Dear all,<\/p>\n
Here is a call for paper that we hope will interest you
\nA conference will be held at campus M\u00e9li\u00e8s, Cannes (a brand new campus devoted to cinema, sound, video games and more) on June 6 and 7, 2024.
\nPlease submit a 250-350 word proposal, along with a 100 word bio, to isabelle.licari-guillaume@univ-cotedazur.fr, karine.hildenbrand@univ-cotedazur.fr et nicolas.labarre@u-bordeaux-montaigne by Nov. 6th 2023.<\/p>\n
best<\/p>\n
Failures in print and audiovisual culture
\nOrganisation : Karine Hildenbrand (MCF, Universit\u00e9 C\u00f4te d\u2019Azur), Nicolas Labarre (PU, Universit\u00e9 Bordeaux Montaigne) et Isabelle Licari-Guillaume (MCF, Universit\u00e9 C\u00f4te d\u2019Azur).<\/p>\n
It is not uncommon to see failure romanticized as a low point that reveals one\u2019s true self\u2014confer J. K. Rowling (\u201cRock bottom became a solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life,\u201d she said in a 2008 speech at Harvard). In such cases, failure plays a role in the construction of the author\u2019s posture (Meizoz)\u2014it is a narrative conceit, the Campbellian ordeal before the final triumph that is the book itself. Yet what of the real failures? Those come in various forms, from the doomed projects that never find their audience to the supremely boring trash, amounting to nothing but \u201ca total waste of paper\u201d (Rokk), footage or pixels. We are interested in those books, comics, magazines, videogames, films or series that form the uncanonical, illegitimate refuse of modern culture.
\nFailure, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and in some cases failure is made spectacular by the intensity of the hype surrounding the works. In 1963 Cleopatra\u2019s shooting made headlines for all the wrong reasons: from the scandalous love affair between Taylor and Burton to a change in directors and cast members, the movie turned out to be the most expensive production at the time and nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox. Not only were viewers\u2019 expectations misled and reviews mixed, but it resulted in studios shying away from high-budget epics for a very long time. Twenty years after creating The Dark Knight Returns, one of the most canonical superhero narratives (Beaty and Woo, 57) Frank Miller returned to the character to write All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder (2005\u20132008), along with star artist Jim Lee. That endeavor proved disastrous on virtually all fronts (barring perhaps Lee\u2019s art), with one reviewer noting that the series \u201cjust spirals deeper and deeper into the abyss of unreadable\u201d, and the story was left unfinished. That high-profile failure nevertheless generated an infamouswork, memorable and to some readers pleasurable, precisely because of its inability to conform to expectations. In videogames, likewise, memorable failures abound, framed as redemption stories (No Man\u2019s Sky, Hello Games, 2016) or as cautionary tales (Anthem, Bioware, 2019).
\nIn a culture where ratings are everywhere, there is something touching about outstanding failures; when a book, magazine or comic leaves the tepid realm of the mediocre in order to enter the select circle of absolute trash. In cinema, such works have come to form a subcultural canon of their own, from Z-movies to films so-bad-they\u2019re-good and are celebrated, among others, by the Razzie Awards. Similar trends exist in print culture, one prime example being the Bad Sex Awards, which celebrates resounding failures of good taste in erotic scenes.
\nSome commercial failures have to do not with the contents of the work itself, but with the context within which it was published. In 2007, DC comics launched Minx, an imprint aimed at teenage girls that sought to provide them with an alternative to manga. At its helm were Karen Berger and Shelly Bond, two successful editors with impeccable credentials. Yet the Minx books were a resounding failure. The postmortem revealed that they had been shelved under \u201ccomics\u201d rather than \u201cyoung adult\u201d and thus failed to reach their readers. This goes to show that distribution, promotion, and marketing models play a vital role in the success or failure of books and magazines. Moreover, Howard Becker\u2019s work has shown how the various people involved in making a film can have diverse and even contradictory goals, which explains why \u201cmovies are so much worse than they need be for strictly commercial reasons.\u201d (89)
\nYet commercial failure does not necessarily prevent works from becoming critically successful in the long run. The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) attracted very small audiences and prompted bad reviews before becoming a cult performance and the longest-running release in film history. Plan 9 from Outer Space (1957) went relatively unnoticed before being labeled the \u201cworst film ever made\u201d by Harry and Michael Medved and being acclaimed as best worst movie. Tim Burton\u2019s tribute to its director, Ed Wood (1994) contributed to the movie\u2019s fame.
