Deny All Knowledge: Reading the X-Files

It is impossible for any urban dweller not to notice the vast array of merchandising that has sprouted from the success of the television show, "The X-Files". That is, of course, the point. Urban dwellers, aged eighteen- to forty-nine comprise a "quality demographic" in the surveys of advertising executives and have therefore become the contemporary focus of television producers, as we are told by Jimmie Reeves in his essay "Rewriting Popularity", one of the collection edited by David Lavery, professor of English at Middle Tennessee State University."Deny all knowledge: Reading the X-Files" is in part an attempt to capture a section of that demographic. However, a swift perusal of other material on offer at your local X-Files vendor (pusher?) reveals that this understated volume might well have been misplaced from its original shelf, nestled between Lacan and Levi-Strauss. There are no photos (save for a semi-abstract 'flying saucer' on the cover), no celebrity interviews, no episode synopses. It seems that this tries, much like the foisting of Gregorian chant on a classically-naïve public, to sneak in some 'highbrow' material on the crest of a wave of immense popularity.In large part, the cult-nature of the X-Files has been fostered by the presence of an active on-line community, many of whom are academics. It is perhaps to this audience that the volume is aimed. What better way to combine work and play?The passion of the authors is undeniable and all of the essays display extensive familiarity and understanding of the series. They are not grounded by the need to justify the existence of the X-Files phenomenon, nor are they constrained by the necessity to interweave their subject matter with perceived fan interest. Leslie Jones' excellent essay on myth and folklore in the X-Files is lightly-tinged with humour while providing a fascinating account of Indo-European mythology. Further gems are found in Reeves, Rogers and Epstein's history lessons on the development of cult-TV, which rationalises the ascent of this media-format in terms of political and economic change. Allison Graham's description of the evolution of conspiracy-theory consciousness and Michele Malach's chronicle of the change in representation of the FBI-man in popular culture both provide historical detail whilst using the X-Files legitimately as subtext. This type of lateral-thinking exercise for the intelligent reader, supported by reasoned argument (and copious footnotes) is both stimulating and informative. Less enlightening are the often partisan accounts mired in psychoanalytic theory, which can leave the lay-reader reeling from the non-intuitive terminology. A case in point is the piece by Lisa Parks which reads rather like an answer to the examination question: "Discuss Haraway's proposition of female as cyborg with reference to 'The X-Files'". Since the breadth of material covered and implied by the X-Files as-a-series is large, it

Overall, this is an interesting and entertaining volume, but these essays are not for everyone. The essays approach the show from a wide variety of critical angles, which I found quite intriguing. The only major problem I had with the book is that although the writers had 49 episodes to derive material from, they not only chose the same ten episodes to write about, most of them used the same quotes from those episodes. It's almost as if the writers were given these quotes and told to use them in an essay. The best essays in the volume were Leslie Jones's "'Last Week We Had an Omen,'" and Elizabeth Kubek's "'You Only Expose Your Father'"(but perhaps I say that because they were the most helpful for the paper I'm writing), but all of the essays were able to pique my interest at some level. I hope that someone undertakes a second volume of _X-Files_ criticism soon, as some of the essays in this one are becoming rapidly out-of-date, due to developments in the show.

At first glace this book seems overwrought with metaphors and overblown interpretations of the show; these authors delve into details that I, as the most avid of fans, would never have noticed. If you are willing to put this aside, and enjoy it for what it is, this is a must have for fans you want more than the trivialities found in many of the other unauthorized books out there. The take on the Mulder/Scully relationship is interesting to say the least, and it provides a look at the online fan base like so few of the other books have. The essay on gender liminality was a highlight. The footnotes were excessive in many segments, but this book wasn't intended to be a purely fun read. If you want trivia and Mulderisms you might do better to try one of the other books, there are many great ones out there. If you like a slightly more weighted look at television, and are not afraid of "big words" than you will probably get a kick out of this.