[1] In The Shakespeare Multiverse: Fandom as Literary Praxis, Louise Geddes and Valerie M. Fazel offer a new approach to literary criticism, literary citizenship, and what it means to consume media in a way that centers mindful community and the purposeful joy of collaboration. The Shakespeare Multiverse suggests that in an age of technological commodity, literary theory and the practice of fandom are not so far from one another. In a refreshing look at a layman's engagement with texts, like the many Shakespeares that scholars are familiar with, Geddes and Fazel suggest that there is much value to be had in exploring the vibrant, lively, and ever-growing multiverse of Shakespearean adaptations, offshoots, theories, and paraphernalia. An oft discounted aspect of literary engagement, fandom—and fanon, or fan-interpreted canon—is presented in The Shakespeare Multiverse as something to be embraced. For all its successes, pitfalls, and occasional strangeness, Geddes and Fazel assert that fandom has value in all its forms. Much can be learned from the way that fans—antefans and antifans included—move in literary and fandom spaces alike; Geddes and Fazel encourage readers and literary scholars to look beyond their "ivory towers" to where the multiverse of Shakespeare expands at every edge (218).
[2] As the title suggests, the book covers a wide array of cultural discourses. From Dick Grayson and the DC multiverse, to the 1623 Folio, to the many loaded connotations of David Tennant's hair extensions, Geddes and Fazel provide entries into the multiverse of Shakespeares that are created, nurtured, and expanded upon by fans. Geddes and Fazel suggest that literary scholars who dedicate their time and study to Shakespeare and fans who write fan fiction and bake the bard's face into pie crusts are not so different and that the former could learn from the latter. As the living entity of fandom grows and changes, absorbing diverse perspectives that are often overlooked in staunch and exclusionary scholarship, the multiverse accommodates. A layman interested in the intersection of fan culture and Shakespearean literary study would feel at home in The Shakespeare Multiverse and would see their engagement with the collaborative praxis of fan study as a methodology worth considering. Furthermore, Geddes and Fazel posit that literary scholars are fans by definition; we would not dedicate so much of our personal and professional lives to the study of a thing if there was no joy to be found in it. Throughout, Geddes and Fazel suggest technical intersections of scholarly practice and fandom, from the idea of the adaptable "cyborg reader" to the debris, kitsch, and dark matter that are sifted through to create pockets of fandom community under the umbrella of the whole.
[3] Each section of the book opens with fan work, a paratext that illustrates the idea that Shakespeares in the ever-growing multiverse are mutable, adaptable, and relevant to a host of pop culture interests. Each piece of fan fiction, be it a DC Comics crossover or a self-referential Doctor Who imagining in which the Doctor and Rose Tyler pop in and out of Shakespeare's works—to varying degrees of butterfly-effect hijinks—aligns with the subject matter of the subsequent chapter. In a way, Geddes and Fazel posit the Shakespeare multiverse, a term that draws from the astrophysical concept of infinite space that humans cannot see, as a means of adaptational study. Similar to the work of scholars such as Sujata Iyengar, whose own metaphorical positioning of the evolution of what we understand to be Shakespeare takes shape in the form of biological images, Geddes and Fazel define the concept of a multiverse outside the context of Shakespeare and apply it to the way in which "ad infinitum" Shakespeares are disbursed, reappropriated, and transformed (15). They acknowledge that the multiverse is an inherently technologically driven space—while simultaneously making note that the multiverse started long before the internet. Thus, they coin the intrepid traversers of the Shakespeare multiverse "cyborg readers," which "[synthesize] fans and the technologies that are so intricately an integral part of people's everyday functions" in order to show the ways in which the hybridity of media consumption creates a new praxis for scholarship and fan engagement (11). The cyborg reader is positioned against all technical aspects of the multiverse as a test subject. Through the complex function of the cyborg reader, who by definition is at the helm of the multiverse due to the simple affective pleasure they derive from the text and its possibilities, the multiverse accommodates adaptation theory implicitly, as it is defined by its mutability. Geddes and Fazel reiterate that all multiversal matter, while not created equal, is valid. This, to a participant in both fan and literary spaces, is a refreshing thing to hear.
