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]

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.

See, I can see your point in a way, because an author's opinion comes from a place of knowledge J. Random Fan doesn't have. However, I think when it comes to a piece of finished work, while the extra knowledge is valid, once something is viewed it is open for opinions of all. Authorial intent and actual opinion on a scene are totally different beasts. It really doesn't matter what the author intended if the majority of the reader/viewership sees it in another light - in fact, you could content it could be considered bad writing (and direction in the case of TV shows) on the author's part if they had specific intent and fandom en masse saw something totally different.

I agree with you that using authorial intent for purposes of justifying interpretive canon is wank. But I honestly see no purpose to crushing someone's way of viewing something. Regardless of what someone says, a person is going to see what they read/watch how they want to see it. And no matter how much people poke at the beehive, it isn't going to change the views of people, just piss them off.

As to JoMo - I don't value his opinion any day of the week because he is one of the biggest sources of entitlement in the fandom. He thinks because he works on the show he has the right to belittle whomever he pleases. I think he's an atrocious human being and I cannot respect his behaviour in the slightest.

But, IMHO, the worst of the fanwars are fueled not by over-reliance on canon and author subtext, but selective reliance on it...

Selective anything is the cornerstone of fandom wank, whether it is selective reliance on source, or selective hearing/reading in debate. It is all about what each reader/watcher wants to see and how many people who share that opinion that they can get to dogpile to justify said opinion. Especially when, forbid, someone happens to think something totally contary to what the masses do.

As someone said recently, fandom wank isn't just about disagreeing with something. It is also the act of being SEEN to disagree with something.

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.

The thing is, there is no right and wrong. Even the author stating intent doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make the person with the other perception wrong. The biggest annoyance of fandom entitlement is the assertion that others must be wrong if they don't agree.

[fandom-me.livejournal.com]

. However, I think when it comes to a piece of finished work, while the extra knowledge is valid, once something is viewed it is open for opinions of all.

Yes.

Ultimately, the viewer (or reader) has to personalize what they see. They have to personalize it and internalize it to emotionally invest in it. Emotional investment is what makes them fans.

If there is no internalizing, or personalizing, there is no inevestment, if there is no investment there are no fans. If there are no fans, there is no fandom, fanbase, or money going in.

Authorial intent can matter, sure, but ultimately you want people to make it their own. That means they have to apply themselves to it. Their filters, their experiences, their way of thinking. That's not bad. That's fantastic.

[beanie-j.livejournal.com]

Exactly. What I see in my chosen fandoms is largely different from what a lot of other people see - though that's probably because I'm wired wrong or something.

But I totally agree with what you said. Investment is what makes people fans, and if people can't find their 'something' in a show, then it is not for them.

Though I'm eternally astounded by people in the SGA fandom who actually don't have anything in the show to be invested in but their anger at the things they don't like. That shit really isn't healthy.

[fandom-me.livejournal.com]

I'm not in SGA fandom, but I think every fandom I've ever been in has had people who seem to hate *everything* about the canon. Man, I will tear apart things I love, but if the only investment is in anger, I'm with you. That can't be healthy, and it's kind of scary.

Also, I seriously doubt that you seeing things differently means you're wired wrong. It means you're not them. It happens to everyone. (I totally *don't* see my fandom's major ship. Like, at all. So, go figure.)

[beanie-j.livejournal.com]

There are whole groups of fen in SGA fandom who have nothing better to do that tear the show apart at the moment because of changes. I really do not understand people who choose to watch something they hate everything about. It boggles. If it were me, I'd just stop watching and invest my time in something else.

On the issue of 'wired wrong', it was gallows humour. I have a mental illness and I like to poke fun at it. I know what you are saying though. Though I'll be honest, when it comes to SGA, my pairings are borne out of fanon love of the idea rather than me actually seeing it in the show.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

The biggest annoyance of fandom entitlement is the assertion that others must be wrong if they don't agree.

Well, not even the belief that others are wrong, but the need to convince them (and everyone else) that they're wrong. I mean -- I'm opinionated, I argue, I debate, but I try not to be a total wanker about it. (Actually, I'd started writing a much longer post regarding authorial intent and deleted it ... because I know that mine is very much a minority opinion in fandom, and I don't think there's much to be gained by trying to argue you, or anyone else, around to my point of view. I'll gripe about it in my journal if I feel the need to vent; otherwise, I'm not interested in being an evangelist.)

Mallozzi -- he cracks me up. I actually have bucketloads of respect for the man for the way that he handles the amount of crap he takes on a daily basis. If the fans are dumb enough to poke at him, he pokes back hard, and I like that. But then, I have a longstanding fetish for smart, sarcastic bastards. (I married one, in fact!)

[with-apostrophe.livejournal.com]

I too enjoy Mallozzi's blog. Yes, sometimes he crosses a line, and he has on occasion apologised for it, but some of the comments he gets are so far over the line the line isn't visible any more. I'm far more shocked by the "fan" comments than by anything he says.

[beanie-j.livejournal.com]

Well, not even the belief that others are wrong, but the need to convince them (and everyone else) that they're wrong

And that too. Though I've observed a lot of this is done in a passive-aggressive manner rather than directly. With little digs, or exclusion zones.

I'm opinionated, I argue, I debate, but I try not to be a total wanker about it.

And there is the problem. The line between 'debate' and 'wank' is actually very thin in fandom because of entitlement. I'm a firm believer in people voicing their opinion - it's a basic right. But it goes back to what I said earlier - for some people it's not just voicing an opinion, it's being seen voicing one.

I think most decent people aspire to state their point without causing denigration. The problem is, there are always that minority who don't even have to try to cause wank, and in an area so volatile, it doesn't take much to turn even the most well-intentioned person who normally talks intelligently into a Grade-A wanker.

I actually have bucketloads of respect for the man for the way that he handles the amount of crap he takes on a daily basis.

You know, I totally hear that, because yeah, I do admire him that because there are some right asshats posting on his blog. His pictures, although not always brilliant, are nice to see. However, his comments about large numbers of people who watch the show he works on really bug me and I really cannot get around the way he insults groups of fandom for their opinions.

To be honest, I actually stopped reading the content of his blog and just look at the pretty pictures. Not that there are many at the moment.


BTW, I'd have been interested in your comments on authorial intent even if I hadn't have actually agreed with it.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

BTW, I'd have been interested in your comments on authorial intent even if I hadn't have actually agreed with it.

I didn't get the impression you'd have gotten offended; you seem to have your head screwed on straighter than that. *g* But it wasn't really a road I felt like going down, especially in someone else's blog and entirely tangential to the main point of the original post. I usually try to keep from doing that unless it's a situation where discussion of the issue has specifically been invited by the OP. Keeps my (and everyone else's) blood pressure down, I'm sure! And, no, this isn't meant as a criticism of you or anyone else for doing that; it's just that I have been easily sidetracked by potentially inflammatory topics in the past and I am, slowly but surely, learning not to have a quick trigger-finger on the keyboard.

And yeah, I agree with you that most people are pretty reasonable most of the time; it's the flameworthy minority that spoil it for everyone. (Also, I suspect that even most reasonable people have an inner flamer lurking within, when something really pushes their buttons. Unfortunately those button topics are different for everyone, and nearly everything is guaranteed to tick off someone.)