Reading Serial Killer Fanfiction: What’s Fannish about It?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. I found it an original and engaging piece of writing that examines the textual and cultural qualities of fanfic focused on serial killers, an unusual topic in fan studies that deserves more study. On the whole, I support publication, although there are some minor tweaks and one more major idea that I think could be integrated before it is ready for publication.

The major idea that I’d like to float is to reflect on the difference between fandom of serial killers and fandom of true crime. In my read of the author’s examples here, the authors of the fanfic are writing fanfic about Bundy but doing it in a way that reflects true crime sensibilities: the end of the article focuses on this connection but I think the article would be stronger if that was foregrounded at the start and used as a clear connection throughout. The article starts with a more vague “why is this happening?” questioning, but I think a stronger thesis statement and a more direct articulation of the finding would be relevant and helpful.

Along those lines, I wonder if it might be more useful to phrase the larger themes of this article as less an analysis of fandom of serial killers and more like, “what do we learn if use fan studies methods to analyze serial killer culture”? This would then be able to factor in serial killer media (factual and fictional) as a spectrum of elements within a larger industrial framework.

I also wondered about the range of serial killers written about. Ted Bundy, as mentioned, is a celebrity serial killer – but we rarely see fanfic of (say) a racial lynching or transphobic killing. I’m not sure what to make of that, but even though this is taboo, it isn’t the most taboo there could be. (Maybe there is some on extreme rightwing/nazi websites but don’t want to visit there!)

Some of the minor points come out in various paragraphs/lines, so I’ll summarize here:

• The first paragraph uses a lot of vague language and assertaions that could be tightened up: “it is now well established” (by whom?); “the figure of the fan has been sufficiently mainstreamed” (sufficient by whose standard?); “no particular stigma remains attached” (I think that’s debatable depending on the fandom, the community, the practice, etc.); “select ways of being a fan” (or of the type of fandom). The whole paragraph reads as a lit review lite.
• Paragraph 2 – I feel like the author could reflect on some writing about toxic fandoms (Jones 2018, Pande 2019, Williams and Bennett, eds 2021)
• 2 lines 61-69: the questions here are phrased as a dichotomy – is it one or the other? – but it seems like there may be more of a spectrum rather than a binary. Could it be both?
• As mentioned above, a stronger thesis on p. 2 lines 77-82 would be helpful
• Line 116 – what did they mean “not a fanfiction”?
• Lines 131-133: how do “writers know that most fans…”?
• Lines 144-145 would usefully come earlier in the introduction
• Lines 182-184 some writing issues here
• Line 188 missing “wall”
• Line 194 errant t
• Lines 227-237 are these ongoing or unfinished?
• Lines 321-324 explore this “exchange between … texts” more
• Lines 390-394 perhaps she is making fun of fandom itself?
• Lines 395-405 don’t need the block quote
• Missing “4. Conclusion” section
• Line 493 missing citation
• Lines 498 missing citation

Author Response

Thank you very much for your helpful comments.

- I have changed the expression at the beginning to be clearer that by applying fan studies methodology, I argue that the fanfic is not qualitatively different from true crime professional media. I did intend to convey this at the outset but perhaps was not clear enough.

• I agree that whilst this is 'dark fndom', one can certainly 'go darker' - Eliot Rodgers has a semi-ironic online fandom, though I have not seen any fanfic to date. However I have decided to focus my initial research on serial killers who are bonafide celebrities.
• I added more references to paragraph 1 and rephrased some sentences
• I don't feel that a discussion of toxic fandom is within the bounds of this article but I did acknowledge it
• I addressed the minor points in the bullets 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a valuable contribution, not only to the consideration of RPF fiction, and the under-examined area of serial killer RPF in particular, but also to broader questions about the contemporary true crime content glut. The article raises a number of pertinent questions about what makes someone a true crime “fan” versus someone with an interest in true crime, and about what, exactly, fan fiction is when we are also saturated with “properly” produced and culturally sanctioned “based on a true story” content. There are also valuable points here about the mainstreaming of fandom, and what taboos fandom will intervene into when “fandom” becomes normalized behavior for cultural consumption (particularly relevant to the topic of the special issue at hand). I’m reminded of the backlash in the Yuletide fic exchange community several years ago when Columbine RPF was a nominated fandom, or World War II RPF was nominated in order to request fic about prominent Nazis, which led to a rule change about what is “acceptable” RPF in the exchange (including banning fic about Nazis, 20th and 21st century killers, and Donald Trump). Interrogating these points about what is an “acceptable” way of treating these subjects, the distinctions between the feminized/amateur nature of fandom and mainstream mode of production texts, and what is an “acceptable” subject of fan content creation enables this article to make multiple valuable contributions to the field.

Some proof reading corrections and suggestions for minor revisions:

Page 1, line 46 - I would recommend removing the ellipsis from the end of the parenthetical. This is a great point, and it feels like the ellipsis somewhat undercuts it.

Page 2, line 60 - missing word in "or is the same process": should it be "is it the same process" or "is this the same process"?

Page 2, line 66 - missing word(s) "Of course, does not call itself fanfiction": "Of course, the film does not call itself fanfiction"?

Page 2, line 66 - missing word "have considered the director Extremely Wicked". Citations for the critics referred to may be useful here. 

Page 2, line 70 - "on mainstream media" - would "in mainstream media" work better?

Page 2, line 75 – “is literally cultural respectable” – culturally.

Page 3, line 104 – has AO3 been written here with a zero rather than the letter O? This appears to be happening throughout the article.

The structure of the section “On RPF” could be revised: it signposts the structure that the article will take, but takes tangents into elements of the research such as methodology while laying out that structure. It subsequently sets out its research methodology before getting into the literature review of scholarly work on RPF, therefore circumventing what has been signposted. Perhaps this could be rectified with some rephrasing of the signposting.

Page 3, line 137 – “confronts evades” – missing an “and” or an “or” or a comma here?

Page 3, line 194 – typo: “than the t of biopics”

Page 6, line 272 – “policesearch” as one word – may need a [sic] if this is verbatim from the author notes on the fic.

Page 7, quote from lines 309-311 – perhaps the Eminem/”Mom’s Spaghetti” meme reference should be explained to further contextualize the “futuristic references” the author interjects, just in case the reader isn’t familiar with it and doesn’t pick up on it. It helps reinforce the point about the metalepsis in the fic.

Page 9, lines 374-375 – Unfinished sentence/sentence fragment: “Yet this is what the short instalments, which feature not only Ted Bundy but 374 other murderers such as Richard Ramirez and Jeffrey Dahmer.”

Page 9, lines 395-405 – Possible formatting error?

Page 11, lines 466-477 – Missing word? “this story puts less in a position of empathy with a murderer”

Page 11, line 493 – empty parenthesis

Author Response

Thank you very much for your helpful review. I have addressed the minor errors and the rephrased the heading on the RPF section.