Can fandom change society?
July 15, 2015 5:32 AM Subscribe
Or to sum up what I just said, here's a comic.
posted by zabuni at 6:00 AM on July 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by zabuni at 6:00 AM on July 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
Interesting. It's a very modern and optimistic view of fandom of course and not very deep, but then you can't dig that deep in a seven minute video anyway.
For what it is, why fandom matters to so many people, it's very well done, showcasing some of the most visible (for better or worse) components of modern fandom and giving a bit of attention to what it all means and how it all works.
I think trying to fit these developments into traditional political frames is pointless: there's more to changing the world than that.
posted by MartinWisse at 6:48 AM on July 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
For what it is, why fandom matters to so many people, it's very well done, showcasing some of the most visible (for better or worse) components of modern fandom and giving a bit of attention to what it all means and how it all works.
I think trying to fit these developments into traditional political frames is pointless: there's more to changing the world than that.
posted by MartinWisse at 6:48 AM on July 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Fandom doesn't do much for me personally. I enjoy a lot of the same cultural touchstones as people in fandom ( comic books, video games, etc.), but I don't have any real desire to produce new content or creating things surrounding those interests. Obviously I have a lot of respect for people who do like things that way and I'm glad they're finding ways to get enjoyment out of life.
I'm also struck by how dominate fandom culture has become. On Monday night I went to a Taylor Swift concert. It was magical and life affirming and everything that the Buzzfeed listicles tell you it is, seriously. It's also, obviously, an insanely commercial experience, designed to sell $150 tickets, $35 t-shirts, and $14 sandwiches. For all that, the crowd was clearly grounded in a type of fandom experience. There were so many people in homemade costumes, not just like homemade Taylor Swift t-shirts (although there were obviously plenty of those, including one that was just a reference to the title of a video Taylor posted on Instagram a few months back), but in genuine costumes. The guy next to us was dressed as a character from the "Bad Blood" video (Frostbyte, if you're curious), one teenage girl had recreated Taylor's outfit from the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show in amazing detail, and there were whole flocks of pegacorns, because that was Taylor's Halloween costume last year. Lots of people had clothes or signs or something that they had wired to light up.
A concert is clearly the deep end of the fandom pool, which accounts for a lot of this, but it's also that in 2015, this is just how we show that we love things. Maybe it's always been this way, but it feels like a stronger part of the culture now than it did ten or fifteen years ago.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:51 AM on July 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm also struck by how dominate fandom culture has become. On Monday night I went to a Taylor Swift concert. It was magical and life affirming and everything that the Buzzfeed listicles tell you it is, seriously. It's also, obviously, an insanely commercial experience, designed to sell $150 tickets, $35 t-shirts, and $14 sandwiches. For all that, the crowd was clearly grounded in a type of fandom experience. There were so many people in homemade costumes, not just like homemade Taylor Swift t-shirts (although there were obviously plenty of those, including one that was just a reference to the title of a video Taylor posted on Instagram a few months back), but in genuine costumes. The guy next to us was dressed as a character from the "Bad Blood" video (Frostbyte, if you're curious), one teenage girl had recreated Taylor's outfit from the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show in amazing detail, and there were whole flocks of pegacorns, because that was Taylor's Halloween costume last year. Lots of people had clothes or signs or something that they had wired to light up.
A concert is clearly the deep end of the fandom pool, which accounts for a lot of this, but it's also that in 2015, this is just how we show that we love things. Maybe it's always been this way, but it feels like a stronger part of the culture now than it did ten or fifteen years ago.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:51 AM on July 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
I can't watch this video yet at work, but: almost everything I hold dear in progressive values about social justice, feminism, GLBT issues, race, postmodernism, and storytelling, I learned through / from / inspired by / because of media fandom. Not always in a good way, but always in an educational way. I would not be the geek feminist I am today without fandom.
posted by nicebookrack at 7:01 AM on July 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by nicebookrack at 7:01 AM on July 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
i used to be a fan of things. ten years ago, fandom was my classmates, metafilter, maybe a few dozen people on a message board. I remember when my best friend and I sat down and watched all of Firefly together. Now, it's different. I binge through a TV show, clicking over to reddit or fanfare to, well, to learn what the best parts and worst parts of what I just watched were. #Hashtags are an endless stream. I can't remember the last time I talked to a person about my thoughts on a book that we both had read.
I think I need a refresh. I think I need to re-center on what it is I want to get out of things, and not let myself get swept along with the overwhelming numbers that is fandom.
posted by rebent at 7:13 AM on July 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think I need a refresh. I think I need to re-center on what it is I want to get out of things, and not let myself get swept along with the overwhelming numbers that is fandom.
posted by rebent at 7:13 AM on July 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
I totally don't get this idea that fandom is somehow something more than, well, fandom.
Like what you like, of course, but don't try to make this liking somehow transcendent. If you create something based off of your obsessions, awesome, we'll judge it on its merits, but the sole act of liking something, or talking about what you like, isn't in itself creative, or meaningful, or noteworthy.
There's this weird idea that by picking to watch this TV-show instead of that one, or read this comic book instead of that other one, you have somehow made an impact, on something?
It reminds of the people who think that by hitting the 'like' button on something connected to some issue they don't really understand or engage with but think is important, they've 'made a difference'.
I see it as an attempt to reify consumption, to make people think they're special, or unique, or engaged, by their consumer choices. I guess this makes sense in a late-capitalist society, creating brand awareness, loyalty, etc., essentially for free, but I fail to see any true value in fandom as such, except in a monetary sense for the owners of IP.
posted by signal at 7:30 AM on July 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Like what you like, of course, but don't try to make this liking somehow transcendent. If you create something based off of your obsessions, awesome, we'll judge it on its merits, but the sole act of liking something, or talking about what you like, isn't in itself creative, or meaningful, or noteworthy.
There's this weird idea that by picking to watch this TV-show instead of that one, or read this comic book instead of that other one, you have somehow made an impact, on something?
It reminds of the people who think that by hitting the 'like' button on something connected to some issue they don't really understand or engage with but think is important, they've 'made a difference'.
I see it as an attempt to reify consumption, to make people think they're special, or unique, or engaged, by their consumer choices. I guess this makes sense in a late-capitalist society, creating brand awareness, loyalty, etc., essentially for free, but I fail to see any true value in fandom as such, except in a monetary sense for the owners of IP.
posted by signal at 7:30 AM on July 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Like what you like, of course, but don't try to make this liking somehow transcendent. If you create something based off of your obsessions, awesome, we'll judge it on its merits, but the sole act of liking something, or talking about what you like, isn't in itself creative, or meaningful, or noteworthy.
I think you're conflating two different things here; the experience of participating in fandom can be transcendent for some people. It's Durkheimian collective effervescence; you can't tell me that Bulgaroktonos' experience at the Taylor Swift concert wasn't basically a religious experience (trust me, it was). People aren't saying that liking something is in itself creative, but participating in an expression of fandom, be it joy or sorrow or whatever, as part of a group, is a real and meaningful human experience.
I can see your point that it's problematic that this is done through consumption, and I don't necessarily disagree with that, I but I disagree very strongly that there is no "true value". It allows people to share in a group experience, to express their own emotions and to be a part of something bigger than themselves. It's how many people feel collective effervescence now and I think there is immense value in that. People need to feel things, and people need to share their feelings. If fandom lets them do that, I think it is absolutely worth something.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:47 AM on July 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
I think you're conflating two different things here; the experience of participating in fandom can be transcendent for some people. It's Durkheimian collective effervescence; you can't tell me that Bulgaroktonos' experience at the Taylor Swift concert wasn't basically a religious experience (trust me, it was). People aren't saying that liking something is in itself creative, but participating in an expression of fandom, be it joy or sorrow or whatever, as part of a group, is a real and meaningful human experience.
