Obsessed: "Stan" culture

[ABay]

Slash has a long, long tradition in fandom so of course characters who are close on screen will be paired in fan fic. I guess I don't understand your objection.

[DearEvette]

On 8/5/2021 at 12:18 PM, Zella said:

I've long been fascinated by narrative structure in general, so I can be pretty geeky about shows that seem to know how to structure episodes, seasons, and series competently. (I always thought Breaking Bad was basically a masterclass in how to do that.)

I always name check Breaking Bad as a cohesive series that felt meticulously planned. Even down to the episode titles.  No story or character or plot was wasted over the five seasons.

Ditto on The Wire.  It got a little sloppy in the last season but overall the structure of the seasons, the mini-story arcs in each season and how it delved into one major institution each season and intertwined them made a complete mosaic.  And finally I like how it put everyone on equal footing  because it used the compelling stories of the characters to look at the systems not just at the people  -- so the drug dealers, the police, the schools, the politicians,  and newspapers all had a lot in common. 

[Irlandesa]

On 8/5/2021 at 10:01 AM, Fool to cry said:

My beef is the only time fans acknowledge writers exist is when characters do something they don't like. Writers get little credit when characters do or say something fans they do because fans want to believe characters have a life of their own.

I don't think good writing is normally noticed beyond "I enjoy this show; the writing must be good." 

But I think that's how it should be.  Most creators probably want their fans immersed in the story as it's being told and not over examining choices that are made.  It's like when you're driving on a smooth road, most people don't pay attention to it.  But when they suddenly have to navigate around pot holes, drivers end up paying attention to poor road maintenance. 

Sometimes I think writers are unfairly criticized but I also think sometimes it's their fault.  Either they focus too much on "shocking" their audience without enough consideration about how that shocking event fits in with the overall narrative.  Or they go on a podcast and tell everyone what they intended for everyone to see which goes against what the audience actually did see. 

The latter has hurt shows like Mad Men and Shondaland shows for me.

On 8/9/2021 at 5:41 PM, DearEvette said:

I always name check Breaking Bad as a cohesive series that felt meticulously planned. Even down to the episode titles.  No story or character or plot was wasted over the five seasons.

The craziest thing about Breaking Bad is how much of it wasn't planned and yet it fit together perfectly.  I think Vince Gilligan said that the only season that was planned out was Season 2 (ironically, my least favorite season.)  It's amazing to think about how much a writer's strike, the availability of actors (or lack thereof) coy performances and a philosophy of "let's write our characters into a corner and see how they get out of it" led to such a cohesive series.  Very few shows can fly that close to the sun and not only get away with it but feel masterful in their construction.

Better Call Saul is also quite good but (possibly unpopular opinion)  it was tighter when Vince Gilligan was still part of the writers room. 

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by Irlandesa

[ratgirlagogo]

10 hours ago, ABay said:

Slash has a long, long tradition in fandom

The first I ever heard of it was Joanna Russ's essay on it in the mid 80's, about Kirk/Spock slash.  Do you know the history of it that predates Star Trek, the Original Series?

[Ohiopirate02]

7 hours ago, ratgirlagogo said:

The first I ever heard of it was Joanna Russ's essay on it in the mid 80's, about Kirk/Spock slash.  Do you know the history of it that predates Star Trek, the Original Series?

Fan fiction as we know it today originated with Star Trek.  Slash as a code for same sex romantic or sexual pairings also comes out of the Kirk/Spock pairing.  

[Fool to cry]

11 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I don't think good writing is normally not noticed beyond "I enjoy this show; the writing must be good." 

But I think that's how it should be.  Most creators probably want their fans immersed in the story as it's being told and not over examining choices that are made.  It's like when you're driving on a smooth road, most people don't pay attention to it.  But when they suddenly have to navigate around pot holes, drivers end up paying attention to poor road maintenance. 

Sometimes I think writers are unfairly criticized but I also think sometimes it's their fault.  Either they focus too much on "shocking" their audience without enough consideration about how that shocking event fits in with the overall narrative.  Or they go on a podcast and tell everyone what they intended for everyone to see which goes against what the audience actually did see. 

The latter has hurt shows like Mad Men and Shondaland shows for me.

The craziest thing about Breaking Bad is how much of it wasn't planned and yet it fit together perfectly.  I think Vince Gilligan said that the only season that was planned out was Season 2 (ironically, my least favorite season.)  It's amazing to think about how much a writer's strike, the availability of actors (or lack thereof) coy performances and a philosophy of "let's write our characters into a corner and see how they get out of it" led to such a cohesive series.  Very few shows can fly that close to the sun and not only get away with it but feel masterful in their construction.

Better Call Saul is also quite good but (possibly unpopular opinion)  it was tighter when Vince Gilligan was still part of the writers room. 

 

Yeah its crazy that the character of Mike was created only because Bob Odenkirk was busy doing a guest appearance on How I Met Your Mother!

