Fannish migration and pimping...
Jan. 9th, 2009 10:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fajrdrako![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
catalenamara's interesting post on fandoms today made me want to answer her questions in a post of my own. I'd love to hear and see other people's answers, too.On writing this, and thinking about it, it clarified a little of what fandom is for me. It's falling in love with a book, show, or movie, and then finding other people to share my enthusiasm with. The enthusiasm was there from the beginning; the fandom was a bonus. In some cases, before the Net, I was a fandom of one. It's more fun when you've hundreds of people to share you passion - especially when it comes to slash fandoms - but that isn't the impetus.
Have you ever followed friends/favorite authors into a fandom without ever having seen/read the source material?
No, of course not. I can't even imagine wanting to. I have watched shows on the recommendations of my friends. Sometimes it takes - Professionals, Horatio Hornblower, Doctor Who. Usually it doesn't - all the other shows out there.
But I'm not sure what the question means: I'm not sure how to divorce a fandom from its show. I've never 'been a fan' of something I didn't watch or read. I suppose there are gradations of this - I call myself an X-Men fan, though I don't think the movies live up to the quality of the comics. But this doesn't mean I don't watch the movies, it just means they aren't what made me a fan.
Have you ever really enjoyed the source material, read the work of specific authors into a fandom, and yet have no interest in the fandom as a whole?
Uh... no. Not really. I have trouble even getting my head around the question. Have I ever... read only one author in a fandom? No. I suppose I only read Harry Potter when I'm betaing for friends, or when something has been brought to my attention, but that has nothing much to do with the fandom. It isn't my fandom and I don't consider myself in it even if I dabble - and there are are all sorts of reasong for dabbling, from curiosity to affection for a certain character or pairing, or even, in some cases, I suppose, horrified and incredulous fascination. Don't usually spent time on that last, though.
For instance,
Q. Have you ever been strenuously pimped by your friends into another fandom and immediately fell in love with the source material.
Yes, several times. The Professionals and Doctor Who being cases in point. Though I suppose it depends on your definition of "immediately". I've never become hooked on a fandom on only one viewing of something. It took three or four episodes of two series of Doctor Who to do it. Probably about the same for Pros.
Books, I fall for harder and faster and longer: Halfway through The Fellowship of the Ring I was doomed - it happened in Bree, of course, with the introduction of Strider. Three pages into The Game of Kings, when the pig got drunk. But these, I found on my own, though my father had vaguely recommended The Lord of the Rings to me as something he thought I'd like, though he hadn't read it himself, and a less fannish man I' can't imagine.
Have you ever gotten into a TV show/movie before your friends and busily pimped the source material to them in the hopes that a fandom would ensue?
I like to think I don't pimp. Ever. Some say I do. But, yes. Dunnett novels, for example. Stingray.
Q. Have you ever gotten into a TV show/movie and tried to pimp it to your friends only to find out that they’d just gotten into it as well and were about to pimp right back?
No. Can't think of any case where that's happened.
No, wait a minute. On my first meeting Guy Gavriel Kay, in the course of our conversation, he asked me if I'd ever heard of Dorothy Dunnett. I was speechless for a second. He proceeded to recommend the books to me. I recovered and explained and a delightful conversation ensued. And then, of course, we re-encountered each other in various ways in the course of burgeoning Dunnett fandom.
Q: Have you ever been part of a mass migration into another fandom?
No. On the whole, I am late to find fandoms, and slow to evolve from one to the next. When I do switch, it tends to be self-directed and in a totally unpredictable direction. (Doctor Who? I'd have bet good money I'd never be into that one. Not in a million years. Hah!)
What I have found generally is that, rather than follow friends to another fandom, when I move from one fandom to another I get a whole new set of friends that is almost entirely different. And though I remain friends with those in previous fandoms, and these people mean a lot fo me (tip of the hat here to
msmoat and acampbell), we tend to be in touch much less. There is overlap - especially if I factor in slash friends from the early K/S days - but not as much as you might expect. In some ways, fandom is a small world. In other ways, it's a big one.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:49 pm (UTC)Neither have I. But I knew so many people back in the 80s who were reading Pros fic without ever having seen the show (or else they'd only seen a handful of those bad camera copies.) I just couldn't go there; I need to see, and love the show, before I could enjoy the fic.
There was one woman at Friscon panel years ago who was enthusing about Sentinel fic, then went on to state she disliked the show and had only ever seen one episode. That was a statement I just couldn't wrap my brain around. I don't have enough fannish time the way it is (smile); I can't imagine spending any of it on reading fic from a show I disliked or had never seen.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:59 pm (UTC)Yes. A love of the show gave me a love of the fic; it doesn't work the other way round, and reading fic about characters I don't know isn't particularly interesting. There are exceptions - for instance, it was a Smallville story I read by Jane St. Clair (already a favourite fic writer) that gave me my first taste of Smallville. But I would never have read another Smallville fic if I hadn't loved the show.
who was enthusing about Sentinel fic, then went on to state she disliked the show and had only ever seen one episode.
Wow. It just goes to show - we all have our own way of approching fandom, and there are probably as many ways as there are fans.
I don't have enough fannish time the way it is (smile);
Well, yes! Isn't that the truth!
I can't imagine spending any of it on reading fic from a show I disliked or had never seen.
Yes. If I am intrigued by the sound of a fandom, I'll check out the show - I would never start with the fic, and if I tried to, I'd never continue.
There's a sort of second level of fannishness that I don't ever get into, but a lot of people do. Merlin, for example, is like that with me now: I like the show, a lot. I'd probably like the fic and I might get around to reading it. But I don't care enough to seek it out, while I'm still starved for any Torchwood fic or anything to do with Torchwood and I will grab at passing droplets of TW fannishness like a starving man in a desert. And I only count that level of personal obsession as fannishness: things I can't get enough of, things that make me smile to think of them, things I want to write about. There aren't many of those, and the other stuff doesn't matter.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 01:30 am (UTC)Exactly – I’m always willing to read a story by a favorite author. But if I don’t love the show, I won’t read any more in that fandom. If I do love the show, though, it’s so wonderful to dive into the fic, and experience our shared creative worlds. (Jane St. Clair rocks; I love her work.)
>>>who was enthusing about Sentinel fic, then went on to state she disliked the show and had only ever seen one episode.
>>>Wow. It just goes to show - we all have our own way of approching fandom, and there are probably as many ways as there are fans.
Yes, definitely, which is why I decided to write this response after I read the original post. I don’t like being catalogued or shoehorned into someone else’s definition of what fandom is all about.
Thinking about her post, it occurred to me that I have met a few fans over the years who always maintain an ironic distance between them and their fandom(s) source material. I’ve never quite got what that’s all about. Myself, if I enjoy something I want to jump right in and enjoy it. My approach certainly doesn’t rule out intellectual analysis, nor does it mean I’m uncritical about the source material. Every show has episodes (or whole seasons) that suck; many them “jump the shark” at some point in time or other; a lot of them have problematic issues of many kinds.
But I just don’t get the ironic distance. Is it a coverup for vulnerability? Or are there a lot of fans out there who aren’t into the source material but are into the fannish community to the point where they will travel from fandom to fandom just because that’s where “everyone” is.
>>> There's a sort of second level of fannishness that I don't ever get into, but a lot of people do. Merlin, for example, is like that with me now: I like the show, a lot. I'd probably like the fic and I might get around to reading it.
To my knowledge, Merlin hasn’t aired in the US yet. But with all this chatter about it I’m curious enough to give it a try.
>>>>But I don't care enough to seek it out, while I'm still starved for any Torchwood fic or anything to do with Torchwood and I will grab at passing droplets of TW fannishness like a starving man in a desert. And I only count that level of personal obsession as fannishness: things I can't get enough of, things that make me smile to think of them, things I want to write about. There aren't many of those, and the other stuff doesn't matter.
Oh yes! I love that fannish stage where I’ll seize everything regarding my core fandoms. It’s so energizing, truly like being in love. That’s when I want *everything* - the fic, the meta, the long discussions at room parties, conventions and via email or telephone, the pics, the trivia. Everything.
Then there is that other level, where I like the show, and will read fic if it shows up on a friend’s rec list or crack_van, but I won’t go actively searching for it. For example, I just found a couple of Buffy/Spike recs on crack_van; that’s a pairing I like a *lot* but never go seeking fic. But if it falls into my mailbox, as it were, with interesting recs, then I’ll read these stories, and maybe go looking for more by the same author.
Fannish psychology, part 1
Date: 2009-01-11 02:15 pm (UTC)And it's a way of comparing mental notes with other fans - studying the characterization, playing with possibilities. I remember being obscurely flattered in Pros fandom when Anne Higgins once said I wrote "the most out of character Bodie ever". I, of course, thought the same of some of her stories! There can be a broad interpretation of the spectrum within the same canon. With fanfic, there's an interesting interaction of fan interpretation and canon that creates something new and different - not just fic, but art, analysis, whatever. I love that.
I don’t like being catalogued or shoehorned into someone else’s definition of what fandom is all about.
Life in general is not a 'one size fits all' proposition, and it's been an increasing revelation to me as the years pass how very much that is true. Sometimes people differ in big ways, sometimes in ways so little they hardly show, but there are always similarities and there are always differences. Sometimes people make assumptions that don't get borne out at all. Of course, major wars get fought over this sort of thing, not to mention fannish explosions.
I have met a few fans over the years who always maintain an ironic distance between them and their fandom(s) source material.
Strange, isn't it? I'm a 'jump right in and love it to the fullest' sort of fan. Sometimes I wonder why some people call themselves fans when they seem so distanced - but we each have our own approaches. On the other hand, it can be annoying when someone complains so much about the canon, you want to ask, "Are you a fan or aren't you?"
Which isn't to say that fans are, or should be, uncritical. No show is perfect. Or even if a show is close to perfect, fans aren't. [g]
Every show has episodes (or whole seasons) that suck; many of them "jump the shark" at some point in time or other; a lot of them have problematic issues of many kinds.
When X-Files, which had been so good, jumped the shark, I felt betrayed. I still cared - why didn't the writers, actors and producers still care? Because such is life. I usually think a show shouldn't go beyond three years - much as we hate to see things cancelled - Veronica Mars was already floundering in third season, which was a pity, when it had been so tight in first season. Firefly will always be a gem because it won't continue on to screw up. Maybe it wouldn't have screwed up - it was already succeeding against the odds - but we'll never know for sure.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 1
Date: 2009-01-11 08:19 pm (UTC)I *love* playing "the canon game" - using canon incidents to prove concepts of characterization, pro and con. There does seem to be an almost infinite range of what individual fans consider "in character". As long as someone can make a good case, I am open to quite a broad range of interpretation.
I love everything you described. We are all participants in shared created worlds. I love how fanon develops and solidifies and expands my understanding of the characters, and I love it when fans can "reboot", get rid of fanon, go back to the source and go off in a new direction. (In K/S, for example, there is no canon evidence for "the bond"; it's sometimes interesting to write K/S without having "the bond" as being a given.)
>>>>I don’t like being catalogued or shoehorned into someone else’s definition of what fandom is all about.
>>>>Life in general is not a 'one size fits all' proposition
No, definitely not.
>>>and it's been an increasing revelation to me as the years pass how very much that is true. Sometimes people differ in big ways, sometimes in ways so little they hardly show, but there are always similarities and there are always differences.
Always. I'm a one-percenter, according to one of those popular personality tests, and I've always been aware of how differently I perceive the world from most other people. Even in fandom, much of the time I write fic by going in different directions than other people usually take.
>>>>Sometimes people make assumptions that don't get borne out at all. Of course, major wars get fought over this sort of thing, not to mention fannish explosions.
Yes, sigh, very true.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 1
Date: 2009-01-12 01:29 pm (UTC)As am I, but sometimes it is perplexing. I love Torchwood because I love Captain Jack Harkness, one of my favourite heroes ever. And I have a very strong, very distinct notion of his personality, and I am always amazed how many fans don't. Or whose interpretation is very different from mine - still with canonical basis. (However spurious. No, pretend I didn't say that.) Ianto, on the other hand, who is a huge fan favourite, is indistinct to me and not very interesting. Which puts me in a small percentage of Torchwood fans, I think, though there's a community for "fic that doesn't feature Ianto" so I can't be the only one.
That being said, the canon is so wide and so elastic, it hardly matters. A fandom where we are canonically given more than one slash fandom, and a choice of het possibilities. Amazing. I"ve never seen the like.
In K/S, for example, there is no canon evidence for "the bond"; it's sometimes interesting to write K/S without having "the bond" as being a given.
It's too long since I've read K/S... what is "the bond"?
I'm a one-percenter, according to one of those popular personality tests, and I've always been aware of how differently I perceive the world from most other people.
I think I'm a four-percenter, according to Meyers-Briggs, and I've never been aware of how differently I see the world. I constantly have to remind myself.
Even in fandom, much of the time I write fic by going in different directions than other people usually take.
I love that. I hate it when all fanfic sounds alike, or takes the same themes.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 1
Date: 2009-01-23 05:21 am (UTC)That's the fannish concept of the telepathic link between Kirk and Spock, which ranges in K/S fic from a subtle knowing of the other's location and mental state all the way up to a mental two-way radio system. It absolutely pervades K/S fiction; it's ingrained fanon. And yet, from canon, for all we know the telepathic link between T'Pring and Spock may only serve as a homing beacon. There's no evidence whatsoever of any link between Sarek and Amanda.
>>>I'm a one-percenter, according to one of those popular personality tests, and I've always been aware of how differently I perceive the world from most other people.
>>>>I think I'm a four-percenter, according to Meyers-Briggs, and I've never been aware of how differently I see the world. I constantly have to remind myself.
I'm a Meyers-Briggs INFP, and I've always been aware that in any given group of people, even in fannish circles, I'll be the one with the heretic thought. If people are arguing "up!" "down!", I'll be thinking "Northeast! And maybe we can veer a bit over there just for a change." Etcetera. :-)
Smile, back when I was a kid and when I was in my 20s, I took offense when people told me I was weird. I tend to view it as a compliment now.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 1
Date: 2009-01-23 12:09 pm (UTC)Heh - kind of cool. I don't know what I'd think of it in the fic. I suppose it would depend on the story.
I'm a Meyers-Briggs INFP
Me too. I've heard that INFPs are over-represented online, compared to the normal population. Might be true.
And yes, I tend to take the not-usually-trodden road, too, in perspective on things.
I think I always liked being thought 'weird' rather than 'normal'. I took it with pride.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 1
Date: 2009-01-11 08:30 pm (UTC)>>>>Strange, isn't it? I'm a 'jump right in and love it to the fullest' sort of fan.
That's the way I've always been - when I love something it's right into the deep end. :-)
>>>Sometimes I wonder why some people call themselves fans when they seem so distanced - but we each have our own approaches.
Exactly, and there are certainly plenty of people who have that approach who still seem very fannish.
>>>On the other hand, it can be annoying when someone complains so much about the canon, you want to ask, "Are you a fan or aren't you?"
That just makes me shake my head - if there's nothing they like from canon, why not go somewhere else? There's certainly plenty to choose from.
>>>Which isn't to say that fans are, or should be, uncritical. No show is perfect. Or even if a show is close to perfect, fans aren't. [g]
That's for sure. I was just breathing a big sigh of relief that TPTB didn't screw up the series finale for Stargate Atlantis. The potential was there, and there are things I didn't like about it, but just because this show has fallen down a bit recently doesn't invalidate how much I loved about earlier seasons. "Smallville" is an even better example.
>>>Every show has episodes (or whole seasons) that suck; many of them "jump the shark" at some point in time or other; a lot of them have problematic issues of many kinds.
>>>When X-Files, which had been so good, jumped the shark, I felt betrayed. I still cared - why didn't the writers, actors and producers still care?
Poor X Files. That was such a damn fine show in the early years. I guess what bothered me the most about that was, it was so good and so had much farther to fall than some other shows.
>>>I usually think a show shouldn't go beyond three years - much as we hate to see things cancelled - Veronica Mars was already floundering in third season, which was a pity, when it had been so tight in first season.
"Deep Space Nine" could have ended after Season 4, and definitely after Season 6. Still, in almost every case, there are still a few gems among the mud of bad seasons. There was one entire season of "Smallvile" which could be tossed, except for a 10 minute exchange between Clark and Lex, that I wouldn't have missed for the world.
>>>Firefly will always be a gem because it won't continue on to screw up.
I never have seen Firefly - I really should. I have no excuse not to; a friend of mine gave me the DVD set as a gift a couple of years ago. One of these days...!
Re: Fannish psychology, part 1
Date: 2009-01-12 01:21 pm (UTC)I was there for the Clex. But that isn't why I left the fandom - it was mostly because I found Lois Lane so annoying I didn't want to watch her. Or Jimmy Olsen. So I stopped watching; there was no payoff any more.
it was so good and so had much farther to fall than some other shows.
So true! X-Files later episodes probably weren't so bad, compared to other things on television. But we knew what it had been, and the contrast was painful.
in almost every case, there are still a few gems among the mud of bad seasons
So true!
There was one entire season of "Smallvile" which could be tossed, except for a 10 minute exchange between Clark and Lex, that I wouldn't have missed for the world.
Oh, really? Should I look for it? Which episode?
I never have seen Firefly - I really should.
Don't force yourself - ! I think when and if you do get around to it, you'll find it clever and witty and tightly written and well characterized, but not everyone likes it. To me it was the characterization that made it: I've never seen a show in which I liked all the women - who were distinct, funny, and interesting.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 1
Date: 2009-01-23 04:51 am (UTC)It's funny, by the time they started really focusing on Lois I was so sick of Lana that Lois was almost a welcome change. Almost. Lois Lane has always been a PITA; this one is no exception, but she's less annoying than Terry Hatcher or many of her comic book appearances.