[4] The book is split into sections that follow appropriate bits of fan text. The presence of Doctor Who is pervasive throughout the examples of fan works listed by Geddes and Fazel. It is through a first encounter with the Doctor and Shakespeare that Geddes and Fazel define canon as it relates to cultural theory, the impermanence of Shakespeare's authorial authority, and the fanon, or fan-created canon, that emerges from what we consider to be the foundation of Shakespeare's fandom. Geddes and Fazel define the 1623 Folio as the original text, though they take care to note that it, too, could be considered a piece of fan work. They assert that the Folio is the "big bang" of Shakespearean fandom as it is not an original piece of work but rather "reorganized performance data into written matter" that enabled audiences to more readily access the work (41). The act of compiling the Folio, according to Geddes and Fazel, is an act of fandom in itself—the first act of fandom, perhaps; those writing Doctor Who into The Tempest and reexamining DC Comics through the lens of Macbeth, as we see later on, owe the ability to do this to the compilers of the Folio. In the same chapter, Geddes and Fazel offset the evolutionary nature of the Folio with the definition of fanon. Fanon, as defined in the book, is a mutable set of acceptable rules, conditions, and interpretations that have been given enough weight by the community at large that they are considered somewhat canonical. Geddes and Fazel acknowledge that fanon interpretations often account for more diverse perspectives than what canon can offer. For instance, the book suggests that the fanon interpretation and queering of Mercutio's character is a vehicle for diverse expression and inclusion in a rather heteronormative text. Seeking out subtext in Mercutio's relationships shows that fanon is open, curious, and exploratory.
[5] Just as Harold Perrineau's Mercutio is often considered by fandom to be queer-coded—thus exemplifying the idea presented by Geddes and Fazel that recognizable paratexts often assume ownership—the following chapter introduces the idea of David Tennant's tenure as Richard II as another way in to the multiverse. There is no real ownership of the multiverse, as it is a collaborative and democratic effort that belongs to all of us, but the idea that David Tennant's hair extensions exist as a piece of vibrant and recognizable paratext in the multiverse is an example of how entries into the multiverse don't always have to be textual. "The Thing Itself" is a creative exploration of how objects in the Shakespeare multiverse can carry weight and implications, both of which are capable of spiraling far beyond the bounds of their original context. As with previous sections, Geddes and Fazel open with a work of fan fiction. In a way, Geddes and Fazel create their own pocket of the multiverse, in which David Tennant, Doctor Who, and Shakespeare himself create an amalgam that illustrates the creative connections that fans will make in order to further their contributions to the multiverse of fannish literary engagement. This chapter illustrates all the ways that the multiverse feeds itself; the presence of David Tennant, for example, is an ouroboros of paratexts. Geddes and Fazel link a poster of Richard II by the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) to a work of fan fiction wherein the Doctor (of Doctor Who) is an actor—with the long hair extensions worn by Tennant in the run at the RSC. Furthermore, in the aforementioned fan fiction, the Doctor reveals that he will take on the identity of David Tennant—who played the Doctor at the time of the fan fiction's inception— as he plays the role of Richard II.
[6] In "The Thing Itself" and subsequent sections, Geddes and Fazel acknowledge that additions to the multiverse don't always have to make sense to the individual. As a reader, their connections between Twin Peaks and The Winter's Tale felt like a stretch. But that in itself is the point: not every aspect of fanon is for everyone. The idea that one could cater to every presence in the multiversal fanon space is inconceivable; consumers pick and choose what they feel is appropriate for their modus operandi. Even if the tenuous connections in the themes of Twin Peaks and The Winter's Tale felt strained to me, another fan might engage with both pieces of media and immediately latch onto the threads presented therein. My personal agreement or disagreement is not the point; that they made the connection is the whole point of the Shakespeare multiverse. For me, this connection exists in the spaces established in the following chapter, which defines the more expendable objects in the multiverse (classified as kitsch, rubbish, and dark matter). This section considers how mentions of Shakespeare on shows like Nailed It! (2018–) and Great British Bake Off (2010–) are paraphernalia that hold little meaning to the multiverse aside from the mere fact that they exist—and yet it suggests that even the most ridiculous objects have the power to elicit meaning and conversation. They suggest that the kitsch of a rubber duck dressed up like Shakespeare prioritizes "cheerful inauthenticity" that exists to elicit joy rather than critical conversation (136). These fan objects and vibrant paratexts are rooted in the idea that fandom is meant to be a joyful endeavor. Geddes and Fazel argue that there is multiversal value to that which is discarded; the dark matter has no solid place in theory or conversation. Most importantly, Geddes and Fazel return to the idea that fandom is a place for the "loser" and the diverse outsider to play, for a voice often pushed to the wayside to find its place (155). Geddes and Fazel cite Iyengar, acknowledging that much discarded "dark matter" is that which deals with feminist issues, LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC narratives, and the like. They argue that fandom, and the act of pulling diverse "rubbish" out of obscurity and placing it at the forefront of fan conversation, shows a fan's "willingness to care about that which is deemed unlovable" (156). And as fandom itself is often considered immature and silly, looked down at by laymen and academics alike, it is important to consider that all fans are losers in their own right.
