Not

 So  Secret  Cinema:  When  Independent  Immersive  Cinematic  Events  Go  Mainstream  

Sarah  Atkinson  &  Helen  Kennedy  

Paper  presented  at  SCMS  conference,  Fairmont  Queen  Elizabeth,  Montreal,  QC,  Canada,  28th  March  

2015  

The  work  that  we’re  presenting  today  originates  as  part  of    a  wider  project  about  immersive  and  

experiential  cinema;  -­‐  today’s  focus  is  upon  one  particular  instance  of  immersive  cinema  –  the  UK-­‐

based  organization  Secret  Cinema’s  recent  Back  to  the  Future  event.  

Secret  Cinema,  founded  in  2007  –  with  Paranoid  Park  -­‐  delivers  live,  immersive,  participatory  cinema-­‐

going  experiences  and  is  shaping  a  new  and  highly  profitable  event-­‐led-­‐distribution-­‐

model.  Shawshank  Redemption  is  the  most  well-­‐known.  Prometheus  made  more  money  as  a  Secret  

Cinema  event  than  at  the  premiere  and  Grand  Budapest  Hotel’s  No1  box  office  position  was  largely  

attributable  to  the  £1.1m  generated  by  the  Secret  Cinema  event.    

These  commercial  successes  mark  a  notable  shift  in  both  the  organization’s  approach  and  the  type  of  

audiences  they  are  starting  to  attract.  The  events,  which  have  previously  been  marketed  in  a  highly  

clandestine  way  via  word  of  mouth  and  social  media  where  knowing  participants  are  instructed  to  

‘tell  no  one’  are  now  being  launched  through  high-­‐profile  press  releases.  This  has  inevitably  led  to  

tensions  between  the  expectations  of  an  early  adopter  ‘hipster’  elite  (of  Secret  Cinema)  and  this  

much  broader  public  of  Back  to  the  Future  fans,  affectionados  &  aficionados.      

During  the  lead-­‐up  to  the  Secret  Cinema  Presents….  Back  to  the  Future  event  a  compelling  conflict  

played  out  between  the  creators  and  the  audience  in  public  social  media  space.    Today  we  re-­‐tell  the  

story  of  how  the  drama  unfolded  in  the  lead-­‐up  to  the  opening  night  of  the  event,  how  the  

surrounding  social  media  communications  became  a  site  of  audience  engagement  and  participation,  

and  in  which  fan  and  anti-­‐fan  practices  and  viewing  pleasures  proliferated.  

  1  
  

The  Back  to  the  Future  event  was  unprecedented  in  many  ways  –  the  venue  had  the  capacity  for  

3,000  audience  members  per  night  –  all  of  whom  were  willing  to  pay  £50  for  a  ticket  -­‐  over  the  

months  of  July  and  August,  2014,  in  total  -­‐  45,000,  tickets  were  sold,  which  generated  a  final  box  

office  gross  of  £3.37m  –  and  all  this  for  a  film  that’s  30  yrs  old.  

This  event  began  –  as  do  all  Secret  Cinema  experiences  -­‐  via  online  social  media  channels  weeks  

before  the  live  event  and  it  is  these  online  spaces  (and  not  the  event  itself)  that  are  the  key  site  of  

our  analysis  today.  Crucially,  it  is  these  spaces  that  both  the  audience  members  and  organisation  

sought  to  shape,  control  and  influence  in  contradictory  &  conflicting  ways.    

     

This  talk  illuminates  the  conflicts,  tensions  and  re-­‐negotiations  of  control  embedded  in  both  the  

experience  and  surrounding  fan  &  anti-­‐fan  discourses,  in  which  the  event  and  organization  is  

dismantled  in  public  view  and  we  argue  that  the  audience  reclaimed  both  the  social  media  spaces  

and  the  filmic  text  of  Back  to  the  Future  as  their  own.  

The  Back  to  the  Future  experience  was  to  operate  under  the  same  ‘secret’  rubric  as  all  the  preceding  

Secret  Cinema  events  –  whereby  participants  are  playfully  instructed  to  ‘Tell  No  One,’  with  the  

location  of  the  screening  event  being  withheld  until  the  very  last  minute,  and  cameras/phones  and  

recording  devices  being  surrendered  at  the  door.  