I can see your point that it's problematic that this is done through consumption, and I don't necessarily disagree with that, I but I disagree very strongly that there is no "true value". It allows people to share in a group experience, to express their own emotions and to be a part of something bigger than themselves. It's how many people feel collective effervescence now and I think there is immense value in that. People need to feel things, and people need to share their feelings. If fandom lets them do that, I think it is absolutely worth something.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:47 AM on July 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
I don't have a problem with fandom per se, but I often find myself thinking that if people channelled the same amount of passion and creativity into original art, our culture would be so much richer, and a lot less prone to being manipulated by commercial interests.
posted by pipeski at 7:51 AM on July 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by pipeski at 7:51 AM on July 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
I see it as an attempt to reify consumption, to make people think they're special, or unique, or engaged, by their consumer choices. I guess this makes sense in a late-capitalist society, creating brand awareness, loyalty, etc., essentially for free, but I fail to see any true value in fandom as such, except in a monetary sense for the owners of IP.
This hasn't been my experience of fandom at all. There are certainly parts of fandom or whole fandoms that are driven by consumption like this, where buying and collecting the right stuff is a huge part of a given fan's participation in fandom. But that is far from all fandom is, and when people talk about fandom being life-changing or deeply meaningful, they're not talking about their physical collection of comic books. They're talking about the community. Because the fandom community talks about things with each other, makes things with and for each other, teaches things to each other. I'm not sure if that kind of thing can "change society" any more than any other community based on shared interests can, but the fandom community can certainly be life-changing on an individual level, in terms of the friendships and skills it fosters.
I am ambivalent about some of the ways fandom has become mainstream now though. I mean, certain kinds of fandom have basically always been mainstream (like sports fandom), and it's just media fandom that's getting more attention lately, no doubt because corporations have finally wised up and realized fandom = $$$$. It's just jarring to go from the mid-90s, early-00s conception of media fandom as this fight club like thing that frequently had a bordering on adversarial relationship with its corporate overlords, to something that's broadly understood and accepted, and even encouraged by the corporate owners of IP.
posted by yasaman at 8:15 AM on July 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
This hasn't been my experience of fandom at all. There are certainly parts of fandom or whole fandoms that are driven by consumption like this, where buying and collecting the right stuff is a huge part of a given fan's participation in fandom. But that is far from all fandom is, and when people talk about fandom being life-changing or deeply meaningful, they're not talking about their physical collection of comic books. They're talking about the community. Because the fandom community talks about things with each other, makes things with and for each other, teaches things to each other. I'm not sure if that kind of thing can "change society" any more than any other community based on shared interests can, but the fandom community can certainly be life-changing on an individual level, in terms of the friendships and skills it fosters.
I am ambivalent about some of the ways fandom has become mainstream now though. I mean, certain kinds of fandom have basically always been mainstream (like sports fandom), and it's just media fandom that's getting more attention lately, no doubt because corporations have finally wised up and realized fandom = $$$$. It's just jarring to go from the mid-90s, early-00s conception of media fandom as this fight club like thing that frequently had a bordering on adversarial relationship with its corporate overlords, to something that's broadly understood and accepted, and even encouraged by the corporate owners of IP.
posted by yasaman at 8:15 AM on July 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
I have been in fandom for well over half my life at this point, and active in producing for fandom pretty much the whole time. The issue with fandom and original art is that fannish people DO produce original work, of course they do, but there's little demand for it, certainly not the demand that fandom brings. What I have always loved about fandom, as a writer, is that there is this audience that genuinely wants to read what I've written. Its quite an addictive thing to write something, and have people actually read it. Meanwhile, the novel I have sitting on my hard drive, this labour of love I've been sweating over on and off for years, is statistically never going to be read once I release it, either through the exhausting slog of traditional publishing or through newer methods, and there's little infrastructure for people to tell me that they like it.
posted by litereally at 8:17 AM on July 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by litereally at 8:17 AM on July 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
The idea that "fandom" in its modern form is a return to a lost golden age of social appreciation for creative works is something that only a generation born after the Internet would think.
posted by belarius at 8:19 AM on July 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by belarius at 8:19 AM on July 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Interesting. It's a very modern and optimistic view of fandom of course and not very deep, but then you can't dig that deep in a seven minute video anyway.
I myself am completely tired of self-congratulatory anthropologic subculture texts. This is just 21st century Fans are Slans.
I think trying to fit these developments into traditional political frames is pointless: there's more to changing the world than that.
Disagree strongly. I am damned tired of online groups that claim to make a difference, but that difference is nebulous and totally divorced from "traditional political frames". They may not be of the world, but please be in the world.
posted by zabuni at 8:25 AM on July 15, 2015
I myself am completely tired of self-congratulatory anthropologic subculture texts. This is just 21st century Fans are Slans.
I think trying to fit these developments into traditional political frames is pointless: there's more to changing the world than that.
Disagree strongly. I am damned tired of online groups that claim to make a difference, but that difference is nebulous and totally divorced from "traditional political frames". They may not be of the world, but please be in the world.
posted by zabuni at 8:25 AM on July 15, 2015
The idea that "fandom" in its modern form is a return to a lost golden age of social appreciation for creative works is something that only a generation born after the Internet would think.
posted by belarius at 11:19 AM on July 15
Care to elaborate? I think there's something to the idea that the use of the tools of fandom (fan art, fan fiction, cosplay, etc.) positions the objects of fandom's interest in the tradition of stories and characters with loose canons and emphasis on local and individual variation. Captain America, as a character on the pages of Marvel comics, has a definite story (even if the nature of comics canon makes it somewhat nonsensical if read as an actual story). Captain America as he exists in the fan community is more like a Greek hero; there's some stuff most everyone agrees on, but there's lots of differing versions, and non-standard accounts, and side tales of the time Odysseus totally came to our island, too, you guys.
Are you say that that reading of fan art is wrong or that it's not a return to a lost golden age in the sense that it was there all along? I don't know enough about the history of this sort of thing to pass judgment on that (and I find conversation trying to nail down when golden ages existed to be mostly ahistorical exercises), but I think it's true that fandom in its modern form is, in some ways and in some places, about "social appreciation for creative works."
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:40 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by belarius at 11:19 AM on July 15
Care to elaborate? I think there's something to the idea that the use of the tools of fandom (fan art, fan fiction, cosplay, etc.) positions the objects of fandom's interest in the tradition of stories and characters with loose canons and emphasis on local and individual variation. Captain America, as a character on the pages of Marvel comics, has a definite story (even if the nature of comics canon makes it somewhat nonsensical if read as an actual story). Captain America as he exists in the fan community is more like a Greek hero; there's some stuff most everyone agrees on, but there's lots of differing versions, and non-standard accounts, and side tales of the time Odysseus totally came to our island, too, you guys.
Are you say that that reading of fan art is wrong or that it's not a return to a lost golden age in the sense that it was there all along? I don't know enough about the history of this sort of thing to pass judgment on that (and I find conversation trying to nail down when golden ages existed to be mostly ahistorical exercises), but I think it's true that fandom in its modern form is, in some ways and in some places, about "social appreciation for creative works."
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:40 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
This hasn't been my experience of fandom at all. There are certainly parts of fandom or whole fandoms that are driven by consumption like this, where buying and collecting the right stuff is a huge part of a given fan's participation in fandom. But that is far from all fandom is, and when people talk about fandom being life-changing or deeply meaningful, they're not talking about their physical collection of comic books. They're talking about the community.
yasaman
But isn't the community, no matter how life-affirming and great it is, just a structure built around consuming something? The fandom for this show or that singer is ultimately a support and promotion system for that property, whatever the fandom might consider themselves.
Mrs. Pterodactyl talks about the value of the community being that it provides meaningful human communal experiences, but that that rests on the assumption that all such communal experiences are of equal value or equally desirable. Sure it may provide a "religious experience", but it's a religious experience in the service of consumption.
And that's not harmless. It's taking people's natural energy and enthusiasm and putting them in service of corporate interests. Like litereally says above, this is extremely seductive for creators. It's so much easier to create content within the existing corporate space. Your Batman fan art is almost always going to be more popular and get you more accolades than your original work, the same with your Harry Potter fanfic.
I just feel like fandom is a way corporations have learned to capture people's genuine feelings and monetize them. Like a less hamfisted Kiss Army.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:43 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
yasaman
But isn't the community, no matter how life-affirming and great it is, just a structure built around consuming something? The fandom for this show or that singer is ultimately a support and promotion system for that property, whatever the fandom might consider themselves.
Mrs. Pterodactyl talks about the value of the community being that it provides meaningful human communal experiences, but that that rests on the assumption that all such communal experiences are of equal value or equally desirable. Sure it may provide a "religious experience", but it's a religious experience in the service of consumption.
