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
From:Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
From: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
From:Re: Fannish psychology, part 2
From: