[personal profile] rj_anderson
...people in every fandom, of every kind, everywhere, are insane.

Whenever you get a large group of people together to discuss a common interest, and people are passionately interested and emotionally invested in the thing being discussed, it is absolutely inevitable that irrational behaviour will go on, flamewars will erupt, trolls will emerge, and before long the entire fandom will be dismissed as a bunch of wacked-out morons who seriously need to Get a Life.

The key to surviving in any fandom is to find a group of people who, even if they don't necessarily agree, are at least mature enough to handle disagreement sensibly. This can be difficult if a large percentage of your fandom is hormonally crazed and/or ON CRACK, but with a little searching and effort, it can be done. Then you stick with the sane people and ignore all the other stuff.

See? Much better.

No, this rant was not inspired by HP fandom. Though you can apply it there too if you like.

Date: 2004-11-15 10:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mistraltoes.livejournal.com
Well, until the normally sane people start talking about politics. Then all bets are off.
(It's been a rough few months. I've been tempted to defriend everybody.)

Date: 2004-11-15 10:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] seemag.livejournal.com
Exactly :-)

Date: 2004-11-15 10:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Word to that.

Date: 2004-11-15 10:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zoepaleologa.livejournal.com
No, this rant was not inspired by HP fandom

*cries in a whiney, hysterical way*

You mean there are more fandoms like the Potter one out there, somewhere?

*goes and hides behind settee, and refuses to come out*

Date: 2004-11-15 11:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
I'm afraid so. The specific nature or cause of the wackiness may differ, but in the end, the insanity is there just the same...

Date: 2004-11-15 11:27 am (UTC)
ext_5502: (Default)
From: [identity profile] aricadavidson.livejournal.com
This is all soo true!

Date: 2004-11-15 12:19 pm (UTC)
kerravonsen: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
Hmmm. I think it does depend somewhat on the general maturity of folks who are likely to be attracted to a certain fandom... I mean, teenybopper-attracting fandoms are likely to be worse, I would think. Also the age of the fandom -- I mean, if a fandom is 20 years old, then everyone's already had their flame wars and gotten over them... (yes, I have a couple of fandoms in mind when I say this...)

Date: 2004-11-15 12:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] avarill.livejournal.com
Scary, but true.

Date: 2004-11-15 12:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sheryll.livejournal.com
No, this rant was not inspired by HP fandom. Though you can apply it there too if you like.

Done! ;-)

Date: 2004-11-15 01:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mafdet.livejournal.com
I'm in one other fandom - the Earth's Children fandom - and, believe it or not, it isn't wanky. At least it's 90% mature, levelheaded, and unwanky. Partly, I think, because it's a small fandom, partly because it's exclusively book-based (the COTCB movie sucked major donkey balls and there have been no sequels with Hawwwttt Actorz) and partly because it attracts a lot of science-minded types so the wank, when it does occur, is over more esoteric topics such as whether Neanderthals were or were not ancestors to modern humans.

Date: 2004-11-15 02:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ase.livejournal.com
It's not just fandom. It's life.

Date: 2004-11-15 03:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sabrinanymph.livejournal.com
You have taken the words out of my mouth. Or at least, at some point in my existance in fandom I've had those words in my mouth. Thankfully my friends list appears to be mostly sane fandom people, Knock on Wood.

Date: 2004-11-15 04:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pbristow.livejournal.com
You're talking about Jesus fans, right?

[G,D&RVVF...]

Date: 2004-11-15 06:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
I'd like to say that's true, except that I've spent enough time in Doctor Who fandom, even recently, to know that a fandom can be 40 years old and still be a hotbed of insanity. Check the forums at Outpost Gallifrey (http://www.gallifreyone.com/), for instance, and I know [livejournal.com profile] kateorman and [livejournal.com profile] jblum have no end of stories from the Usenet and mailing list trenches. :)

Date: 2004-11-15 06:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Oh, and the Sherlock Holmes fandom is also insane. Sure, they might come across all clever and mature and sensible, but you just have to get them going on certain issues, and BOOM.

On the other hand, Holmes/Russell fandom is, I am happy to say, pretty darn cool. :)

Date: 2004-11-15 06:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Can you think of an exception from your experience? I really can't.

Date: 2004-11-15 06:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
This is also true. Human beings being what they are.