And that's not harmless. It's taking people's natural energy and enthusiasm and putting them in service of corporate interests. Like litereally says above, this is extremely seductive for creators. It's so much easier to create content within the existing corporate space. Your Batman fan art is almost always going to be more popular and get you more accolades than your original work, the same with your Harry Potter fanfic.
I just feel like fandom is a way corporations have learned to capture people's genuine feelings and monetize them. Like a less hamfisted Kiss Army.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:43 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fans of fandom? How meta.
That is 99% of "nerd culture" these days. It's not enough to be into, say, Doctor Who. You have to be into being into Doctor Who. You aren't declaring fealty to the show, but to the fandom around the show. Most of which, let's be honest, is more interested in celebrating its love of the property than the property itself. It's especially hand when there no longer is a property itself (rhymes with "Schmierfly").
posted by Legomancer at 8:51 AM on July 15, 2015
That is 99% of "nerd culture" these days. It's not enough to be into, say, Doctor Who. You have to be into being into Doctor Who. You aren't declaring fealty to the show, but to the fandom around the show. Most of which, let's be honest, is more interested in celebrating its love of the property than the property itself. It's especially hand when there no longer is a property itself (rhymes with "Schmierfly").
posted by Legomancer at 8:51 AM on July 15, 2015
Disagree strongly. I am damned tired of online groups that claim to make a difference, but that difference is nebulous and totally divorced from "traditional political frames". They may not be of the world, but please be in the world.
It's through this vinegar pissing attitude that you miss the transformative nature of being in fandom on actual people's lives, everything from having an outlet for your creative energy and perhaps an occupation, to forging friendship and more. Not everything has to be judged in terms of whether or not it'll raise Democratic voter turnout.
I just feel like fandom is a way corporations have learned to capture people's genuine feelings and monetize them.
That's also complete bollocks. For the most part corporations have learned nothing save perhaps to learn to live with fandom: the way Marvel blamed Hydra for the leaking of their latest trailer vs. DC's legal blustering with theirs.
But they neither own nor control fandom. You don't need to buy stuff to be in fandom.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's through this vinegar pissing attitude that you miss the transformative nature of being in fandom on actual people's lives, everything from having an outlet for your creative energy and perhaps an occupation, to forging friendship and more. Not everything has to be judged in terms of whether or not it'll raise Democratic voter turnout.
I just feel like fandom is a way corporations have learned to capture people's genuine feelings and monetize them.
That's also complete bollocks. For the most part corporations have learned nothing save perhaps to learn to live with fandom: the way Marvel blamed Hydra for the leaking of their latest trailer vs. DC's legal blustering with theirs.
But they neither own nor control fandom. You don't need to buy stuff to be in fandom.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Holmies are an interesting inclusion in that segment. I'd thought it a one off prank, not a thing.
posted by Artw at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2015
posted by Artw at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2015
And of course most of what we're talking about here is just re-enacting pre-WWII debates: FIAWOL vs FIJAGDH.
Fandom is a way of life/Fandom is just a ghu damn hobby.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:55 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fandom is a way of life/Fandom is just a ghu damn hobby.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:55 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
But isn't the community, no matter how life-affirming and great it is, just a structure built around consuming something? The fandom for this show or that singer is ultimately a support and promotion system for that property, whatever the fandom might consider themselves.
There are two things I think you're missing here. One is that, quite often, the fandom can grow bigger than the source: the edifice of conversation and fanfiction and arguments and convention-attending and friendship and fanart and critical commentary dwarfs its foundational text by an order of magnitude or more. Harry Potter fans spend vastly more time interacting with the rest of Harry Potter fandom than they do actually reading Harry Potter.
The second, and for me equally important, thing is that fandom is very often very, very critical. People who care about a piece of media enough to participate in the fandom are often highly critical of that media, despite and in addition to their love for it. A great deal of fannish creativity is producing work in direct opposition to the text, or in criticism of it-- not because they don't love it, but because they wish it were better, and everyone has a different idea of what 'better' means.
posted by nonasuch at 8:58 AM on July 15, 2015 [9 favorites]
There are two things I think you're missing here. One is that, quite often, the fandom can grow bigger than the source: the edifice of conversation and fanfiction and arguments and convention-attending and friendship and fanart and critical commentary dwarfs its foundational text by an order of magnitude or more. Harry Potter fans spend vastly more time interacting with the rest of Harry Potter fandom than they do actually reading Harry Potter.
The second, and for me equally important, thing is that fandom is very often very, very critical. People who care about a piece of media enough to participate in the fandom are often highly critical of that media, despite and in addition to their love for it. A great deal of fannish creativity is producing work in direct opposition to the text, or in criticism of it-- not because they don't love it, but because they wish it were better, and everyone has a different idea of what 'better' means.
posted by nonasuch at 8:58 AM on July 15, 2015 [9 favorites]
And actually, having thought about it for a minute, there's a third thing: who says fans don't produce original work? We don't have to, and not all of us do, but many, many fans take the creative skills they hone in fandom and turn them to original work, without leaving fandom behind.
posted by nonasuch at 9:00 AM on July 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by nonasuch at 9:00 AM on July 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Marvel is doing an event right now that is basically "The Marvel Universe has been destroyed and Doctor Doom has recreated it as a bunch of Tumblr mash-ups", so the barrier is not impermeable.
posted by Artw at 9:00 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 9:00 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
When I read the title, my first reaction was "dear god no, I hope not." I think I've been seeing too much of the dark side of fandom recently. I understand that it can be a transformative place for many people, but I worry about proclaiming just how open and accepting fandom is. As far as I know, it's getting better, but the backlash, mostly against Women, POC, LGBT* folks has been rather extreme and bitter in some areas.
And maybe I'm just still bitter about the Hugos.
posted by Hactar at 9:04 AM on July 15, 2015
And maybe I'm just still bitter about the Hugos.
posted by Hactar at 9:04 AM on July 15, 2015
Directly buying stuff isn't the only value of fandom. You're missing the brand value it generates. If people are talking about and debating and celebrating a property, no matter how critical the discussion is, it keeps the brand alive and relevant. Legions of people talking about Harry Potter keeps Harry Potter viable as a revenue generator, and creates a built-in audience for future games, rides, books, movies, etc.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:05 AM on July 15, 2015
posted by Sangermaine at 9:05 AM on July 15, 2015
I don't have a problem with fandom per se, but I often find myself thinking that if people channelled the same amount of passion and creativity into original art, our culture would be so much richer, and a lot less prone to being manipulated by commercial interests.
The furry fandom is not based on any pre-existing properties, exists solely to allow its participants express their own imagination within the context of anthropomorphic animals, and is one of the most singularly creative and truly free and accepting groups of people (animals?) I've ever met in my life. While there is tolerance and even interest in commercial properties within the furry fandom, the fandom as a whole prefers original creations above anything else.
posted by hippybear at 9:11 AM on July 15, 2015
The furry fandom is not based on any pre-existing properties, exists solely to allow its participants express their own imagination within the context of anthropomorphic animals, and is one of the most singularly creative and truly free and accepting groups of people (animals?) I've ever met in my life. While there is tolerance and even interest in commercial properties within the furry fandom, the fandom as a whole prefers original creations above anything else.
posted by hippybear at 9:11 AM on July 15, 2015
Directly buying stuff isn't the only value of fandom. You're missing the brand value it generates. If people are talking about and debating and celebrating a property, no matter how critical the discussion is, it keeps the brand alive and relevant.
Okay? I mean, if we all read Harry Potter and never talked about it with anyone ever again, I guess it's true that Harry Potter wouldn't have been the massive success that it is, but I also would not have formed many of the most significant and lasting relationships of my life. I would not have had the community in which I learned to be a writer of original work. If I ever become a success as a writer or artist, it will be thanks to skills gained in fandom.
It seems as though you think most fans are unaware that their fannish activity makes the objects of their fandom more popular, which really isn't the case. If I love a piece of media, I want others to love it was well, so that I will have someone to talk about it with and so that they can share in whatever positive emotions it generates in me. If the creator or parent company makes some cash out of that, and is thereby encouraged to make more of that sort of thing, that is all to the good.
