on fans and entitlement

[tielan]

This is mostly relating to the HP fandom and recent events regarding the saleability of fanworks, but some of the points regarding fannish entitlement interested me with regards to Atlantis fandom.

These points are made here in this post.

1. Non-canon fill-ins.

Interviews, blogs, things that don't actually happen in the show. Are they canon? Are they not? Anyone whose OTP/pet theory has just been crucified in an interview/blog entry and who has aspirations to being a canon-thumper will say that information outside of canon, even if given by the creator(s) is non-canon. Anyone whose OTP/pet theory has been confirmed by an interview/blog entry is going to claim it is.

And for a canon that is created by multiple people where the out-of-canon fill-ins are also created by multiple people (ie. a television show like Atlantis), it gets doubly confusing! Especially where they are deliberately performing the blog version of the Dance Of The Seven Veils - don't reveal everything at once, let the layers come off slowly.

"After a certain point, you have to either throw up your hands or go crazy, and some people choose the latter."

Although I guess the definition of 'going crazy' varies from person to person...

2. Balkanization

'Balkanization' is the habit people make of only talking to those who share the same opinions as themselves. When you have a big enough group of people who want canon to imitate their version of fanon, who needs canon anyway?

I think that 90% of the Elizabeth- and Shweir-fans onf my f-list unfriended me after the 14th January 2007. I wasn't distraught over Elizabeth's departure, see? I'm not exactly one of the more popular John/Teyla fans, either - mostly because I don't think that John/Teyla is a special relationship that is better than any other possible relationship for the pairing: I just like it.

"If people disagree with you, you can just call them wrong, make your own space, and ignore them. So, naturally, when the AUTHOR disagrees with you, you stick with the same pattern--decide they must be crazy and go your own way."

Replace 'the AUTHOR' with 'Joe Mallozzi' and it pretty much reads for SGA fandom.

I haven't been around much lately and I haven't been reading the f-list (busy with the overseas trip). This just caught my attention and I figured I'd pass it on as food for thought.

Time to get ready to head off to the Moulin Rouge!

Comments

[beanie-j.livejournal.com]

1. If you consider canon as a term, very little of what makes a show is in fact genuine factual canon. The idea of shows is that people don't all get the same thing from them due to reliance on subtext - the idea of inferring something where people can run with it however they choose. To me, canon is the pure fact - what was done, what was said, etc - that is presented on the screen in the show and nothing more. JoMo's intentions for subtext are neither here nor there in canon - they are just a perception of how something should have been and what was envisioned by the production. That opinion is no more or less valid than the next persons. Interpretive Canon (or Personal Canon if you wish) is where people take dialogue or actions and make of it what they want. While the actions and dialogue are fact, how a person perceives it is not.

No matter how large the group that yells that 'x is canon', unless x is based on fact as opposed to subtext it is still 'interpretive canon' - a divergence in the opinion of what canon is based on a difference of perception.

2. Balkanization, or in SGA's fandom, Guerilla Warfare, is a big problem of fandom and leads to too much entitlement for people to scream about what/who is right and what/who is wrong. The fact that people argue over this in something which they fail to see as a matter of interpretation irks me.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

JoMo's intentions for subtext are neither here nor there in canon - they are just a perception of how something should have been and what was envisioned by the production. That opinion is no more or less valid than the next persons.

Errr ... I kinda agree, kinda disagree.

I think you're absolutely right that "canon" is strictly the facts of what's shown onscreen (or written in the books). In order to get anything out of it at all, the reader/viewer is going to have to provide their own interpretation. The whole process of reading a book or watching a TV show is viewer-interactive in that way.

BUT! I know this puts me at odds with a majority of fandom, but I do believe that the author/creator/official writer's opinion on the characters carries more weight than J. Random Fan's opinion. It's not actual canon in the same sense that what's shown onscreen is canon, but ... I think there's a HUGE load of fannish entitlement in the idea that my opinions carry the same weight as the author's.