A lot of fans think if their favorite character go through a lot of pain and are never allowed to be happy it must mean the writers "hate" that character. The truth is if writers don't like a character they just don't bother writing them! People behind a show knows if audiences like a character that means they get more emotionally invested when bad stuff happens to them. Viewers  don't admit it, they would be bored by "happily after after". Star Trek Deep Space Nine had this thing where every season they would write an "O'Brien must suffer" episode where Chief engineer O'Brien would go through this horrible experience. Like one time an alien planet wrongly accused of being a spy so he was punished by having 20 years of memories of being in a prison cell implanted in his mind! The writers didn't do this because they hated the character but because he was the "everyman" of the show. The one an average viewer would identify with the most.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Fool to cry

[Annber03]

1 minute ago, Fool to cry said:

A lot of fans think if their favorite character go through a lot of pain and are never allowed to be happy it must mean the writers "hate" that character. 

Ha, yeah, I always want to tell those people that if they really believe that, they should go read some fanfiction. They'd be surprised at how many fanfic writers will take characters they absolutely adore and put them through the wringer. You're right that it's nothing to do with hate at all, no - it's the angst, the drama, the opportunity to be like, "Oh, my poor baby!" and comfort them after all the hurt they put them through, that is the appeal. 

[supposebly]

9 minutes ago, Fool to cry said:

A lot of fans think if their favorite character go through a lot of pain and are never allowed to be happy it must mean the writers "hate" that character.

I never understood that idea that writers hate a character. If anyone, writers are probably the best people to distinguish between a fictional character and a real person.

I think writers maybe find a character not all that interesting to write for, or they don't know what to do with them, so they write less or lesser storylines for them. Stans then take that as hate. Rather ridiculous IMO. Most of it is neglect, deadlines, stupidity, or being out of their depth. Like male writers who are writing female characters. I don't think all male writers write badly for female characters but it's been known to happen 😉. 

I don't think most writers have time for hate. Stans are the only ones who seem to have time to invest so much emotional energy.

I do wonder about Joss Whedon, though. A case can be made for hate, but it wasn't about the character of Cordelia Chase on Angel, but the actress got pregnant and he flew off the handle in every sense.

[Fool to cry]

13 minutes ago, supposebly said:

I never understood that idea that writers hate a character. If anyone, writers are probably the best people to distinguish between a fictional character and a real person.

I think writers maybe find a character not all that interesting to write for, or they don't know what to do with them, so they write less or lesser storylines for them. Stans then take that as hate. Rather ridiculous IMO. Most of it is neglect, deadlines, stupidity, or being out of their depth. Like male writers who are writing female characters. I don't think all male writers write badly for female characters but it's been known to happen 😉. 

I don't think most writers have time for hate. Stans are the only ones who seem to have time to invest so much emotional energy.

I do wonder about Joss Whedon, though. A case can be made for hate, but it wasn't about the character of Cordelia Chase on Angel, but the actress got pregnant and he flew off the handle in every sense.

Yeah the actress not the character. Like Whedon actually had to fill the void Cordelia left on Buffy by bringing in Anya and then Spike as the characters who  who brings the reality check in situations. It's why Spike was brought over to Angel. 

[Ceindreadh]

4 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Ha, yeah, I always want to tell those people that if they really believe that, they should go read some fanfiction. They'd be surprised at how many fanfic writers will take characters they absolutely adore and put them through the wringer. You're right that it's nothing to do with hate at all, no - it's the angst, the drama, the opportunity to be like, "Oh, my poor baby!" and comfort them after all the hurt they put them through, that is the appeal. 

The fanfic writers theme song is "you always hurt the one you love".  (Guilty as charged!)

[ABay]

For anyone interested in the history of tv  fandom as a subculture and/or fan fiction, I recommend Textual Poachers by Henry Jenkins and Enterprising Women by Camille Bacon Smith. There's also an essay by Constance Penley but I only remember part of the title. All of these came out around the same time. Since then there have many books and many more essays about fandom of specific shows, in specific places, or engaged in specific activities. For a fannish perspective outside of academe, there are sites on the web. Fanlore.org is one.

Edited August 11, 2021 by ABay

[ratgirlagogo]

16 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Fan fiction as we know it today originated with Star Trek.  Slash as a code for same sex romantic or sexual pairings also comes out of the Kirk/Spock pairing.  

This is what I thought but I confess I'm surprised and kind of disappointed to find that this is the case.

[Cloud9Shopper]

19 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Ha, yeah, I always want to tell those people that if they really believe that, they should go read some fanfiction. They'd be surprised at how many fanfic writers will take characters they absolutely adore and put them through the wringer. You're right that it's nothing to do with hate at all, no - it's the angst, the drama, the opportunity to be like, "Oh, my poor baby!" and comfort them after all the hurt they put them through, that is the appeal. 

Oh man I am doing this right now with one of my fics! I was really drawn to this one character in canon, so in my fic I just give her stress and make her cry/feel sad for a solid 8-10 chapters or so before things get better. 

It’s kind of draining for me to write after a while though! I’ve cried a lot myself while writing that fic. 

[ABay]

The problem with trying to date fan fic is that in order to enter the historic record it has to appear somewhere where readers and researchers can find it. It's easier to find fan fic written by professionals because their work is more likely to have survived. So we can't know what people were thinking about the stories that formed their common culture but the fact that there are multiple versions of Greek myths suggests pre-literate storytelling reused familiar characters as a matter of course.

Written fan fiction has also existed at least as far back as ancient Greece and Rome. The Aeneid is fan fiction drawn from The Iliad and there were apparently several takes on The Odyssey that I've read about but haven't been able to trace. I've also read essays suggesting bits of the Bible as fan fiction. And you know someone was thinking up Gilgamesh/Enkidu that never made it into clay.

