![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Your fandom is not Fandom
Coming Clean: 2009 & The End of Dumb Things, by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
2_perseph
I imagine that those of you who are interested in this sort of thing have already read the post. I found it a few days after the fact, via a post on my flist. I haven't been keeping up with things, what with being sick, but I made time for this, since it's Relevant To My Interests.
My initial response to 2-perseph's post was quite simply, NO. But plenty of people had already pointed out the factual inaccuracies in her model of fandom history, so I passed on adding my two cents. (This comment, byithiliana is particularly good for background). What I'd like to do here, is talk about how we model fandom, and how we can do it in a less blisteringly exclusive fashion. I'm going to lay this out really plainly: it offends me when my fellow fen model fandom in such a way as to invalidate my fannish experience, and that of my friends.
Some starting points:
1. Your fandom is not Fandom.
2. Fandom is made up of smaller fandoms centering on particular OR groups of creative works, sports teams, public figures (etc.).
3. Those fandoms contain smaller camps of fans, which can be distinguished by their ways of doing Fandom (ie. discussion Fandom, fanworks Fandom...).
4. Connections between fans and groups of fans are both intra-fandom in nature, between camps of fans doing fandom differently, and inter-fandom, both between those who do fandom the same way (one fanworks fandom to another), and those who don't (one fanworks fandom, to a discussion fandom).
That is to say: everybody does fandom differently. Fandom is not fanworks fandom. It is not media fandom, SF fandom, or whatever fandom. It is all of these things and more. There exist fandoms and ways of doing fandom that you have never heard of. Fandom is mindbogglingly huge and varied - I'm constantly discovering new fandoms, and new fannish activities. All of these ways of doing Fandom are valid.
So why does it ~offend me when fen talk about, say, fanworks fandom being the be all and end all of Fandom?
I'm tired of these ridiculously narrow definitions of Fandom that make invisible me, my friends, or some part of our fannish activity. Even seemingly innocuous statements like, 'Fandom is a female space', and 'Fandom is a creative mental space' are making people invisible. They are invalidating fannish activities. And for no good reason. You can blah blah about fandom not being srs bzns in the comments all you like, but the fails of last year should have at least taught us that models do matter. How we define Fandom matters and cause material harm to fans.
But I'll give you a personal example:
I dabble in lot of different fandoms, and different ways of doing Fandom. My primary fandom is western comics, and my primary activity in that fandom is talking about comics. Things are changing but it remains a fandom dominated by middle class, white, males of a certain age.That's not to say that there aren't awesome places to hang out in comics fandom - there certainly are! And among these, include my beloved![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
scans_daily (which is of course, not without its own internal problems). We've had fights with people who think we're too female-dominated, fights with people in the grips of queer panic, fights with people who think we're too srs bzns, too lulz, and nothing more than dirty pirates, who are singlehandedly destroying Fandom.
Let me tell you how much I hate coming across the attitude in fanworks fandom, that what we do, and everything we've been fighting over, is not a part of fannish history. Does not exist. Is insignificant, because it's part of ~boys fandom.
That's a mild example. Here's a more serious one:
'Fandom is a female space.' To a lot of slashers, this can seem like a foregone conclusion. It's a statement of unity. It's powerful. It's also mindbogglingly offensive. It makes invisible cis men, trans men, trans women and gender queer people in fandom. It's stake claiming, excluding, and it is harmful. It is every bit as harmful as those fanboys trying to kick the girls out of their clubhouse. I'm not ignoring the history of tension inside fanworks fandom, and the importance of having a 'female space' in Fandom. But that safer space cannot come at the expense of other fen. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. [ETA: I make a distinction between creating say, an explicitly woman-friendly, LGBT-friendly safe space, and calling Fandom a female space. One is about safety and support, the other is about exclusion.]
So here's the thing, whether the stakes are big or small, there's no real need to police other people's fannishness. There's no need to erase them. Theorizing and modeling Fandom is one thing, but excluding someone's fannish activities, or their presence, because it's strange to you, is a dick move no matter how you look at it. Fandom is changing. New fannish activities are cropping up all the time. New connections, between previously disparate fandoms are being forged. Web 2.0, social media - we know the causes. Things are changing, and there's not a damn thing any of us can do to stop that change. Whether we're talking about Twilighters at Comic Con, the intermingling of celebrity and media fandom, or Fandom on sites like MySpace and FaceBook, these are facts of life. The n00bs are always coming, and along with them come new ways of doing Fandom.