   

This  event  also  spawned  an  unprecedented  extension  of  the  film’s  storyworld  into  these  online  

spaces  in  which  the  fictional  community  of  ‘Hill  Valley’  was  recreated  in  meticulous  detail  across  

social  media  and  in  numerous  in-­‐fiction  websites,  as  well  as  physical  pop  up  shops  that  accompanied  

the  online  style  guides  &  look  books.  

The  Back  to  the  Future  event  began  its  life  like  any  other  -­‐  using  the  same  methods  and  infrastructure  

  2  
that  had  been  deployed  in  previous  campaigns  –  characteristic  of  an  independent  organization.  

However,  the  infrastructure  proved  to  be  insufficient  to  cope  with  the  audience  demands  -­‐  within  10-­‐

minutes  of  the  hotly-­‐anticipated  tickets  being  released  for  sale  –  the  ticket  providers  servers  crashed  

and  no-­‐one  was  able  to  buy  a  ticket.  The  tickets  were  then  re-­‐released  two  days  later  with  a  new,  

larger  and  shinier,  well-­‐known  provider.  Customer  anger  quickly  bubbled  up  through  the  social  

media  channels,  with  comments  related  to  the  film  text  –  about  the  organiser’s  being  able  to  travel  

back  in  time  to  sort  out  the  problem,  and  needing  1.21  giga-­‐watts  of  power  to  fix  their  servers.  This  

anger  quickly  subsided  when  customers  were  able  to  secure  tickets,  with  more  screening  dates  being  

released  to  cope  with  the  high  demand.  

In  the  following  weeks,  email  communications  started  to  flow  from  Hill  Valley  –  these  were  multiple,  

detailed  and  frequently  confusing.  ‘Real-­‐world’  instructions  were  buried  in  ‘in-­‐world’  fictional  links,  

and  dense  (fictional)  textual  detail  about  Hill  Valley  Town  Fair  confused  and  frustrated  the  recipients.  

Audience  members  used  Secret  Cinema’s  Twitter  and  Facebook  sites  to  call  for  practical  information  

such  as  transport  links  and  nearby  accommodation  –  people  were  travelling  from  all  over  the  UK,  

Europe  and  further  afield.  

A  dichotomy  emerged  as  Secret  Cinema  used  these  spaces  to  build  audience  narrative  engagement  

whilst  also  deploying  these  same  sites  to  market,  sell  and  instruct  their  audience  in  key  preparations  

for  the  event,  as  well  as  issuing  requests  for  audience-­‐generated  content  to  be  taken  down.  A  

confusing  communications  strategy  which  interchanged  between  fiction  and  non-­‐fiction  registers  

manifested,  the  type  of  which,  Andrea  Phillip’s  would  describe  as  a  “badly-­‐drawn  play  space”  (2011).    

Participants  were  addressed  across  a  number  of  confusing  and  potentially  conflicting  registers.    As  

knowing  ‘players’  of  Secret  Cinema  experiences,  as  devoted  fans  of  Back  to  the  Future,  as  customers  

to  be  provided  with  precise  and  demanding  ‘joining’  instructions  &  frequently  enough  as  ‘unruly’  

bodies  to  be  controlled  through  orders  &  commands.      We  can  see  already  in  these  examples  the  

  3  
extent  to  which  assumptions  of  audience  technicity  (their  tastes  and  their  adoption  of  specific  

technologies)  are  governing  the  dissemination  of  information.  Embedding  links  in  emails  and  

assuming  a  certain  technoliteracy  is  just  one  key  example  of  this  –  this  made  it  easy  for  many  to  miss  

critical  information  producing  confused  flurry  of  tweets  &  facebook  postings  asking  for  clarification.    

The  slide  shows  the  secret  location  on  Google  maps  –  which  is  hidden  behind  the  ‘Hilldale,  California’  

link  within  the  email  text.)  

There  were  of  course  many  other  assumptions  around  taste  and  disposable  income  which  played  in  

to  the  participant  discontent  as  time  went  on.  The  organizers  who  clearly  wanted  to  establish  

audience  relations  in  what  Henry  Jenkins  (2006)  describes  as  “Collaborationist”  mode  did  not  appear  

to  appreciate  the  complexity  of  operating  across  the  ‘transmedia  storytelling’  register  whilst  also  

engaging  with  fans  schooled  in  the  use  of  social  media  for  community  building  and  personal  display  

of  textual  expertise.    Certainly,  at  minimum  they  played  out  a  lot  of  channel  confusion  with  a  blurring  

between  in-­‐fiction  storyworld  elaboration  and  audience  instruction.    

