Whim on the Lintels
August 7, 2019 10:54 AM Subscribe
There is something of the jealous monogamist about fandom, something of the checker for digital traces of the beloved’s secret life. Who hasn’t been there? But wouldn’t it be better if we hadn’t?
A short essay by Emily Ogden on fandom and amateurism.
Bonus link to Ogden's essay on irony via the Backstreet Boys' I Want It That Way on Brooklyn Nine-Nine.
Bonus link to Ogden's essay on irony via the Backstreet Boys' I Want It That Way on Brooklyn Nine-Nine.
I disagree. Dismissing the amateur seems like late stage capitalism to me; we are expected to merely consume music, not make our own. I will never be a professional flutist, nor my husband an elite runner, but the joy and fulfillment we take in these activities can not be matched by just being a spectator. Who gets to decide at what level an amateur becomes an expert, anyway? And her article seemed to me to be making that point — nitpicking other people’s right to engage can be toxic — I don’t need to know what year Mozart was born to feel the emotional impact of the Requiem.
posted by Malla at 11:54 AM on August 7, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by Malla at 11:54 AM on August 7, 2019 [15 favorites]
And her article seemed to me to be making that point — nitpicking other people’s right to engage can be toxic
The problem is that historically, it's the side of amateurism that has done the nitpicking. Again, the amateur too often turns their luxury of disinvestment into a symbol of virtue - we see this all too often in sports, where amateurism is placed on a pedestal, to the detriment of athletes.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:45 PM on August 7, 2019
The problem is that historically, it's the side of amateurism that has done the nitpicking. Again, the amateur too often turns their luxury of disinvestment into a symbol of virtue - we see this all too often in sports, where amateurism is placed on a pedestal, to the detriment of athletes.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:45 PM on August 7, 2019
Hmm...this reads to me mostly like a Ur Doing It Rong article with trendy word "fandom" shoehorned in. Which is too bad, because I think the topic is interesting.
posted by praemunire at 12:58 PM on August 7, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by praemunire at 12:58 PM on August 7, 2019 [1 favorite]
Interestingly, her reasoning on the meaning of amateur helped me further understand my belief that amateurism is class warfare. As she points out, the amateur is the one who has the luxury to not be invested in the work ....
Yes, but not in the way you describe here. There are hundreds of traditional skills in American life that are now economically worthless due to the high penetration of mass media and mass-produced goods. Meanwhile, capitalism sets up the conditions such that fewer than 5% of people who pursue arts as a vocation can be full-time professional artists. Why rehearse a performance when you can get Spotify on any phone? And why learn to even mend when on a time/cost analysis, it's cheaper to hit Target?
The problem is that historically, it's the side of amateurism that has done the nitpicking.
I find the level of unconditional praise I get as a novice in a new hobby to be kinda embarrassing. In fact, as an amateur and fan I think Ogden is mostly engaged in an argument by definition, a kind of artificial this vs. that, Mars vs. Venus, facts vs. aesthetics, stacked against each other on a "because I said so" basis. And it really is a no-win situation because I'm one of those bad stereotypical and overly-emotional fans who cries at genre fiction for the sense of connection and music for the sense of depth. Is that being an amateur or fan there?
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 1:42 PM on August 7, 2019 [3 favorites]
Yes, but not in the way you describe here. There are hundreds of traditional skills in American life that are now economically worthless due to the high penetration of mass media and mass-produced goods. Meanwhile, capitalism sets up the conditions such that fewer than 5% of people who pursue arts as a vocation can be full-time professional artists. Why rehearse a performance when you can get Spotify on any phone? And why learn to even mend when on a time/cost analysis, it's cheaper to hit Target?
The problem is that historically, it's the side of amateurism that has done the nitpicking.
I find the level of unconditional praise I get as a novice in a new hobby to be kinda embarrassing. In fact, as an amateur and fan I think Ogden is mostly engaged in an argument by definition, a kind of artificial this vs. that, Mars vs. Venus, facts vs. aesthetics, stacked against each other on a "because I said so" basis. And it really is a no-win situation because I'm one of those bad stereotypical and overly-emotional fans who cries at genre fiction for the sense of connection and music for the sense of depth. Is that being an amateur or fan there?