It's still massively wanky to use the author's intended subtext as a hammer in arguing one's own point of view -- "The author said so & so are a couple! HAHAHA! In your face, Draco/Dumbledore shippers!" But, IMHO, the worst of the fanwars are fueled not by over-reliance on canon and author subtext, but selective reliance on it -- which is, in turn, driven by the mentality that we can pick and choose those aspects of canon that suit us, and that we're entitled to our selective view of canon as the ONE TRUE PATH OF THE WORLD. The idea that the author is just another fan and if he/she disagrees with me, then he/she is wrong ... that seems like fan entitlement at its worst.

[fandom-me.livejournal.com]

I have nothing to useful to add, but agree, completely.

[lilac-way.livejournal.com]

JoMo's intentions

Hee -- "JoMo" That made me laugh out loud. I've never seen him called that before.

[ubiquitous-girl.livejournal.com]

1. In my other fandom, we'd call canon only that which was expressly in the books, and the little tidbits outside of the book would be referred to as quasi-canon. They're kinda canon, but they're not quite, because if you only read the books you wouldn't know. I think the same can apply to a medium like TV (such as SGA) too.

2. Lol, yes Joe Mallozzi in that quote pretty much does read for SGA Fandom. :p

3. Have fun at the Moulin Rouge!!

[rebirth7.livejournal.com]

I also agree with beaniesheppard on canon. I also think that the way someone percieves a certain thing is just as important as fact, but does not negate that fact.

I think it's extremely difficult to be unbiased in something you care about (even a tv show). Obviously fans invest in the tv show and so they care about it. When dealing with emotions, things can and will get messy. I admit that I have Sheyla vision on whenever I watch SGA. So I notice Sheyla moments more and other ships tend not to take presidence in my mind. This is where the whole subtext comes into play. If you ship a certain couple, you'll be on the look out for subtext that supports your ship.

I agree with ubiquitous_girl. Material outside of the actual canon (things said, no subtext) don't fully count. It's hard to distinguish the hard facts unless it's there in the script. And even with what the characters say, it's not necessary pure canon. The actor's voice or imporving can make that little bit of difference.

lol. I'm enjoying the SGA discussions going around on LJ.

[therisingmoon.livejournal.com]

er, in my other fandom, everything from photoshoots to music videos to interviews to blogs and ljs can be considered canon and that canon is so broad and weird that it really blurs that line between canon and fanon.

and because it's especially RPF and RPF is a very murky grey area in and of itself, it's really hard to distinguish canon from fanon and subtext. and with someone like pete wentz, who sometimes deliberately and very often blurs that line between fantasy and reality, it's very hard to distinguish what's fact and what's fiction.

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

Anyone whose OTP/pet theory has just been crucified in an interview/blog entry and who has aspirations to being a canon-thumper will say that information outside of canon, even if given by the creator(s) is non-canon. Anyone whose OTP/pet theory has been confirmed by an interview/blog entry is going to claim it is.

Well, no. Many people will, sure, but I think quite a few have a position that doesn't change based on what the author says. I don't believe that anything outside the books/show/film (depending on which fandom you're talking about) is canon. If they say something I agree with? Still not canon. I love the fact that Dumbledore is gay, but when it comes down to it, it's not in the books and therefore it's not canon, sorry to say.

[fandom-me.livejournal.com]

What you said, exactly.

I love *lots* of the cut bits from my current fandom, but that doesn't mean they're canon. They mean they're bits I love that still aren't canon. I don't understand the fascination with canon 'validation' for things like ships, anyway.

We're fandom. We make shit up and use the canon to support it. Why does it *being* canon, or not, have this much power?

*here from metafandom*

[solesakuma]

Word.
He, I was to use the same example. I mean, I do find Grindeldore subtext in the books but... anyone can disagree with me because it's not canon.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

I don't take much stock in what the writers say in commentary and interviews, because

A: They can, and have contradicted what is on the screen, and what they have said before, or what other people in the creative team have said before.
B: If the writers intended to convey canon or subtext, they had hours and hours to do so, and if they weren't able to convince the audience of it, then they weren't doing it well, and trying to explain it otherwise and after the fact is just lazy.

I'll give you one example of the above which has formed my opinion.