Like, when I say that Buffy the Vampire Slayer saved my life, I am really not exaggerating very much. If I was a revenue generator for 20th century Fox as a result, that is an acceptable tradeoff for me. If more stories get told that have a similar impact because of that-- if the fannish creators of today have a market for their original work that might not have otherwise existed-- I feel like I came out ahead on that deal.
posted by nonasuch at 9:23 AM on July 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
Okay? I mean, if we all read Harry Potter and never talked about it with anyone ever again, I guess it's true that Harry Potter wouldn't have been the massive success that it is, but I also would not have formed many of the most significant and lasting relationships of my life. I would not have had the community in which I learned to be a writer of original work. If I ever become a success as a writer or artist, it will be thanks to skills gained in fandom.
It seems as though you think most fans are unaware that their fannish activity makes the objects of their fandom more popular, which really isn't the case. If I love a piece of media, I want others to love it was well, so that I will have someone to talk about it with and so that they can share in whatever positive emotions it generates in me. If the creator or parent company makes some cash out of that, and is thereby encouraged to make more of that sort of thing, that is all to the good.
Like, when I say that Buffy the Vampire Slayer saved my life, I am really not exaggerating very much. If I was a revenue generator for 20th century Fox as a result, that is an acceptable tradeoff for me. If more stories get told that have a similar impact because of that-- if the fannish creators of today have a market for their original work that might not have otherwise existed-- I feel like I came out ahead on that deal.
posted by nonasuch at 9:23 AM on July 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
Directly buying stuff isn't the only value of fandom. You're missing the brand value it generates.
Companies making money off off people's genuine interests? In a capitalist society? Who'd thunk.
That's not criticism; that's a statement of fact and completely uninteresting, unsurprising or relevant much.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:27 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Companies making money off off people's genuine interests? In a capitalist society? Who'd thunk.
That's not criticism; that's a statement of fact and completely uninteresting, unsurprising or relevant much.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:27 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
MartinWisse: "It's through this vinegar pissing attitude that you miss the transformative nature of being in fandom on actual people's lives, everything from having an outlet for your creative energy and perhaps an occupation, to forging friendship and more. Not everything has to be judged in terms of whether or not it'll raise Democratic voter turnout. "
Oh, I don't know. I'm not sure so much that it's an outlet for creative so much as a yoke. Fandoms seem to have a difficult time differentiating quality of derivative work, especially when new characters or settings are involved. There are exceptions, for sure, but the number of derisive comments about Mary Sues, wish fulfillments or "original character do not steal" seems to me like it exerts a conforming pressure on creativity.
posted by boo_radley at 9:45 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh, I don't know. I'm not sure so much that it's an outlet for creative so much as a yoke. Fandoms seem to have a difficult time differentiating quality of derivative work, especially when new characters or settings are involved. There are exceptions, for sure, but the number of derisive comments about Mary Sues, wish fulfillments or "original character do not steal" seems to me like it exerts a conforming pressure on creativity.
posted by boo_radley at 9:45 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Having been in fandom spaces for 20+ years at this point, I'm pretty skeptical of claims that fandom can change the world, or be an overall societal force for good outside of narrow things like fundraisers for specific causes. I mean, it provides joy in individual lives, connections between individual people, sure -- but I've also seen too much racist, misogynist stuff go down in fandom and get justified under ~~~ BUT FANDOM IS SO INCLUSIVE ~~~ AND PROGRESSIVE.
On the other hand, watching certain posters in this thread characterize and describe fandom without apparently ever actual real, exposure or participation in fandom -- while feeling totally totally entitled to shit all over fandom, particularly the fic-writing, convention-organizing spaces that are primarily run by and for ladies for other ladies? And characterize those as unforgivably corporate (and derivative fanfiction as somehow inherently inferior to original writing), while not talking about the much more directly consumer/capitalist/non-creating spaces devoted to things like following sports teams or memorabilia collecting, which also happen to be far, far, far more dude-heavy?
It makes me want to go out and write, I don't know.
A 15,000 word Comcast/Verizon sex pollen a/b/o hatefucking fic with pony play and fisting.
posted by joyceanmachine at 10:15 AM on July 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
On the other hand, watching certain posters in this thread characterize and describe fandom without apparently ever actual real, exposure or participation in fandom -- while feeling totally totally entitled to shit all over fandom, particularly the fic-writing, convention-organizing spaces that are primarily run by and for ladies for other ladies? And characterize those as unforgivably corporate (and derivative fanfiction as somehow inherently inferior to original writing), while not talking about the much more directly consumer/capitalist/non-creating spaces devoted to things like following sports teams or memorabilia collecting, which also happen to be far, far, far more dude-heavy?
It makes me want to go out and write, I don't know.
A 15,000 word Comcast/Verizon sex pollen a/b/o hatefucking fic with pony play and fisting.
posted by joyceanmachine at 10:15 AM on July 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
Sangermaine, I feel like your criticisms boil down to fandom being a part of and participating in capitalist society. Which is definitely true, because we are all basically a part of and participating in capitalist society. All of our media, all of our art, is part of this capitalist society. Why, exactly, should that mediate our response to it? Is art more pure, more worthy of engagement only when it's free of the structures of capitalism? What difference does that make to the communities we build around the media we love?
Like nonasuch says, whatever qualms fans have about being part of or exploited by the profit-generating corporate machine, the non-monetary benefits we gain from our participation in fandom make it an acceptable trade-off. And it should be noted that overt attempts to monetize fandom are generally met with intense resistance or disinterest. Fandom's pretty committed to being a gift economy.
posted by yasaman at 10:15 AM on July 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Like nonasuch says, whatever qualms fans have about being part of or exploited by the profit-generating corporate machine, the non-monetary benefits we gain from our participation in fandom make it an acceptable trade-off. And it should be noted that overt attempts to monetize fandom are generally met with intense resistance or disinterest. Fandom's pretty committed to being a gift economy.
posted by yasaman at 10:15 AM on July 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
People have been cosplaying and creating fan art since...as far back as I'm aware of. It was mostly a pre-adolescent thing, but kids have always dressed up like characters from books, TV, movies, and other parts of their cultures, and created and played out their own storylines based on those. It seems to be a pretty much universal thing, and it's been constant at least as long as I'm aware.
The only parts that are possibly new about fandoms now is that more people seem to be doing it post-adolescence, and there's a heavier mass media influence with franchise entertainment, so you might see more of it that is focused more on specific, existing characters and canonical storylines.
Of course self-contained stories don't inspire as much direct reference as big character and universe franchises, but art is always influenced by other art, even when the influence is more subtle than directly lifting existing characters.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:19 AM on July 15, 2015
The only parts that are possibly new about fandoms now is that more people seem to be doing it post-adolescence, and there's a heavier mass media influence with franchise entertainment, so you might see more of it that is focused more on specific, existing characters and canonical storylines.
Of course self-contained stories don't inspire as much direct reference as big character and universe franchises, but art is always influenced by other art, even when the influence is more subtle than directly lifting existing characters.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:19 AM on July 15, 2015
Not everything has to be judged in terms of whether or not it'll raise Democratic voter turnout.
Call me petty if personal anecdotal transformation of a person's life doesn't seem to be enough for me. Every drop raises the ocean, but the Pacific is deep and blue. If we use the meter stick of changing a person's life, then almost any organization, of any size, could easily pass that bar. Whether or not something "changes the world" almost becomes tautological: It exists, people are involved in it. Therefore it changes the world.
posted by zabuni at 10:36 AM on July 15, 2015
Call me petty if personal anecdotal transformation of a person's life doesn't seem to be enough for me. Every drop raises the ocean, but the Pacific is deep and blue. If we use the meter stick of changing a person's life, then almost any organization, of any size, could easily pass that bar. Whether or not something "changes the world" almost becomes tautological: It exists, people are involved in it. Therefore it changes the world.
posted by zabuni at 10:36 AM on July 15, 2015
Like what you like, of course, but don't try to make this liking somehow transcendent
So... FIJAGH, then?
I'm more of a FIAWOL person myself even if I'm not technically a member of fandom.
posted by Justinian at 10:41 AM on July 15, 2015
So... FIJAGH, then?
