example of the conflict between the economies of finance

(studio) and culture (fans) is Claire Fields. Claire set up her own fan site called The

Harry Potter Guide (www.harrypotterguide.co.uk) at the tender age of fifteen and

launched it in October 2000. Her intention was solely to serve as a platform for other

likeminded fans to communicate with one another their thoughts and ideas on the

fictitious world given to them by JK Rowling. Fields even created a welcome screen

for the site, which included a lengthy disclaimer of ownership,

This site is an unofficial Harry Potter site, and therefore should only be entertained by people who fully understand that this site holds no connection to JK Rowling, Bloomsbury, Scholastics or Warner Bros… Despite her best efforts to highlight her intentions of an educational purpose for the

website (and not for commercial gain) she received a letter two months later from the

Director of Legal and Business Affairs at Warner Brothers, requesting that she turn

her site name over to the film studio. The reasons given by the studio for wanting to

shut down unauthorized sites (aside from the breach of copyright) was that they

feared the sites would cause confusion amongst consumers as to what was official

intellectual property. However, if the studio had taken the time to briefly browse

through the site it would have quickly become apparent that this was not the case. The

website only offers fan-written information on the text, it is made with low quality

designed graphics and has no form of outside-advertisement. In disgust, Claire (with

the help of her father, Les) contacted the Daily Mirror and explained their situation.

The Mirror ran the story immediately, publicizing her plight to the forefront of

society’s consciousness. The story increased in visibility until it was noticed by US

magazine The Hollywood Reporter who responded in early December 2000 by

supporting Claire. The widespread media disapproval at the situation left Warner

Brothers with little choice but to respond directly. Warner Brothers lawyer Nils

Montan stated that hundreds of similar letters were also sent out to fan-sites, however

none had created this much anger (Grunier, 2000). After much negotiation between

the studio and the family, Claire was allowed to keep her website, although Warner

Brothers reserved the right to take Claire to court if it featured any content that they

would strongly disapprove of. This example of issues with copyright illuminates the

problematic balance of forces between fan activity and corporate media. For both

Jenkins and Fiske, this is an example of the struggle rebel fans face in their quest to

control culture. In contrast, for Gwenllian-Jones it demonstrates the way in which

fans are woven into consumer culture by their creative absorption with the material.

In regards to Williamson, this struggle represents the section of fandom that holds

purely autonomous cultural values, not merely culture for profit.

It should be noted that for Claire to have any voice at all, she had to rely upon

the reach of old media (newspaper and press). She did not have the influence to stand

on her own; the power of an individual fan is too small. This conflicts with Jenkins

ideas of the consumer as being an important figure in culture, and therefore serves to

remind us that none of these models of fandom can completely unpick the complexity

of online fan activity.

Despite these different views of fandom and culture, in all instances fans are

faced with the copyright laws that can potentially impede their fan activity. The issue

of copyright is complicated; often the laws and restrictions surrounding copyright get

ignored, whether intentionally or not. Jenkins notes that the majorities are unsure as to

whether or not fan-work (his specific example being fan-fiction) falls within fair-use

protections. Fair use is an example of where copyrighted material can be used without

the owner’s permission and still is legal. Examples of this include criticism and

commentary, research and scholarship, and even news reporting. Jenkins states,

“current copyright law simply doesn’t have a category for dealing with amateur

creative expression” (2006:198). The laws have yet to fully keep up with the

developments of technology, where fandom has the potential to be a threat to

copyright holders on a much larger and significant scale than the early days of

fanzines. Whether or not fans are aware of this is another matter. Jenkins also claims,

“fans reject the idea of a definitive version produced, authorized and regulated by

some media conglomerate… they embrace it as ‘shareware’” (2006:267). Despite this

feeling of entitlement, fans will frequently acknowledge legal owners in their fan-

works whilst “maintain[ing] that their activities do not hurt” (Tushnet, 2007: 64).

Fans cannot conceive of their small actions having an impact on a major media

conglomerate. It is difficult to understand whether this ignorance is a positive thing.

By choosing to overlook potential copyright, whilst not intending to reap any

financial gain from doing so, allows the opportunity for freedom of speech, creative

expression and an opportunity to articulate that you are a fan of something. Ignorance

(whether intentional or not) of copyright is certainly not a new issue, whether it is

recording songs from radio onto a cassette tape, handwriting fan-fiction in fanzines or

performing covers of a song without a license.

Despite Claire Fields becoming something of a poster girl for the struggle

between the Harry Potter fans and Warner Brothers on both sides of the Atlantic, she

is by no means alone in her resistance. Heather Lawver, creator of 1997 online fan-

site “The Daily Prophet” (URL not available) is another example of a Warner

Brothers victim who firmly stood her ground. This initial website served as a “faux

newspaper” which allowed fans the opportunity to participate in their beloved

wizarding world in a way that encouraged them to develop and improve upon their

creative writing skills. When Warner Brothers began to also target her site in

December 2000, Lawver began a PotterWar campaign with Londoner Alastair

Alexander. This encouraged fellow fans to boycott all upcoming aspects of the Harry

Potter franchise and the latest film release, including toys, clothing, and movie

tickets; essentially everything excluding the books themselves. Despite the actions

going largely unnoticed by the studio, the press picked up on the idea and publicized

it heavily. News organizations that reported on it include “USA Today, The London

Daily Mail, The BBC, The Washington Times, MSNBC, The Guardian, BBC Brazil

and countless local news affiliates and newspapers from Singapore, France, Germany,

Argentina, Malaysia, Australia, The United States and others” (Prophet Incorporated

website). With their reputation once again given an unfavourable light, Warner

Brothers began negotiation with Lawver and she was also allowed to keep her site.

Similarly to Claire Fields, Lawver’s campaign was only successful once it was

supported by the consumer power of the old media. The original Daily Prophet

website now no longer exists, due to Lawver creating an even bigger site, with the

same basic premise on a grander scale, under the name of Prophet Incorporated. This

website not only allows children to improve their literacy through fandom of Harry

Potter but also allows children to express themselves without fear of intimidation on a

variety of platforms. The history section of the website offers a very idealistic,

utopian view of the present situation between fans and studios after her campaign.