Xena - certain writers, and some actors kept on insisting that Xena and Gabrielle's relationship on the show was just 'close friendship', this lead to some derision amongst the fans, and the small minority who didn't believe there was romantic love between the two would say 'See, writer A said they were just friends, so deal'. As if the writers opinion were the last, and final word on the subject. Not to mention there was contradiction between the writers right from the beginning on the nature of the relationship on that show. Later on, all the writers, and most of the actors said that yeah 'there was something going on between Xena and Gabrielle' well no kidding! I decided it was just easier to decide myself.

Also, from what I've heard, Mr Malozzi is a special little soul, with entitlement issues which can rival many fans I've seen. If anyone is trying to prove their case on what he says, they lost it automatically for me. I've never really been that keen on the TPTB of SGA. Which is why I try not to pay attention to them, it ruins the squee.

[with-apostrophe.livejournal.com]

Concerning "what is canon" - in a TV based show, I believe it is the show - full stop. This is what most people have access to. I hold that DVD extras (interviews, missing scenes, commentaries etc) are apocryphal, but are "more equal than others" as they are widely available to all, but at a cost - and some people are just not interested in them. Interviews, blogs, Cons, etc are not as widely available - and as many contain spoilers, may be actively avoided by certain fans - I think these are apocryphal - they can be used and I would encourage their use, but knowledge of them should not be assumed (as with the DVDs). Also what comes out in interviews is often contradicted in canon. I think novels, unless they are written by creators/writers of the show (and no, Shatner, you DO NOT count!) or are endorsed by them, are not canonical in any way. They are fan fic published in book format. Novelisations - are different - if they've been written in close conjunction and consulation with the creators/writers - I see these as equal to an interview etc.

[thelana.livejournal.com]

I always thought that a story has to be understandable even if you only have the text. Sure, us fans read interviews and blogs and listen to commentary, but what about all the fans that don't do that?

IMO whatever the writers want to communicate they have to put into the text itself. They can't just expect people to be informed about all the secondary information.

[that_mireille]

Here via metafandom.

Anyone whose OTP/pet theory has been confirmed by an interview/blog entry is going to claim it is.

Well, not everyone.

One of my favorite pairings ever in the BtVS fandom was confirmed by interviews with one of the writers (and, I think, one of the actors). Since I refuse to accept anything else from interviews as canon--it may be neat, I may get a story idea out of it, I may like reading fic about whatever it is, but I don't treat it as canon, and I'll ignore it whenever I like--then I decided it would be totally hypocritical to claim that my pairing was canon by those same rules.

(I did use the interview to argue against someone who said "anyone who pairs Y and Z is clearly a moron, because there's no way that's even hinted at in canon," but only on the grounds of, "If the subtext was intentional, it's not 'stupid' to see it.")

[live-brave.livejournal.com]

"If people disagree with you, you can just call them wrong, make your own space, and ignore them. So, naturally, when the AUTHOR disagrees with you, you stick with the same pattern--decide they must be crazy and go your own way."

Replace 'the AUTHOR' with 'Joe Mallozzi' and it pretty much reads for SGA fandom.

Ooo, so true. Probably why I so rarely read anyone's meta these days. I just don't think I'm rabid enough to get involved in fandom these days. It would take a lot for me to boycott (and with so much love for Teyla and Ronon lately, that just doesn't look likely). I think that they could actually recreate the 'Happy Days' jumping-the-shark scene (with the addition of a puddlejumper pulling the leather-jacketed Fonze) and I would still watch Atlantis as long as the core characters/plots/schemas are kept intact. :D Now, does that make me crazy or sane?

[beanie-j.livejournal.com]

1. If you consider canon as a term, very little of what makes a show is in fact genuine factual canon. The idea of shows is that people don't all get the same thing from them due to reliance on subtext - the idea of inferring something where people can run with it however they choose. To me, canon is the pure fact - what was done, what was said, etc - that is presented on the screen in the show and nothing more. JoMo's intentions for subtext are neither here nor there in canon - they are just a perception of how something should have been and what was envisioned by the production. That opinion is no more or less valid than the next persons. Interpretive Canon (or Personal Canon if you wish) is where people take dialogue or actions and make of it what they want. While the actions and dialogue are fact, how a person perceives it is not.

No matter how large the group that yells that 'x is canon', unless x is based on fact as opposed to subtext it is still 'interpretive canon' - a divergence in the opinion of what canon is based on a difference of perception.