\nWe invite contributions exploring the role of failure in anglophone print and audiovisual culture, including comics, children\u2019s books, magazines, novels, videogames, films and series. In particular, we would like to explore the many ways in which failure and canonicity are not mutually exclusive, if only because failure, no less than the canon, is a discursive and highly contingent notion. We also welcome submissions discussing such failures from a transnational perspective.<\/p>\n
Suggested topics of inquiry include:
\n\u2013 Trying hard to fail: What distinguishes mere mediocrities from utter failures? What thresholds does a work need to cross to be identified as the latter, and how are these thresholds discursively created and maintained?
\n\u2013 Learning from failure: how do publishers\u2019 or producers\u2019 narratives account for failures, and how do these failures affect later decisions? Is this learning process similar to the ones undergone by the creators themselves? Do readers and viewers themselves learn from failures?
\n\u2013 The pleasure of failure: why is it that we enjoy reading or viewing failed narratives? Does failure have value for creators? To what extent can we regard \u201ccult\u201d works as failures?
\n\u2013 Failure and trash: while the two notions harbour similarities, not all trashy works are failures on their own terms or for their intended audience. Even disreputable and \u201ctrashy\u201d genres, such as horror or pornography, have their successes and failures.
\n\u2013 In the wrong place at the wrong time: can bad commercial strategies undermine the success of good works? In what cases does commercial failure become a badge of honour, and what are the mechanisms enabling the dissociation of aesthetic success and commercial failure?
\n\u2013 Doomed to failure: are some characters, genres, themes and audiences more likely to fail than others? How can we explain the existence of the aforementioned Bad Sex award in literature, while no such prize exists for Bad Driving Scene or even Bad Scientific Explanation, for instance? Can invariants be identified in the Razzie Awards for worst picture?<\/p>\n
Please submit a 250-350 word proposal, along with a 100 word bio, to isabelle.licari-guillaume@univ-cotedazur.fr, karine.hildenbrand@univ-cotedazur.fr et nicolas.labarre@u-bordeaux-montaigne by Nov. 6th 2023.<\/p>\n
L\u2019\u00e9chec dans la culture imprim\u00e9e et audiovisuelle anglophone
\nOrganisation : Karine Hildenbrand (MCF, Universit\u00e9 C\u00f4te d\u2019Azur), Nicolas Labarre (PU, Universit\u00e9 Bordeaux Montaigne) et Isabelle Licari-Guillaume (MCF, Universit\u00e9 C\u00f4te d\u2019Azur).
\nIl n\u2019est pas rare que l\u2019\u00e9chec soit pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 sous un jour positif, comme une forme d\u2019\u00e9preuve permettant aux auteurs de se comprendre mieux\u2009; J.K. Rowling, dans un discours \u00e0 Harvard en 2008, affirmait que c\u2019est apr\u00e8s avoir touch\u00e9 le fond qu\u2019elle avait pu se reconstruire. Dans ces cas, l\u2019\u00e9chec joue un r\u00f4le dans la construction de la posture de l\u2019auteur (Meizoz) et s\u2019int\u00e8gre dans un r\u00e9cit : il est l\u2019\u00e9preuve campbellienne avant le triomphe final que constitue le livre. Mais qu\u2019en est-il des v\u00e9ritables \u00e9checs\u2009sous toutes leurs formes, depuis les projets maudits incapables de trouver leur public, jusqu\u2019aux productions ennuyeuses et m\u00e9diocres, dont il ne reste qu\u2019un \u00ab\u2009g\u00e2chis de papier\u2009\u00bb (Rokk) ou d\u2019images ? Nous nous int\u00e9ressons \u00e0 ces livres, bandes dessin\u00e9es, magazines, jeux vid\u00e9o, films ou s\u00e9ries qui constituent les rebuts ill\u00e9gitimes et d\u00e9class\u00e9s de la culture moderne.
\nL\u2019\u00e9chec, comme la beaut\u00e9, a une dimension subjective, et dans certains cas, c\u2019est l\u2019intensit\u00e9 du battage m\u00e9diatique autour des \u0153uvres qui produit ce sentiment. La presse avait fait ses choux gras du tournage de Cl\u00e9op\u00e2tre (1963) de l\u2019histoire d\u2019amour scandaleuse entre Taylor et Burton jusqu\u2019aux changements de r\u00e9alisateurs et d\u2019acteurs ; le film, la production la plus co\u00fbteuse de l\u2019\u00e9poque, a quasi ruin\u00e9 la 20th Century Fox. Les attentes des spectateurs ont \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9\u00e7ues, les critiques mitig\u00e9es, et les studios se sont d\u00e9tourn\u00e9s des films \u00e9piques \u00e0 gros budget. Vingt ans apr\u00e8s avoir cr\u00e9\u00e9 The Dark Knight Returns, l\u2019un des r\u00e9cits de superh\u00e9ros les plus canoniques (Beaty et Woo, 57), Frank Miller est revenu au personnage pour \u00e9crire All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder (2005-2008), avec le dessinateur vedette Jim Lee. Le projet s\u2019est r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9 d\u00e9sastreux sur pratiquement tous les fronts (\u00e0 l\u2019exception peut-\u00eatre des dessins de Lee), et la s\u00e9rie, jug\u00e9e \u00ab\u2009illisible\u2009\u00bb par la critique, est rest\u00e9e inachev\u00e9e. Cet \u00e9chec retentissant a n\u00e9anmoins donn\u00e9 naissance \u00e0 une \u0153uvre tristement c\u00e9l\u00e8bre \u2014 infamous \u2014 m\u00e9morable et, m\u00eame plaisante pour certains lecteurs, pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment en raison de son incapacit\u00e9 \u00e0 se conformer aux attentes. Les jeux vid\u00e9o offrent eux aussi leur lot d\u2019\u00e9checs m\u00e9morables, servant tant\u00f4t de mise en garde contre les tendances du secteur (Anthem, Bioware, 2019), tant\u00f4t de point de d\u00e9part \u00e0 un r\u00e9cit de r\u00e9demption (No Man\u2019s Sky, Hello Games, 2016).
\nDans une culture o\u00f9 l\u2019\u00e9valuation est omnipr\u00e9sente, les \u00e9checs exceptionnels ont quelque chose de touchant\u2009; lorsqu\u2019un livre, un magazine ou une bande dessin\u00e9e quitte les eaux ti\u00e8des du m\u00e9diocre pour entrer dans le cercle ferm\u00e9 des v\u00e9ritables catastrophes. Au cin\u00e9ma, ces \u0153uvres en sont venues \u00e0 former un canon sous-culturel \u00e0 part enti\u00e8re, celui des films Z, des nanars, du camp, avec ses propres rituels, comme les Razzie Awards. Des tendances similaires existent dans la culture de l\u2019\u00e9crit : les Bad Sex Awards c\u00e9l\u00e8brent ainsi les manquements au bon go\u00fbt les plus retentissants dans les sc\u00e8nes \u00e9rotiques de roman.