This  was  the  first  time  that  a  Secret  Cinema  Presents…  event  engaged  with  a  pre-­‐existing  and  well-­‐

formed  fan  community.  Back  to  the  Future  has  highly  visible  formal  and  informal  fan  communities  

both  of  which  have  intensified  their  activities  in  the  run  up  to  the  films  30th  Anniversary  this  year.    

A  key  challenge  Secret  Cinema  faced  was  the  expansion  of  their  audience  &  this  new  diversity  of  

participant  subjectivities.    “In  these  conditions  of  intermediality  our  responses  to  such  texts  will  

crucially  be  dependent  upon  our  technicity  –  that  combination  of  taste  and  competence  that  

determines  our  ability  to  access  a  storyworld  as  well  as  our  individual  style  of  interactions  with  it.    

Technicity  can  therefore  be  seen  as  a  key  marker  of  a  subject’s  ability  to  exercise  the  flexible  

repertoire  of  interpretive  responses  demanded  by  increasingly  intermedial  cultural  landscapes”  

(Dovey  &  Kennedy,  2006).  The  critiques  that  emerge  came  along  a  number  of  different  axes  of  

participation.      Many  fans  used  the  social  media  channels  to  display  their  virtuoso  command  of  the  

  4  
communication  channel  itself  and  the  filmic  text  as  they  made  their  criticisms  very  public.    In  this  

sequence  we  also  see  one  of  the  fundamental  rules  of  Secret  Cinema  is  broken.  As  we  can  see  the  

Back  to  the  Future  location  was  photographed  and  revealed  in  an  act  of  defiance  and  exposure,  an  

activity  that  can  be  aligned  to  the  fannish  behaviour  of  a  “set  tracker”  –  which  according  to  David  

Brisbin  (2009:  55),  is  the  industry  name,  given  to  fans  who  locate  film  sets  to  photograph  and  share  

with  other  fans  in  open  displays  of  subcultural  capital.  

The  conflict  between  Secret  Cinema  and  its  audience  continues  to  manifest  as  Secret  Cinema  

attempts  to  openly  exert  its  control  with  ‘cease  and  desist’  -­‐type  tweets  couched  in  its  playful  Tell  No  

One  language  which  somewhat  undermines  their  apparent  collaborationist  stance.    

Fan-­‐to-­‐fan  conflict  starts  to  emerge  at  this  stage  between  the  core  Secret  Cinema  audience  and  the  

newer  Back  to  the  Future  contingent  which  might  also  be  articulated  as  a  conflict  between  devoted  

Back  to  the  Future  fans  and  newer  Secret  Cinema  fans.      The  incidents  further  highlight  the  ways  in  

which  the  social  media  channels  might  need  careful  managing  in  relation  to  different  kinds  of  fan  

address.      In  terms  of  the  complexities  of  audience  subjectivities  we  might  want  to  signal  at  least  two  

key  axes  of  distinction  here  –  one  axis  is  about  an  engagement  first  and  foremost  with  the  novelty  of  

an  immersive  experience  of  any  cinematic  text.    This,  we  might  argue  is  the  subjectivity  occupied  by  

the  hipster  elite/early  adopter/Technorati,  who  have  been  driving  investment  in  ‘new’  experience  

design  that  expands  our  engagements  (and  crucially  our  financial  commitment  to)  with  a  particular  

intellectual  property.    The  other  axis  is  aligned  with  ‘collection’  and  ‘completion’  and  deep  

engagement  with  a  particular  story  or  text  –  this  is  the  participant  who  will  buy  the  book  of;  the  

making  of;  collect  the  merchandise;  take  the  fair  ground  ride;  watch  the  reruns;  play  the  board  game  

etc.  etc.    What  these  fans  share  is  the  complex  and  profound  commitment  to  a  particular  text  or  

storyworld.    These  complexities  are  clearly  not  well  understood  in  the  design  of  the  Secret  Cinema  

online  communication  strategy.  