Slightly less ancient, there was Sherlock Holmes fan fic starting in at least the late 1890s, the most obvious example being the 1899 play by William Gillette, and stories from the original Baker Street Irregulars in the 1930s and 40s, the most well-known of which is "Watson Was A Woman" by Rex Stout (who wrote the Nero Wolfe mysteries starring a character clearly based on the Holmes stories).

The kind of fan fiction most associated with the term now began with literature-based science fiction fandom, which had the organization needed to disseminate amateur stories to readers pre-internet. That community seems to have largely eschewed film and tv but provided a beginning for media fandom.

There's also been a suggestion that slash began, at least in written form, with a show other than Star Trek but from around the same time...and, of course, I can't remember what it was now.

[Blergh]

Well, there was a sanctioned  I Love Lucy comic strip that debuted shortly after the show became popular. Would that count as fan fiction? No one can't say Lucy's fans haven't been . ..intense about the late performer down the decades . Perhaps we should consider the fact that she evidently had enough 'stans' among the US populace that when Walter Winchell in 1953 reported that Miss Ball admitted having voted Communist in 1936 ' to please her grandfather' and it made national news, she would be among the very few performers during that era  who had testified before the HUAC  who did not have career derailed by the Red Scare. 

[Zella]

I always thought of Dante's Inferno as fanfiction before there was fanfiction too.

[Popples]

22 minutes ago, Zella said:

I always thought of Dante's Inferno as fanfiction before there was fanfiction too.

Were you the person who called Dante's Inferno a biblical self-insert fanfic a while back, because that was hilarious!

[Zella]

52 minutes ago, Popples said:

Were you the person who called Dante's Inferno a biblical self-insert fanfic a while back, because that was hilarious!

I cannot take credit for that, but I heartily endorse the sentiment! :) 

[Mr. Sparkle]

Quick reminder folks: we have a TV Fanfic thread. 

[JustHereForFood]

8 hours ago, ABay said:

Slightly less ancient, there was Sherlock Holmes fan fic starting in at least the late 1890s, the most obvious example being the 1899 play by William Gillette, and stories from the original Baker Street Irregulars in the 1930s and 40s, the most well-known of which is "Watson Was A Woman" by Rex Stout (who wrote the Nero Wolfe mysteries starring a character clearly based on the Holmes stories).

From what I heard, Sherlock Holmes fandom was rather intense back in the day and could probably be compared to current fandoms. I mean, people were so upset when the character died, some of them mourned him like an actual living (well, dead) person.

[Mabinogia]

3 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

From what I heard, Sherlock Holmes fandom was rather intense back in the day and could probably be compared to current fandoms. I mean, people were so upset when the character died, some of them mourned him like an actual living (well, dead) person.

Yep, Stanning has been around as long as people have been around. I'm sure back in the caves there were groups of cavemen stanning over some cave painting of a warrior spearing a bisson. I just wonder if it's always been as toxic as it is now, or if the anonymity of the internet has made it worse because it is much easier to be an asshole when you aren't looking someone in the eye. 

[Zella]

1 hour ago, JustHereForFood said:

From what I heard, Sherlock Holmes fandom was rather intense back in the day and could probably be compared to current fandoms. I mean, people were so upset when the character died, some of them mourned him like an actual living (well, dead) person.

Arthur Conan Doyle apparently felt pressured to resurrect Holmes because of the public outcry. 

I have an annotated Sherlock Holmes volume from the 60s that is written as if Holmes was a real person. I have been a Holmes fan since I was a kid, but that book is weird as hell. It reads like a demented internet chatroom site trying to explain away normal inconsistencies in timelines by spinning increasingly bizarre theories to account for them. 

[ABay]

Is it the set by William Baring-Gould?

[Zella]

8 minutes ago, ABay said:

Is it the set by William Baring-Gould?

It might be! I'll have to dig through my books to find it, but I just googled that, and the description sounded similar. I do think it is a chronological set. I have 2 anthologies--one in order of publication and one in order of chronology, and I've read them both to compare for fun. 😂

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I just wonder if it's always been as toxic as it is now, or if the anonymity of the internet has made it worse because it is much easier to be an asshole when you aren't looking someone in the eye. 

Probably a mix of both, I'd say. Even in the early days of the internet, it was generally easier to contain some of the shitty aspects of online behavior because communities were a little more insular, thus making it easier to moderate and control some of the discussion and behavior. 

Now, with social media being what it is, and fandom spaces being a lot more broad and varied, it's harder to know who, or what spaces, to avoid (and even if you do try and avoid those people or places, that can sometimes be easier said than done), and it's harder to manage things and keep some kind of order. 

But yeah, in terms of the behavior itself, I think it's always been a thing, well before the internet. There's always been super obsessive fans who stalk and threaten celebrities, or people who stop actors in the street and yell at them because of what their character did on a show, or people who wrote letters to networks/showrunners complaining about this and that, or so on. The internet's just yet another outlet for that kind of behavior to fester, is all. 

I'll also add that the media will always tend to highlight the crazier, more out there elements of a fandom, to the point where it makes the fans/fandom as a whole sound much worse than it probably really is. Stories about well-behaved, polite, respectful fans just aren't exactly newsworthy, you know :p? So there's that to consider as well. 