\nCertains \u00e9checs commerciaux ne sont pas imputables au contenu de l\u2019\u0153uvre elle-m\u00eame, mais au contexte dans lequel elle a \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9e. En 2007, DC comics lance Minx, une collection destin\u00e9e aux adolescentes et visant \u00e0 leur offrir une alternative aux mangas, nommant \u00e0 sa t\u00eate Karen Berger et Shelly Bond, deux \u00e9ditrices \u00e0 succ\u00e8s aux r\u00e9f\u00e9rences irr\u00e9prochables. Pourtant, les livres Minx ont \u00e9t\u00e9 un \u00e9chec retentissant. Les analyses a posteriori ont r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9 que de nombreuses librairies les avaient rang\u00e9 dans la cat\u00e9gorie \u00ab\u2009bandes dessin\u00e9es\u2009\u00bb plut\u00f4t qu\u2019au rayon \u00ab\u2009jeunes adultes\u2009\u00bb fr\u00e9quent\u00e9 par leur public cible. Les mod\u00e8les de distribution, de promotion et de marketing jouent bien un r\u00f4le essentiel dans le succ\u00e8s ou l\u2019\u00e9chec des livres et des magazines. En outre, Howard Becker a montr\u00e9 que les diff\u00e9rents acteurs impliqu\u00e9s dans la cr\u00e9ation d\u2019un film peuvent avoir des objectifs divers et m\u00eame contradictoires, qui permet de comprendre comment \u00ab des films atteignent un degr\u00e9 de m\u00e9diocrit\u00e9 qu’aucune consid\u00e9ration strictement commerciale ne peut justifier seule \u00bb (p. 108).
\nParall\u00e8lement, l\u2019\u00e9chec commercial n\u2019emp\u00eache pas certaines \u0153uvres de conna\u00eetre un succ\u00e8s critique ou populaire \u00e0 long terme. L\u2019accueil public et critique mitig\u00e9 du Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) ne l\u2019a pas emp\u00each\u00e9 de devenir un film culte, avec la plus longue dur\u00e9e d\u2019exploitation continue de l\u2019histoire du cin\u00e9ma. Plan 9 from Outer Space (1957) est pass\u00e9 relativement inaper\u00e7u avant d\u2019\u00eatre qualifi\u00e9 de \u00ab\u2009pire film jamais r\u00e9alis\u00e9\u2009\u00bb par Harry et Michael Medved, gagnant le statut de meilleur pire film de tous les temps. L\u2019hommage de Tim Burton \u00e0 son r\u00e9alisateur, Ed Wood (1994), contribua \u00e0 la renomm\u00e9e du film.
\nNous invitons des propositions interrogeant le r\u00f4le de l\u2019\u00e9chec dans la culture imprim\u00e9e et audiovisuelle anglophone, notamment les bandes dessin\u00e9es, les livres pour enfants, les magazines, les romans, les jeux vid\u00e9o, les films et les s\u00e9ries. En particulier, nous aimerions explorer les nombreuses fa\u00e7ons dont l\u2019\u00e9chec et la canonicit\u00e9 ne s\u2019excluent pas mutuellement, ne serait-ce que parce que l\u2019\u00e9chec, tout comme le canon, est une notion discursive et hautement contingente. Nous accueillerons \u00e9galement avec plaisir les contributions qui abordent ces \u00e9checs d\u2019un point de vue transnational.
\nNous proposons les axes de r\u00e9flexion suivants :
\n\u00b7 De la difficult\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9chouer : Qu\u2019est-ce qui distingue les simples m\u00e9diocrit\u00e9s des \u00e9checs complets\u2009? Quels seuils une \u0153uvre doit-elle franchir pour \u00eatre identifi\u00e9e comme un \u00e9chec, et comment ces seuils sont-ils discursivement cr\u00e9\u00e9s et maintenus\u2009?
\n\u00b7 Apprendre de l\u2019\u00e9chec : comment les r\u00e9cits des \u00e9diteurs ou des producteurs rendent-ils compte des \u00e9checs et comment ces \u00e9checs affectent-ils les d\u00e9cisions ult\u00e9rieures\u2009? Ce processus d\u2019apprentissage est-il le m\u00eame pour les auteurs\u2009? Les lecteurs et les spectateurs apprennent-ils eux-m\u00eames des \u00e9checs\u2009?