  5  
The  growing  dissatisfaction  and  annoyance  is  illustrated  here,  these  comments  continued  to  be  met  

with  criticism  and  disdain  by  the  Secret  Cinema  fan  community  –  an  example  can  be  seen  here    

As  participatory  cinema  practices  have  already  taught  us,  even  the  most  dedicated  and  knowing  fans  

need  guidance,  here  shown  in  relation  to  the  timed  instructions  and  specific  prop  list  provided  to  the  

participants  of  the  Rocky  Horror  Picture  Show  which  given  that  it  has  been  running  for  around  40  

years  might  be  forgiven  for  assuming  some  audience  knowledge.  

Conflict  for  control  manifests  once  more  when  one  adept  fan  puts  an  FAQ  together  to  support  the  

participants  and  receives  an  immediate  very  positive  engagement.  It  received  7,000  hits  in  the  first  

day,  and  Secret  Cinema  requested  its  immediate  take-­‐down  as  it  was  “confusing  the  audience”.  

Secret  Cinema  appear  now  to  be  adopting  what  Jenkins  (2006)  described  as  the  prohibitionist  stance.  

The  Secret  Cinema  response  shows  a  further  contradictory  position  in  relation  to  this  level  of  

participant  engagement  –  this  command  is  clearly  at  odds  with  their  earlier  invitations  to  contribute.    

They  are  attempting  to  own  and  control  a  social  space  that  they  set  up  specifically  for  fans  to  engage.    

This  fannish  productivity  –  an  attempt  to  ease  understanding  and  provide  translation  across  

participant  subjectivities  -­‐    is  discredited  by  Secret  Cinema  as  they  try  to  secure  and  maintain  control.      

A  perfect  storm  had  been  created  which  fuelled  the  tidal  wave  of  fan/audience  responses  that  

followed  at  the  point  of  a  the  final  breakdown  in  communication  relations.    The  event  hit  delays  and  

launch  and  the  opening  night  of  the  show  are  cancelled,  with  audience  members  (who  don’t  have  

their  mobile  devices  with  them)  being  given  just  60  minutes  notice.  

In  response,  the  audience  immediately  begin  to  manipulate  and  re-­‐appropriate  the  Back  to  the  

Future  text  as  a  mechanism  through  which  to  critique  the  producers,  clearly  highlighting  that  Secret  

Cinema  are  not  really  the  auteurs  of  Back  to  the  Future  -­‐    they  are  themselves  appropriators  &  

adaptors  of  the  originary  text.  

  6  
  

Initially  –  this  re-­‐appropriation  is  through  the  use  of  text-­‐based  tweets  and  facebook  posts  which  

incorporate  famous  lines  quoted  from  the  Back  to  the  Future  script  that  are  embedded  and  

interwoven  within  the  complaints  and  vitriol.  The  resulting  textualities  are  subverted  from  their  

original  meaning,  taken  from  the  context  of  the  Back  to  the  Future  film  and  placed  within  the  

emergent  storyline  of  the  Secret  Cinema  cancellation  debacle.  The  audience  voice  now  takes  

prominence  in  the  social  media  realm  as  they  enact  critical  cultural  production  practices.      

This  criticism  is  a  pleasurable  form  of  engagement  –  a  mechanism  through  which  to  express  anger  

and  frustration  at  Secret  Cinema,  but  also  to  flex  subcultural  prowess,  we  see  fans  engage  in  these  

practices  whenever  a  remake  or  adaptation  is  afoot  .  Again  these  fans  are  displaying  what  we  have  

referred  to  as  their  virtuoso  command  of  this  text/storyworld  and  their  technicities.      

The  textual  manipulation  and  re-­‐appropriation  quickly  advances  to  the  practice  of  visually  

manipulating  still  imagery  taken  from  the  Back  to  the  Future  film,  when  a  controversial  image  is  

shown  of  the  unfinished  set  of  the  event  on  the  opening  night.  This  is  quickly  taken  and  re-­‐

contextualised  within  the  text  of  Back  to  the  Future  and  then  rapidly  continues  with  newly  

manipulated  image  after  image  As  Jonathan  Gray  has  observed  “Fans  live  with  in-­‐built,  intricately  

detailed  memories  of  their  text(s)”  (Gray,  2003:  67),  and  so  these  responses  –  demonstrating  the  

audiences  affective  involvement  and  investment  –  in  the  Back  to  the  Future  text  -­‐  came  thick  and  fast.  