[Zella]

I think the internet also creates a more readymade hive mind, both in fans interacting with each other and interacting with celebrities. It's easy to create a vacuum. I never was into Outlander, but I used to spend a lot of time on Outlander fan sites because I found the dynamic so psychologically interesting. I know a lot of perfectly normal Outlander fans IRL. Many of my close friends love the books and/or the show, and I interacted with some nice folks on the fan sites too. But many of them ended up driven out as more extreme, fanatical people dominated the proceedings, and it happened in more than one place. 

Right now, I'm reading a bio of Pink Floyd's Syd Barrett, and it talks a little about the fan magazine Terrapin for Syd from the 70s after he had become a recluse but before it was really conclusively known, so people were still hoping for music from him. It's sort of cutely quaint how the magazine functioned compared to how fandoms function now since it was an actual physical magazine mailed out, full of content about Syd rather than from him, and enjoyed individually by members of the Syd Barrett Appreciation Society rather than analyzed collectively like the instant information directly from celebrities and interaction between them and fans among each other that exists now on the internet.

At one point, the writer actually called Syd to interview him for the magazine, and Syd, who had his own set of issues I've never seen definitely explained, put down the phone, and the guy stayed on the phone listening to Syd walk around the room for a while before he realized their chat was over. That was about the closest they were coming to info directly from the subject of their fandom. Contrast that with now when a celebrity puts something on social media and millions of people around the world known almost right away and then within hours fans have picked apart and analyzed whatever it is. 

But then again, even preinternet, people were hunting down Syd at his mom's home in Cambridge and knocking on the door, hoping to meet and talk to him even after he withdrew into private life. 

Edited August 11, 2021 by Zella

[Mabinogia]

46 minutes ago, Zella said:

But then again, even preinternet, people were hunting down Syd at his mom's home in Cambridge and knocking on the door, hoping to meet and talk to him even after he withdrew into private life. 

I'm lazy, if the target of my fanaticism withdraws from public life I just move on to someone else. I just don't have the energy or stamina to waste on chasing down someone who doesn't want to be chased. I've got a mental graveyard of deceased obsessions.

I have a fear of commitment, so I just can't stay in one fandom for too long. I get bored of all the cyclical arguing. There are a few I dip my toe in now and then on a more sociological exploration kind of way. Fandom and especially the obsessive stan levels, fascinates me almost as much as it scares me. 

 

[kiddo82]

9 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I'm lazy, if the target of my fanaticism withdraws from public life I just move on to someone else. I just don't have the energy or stamina to waste on chasing down someone who doesn't want to be chased. I've got a mental graveyard of deceased obsessions.

Ha!  I do the same thing.  It's almost like having a crush on someone that you ultimatly get over.

Edited August 12, 2021 by kiddo82

[Zella]

12 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I'm lazy, if the target of my fanaticism withdraws from public life I just move on to someone else. I just don't have the energy or stamina to waste on chasing down someone who doesn't want to be chased. I've got a mental graveyard of deceased obsessions.

I have a fear of commitment, so I just can't stay in one fandom for too long. I get bored of all the cyclical arguing. There are a few I dip my toe in now and then on a more sociological exploration kind of way. Fandom and especially the obsessive stan levels, fascinates me almost as much as it scares me. 

 

I have multiple obsessions I cycle through. Syd Barrett/Pink Floyd is one of them. I bought the book a couple of years ago and then moved onto one of my other obsessions as I waited for it to arrive but held onto the book because I knew I'd cycle back to it eventually. LOL

But I really don't get hunting down someone to talk to them. I wouldn't want someone to do it to me, even if I was an openly public figure, and it grosses me out that people continued to do that not only after he withdrew but also after there was fairly reasonable speculation that he was dealing with mental health issues. Leave Syd alone! 

[ratgirlagogo]

8 hours ago, Zella said:

Right now, I'm reading a bio of Pink Floyd's Syd Barrett, and it talks a little about the fan magazine Terrapin for Syd from the 70s after he had become a recluse but before it was really conclusively known, so people were still hoping for music from him.

I did not subscribe to Terrapin, but many people I knew did, so I read it at the time.  I don't like the post Syd Barrett Pink Floyd and felt this way back in the 70's.  

 

8 hours ago, Zella said:

At one point, the writer actually called Syd to interview him for the magazine, and Syd, who had his own set of issues I've never seen definitely explained, put down the phone, and the guy stayed on the phone listening to Syd walk around the room for a while before he realized their chat was over. That was about the closest they were coming to info directly from the subject of their fandom. Contrast that with now when a celebrity puts something on social media and millions of people around the world known almost right away and then within hours fans have picked apart and analyzed whatever it is. 

You do realize that somebody like Syd Barrett would NEVER go on social media. In fact he never did. Anymore than J.D. Salinger or Bettie Page  did, or Thomas Pynchon does.  Following someone like that is very different from following someone who WANTS to be followed.

Edited August 12, 2021 by ratgirlagogo

[BlackberryJam]

Current stan culture does have a variety of spaces for the different levels of fans. There are "just gimme the fanfic" stans of characters/pairings/shows/actors. There are safe spaces for those people who just want to read or write because they can't get enough of whatever they are stanning. They want more stories, more situations and to play with those characters like paperdolls. I find this level of stan to be the most welcoming. 