BTW, I went to a comic book shop for the first time in many years yesterday to pick up the Spiderman comic with the Obama cover, and while there I couldn't resist getting a Batman and a Justice League, plus a Dr. Who. I hope this is not a slippery slope...! :-)
>>>Oh, really? Should I look for it? Which episode?
I don't remember the name of the episode, but it's the one where Lex invites Clark to his wedding to Lana. He does a "just so you know what you're missing" moment, but the way Rosenbaum plays it, it felt like what Clark would be missing would be *Lex*, not Lana.
I definitely will get around to watching Firefly one of these days, probably when everything goes into rerun again.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 1
Date: 2009-01-23 12:15 pm (UTC)I thought that the first time we met her. Then I got so annoyed by Lois, that Lana looked almost acceptable in comparison. Which was when I gave up.
I couldn't resist getting a Batman and a Justice League, plus a Dr. Who. I hope this is not a slippery slope...! :-)
Bwahahahaha.
the way Rosenbaum plays it, it felt like what Clark would be missing would be *Lex*, not Lana.
Even the idea of that is sexy!
Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-11 02:16 pm (UTC)Interesting question, and I don't know the answer. It would make sense that some people are more into fan-interaction than the source material. Or get what they're looking for (whetever that is) regardless of the fandom. This makes me think of the fans who are into so many fandoms you can't keep count, or who write crossovers filled with characters from dozens of fandoms or more - it's like being fans of fandom, rather than fans of a show or a set of characters.
And of course, you've experienced as much as I have the divides within fandoms - the people who like only one pairing, the people who like anything as long as it isn't slash (or as long as it is slash, whichever), the people who like one season of something but not the others, the people who are only there for one character or actor and will follow him anywhere. Doctor Who has been interesting for me because it's probably the first time I've been in a fandom that isn't primarily based on slash - and in which a fair number of fans think the protagonist is asexual. I can't even get my head around that, and figure it's the fans who loved Doctor Who as kids, when they were asexual themselves. Clearly they aren't there for the slash, or the het either. I used to think it was in the presentation of the canon over time, but the more I know about the show, the less I think that's the reason. No coincidence, I think, that there are an unusually large number of male fans, for whom it seems less character-driven; and an unusually large number of gay male fans, who approach it much more like female fans do. And there, that's my gratuitous sexual stereotype for the day.
Merlin hasn’t aired in the US yet. But with all this chatter about it I’m curious enough to give it a try.
It's very... sweet. I don't mean that in any negative or sarcastic way. It's straightforward and unsubtle and grows on itself, so that while earlier episodes seemed amusing and entertaining, later episodes become much more. And it's very slashy, an a wide-eyed-teenager sort of way. I'd recommend it highly.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-13 04:48 am (UTC)I sure wish I remember the name of the zine. One of the best multifandom crossovers was a novella by Rayelle Roe, published some time in the 80s. It was a humorous piece, and featured several different fandoms. I thought she did a great job with the fandoms I was familiar with, and people familiar with the other fandoms said she did a fine job with those too.
I guess it's somewhat similar to an author who can be brilliant in one fandom after another; it's just that a good crossover author can do it all at once.
For crossovers, I think it all depends on how well they write the characters. I've read some crossovers where the author clearly favored one fandom over another, and (as a fan of the unfavored fandom) it showed. OTOH, I've read some crossovers which are so seamless and so beautifully done and so true to both universes it's clear that the author is truly a fan of both fandoms.
>>>And of course, you've experienced as much as I have the divides within fandoms
God, yes. People can find an amazing number of ways to disagree on things. I was reminded a lot of fannish bickering when a cousin of mine was getting married and I attended the "evening before the wedding dinner". I wound up seated with some people with the groom's party, and they were going on about how they were the One True Lutherans and those other Lutherans were heretics. So I asked them to explain the theological differences, and it all boiled down to "they're bad and they're wrong". So I later on asked one of my cousins, who was one of the other Lutherans, to explain the theological differences, and it all boiled down to "they're bad and they're wrong".
Sometimes all this hairsplitting seems like angels dancing on the heads of pins... Not that I can't get passionate about my own viewpoints, but I truly try to see the big picture and understand that all of us are getting different things from the same source material.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-13 09:07 pm (UTC)Or they like a lot of variety? They like to read in many fandoms, and write in scattered ones?
I guess it's somewhat similar to an author who can be brilliant in one fandom after another; it's just that a good crossover author can do it all at once.
Good point! Not a talent I generally have; I tend to focus too much. Unless things gel in my head in a certain way, which can happen. I didn't write Firefly, really, until long after the show ended - and then wrote a Firefly story as a crossover with Captain Jack Harkness. That was when and how it came together for me. For no reason I can analyze.
I wound up seated with some people with the groom's party, and they were going on about how they were the One True Lutherans and those other Lutherans were heretics.
LOL! Of course. Are you familiar with the long ideological civil war in Byzantium that centred on whether the i in a certain word was dotted or not - done one way, it meant Jesus was God, done another way he was a man, and thus are long wars begun. It makes as much sense as the other fights - about which sports team is better than the other.
it all boiled down to "they're bad and they're wrong".
It usually does. Krycek/Mulder vs Skinner/Mulder vs Scully/Mulder? Sometimes there's more angst outside the fanfic than in it!
Not that I can't get passionate about my own viewpoints, but I truly try to see the big picture and understand that all of us are getting different things from the same source material.
Yeah. Me too. Sometimes I like the differences.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-17 01:16 am (UTC)>>>
I believe I have heard of that; I can see why it caused wars - it cuts to the very heart of the definition of Christianity. Have you seen the "heretic" paintings? The ones which show young Jesus looking very much like Joseph? The point, of course, being that Joseph, not God, was his father. I understand the Inquisition paid a visit on one of those artists. Or, just as interesting and probably not even heresy since they were so early, the 2nd century images portraying Jesus and Judas in the icongraphy of the fallen king and his fallen (loyal) follower.