Many  of  these  images  are  taken  and  reproduced  in  blogs  that  are  documenting  the  seeming  demise  

of  Secret  Cinema  –  and  are  also  printed  in  mainstream  press  as  the  cancellation  makes  national  

headline  news.  This  is  perhaps  the  ultimate  destination  for  the  handy-­‐work  of  a  textual  re-­‐

appropriator  –  to  gain  widespread  recognition,  kudos  and  cult  status.  

Perversely,  these  emergent  critical  paratexts,  which  could  be  seen  -­‐  not  so  much  flame-­‐bait,  but  

flame-­‐fodder  -­‐  actually  diffused  the  situation,  providing  moments  of  humour  and  a  release  of  tension  

for  the  communities  effected  by  the  cancellation.  

  7  
    

This  particular  comment  hints  at  a  darker  side  in  which  audience  viewing  pleasures  is  taken  from  

looking  on  at  a  serialised  disaster.    The  cancellation  thus  became  a  media  spectacle  in  its  own  right  -­‐  

This  is  supported  through  mainstream  media  reporting  which  helps  to  both  escalate  the  visibility  of  

the  debacle  and  failures  of  Secret  Cinema  but  also  provides  others  with  the  mechanism  to  caution  for  

a  sense  of  proportion.  The  high  profile  coverage  prompted  a  critique  about  the  banality  of  the  Secret  

Cinema  backlash  as  the  cancellation  was  trending  on  twitter  alongside  bigger  news  stories,  and  the  

story  received  a  high-­‐ranking  on  mainstream  news  agendas.  

This  results  in  manifestations  of  anti-­‐fan  critique-­‐  the  anti-­‐fan  being  a  useful  mechanism  with  which  

to  reverse  the  lens  of  fan  studies  to  consider  other  equally  intense  relationships  to  content,  as    

Jonathan  Gray  (2003)  and  Cornel  Sandvoss  (2005),  have  argued  -­‐    to  fully  understand  what  it  means  

to  interact  with  texts  we  must  also  examine  anti-­‐fans.  

Within  the  Secret  Cinema  string  of  events,  the  anti-­‐fan  discourse  emerges  at  several  places  on  a  

spectrum  from  outward  displays  of  hatred,  anger  and  vitriol  (most  of  which  we  decided  not  to  show,  

apart  from  this  milder  example)  where  the  events  organizer  and  Secret  Cinema  founder  Fabien,  is  

presented  as  emblematic  of  a  hipster  cultural  elite.    In  this  instance,  held  up  as  a  folk-­‐devil  figure  -­‐    

he  is  ridiculed  as  a  ‘trustafarian’  i.e.:  “a  rich  young  person  who  adopts  an  ethnic  lifestyle  and  lives  in  a  

non-­‐affluent  urban  area”.    (urban  dictionary)  Hatred  or  ‘hateration’,  is  conceptualised  as  an  anti-­‐fan  

activity  by  Kimberly  Springer  (2013)  who  has  connected  haters  to  anti-­‐fandom,  making  a  distinction  

between  that  and  ‘trolling,  flaming,  and  other  undesirable  web-­‐based  behaviors’.  

At  the  other  end  of  the  spectrum  are  much  milder  attacks  by  the  emergent  anti-­‐fans  of  Secret  

Cinema,  people  critiquing  Secret  Cinema–goers  as  middle  class,  cultural  elite.  Poking  fun  at  the  

hundreds  of  lost,  costumed  participants  &  their  indistinction  from  Hoxtonites  in  general.      

  8  
Concluding  thoughts:    

Fabien  Riggall,    in  a  quotation  about  his  initial  ambition,  speaking  positively  during  the  development  

of  the  event,  acknowledges  both  the  agency  and  the  authority  of  the  fans:  

“At  the  event,  each  audience  member  is  getting  their  own  unique  character  and  story,  so  they're  

written  into  the  script.  It's  turning  out  to  be  a  pretty  intense  summer.  But  you  can't  do  Back  To  The  

Future  and  not  aim  high.  We've  been  infected  by  the  spirit  of  the  movie:  this  strange,  innocent  

optimism.  Which  is  dangerous,  because  it  means  we  think  that  we  can  do  anything!”  ..  “  I'm  shitting  

myself  because  this  film  is  so  well-­‐loved,  so  if  we  mess  up  anything  we're  in  trouble!”  A  deliciously  

prescient  moment.      