When PotterWar began, the law lagged behind technology. Nothing really applied to the Internet; everything was legally subjective. After PotterWar, the foundation was laid and precedent was set for an entirely new attitude, approach and application of trademark, copyright and intellectual property law as it relates to our brave new world of technology… Additionally, it established a new order among Hollywood studios, their legal departments and their relationships (cont.)

with fans who wish to participate in the culture presented to them. An entire sub-culture of open creativity and expression was allowed to flourish, free from legal action. This statement appears to be reading fan activity through the Jenkins’ model of

resistance and triumph over corporate control. These are very ostentatious and

sweeping assumptions, creating an air of self-aggrandisement around Lawver. It feels

as though it is a subconscious attempt to establish her right to be a leader of the Harry

Potter fandom, placing her firmly on top of the hierarchy. This immediately

destabilizes it from Jenkins, and makes it more relevant to Williamson’s view of

fandom. Lawver’s campaign did prove very successful in helping fellow Harry Potter

fans and granting them more freedom to continue with their activity. No new laws

have been introduced to help define what rights studios or fans have when it comes to

the issues of copyright and online fandom. The situation has improved, although

“nobody is anticipating a point where all bureaucracies will become adhocracies”

(Jenkins, 2006:267). The likelihood of the situation is Warner Brothers realized that

their attempts of seizing control backfired on them in an unexpectedly negative way,

once again, and they are eager to try and improve their public image.

Warner Brothers initial reaction to fan activity creates an air of litigiousness

about them as a studio and demonstrates an intolerance of what is outside of their

control. Although they are not the only studios to respond in this manner, other

studios have arguably demonstrated a much more patient and contemporary method

of handling fan activity. New Line and their response to the very active fans of The

Lord of the Rings trilogy are an example of this. New Line made its name originally

as a distributor before becoming an independent film studio, whose successful films

include Menace II Society (Allen Hughes, 1993) and Dumb and Dumber (Farrelly

Brothers, 1994). However, New Line later became a subsidiary of Time Warner in

1996, a leading media conglomerate in film and television (of whom Warner Brothers

is also a subsidiary). This allowed New Line the opportunity to move into a more

mainstream Hollywood direction, whilst still seeking to maintain their cultural values

of an independent studio. Despite being owned by the same company, New Line has

significantly different cultural values to that of Warner Brothers. Its films are not

made with the sole intention of generating significant profit. It strives for more

ground breaking, culturally significant films (The Lord of the Rings being an

example), with a profit being an added bonus. Corporate media (especially the

conglomerates) is therefore not necessarily monolithic; there is space for conflicting

values and methods. Despite fans breaching copyright in their websites, New Line

took a very sympathetic and encouraging stance in regards to the Rings fan-sites

(Thompson, 2007:165). The more established sites, such as TheOneRing.net, were fed

private production materials and the site owners were occasionally offered tours

around the set and interviews with the cast (168). TheOneRing.net’s tag line reads,

“forged by and for fans of JRR Tolkein” and remains one of the most popular and

successful fan-run websites for Rings to this date. The site still receives regular access

to backstage scoops from the studio. A recent example of this is a webcast interview

with Dominic Monoghan (Meriadoc Brandybuck) and Billy Boyd (Peregrin Took) in

January 2013. The main motive behind the decision for New Line to support and

encourage fandom was to use this large, and ever increasing, fan base as a form of

free publicity. The buzz generated by these sites in the build up to the release of the

trilogy helped to bring the films to the foreground of the media, encouraging more

people to go and see what the hype was about. By feeding these sites (and therefore

publicly appearing to support them) the studio is subtly gaining some control over the

material published by the fans. This holds some similarities to the example provided

by Williamson of the Anne Rice Vampire Lestat Fan Club (ARVLFC). Rice’s

personnel who therefore provide it with updates and insights publically support the

ARVLFC, turning it into the ‘official’ forum of fandom. Despite both sites being fed

information from official sources, TheOneRing.Net holds no other affiliation with

New Line, therefore it remains more of an unofficial, fan led endeavour.

Warner Brothers took on a different approach to try and influence fan activity.

In June 2009, JK Rowling launched the new interactive website known as Pottermore

(www.pottermore.com). This site offers fans the opportunity to gain much anticipated

access to insider information of the Harry Potter world, with over 18,000 words of

new content. According to one of Jenkins’ stereotypes of fans in Textual Poachers,

fans crave the opportunity to quench their thirst for trivia and cumulative knowledge

(1992:10). Trivia is argued as a form of cultural capital within a fandom, and can be

used to “establish who is an insider and to declare others to be outsiders who do not

have the right to participate” (Hunt, 2003:186). Hunt’s thoughts are that the more

trivia a person knows about their fandom, the more they can potentially be elevated in

the hierarchy of that fandom. JK Rowling states in the Pottermore press release, “I

wanted to give something back to the fans…” This website feels as though it is the

attempt of Rowling and Warner Brothers to bring the fans back underneath their own

supervision. As well as the additional trivia, the site offers fans the opportunity to

explore, and almost ‘live’ in, an interactive version of Harry’s world. Members can

build up a collection of online friends, where they are encouraged to share their fan

works and ideas. The studio and author can therefore closely monitor their activity.

The only advertisement of the site is for Sony (a business partner for PotterMore), and

official Harry Potter website links. It is therefore only promoting authorized franchise

connections for commercial gain.

Despite conflict between fans and studio, as well as between the fans

themselves, it should be noted that fandom has proven to lead to fan activism, which

has the potential to positively make changes in the society in which we live. In a

recent essay on Potter fans, Jenkins notes that fan activism is a form of “political

participation that [can] emerge from within fan culture itself” (2012[1]:39). His case

study focuses on the Harry Potter Alliance (http://hpalliance.org.uk), which brings

together fans to improve the world in which they live. Their homepage encourages

this by drawing parallels between the struggles of the characters in the Harry Potter

stories and those that they say we are facing in the real world.