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 1:42 PM on August 7, 2019 [3 favorites]
I'm one of those bad stereotypical and overly-emotional fans who cries at genre fiction for the sense of connection
Last night, I was simultaneously reeling with sorrow over the end of one of Henry James's famously difficult last novels and clutching my heart over some GIFs someone was posting of the tragic doomed friendship of young Superman and Lex Luthor on a 20-year-old show for teenagers and...wow, the human brain does indeed contain multitudes. The latter for sure was fannish behavior by any reasonable definition, but I didn't memorize any statistics or names of presidents in connection with it, so...?
posted by praemunire at 1:47 PM on August 7, 2019 [1 favorite]
Last night, I was simultaneously reeling with sorrow over the end of one of Henry James's famously difficult last novels and clutching my heart over some GIFs someone was posting of the tragic doomed friendship of young Superman and Lex Luthor on a 20-year-old show for teenagers and...wow, the human brain does indeed contain multitudes. The latter for sure was fannish behavior by any reasonable definition, but I didn't memorize any statistics or names of presidents in connection with it, so...?
posted by praemunire at 1:47 PM on August 7, 2019 [1 favorite]
I mean, if you are specifically talking about the “amateur only” rules for the Olympics, or college sports, I understand your reservations about the use of the word “amateur.” But if you are talking about an amateur musician, or gardener, or cook, or do-it-yourselfer, I don’t think I understand how amateurs are the oppressors here.
posted by Malla at 1:55 PM on August 7, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Malla at 1:55 PM on August 7, 2019 [2 favorites]
I don't know what the author wanted me to take away from this piece. Whatever her point was got lost in the strange, strict definitions--borderline redefinitions, really, so far from normal usage of either word as to be entirely different in meaning than is commonly understood--of the words "fandom" and "amateur" that she premised the essay on. I mean, she acknowledges the real, common (American, is European usage different?) definitions of the word "amateur," and then says she's using the French usage, which is just... not what amateur means in English, and then builds her whole argument around that definition. And then also restricts "fan" and "fandom" to one very particular, annoying facet of the word and type of person, which really isn't how most people I know who consider themselves "fans" relate to the things they're fans of.
Sorry if this just comes off as shitting on the piece. I guess I'm asking for an alley-oop on, um, understanding what she's trying to say? Sorry if I'm being dense.
posted by Caduceus at 2:08 PM on August 7, 2019 [5 favorites]
Sorry if this just comes off as shitting on the piece. I guess I'm asking for an alley-oop on, um, understanding what she's trying to say? Sorry if I'm being dense.
posted by Caduceus at 2:08 PM on August 7, 2019 [5 favorites]
The contrasts between this article and the Korean idol bandom article are interesting. I know my niece is a Doctor Who fan, not because she wins at trivia, but because her face becomes a spotlight of glee any time the subject comes up.
I'd argue that big college sports and the Olympics are not fully amateur. Meanwhile, my city dickers over basketball hoops and bike lanes, but hosts multiple running events for the tourist dollars. So the idea that amateur sports are on a pedestal feels a bit over-broad. School football? Maybe. Cross-country? No. Girls anything? Only if you're family.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 2:14 PM on August 7, 2019 [1 favorite]
I'd argue that big college sports and the Olympics are not fully amateur. Meanwhile, my city dickers over basketball hoops and bike lanes, but hosts multiple running events for the tourist dollars. So the idea that amateur sports are on a pedestal feels a bit over-broad. School football? Maybe. Cross-country? No. Girls anything? Only if you're family.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 2:14 PM on August 7, 2019 [1 favorite]
But if you are talking about an amateur musician, or gardener, or cook, or do-it-yourselfer, I don’t think I understand how amateurs are the oppressors here.
It comes back to the cult of the amateur and how the term was used by the upper classes. Again, the term literally came out of class warfare, as a way for the upper class to note that they were engaged in the activity out of love, in comparison to those lower class folks who are doing it for money. You bring up amateur musicians - there is a long, ignoble history of decrying musicians who choose to make money with their skill as "sell-outs".
Now, I'm not saying that every amateur is engaged in this - many are just wanting to enjoy an activity. But the concept of amateurism has a history of exclusion and class warfare that continues to this day.
I'd argue that big college sports and the Olympics are not fully amateur.
They're not amateur at all - but are called such in order to justify the extraction of wealth from the athletes to the people in charge.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:43 PM on August 7, 2019
It comes back to the cult of the amateur and how the term was used by the upper classes. Again, the term literally came out of class warfare, as a way for the upper class to note that they were engaged in the activity out of love, in comparison to those lower class folks who are doing it for money. You bring up amateur musicians - there is a long, ignoble history of decrying musicians who choose to make money with their skill as "sell-outs".
Now, I'm not saying that every amateur is engaged in this - many are just wanting to enjoy an activity. But the concept of amateurism has a history of exclusion and class warfare that continues to this day.