The other extreme is, and yes, I know it's not just Twitter, but the Twitter stan. They follow every tag for the characters/pairings/shows/actors. They will also roleplay characters or actors. They engage in online fights with people who are not fans of the characters/pairings/shows/actors. Or even worse, with people who are fans of different characters/actors/pairings with in the show, or people they label as "antis." Some of the antis are Twitter stans themselves, but Twitter stans will go after anyone who says anything negative about their favorite characters/pairings/shows/actors, whether it be a published review or just a random person who happened to tweet some frustration or slight criticism. 

The Twitter stans group together in squads and posses and give themselves a name/hashtag. If anything negative gets said about their characters/pairings/shows/actors, they send out alerts to the rest of the group so they can all go on the offensive, defending their favorite characters/pairings/shows/actors.

Twitter stans will often have gatekeepers who determine who is and is not part of the group. Continued membership in the group is dependent on adherence to their unwritten stanning rules, like "Twitter must focus on characters/pairings/shows/actors, must respond when fan alert goes out, must never criticize characters/pairings/shows/actors." Gatekeepers will try to get the group to turn on any member that they do not feel is properly loyal.

Twitter stans do not create safe and comfortable places. 

[supposebly]

22 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

The Twitter stans group together in squads and posses and give themselves a name/hashtag. If anything negative gets said about their characters/pairings/shows/actors, they send out alerts to the rest of the group so they can all go on the offensive, defending their favorite characters/pairings/shows/actors.

I just hope those extremes are primarily teens who grow out of this mob mentality eventually. Because if we are talking adults, I really fear for humanity if that's where all someone's emotional energy goes.

[BlackberryJam]

4 minutes ago, supposebly said:

I just hope those extremes are primarily teens who grow out of this mob mentality eventually. Because if we are talking adults, I really fear for humanity if that's where all someone's emotional energy goes.

Well, men have been doing the exact same things with sports fandoms for decades only they'll use physical violence rather than just spending time online, and humanity hasn't fallen yet.

For most, even the Twitter stans, it's a hobby. It's like playing fantasy sports and spending hours pouring over waiver wires, or memorizing useless facts about each player and placing each of their cards in plastic, and cataloguing them and going to card shows. 

It's often a phase, as mentioned by @Mabinogia, we all have our mental graveyards of deceased obsessions. Stans will be all into it and it's their main hobby for a year, then they move on to something else. Twitter stans are less of a concern to me that stans like Günter Parche. I'll take a keyboard warrior over a knife-wielding lunatic any day of the week. 

[Zella]

6 hours ago, ratgirlagogo said:

I did not subscribe to Terrapin, but many people I knew did, so I read it at the time.  I don't like the post Syd Barrett Pink Floyd and felt this way back in the 70's.  

 

You do realize that somebody like Syd Barrett would NEVER go on social media. In fact he never did. Anymore than J.D. Salinger or Bettie Page  did, or Thomas Pynchon does.  Following someone like that is very different from following someone who WANTS to be followed.

Yes I do realize he wouldn't be on social media. I think that is pretty obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the man. My point was less about Syd specifically and more about changes in technology. I was just using him as a jumping-off point since he was fresh on my mind.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Zella

[kiddo82]

I have a lot of respect for any celebrity who doesn't have a social media presence, especially if that celebrity is still "active" and not retired from public life.  I completely understand why someone wouldn't want that kind of scrutiny.  And then to value that over the temptation to self promote, which is almost a requirement these days, is kind of cool.

[Cloud9Shopper]

2 hours ago, supposebly said:

I just hope those extremes are primarily teens who grow out of this mob mentality eventually. Because if we are talking adults, I really fear for humanity if that's where all someone's emotional energy goes.

If only. I had someone lash out against me in my fandom recently because I don’t like one of the popular ships that she does and rabidly defends as if they were real people who are going to show up on the Internet any minute now to defend themselves. She was sadly at least in her 30s or 40s. I don’t understand why she doesn’t want me to say why I don’t like that ship but she somehow just has to read fanfic where the ship breaks up, or where people mention the problems they believed the couple to have. Why can’t she just keep scrolling? It was so frustrating. Their interpretation of the show and the couple is very rigid though and they just refuse to even consider any other opinion. 
 

@BlackberryJam summed it up better than I could. I just think fandom should be welcoming spaces and fic writers should be more supportive of each other, which includes not reading things that would make you upset, or that make your ship break up or whatever,

Edited August 12, 2021 by Cloud9Shopper

[BlackberryJam]

47 minutes ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

 

@BlackberryJam summed it up better than I could. I just think fandom should be welcoming spaces and fic writers should be more supportive of each other, which includes not reading things that would make you upset, or that make your ship break up or whatever,

I do like fandoms that are welcoming spaces, which is why I tend to stick to the "gimme all the fanfic" side. I have mentioned the Jaime/Brienne Game of Thrones fandom over in the fanfic thread. I've found that to be a positive and welcoming community, but the larger Game of Thrones fandom can be vicious. The Book Purists v. Show Onlies (Shownlies). Yeah...I mean, I love GoT, but total NerdFight to everyone outside the fandom.

But just because I don't understand someone's fanaticism doesn't mean I'm clutching my pearls about the end of humanity because that fanaticism exists. Dudes have been memorizing baseball stats for eons* and shouting each other down about it, gatekeeping that fandom, but when it's women, especially when it's young women, it's somehow so much worse? No. It's just morphed into something new. And usually more articulate, no matter how much I may disagree with the standom.

 

*dear lord, WHY? No one cares about someone's batting average against left-handed pitchers in 1952. It has nothing to do with the game, and for the love of all that is holy, please shut the fuck up about it. Not knowing that doesn't make me less of a baseball fan (back when I gave a flying about baseball, which I don't thank you Mark Fucking McGuire who made me hate baseball). I can still call a balk, complete an official score of a game and call balls and strikes. See, this is me, going all ranty against the gatekeepers of baseball fandom. Stanning/gatekeeping/fandom infighting has been going on for...pretty much ever.

[Cloud9Shopper]

37 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I do like fandoms that are welcoming spaces, which is why I tend to stick to the "gimme all the fanfic" side. I have mentioned the Jaime/Brienne Game of Thrones fandom over in the fanfic thread. I've found that to be a positive and welcoming community, but the larger Game of Thrones fandom can be vicious. The Book Purists v. Show Onlies (Shownlies). Yeah...I mean, I love GoT, but total NerdFight to everyone outside the fandom.

But just because I don't understand someone's fanaticism doesn't mean I'm clutching my pearls about the end of humanity because that fanaticism exists. Dudes have been memorizing baseball stats for eons* and shouting each other down about it, gatekeeping that fandom, but when it's women, especially when it's young women, it's somehow so much worse? No. It's just morphed into something new. And usually more articulate, no matter how much I may disagree with the standom.

 

*dear lord, WHY? No one cares about someone's batting average against left-handed pitchers in 1952. It has nothing to do with the game, and for the love of all that is holy, please shut the fuck up about it. Not knowing that doesn't make me less of a baseball fan (back when I gave a flying about baseball, which I don't thank you Mark Fucking McGuire who made me hate baseball). I can still call a balk, complete an official score of a game and call balls and strikes. See, this is me, going all ranty against the gatekeepers of baseball fandom. Stanning/gatekeeping/fandom infighting has been going on for...pretty much ever.

Oh I agree with your second paragraph. I don’t care who people ship or what they want to write fanfic about. It’s just annoying to see adults get really angry because someone doesn’t like their favorite ships. Like why does it matter to you that much that someone doesn’t like A and B’s relationship? The dislike isn’t directed at you personally, Becky; slow down. I think some people just get so passionate that they forget these are fictional characters. They’re not your friends or close relatives.

I’m a woman and am not sure why it blows up so much worse on our sides.

Such is the blow up of social media. I remember being around in the days of TWOP and other message boards. There were some heated disagreements but it was more contained to that board, more anonymous and people generally didn’t take things so personally. People here still do disagree, but overall I find this user base to be more respectful than that of Reddit or Tumblr at times. (My fandom’s Discord is generally relaxed too.)  

 

[Mabinogia]

4 hours ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

I don’t understand why she doesn’t want me to say why I don’t like that ship but she somehow just has to read fanfic where the ship breaks up, or where people mention the problems they believed the couple to have. Why can’t she just keep scrolling? It was so frustrating. Their interpretation of the show and the couple is very rigid though and they just refuse to even consider any other opinion. 

Yeah, that's where the difference between being a fan and being a fanatic lies. A fan can defend their star/character/couple but also allow others to not like that star/character/couple because it really doesn't matter if every single person likes what you like. A fanatic will hunt out negatives about their favorites so they can attack the person who expresses the negative. That is unhealthy. That is bizarre when it's not a close friend or family member you are defending but either a millionaire who doesn't know you're alive or worse, a fictional character who doesn't even exist. 

If I read something negative about a favorite pairing, if it is a reasonable comment I will engage, and have a conversation or debate about it, but if it's full of vitrol I just move on. Life is far too short for me to defend imaginary characters against strangers I will very likely never meet. 

[BlackberryJam]

31 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

A fanatic will hunt out negatives about their favorites so they can attack the person who expresses the negative. That is unhealthy. That is bizarre when it's not a close friend or family member you are defending but either a millionaire who doesn't know you're alive or worse, a fictional character who doesn't even exist. 

If I read something negative about a favorite pairing, if it is a reasonable comment I will engage, and have a conversation or debate about it, but if it's full of vitrol I just move on. Life is far too short for me to defend imaginary characters against strangers I will very likely never meet. 

This is totally a Packer fan bellying up to a bar in Chicago wearing his cheesehead and then when he gets bad service, talking crap about the Windy City.

When Team Hans Gruber Stan responds to a Team Karl Vreski Stan tweet, calling Vreski nothing but a ballerina, the UberGrubers know the VivaLaVreskis are going to respond. The UberGrubers then get all offended saying how sensitive the VivaLaVreskis are. Before you know it, the Jets and the Sharks are having a Twitter rumble, each pointing wireless mouses at the other for starting it. 

No lie, sometimes reading those twitter threads is entertaining as hell. Especially if the arguments/insults are innovative and articulate. 

Is it unhealthy? Maybe. Or it's just people blowing off steam, trotting out the keyboard warrior cred, letting go of a day's frustration? Then again, it could really just all in fun and not everyone is getting the joke. I don't much care as long as it doesn't lead to actual violence or stalking. 

[Fool to cry]

Kesley Grammar as Frasier on CHEERS is the most positive outcome for an actor brought in to play a character meant as a temporary obstacle to a favorite couple being together. Becoming a cast member and getting a long running spinoff of their own as opposed to eternal hatred from fans!