Just as Dumbledore’s Army wakes the world up to Voldemort’s return, works for equal rights of house elves and werewolves, and empowers its members, we: [alert] the world to the dangers of global warming, poverty and genocide. Work with our partners for equal rights regardless of race, gender and sexuality. Encourage our members to hone the magic of their creativity in endeavouring to make the world a better place. Their recent success stories include fundraising £123,000 in two weeks for the Haiti

cause, donating 87,000 books to 20,000 community centres and creating a petition of

over 15,000 signatures in an attempt to encourage Warner Brothers to make all Harry

Potter branded chocolates Fair Trade.

The ability of the Internet to allow fans to make a significant difference in the

lives of others, as is the case with the Harry Potter Alliance, is a winning example of

the positive effects of convergence culture in modern fandom. However, fandom is

not an online utopian world of freedom and equality. This chapter has demonstrated

how culture can arguably be divided into financial and autonomous values, and the

fans that fight for these autonomous values have very little power over the

corporations and studios. It is only when they can find a voice and presence within

old media that they are given the ability to have an impact. This chapter has also

discussed the complex issues of copyright infringement within fan activities, how

Warner Brothers chose to react to these issues, and also their attempts at bringing the

fans and their activities back under the studio’s supervision.

Chapter 2:

What is Fandom in the world of the cult?

Despite fan-websites being a very popular expression of fandom in these recent times

of convergence culture, fan-works have been in existence for a number of years

before the invention of the Internet. Fans are renowned for creating fanfics and

fanzines that were distributed amongst themselves, and other likeminded people, long

before the boom in convergence culture. Jenkins, borrowing from de Certeau’s notion

of readers as “travellers [that] move across lands belonging to someone else, like

nomads poaching their way across fields they did not write” (de Certeau, 1984: 174),

describes fans as an example of “textual poachers” (1992:24). These fans are argued

to take images owned by corporate media and use them to make their own creative

works. He celebrates this action as a form of resistance to consumer culture

(1992:27). Jenkins devotes the majority of his first chapter to challenging the more

common and socially known stereotypes that surround fandom. These claim that fans,

a. are brainless consumer who will buy anything associated [to their fandom]… b. devote their lives to the cultivation of worthless knowledge… c. place in appropriate importance on devalued cultural material… d. are social misfits who have become obsessed with the show that it forecloses other types of social experience… e. are feminized and/or desexualized through their intimate engagement with mass culture… f. are infantile, emotional and intellectually immature… g. are unable to separate fantasy from reality… (1992:10). The purpose of this description is to allow him to immediately contradict these

notions. The intention of the book is to present fans as very smart, imaginative and

active participants in modern culture. Using de Certeau’s notion of poaching, Jenkins

describes fans as being,

Undaunted by traditional conceptions of literary and intellectual property, fans raid mass culture, claiming its material for their own use, reworking them as the basis for their own cultural creations and social interactions” (1992:18) His idea of fans as textual poachers does help to describe some of the behaviour

present in fandom, however it is wrong to assume that it applies to all those who

consider themselves fans. He claims that Textual Poachers “describes a social group

struggling to define its own culture and construct its own community” (1992:3).

While he briefly acknowledges that this is not the only possible mode of looking at

fandom, the majority of the book is constructed around the notion of fans as

productive rebels. He targets those who are seeking to shape culture for their own

autonomous values, which actively engage with the text and wish to re-construct it to

their needs.

Gwenllian-Jones’ contention remains in contrast to Jenkins. She sees the

description of fans as “modern-day Robin Hoods” to be an elevated cliché

(1995:163). Fans engagement with official texts, their devotion and their fascination

“bespeak not opposition but a deep-seated compulsion to build, enter and uphold a

virtual reality” (1995:166-7). They are motivated by a love of the material and not the

need to resist corporate culture. She argues fans are entwined with the “cultural

processes it supposedly ‘resists.’ “Fandom… is a mode of interactivity as well as a

mode of consumption” (1995:165). Robson is also sceptical of Jenkins’ approach, and

her views are somewhat similar to Gwenllian-Jones. She suggests that rather than

poaching, fans are engaged in creative acts and the “creation of cultural capital”

(2010:261) in fan communities. For Robson, fandom is a “reflection on the

individual’s ability to interact with their fan-text in a creative or derivative

capacity…” (2010: 216). Fans are therefore not intentionally seeking to “poach” or

rebel, they use their creativity as a form of appreciation for their fandom, and also a

means to elevate them in the cultural hierarchy. Both of these two opposing sides

speak of the motivations behind active fans. However, it is important to note that not

all fans are active participants in culture; some are quite content to passively

appreciate the original text as it is, or even to enjoy the created works of other active

fans without participating themselves. There has been no, or very little, research on

non-producing fans as this can expose concerns that undermine current theories on

fandom.

It is often assumed that the most loyal and active fans can be found within cult

television and film. Robson notes that the term cult suggests “something that is

outside of the mainstream, an organized group of abnormal rebels chafing against the

norm and invariably suggests… a certain prescribed ritual, a degree of ceremony, and

a process of initiation” (2010:209). She notes that fans are highly engaged regular

consumers who seek to create an appropriate social environment (2010: 212-3). Cult

films are born of these very active niche audiences who set themselves, and the text,

apart from the mainstream. Robson later goes on to explain how cult, especially cult

fandom, has become somewhat more mainstream in society:

Today’s fans act within a social pattern that has been established by the hardship of those once-maligned fans of the past: those who paved the way to make fan engagement something to be celebrated instead of frowned upon (2010:214).

Despite “celebrated” being too strong a word, the presence and activities of fans has

become more prevalent and accepted in recent years. The mainstreaming of cult is

often referred to in terms of Buffy (Williamson, 2005) and Dr Who (McKee, 2004)

where the production teams engage with fandom and the producers even encourage it.

