Fandom Kvetch 1

[dreamer_easy]

For a long time, I figured the biggest problem fandom has - and we have a few - was incestuous amplification. (We're rubbish at handling conflict, tending to panic and explode when faced with disagreement; but so is everyone online. In fandom's case, that feeds into our self-segregation into warring tribes.) However, I think there's a problem underlying that one. Everyone knows about fandom's comical self-importance, but fuelling that is what I now think is really our biggest problem: overentitlement. We know what's best. We demand to have our own way. If we don't get our own way, then the text and its creator(s) are wrong and bad, incompetent and immoral. Even people who didn't come to fandom as spoilt brats can be swept up in that self-centred, self-reinforcing attitude. And it spills over into fanacs - we've all seen fanbrats chuck a wobbly when they don't like the rules in some forum. (And I saw a grown man at Worldcon having a tantrum in the cafe because his coffee wasn't hot enough. THE SHAME.)

This used to be obvious to me when I was in boyfandom, in places like rec.arts.drwho, but it's only quite recently I've begun to recognise it here in girlfandom on LJ. (Yes, I'm aware these are huge gender generalisations, but they can be useful ways of looking at the different cultures within fandom.) The worst part of it is that it backfires: it makes fans miserable. The chances that some scribbler on the other side of the planet coming up with exactly what you want are pretty much nil, and if you can't cope with not getting what you want, you're going to hate whatever you do get. If only this was solely a self-inflicted injury, and not one that gets inflicted on everyone else as well.

Comments

[the-cockfighter.livejournal.com]

I think there are several factors going on in fandom.

One - is that its social-political structure it is one which is egalitarian, people from various communities of different shapes, gender, sexuality etc are brought together based upon one common interest.

Two - how fandom interacts with the medium, primarily it deals with the show like a documentary - a collection of facts (but only that which is stated or seen) put into some theoretical framework.

Three - that intelligence is a valued trait, and more significantly that it is a major if not the main definition of one's self identity.

Four - the error that a collection of trivial facts is intelligence.

Five - being human one grabs power in a social-political structure where there are no rules, hierarchical structure or authority.

Six - a whole lot of underdeveloped inter-personal skills; 6a - namely fandom talk at each other, not with each other; 6b - that in fandom, one doesn't interact with a person, but a collection of facts and theories.

Thus it becomes a battle of authorship. The best fan, the one who excells at being the best Doctor Who fan is one can be has the most knowledge and power and therefore is the one who can wield their authorship over the show and everyone else.

So any fan who becomes an NA author or Producer/Writer of the new Doctor Who series is seen as a threat to that ambition.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

(a) That is an insightful analysis.
(b) ROFL YOUR ICON

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Wait, is this a multiple choice test? 'Cos I wanna pick "(c) All of the above".

OK, I'm having far too much fun around post. [GOES TO MAKE A SOOTHING CUP OF TEA AND GET A GRIP]