>>>Krycek/Mulder vs Skinner/Mulder vs Scully/Mulder?
I rather liked Skinner/Scully/Mulder; I had a whole bunch of those stories on diskette at one time. And I could and did go for Skinner/Mulder and Mulder/Scully. Not so much the ratboy, though he made for interesting spice once in awhile...
>>>Sometimes there's more angst outside the fanfic than in it!
LOL, isn't that the truth!
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-18 02:22 am (UTC)Have you seen the "heretic" paintings? The ones which show young Jesus looking very much like Joseph?
LOL. I think I've heard of them - never saw them.
rather liked Skinner/Scully/Mulder;
Me too. More than Scully/Mulder stories, actually.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-19 04:43 am (UTC)Smile! It's best to let yourself be swept along by writing impulses. :-)
>>>
Same here. In that fandom, I liked that threesome the best. I also once read a couple of *excellent* Skinner/Scully stories that were absolutely gorgeous. I would never have paired them, but that author convinced me.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-19 01:29 pm (UTC)I got into writing a story yesterday for the first time in longer than I want to think. For the first time in eons, I could write freely. Something longer than a drabble. It was wonderful.
I also once read a couple of *excellent* Skinner/Scully stories that were absolutely gorgeous. I would never have paired them, but that author convinced me.
I love it when that happens. They were great characters; in the hands of a good writer, anything is possible.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-21 03:15 am (UTC)That's wonderful! Yay for creativity! Good luck with your writing! I'm writing again, as well, for the first time in over a year.
>>>
Exactly! I remember when DVS wrote that Mouse/Elliot story (Beauty and the Beast). I would have said that pairing was impossible and utterly ludicrous, yet she pulled it off brilliantly.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-26 04:00 pm (UTC)Remember when Jane Mailander did a crossover - Pros and Waltership Down? Or the slash story that paired Fox Mulder with Chewbacca?
In fanfic, anything is possible, and some of the weirdest ideas can come out well.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-13 04:57 am (UTC)I got into the new Dr. Who when some friends invited me to a Dr. Who party to watch the very first Eccleston episode. As I've mentioned, I wasn't a fan of any earlier version; whereas they were all big fans and full of fannish trivia and detailed knowledge of prior canon.
I was delighted by this first episode, and I was also very pleased by how happy they all were with the show, particularly since I knew they'd approached the new version with some skepticism.
I watched most of the next couple of seasons in company with one or more of them, and it was interesting how they shifted from viewing the Doctor as asexual into seeing him as a being with a very complex sexuality indeed. Unlike some of the fans you mentioned, they welcomed this development - but it sure took them by surprise.
God, there were some good episodes in those seasons! I'm ready for a rewatch. :-)
>>>No coincidence, I think, that there are an unusually large number of male fans, for whom it seems less character-driven; and an unusually large number of gay male fans, who approach it much more like female fans do. And there, that's my gratuitous sexual stereotype for the day.
Grin.
One show which attracted a lot of gay male fans, including a large, large number of men who wrote fanfic and did fan art is the 1960s soap opera Dark Shadows. On reflection, the appeal seemed obvious; Dark Shadows was full of characters concealing secrets and doing their best to appear to be "normal" members of society (whatever that is), and for a lot of these guys, growing up pre-Stonewall, there was a lot to identify with. Ditto superheroes and secret identities.
Whenever Merlin shows up, I'll check it out. What with all this discussion and kerfuffle, I don't see how I could resist.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-13 08:11 pm (UTC)Interesting. I have always known a lot of Doctor Who fans, many of them male, many of them who would avoid anything remotely shippy at the best of times. My female friends weren't into the show (by and large) until the new version came out. Those who encouraged me to watch came from a wide disparity of venues - a local female slash fan friend, a clever Englishman who's into Dunnett -it was a fact that a number of Dunnett fans liked the show that really twigged me that there was something intelligent and worth watching there.
And I totally fell into the Doctor/Rose relationship from the beginning, and then the Doctor/Jack relationship. Makes me a happy fan. Even with Ten, the problematic nature of his relationships is - well, many not what I want to see, as I'd rather he was shagging them all, but - it's interesting.
Dark Shadows! I've never seen it, but heard much about it from a gay male friend who was heavily into the fandom.
X-Men has long been touted as a classic of gay fandom. And for some reason I've never heard a convincing explanation of, a large proportion of Legion of Superheroes fandom is GLBT. Makes it fun.
Merlin is certainly worth checking out.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-17 12:59 am (UTC)When I lived in the Bay Area in the 80s, a lot of my fannish friends (mostly women, some men) were intensely into the Tom Baker Dr. Who and a lot of them got involved in running a convention called Timecon, which focused on Dr. Who but also had room for any show which featured time travel.
I just was not into Dr. Who at all back then; I heard quite a bit about it, but none of it "took". I remember giving one friend advice on how to do a fanzine; she did do one issue of a Who zine (can't recall the name), but I think it was strictly gen. It was that "gen-ness", for want of a better word, that put me off. I want "ship" of some kind in my fandoms.
So it was an interesting experience seeing old time female Who fans embrace the complex sexuality of the new versions.
>>>
*grin* Yes, that'd make me happy too.
>>>>
No clue. Maybe because of the sheer variety of characters? (One of the very first comic books I ever read was - what was it, Adventure? which contained a Legion of Superheroes story).
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-18 02:19 am (UTC)I feel exactly the same way. It was the combination of the Doctor's personal tragedy and guilt, and his relationship with Rose, that delighted me and reeled me in. Then Jack. Not to mention witty writing and interesting structure to the stories, but most of it was in the characterization.
(One of the very first comic books I ever read was - what was it, Adventure? which contained a Legion of Superheroes story).
When I was about nine years old, that was my very favourite comic. I was mad over Saturn Girl, and I loved the way their stories included Superboy.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-19 04:39 am (UTC)I loved Saturn Girl too! She was my favorite, but I had lots of others I liked as well.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-19 01:34 pm (UTC)It took me - as usual - three episodes to be hooked. I saw "Rose", then "New Earth", then "School Reunion" -in that order - and that did it. And I loved Nine more with each minute of screentime that passed. Came to love Rose slowly, as series 1 progressed and her character did, too. What a beautiful hero's journey that girl had! I think it was "Dalek" that broke my heart and reeled me in. By the time we were at "Father's Day" I was a goner. And when Jack appeared... oh my.
Saturn Girl was wonderful, but there probably wasn't a Legion character I didn't like. Tenzil Kem in the hands of Giffen and the Bierbaums was such a delight. I always loved Chameleon Boy and Brainiac 5 - who suffered from bad writers and variable characterization, but he was fun.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-21 03:24 am (UTC)What a beautiful way of putting it! Absolutely true.
>>>And when Jack appeared... oh my.
Indeed! I remember squeeing to all sorts of people in unrelated fandoms about him. :-)
>>>Tenzil Kem in the hands of Giffen and the Bierbaums was such a delight.
Boy, my memory! I don't remember him at all.
>>>I always loved Chameleon Boy and Brainiac 5 - who suffered from bad writers and variable characterization, but he was fun.
Brainiac 5 was fun too. My memory again, I'm hazy on Chameleon Boy. This is such a time trip for me! Makes me wonder what's going on in the DC universe now.
Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
Date: 2009-01-26 04:03 pm (UTC)I'd never been interested in Doctor Who, and it was someone's chance remark about Captain Jack being bisexual that caught my interest. A bisexual guy in Doctor Who? The most sexless show I'd ever heard of? How could that be?
So I watched, and realized (as of "Rose", nowhere near getting to Jack yet) that the show wasn't sexless any more.
Chamelon Boy was the shape-changer, an orange guy with antennae. I really like shape-shifters. Conceptually.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:52 pm (UTC)That describes my non-involvement with Harry Potter. I have a couple of good friends who write HP fic. I love their writing and I read their stories. They were excellent, and if they write more HP, I'll read their stories. But HP isn't my fandom; I won't go looking for any fic on my own.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:56 pm (UTC)How very cool!
>>>(Doctor Who? I'd have bet good money I'd never be into that one. Not in a million years. Hah!)
LOL! I hear you on that. I'd seen a handful of the older Dr Who episodes, mostly Pertwee and Baker, but the show and concept didn't grab me. Then came Eccleston and Tennant, and - wow! I was there!
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 05:07 pm (UTC)It really was - and how seldom that happens in life. "She's my favourite author!" - "Mine too!" - and that for me is the essence of fandom. Sharing the thrill.
I'd seen a handful of the older Dr Who episodes, mostly Pertwee and Baker, but the show and concept didn't grab me.
Yes. I was bored. I still am, when I go back and try to look at the old episodes, even though I respect them a lot more now, and may well watchmore. It's the new ones - the style, the perspective, the writing, the characters - that's what got me. I hope it works as well for me with Steven Moffatt in charge, and there's no reason it shouldn't - but I won't know till I see it, because there is no predicting.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 05:50 pm (UTC)That's my reaction to Harry Potter too, though there are overtones of personal philosophy (in my case) that would sound strange to you. It doesn't help that (AFAIK) most HP fen are teenage boys and girls. I *never* liked being a teenager and have discovered little in common with most people that age.
Have you ever gotten into a TV show/movie before your friends and busily pimped the source material to them in the hopes that a fandom would ensue?
My dear, you have been talking about Dorothy Dunnett for about as far back as I have known you. This has not made me a fan of same ... yet. I *do* intend to read these books. But there are only 24 hours in a day and 168 hours in a week; I'm finding that too much of it is wasted on work and various forms of health maintenance (aka sleep).
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 07:07 pm (UTC)Like what? You've made me curious! I promise not to argue if you tell me.
It doesn't help that (AFAIK) most HP fen are teenage boys and girls.
Are they? I have no idea what the statistics are, but the only HP fans I know tend to be in the 30-60 year old group, just because that's the age my friends tend to be and I don't really know any HP fans outisde my own circle. Not that I don't have younger and older friends, of course.... I find that in general, fandom transcends age. Which is one of the things I love about it.
One hears a lot on the media about kids who are into Harry Potter but the teens I know don't like it, and the people I know who are fans, are much older than that.
I *never* liked being a teenager and have discovered little in common with most people that age.
I didn't much like being a teen, it's a horrible time, and when I was a teen there were a lot of teens I knew and didn't like. But I think it's agist to condemn an age group - teens are no better or worse than people of any age, and I do love reading about teens. Miles Vorkosigan was a teen in the first few Bujold novels. Gen is a teen in the first few Attolia novels. I also have a taste for coming-of-age novels, and the protagonists there are often teens. So... yeah, I gues I like novels about teens! What I have in common with them, is that they are discovering what life is all about. As Are younger people, and older people, and everyone else of any age.
My dear, you have been talking about Dorothy Dunnett for about as far back as I have known you. This has not made me a fan of same ...
Ah-hah! The proof of the pudding! I wonder if you'd have read them by now if your sister weren't a fan. [heh]
But there are only 24 hours in a day and 168 hours in a week; I'm finding that too much of it is wasted on work and various forms of health maintenance (aka sleep).
Oh, so true. So pathetically true. Especially when it's so time-consuming and difficult to get around these days.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-11 11:31 pm (UTC)I'll talk more generally about Root Ground philosophy later (though I will admit that "Root Ground" has a lot in common with the Buddhist concept of "Basic Path"). The point here is that I don't feel comfortable with "magic" or with protraying "technology" as "magic." There is nothing obscure or occult about basic knowledge of any kind, and portraying it as such bothers the **** [generic four-letter word] out of my Rationalist beliefs. [It's a reflection of that, I suspect, that I view any acceptable Higher Power to be not just Ens Realissimum but Ens Rationissimum or 'Ultimate Mind' as well.] Rationalism is very deeply part of my philosophy. I also don't care much for astrology, numerology, and other such stuporstitions (beliefs that strip from you the power of logical thought and criticism), for much the same reason.
OTOH, I look at myself in a mirror and wonder how much I sound like Ms. Umbridge to others. [I am also reminded of my sister here, for reasons that should be obvious.]
it's agist to condemn an age group.
Point taken. I didn't mean to condemn all teens, just that I sometimes doubt I have much in common with them. I *do* enjoy some coming-of-age novels, though I find some of them far too emotional or psychological. I will admit I do not know many HP fans, but I suspect many of the people I deal with outside of work (in the pagan/wicca groups) *are* fen of same.
I wonder if you'd have read [the Dunnett books] by now if your sister weren't a fan.
I have been more generally biased in favor of future (over historical) fiction for a *long* time; if anything, I am trying to switch to a better appreciation of historical fiction nowadays. The key word remains "yet."
I find I am feeling very grumpy about lack of time lately. The bus strike and other such sillinesses are costing me time -- and old age [with a loss of brain function] is getting Too Close for my peace of mind. :-(
no subject
Date: 2009-01-12 12:03 am (UTC)I don't remember who Ms Umbridge is. Is she the one in pink?
Sadly, SF and fantasy are these days way, way more popular than my favourite genre - historical fiction. I wish they'd write fantasy-type novels without the fantasy! Meanwhile, not much good historical fiction is being written or published. Nor is history valued much.
I am grumpy about lack of time too, but I figure being grumpy isn't going to help, so I'm trying to be cheerful about it. As for old age - not everyone gets dimmer with time, and time passes whatever we do. Coming to terms with it is one of the challenges of humanity. An important one, in my opinion. Not growing old with style, but doing it with grace and happiness.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 05:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 07:09 pm (UTC)Even though I was a devoted Highlander fan for years, I never read much of the fic. I'm not sure why. Still haven't. (Recommendations woudl be welcome - !)
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 06:27 pm (UTC)Recently a friend of my husband's was here visiting and mentioned that he liked Doctor Who, so I showed him the first ep of TW and he insisted on watching two more. Excellent. *cackle*
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 07:00 pm (UTC)And yes, though I wouldn't say I was exactly pimping, or not on purpose, I do tend to invite people over to see things I like. I showed Merlin to
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 06:52 pm (UTC)I read SPN fics before I saw one episode, because there were so many crossovers to Angel/Buffy and some of them by authors I liked, but I don't consider myself an SPN fan, so no real following here.
Harry Potter seems the common thing here *g* Love the books, read stories if my friends write them, but don't want to be in the fandom.
I rarely discover fandoms by myself, so yes, practically every time.
The guy who brought me into Buffy/Angel didn't know Doctor Who! Enter me with the DVD box. *g* I have no clue if he's fandom active, but I know he likes it.
*thinks* No. Ditto the mass migration. If I have a fandom, I may stay dormant for a while, but usually it wakes up every other time.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 07:14 pm (UTC)Yes. Crossovers are an interesting case. One writes crossovers when one loves both sources. The reader may not even know one of the sources, but still is tempted into reading because of the fandom they know. Sometimes it works really well. It at least expands fannish horizons.
And yet, desperate as I am for Torchwood fic, I'm likely to skip the crossovers with fandoms I'm not into. Unless I have nothing at all left to read, which, the way TW fans are writing (what a prolific lot!), won't be for a long time.
Harry Potter seems the common thing here *g*
Yes. It is just so very famous. A sort of special case of fandom, just as it's a special case of literature. The only analogous fandom I can think of would be Lord of the Rings, which has had a following since the 1960s and has been expanding ever since.
The guy who brought me into Buffy/Angel didn't know Doctor Who!
Hee! People tried so long and hard to get me into Buffy - and it just didn't take, though I didn't hate the show. It just didn't have a lot of appeal. It wasn't until Buster sent me a set of the DVDs that I started watching with care. I still don't feel fannish about it. In fact, I feel fairly critical - but I'm also enjoying it immensely, and enjoying commenting on it.
Firefly, on the other hand, I adored passionately from the first episode I saw.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 09:08 pm (UTC)I think it's hard to define if and how deep you are in "fandom" for something. Are you if you love the show, but don't read fanfiction? Where's the line? I consider myself a TW fan, I read fanfic but I don't show up actively in comms, discussing things and such. You enjoy watching and discussing Buffy, but I guess you're not actively searching for fanfic. Is that already fandom? I'd say yes, because I don't restrict it to fanfic. You like something, you share it with others. That's the basic definition and I think that's how you put it at the beginning of your post.
And then you stumble over the scary elite fans. *g* Oh dear... :-)
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 09:27 pm (UTC)Ideally. Highlander is great for anything historical. Stargates and Rifts make for nice transference. It's hard to resist a Heroes/Doctor Who connection if you're looking at Claude the Invisible Man (er - please ignore the paradox there), played by Christopher Eccleston. But it always works best with some sort of plausible hook.
I think I define being in a fandom as 'loving any source material enough to want to carry it beyond its original source on an ongoing basis - which might include wanting to analyze it, talk about it with other people, read about it and watch commentaries, write fanfic, read fantic, get the action figures, go to conventions, make costumes.... And I suspect I don't say I'm 'into a fandom' if I've only done one of the above - for example, I once wrote a Babylon 5 story, but I don't consider myself in any way a fan of Babylon 5, and I'm not into the fandom.
Sometimes it's just a measure of how much I love something. I'm really not into Firefly fandom at all, and yet I love the show enough to feel as if I am. Buffy is a step further removed, and yet I love discussing things with other Buffy fans - they're a great bunch. And I'm not into discussing Firefly in the same way - maybe I just haven't met ther right Firefly fans. I only wrote one Firefly story I thought worked the way I wanted it to.