This mainstreaming of cult activity supports Matt Hills’ opinion of fandom as

existing between “‘cult’ and ‘culture’” (2002:117). It does not strictly adhere to the

‘religiosity’ of cult nor does it apply to all citizens in contemporary culture. Rocky

Horror serves as an example of this duality due to the continued popularity of the

film, and the audience participation included in the screenings. Its bizarre and

controversial plot made it very difficult to become the mainstream success that Jaws

(Steven Spielberg, 1975) was that same year. By 1977 the midnight screenings were a

popular hotspot. At these events, audiences were encouraged to participate in the

screening by shouting and using relevant props. Thirty-six years on and, thanks to the

loyalty and participation of the fans, the film still shows regularly at select cinemas

across the US, and also in the UK. The love of the film’s “irreverent zaniness”

(Michaels, 2002:9) is what has allowed it to thrive even after all of these years. Rocky

Horror’s continuing success does elevate its status to something higher than cult,

however it has yet to reach the mainstream status of, for example, Titanic (James

Cameron, 1997) and its fans loyalty remains reminiscent of cult behaviour.

This fan loyalty and appreciation of “zaniness”, on a smaller scale, mirrors the

reaction to this chapter’s main case study. Small American theatre group Starkid

Productions (Team Starkid) grew into an online success because of the dedication of

their fans, and the power of word of mouth. Student friends Darren Criss, Brian

Holden, Matt Lang and Nick Lang founded Team Starkid at the University of

Michigan. After realizing their joint love of Harry Potter (which they all openly

admit to being fans of) they collaborated on a “Harry Potter Musical”, which was

performed 9-11 April 2009 to an un-paying audience. The musical featured original

music written and composed by the cast and production team, and was a spoof of the

entire franchise squeezed into a 165-minute play. The production was posted to their

YouTube channel, where it received thousands of views in a very short space of time.

Starkid’s activity is an example of both textual poaching and convergence culture.

Their play features all the characters, locations, costumes, and (roughly similar) plot

to the original text, despite being altered into a stage friendly comedy-musical. It also

demonstrates the use of video equipment and editing software to turn the play into

footage. It was then uploaded onto the Internet on their YouTube account, and heavily

promoted on their Facebook and Twitter social media platforms. The play can

therefore be accessed, as well as shared, from a variety of technologies with access to

the Internet, including laptops, computers, iPods, tablets, and mobile phones. Its

growing popularity quickly attracted the attention of Warner Brothers, who asked

Starkid to remove the videos. This is a clear example of a media conglomerate

attempting to impose their control of popular culture by claims of ownership and

copyright. The response of StarKid highlights the complexity of fandom and the

problems with characterizing fans as “grassroots” rebels (2006:2). This is due to

questions of power, which is unequally distributed between huge media organizations

and fans.

In the absence of where the “Harry Potter Musical” video once was, Starkid

posted an announcement to their YouTube. Co-founder Brian Holden explains,

We have decided to take the videos off the StarkidPotter channel, but only temporarily. Okay, guys? I know it’s bogus, but they’re going to be back. We’re going to re-post. At this point, Starkid were in negotiation with Warner Brothers, but the exact details

of their agreement for use of copyrighted materials are unknown. An on-screen

discussion between Brian Holden and Nick Lang creates the impression that Warner

Brothers agreed to let them re-post after they made some changes that the studio

would approve of.

Nick: Me and Brian are some of the writers on Bleep: The Musical Brian: Nick. You can’t say that!... we don’t want to title the show anything that’s lifted from the books. Nick also suggests “Hogwarts” and “Dumbledore’s Army” as titles, however both are

also bleeped out. When he asks if “Poop” is allowed, the camera pans to one of their

fellow cast members in a suit and sunglasses holding an overly large book with

“Law” written across the cover. He looks inside and then nods. It would appear

therefore that once they have changed the name of the show (as well as a few other

controversial elements) they have the studios permission to continue. Despite being in

the middle of a legal discussion with Warner Brothers, StarKid are still openly

mocking authority figures and the restrictions placed on their creativity. The members

of StarKid still do not to fit neatly into Jenkins model of the rebellious participant in

culture because they are in a compromised position with Warner Brothers and are still

powerless under the studio’s control. As this confrontation between Warner Brothers

and StarKid has taken place after the PotterWar campaign of Heather Lawver, it could

be argued that Warner Brothers have adapted their stance on fan-activity to

incorporate into their business model. “Over time, fandom has become a significant

source of extra revenue for production studios” (Gwenllian-Jones, 2006: 166), and

studios have therefore realized that fans are a lucrative demographic. It is more likely

that they recognize the potential marketing opportunity of this productions popularity.

StarKid were therefore given permission to repost. The show was re-titled A Very

Potter Musical and aired on YouTube for the second time in late June 2009.

Alongside the obvious use of copyrighted material, one can also assess a

number of other reasons why Warner Brothers may have been reluctant to let the play

exist. It poaches elements of the Harry Potter characters and plot and presents them in

different, potentially controversial, ways that deviate from the original JK Rowling

text. A white female with a deep south American accent playing the character Cho

Chang, whom is a Chinese girl in the series, whereas an Asian girl plays her best

friend Lavender Brown, provides comic inversion. A girl is cast in the role of Draco

Malfoy and he (she) has an overpowering infatuation with Hermione Granger, thus

instigating his (her) playground bullying. The Sorting Hat has been paired of with a

“Scarf of Sexual Preference” and Dumbledore’s character is unashamedly forthright

with his homosexuality. There is frequent swearing throughout the entire duration of

the play, and Harry Potter’s character is emphasized as being flawed with arrogance

and extreme self-absorption. Warner Brother has therefore lost control of its usually

child friendly material, and it has been subverted, without their permission, into adult

humor. These potential issues, when compared with the popularity and pull-power of

the show for young adults, did not succeed in stopping the play permanently. Jenkins

would argue that this is the power of the consumer against the studio (2006:268), but

the picture is more complicated than that.