Things are changing. Your fandom is not Fandom. Get over it.
2_persephI imagine that those of you who are interested in this sort of thing have already read the post. I found it a few days after the fact, via a post on my flist. I haven't been keeping up with things, what with being sick, but I made time for this, since it's Relevant To My Interests.
Fandom was a subcultural mental space created initially by artists and writers, and then vidders, for the reason of creating works that were against the grain of mainstream culture, to satirize, criticize, and flaunt conventions and things held sacred. We’ll get to the why at the end, though of course we all know why.
It was a place without windows or doors to the outside world, as the creations, like certain seeds needed a dark, warm space to grow. The nature of fandom, its ultimate goal was nothing more and nothing less than entertainment.
My initial response to 2-perseph's post was quite simply, NO. But plenty of people had already pointed out the factual inaccuracies in her model of fandom history, so I passed on adding my two cents. (This comment, by
ithiliana is particularly good for background). What I'd like to do here, is talk about how we model fandom, and how we can do it in a less blisteringly exclusive fashion. I'm going to lay this out really plainly: it offends me when my fellow fen model fandom in such a way as to invalidate my fannish experience, and that of my friends. Some starting points:
1. Your fandom is not Fandom.
2. Fandom is made up of smaller fandoms centering on particular OR groups of creative works, sports teams, public figures (etc.).
3. Those fandoms contain smaller camps of fans, which can be distinguished by their ways of doing Fandom (ie. discussion Fandom, fanworks Fandom...).
4. Connections between fans and groups of fans are both intra-fandom in nature, between camps of fans doing fandom differently, and inter-fandom, both between those who do fandom the same way (one fanworks fandom to another), and those who don't (one fanworks fandom, to a discussion fandom).
That is to say: everybody does fandom differently. Fandom is not fanworks fandom. It is not media fandom, SF fandom, or whatever fandom. It is all of these things and more. There exist fandoms and ways of doing fandom that you have never heard of. Fandom is mindbogglingly huge and varied - I'm constantly discovering new fandoms, and new fannish activities. All of these ways of doing Fandom are valid.
So why does it ~offend me when fen talk about, say, fanworks fandom being the be all and end all of Fandom?
I'm tired of these ridiculously narrow definitions of Fandom that make invisible me, my friends, or some part of our fannish activity. Even seemingly innocuous statements like, 'Fandom is a female space', and 'Fandom is a creative mental space' are making people invisible. They are invalidating fannish activities. And for no good reason. You can blah blah about fandom not being srs bzns in the comments all you like, but the fails of last year should have at least taught us that models do matter. How we define Fandom matters and cause material harm to fans.
But I'll give you a personal example:
I dabble in lot of different fandoms, and different ways of doing Fandom. My primary fandom is western comics, and my primary activity in that fandom is talking about comics. Things are changing but it remains a fandom dominated by middle class, white, males of a certain age.That's not to say that there aren't awesome places to hang out in comics fandom - there certainly are! And among these, include my beloved
scans_daily (which is of course, not without its own internal problems). We've had fights with people who think we're too female-dominated, fights with people in the grips of queer panic, fights with people who think we're too srs bzns, too lulz, and nothing more than dirty pirates, who are singlehandedly destroying Fandom.Let me tell you how much I hate coming across the attitude in fanworks fandom, that what we do, and everything we've been fighting over, is not a part of fannish history. Does not exist. Is insignificant, because it's part of ~boys fandom.
That's a mild example. Here's a more serious one:
'Fandom is a female space.' To a lot of slashers, this can seem like a foregone conclusion. It's a statement of unity. It's powerful. It's also mindbogglingly offensive. It makes invisible cis men, trans men, trans women and gender queer people in fandom. It's stake claiming, excluding, and it is harmful. It is every bit as harmful as those fanboys trying to kick the girls out of their clubhouse. I'm not ignoring the history of tension inside fanworks fandom, and the importance of having a 'female space' in Fandom. But that safer space cannot come at the expense of other fen. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. [ETA: I make a distinction between creating say, an explicitly woman-friendly, LGBT-friendly safe space, and calling Fandom a female space. One is about safety and support, the other is about exclusion.]
