|
|
Post by redmans on Jan 27, 2011 13:40:02 GMT -5
Does anybody here have more information about this: www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-4532-5This was listed in a catalog we get here at the Library. The description there says that "these essays represent the first full-length scholarly analysis of 'Mystery Science Theater 3000'" (although many people might say that it should be 250 pages of "Repeat to yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax" written over and over!) Tony (By the way, the catalog has a picture of the cover, but I'm at work and can't scan it. I'll try to do it later if anybody's interested.) |
|
|
|
Post by Skyroniter on Jan 27, 2011 17:16:10 GMT -5
I'm interested. Kinda pricey but sounds neat. Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skyroniter on Jan 27, 2011 17:17:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mrmeadows on Jan 27, 2011 23:29:50 GMT -5
I'm really interested in this, but wish I could read a couple of reviews before shelling out almost 40 bucks for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by continosbuckle on Jan 27, 2011 23:36:04 GMT -5
I'm really interested in this, but wish I could read a couple of reviews before shelling out almost 40 bucks for it. For a paperback, no less. I'm worried about the Amazon page, because that page makes it appear that the book has less to do with MST3k and more to do with the phenomenon it represents, that is about general riffing on other creations such that together, they transform into a new, totally distinct work of art. So you'll buy it and discover that less than 4% of the actual pages have anything to do with MST3k at all. |
|
|
|
Post by KyrieEleison on Jan 28, 2011 2:23:52 GMT -5
I submitted an abstract for that book, and wrote the piece, but he never got back to me so I could send it in. I thought the project was dead in the water. I could be a published author right now. Dangit.  Bitterness aside, I may still have to read this book. I can't speak to its contents now, but when he put out the call for papers, the book was going to be very MST-centered. My piece was all about how successful Forrester's plot was/could be, based on my own attempts to watch a full year of MST3K. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Jan 28, 2011 9:52:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by callipygias on Jan 28, 2011 10:58:55 GMT -5
These types of self-published works are all over the place now, and the price always seems way high; usually they amount to internet blogs or Wiki pages in print. Not to say they can't be interesting, but with a google search or two you can probably find the same stuff online.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsphyllistorgo on Jan 28, 2011 13:57:29 GMT -5
I'd have to be able to see a lot more before I shell out forty bones--I'm a bit worried that a few of these authors might be to anxious to be seen as "serious and scholarly" and overload their essays accordingly. Not that you can't take MST seriously, but humorless pendantry really doesn't fit well with a puppet show in outer space.
|
|
|
|
Post by redmans on Jan 28, 2011 16:34:52 GMT -5
For what it's worth, McFarland isn't a self-publishing outfit. They've published scholarly books for years. You'll probably find a bunch of them in your local library, especially if your library has a large pop culture section. Their works tend to be very specific and esoteric though, like "The Mexican Masked Wrestler and Monster Filmography" and "The Corn Was Green: The Inside Story of 'Hee Haw'". If the books weren't so expensive I might buy some of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skyroniter on Jan 29, 2011 10:41:12 GMT -5
These types of self-published works are all over the place now, and the price always seems way high; usually they amount to internet blogs or Wiki pages in print. Not to say they can't be interesting, but with a google search or two you can probably find the same stuff online. I noticed there are a number of MST books on Amazon that appear to be Wiki collections. Good awful pricing to boot. |
|
|
|
Post by callipygias on Jan 29, 2011 13:52:50 GMT -5
For what it's worth, McFarland isn't a self-publishing outfit. I guess you're right. I thought this had the reek of that type of thing but apparently I was wrong. Brought to you by the word Text. Use the word text--and its variants--often! For me, I can think of few better ways to ruin the show's humor and light-hearted feel than to read things like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Jan 29, 2011 13:59:03 GMT -5
Brought to you by the word Text. Use the word text--and its variants--often! For me, I can think of few better ways to ruin the show's humor and light-hearted feel than to read things like that. I just skimmed that one, but I agree in general - I like talking about the show, but I'm not a big fan of trying to subject it to scholarly analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by KyrieEleison on Jan 29, 2011 14:28:34 GMT -5
Yeah, it reminded me too much of some of the analysis papers I had to read in college. Use the world "intertextuality" and my brain turns off. I read it, but don't ask me to take a quiz on it.
If that's indicative of the rest of the book, then maybe my piece wouldn't have been picked for it after all - it's not particularly studious (I had enough of that in college), and rather light-hearted.
|
|
|
|
Post by fathermushroom on Jan 30, 2011 20:39:53 GMT -5
I do remember the call out for papers, about a year or two ago. The guy who put this together requested papers right in this board, if memory serves.
|
|