[7] Part five cites a Tumblr blog called Your Fave is Problematic in order to suggest that fandom, as an "optimistic practice," is home to antefans that exist in opposition to the expansion of the multiverse (167). It would be inappropriate to discuss the social weight of fandom without considering the adversity that a fan faces; the antefan is the most vocal against the inclusion of diverse narratives in fandom spaces. A certain type of antefan would, for example, balk at the idea of queering Mercutio. Inherently, according to Geddes and Fazel, the multiverse will always "[decentralize] authorial intent"—which, to some, is an issue (168). An antefan resists the pluralistic nature of the multiverse, the push against hegemony, and the challenge of some of Shakespeare's more damaging portrayals. Geddes and Fazel don't outright claim that one approach to engagement with Shakespeare is inherently right or wrong; they, of course, err on the side of diverse inclusion and proper representation and would surely never condone a harmful take on anything in the multiverse of Shakespeare. But it is important, in any sort of discussion on literary criticism, to consider alternative perspectives. According to their definition, the antefan (not to be confused with the antifan) relies on an "over-investment in historicism and biography" that allows little room for, for example, a modernized Macbeth set in post-colonial Africa or an all-female production of any of Shakespeare's works. Geddes and Fazel remind us time and time again that fandom does a great deal of heavy lifting for diverse entries into literary conversation; even if it is presented to us through the lens of a Doctor Who fan fiction, it still exists as a vehicle for conversation that pushes against the hegemonic white, male, patriarchal systems that define our world—literary and physical—today.
[8] In keeping with the praxis of considering fan text alongside literary criticism, much of The Shakespeare Multiverse's supplementary text is pulled from fan fiction and social media. It is clear that much effort was put into considering diverse sources, with women and BIPOC in the fields of Shakespearean study, adaptational study, and media studies at the forefront of every argument. As women in academia, Geddes and Fazel contribute to the larger corpus of the field by amplifying diverse perspectives often overlooked in literary criticism, as is necessary when discussing adaptational study in a modern sphere. Geddes and Fazel acknowledge that literary criticism cannot exist in a vacuum, and as information becomes so much more readily available with the expansion of social media, the internet, and the like, they do right by recognizing that the study of literature, too, does not happen in a bubble untouched by the influences of popular media and culture. Consulting BIPOC-authored, queer, and decolonial texts is essential when discussing the praxis of fandom engagement, simply because so much of what we consider fandom is led by diverse creators who wish to see better representation in media they love and that which could be produced in the future.
[9] Overall, I consider The Shakespeare Multiverse to be an excellent contribution to the fields of fan studies, media studies, adaptational studies, and Shakespearean studies. A multiverse in and of themselves, most of these fields cannot—in a modern sphere—exist without some overlap. This text will be an excellent contribution to any upper-level undergraduate or graduate course of study and will surely prompt further conversation about the place of the fan in literary discussion, in all its forms. The relatability and ease of understanding here is made possible by the often-conversational candor of Geddes and Fazel's analysis, as well as the inclusion of familiar pieces of media. Scholars interested in the aforementioned fields will find this book useful. As a whole, The Shakespeare Multiverse makes an excellent case for the importance of enthusiastic and mindful fandom and fan studies and offers a lively and rich jumping-off point from which fans—and literary scholars—might find common ground in the interest of Shakespeare in all its forms.