So here's the thing, whether the stakes are big or small, there's no real need to police other people's fannishness. There's no need to erase them. Theorizing and modeling Fandom is one thing, but excluding someone's fannish activities, or their presence, because it's strange to you, is a dick move no matter how you look at it. Fandom is changing. New fannish activities are cropping up all the time. New connections, between previously disparate fandoms are being forged. Web 2.0, social media - we know the causes. Things are changing, and there's not a damn thing any of us can do to stop that change. Whether we're talking about Twilighters at Comic Con, the intermingling of celebrity and media fandom, or Fandom on sites like MySpace and FaceBook, these are facts of life. The n00bs are always coming, and along with them come new ways of doing Fandom.
Things are changing. Your fandom is not Fandom. Get over it.
no subject
That made me go "um, no," almost as much as the opening bit about all of fandom having "made its home" on lj.
Then I got to the Bohemian analogy, and had to call seanchai over to the computer to read, because she has this rant about a particular kind of Urban Fantasy/modern artsy stuff/romantic comedy character type she hates that she calls "precious Bohemian syndrome." (The sensitive artiste who is either all elfin and waifish or all earthy/sensual/hippie-esque and who's magic is tied to the purity of her creative soul, blah, blah, RENT, blah, blah, Mercedes Lackey characters).
no subject
Which is obviously why we post it on the Internet.
Also one day I shall write an Avengers/Valdemar fusion, and it will be epic. Tony will armour up his Companion, and Sam will be a hang-gliding Hawkbrother. SOULBONDS ARE CANON HERE.
no subject
Oh God, I would read that. I would read that almost as fast and gleefully as I read the Pern AU or would read an X-Men/Darkover fusion (Jean Grey is practically the archetypal red-headed comyn telepath who's destroyed by the uncontrollable strength of his/her own powers. And Rogue would be a keeper during the pre-Forbidden Tower era.).
Steve's shield could be enchanted to compel him to fight injustice a la Kethry's Need. Also, Tony's childhood of emotional abuse and neglect at the hands of Howard Stark would fit right in for a Lackey hero.
no subject
I've been trying to work out who could be a Swordsworn but all comics ninja are at it like knives. Natasha could be a Shin'a'in I suppose. Carol can be a merc captain turned Herald like Kerowyn! Daredevil can be the grim combat expert whose own troops attempted to burn him when they found out about his otherworldly senses, and then his Companion rescued him from the flames but not before he was blinded.
no subject
Oh God, it would be *exactly* like that! Exactly. Also, at some point Tony would have to practically *die* from the angst of his un-consummated/un-acknowledged soulbond, like that guy in the Arrows of the Queen trilogy.
I've been trying to work out who could be a Swordsworn
Captain Britain (the interesting, female one, not Brian Braddock).
Daredevil can be the grim combat expert whose own troops attempted to burn him when they found out about his otherworldly senses, and then his Companion rescued him from the flames but not before he was blinded.
*dies* This might be even more fun than the "which CLAMP character would this Avenger be" game.
Bucky would of course have been brainwashed by an evil mage, possibly having his arm replaced by some kind of grafted-on monster arm a la that mage from the Winds trilogy who liked to turn people into anime cat-people.
Heroes for Hire would also be bad-ass mercenaries, except not turned herald because they don't *need* magical ponies for validation.
I'm trying to think which character would ride gryphons and coming up short. Clearly, I need to refresh my memory of the Valdemar verse.
no subject
I like Brian. He smells like honey and cricket. :D But I liked the female one too - wait, didn't she have kids? Hm.
In my head Bucky was Steve's Companion, but hideous mage-construct also works! Oh, Spider-Woman should be a pheromone-laden mage construct daughter of the weird scientist/mage.
Did people ride griffins? I have forgotten, it has been a long time. I could totally see Danny Rand getting his gryphon on, or rather a gryphon getting their Danny Rand on.
no subject
no subject
Which is obviously why we post it on the Internet.
Hee!