2. Balkanization, or in SGA's fandom, Guerilla Warfare, is a big problem of fandom and leads to too much entitlement for people to scream about what/who is right and what/who is wrong. The fact that people argue over this in something which they fail to see as a matter of interpretation irks me.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

JoMo's intentions for subtext are neither here nor there in canon - they are just a perception of how something should have been and what was envisioned by the production. That opinion is no more or less valid than the next persons.

Errr ... I kinda agree, kinda disagree.

I think you're absolutely right that "canon" is strictly the facts of what's shown onscreen (or written in the books). In order to get anything out of it at all, the reader/viewer is going to have to provide their own interpretation. The whole process of reading a book or watching a TV show is viewer-interactive in that way.

BUT! I know this puts me at odds with a majority of fandom, but I do believe that the author/creator/official writer's opinion on the characters carries more weight than J. Random Fan's opinion. It's not actual canon in the same sense that what's shown onscreen is canon, but ... I think there's a HUGE load of fannish entitlement in the idea that my opinions carry the same weight as the author's.

It's still massively wanky to use the author's intended subtext as a hammer in arguing one's own point of view -- "The author said so & so are a couple! HAHAHA! In your face, Draco/Dumbledore shippers!" But, IMHO, the worst of the fanwars are fueled not by over-reliance on canon and author subtext, but selective reliance on it -- which is, in turn, driven by the mentality that we can pick and choose those aspects of canon that suit us, and that we're entitled to our selective view of canon as the ONE TRUE PATH OF THE WORLD. The idea that the author is just another fan and if he/she disagrees with me, then he/she is wrong ... that seems like fan entitlement at its worst.

[ubiquitous-girl.livejournal.com]

1. In my other fandom, we'd call canon only that which was expressly in the books, and the little tidbits outside of the book would be referred to as quasi-canon. They're kinda canon, but they're not quite, because if you only read the books you wouldn't know. I think the same can apply to a medium like TV (such as SGA) too.

2. Lol, yes Joe Mallozzi in that quote pretty much does read for SGA Fandom. :p

3. Have fun at the Moulin Rouge!!

[rebirth7.livejournal.com]

I also agree with beaniesheppard on canon. I also think that the way someone percieves a certain thing is just as important as fact, but does not negate that fact.

I think it's extremely difficult to be unbiased in something you care about (even a tv show). Obviously fans invest in the tv show and so they care about it. When dealing with emotions, things can and will get messy. I admit that I have Sheyla vision on whenever I watch SGA. So I notice Sheyla moments more and other ships tend not to take presidence in my mind. This is where the whole subtext comes into play. If you ship a certain couple, you'll be on the look out for subtext that supports your ship.

I agree with ubiquitous_girl. Material outside of the actual canon (things said, no subtext) don't fully count. It's hard to distinguish the hard facts unless it's there in the script. And even with what the characters say, it's not necessary pure canon. The actor's voice or imporving can make that little bit of difference.

lol. I'm enjoying the SGA discussions going around on LJ.

[therisingmoon.livejournal.com]

er, in my other fandom, everything from photoshoots to music videos to interviews to blogs and ljs can be considered canon and that canon is so broad and weird that it really blurs that line between canon and fanon.

and because it's especially RPF and RPF is a very murky grey area in and of itself, it's really hard to distinguish canon from fanon and subtext. and with someone like pete wentz, who sometimes deliberately and very often blurs that line between fantasy and reality, it's very hard to distinguish what's fact and what's fiction.

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

Anyone whose OTP/pet theory has just been crucified in an interview/blog entry and who has aspirations to being a canon-thumper will say that information outside of canon, even if given by the creator(s) is non-canon. Anyone whose OTP/pet theory has been confirmed by an interview/blog entry is going to claim it is.

Well, no. Many people will, sure, but I think quite a few have a position that doesn't change based on what the author says. I don't believe that anything outside the books/show/film (depending on which fandom you're talking about) is canon. If they say something I agree with? Still not canon. I love the fact that Dumbledore is gay, but when it comes down to it, it's not in the books and therefore it's not canon, sorry to say.

[fandom-me.livejournal.com]

What you said, exactly.

