which demon incapacitates fact-checkers?

I picked up a used copy of an amusing little book called The Psychology of Joss Whedon, which looks at psychological themes as played out in Whedon’s TV series and the film Serenity. Nothing earth-shattering – not that I expected it – but you’d think a book clearly catering to rampant geeks would recognize the need for scrupulous fact-checking…a need the publisher amusingly falls short on twice within a single page.

In an article called “Existentialism Meets Feminism in Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (the book occasionally seems to confuse philosophical questions with psychological ones…), authors C. Albert Bardi and Sherry Hamby rather trivially misidentify whose song Giles sings at the open mic club (it’s “Behind Blue Eyes” by the Who, of course – they think it’s a song by Eric Clapton) and then, rather amusingly, confuse the mad Renfield in Bram Stoker’s Dracula with the former Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist: “Every Dracula needs a Rehnquist…” they write.

Actually, I think a sitcom featuring Dracula and Justice Rehnquist would be kind of a blast: both were, after all, rather fashion-conscious, what with the Gilbert & Sullivan -inspired stripes Rehnquist infamously sewed to his judicial robes.



Filed under books, geek, TV

4 responses to “which demon incapacitates fact-checkers?

  1. PCarino

    Joss Whedon sidenote: I just watched Toy Story the other day, and noticed that Mr Whedon is one of the writers.

  2. yellojkt

    I’m reading a book called The Philosophy of Bruce Springsteen. I guess this is a niche under-employed academics can publish in.

  3. 2fs

    What counts for academics is publication in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals…so publishing in books like these doesn’t mean much for their careers. Most likely, they do it for fun…and also, it’s extremely likely that these books sell way better than any academic publication ever will. Not that academics can expect to make money with their writing. Not that non-academics can expect to make money with their writing…

  4. Anonymous

    Whoops…”The Who”! and double Whoops, Rehnquist instead of Renfield (that one’s pretty bad). 2fs is kind of correct, this “fun” writing is not a career builder, but it was a fun project for my wife, Dr. Hamby, and I to publish together. Especially since she has over 50 publications in family violence and I am a devoted teacher (and only sometime researcher).

    Interesting comments!

    C. Albert Bardi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s