Despite forgoing any legal action against StarKid, and seemingly hoping to

reap the marketing benefits of the show, Warner Brothers still possess significant

power over the small theatre group. Although the details are unknown, it would

appear as though Warner Brothers now has some legal claim over the material created

by Starkid. On July 9th 2012 Brian Holden posted this message onto the StarKidPotter

Facebook page,

SPECIAL BULLETIN REGARDING ILLEGAL PERFORMANCES OF STARKID SHOWS – Hello all! Many of you have brought to our attention lately that there are groups out there performing AVPM without our permission. And this is true! We have not given performance rights to any person or group for AVPM, AVPS, or HMB, and we won’t because that’s our agreement with WB (this message is brought to you by acronyms). There is an irony behind Starkid illegally using Warner Brothers material and their

recent warnings to their own fans not to do the same. They have shifted from the fan-

as-rebel (Jenkins, 1992) model, to fans with autonomous values and have now

become fans with economic imperative aligned with corporate media. They have

become a source of “official”, studio-approved fandom. As briefly aforementioned in

the previous chapter, Williamson provides a detailed case study of the official

ARVLFC, which is also aligned with corporate media. The ARVLFC is run by Anne

Rice’s own hired staff, whereas StarKid is run by the same group of friends. They

have merely become a component of the Warner Brothers machine. Williamson’s

argument of hierarchy applies significantly to StarKid. She notes that the,

Adoption of cultural values in the ‘official’ fan club… jar with the other vampire fans outside of the ‘official’ sphere… there is a conflict in attitudes between the official fans who police fandom in various ways and the unofficial fans… (2005:120).

The unofficial fans, who are fans of both Harry Potter and A Very Potter Musical but

not directly associated with StarKid, find themselves being policed and dictated to by

the StarKid team; who act as gatekeepers for Warner Brothers. Starkid recognize that

they could easily be confronted with legal issues if other fans used their (and therefore

Warner Brothers) material; therefore they seek to avoid this. Despite their ever-

increasing popularity within the Harry Potter fandom, Starkid still remain helpless

when compared with the power and influence of the film studio.

The opening sequence of A Very Potter Musical currently has over nine and

half million views, making it an extremely successful and popular online video. Due

to its success, it allowed the group the opportunity to continue producing musicals. In

2010, they returned with A Very Potter Sequel, which included much the same

character mockery and adult language. But the production was also sponsored by the

confectionary brand Red Vines, which they frequently (and obviously) alluded to

throughout. Warner Brothers is therefore not the only large company to recognize the

marketing potential of his small theatre group. The official Red Vines website

(http://www.redvines.com) devotes an entire page to Starkid. The opening line in their

description helps to encapsulate why they chose to support StarKid. They ask, “what

can be said about Team StarKid that their widely passionate, if not somewhat

obsessive fan base hasn’t already tweeted, tumbled and YouTube’d a million times.

(sic).” Despite using the language of pathologising fans like theorists of old, they

openly acknowledge that StarKid have a phenomenally large fan base for a theatre

group, therefore they are relying on the aforementioned stereotype of the fan who will

buy anything associated [to their fandom]” (Jenkins, 1992:10) to ensure continued

sales of their product. The fans that buy Red Vines simply because of its push from

StarKid seek to prove their loyalty to the group, and are therefore also seeking to raise

their standing in the hierarchy of the fandom over those who choose not to buy Red

Vines. However, this hierarchy and fandom continues to remain within the remit and

control of Warner Brothers and their economic influence.

In early 2012, the group created another spoof play called “Holy Musical

B@man!” The copyright of Batman is held by DC Comics, a subsidiary of Warner

Brothers. Therefore Starkid knew that they were safe to continue as they had the

ability to liaise with the studio for permission before going into production. The play

also aired on YouTube shortly before the world premiere of Batman: Dark Knight

Rises (Christopher Nolan, 2012), therefore serving as another source of marketing and

method of increasing the media and online hype surrounding the final film in this epic

and successful trilogy. This is a clear example of a film studio using the commercial

power of fans and their activities as a form of promotional potential.

As discussed in Chapter One, Harry Potter has a massive, global, and very

active fan base. In contrast, Team Starkid, since it’s posting of A Very Potter Musical,

has developed quite a comparably smaller, yet equally loyal cult fan base. Despite

being a significantly minor in comparison to the global phenomenon that is Harry

Potter, Team Starkid has over 204,000 likes on Facebook, 125,000 followers on

Twitter and 288,000 subscribers on YouTube, which is a truly impressive feat for a

group of friends making fan-works. Their success rests entirely on the continued and

dedicated support of their fan base. These fans re-watch the videos numerous times,

download the soundtrack and even purchase official Starkid t-shirts. Their fandom of

Harry Potter has since evolved into a fandom of the Starkid group. Mckee highlights

that, for Jenkins, “fans are relatively powerless because they cannot influence the

‘real’ text. But what if the texts that fans are producing are indeed regarded as part of

the real text?” (2004:181). For the fans of A Very Potter Musical, this play has

become an integral part of the Harry Potter experience, so much so that they search

for the similarities in acting and script between the films and play, whether intentional

or not. The knowledge of Starkid and A Very Potter Musical within the fandom of

Harry Potter is often used in an attempt to establish hierarchy. Those who are fans of

Starkid, and have been for multiple years, consider themselves elevated in said

hierarchy, believing that this knowledge is a form of cultural capital.

As a thank you to the dedication of their fans, StarKid appeared at the popular

Harry Potter fan convention in America known as LeakyCon in August 2012 with an

impromptu reunion of all TeamStarkid cast members. They performed a scripted read

through of a long-anticipated “threequel” to the series called A Very Potter Senior

Year. Despite being received with rapturous applause by their fans at the convention,

it was not posted to their YouTube site until late March 2013. The reason behind the

delay is unknown; perhaps it was to heighten the anticipation of their global fans who

were unable to attend the convention. However, it could also easily be that the group

was busy pursuing other activities. After every two or three uploaded scenes a video

advert plays. The adverts are a mixture of promotion for new and upcoming StarKid

productions, but also features multiple plugs for a new online audio book brand called

Audible. TeamStarkid have since begun to Tweet heavily about Audible, even

offering a “free audio book at http://www.audible.com/StarKid”. Similar to Red Vines

in A Very Potter Sequel, TeamStarkid have been successful in gaining corporate

sponsorship to aid them in their production costs, and said company recognizes the

marketing ability of targeting loyal fans.