I love *lots* of the cut bits from my current fandom, but that doesn't mean they're canon. They mean they're bits I love that still aren't canon. I don't understand the fascination with canon 'validation' for things like ships, anyway.

We're fandom. We make shit up and use the canon to support it. Why does it *being* canon, or not, have this much power?

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

I don't take much stock in what the writers say in commentary and interviews, because

A: They can, and have contradicted what is on the screen, and what they have said before, or what other people in the creative team have said before.
B: If the writers intended to convey canon or subtext, they had hours and hours to do so, and if they weren't able to convince the audience of it, then they weren't doing it well, and trying to explain it otherwise and after the fact is just lazy.

I'll give you one example of the above which has formed my opinion.

Xena - certain writers, and some actors kept on insisting that Xena and Gabrielle's relationship on the show was just 'close friendship', this lead to some derision amongst the fans, and the small minority who didn't believe there was romantic love between the two would say 'See, writer A said they were just friends, so deal'. As if the writers opinion were the last, and final word on the subject. Not to mention there was contradiction between the writers right from the beginning on the nature of the relationship on that show. Later on, all the writers, and most of the actors said that yeah 'there was something going on between Xena and Gabrielle' well no kidding! I decided it was just easier to decide myself.

Also, from what I've heard, Mr Malozzi is a special little soul, with entitlement issues which can rival many fans I've seen. If anyone is trying to prove their case on what he says, they lost it automatically for me. I've never really been that keen on the TPTB of SGA. Which is why I try not to pay attention to them, it ruins the squee.

[with-apostrophe.livejournal.com]

Concerning "what is canon" - in a TV based show, I believe it is the show - full stop. This is what most people have access to. I hold that DVD extras (interviews, missing scenes, commentaries etc) are apocryphal, but are "more equal than others" as they are widely available to all, but at a cost - and some people are just not interested in them. Interviews, blogs, Cons, etc are not as widely available - and as many contain spoilers, may be actively avoided by certain fans - I think these are apocryphal - they can be used and I would encourage their use, but knowledge of them should not be assumed (as with the DVDs). Also what comes out in interviews is often contradicted in canon. I think novels, unless they are written by creators/writers of the show (and no, Shatner, you DO NOT count!) or are endorsed by them, are not canonical in any way. They are fan fic published in book format. Novelisations - are different - if they've been written in close conjunction and consulation with the creators/writers - I see these as equal to an interview etc.

[thelana.livejournal.com]

I always thought that a story has to be understandable even if you only have the text. Sure, us fans read interviews and blogs and listen to commentary, but what about all the fans that don't do that?

IMO whatever the writers want to communicate they have to put into the text itself. They can't just expect people to be informed about all the secondary information.

[that_mireille]

Here via metafandom.

Anyone whose OTP/pet theory has been confirmed by an interview/blog entry is going to claim it is.

Well, not everyone.

One of my favorite pairings ever in the BtVS fandom was confirmed by interviews with one of the writers (and, I think, one of the actors). Since I refuse to accept anything else from interviews as canon--it may be neat, I may get a story idea out of it, I may like reading fic about whatever it is, but I don't treat it as canon, and I'll ignore it whenever I like--then I decided it would be totally hypocritical to claim that my pairing was canon by those same rules.

(I did use the interview to argue against someone who said "anyone who pairs Y and Z is clearly a moron, because there's no way that's even hinted at in canon," but only on the grounds of, "If the subtext was intentional, it's not 'stupid' to see it.")

[live-brave.livejournal.com]

"If people disagree with you, you can just call them wrong, make your own space, and ignore them. So, naturally, when the AUTHOR disagrees with you, you stick with the same pattern--decide they must be crazy and go your own way."

Replace 'the AUTHOR' with 'Joe Mallozzi' and it pretty much reads for SGA fandom.

Ooo, so true. Probably why I so rarely read anyone's meta these days. I just don't think I'm rabid enough to get involved in fandom these days. It would take a lot for me to boycott (and with so much love for Teyla and Ronon lately, that just doesn't look likely). I think that they could actually recreate the 'Happy Days' jumping-the-shark scene (with the addition of a puddlejumper pulling the leather-jacketed Fonze) and I would still watch Atlantis as long as the core characters/plots/schemas are kept intact. :D Now, does that make me crazy or sane?