I'm more of a FIAWOL person myself even if I'm not technically a member of fandom.
posted by Justinian at 10:41 AM on July 15, 2015
One thing I would like to know more about is when the concept of Fandom as a whole became so unified. The roots are in Golden Age SF fans, right? I remember Fandom being pretty separated in the 90s. There were some gaming rooms at comics con or SF memorabilia sections at the local comic book store but people who played miniature based war games didn't really mix with Street Fighter fans or Otaku.
Now I'm in Seattle and during the videogame convention folks are dressed as anime princesses or furries. I guess I'm glad that every one is supportive of other people's interests but it stresses me out. Its just soooo huge and daunting. I've always found subcultures to be pretty exclusive and hostile, and I say that as a cis het white man. I feel like I'm not 'good enough' of a fan, I don't have enough credibility as a collector/nerd. Is this just me? Do other people feel this sense of not-belonging, of not being invested enough to belong in Fannish spaces?
posted by kittensofthenight at 10:48 AM on July 15, 2015
Now I'm in Seattle and during the videogame convention folks are dressed as anime princesses or furries. I guess I'm glad that every one is supportive of other people's interests but it stresses me out. Its just soooo huge and daunting. I've always found subcultures to be pretty exclusive and hostile, and I say that as a cis het white man. I feel like I'm not 'good enough' of a fan, I don't have enough credibility as a collector/nerd. Is this just me? Do other people feel this sense of not-belonging, of not being invested enough to belong in Fannish spaces?
posted by kittensofthenight at 10:48 AM on July 15, 2015
For the record I felt the same way in the 90s, playing hardcore shows and desperately wanting to be part of 'the scene' but not making any close connections, even though I played shows every week. Still I continue to engage fannish stuff in private while being unable to engage in the communities. I can't believe how intimidating and scary it would be to anyone who isn't white and straight. Its also interesting how certain fandoms have slightly different makeups that accept certain minorities and exclude others; Fighting games are pretty racially diverse but hostile to women/queers is one example.
posted by kittensofthenight at 10:57 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by kittensofthenight at 10:57 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Do other people feel this sense of not-belonging, of not being invested enough to belong in Fannish spaces?
As much as the concept of "fandom" has been unified, I think that there are still different subcultures within fandom, and that your sense of belonging (or not) will depend a lot on which subculture you find yourself interacting with the most. I've never felt like I wasn't "invested enough" to belong in the primarily fanfiction- and meta-writing spaces I hung out in, even when - for a long time - I didn't write any fanfiction at all.
(Also, subcultures aren't really unified things either. That might not be the right word. I can be an anime fan, a fanfiction fan, a fanart fan - or all three or two or just one. And in my experience it depended a lot on platform as well. What has alienated me the most from fandom in the last several years is actually the death of fandom on LiveJournal and the move towards platforms that do not foster discussion as well (such as tumbler, AO3). It makes it harder to make connections.)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:01 AM on July 15, 2015
As much as the concept of "fandom" has been unified, I think that there are still different subcultures within fandom, and that your sense of belonging (or not) will depend a lot on which subculture you find yourself interacting with the most. I've never felt like I wasn't "invested enough" to belong in the primarily fanfiction- and meta-writing spaces I hung out in, even when - for a long time - I didn't write any fanfiction at all.
(Also, subcultures aren't really unified things either. That might not be the right word. I can be an anime fan, a fanfiction fan, a fanart fan - or all three or two or just one. And in my experience it depended a lot on platform as well. What has alienated me the most from fandom in the last several years is actually the death of fandom on LiveJournal and the move towards platforms that do not foster discussion as well (such as tumbler, AO3). It makes it harder to make connections.)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:01 AM on July 15, 2015
I tend to bang on the fandom is just a goddamn hobby drum in non-fannish spaces just because I tend to see a lot of shitting on fandom or condescension towards it that other hobbies don't get. And like, fandom is not some weirdo, outre hobby. It's part of a pattern of behaviors that are pretty fundamental to the ways we interact with art. To sneer at people in fic-writing, fanart drawing fandom while uncritically accepting the frequently way more over the top sports fandom is disingenuous to me.
Your average sports franchise fan doesn't care or even think about how their fandom ~changes the world~, even when they perhaps should seriously consider leveraging their participation in sports fandom to reject or change practices that literally kill people (sports injuries, the deaths of workers building World Cup stadiums, etc).
So I'm on the side of, why does fandom have to change society to be valuable? Why do we need to justify it? Like yo, I just like reading 5000 variations on Captain America being less sad, I don't need to politicize that to justify it or feel good about it.
That said, I think the possibility of fandom changing society lies in its influence on individual creators, which is already trickling through mass media. That influence can be for ill, because you can end up with fanservice-y circlejerks, especially when you put a fan in charge of a franchise. But you can also end up with creators who came up in fandom, and who bring fandom's ethos of greater diversity to their own original works. Fandom frequently asks where are the women, where are the queer people, and fans who end up in a position to answer that question as creators answer it with their original works. I'm thinking of someone like Noelle Stevenson, who started out in fanart, and who has now published her own original comics that feature diverse characters like Nimona and Lumberjanes.
posted by yasaman at 11:07 AM on July 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Your average sports franchise fan doesn't care or even think about how their fandom ~changes the world~, even when they perhaps should seriously consider leveraging their participation in sports fandom to reject or change practices that literally kill people (sports injuries, the deaths of workers building World Cup stadiums, etc).
So I'm on the side of, why does fandom have to change society to be valuable? Why do we need to justify it? Like yo, I just like reading 5000 variations on Captain America being less sad, I don't need to politicize that to justify it or feel good about it.
That said, I think the possibility of fandom changing society lies in its influence on individual creators, which is already trickling through mass media. That influence can be for ill, because you can end up with fanservice-y circlejerks, especially when you put a fan in charge of a franchise. But you can also end up with creators who came up in fandom, and who bring fandom's ethos of greater diversity to their own original works. Fandom frequently asks where are the women, where are the queer people, and fans who end up in a position to answer that question as creators answer it with their original works. I'm thinking of someone like Noelle Stevenson, who started out in fanart, and who has now published her own original comics that feature diverse characters like Nimona and Lumberjanes.
posted by yasaman at 11:07 AM on July 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Fandom stifles originality and encourages writers to piss their talents away on trivia.
posted by tel3path at 11:16 AM on July 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by tel3path at 11:16 AM on July 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
joyceanmachine: "- while feeling totally totally entitled to shit all over fandom, particularly the fic-writing, convention-organizing spaces that are primarily run by and for ladies for other ladies?"
FWIW, I know you weren't commenting on what I wrote, but I was generally writing about all kinds of fandom, not just Tumblr-esque or fanfictiony ones, and specifically thinking of the football fans that dominated my country's mindspace for the last month or so during Copa América.
But I do see your point about women-related fandoms being dismissed more readily than male-oriented ones.
posted by signal at 11:24 AM on July 15, 2015
FWIW, I know you weren't commenting on what I wrote, but I was generally writing about all kinds of fandom, not just Tumblr-esque or fanfictiony ones, and specifically thinking of the football fans that dominated my country's mindspace for the last month or so during Copa América.
But I do see your point about women-related fandoms being dismissed more readily than male-oriented ones.
posted by signal at 11:24 AM on July 15, 2015
Since Henry Jenkins puts it much better than I would:
"Over the past several decades, corporations have sought to market branded content so that consumers become the bearers of their marketing messages. Marketers have turned our children into walking, talking billboards who wear logos on their t-shirts, sew patches on their backpacks, plaster stickers on their lockers, hang posters on their walls, but they must not, under penalty of law, post them on their home pages. Somehow, once consumers choose when and where to display those images, their active participation in the circulation of brands suddenly becomes a moral outrage and a threat to the industry's economic well-being.
Today's teens... aren't the only ones who are confused about where to draw the lines here; media companies are giving out profoundly mixed signals because they really can't decide what kind of relationships they want to have with this new kind of consumer. They want us to look at but not touch, buy but not use, media content. This contradiction is felt perhaps most acutely when it comes to cult media content. A cult media success depends on courting fan constituencies and niche markets; a mainstream success is seen by the media producers as depending on distancing themselves from them. The system depends on covert relationships between producers and consumers. The fans' labor in enhancing the value of an intellectual property can never be publicly recognized if the studio is going to maintain that the studio alone is the source of all value in that property. The Internet, though, has blown their cover, since those fan sites are now visible to anyone who knows how to google."
tl;dr fandom's relationship to capitalism is complicated
posted by thetortoise at 11:45 AM on July 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
"Over the past several decades, corporations have sought to market branded content so that consumers become the bearers of their marketing messages. Marketers have turned our children into walking, talking billboards who wear logos on their t-shirts, sew patches on their backpacks, plaster stickers on their lockers, hang posters on their walls, but they must not, under penalty of law, post them on their home pages. Somehow, once consumers choose when and where to display those images, their active participation in the circulation of brands suddenly becomes a moral outrage and a threat to the industry's economic well-being.
