Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Is there a Carnival for You?

It used to be that blogging carnivals were few and far between, but it seems that there's a regular roundup for everyone, now. The inaugural edition (a.k.a. "First Date") of the Jewish Dating Blogcarnival has appeared.

There's a carnival for ME! I've volunteered to host the next Bad History Carnival, so keep your eyes peeled for bad historians, analogies, and other ahistoricalities.

It's not technically a carnival, but Penny Richards' disability blog roundup has some great reading as usual.

And to the Harry Potter fans I've offended... tough. I'm still a serious fantasy and science fiction geek, but I was never a trekkie. I've read Star Wars books, showed up the first day for movies, played with plastic figures.... but I grew up (and I never played out the Star Wars stories with the figures: we made up our own stories). I've been to Science Fiction Conventions (but never a TrekCon). I'm sorry, I just don't get fandom; I think it's pathological and I think the fandom economy (and it is an industry, people: you are a market) is highly problematic.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, from what you say, you don't really think fandom is pathological. You just think media fandom is pathological, or maybe it's just science fiction/fantasy fandom?

You entry leads me to suspect, for instance, that you're mentally excluding such things as Sherlock Holmes fandom...a genre unto itself that's spawned both critical and popular essays galore and movies and television series', not to mention thousands of professional and amateur fictional sequels. All from "fans" of the original books.

What about gothic horror stories? From the ancient roots of Dracula to such illustrious authors as Jane Austen, to the Victorians' shuddering delight in "horror" tales through to Stephen King and others today, it's a well-established genre where Dracula, Frankenstein, and even King Kong have inspired "fans" to rewrite, remake, and reinterpret the canon for decade upon decade. Do you disapprove of this? Is it okay because some of these "fans" are "professionals" who make money being fans?

You don't seem to take exception to sports fandom (people watching someone else exercise), or fantasy sports fandom (people pretending to be rich enough to own "teams" of other people who exercise).

I don't see any suggestion in your post that you disapprove of knitting and crocheting fandom (they have conventions, you know).

You don't mention scrapbooking fandom (currently involved in an intrafandom war over "traditional" versus "computerized" scrapbooking), or any of the thousands of other types of hobbies that possess "fans".

Media fandom of the type you do describe is simply an outgrowth of literary fandom. It's older than fantasy football but newer than internet trolling, another pastime that possesses a multitude of "fans." It's a hobby. Yes, these people get merchandised at, but as I understand it, "fantasy football" is becoming a very Big Money enterprise indeed.

A hobby is a hobby is a hobby. Personally, I think people who play fantasy sports need to get real lives. Or, you know, go play a game themselves if they're that fascinated by football or baseball.

(As far as that goes, I think professional sports are largely overrated exercises in tedium, but I don't often say so because I grant others the right to have their own hobbies.)

You might spend your watercooler hours talking about how "your" team did during Sunday's Big Game. I might spend it speculating on what Mulder and Scully found when they walked into that not-quite-deserted warehouse and wondering if that shadowy figure will be revealed to be the Smoking Man.

I find it a teensy bit irritating that you consider "your" fandom/hobby to be superior to "my" fandom/hobby just because mine is about storytelling and human interaction and yours is about...well, about well-padded men bashing heads on a field of concrete.

(Okay, no, I'm not really irritated with you, of course. I'm teasing a bit. But still.)


Anne Zook
http://annezook.com

Ahistoricality said...

Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against being a fan of something. I'm a fan of many things (internet quizzes, blogging [Peevish!], West Wing, Le Show, NPR, history, F&SF [including individual authors whom I consider exceptionally and consistently good and whose works I own in abundance], etc). I like your redefinition of "hobby" to include fandom activities but I'm not sure I'm prepared to give up the distinction between media and non-media activities (and there's a whole other category of self-development [exercise, theraphy, etc] which needs consideration as well.).

"Fandom" though means a particularly intense personal identification with an entertainment (I do not include knitting, origami, etc.: those produce something which might remotely be considered.... something), and I would include sports as something which can become obsessive and problematic.

The difference between a fan and fandom? People who discuss new episodes of a show like X-Files are fans. People who discuss reruns....

Literary adaptations and remakes are on what I'd consider a continuum, from high-quality revisionings which bring something new and interesting to readers/viewers, to amateurish (not everything done by amateurs is amateurish, of course) pastiches and spin-offs.