Yes: liking something and sharing it with others is the mark of a fandom for me, however it is done. And sometimes it's entirely subjective what makes one thing "a fandom" and something else just thing I like".
then you stumble over the scary elite fans. *g*
There are all sorts of ways fans can be scary. The elite fans, the fans who are into onepmanship, the crazy fans, the fans who are chronic liars, the fans who are terrible writers who post their stuff everywhere... Luckily, most fans are pretty decent people. And my friends are superb!
no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 06:23 pm (UTC)Hehee, mine too! Lucky us!
A lot depends on meeting the right people. I don't know if I had ever landed in Buffy/Angel fandom if I hadn't met my first friends here at LJ. Sometimes it just fits! I pity new SPN fans sometimes - there's so much wank going on and if you just happen to stumble into it as a newbie - I would grab my things and run and hide. *g*
All in all, fandom is crazy but most of the time it's a good crazyness.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-11 02:08 am (UTC)So very true. Mostly I've been pretty well. Though there were a few fan writers I admired in Lord of the Rings fandom who turned out to be utterly insane. And once on a Highlander mailing list... they seemed like a nice bunch, but I stepped into the middle of a crisis and it became quickly obvious that the group-leader was an attention-getting liar who manufactured catastophes for dramatic effect, and to get sympathy from the list. Parasitically. I got off that list fast.
I have since met a few others of the type. Luckily, they're easy to avoid and usually easy to spot.
I pity new SPN fans sometimes - there's so much wank going on
Is there? I've heard a few horror stories about other fandoms, but I seem to have avoided most of the bad stuff.
fandom is crazy but most of the time it's a good crazyness.
So true.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-11 07:23 pm (UTC)Yup. One of the reasons why I won't get really involved with that fandom. Either SPN or the actor version. Luckily I only find them through random browsing, give a hearty laugh and press backbutton. *g*
no subject
Date: 2009-01-12 12:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-12 11:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-13 01:52 pm (UTC)Running all the way, wearing Converse, our long coats flapping in the wind.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 10:20 pm (UTC)::coughs:: More please?
Is this a fandom friends have dragged you into despite yourself?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 01:10 am (UTC)Yes!
Is this a fandom friends have dragged you into despite yourself?
No, because I'm not very draggable. Friends have tried to drag me into, say, Stargate or Supernatural and I had no glimmer of interest. I quite love Buffy in so many ways - I just don't feel fannish about it. I don't even know what the difference is. And the sad truth... as you might have [blush] guessed... I am sort of fannish about Spike. And Giles.
And why not?
Maybe it's a sort of semi-fandom for me.
Or maybe six months from now I'll be writing Buffy fic and getting excited over fine points of fannish disagreement.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 09:18 pm (UTC)Yes. Guilty as charged. My secret is out. I put up no shred of resistence. Wanton and brazen.
They didn't get me until the Night on Weathertop. (Which is what, the very next chapter or something?)
What restraint!
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 09:32 pm (UTC)Damn right.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 12:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 01:07 am (UTC)That being said, a thirteen year old of my acquaintance recently told me "It's boring - nothing happens."
I suspect I might like the romanticism, but I'm not tempted to find out.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 01:34 am (UTC)I more into Sci-fi with Aliens, space ships, handsome onmisexual time agents plus a certain Time lord who travels in a blue police box which is bigger on the inside.
I like sci-fi which makes you either feel like a kid again or makes you realise you have a really dirty mind.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 01:27 pm (UTC)I more into Sci-fi with Aliens, space ships, handsome onmisexual time agents plus a certain Time lord who travels in a blue police box which is bigger on the inside.
Hee - yes ! Me too! Now, that's romance!
no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 02:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 01:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-11 02:10 am (UTC)Hee - by that argument, I couldn't have been a fan till the VCR was invented!
Of course, digital copying made things easier to share...!
I think I make a slight distinction between 'being a fan' (i.e., loving a show or book), being in fandom (i.e., participating with other people in activities that have to do with that show or book, including creative things like role playing games, fanfic, etc.) and being fannish (loving to discuss it). But those are fairly subjective, arbitrary distinctions, more a rule of thumb than hard definitions.
Love your icon.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-11 01:01 pm (UTC)Cassette recorders in front of the TV speakers, m'dear! Stood a whole generation of geeks in good stead.
I agree that there is a distinction between fan, fandom, and fannish, but it's such a slippery one, and it's so likely that you can be all three at once for different shows.
I created the icon for Time Crash, but I've dusted it off now because most of the arguments I've been hearing about Matt Smith (too young, doesn't look right) were also leveled at Peter and David.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-11 01:50 pm (UTC)Oh so true. At some point before the invention of cassettes - yes, I was pretty darn young - my father came home with a reel-to-reel tape recorder. I immediately started taping my favourite stuff (U.N.C.L.E., perhaps?) off the television. He was bemused.
I created the icon for Time Crash, but I've dusted it off now because most of the arguments I've been hearing about Matt Smith (too young, doesn't look right) were also leveled at Peter and David.
Good call! "Time Crash" was so cute - I was just watching it again, showing it to some friends who hadn't seen it. Loved that. It made me respect Steven Moffatt more than ever (his flaws notwithstanding).
no subject
Date: 2009-01-11 02:17 pm (UTC)I think I'm ready for a new set of flaws in Who; I've gotten bored with the current set. And Moffat rarely disappoints me.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-11 02:49 pm (UTC)I'm not sure why he let me. Maybe he got tired of playing with it himself?
I think I'm ready for a new set of flaws in Who; I've gotten bored with the current set.
Good point - my attitude exactly. I don't think Moffat will reverse the things I already love about the show - the wit, the gay-friendliness, the sense of energy. What he will add - well, I don't know, but it should be good.
Moffat rarely disappoints me.
Sometimes he disappoints me but when he is good he is so good that I forgive all the rest. And he never disappoints me much, while Russell T Davies has given me some incredible let-downs. And some incredible highs. You take the bad with the good.