Date: 2004-11-15 06:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Actually, no kidding, I was thinking of writing an accompanying essay about how the church only functions properly when people stop treating it like a fandom... and how fandom only functions properly when people stop treating it like a church.

What I mean is, the vast majority of the problems and divisions and "flamewars" in the Christian church arise from people having their own ideas and theories and agendas about Christianity, instead of truly recognizing and bowing to the authority of Christ as the Head of the church. If believers were all imitating Christ and honoring Him above all, we would be unified and we would know how to handle disagreements and differences without destroying each other, bearing grudges, etc. After all, He Himself said, "By this shall all men know you are my disciples, if you have love one for another," and as John said, "We love, because He first loved us."

And the problems that often arise in fandom come from people taking their hobby far too seriously and treating it like worship. Therefore, you can't say anything negative about Person X's favorite character or ship because OMG THAT IS BLASPHEMY!!! And since in fandom there is no Christ-figure or other noble example we are all called to emulate and respect as the final authority, there isn't any way of telling people to behave other than asking them to exercise a degree of common sense that they may or may not actually possess.

Date: 2004-11-15 06:40 pm (UTC)
kerravonsen: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
You're talking about Jesus fans, right?
ROTFL!

Date: 2004-11-15 06:46 pm (UTC)
kerravonsen: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
Oh yes, I know that Who fandom is very flamish, but I'd partly attributed that to it being highly populated with teenage boys...

Blake's 7 fandom, the corner I'm in anyway, has certainly had some really horrible explosions, but I haven't seen any for quite a while.

And I don't think Tomorrow People fandom has ever had flamewars. Not the bunch I've been with for the last nine years, anyway. And that's a sort of wild mixture of ages, due to there having been two disjoint series' of the Tomorrow People, one made in the 70s and the other made in the 90s, so one has got 40-somethings and 20-somethings mixed together.

Date: 2004-11-15 06:47 pm (UTC)
kerravonsen: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
On the other hand, Holmes/Russell fandom is, I am happy to say, pretty darn cool.

Maybe theres some sort of critical mass, below which a fandom still stays sane...
Certainly the Tomorrow People fandom is quite small.

Date: 2004-11-15 07:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
I don't think Tomorrow People fandom has ever had flamewars.

That's because their brains have never recovered from the trauma of seeing "A Man for Emily". I know mine never did. :)

Date: 2004-11-15 07:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Now that is entirely possible -- that size does matter.

Date: 2004-11-15 07:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mistraltoes.livejournal.com
Well, in Buffy fandom people tend to suggest that Joss Whedon is the final authority, but that doesn't work because: a) they only do it when they can find a quote from Joss that supports their position; b) Joss flip-flops on his own position; c) Joss makes frequent and egregious errors; d) Joss lies.

A), of course, applies to church factions' use of Christ as well.

OTOH, I think that fandom works precisely because there is no authority; there is potential for a rich tapestry of varied viewpoints that can be examined and played with for as long as any particular fan can sustain imagination and interest.

Date: 2004-11-15 08:36 pm (UTC)
kerravonsen: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
Oh, you mean you admit that you're insane, do you? 8-P

Date: 2004-11-15 08:52 pm (UTC)
kerravonsen: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
A), of course, applies to church factions' use of Christ as well.

And atheists would argue that (b) applies as well, since there are a number of passages which appear to contradict each other -- my favourite example is a couple of verses from Proverbs which are back to back:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you, too, be like him.
Proverbs 26:4
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:5

And that advice is rather relevant to the madness of fandom also...

Date: 2004-11-15 09:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mistraltoes.livejournal.com
Funny how Buddhist paradoxes are called 'koans' and are way cool ways to get one to think, and biblical paradoxes are supposed disproof of the Bible.

Not.

Date: 2004-11-15 09:22 pm (UTC)
ext_2858: Meilin from Cardcaptor Sakura (Default)
From: [identity profile] meril.livejournal.com
It's not just fandom. It's online communities in general. MetaFilter (http://www.metafilter.com) melts down all the time (and if you're interested, you can see lots of MetaArguing (http://metatalk.metafilter.com/) going on.)

Clay Shirky has written some great papers on this sort of thing...just Google for his name, you'll find them.