At  the  outset  it  is  clear  that  as  producer  fan  himself  Fabien  well  understood  some  of  the  risks  that  lay  

ahead  in  adapting  this  particular  text.      

As  an  aside,  we  also  saw  some  intriguing  dark  marketing  as  those  adept  at  using  ‘trending’  metadata  

responded  to  these  Secret  Cinema  cancellations  and  capitalized  on  this  to  reap  very  specific  rewards  

in  relation  to  their  own  profile,  publicity  &  new  participants.  –  Crate  Brewery,  Rufus  Hound,  Madam  

Taussauds  etc  offering  discounted  entry  rates  and/or  free  beer.    This  was  an  incredibly  canny  use  of  a  

high  trending  fan/creator  debacle  being  played  out  in  the  highly  visible  spaces  of  twitter  and  

facebook.      

But,  crucially,  there  was  of  course  a  happy  ending..  Fans  across  the  spectrum  swiftly  asserted  their  

pleasures  post  event.  

And  so  finally,    we  mentioned  earlier  this  reference  to  what  Andrea  Phillips  describes  as  the  errors  

attendant  to  a  ‘badly  drawn  play  space’  (2011),  what  we  have  shown  played  out  here  is  the  battles  

for  agency  and  authority  that  can  play  out  between  audience  and  producer  when  the  communication  

strategy  is  inadequate  to  the  complexity  of  the  engagement  afforded.    The  lack  of  clarity  and  

  9  
distinction  between  channels  was  the  fissure  that  allowed  the  adoption  of  a  critical  stance  from  the  

participants.    It  also  became  the  site  of  the  contestation  that  demonstrated  that  this  is  a  space  where  

fans  (and  anti  fans)  can  swiftly  overtake  and  dominate  through  their  virtuoso  technicities.    Secret  

Cinema  believed  their  audiences  loved  them  enough  to  go  with  the  sprinkling  of  info  &  

inconsistencies.  but  their  audience  were  not  ‘their’  beloved  there  were  those  who  were  primarily  

Back  to  the  Future  fans  with  passions  not  strictly  aligned  with  Secret  Cinema.    

Producers  need  to  understand,  revere/respect  and  accommodate  these  positions  if  they  want  to  

keep  fans  onside  in  the  collaborationist  mode.    In  a  battle  for  control  over  the  beloved  text  of  Back  to  

the  Future.  Who  owns  the  text?  The  fans  of  course.  

References:  

Brisbin,  David.  (2009).  “Instant  Fan-­‐Made  Media,”  Perspective,  December  2009–January  

2010:  54–59.    

Dovey,  Jon  &  Kennedy,  Helen  W.  (2006)  `Playing  the  Ring:    Intermediality  &  Ludic  Narratives  in  the  

Lord  of  the  Rings  Games’    in  Ernest  Mathijs  ed.,  The  Lord  of  the  Rings:  Popular  Culture  in  Global  

Context  Wallflower:  Columbia  University  Press.  p.254  –  270.  

Gray,  Jonathan.  (2003)  "New  Audiences,  New  Textualities:  Anti-­‐Fans  and  Non-­‐Fans."  SAGE  6.1:  64-­‐81.  

Jenkins,  Henry.  (2006)  “Prohibitionists  and  Collaborationists:  Two  Approaches  to  Participatory  

Culture”  [online]  

http://henryjenkins.org/2006/07/prohibitionists_and_collaborat.html,  July  19,  2006.  

Phillips,  Andrea.  (2011).  Hoax  or  Transmedia?  The  Ethics  of  Pervasive  Fiction  (Austin,  TX:  

SWSX,  13  March  2011).  

  10  
Phillips,  Andrea.  (2012).  A  Creator's  Guide  to  Transmedia  Storytelling:  How  to  Captivate  and  Engage  

Audiences  across  Multiple  Platforms.  New  York:  McGraw  Hill.  

Sandvoss,  Cornell.  (2005).  Fans:  The  mirror  of  consumption.  Cambridge,  UK:  Polity  Press.    

Springer,  Kimberly.  (2013).  “Beyond  the  H8R:  Theorizing  the  Anti-­‐Fan.”  The  Phoenix  Papers,  Vol.1,  

No.2.  Ed.  J.  Holder  Bennet.  Denton:  FANS  Association,  55-­‐77.  

  11