Edited August 18, 2021 by Fool to cry

[Mabinogia]

I never cared if Sam and Diane did or didn't get together so Frasier coming on to be an obstacle wasn't going to affect my interest in him. That he was a snarky, uptight character with amazing comedic timing made me love him more than I ever did either Sam or Diane who were probably my least favorites on the show as I think about it. Not that I didn't like them, I just liked everyone else better. 

I loved Frasier, both character and show, far more than Cheers or any of the characters on Cheers other than Lilith. I guess they'd be my Cheers ship, even if they were a Titanic level shipwreck. 

[andromeda331]

36 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I never cared if Sam and Diane did or didn't get together so Frasier coming on to be an obstacle wasn't going to affect my interest in him. That he was a snarky, uptight character with amazing comedic timing made me love him more than I ever did either Sam or Diane who were probably my least favorites on the show as I think about it. Not that I didn't like them, I just liked everyone else better. 

I loved Frasier, both character and show, far more than Cheers or any of the characters on Cheers other than Lilith. I guess they'd be my Cheers ship, even if they were a Titanic level shipwreck. 

Their my Cheers and Frasier ship. Even though they never ended up getting back together on Frasier they are still my favorite. The episodes when Lilith is on the show its easy to see why she and Frasier are perfect for each other. While I liked some of Frasier's dates none of them close to Lilith.

[Mabinogia]

5 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

While I liked some of Frasier's dates none of them close to Lilith.

Yeah, they gave Frasier some good options, but no one is a better match for him than Lilith. Both of them are such strong personalities, they are both super well read and intelligent and both seemed to get off on their verbal battles. It seemed like they both enjoyed the battle, it was their foreplay. The actors also worked so well together. 

I am heavily influenced by the actors in a ship, which is why something like Castle and Beckett just never worked for me. I tend to ship couples I would want to spend time around. Even a couple like Frasier and Lilith, who would probably just argue all the time would at least be entertaining to be at a dinner party with. With Castle and Beckett the "ship" was, for me, 100% in the script and 0% in the acting. I just never bought that the characters wanted to be around each other (which was possibly the actors not wanting to spend two seconds in the same room coming through). I get, on paper, why fans liked them, but I was too affected by the lack of chemistry I saw to enjoy them at all. 

The one ship that I really didn't understand the fans loving (though a lot of fans didn't, so I don't feel totally alone) was Aria and Ezra on Pretty Little Liars. Now, in this case it's the opposite. I thought the actors had nice chemistry together but I could not get past him being her high school teacher. Of course, when I was a teenager I might have thought it was hot, so since I am far from their target audience, that could be why I don't get the support of that couple. haha

[JustHereForFood]

24 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

The one ship that I really didn't understand the fans loving (though a lot of fans didn't, so I don't feel totally alone) was Aria and Ezra on Pretty Little Liars. Now, in this case it's the opposite. I thought the actors had nice chemistry together but I could not get past him being her high school teacher. Of course, when I was a teenager I might have thought it was hot, so since I am far from their target audience, that could be why I don't get the support of that couple. haha

I haven't watched that series, but the teacher/student romance is probably my most disliked type of romantic relationship. It is not the age difference that bothers me, it might be an acceptable difference unless the student is too young, it is the power inbalance. And no matter how cool the teacher may be, if they can so easily fall for the student, they lose my respect as a teacher. Second unfavorite type of ship would be doctor/patient. Just no.

[BlackberryJam]

I despise the incest romance, and hated myself for loving Cesare/Lucretia in The Borgias. I didn’t justify it though. I acknowledged it was totally gross and blamed it on actor chemistry. Also, I knew it would end badly.

I remember reading the Flowers in the Attic books and being totally skeeved out by Chris/Cathy while my friends thought it was dreamy and romantic.

Which brings me to the Stanning topic of Jaime/Cersei shippers, or Lannicest from Game of Thrones. I was deep in that fandom for a while, and holy crap, was that some freakass stanning. Everything from “Cersei was justified in blowing up hundreds of people and everything she ever did was right and justified” stanning to even crazier, “Jaime/Cersei murder/suicide would be soooooo romantic.”

I think we can all find ourselves drawn to the crazy sometimes, but to justify it as romantic? Oh no, no and thrice no. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by BlackberryJam
Deleted unnecessary word.

[JustHereForFood]

2 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I remember reading the Flowers in the Attic books with and being totally skeeved out by Chris/Cathy while my friends thought it was dreamy and romantic.

I kind of liked that book and saw their relationship as tragic, but acknowledged that it was a result of the deep trauma they both went through and was completely messed up, not romantic. And God, I remember someone arguing with me that their first time was not a rape, despite the fact that even Chris sad that it was. 

I have to confess though that I liked Cesare/Lucrezia. As you say, they had amazing chemistry. I didn't even find them that weird together, like with other incest couples. Maybe because everything was a bit over-the-top in that series. 

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I loved Frasier, both character and show, far more than Cheers or any of the characters on Cheers other than Lilith.

It's funny because I didn't love Frasier on Cheers. I loved Frasier and Lilith but mostly because of Lilith, I think.  (And while I loved Sam & Diane, my love for them isn't the reason why I couldn't warm to Frasier.)