Despite offering this read-through as a thank you to their fans, TeamStarkid

are not afraid to reference the practices of fandom. Hermione approaches Professor

Lockhart and declares her true passion for fan fiction. At these words, the crowd gives

a tumultuous roar in appreciation (despite her work being ironically about The

Hunger Games, a more recent and ever increasing fantasy fandom). She offers him

her work and Lockhart begins to read. After a few mere seconds he exclaims, “Ew!

Oh my God! Hermione this is absolutely depraved. I love it! … This makes Fifty

Shades of Grey look like a f**king book for kids.” Some may believe that this is a

mockery of fan behaviour; however being self-proclaimed fans themselves this is

essentially self-reflective awareness of their own fandom, activity and status. It is

therefore an insider’s celebration of their creativity.

The activities of fans and the creation of hierarchies within fandom is not a

new concept, as proven by comparison with Williamson’s work, and is prevalent in

all forms of fandom around the world. This chapter has demonstrated how fans are

more than merely just rebellious cultural figures seeking to poach copyrighted items,

they are creatively invested in the materials that they are fans of. This chapter has also

analyzed an example of how an autonomous fan group such as StarKid can become

enmeshed in the corporate culture and acts as their own personal gatekeepers; and

also is used as a marketing tool to target other fans.

Conclusion

Fandom is too broad a subject to explore it in its entirety on such a small scale.

Therefore, this thesis has merely attempted to gain an insight into some of the many

complexities that it has to offer. Through detailed case studies and examination of

existing academic material, it has sought to gain a comprehensive overview of online

activity as an expression of fan appreciation and activity, specifically focusing on

Harry Potter. In order to achieve this, it was important to briefly establish that

fandom was the result of three influences; the emergence of the modern celebrity

culture, the increase in, and availability of, mass media, and the improvement in

literacy in Western civilization.

The first chapter primarily focused on fan activity as a clash of what Fiske

describes as two contrasting and conflicting cultural values: autonomous and

economical. This was applied alongside the critical theories of Henry Jenkins, Milly

Williamson and Sara Gwenllian-Jones. This chapter highlighted how Jenkins

triumphs the activities of fandom as a form of resistance against corporate ownership,

choosing to overlook the potential conflicts that can contradict this utopian notion.

Williamson provides multiple case study examples that help her to justify her

argument against Jenkins. The official fandom of Anne Rice and the variety of ill

feelings amongst fans that this creates is used to emphasize the issue of hierarchy that

is arguably prevalent in fandom, but frequently overlook throughout Jenkins’

discussions of fandom. Gwenllian-Jones argues that fans do not seek to oppose or

resist against corporate ownership, they merely seek to imaginative engage with their

chosen fandom.

These theories are applied in this thesis through case studies of Claire Fields

and Heather Lawver. Both are young girls who merely sought to create web sites as

an innocent expression of their adoration of the Harry Potter world, and Warner

Brothers, who saw them as a threat to copyright, targeted both. This chapter used

Fields and Lawver to emphasize the restrictions placed upon fans by the power of

corporate media and copyright laws that have yet to catch up with the age of the

Internet. However this power can be challenged when it is backed by a significant

presence and disapproval within old media. These case studies also emphasize the

seeming inability of Warner Brothers to understand how to manage the activities of

their fans in a constructive and productive way. When compared with New Line and

their successful engagement with the fans of The Lord Of The Rings, Warner Brothers

appears to be somewhat litigious and old fashioned. However, following the

PotterWar campaign fashioned by Lawver, the studio has since made improved

attempts to liaise with and involve their fans.

Chapter two offered further understanding of the works of Jenkins, primarily

focusing on his notion of fans as purposely poaching copyrighted material in their

works. Fans seek to borrow from existing material, he argues, as a means to help fans

define themselves and find their own identity (1992:2). Williamson and Gwenllian-

Jones have again disputed this through their own interpretations. Team Starkid has

served as the case study of this chapter, providing an example of the loyalty of cult

fandom. The popularity of the group, and the faithfulness of their fans, is what

allowed Team Starkid an opportunity to negotiate with the otherwise all-powerful

Warner Brothers. Despite a serious breach in copyright, and a distortion of the

original child friendly material into adult humour, the studio was able to learn from its

mistakes in the past and recognize the marketing potential of the group. Once allowed

to re-release their original show, Starkid has had an ever-increasing popularity and

presence within the Harry Potter world, which has lead to a fandom entirely their

own. Team Starkid has therefore shifted from being the rebellious fans that Jenkins

triumphs, and become the bridge between studios and fans in an attempt to help

control copyright and, therefore, fan engagement. Warner Brothers is not alone in its

endeavour to use Team Starkid as a means of promotion. Red Vines, and now

Audible, have quickly taken up the opportunity to use their fans loyalty as a target

demographic and marketing tool.

Whilst it would be impossible to encapsulate the broad and diverse topic of

fandom in one small project, this thesis has successfully managed to discuss some of

the complexities of online fandom in regards to the Harry Potter franchise. Conflicts

of cultural values, the issue of copyright infringement and the diversity of fan

behaviour are all scrutinized through a variety of academic sources and fan-based

case studies.

Bibliography:

• Alberoni, Francesco, ‘The Powerless Elite: Theory and Sociological Research

on the Phenomenon of the Stars’ in Redmond, Sean & Holmes, Su (eds),

Stardom and Celebrity: A Reader, Sage Publications: London, 2007

• Abbott, Stacey (ed) The Cult TV Book, IB Tauris: London, 2010

• Arthur, Kasandra, “You, the Reader: An Interpretive Authority, Rowling, and

Her Fans” in Frankel, Valerie Estelle, Harry Potter Still Recruiting: An Inner

Look at Harry Potter Fandom, Zossima: Hamden, 2012

• Austin, Bruce A, ‘Portrait of a cult film audience: The Rocky Horror Picture

Show’ in Mathijs, Ernest and Mendik Xavier, The Cult Film Reader, Open

University Press: Maidenhead, 2009

• Bacon Smith, Camille, Enterprising Women: Television Fandom and the

Creation of Popular Myth, Pocket Books: New York, 1992

• Barbas, Samantha, Movie Crazy: Fans, Stars and the Cult of Celebrity,

Palgrave MacMillan: New York, 2001

• Barthes, Roland, Mythologies, Johnathan Cape: New York, 1957

• Bloom, Clive, Cult Fiction: Popular Reading and Pulp Theory, MacMillan

Press: London, 1996

• Bond, Ernest L. and Michelson, Nancy L. “Writing Harry’s World: Children

Co-Authoring Hogwarts” in Heilman, Elizabeth E. Critical Perspectives on

Harry Potter, Routledge: London 2009

• Brooker, Will, “A Sort of Homecoming: Fan Viewing and Symbolic

Pilgramage” in Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel and Lee Harrington, C.,

Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediate World, New York

University Press: London, 2007

• Cartmell, Deborah, Hunter, I.Q., Kaye, Heidi and Whelehan, Imelda (eds.)

Trash Aesthetics: Popular Culture and its Audiences, Pluto Press: London,

1997

• Cashmore, Ellis, Celebrity/Culture, Routledge: London, 2006

• De Certeau, Michel, The Practices of Everyday Life, University of California

Press: Berkeley, 1984

• deCordova, Richard, ‘The Emergence of the Star System’, in deCordova,

Richard (ed), Picture Personalities, University of Illinois Pres: Chicago, 2001

• Dombroksy, Seana, “’It All Ends Here’… or does it? Pottermore and the

Future of Fandom” in Frankel, Valerie Estelle, Harry Potter Still Recruiting:

An Inner Look at Harry Potter Fandom, Zossima: Hamden, 2012

• Dyer, Richard, Heavenly Bodies, Macmillan: London, 1987

• Dyer, Richard, Stars, BFI: London, 1998

• Fiske, John, “The Cultural Economy of Fandom” in Lewis, Lisa A. (ed), The

Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, Routledge: London, 1992

• Fiske, John, Television Culture (2nd ed), Routledge: London, 2001

• Frankel, Valerie Estelle, “Parodying Potter” in Frankel, Valerie Estelle, Harry

Potter Still Recruiting: An Inner Look at Harry Potter Fandom, Zossima:

Hamden, 2012

• Giles, David, Illusions of Immortality: A Psychology of Fame and Celebrity,

MacMillan Press: Basingstoke, 2000

• Grant, Abigail, “Harry Potter and a World of Words: Back to Basics in a Time

of Advance?” in Frankel, Valerie Estelle, Harry Potter Still Recruiting: An

Inner Look at Harry Potter Fandom, Zossima: Hamden, 2012

• Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel and Lee Harrington, C., Fandom:

Identitiues and Communities in a Mediate World, New York University Press:

London, 2007

• Gwenllian-Jones, Sara, ‘Web Wars: Resistance, Online Fandom and Studio

Censorship’ in Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James, Quality Popular

Television, BFI: London, 2006

• Harris, C. and Alexander, A. (eds.) Theorizing Fandom ***

• Hills, Matt, Fan Cultures, Routledge: London, 2002

• Hills, Matt, ‘Mainstream Cult’ in Abbott, Stacey (ed) The Cult TV Book, IB

Tauris: London, 2010 (1)

• Hills, Matt, ‘Subcultural Celebrity’ in Abbott, Stacey (ed) The Cult TV Book,

IB Tauris: London, 2010

• Hollows, Joanne and Jancovich, Mark (eds), Approaches to Popular Film,

Manchester University Press: Manchester, 1995

• Hunt, Nathan, “The Importance of Trivia: Ownership, exclusion and authority

in science fiction fandom” in Jancovich, Mark, Lazaro Reboll, Antonio,

Stringer Julian and Willis Andy (eds), Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural

Politics of Oppositional Taste, Manchester University Press: Manchester 2003

• Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James (eds), Quality Popular Television, BFI:

London, 2003 (1)

• Jancovich, Mark, Lazaro Reboll, Antonio, Stringer, Julian and Will, Andy

(eds), Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural Politics of Oppositional Taste,

Manchester University Press: Manchester 2003 (2)

• Jenkins, Henry, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture,

Routledge: London, 1992

• Jenkins, Henry, Convergence Culture, New York University Press: New York,

2006

• Jenkins, Henry, “Afterword: The Future of Fandom” in Gray, Jonathan,

Sandvoss, Cornel and Lee Harrington, C., Fandom: Identities and

Communities in a Mediate World, New York University Press: London, 2007

• Jenkins, Henry, “Cultural Acupuncture: Fan Activism and the Harry Potter

Alliance” in Frankel, Valerie Estelle, Harry Potter Still Recruiting: An Inner

Look at Harry Potter Fandom, Zossima: Hamden, 2012[1]

• Jenkins, Henry, “The Night of a Thousand Wizards” in Frankel, Valerie

Estelle, Harry Potter Still Recruiting: An Inner Look at Harry Potter Fandom,

Zossima: Hamden, 2012[2]

• Jenson, Joli, “Fandom as Pathology: The Consequences of Characterisation”

in Lewis, Lisa A. (ed), The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular

Media, Routledge: London, 1992

• Johnson, Derek, “Fantagonism: Factions, Institutions and Constitutive

Hegemonies of Fandom” in Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel and Lee

Harrington, C., Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediate World,