Today's teens... aren't the only ones who are confused about where to draw the lines here; media companies are giving out profoundly mixed signals because they really can't decide what kind of relationships they want to have with this new kind of consumer. They want us to look at but not touch, buy but not use, media content. This contradiction is felt perhaps most acutely when it comes to cult media content. A cult media success depends on courting fan constituencies and niche markets; a mainstream success is seen by the media producers as depending on distancing themselves from them. The system depends on covert relationships between producers and consumers. The fans' labor in enhancing the value of an intellectual property can never be publicly recognized if the studio is going to maintain that the studio alone is the source of all value in that property. The Internet, though, has blown their cover, since those fan sites are now visible to anyone who knows how to google."
tl;dr fandom's relationship to capitalism is complicated
posted by thetortoise at 11:45 AM on July 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
So I'm on the side of, why does fandom have to change society to be valuable? Why do we need to justify it?
This seems self-evidently obvious to me, to the point where I want to say that only on the internet (or, perhaps, in fandom) would the debate FANDOM: MENACE OR VANGUARD? even ever arise. I'm pretty skeptical about the ability of large hobbyist or affinity groups to effect beneficial social change merely by existing, but that seems like a heavy demand to make of people who just like to dress up, get drunk, and talk about/watch movies and TV shows. Godspeed them!
you can't tell me that Bulgaroktonos' experience at the Taylor Swift concert wasn't basically a religious experience
Madam, I would not be such a churl. However, I would suggest that "really exciting" is not synonymous with "religious experience." (Actually, there's a very long tradition of debate over the degree to which the performing arts can evoke the sublime. I will not contest the proposition that a Taylor Swift concert may be just the place to find that sublimity, but I will note, again, that sublimity is not identical with the numinous.)
posted by octobersurprise at 12:04 PM on July 15, 2015
This seems self-evidently obvious to me, to the point where I want to say that only on the internet (or, perhaps, in fandom) would the debate FANDOM: MENACE OR VANGUARD? even ever arise. I'm pretty skeptical about the ability of large hobbyist or affinity groups to effect beneficial social change merely by existing, but that seems like a heavy demand to make of people who just like to dress up, get drunk, and talk about/watch movies and TV shows. Godspeed them!
you can't tell me that Bulgaroktonos' experience at the Taylor Swift concert wasn't basically a religious experience
Madam, I would not be such a churl. However, I would suggest that "really exciting" is not synonymous with "religious experience." (Actually, there's a very long tradition of debate over the degree to which the performing arts can evoke the sublime. I will not contest the proposition that a Taylor Swift concert may be just the place to find that sublimity, but I will note, again, that sublimity is not identical with the numinous.)
posted by octobersurprise at 12:04 PM on July 15, 2015
there's a very long tradition of debate over the degree to which the performing arts can evoke the sublime
I think the definitive answer to that question is "YMMV."
posted by grumpybear69 at 12:08 PM on July 15, 2015
I think the definitive answer to that question is "YMMV."
posted by grumpybear69 at 12:08 PM on July 15, 2015
In reply to Bulgaroktonos' question:
Are you say that that reading of fan art is wrong or that it's not a return to a lost golden age in the sense that it was there all along?
Fandom takes the general form that it present does, in my opinion, as a manifestation of two forces: An obsession with authenticity and a desire for public acceptance. Although one can compare it to past movements like Romanticism for its emphasis on intense and earnest emotion and on art as a way to communicate those emotions, fandom does this in an unusually narrow way. Whereas the Romantics were fans of broad abstractions like "Nature," fandom is more appropriately described as a huge number of relatively small, amorphous, and overlapping cliques focused on very specific cultural properties. There is no "animation" fandom, because animation is too broad (and includes too diverse a range of works); instead, there are MLP and Adventuretime and Freakazoid and Archer fandoms. Individuals may belong to as many fandoms as they wish, so long as they abide by each separate fandom's rules of etiquette. Insofar as these various fandoms are unified about anything (and there is very little they agree on), the most common abiding principle is "Don't say or do things that undermine my feels."
What distinguishes these communities from the campfires of yore is how diverse and dispersed they are. This is both good and bad. The best aspects of fandom are its ability to create opportunities to connect with and empathize with people who you would ordinarily never meet, be it for geographical, political, or ideological reasons. There is a very real opportunity for constructive tolerance and discovery, and this has spilled over into genuine (read: effective) activism.
However, at the same time, fandom within itself undermines those opportunities by making the object of the fandom the dominant topic in all exchanges. Most individuals within a fandom not only have little in common with their fellow fans, but tend to avoid exploring those unfamiliar zones. It's an inevitability of the intensity with which fans love the works that brought them together: Often, they would rather talk about those works than talk to one another about their lives. Thus, while fandom creates amazing opportunities for conversation, those conversations are usually about the works themselves. If you bring a tight knit group of over-the-internet fanfriends together and (as a contrivance) require them to make conversation without mentioning the work they collectively love, an awkward silence will descend over the room.
Obviously, I'm generalizing. Like most golden ages, the one that people pine for never happened. Furthermore, there have always been fans of things, and will always be fans of things. Fans, when they find one another, will bond over that thing even if they bond over nothing else, but some of those bonds will become deeper and broader as a result of that initial contact. However, the current form of fandom, and its limitations, have a great deal to do with both the telecommunications medium through which it operates, and the style of social and conversational policing that people seem to be more and more earnest about practicing on one another.
posted by belarius at 12:23 PM on July 15, 2015
Are you say that that reading of fan art is wrong or that it's not a return to a lost golden age in the sense that it was there all along?
Fandom takes the general form that it present does, in my opinion, as a manifestation of two forces: An obsession with authenticity and a desire for public acceptance. Although one can compare it to past movements like Romanticism for its emphasis on intense and earnest emotion and on art as a way to communicate those emotions, fandom does this in an unusually narrow way. Whereas the Romantics were fans of broad abstractions like "Nature," fandom is more appropriately described as a huge number of relatively small, amorphous, and overlapping cliques focused on very specific cultural properties. There is no "animation" fandom, because animation is too broad (and includes too diverse a range of works); instead, there are MLP and Adventuretime and Freakazoid and Archer fandoms. Individuals may belong to as many fandoms as they wish, so long as they abide by each separate fandom's rules of etiquette. Insofar as these various fandoms are unified about anything (and there is very little they agree on), the most common abiding principle is "Don't say or do things that undermine my feels."
What distinguishes these communities from the campfires of yore is how diverse and dispersed they are. This is both good and bad. The best aspects of fandom are its ability to create opportunities to connect with and empathize with people who you would ordinarily never meet, be it for geographical, political, or ideological reasons. There is a very real opportunity for constructive tolerance and discovery, and this has spilled over into genuine (read: effective) activism.
However, at the same time, fandom within itself undermines those opportunities by making the object of the fandom the dominant topic in all exchanges. Most individuals within a fandom not only have little in common with their fellow fans, but tend to avoid exploring those unfamiliar zones. It's an inevitability of the intensity with which fans love the works that brought them together: Often, they would rather talk about those works than talk to one another about their lives. Thus, while fandom creates amazing opportunities for conversation, those conversations are usually about the works themselves. If you bring a tight knit group of over-the-internet fanfriends together and (as a contrivance) require them to make conversation without mentioning the work they collectively love, an awkward silence will descend over the room.