I'd argue that big college sports and the Olympics are not fully amateur.
They're not amateur at all - but are called such in order to justify the extraction of wealth from the athletes to the people in charge.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:43 PM on August 7, 2019
But the concept of amateurism has a history of exclusion and class warfare that continues to this day.
You're right about the history, but, with a couple of narrow but important exceptions, I'd say that the dynamic has now been completely reversed. "Amateur" is a term of dismissiveness--the implication being that you're not good enough to earn money at whatever. You used to see this a lot around mainstream published authors reacting to fanfiction. The people bitching about bands selling out usually aren't really complaining about the fact that the band is making money off their music, period--they don't object to them being professionals and collecting paychecks for their work the way people object to college athletes having that role--it's that they perceive them as sacrificing artistic integrity to commercial concerns.
posted by praemunire at 2:54 PM on August 7, 2019 [3 favorites]
You're right about the history, but, with a couple of narrow but important exceptions, I'd say that the dynamic has now been completely reversed. "Amateur" is a term of dismissiveness--the implication being that you're not good enough to earn money at whatever. You used to see this a lot around mainstream published authors reacting to fanfiction. The people bitching about bands selling out usually aren't really complaining about the fact that the band is making money off their music, period--they don't object to them being professionals and collecting paychecks for their work the way people object to college athletes having that role--it's that they perceive them as sacrificing artistic integrity to commercial concerns.
posted by praemunire at 2:54 PM on August 7, 2019 [3 favorites]
The word "amateur" is used in connection with professional sports in a way that's virtually disconnected with its usage in other contexts, to the point where I'm not sure it really informs the discussion much.
"Amateur" athletics are, more often than not, just ones where someone other than the player gets paid for their labor. It's obviously, nakedly exploitative, full stop. But that exploitation doesn't have much in common with someone who plays the flute just because they enjoy the act of playing, despite knowing they're not good enough to get paid at it (or having no interest in developing themselves to the paid level). It's possible that some NCAA Div 1 basketball players (or whatever) do really enjoy the act of playing basketball—I'm not saying they don't, but the exploitation happens because they're being called "amateurs" when they are obviously not. They're professionals, playing at a commercially-significant level, often for a shitload of money. They just don't get any of that money. But the games they play and the venues they play in, the teams they're on, the whole infrastructure around them, wouldn't exist if there wasn't a lot of money at stake. It's not "amateur" anything. They'd be better off called "mandatory volunteer" players or something, because that's really what's going on: they're working, just not getting paid. Or just "unpaid players".
Calling them "amateurs" is an insult both to their professionalism and damaging to the word "amateur". Where I suppose you could argue successfully there is some class warfare going on is by the NCAA and their apparatchiks successfully muddying the definition of "amateur" in order to disguise ongoing, large scale, and frankly racist, wage theft.
But jumping from there to the idea that, say, an amateur flutist is somehow engaging in an oppressive activity by failing to commercialize their recreational activity is bizarre. That smacks of ultracapitalism: it seems akin to the idea that nothing has value except for what someone else is willing to pay for it, and that anything for which you are not being paid is inherently just a waste of time. I have always thought that is a rather depressing way to go about life.
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:20 PM on August 7, 2019 [3 favorites]
"Amateur" athletics are, more often than not, just ones where someone other than the player gets paid for their labor. It's obviously, nakedly exploitative, full stop. But that exploitation doesn't have much in common with someone who plays the flute just because they enjoy the act of playing, despite knowing they're not good enough to get paid at it (or having no interest in developing themselves to the paid level). It's possible that some NCAA Div 1 basketball players (or whatever) do really enjoy the act of playing basketball—I'm not saying they don't, but the exploitation happens because they're being called "amateurs" when they are obviously not. They're professionals, playing at a commercially-significant level, often for a shitload of money. They just don't get any of that money. But the games they play and the venues they play in, the teams they're on, the whole infrastructure around them, wouldn't exist if there wasn't a lot of money at stake. It's not "amateur" anything. They'd be better off called "mandatory volunteer" players or something, because that's really what's going on: they're working, just not getting paid. Or just "unpaid players".
Calling them "amateurs" is an insult both to their professionalism and damaging to the word "amateur". Where I suppose you could argue successfully there is some class warfare going on is by the NCAA and their apparatchiks successfully muddying the definition of "amateur" in order to disguise ongoing, large scale, and frankly racist, wage theft.
But jumping from there to the idea that, say, an amateur flutist is somehow engaging in an oppressive activity by failing to commercialize their recreational activity is bizarre. That smacks of ultracapitalism: it seems akin to the idea that nothing has value except for what someone else is willing to pay for it, and that anything for which you are not being paid is inherently just a waste of time. I have always thought that is a rather depressing way to go about life.
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:20 PM on August 7, 2019 [3 favorites]
I agree but I'll add at least in the maker/crafter circles, it's apparent that amateurs, when they do monetize their craft, tend to drive down the market rate just out of sheer ignorance and a sense of generosity.
posted by cendawanita at 10:45 PM on August 7, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by cendawanita at 10:45 PM on August 7, 2019 [1 favorite]
And then also restricts "fan" and "fandom" to one very particular, annoying facet of the word and type of person, which really isn't how most people I know who consider themselves "fans" relate to the things they're fans of. Caduceus
Ignore her choice of the word amateur for a sec and just think about the different ways there are of of ‘doing fandom’. There’s participatory, interpretative fandom: the kind where people write fanfic and fanart, where they ship non-canon couples, where they try to build consensus theories to account for failures in the original text or to expand upon characters’ motivations (“headcanon accepted”) and so forth. Then there’s completist, acquisitive fandom: the kind where people take pride in owning the entirety of the canon in a carefully curated physical or digital collection, where they can reel off dates and issue numbers for any canon event, where there is less art and cosplay and what does exist is judged on accuracy to the original rather than creative interpretation.
Both forms of fandom exist and will usually both exist to various degrees in a single fan. However the fandom which values knowledge of the what-where-when is male-coded and the fandom which values interpretations of the how and why is female coded.
The author of the linked article renames the second type of fandom amateurism and would like it not to be devalued, please.
(I agree with those who’ve said that amateurism is a word carrying too much baggage to be a useful neologism in this context.)
posted by the latin mouse at 3:18 AM on August 8, 2019 [2 favorites]
Ignore her choice of the word amateur for a sec and just think about the different ways there are of of ‘doing fandom’. There’s participatory, interpretative fandom: the kind where people write fanfic and fanart, where they ship non-canon couples, where they try to build consensus theories to account for failures in the original text or to expand upon characters’ motivations (“headcanon accepted”) and so forth. Then there’s completist, acquisitive fandom: the kind where people take pride in owning the entirety of the canon in a carefully curated physical or digital collection, where they can reel off dates and issue numbers for any canon event, where there is less art and cosplay and what does exist is judged on accuracy to the original rather than creative interpretation.
Both forms of fandom exist and will usually both exist to various degrees in a single fan. However the fandom which values knowledge of the what-where-when is male-coded and the fandom which values interpretations of the how and why is female coded.
The author of the linked article renames the second type of fandom amateurism and would like it not to be devalued, please.
(I agree with those who’ve said that amateurism is a word carrying too much baggage to be a useful neologism in this context.)
posted by the latin mouse at 3:18 AM on August 8, 2019 [2 favorites]
Thanks, the latin mouse, that's what I took from it and why I posted the essay. The difference between the more traditionally masculine desire for mastery as a sign of their fandom opposed to the more interpretive and "feminine" method of engagement that isn't so much ownership based as collaborative, in its own fashion anyway.
posted by gusottertrout at 3:59 AM on August 8, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by gusottertrout at 3:59 AM on August 8, 2019 [3 favorites]
Not that the conversation that arose wasn't also interesting as well.
posted by gusottertrout at 4:02 AM on August 8, 2019
posted by gusottertrout at 4:02 AM on August 8, 2019
Word salad.
posted by MartinWisse at 5:47 AM on August 8, 2019
posted by MartinWisse at 5:47 AM on August 8, 2019
I read it like latin mouse and gusottertrout - a distinction between different ways of engaging with media I've also seen described as "curative" vs "transformative" fandom. Maybe the author comes down a bit too much in favour of one approach as superior.
I have to admit, I do have difficulty seeing the appeal of fandom as mostly memorizing trivia, but maybe I'm being unfair here, because like the author I often perceive a weirdly competitive edge to it which I find off-putting and alienating, but which probably isn't an inevitable component. You can probably do curative fandom without making it some weird status game. (And you can definitely play weird status games with transformative fandom as well, they just work differently.)
posted by sohalt at 7:54 AM on August 8, 2019
I have to admit, I do have difficulty seeing the appeal of fandom as mostly memorizing trivia, but maybe I'm being unfair here, because like the author I often perceive a weirdly competitive edge to it which I find off-putting and alienating, but which probably isn't an inevitable component. You can probably do curative fandom without making it some weird status game. (And you can definitely play weird status games with transformative fandom as well, they just work differently.)