New York University Press: London, 2007

• Kirsner, Scott, Fans, Friends and Followers: Building an Audience and a

Creative Career in the Digital Age, Cinema Tech Books: **, 2009

• Mathijs, Ernest and Mendik Xavier, The Cult Film Reader, Open University

Press: Maidenhead, 2009

• Marshall, P. David (ed), Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary

Culture, University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, 1997

• Marshall, P. David (ed), The Celebrity Culture Reader, Routledge: London

2006

• McGuigan, Jim, Cultural Populism, Routledge: London, 1992

• Michaels, Scott and Evans, David, Rocky Horror: From Concept to Cult,

Sanctuary Publishing: London, 2002

• Nightingale, Virginia, Studying Audiences: The Shock of the Real, Routledge:

London, 1996

• Pearson, Roberta, “Bachies, Bardies, Trekkies and Sherlockians” in Gray,

Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel and Lee Harrington, C., Fandom: Identitiues and

Communities in a Mediate World, New York University Press: London, 2007

• Pullen, Kirsten, ‘The Lord of the Rings Online Blockbuster Fandom: Pleasure

and Commerce’ in Mathijs, Ernest, Popular Culture in Global Context: The

Lord of the Rings Phenomenon, Wallflower Press: London, 2006

• Richards, Denzell, ‘Cult TV and New Media’ in Abbott, Stacey (ed) The Cult

TV Book, IB Tauris: London, 2010

• Robson, Hillary, ‘Television and the Cult Audience’ in Abbott, Stacey (ed)

The Cult TV Book, IB Tauris: London, 2010

• Rojek, Chris, Celebrity, Realition Books: London 2001

• Sandvoss, Cornel, “The Death of the Reader?: Literary Theory and the Study

of Texts in Popular Culture” in Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel and Lee

Harrington, C., Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediate World,

New York University Press: London, 2007

• Scodari, Christine, “Yoki in Cyberspace with Beatles Fans: Gender and the re-

creation of Popular Mythology” in Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel and Lee

Harrington, C., Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediate World,

New York University Press: London, 2007

• Stacey, Jackie, Star-Gazing: Hollywood Cinema and Female Spectatorship,

Routledge: London, 1994

• Stevenson, Nick, ‘Audiences and Celebrity’ in Evans, Jessica &

Hesmondhalgh, David (eds), Understanding Media: Inside Celebrity, Open

University Press: Berkshire, 2005

• Thompson, Kristin, The Frodo Franchise: The Lord of the Rings and Modern

Hollywood, University of California Press: London, 2007

• Tushnet, Rebecca, “Copyright Law, Fan Practice, and the Rights of the

Author” in Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel and Lee Harrington, C. (eds),

Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, New York

University Press: London, 2007

• Williamson, Milly, The Lure of the Vampire: Gender, Fiction and Fandom

from Bram Stoker to Buffy, Wallflower Press: London, 2005

Journals:

• Mark Jancovich, “Cult Fictions: Cult Movies, Subcultural Capital and the

Production of Cultural Distinctions” in Cultural Studies, Vol. 16, Issue 2,

2002

• Sinnreich, Aram, “Come Together, Right Now: We Know Something’s

Happening, But We Don’t Know What it is.” In International Journal of

Communication 1, 2007

Online Sources:

• “An Announcement from StarKidPotter – 26-6-09”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bYariSUNgI

• A Very Potter Musical by Team Starkid,

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC76BE906C9D83A3A

• A Very Potter Sequel by Team Starkid

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL86C718AEE71C9DE9

• A Very Potter Senior Year by Team Starkid

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvep3WS9e8tRA_amclMNdVkVqNa

zfebXk

• Gilder Cooke, Sonia, ‘Pottermore Secrets Revealed: JK Rowling’s New Site is

E-Book Meets Interactive World” on Time website.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/23/pottermore-secrets-revealed-j-k-

rowling-new-site-is-e-book-meets-interactive-world/ 27/12/2012

• Grunier, Stephanie, “Warner Bros. claims Harry Potter sites” on ZDNet

website, http://www.zdnet.com/news/warner-bros-claims-harry-potter-

sites/96323 01/12/2012

• Harry Potter Alliance, http://www.thehpalliance.org/

• Holy Musical B@Man by Team Starkid,

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL96B8289ADF77A8C4

• Ingram, Mike, “AOL-Time Warner threatens children running Harry Potter

fan sites” on World Socialist website,

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/02/pott-f28.html?view=print

19/12/2012

• Kohn, Liberty, “Critical Essay – Harry Potter and the Neoliberal Hallows:

Copyright, Counterpublics and 2.0 Fan Faction” published on Technoculture

website, http://tcjournal.org/drupal/print/vol2/kohn 17/11/2012

• Perez, Beth, “A Very Potter Musical: on Teen Ink website,

http://www.teenink.com/reviews/all/article/206216/a-very-potter-musical/

03/12/2012

• “Pottermore by JK Rowling Press Relearse” Thursday 23 June 2011,

http://press.pottermore.com/launch/pottermore_presrelease_230611.pdf

27/12/2012

• Prophet Incorporated, http://www.prophet-inc.com 28/01/2013

• The One Ring fan website, http://www.theonering.net

• Red Vines website, http://www.redvines.com

• Tran, Diep, “A Very Potter Musical” on Celebrity Café website,

http://thecelebritycafe.com/movies/full_review/13320.html 03/12/2012

Filmography:

• Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The WB and UPN, 1997-2003

• Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone, film, Christopher Columbus (Dir.)

2001

• Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, film, Christopher Columbus (Dir.)

2002

• Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, film, Alfonso Cuaron (Dir.) 2004

• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, film, Mike Newell (Dir.) 2005

• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, film, David Yates (Dir.) 2007

• Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, film, David Yates (Dir.) 2009

• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One, film, David Yates (Dir.)

2010

• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two, film, David Yates (Dir.)

2011

• Jaws, film, Steven Spielberg (Dir). 1975

• The Rocky Horror Picture Show, film, Jim Sharman (Dir.) 1975

• Titanic, film, James Cameron (Dir.) 1997