However, in the end, I do think Frasier is the superior show. (And if you were involved in the Primetimer awards this year, you will have seen that I went full stan in favor of the show) I still don't know if I truly ever loved the character of Frasier but I enjoyed him the most within the context of his show. 

Now Rebecca---my feelings about Sam & Diane might have influenced why I prefer the Diane years compared to the Rebecca years.  But a lot of it is also that I think that the show got so much dumber towards the end.  It was still funny but it felt like it went for cheaper laughs and simplified the characters to serve the humor.

I felt Frasier brought back the early smartness of Cheers. And, even more impressive, they didn't go for the dumb character trope that a lot of sitcoms had in the 90s (Coach/Woody or Joey/Phoebe)...etc.

On 8/12/2021 at 9:02 AM, supposebly said:

I just hope those extremes are primarily teens who grow out of this mob mentality eventually. Because if we are talking adults, I really fear for humanity if that's where all someone's emotional energy goes.

I think this is the biggest misconception about toxic stanning.  It is absolutely not relegated to teenagers. I think there's comfort in thinking that it is but nope.  But I try to stay off of social media because you never know if people are looking for group think or a conversation.  If it's a conversation, they can be really good.  If it's group think, then posting something in opposition is frustrating.

But one thing I do want to say is that just because I ship something, does not mean I think it should be a manual for real life. I've shipped incest (sometimes before I knew they were incestuous and my opinion just didn't change.)  I've shipped relationships that were intense with emotion (in a way that would be toxic outside of it).  I've rooted for heroes.  I sometimes root for villains as long as there's a sense of morality somehow. 

However, it does get me nervous when stans say a real person should go all Walter White.  Uhh...no.  He was a bad man.  That should not be something a person emulates in real life.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Irlandesa

[Mabinogia]

33 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

It is not the age difference that bothers me, it might be an acceptable difference unless the student is too young, it is the power inbalance.

Yes, the power imbalance is what makes it gross to me. That and, when it's high school, it's usually going to be one person being an undeveloped teen while the other person is an adult who went to college and has a career and yeah, why would a career-minded young adult be interested in a high schooler (I get there are mature high schoolers, but most have never lived on their own, never paid any real bills, can't even have a drink at dinner (legally) and just learned to drive.) they are just in very different places in their lives. 
Once it's a college student and teacher it is 100% about the power imbalance and the fact that said teacher can, if they choose to, make or break the student's academic career. 

 

32 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I remember reading the Flowers in the Attic books and being totally skeeved out by Chris/Cathy while my friends thought it was dreamy and romantic.

I couldn't stand either of them so I wasn't into the forbidden love thing that story was going for. I never saw it as romantic but as teen hormones mixed with desperation and a dose of despair. Like, they made themselves into a little nuclear family and with a lack of anything else, they kind of began to buy into it, and if they think they will likely die up there, why not just go all in on the married life stuff? Yeah, that book was really twisted. I loved it as a kid. lol 

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

It's funny because I didn't love Frasier on Cheers. I loved Frasier and Lilith but mostly because of Lilith, I think.  (And while I loved Sam & Diane, my love for them isn't the reason why I couldn't warm to Frasier.)

However, in the end, I do think Frasier is the superior show. (And if you were involved in the Primetimer awards this year, you will have seen that I went full stan in favor of the show) I still don't know if I truly ever loved the character of Frasier but I enjoyed him the most within the context of his show. 

Your feelings are pretty similar to those of my mom. She never cared for Frasier and Lilith together on "Cheers", but she also loves the show "Frasier" and likes both of them on there.. Course, she wasn't a regular "Cheers" viewer, which probably factored in as well - she watched the show from time to time, but it wasn't a must-see for her. Maybe the particular cast that Frasier had around him on his own show made it easier for her to appreciate his character there or something.

In my case, I went backwards - I got into "Frasier" first, thanks to my parents (and I totally agree with your sentiments about it being such a great, smart series), and now I'm going back and checking out "Cheers" in full :p. And I'm enjoying Frasier and Lilith on there, and seeing how their relationship began and developed and turned into what I knew it as on "Frasier" :). I agree with those who think they were really good together, though I also totally see why they would drive each other crazy after a time, too :p. 

I feel the same way about Sam and Diane after seeing their relationship play out - they had a great chemistry, and I totally see why people made such a to do about them back then, and why they're still talked about so much now. But I also understand why they didn't last. Relationships like that, the kind where you know the people involved love and care about each other, but just can't ever seem to make it work long-term, are interesting ones to explore. 

Quote

But one thing I do want to say is that just because I ship something, does not mean I think it should be a manual for real life. I've shipped incest (sometimes before I knew they were incestuous and my opinion just didn't change.)  I've shipped relationships that were intense with emotion (in a way that would be toxic outside of it).  I've rooted for heroes.  I sometimes root for villains as long as there's a sense of morality somehow. 

This. Yes. I think a lot of people need to keep this in mind. Hell, shipping something doesn't even mean you want to see it happen in canon, or that you expect the pairing to have a happy, romantic ending. You can ship pairings that you know full well are a disaster from the word "go" and will fall apart in spectacular fashion, simply because you just find the dynamic interesting in and of itself. There's pairings I've liked that I know have no hope in hell of ever happening, or that I know would be messy. But I just really like the character dynamics, is all, and I'm just interested to see or imagine what could happen if they did get together.