Talk:Starsky & Hutch

I've just deleted the Starsky/Hutch subpage here as it was just a duplicate of the main parent page (see discussion here: Talk:Starsky & Hutch/Starsky/Hutch. I reckon put the Starsky/Hutch stuff under a heading on the main Starsky & Hutch page; if it gets big or you think it needs a page of its own, then create one in the main namespace: Starsky/Hutch. Soon we will have a pairings category! Thanks. --Hope 10:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Re the deletion of Kimberly's meta essay - I think I see what the editor may be getting at. However, rather than deleting, we should include the differing point of view below the essay as part of Fanlore's Plural Point of View. I'll take a stab at summarizing the differing point of view, but edits/additions would be welcomed.--MeeDee (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is definitely a time for PPOV. Fourth season is a major discussion topic in the fandom, and that's worth talking about here, but there are a number of different interpretations of it, and I don't think Kimberly's is even the most common; it shouldn't be the only thing in the section. --Greenygal (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As the editor who originally put it there a number of years ago, I concur. I probably meant to find other examples, but got distracted; it's a big page! More points of view is always good! I may make a page just for Kimberly's essay, as I find it very interesting. The main article could link to it and to other fan meta about the fourth season. --MPH (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

MPH I like your idea of doing a seperate essay for kimberly with links to other fan meta. I am behind on projects and that may be the faster fix.--MeeDee (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I created a page for this meta and linked to it from this page. --MPH (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have suggestions for new related pages, in the vein of The Hutchinson Finger and Hutch's Mustache? I was reading through the page on The Sentinel and was struck by the several sweet and nicely fleshed out fanon pages like "Blairscent" and "Blair's Compromised Lungs" -- so, for example, perhaps a page on Starsky's fanonical involvement in Vietnam or something and how one tiny reference in canon led to a near-unanimous and significant backstory for him -- the rule of drama/angst, the freshness of the memory of the Vietnam War in fans' minds during the fandom's formative years? I was thinking of a few different points, 1) fanfic depictions of how it influenced his character as we see it in the show (I recall a striking passage from the story The Thousandth Man on the subject); 2) how the war is often used by slash writers to allow Starsky to have previous homosexual experiences in a context that wouldn't be OOC for him, and 3) how some very early works (Teri White's stories, and "Bomb Scare") had Hutch in Vietnam too, but this became pretty much nonexistent later. Good idea? Dumb idea? --Lesson foamy (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that Starsky's army mention would make for a very interesting page, perhaps titled Starsky's Military Background. You're right, that sparse mention spawned a very powerful fanon. With the Vietnam conflict really, really fresh in people's minds, the mention in the show would have rung different bell's in peoples' brains then. All three of your points could be sections on that page, with fiction and other fanworks to illustrate. Excellent idea, Lesson foamy. --MPH (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The Hutch half of that fanon has become so prevalent that this short fic was labeled AU because it has Hutch in Vietnam. --Greenygal (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting idea. I also recommend a link to the military/Vietnam section on the ever-helpful Tagging Bay City. --Valjean (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I started Starsky's Military Background. It needs a lot of work, including fanworks examples and analysis. The name of the page can easily be changed, if folks think a different one would be better. --MPH (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the move towards having a broader range of fan art and think we should have even more samples with different styles by different artists. More color art would be good as well. I'd like to restore the two deleted drawings as their style is unique, shows different techniques and may be the only place the images appear so they were most likely chosen for a specific purpose (as opposed to simply document zine covers.--MeeDee (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I wasn't sure if more than two rows of fanart in the gallery would be too much for a "sample", but I guess that given how much S&H fanart there is, what with the fandom's long history, some more art in the gallery would be good.Lesson foamy (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I found spots for the drawings on other pages - I like to make certain that if we remove images from one page that we're not removing them from the wiki entirely. I'll poke around and see if we can find more examples of different art styles. SH tends to be very portrait focused and because much of it appeared in early zines tends to be black and white, but I think we can offer some diversity. Additional commentary as to why the drawing has been selected (like you've been ding) is also helpful.--MeeDee (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I added more examples (mainly color art from the later years) along with commentary. I think we have room fora few more images - possibly from before 2000 to showcase other artists and more styles.--MeeDee (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Great job! I think your added commentary will be especially interesting for newer fans who are unfamiliar with the history. For more images, I guess there's no hurry -- whoever's watching this page can take their time meandering around to find a good range of different representative selections (it is sort of hard to hold oneself back from just spamming the gallery with Faddis and Lovett) ;) --Lesson foamy (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I recently ran across a fascinating essay via fandomsecrets. One of a my fellow frequenters of that comm, a young fan in her 20s I believe, posted a really meaty reflection about buying a copy of the zine "Zebra Three" with reviews of the stories. She mentions fanlore a lot, and has some really interesting observations in it, I thought we could quote some parts of it in the page for Zebra Three, and perhaps in the hurt/comfort page too, or some section of the Starsky & Hutch main page. If her speculation about fanon in "Bomb Scare" is legit, that would be a great piece to quote in the page on fanon. As far as I can tell, the 'young fan looking at older fandom practices' perspective is pretty unique, do we have a page for things like that? http://intrigueing.dreamwidth.org/1876.html Valjean (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheeee! This is super. Thanks for linking to it. There's all sorts of fabulous stuff. Some places to link it: fanon, hurt/comfort, S and H's experiences in Vietnam, the Bomb Scare and the Mojave Cross page, the Zebra Three page, and probably other stuff. --MPH (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems great! I added some clarifications about the time period of this essay to your additions in those pages. The excerpts are rather long though...is that SOP for quoting long reviews here? Just wondering. Valjean (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions. The excerpts do feel a bit long. Any ideas how to shorten them up, by say, a third? I tried and gave up when I wanted all the words. I'll gird up my loins and try again. --MPH (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps paraphrase the topic the writer of the review was talking about in normal text, then quote just a couple of paragraphs from the review? Maybe make a new fanlore page for the complete review to include everything? I can probably take a crack at editing them down tomorrow. --Valjean (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. You shorten them up. And I'll make a page for the whole commentary, and we can add a links to it. --MPH (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)