Esther Kustanowitz said...

Thanks for mentioning the Jewish Dating Blogcarnival...

Anonymous said...

This is Anne again. Sorry, I got distracted by Real Life for a few days, but I'm back to quibble further. :)

I'm a fan of many things (internet quizzes, blogging [Peevish!],

Hee!

I like your redefinition of "hobby" to include fandom activities but I'm not sure I'm prepared to give up the distinction between media and non-media activities (and there's a whole other category of self-development [exercise, theraphy, etc] which needs consideration as well.).

Well, part of my point was that you were making a sweeping and nonspecific condemnation of "fandom."

And I didn't invent the inclusion of all of those pasttimes as "fandom-related" activities. "Fandom" and "hobby" are, to my mind, just two different words for something very similar. "Fandom" (as you seem to describe it) is just a kind of hobby. So, to my mind, you're saying some people's hobbies are okay but other people's hobbies are not.

"Fandom" though means a particularly intense personal identification with an entertainment (I do not include knitting, origami, etc.: those produce something which might remotely be considered.... something), and I would include sports as something which can become obsessive and problematic.

Okay, now I'm getting a definition of what you mean when you say "fandom." And I'm still quibbling. Aside from a few obsessive types (which exist in every field, every hobby, and every walk of life), people in "fandom" are no more delusional than anyone else.

I'd go further and say that for some media production to produce a body of "fans" is a good thing. It means something in the work touched people emotionally or intellectually. It sparked a reaction strong enough to make them want to explore it further.

In my opinion, this is far superior than getting together to discuss knitting patterns. :) (Yes, knitting produces a "thing" but I'd also take exception to your assumption that production of a "thing" is necessarily a superior end result.)

The difference between a fan and fandom? People who discuss new episodes of a show like X-Files are fans. People who discuss reruns....

Okay, so, chatting about West Wing around the cooler is okay as long as you're discussing a new episode and not a repeat.

Caring about last week's or last month's episode is obsessive, caring about what happened yesterday is okay.

Forget that (back when it was worth watching) the show offers a lot of continuing story lines around events and characters, it's obsessive to care about that stuff?

Literary adaptations and remakes are on what I'd consider a continuum, from high-quality revisionings which bring something new and interesting to readers/viewers, to amateurish (not everything done by amateurs is amateurish, of course) pastiches and spin-offs.

So, where are you drawing your mental line between what is acceptable and what is not? Or is anything that is paid work (it produces a "thing" which is money) okay while unpaid is not?

And how do you handle the blurring of the line where someone who was an "amateur" writer is, because of that experience, chosen to write a "paid" work?

And what makes you feel that sitting down and writing a piece of original fiction around a set of media characters is in some way not producing a "thing" or even if it produces a "thing" and maybe a worthy "thing" it's inherently wrong or kind of weird? I've read a lot of amateur works that qualified as "high-quality revisionings which bring something new and interesting to readers/viewers." And I've read a lot of professionally produced publications that were just junk.

Ahistoricality said...

Anne: since we seem to be the only people in this discussion, we can pace it any way we like...

you're saying some people's hobbies are okay but other people's hobbies are not.

No. I'm saying that some people's relationships with their hobbies are out of proportion to the hobby itself, not to mention life in general.

I would also define, if I get to define the words we're using, fandom as a subset of hobbies, not as equal to them.

One of the distinctions I consider meaningful is whether the hobby includes the continual development of skills or abilities.

people in "fandom" are no more delusional than anyone else.

I never said "delusional." Though excessive self-identification with others, particularly fictional others, certainly qualifies. Yes, there are obsessives in any field, and I still think there's a difference between obsessing over something which is skill-building or productive than something which is simply entertaining.

I'd also take exception to your assumption that production of a "thing" is necessarily a superior end result.

Well, I'd be willing to drop "necessarily" in favor of "usually" or "probably," and there's continuums of utility and beauty which could be used to draw some distinctions, but otherwise I think we're going to have to differ here.

Forget that (back when it was worth watching) the show offers a lot of continuing story lines around events and characters, it's obsessive to care about that stuff?