posted by sohalt at 7:54 AM on August 8, 2019
If that’s the grand total thrust of the author’s argument, if seen better constructed and argued comments on the subject on Metafilter. I’ve seen then from gusottertrout. And (I perceive) everyone in this thread as having been discussing the words amateur and fandom as they are normally used, so I’m not sure her creative framing gained her a lot on that front either.
posted by Caduceus at 7:59 AM on August 8, 2019
posted by Caduceus at 7:59 AM on August 8, 2019
I can completely understand why people might be put off by how Ogden uses "amateur" as it's more common usage makes it difficult to place in a alternative context, but I'm not sure there is any other more precise term to capture what Ogden is going for, so I tried to go with the premise rather than worry too much about the specific choice.
In a way, that's part of what the article is talking about I think, the attempt or want to get away from constricting notions that reward some perspectives more than others. It isn't an either/or, as Ogden notes facts always return, but the want to get out from under the weight of facts alone and look at something from a different, more fluid, perspective can also be necessary. This is particularly true, I think, when we're talking about something as male dominated as the arts when that perspective can't be your own primary method of engagement. The desire to engage with works from a perspective that is one's own rather than one that may even actively erase you or deny you a view from a like place of narrative privilege makes "whim" a valid and important kind of response.
I grant the article didn't address some of that in a direct fashion, but, for me, it was something that came up when reading it through Ogden's way of writing about the ideas in the way she offers as fitting her "amateur" enthusiasms rather than under the more concrete demands of the "fan". But it isn't difficult to see why others might not get that feeling as a takeaway from the piece.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:19 AM on August 8, 2019 [1 favorite]
In a way, that's part of what the article is talking about I think, the attempt or want to get away from constricting notions that reward some perspectives more than others. It isn't an either/or, as Ogden notes facts always return, but the want to get out from under the weight of facts alone and look at something from a different, more fluid, perspective can also be necessary. This is particularly true, I think, when we're talking about something as male dominated as the arts when that perspective can't be your own primary method of engagement. The desire to engage with works from a perspective that is one's own rather than one that may even actively erase you or deny you a view from a like place of narrative privilege makes "whim" a valid and important kind of response.
I grant the article didn't address some of that in a direct fashion, but, for me, it was something that came up when reading it through Ogden's way of writing about the ideas in the way she offers as fitting her "amateur" enthusiasms rather than under the more concrete demands of the "fan". But it isn't difficult to see why others might not get that feeling as a takeaway from the piece.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:19 AM on August 8, 2019 [1 favorite]
I wonder if there's some sort of literary criticism background debate of historical context vs. interpretive sensibility that isn't fully explained here. In fact, I'm reluctant to link this to fandom at all, since Ogden is arguing for her professional practice as a literary critic rather than interpretive fandom as actually practiced. I don't know that she's talking about interpretive fandom at all.
On the interpretive fandom side, I'm feeling increasingly disappointed at the high value placed on "proof" that a ship or headcanon is justified either by canon, quasi-canon ("word-of-god"), pseudo-canon (perceived hidden coding), or ugly internecine politics. Ogden positions "proof" as tangential to her practice as a critic. It's not just the "collectors" who are gatekeeping, and the fandom gender stereotypes often work in service of that.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 8:51 AM on August 8, 2019 [2 favorites]
On the interpretive fandom side, I'm feeling increasingly disappointed at the high value placed on "proof" that a ship or headcanon is justified either by canon, quasi-canon ("word-of-god"), pseudo-canon (perceived hidden coding), or ugly internecine politics. Ogden positions "proof" as tangential to her practice as a critic. It's not just the "collectors" who are gatekeeping, and the fandom gender stereotypes often work in service of that.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 8:51 AM on August 8, 2019 [2 favorites]
I think it's less about fandom as it is often argued here and more about how literary criticism and the kind of enthusiasms that inform interpretive/transformative, as opposed to curative, fandom. It's maybe more about the basis of approach than it is about the fandoms as groups in themselves as that speaks to both criticism and fandom. For me, it suggests a useful corollary to the practice of oppositional reading or reading against the grain of texts for developing different understanding of them, as far as criticism goes. It's a more pleasure oriented approach perhaps, improvising something of one's own from shared source material, the text alone, while curative or ownership based fans rely on stronger attachment to the author or/as authority in a way.
posted by gusottertrout at 9:56 AM on August 8, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by gusottertrout at 9:56 AM on August 8, 2019 [1 favorite]
« Older In Syria, War and Modernity Are No Match for the... | Awww... such a pwecious subversion of boundaries Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:23 AM on August 7, 2019 [3 favorites]