{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02825278810408922, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008921933085501859, 'mean_word_length': 5.37914691943128, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Biographical Television Drama

author’s own original arguments. Moreover, questions remain regarding the method used for selecting specific vids within the study. In the Conclusion, Stevens argues ‘I chose to use examples that resonate as exemplars based on my long experience in fandom’ (p. 222). However, the subcultural histories motivating inclusion, and the researcher’s embedded identity within these, are not reflected on in, for instance, an autoethnographic manner. This absence led me to question why individual vids had been chosen. For example, Chapter 6 focuses solely on three vids dedicated to the character of Starbuck in the mid-00s Battlestar Galactica, (2004-09), and I was left wondering why this trilogy had been chosen: were they exemplary of historical themes, styles, or aesthetics in vidding? How representative of vidding were these? The lack of reflexivity afforded to the sample is problematic as it raises questions concerning both representativeness and rigour and undermines confidence in how generalizable the arguments are. These are questions that, beyond this individual study, fan studies must continue to defend itself against if it is to gain legitimacy in the face of dismissals of the field as being methodologically based in ‘personal preference’ rather than objectively verifiable criteria.