\n\u00b7 Le plaisir de l\u2019\u00e9chec : pourquoi aimons-nous lire ou regarder des r\u00e9cits d\u2019\u00e9chec\u2009? L\u2019\u00e9chec a-t-il une valeur pour les cr\u00e9ateurs\u2009? Dans quelle mesure pouvons-nous consid\u00e9rer les \u0153uvres \u00ab\u2009cultes\u2009\u00bb comme des \u00e9checs\u2009?
\n\u00b7 \u00c9chec et trash : si les deux notions pr\u00e9sentent des similitudes, toutes les \u0153uvres trash ne sont pas des \u00e9checs en soi ou pour le public auquel elles sont destin\u00e9es. M\u00eame les genres peu recommandables et \u00ab\u2009trash\u2009\u00bb, tels que l\u2019horreur ou la pornographie, rec\u00e8lent des succ\u00e8s et des \u00e9checs.
\n\u00b7 Au mauvais endroit, au mauvais moment : de mauvaises strat\u00e9gies commerciales peuvent-elles compromettre le succ\u00e8s de bonnes \u0153uvres\u2009? Dans quels cas l\u2019\u00e9chec commercial contribue-t-il \u00e0 la r\u00e9putation de l\u2019\u0153uvre et quels sont les m\u00e9canismes qui permettent de dissocier le succ\u00e8s esth\u00e9tique de l\u2019\u00e9chec commercial\u2009?
\n\u00b7 Vou\u00e9s \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9chec : certains personnages, genres, th\u00e8mes et publics sont-ils plus susceptibles d\u2019\u00e9chouer que d\u2019autres\u2009? Comment expliquer l\u2019existence des Bad Sex Awards en litt\u00e9rature, alors qu\u2019il n\u2019existe pas de prix similaire pour la plus mauvaise explication scientifique, par exemple\u2009? Peut-on identifier des invariants dans les Razzie Awards r\u00e9compensant le pire film d\u2019une ann\u00e9e donn\u00e9e\u2009?
\nLes propositions de communication, d\u2019une longueur d\u2019environ 300 mots, sont \u00e0 transmettre \u00e0 isabelle.licari-guillaume@univ-cotedazur.fr, karine.hildenbrand@univ-cotedazur.fr et nicolas.labarre@u-bordeaux-montaigne au plus tard le 6 nov. 2023, accompagn\u00e9es d\u2019une notice bio-bibliographique.<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Beaty, Bart, and Benjamin Woo. The Greatest Comic Book of All Time: Symbolic Capital and the Field of American Comic Books. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
\nBecker, Howard S. Art Worlds. Berkeley; Los Angeles : University of California Press, 1982.
\nBecker, Howard S. Les Mondes de l\u2019Art. Paris : Flammarion, 1988.
\nCartmell, I. Q. Hunter, H. Kaye, & I. Whelehan (Eds.), Trash Aesthetics: Popular Culture and its Audience. Film\/Fiction 2. London : Pluto, 1997.
\nGlynn, Kevin. Tabloid Culture: Trash Taste, Popular Power, and the Transformation of American Television. Durham : Duke UP, 2000.
\nMeizoz, J\u00e9r\u00f4me. Postures litt\u00e9raires. 1 : mises en sc\u00e8ne moderne de l\u2019auteur : essai. Gen\u00e8ve : Slatkine, 2007.
\nRokk. \u00ab\u2009Comic Book Review: Countdown to Final Crisis #23\u2009\u00bb. Comic Book Revolution, Nov. 23, 2007. https:\/\/www.comicbookrevolution.com\/comic-book-review-countdown-23\/<\/a>
\nWitek, Joseph. \u00ab\u2009If a Way to the Better There Be: Excellence, Mere Competence, and The Worst Comics Ever Made.\u2009\u00bb Image [&] Narrative 17, no. 4 : 2016.<\/p>\n