Obviously, I'm generalizing. Like most golden ages, the one that people pine for never happened. Furthermore, there have always been fans of things, and will always be fans of things. Fans, when they find one another, will bond over that thing even if they bond over nothing else, but some of those bonds will become deeper and broader as a result of that initial contact. However, the current form of fandom, and its limitations, have a great deal to do with both the telecommunications medium through which it operates, and the style of social and conversational policing that people seem to be more and more earnest about practicing on one another.
posted by belarius at 12:23 PM on July 15, 2015
Fans are slans
More like fans are the Rull, amirite?
posted by GuyZero at 12:42 PM on July 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
More like fans are the Rull, amirite?
posted by GuyZero at 12:42 PM on July 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
I will not contest the proposition that a Taylor Swift concert may be just the place to find that sublimity, but I will note, again, that sublimity is not identical with the numinous.
I think that Mrs. Pterodactyl is thinking of religion explicitly in Durkheimian terms (I know this because we were friends/sort of dating when she first read Durkheim in college and she brings him up with shocking frequency to this day). If you think of religion in terms of the elements of the sacred, practices which create collective effervescence, and the moral community, then all those elements were there. Taylor herself (along with in a different way, the crowd itself) function as sacred elements, things set apart and which represent group unity, the practices (attending the concert, dressing up, singing (in my case caterwauling) along every word) absolutely create collective effervescence, and then there's the community, the crowd, which is a moral community that shares certain values (obviously the love of the music, but also the kindness and acceptance of the validity feelings and the value of one's self in spite of criticism that's a huge part of the Taylor Swift experience). Your definition of religion might not be Durkheim's (and probably shouldn't be!) but I think if Emile had been there he'd have seen it as a religious experience.
Apart from that, I'm not really sure what the right term is. It's not quite an ecstasy since that's seen, at least in the Christian tradition, as an internal phenomenon that involves reduced sensory input. While my attention to matters like "is it raining on me right now" was reduced, I was also keenly aware of other sensory inputs (like my light up wristband, or the fireworks, or the music). There was also only a slight sense that I was being exposed to some sort of ultimate reality (as religious ecstasy typically involves); to a certain extent "Taylor Swift is happy you came to see her" seems like a kind of ultimate reality in the moment, but it's not and no one really thinks it is, even while it's happening, except on some level you do. Sublimity may be closer to the right idea, but that's a concept I've never really felt like I understood.
It's complicated and also all true of any really emotionally involving concert experience, I'm sure; it just happens that Taylor ticks the right boxes for me.
Also she is a being of goodness and light sent to bring joy and acceptance into the world.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:59 PM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think that Mrs. Pterodactyl is thinking of religion explicitly in Durkheimian terms (I know this because we were friends/sort of dating when she first read Durkheim in college and she brings him up with shocking frequency to this day). If you think of religion in terms of the elements of the sacred, practices which create collective effervescence, and the moral community, then all those elements were there. Taylor herself (along with in a different way, the crowd itself) function as sacred elements, things set apart and which represent group unity, the practices (attending the concert, dressing up, singing (in my case caterwauling) along every word) absolutely create collective effervescence, and then there's the community, the crowd, which is a moral community that shares certain values (obviously the love of the music, but also the kindness and acceptance of the validity feelings and the value of one's self in spite of criticism that's a huge part of the Taylor Swift experience). Your definition of religion might not be Durkheim's (and probably shouldn't be!) but I think if Emile had been there he'd have seen it as a religious experience.
Apart from that, I'm not really sure what the right term is. It's not quite an ecstasy since that's seen, at least in the Christian tradition, as an internal phenomenon that involves reduced sensory input. While my attention to matters like "is it raining on me right now" was reduced, I was also keenly aware of other sensory inputs (like my light up wristband, or the fireworks, or the music). There was also only a slight sense that I was being exposed to some sort of ultimate reality (as religious ecstasy typically involves); to a certain extent "Taylor Swift is happy you came to see her" seems like a kind of ultimate reality in the moment, but it's not and no one really thinks it is, even while it's happening, except on some level you do. Sublimity may be closer to the right idea, but that's a concept I've never really felt like I understood.
It's complicated and also all true of any really emotionally involving concert experience, I'm sure; it just happens that Taylor ticks the right boxes for me.
Also she is a being of goodness and light sent to bring joy and acceptance into the world.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:59 PM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you bring a tight knit group of over-the-internet fanfriends together and (as a contrivance) require them to make conversation without mentioning the work they collectively love, an awkward silence will descend over the room.
This is directly contradictory to every RL fan gathering I have ever attended in my life. I have never once seen a groups of fans united by a common interest stick solely to that interest as a topic of discussion-- we invariably veer off-topic into our personal lives, other media we enjoy, our jobs-- just like any other social gathering.
posted by nonasuch at 1:19 PM on July 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is directly contradictory to every RL fan gathering I have ever attended in my life. I have never once seen a groups of fans united by a common interest stick solely to that interest as a topic of discussion-- we invariably veer off-topic into our personal lives, other media we enjoy, our jobs-- just like any other social gathering.
posted by nonasuch at 1:19 PM on July 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
tl;dr fandom's relationship to capitalism is complicated
Yes. Or another side of it - there was a time when fan-created work was seen as a challenge to corporate control of IP and its messages. Sometimes it still is. On the other hand I think much of "fandom" has been co-opted, with fan work tolerated for its promotional value but permanently second-class. I hope that some day it will be okay (as it is supposed to be, eventually) to write and sell your own Batman book the way you can with Sherlock Holmes or Dracula. I don't know how many fans are interested in fighting for that future rather than just going to the convention panel (not meant to be dismissive of the social value of meeting over such things) hoping to catch some new morsel of information from The Creators.
posted by atoxyl at 1:20 PM on July 15, 2015
Yes. Or another side of it - there was a time when fan-created work was seen as a challenge to corporate control of IP and its messages. Sometimes it still is. On the other hand I think much of "fandom" has been co-opted, with fan work tolerated for its promotional value but permanently second-class. I hope that some day it will be okay (as it is supposed to be, eventually) to write and sell your own Batman book the way you can with Sherlock Holmes or Dracula. I don't know how many fans are interested in fighting for that future rather than just going to the convention panel (not meant to be dismissive of the social value of meeting over such things) hoping to catch some new morsel of information from The Creators.
posted by atoxyl at 1:20 PM on July 15, 2015
I'd argue that Gamergate and the Hugo nominations, both conflicts originating within fandom, are indicative of a real ideological split within contemporary culture. You have a subset of people-- those who believe gaming/media/genre should be centered on a "default" white male experience-- who are pushing back against and harassing a large, diverse group of fans/creators (the line between the two is increasingly blurred on the internet), essentially because they're concerned about losing their status as preferred consumers. The "social justice warriors" in this narrative are media critics, young feminists on tumblr, POC and queer and trans creators, anyone who speaks out against the status quo. This reactionary movement is openly hostile to work that reinterprets and recontextualizes, to the act of criticism itself (see the reaction to the Tropes vs. Women videos). The modes of speech they are attacking begin within fandom, where consumers who aren't being represented talk back. And this conflict has real political importance. I wouldn't discount it.
posted by thetortoise at 1:20 PM on July 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 1:20 PM on July 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yeah, belarius, I have to say that your description of fandom is pretty unlike what I've experienced.
In fact, the trend of fandom as I've experienced it from the mid-nineties on was that fandom has become more personal with time, that as media fandoms have become more socially acceptable, people have become more comfortable with talking about other parts of their lives -- it's the progression from newsgroups to mailing groups to web-based archives to the Deadjournal/Livejournal era to Tumblr. These days, in the (very large) fandoms that I'm involved in, people reblog in a post about Tony Stark, complain about their commute, respond to asks about some item of fandom stuff, share a picture from their Instagram of dinner, then reblog a post about the Hobbit, all within 30 minutes.
Further, I think personal identity has become a much bigger part of fandom discourse these days. You'll notice, for example, that a lot of people will post mini-bios of themselves on the front page of their tumblrs. It's standard practice, especially for people who regularly participate in fandom-related criticism. People are a lot more comfortable prefacing their opinions and commentary with "I'm a POC" or "I'm a bisexual woman" or something else along those lines.