Date: 2004-11-15 09:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sleepingfingers.livejournal.com
I agree with you that Christians should unite under Christ and following what he has set for you, not somebody else. Most of the causes for the division between Christians come from humans and their interpretations of Jesus' words and try to force them on others. Each person is allowed to have his/her own interpretations of Jesus' words, because Jesus never said this is what I mean and there's no deviation from it after every lessons he taught. His utmost law is, as you said, "Love one another as I've loved you." Are wars over the differences of interpretations following this law? Definitely not.

This is the first time I've seen somebody made the connection between the Church and fandoms, but I've got to say that what you've said are right. Although HP fandom is the only one that I've participated in, it is still enough for me to roll my eyes sometimes. People have got to stop all these defences they've built up that wall off every criticism towards their favorite characters. That's just plain unreasonable. While it's true that you don't have to agree with another fan's perspective of the book or the character, you don't need to force your perspective on them, either. That's one of the reasons it's hard to have rational discussions with fans sometimes. They aren't willing to compromise to the sake of learning.

~Shina Laris

Date: 2004-11-16 02:43 am (UTC)
kerravonsen: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
Most of the causes for the division between Christians come from humans and their interpretations of Jesus' words and try to force them on others.

The problem is... it isn't even that simple. Because you can't always say "Oh, that's your interpretation and that's fine for you." Otherwise Paul wouldn't have gotten so stroppy about the fellows who said that you couldn't be a Christian unless you were circumcised -- and he was very eloquent about how wrong they were. There is such a thing as truth, and there are such things as heresies. There a need for a balance between both extremes, between a relaxed attitude towards differing interpretations, and a strong attitude towards things that are Just Plain Wrong. And of course, the mess arises because we can't all agree on where the borders are. Though I would think that the Creeds are a good model for That Which Is Important For Salvation, and everything else, while still important, isn't worth fighting over.

Date: 2004-11-18 08:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chresimos.livejournal.com
Heh. HP fandom's not as bad as some. I guess it depends on the source material, even though what you've said applies as a human trait in general - for example, if there were some book in which the protagonist was constantly fighting off The Dark Lord of Flamewars, its fandom might be composed of more peaceable folks (or, maybe you'd get subversive Flamewar apologists...hee.). I think the size has something to do with it as well.

other noble example we are all called to emulate and respect as the final authority

And it's funny, because even if, say, JKR came out and said something directly, huge masses of fans would simply start denouncing authorial intent and saying that all interpretations of canon are valid. :)

Date: 2004-11-18 03:36 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Not signing in by my screen name here, as in my fandom days I was a known partisan on certain issues (though not a big-time debater), and identifying myself would make this seem more "targeted" than I mean it to be. (Maybe some people will guess who I am anyway, but hopefully this will at least blunt the edge of it a bit.)

I agree strongly that fandom size matters. I encountered the online HP fandom in the fall of 1999, a few months after the release of Prisoner of Azkaban, which was the point at which Rowling said that "it just exploded." I was then a participant at a fairly small and tightly-regulated board, and things were quite civil. The same seems to have been true in general of other sites at that time. There was some early-teen immaturity going on, but a well-run site could hold it in check. Also, I recall that it took me (and at least a few other adult HP fans) some careful thought before deciding which side of the R/H vs. H/H question we preferred-- it wasn't the volatile political issue that it later became.

Over the following years-- starting perhaps at the run-up to the GoF release in July 2000, and steadily increasing from there-- things became increasingly unmanageable. With the increase of ship debating, some people enjoyed all-comers, no-holds-barred debates, while others preferred smaller discussions that allowed the assumption of a shared view on the matter. (The ship preferences and debate attitudes also seem to have served as proxies for a host of other issues, including postmodernism and multiculturalism-- which, I think, took the debates to a level beyond the merely literary, and made the discussions all the more sensitive.) Also, as sites became larger, it became more and more difficult to find havens for rational and intelligent discourse.

The group-size issue is discussed quite a bit in Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point. He uses 150 as the standard group size beyond which the community's character changes, and things have to be organized much differently. (Apparently some companies-- I believe GoreTex is one-- have even set a policy of spinning off a new division any time one reaches 150 employees.) What I think is going on there is that beyond that point, the group can't function on an everybody-knows-everybody basis anymore, and the leaders have to organize things more strictly or else watch it all collapse into chaos. The group becomes "public" in a sense in which it had been "private" before.