No. Actually, I'm a huge fan of television which has novelistic characteristics (West Wing is OK in this regard, and has gotten better though the quality of issues and character writing hasn't; Hill Street Blues remains one of the pioneers of the field and still stands up pretty well; Babylon 5 set a standard for long storytelling arcs and cohesion that easily rivals or exceeds JK Rowling's efforts) and I even watch reruns myself, on ocassion. I reread books, too, but I don't belong to a "Rereading Watership Down" society or a "Man of La Mancha Singing Club" (and I qualify, believe me, on both counts).

I'm trying to draw a distinction between engaging with an entertainment and extended loss of self-control over an entertainment. It's not a clear line -- more of a big gray area -- but there are some pretty clearly defined regions on either side.

I've read a lot of amateur works that qualified as "high-quality revisionings which bring something new and interesting to readers/viewers." And I've read a lot of professionally produced publications that were just junk.

I agree, and I regret the use of the term "amateurish": it's not helping. It's not about who gets paid (though market forces are powerful things, they're not really the point here) but the quality of the work. I don't "draw a line": quality doesn't work that way, and you know it as well as I do. As my spouse says, though: "Art may be good therapy, but not all therapy is good art."

Anonymous said...

Anne: since we seem to be the only people in this discussion, we can pace it any way we like...

That's good, because the temp work I've been doing is sans computer or net access.

No. I'm saying that some people's relationships with their hobbies are out of proportion to the hobby itself, not to mention life in general.

Okay, I can agree with that.

I would also define, if I get to define the words we're using, fandom as a subset of hobbies, not as equal to them.

It sounds like you're saying what I'm saying ("fandom is just another hobby") and yet I feel we might be disagreeing. :)

One of the distinctions I consider meaningful is whether the hobby includes the continual development of skills or abilities.

Well, now we could quibble about what constitute "skills" and "abilities" or whether social intercourse needs to develop them or not.

I never said "delusional."

True. I inferred that from what you said and I apologies.

Though excessive self-identification with others, particularly fictional others, certainly qualifies.

Okay, this is probably the nub of our disagreement. I realize that you're talking exclsively about a small but visible minority of "excessive" people in fandom. I'm thinking more generally of the several million people less...obsessively involved in fandom.

Yes, there are obsessives in any field, and I still think there's a difference between obsessing over something which is skill-building or productive than something which is simply entertaining.

#1 - You're assuming that nothing about fandom is "skill-building" or "productive", and I'd take issue with that.

#2 - I'm not sure I agree, anyhow, that something that's just fun isn't worthwhile.

Well, I'd be willing to drop "necessarily" in favor of "usually" or "probably," and there's continuums of utility and beauty which could be used to draw some distinctions, but otherwise I think we're going to have to differ here.

I think we will. Quite frankly, I think spending time with other people is a worthwhile end in and of itself. And from what I've seen, fandom is, above all, a social phenomenon.

Hill Street Blues remains one of the pioneers of the field

Oh, yeah...that show definitely set a new standard.

I reread books, too, but I don't belong to a "Rereading Watership Down" society or a "Man of La Mancha Singing Club" (and I qualify, believe me, on both counts).

And yet, aside from your focus on the "excessive" I can't quite figure out why joining a club to re-read and discuss Watership Down or Lord Of the Rings or the works of Josephine Tey or the movies of Alfred Hitchcock strikes you as...not worthwhile? Do you feel that all "book clubs" are the same waste of time, or is it different the first time a book is being read?

I'm trying to draw a distinction between engaging with an entertainment and extended loss of self-control over an entertainment. It's not a clear line -- more of a big gray area -- but there are some pretty clearly defined regions on either side.

Again, I think you're focused on the "excessive" to the detriment of the 90% or whatever of people involved in fandom who are just having fun.

I agree, and I regret the use of the term "amateurish": it's not helping. It's not about who gets paid (though market forces are powerful things, they're not really the point here) but the quality of the work. I don't "draw a line": quality doesn't work that way, and you know it as well as I do. As my spouse says, though: "Art may be good therapy, but not all therapy is good art."

Of course I know it doesn't work that way. But I couldn't find whatever vocabulary I needed to ask you how you were defining the difference between "worthwhile product" and "not worthwhile product."

Anonymous said...

Just to stir the pot :) here's another aspect of "fandom."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/CSM/story?id=1523586&

Fans Getting Together in Communal TV Glow

Gathering to Watch Favorite TV Shows Has Become the 'Book Club' Trend of the New Millennium


Anne Zook