On the other hand, as suggested in my other comment in this thread, most of my interaction with fandom comes from lady-dominated spaces that are, at least in self-description, progressive. Other parts of fandom are different. In particular, Mr. Machine lurks a lot on various football-related message boards, and we've had a lot of discussions about just how different the fan cultures are.
posted by joyceanmachine at 1:38 PM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
In fact, the trend of fandom as I've experienced it from the mid-nineties on was that fandom has become more personal with time, that as media fandoms have become more socially acceptable, people have become more comfortable with talking about other parts of their lives -- it's the progression from newsgroups to mailing groups to web-based archives to the Deadjournal/Livejournal era to Tumblr. These days, in the (very large) fandoms that I'm involved in, people reblog in a post about Tony Stark, complain about their commute, respond to asks about some item of fandom stuff, share a picture from their Instagram of dinner, then reblog a post about the Hobbit, all within 30 minutes.
Further, I think personal identity has become a much bigger part of fandom discourse these days. You'll notice, for example, that a lot of people will post mini-bios of themselves on the front page of their tumblrs. It's standard practice, especially for people who regularly participate in fandom-related criticism. People are a lot more comfortable prefacing their opinions and commentary with "I'm a POC" or "I'm a bisexual woman" or something else along those lines.
On the other hand, as suggested in my other comment in this thread, most of my interaction with fandom comes from lady-dominated spaces that are, at least in self-description, progressive. Other parts of fandom are different. In particular, Mr. Machine lurks a lot on various football-related message boards, and we've had a lot of discussions about just how different the fan cultures are.
posted by joyceanmachine at 1:38 PM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I will not contest the proposition that a Taylor Swift concert may be just the place to find that sublimity, but I will note, again, that sublimity is not identical with the numinous.
I can thoroughly recommend Season of the Witch as an in depth look at this kind of thing.
(I was particularly delighted to see Madonna's 2012 Superbowl outing get a mention)
posted by Artw at 1:42 PM on July 15, 2015
I can thoroughly recommend Season of the Witch as an in depth look at this kind of thing.
(I was particularly delighted to see Madonna's 2012 Superbowl outing get a mention)
posted by Artw at 1:42 PM on July 15, 2015
I'd argue that Gamergate and the Hugo nominations, both conflicts originating within fandom, are indicative of a real ideological split within contemporary culture
Of course both cases represent a hijacking of fan culture, in whole or in part, by outside interests. Not that SF or gaming fandom don't have enough that is dodgy going on within them, but neither of those movements would have gotten anywhere without the backing of right wing trollish types who could give a shit about science fiction or gaming respectively.
posted by Artw at 1:45 PM on July 15, 2015
Of course both cases represent a hijacking of fan culture, in whole or in part, by outside interests. Not that SF or gaming fandom don't have enough that is dodgy going on within them, but neither of those movements would have gotten anywhere without the backing of right wing trollish types who could give a shit about science fiction or gaming respectively.
posted by Artw at 1:45 PM on July 15, 2015
In particular, Mr. Machine lurks a lot on various football-related message boards, and we've had a lot of discussions about just how different the fan cultures are.
In fact, they're so different that I think it's more an accident of language than anything else that we even use that word in both contexts.
posted by clockzero at 1:54 PM on July 15, 2015
In fact, they're so different that I think it's more an accident of language than anything else that we even use that word in both contexts.
posted by clockzero at 1:54 PM on July 15, 2015
but neither of those movements would have gotten anywhere without the backing of right wing trollish types who could give a shit about science fiction or gaming respectively.
I don't know about that. For the Hugos it seemed the venn diagram intersection of "actual sci-fi fans" and "reactionary right-wing nutsos". Fuckin' "Ancillary Justice" seems to have pushed a lot of buttons for people.
BECAUSE SPACESHIPS NEED TO SHOOT EACH OTHER.
posted by GuyZero at 1:56 PM on July 15, 2015
I don't know about that. For the Hugos it seemed the venn diagram intersection of "actual sci-fi fans" and "reactionary right-wing nutsos". Fuckin' "Ancillary Justice" seems to have pushed a lot of buttons for people.
BECAUSE SPACESHIPS NEED TO SHOOT EACH OTHER.
posted by GuyZero at 1:56 PM on July 15, 2015
I guess a lot of that depends on whether you see Vox Day as something to do with Science Fiction or just some asshole that's glommed on to it.
posted by Artw at 2:00 PM on July 15, 2015
posted by Artw at 2:00 PM on July 15, 2015
These days, in the (very large) fandoms that I'm involved in, people reblog in a post about Tony Stark, complain about their commute, respond to asks about some item of fandom stuff, share a picture from their Instagram of dinner, then reblog a post about the Hobbit, all within 30 minutes.
I suppose it comes down to the distinctions between the personal and the public persona, a distinctions that is changing rapidly as a function of the ubiquity of social media. There was a time when "personal" was synonymous with "intimate," something reserved for family, friends, and trusted confidants. Fandom is full of very surface-level exchanges of "personal information," but it's often information that has already been curated for public consumption. Don't get me wrong, I think that sort of communication is good, but it is also safe. In this respect, modern fandom appears to generally be less intimate and personal than the now-long-gone Golden Days of Livejournal.
Additionally, while it is true that many specific fandom heavily overlap with many others, other boundaries clearly do not get crossed. The Avengers and LotR are likely to share fans; Adventuretime and The Newsroom are less so. Some combinations (e.g. Kim Kardashian + Wait Wait Don't Tell Me) yield genuine vitriol. A person's willingness to talk about a couple dozen cultural properties aimed at similar mass market demographics, mixed in water cooler small talk, is a pretty low threshold for "diverse."
And again, all of this is fine. I don't think fandom as a general phenomenon is pernicious. Many things about fandom are laudable. But I've yet to see a grassroots fandom achieve any organized objective more impressive than winning an online poll. The proposition that fandom is changing society (rather than merely reflecting the changes that are already ongoing, especially among the young) mistakes the pointing finger for the moon.
posted by belarius at 3:24 PM on July 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
I suppose it comes down to the distinctions between the personal and the public persona, a distinctions that is changing rapidly as a function of the ubiquity of social media. There was a time when "personal" was synonymous with "intimate," something reserved for family, friends, and trusted confidants. Fandom is full of very surface-level exchanges of "personal information," but it's often information that has already been curated for public consumption. Don't get me wrong, I think that sort of communication is good, but it is also safe. In this respect, modern fandom appears to generally be less intimate and personal than the now-long-gone Golden Days of Livejournal.
Additionally, while it is true that many specific fandom heavily overlap with many others, other boundaries clearly do not get crossed. The Avengers and LotR are likely to share fans; Adventuretime and The Newsroom are less so. Some combinations (e.g. Kim Kardashian + Wait Wait Don't Tell Me) yield genuine vitriol. A person's willingness to talk about a couple dozen cultural properties aimed at similar mass market demographics, mixed in water cooler small talk, is a pretty low threshold for "diverse."
And again, all of this is fine. I don't think fandom as a general phenomenon is pernicious. Many things about fandom are laudable. But I've yet to see a grassroots fandom achieve any organized objective more impressive than winning an online poll. The proposition that fandom is changing society (rather than merely reflecting the changes that are already ongoing, especially among the young) mistakes the pointing finger for the moon.
posted by belarius at 3:24 PM on July 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Many things about fandom are laudable. But I've yet to see a grassroots fandom achieve any organized objective more impressive than winning an online poll. The proposition that fandom is changing society (rather than merely reflecting the changes that are already ongoing, especially among the young) mistakes the pointing finger for the moon.
Personally I see a lot of overlap in organizing techniques and participation between grassroots political movements (Black Lives Matter and intersectional feminism in particular) and fandom, but maybe that's not direct enough? Either way, this sounds to me like "does art change society or reflect society," which is a debate that won't be settled anytime soon.
posted by thetortoise at 5:11 PM on July 15, 2015
Personally I see a lot of overlap in organizing techniques and participation between grassroots political movements (Black Lives Matter and intersectional feminism in particular) and fandom, but maybe that's not direct enough? Either way, this sounds to me like "does art change society or reflect society," which is a debate that won't be settled anytime soon.
posted by thetortoise at 5:11 PM on July 15, 2015
« Older a new way to prepare eggs | In conventional camera terms, it’s a 75mm lens at... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also, most of this stuff is meshed into corporate consumerist culture, which by its nature really doesn't challenge existing power structures. Which means the usual groups arising out of it usually just do things like raise money for a non-offensive charity. I mean, elementary school children can do that. I have a higher bar for "change the world".
posted by zabuni at 5:58 AM on July 15, 2015 [8 favorites]