(I have spent most of my life in a church of 50-100 people, but in college attended a church of almost 500. The difference was immense. In my small church, we can make decisions on an ad-hoc basis, based on what seems to be best for the people we have; but in the larger church, more things have to be standardized, and the elders end up saying, "we'd like all our ministry leaders to do things this way." Again, the leaders of the larger group have become "public figures," and are forced to conduct themselves as such.)

In the fall of 1999, no one would have spoken of being a "big name" in the HP fandom. By the middle of 2000, a few uberfics had begun to earn that status for their authors, and in the course of time people even started to organize "BNF Deathmatches." Again, people were becoming public figures, with people that they didn't know reading what they wrote and paying attention to it, and sometimes arguing against it.

Some of the best fandom friends I had were "successful" beyond their expectations, and became BNF's somewhat against their will. I know some who struggled between enjoying the fame and regretting its consequences for them; I also know some who attempted to reject it outright, with varying degrees of consistency (the only way to really do it, of course, is to abandon one's online life entirely). There do seem to be some people who relish the feelings of fame and importance; although those for whom I suspect that to be the case, I don't really know personally, and so I can't comment on their motivations with great certainty.

(to be continued, due to post length limit)

Date: 2004-11-18 03:38 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
(continued from previous post...)


I don't think, by the way, that Gladwell's 150 figure applies directly to fandoms; I think it's more like 500 to 1000. With a corporation, either you're an employee or you're not, and if you're in, you're in all the way. It's similar with churches; there can be some part-time attenders on the fringes, but usually only a few (except at churches which are well beyond the 150 mark anyway). But in an online community, if you've got 500 members, maybe only 100 will be consistent, "full-time" participants, and so most of the discussions going on will be among people who know each other fairly well. But at some point beyond that (maybe 800?), you start getting more and more people who are active members but not really in touch with the original community's philosophy, and the leadership has to either crack down or allow for a philosophical dilution of the community (neither of which they'll generally find desirable).

But ultimately the same "tipping point" principle is true. When you're having a discussion among people who value their relationship with each other, the discussion will usually be civil and mature (and even the younger members will often learn maturity in that environment). But in a larger community, relationships are valued less (or, more to the point, discussions are conducted more between people who don't mutually value their relationship), and fandom sanity becomes more and more difficult to find.

(Apologies for dumping a two-comment essay on you here; but thanks for triggering some interesting ideas in my mind.)

Date: 2004-11-18 04:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
It's an interesting theory and I think there's some validity to it, but I've seen fandoms (or at least, mailing lists/Usenet groups) of 500 members or fewer where all kinds of wacky and immature behaviour occurred on a regular basis, and in many cases it was because the posters knew each other that grudges went so deep and bitterness festered. Whereas my Laurie King mailing list has over 700 members now, people on the list are chatty but fairly independent, and we haven't had anything close to a serious dispute, let alone a flamewar, in literally years.

Maybe it depends on the type of fans who are drawn to certain fandoms. And maybe it also depends on the potential of the fandom in question for disputatiousness. Nobody in Russell fandom argues about shipping, for instance. There is only one ship and there's no question that it's canon. That cuts back on a lot of potential animosity right there...

Date: 2004-11-20 07:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] verlindahenning.livejournal.com
Part of the joy of Usenet groups (at least the one that I spent the most time with) was the wacky stuff that went on. I was a regular over at atxf (alt.tv.x-files) since the end of 1998, and made friends for life from that group. We had a reputation for being snarky and cliquish--while there was a lot of snark going on, a lot of it was tongue-in-cheek. We did have a very low tolerance for stupidity--e.g., asking questions covered in our F.A.Q., which was posted regularly in our heyday.

The biggest thing that caused dissension in our group was another explosion of sorts--after the movie "Fight the Future" was released in the summer of 1998. People saw the movie that had not been long-term fans of the show, and the ship/no-ship wars really heated up after the movie came out. It seemed that the level of posting degenerated after the movie--we got more fangirl/fanboy type postings, which greatly annoyed some long-time posters. Then there were the polar opposites of these posters--the ones that treated with the gravitas of a United Nations Security Council meeting, having world-changing implications. Somewhere in between is a fine line--to enjoy a fandom, and not lose your sanity, you have to find the people in that fandom with some balance and perspective.

Profile

rj_anderson: (Default)
rj_anderson

August 2018

S M T W T F S
   1234
5678910 11
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 3rd, 2025 11:36 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios