Fandom and Viewer Issues: "Fan" Is Short for "Fanatic"

[yeswedo]

Let's all take a deep breath, it's getting hot in here. As always, posting your own opinion is fine and disagreeing with other people's opinions is fine as long as it's civil. Once you have made your point don't keep restating it to try and change someone else's opinion.

 

PM a mod with questions and report any posts crossing the line. Thanks

[myril]

I'm not saying watch everything as it is and accept everything you're given. I'm just saying that there should be a recognition that there's a time, place, and chain of command for these kinds of complaints. A celebrity live-tweeting the episode as a fan is not the person to whom to direct those complaints. The actors and actresses on the show are also not the people to whom to direct those complaints. These people can't change anything any better or faster than you or I can because they're not the decision makers in this whole process.

 

I disagree. Changing the show, the writing is one thing. It is as much and maybe more about how people react to what is shown on screen, perception and awareness. There is no chain of command for things that are wrong in our society, we all shape society, and sometimes we have to take things piece by piece, person by person. AS I see it time and place is everywhere because society is everywhere.

 

 

I think this is making a disturbingly sweeping generalization. Just because I may love a character or hate another that automatically translates into my loving or hating the actor? I know not everyone is the same, but I have zero problem disassociating actors from their fictional characters, and I've found that generally back on TWoP much was the same. Very few posters that I ever noted were confusing the actors with the characters.

 

I am not sure if it is just a few or some, it varies between character and between actors. If it comes to Henry for example I have the same impression as Amerilla. But it might be more appropriate to describe it as a remarkable correlation, that a character is disliked by a number of people, and that the skills of the actor playing the character are questioned by a number of people. Might not always be the same people, but I see often a correlation. The more a character is disliked the more likely it is often that people say the actor is not that good (outside of OUaT Skye, played by Chloe Bennet comes to my mind as an example, while everybody seems to love Simmons and as much Elizabeth Henstridge), especially if the actor is younger or not much known so far. If an actor is liked it is likely that people like whatever character they are playing or at least find the character interesting, it is more likely then that the writing is seen as bad.

 

That doesn't say that if someone dislikes or likes a character, the writing or portrayal of it, that they automatically dislike or like the actor, but it does happen. And more often maybe than we care to admit.

[Rumsy4]

 

That doesn't say that if someone dislikes or likes a character, the writing or portrayal of it, that they automatically dislike or like the actor, but it does happen. And more often maybe than we care to admit.

 

And what if it does? That can sometimes be a testament to the acting/writing. However, this doesn't often translate into harassing the person over the character they portray. 

[angelwoody]

I disagree. Changing the show, the writing is one thing. It is as much and maybe more about how people react to what is shown on screen, perception and awareness. There is no chain of command for things that are wrong in our society, we all shape society, and sometimes we have to take things piece by piece, person by person. AS I see it time and place is everywhere because society is everywhere.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying. If what you're saying is that if someone doesn't like a show/character/story/perception that they should try to dismantle it/ force change on it/ etc., it piece by piece and person by person to change it? I find that idea disturbing. Why try and change every piece of entertainment you (not you specifically) don't like, with no consideration for the fact that it might appeal to other people who don't happen to share your worldview? Why not just change the channel? Surely, in the vast world of entertainment offerings, there is room for diversity of taste, preference, viewpoint, etc..

[Rumsy4]

 

saying someone hates a person is for me a very strong statement. Maybe I haven't noticed it for long or maybe the word hate is indeed used increasingly, but I have the impression it is being used inflationary and in a disquieting broad sense, in forums, on social media, media, even water cooler small talk.

 

I actually made a point about this yesterday. The word "hate" is thrown indiscriminately around in fandom. You are called a hater of a certain character if you express what is perceived to be a non-consensus opinion. People who harass actors on twitter are called haters, when terms like "bully" or "harassment" might be more appropriate. Giving proper labels to things is important, and can help us see things with more clarity. 

[Souris]

These fans like to claim right to express an opinion as if it gives them carte blanche to just say and do whatever the hell they want, and that's where I have the problem. If they're going to dish it out, they damn well better be sure they can take it, because the people they're tweeting have just as much right to respond as they do.

 

Absolutely. I can't tell you how many times I've seen somebody defend a rude tweet or post with "I was just expressing my opinion. I'm entitled to my own opinion!" Too many people think that "it's my opinion" absolves them of rudeness. Nope, I'm sorry, but having an opinion does not give you carte blanche to be a jerk. You could express your opinion in a calm way without insulting anybody if you wanted to, but you didn't. So don't be surprised if you get called on it.

 

It's a lot more about the tone and inappropriateness of what these problematic fans say, rather than their actual opinion.

[Dani-Ellie]

Some things are not a matter of taste to me. If people feel assured in their views and behavior through shows they watch, then it can make other people feel concerned regardless if they watch those shows as well.

 

The problem for me is that the line between "I think this is problematic because of reasons X, Y, and Z" and "this is awful, change it now" is blurred for this subset of fans. They can't see that not everyone sees Problem X as a problem. They're pushing their own agenda without considering that others may not share that agenda (or have any agenda at all).

 

My issue basically comes down to the way the points are being made. The points are not being made in a way that encourages discussion and debate and free thinking. They're charging out, metaphorical guns blazing. They're attacking right out of the starting gate, which is only going to make the person on the other end defensive. And when the person on the other end sees that no rational discussion is going to come from this, because there is no debating with that kind of argumentative stance, they're just going to shut it down.

 

It's a mutual understanding of differences of opinion that I'm seeing as lacking with this subset of fans. They want what they want without considering that any number of other people may not feel the same way. So let's say the show listens to them and breaks up Captain Swan. What about all the other people who actually enjoy Captain Swan?

 

Or hell, let's make this purely hypothetical. Let's say Emma has a pit bull. Some people scream at the show because pit bulls are dangerous and why does your lead character have a pit bull and she should get rid of it right now. So Emma gets rid of the pit bull and all of a sudden, they have more people screaming at them because pit bulls aren't dangerous if you raise them properly and they're feeding into the stereotype of pit bulls being dangerous by making Emma get rid of hers.

 

A single show can't be everything for everyone; that's just fact, because for every person that can't stand Plot Point X, there is a person who adores Plot Point X. Trying to force the show to take on your (general you, here) vision while negating the visions of your fellow fans strikes me as incredibly self-centered.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[ShadowFacts]

 

My issue basically comes down to the way the points are being made. The points are not being made in a way that encourages discussion and debate and free thinking. They're charging out, metaphorical guns blazing. They're attacking right out of the starting gate, which is only going to make the person on the other end defensive. And when the person on the other end sees that no rational discussion is going to come from this, because there is no debating with that kind of argumentative stance, they're just going to shut it down.

 

I think this is all learned behavior -- this kind of fan is taking the low road, which we see being done every day in political "discourse", in all of the hot button issues, heck in daily life.  I always think it's a failure of public education to some extent, kids aren't taught how to properly analyze an argument, figure out how thinking is manipulated, have reasoned debate.  It makes me depressed.  People have to learn to dial down their emotions at times, back away from arguments, be adults.  I sometimes get to feeling testy about things I read online, and it's then that I know I should actually step back and keep quiet for the moment.  And see how I feel later. I usually phrase things a little differently when I'm calmer.

[Dani-Ellie]

I think this is all learned behavior -- this kind of fan is taking the low road, which we see being done every day in political "discourse", in all of the hot button issues, heck in daily life.

 

Oh, I fully agree. It's just very frustrating as someone who actually enjoys discourse to see attacks instead of discussion, to see attacking the arguer versus attacking the argument. And then when the heat gets turned back on them, they hide behind "it's my opinion," which, while true, does not mean they have have the right to be a dink to someone else who holds a differing opinion. They want respect but they don't give respect. It strikes me as a very young kind of mentality, so I'm hoping the worst of them are just kids who should know better but, for whatever reason, don't.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[shipperx]

The problem for me is that the line between "I think this is problematic because of reasons X, Y, and Z" and "this is awful, change it now" is blurred for this subset of fans.

I agree with this.

I think it's a matter of boundaries and control.

I totally agree with the sentiment that if we find something to be problematic we should point it out and say so. Yes, it does serve a purpose to raise awareness, to make people conscious of a need for diversity, of elements of sexism, of things which contribute to rape culture, etc. It's worth examining and discussing. It's worth raising awareness. However, while all of that is worthwhile, we don't own the media entity that is Once (or any other show). It is the work/art of those who create it. And, while criticism is valid as a form of feedback, we as fans do not have the responsibiity to nor the power to 'change' it (and it begins to create issues with boundaries when we convince ourselves that we are entitled to). It, ultimately, is not ours. We can voice criticisms or note problems -- and that's perfectly good -- but it isn't our property (well, then we come into the appropriation that is fanfic, in which case we do take a form of creative possession and the story does -- in that specific context -- become ours. But when people lose sight of where fanfic ends and where canon is the property of the show creator, things tend to become rather contentious).

However problematic we may percieve someone's art and/or writing to be -- it's their art/writing. We can voice criticms and identify problematic issues... but it's still the artist/writer's property. It's not ours to change or control.

It's also worth noting that no one is perfect. Not the writer... or the critic. Both come with our own set of biases. And, while voicing our opinion, we have to accept that some may disagree. It's kind of like what you see happening in some areas where people state really problematic views and at the least bit of pushback or disagreement scream 'censorship' and 'MY right to an opinion' while forgetting that other people have opinions also and freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. You say stuff and someone may disagree with you. Some may really, really disagree with you. Some my cease to buy your product or carry picket signs in protest. A right to express our opinion doesn't necessarily mean the right to win an argument (And in some arguments, facts really should carry more weight than the random vagaries of opinion).

At any rate, yes, I think it's a good thing for fandom to be aware of issues such as diversity, sexism, and rape culture. It's good to raise awareness. But it isn't our place to control someone else's art. We can take or leave it (or criticize it if we want to), but it's someone else's actual work and if they're the one's creating it and who own it, it's their responsibility to change it (or not) not fandom's.

Edited October 1, 2014 by shipperx

[Shanna Marie]

But is it really better to talk in some forum about it or couldn't it be fairer to directly address it? Is it easier to just overhear someone talking about you critically and maybe even contemptuously than to be directly shouted at? Or is it maybe just convenient to talk critical in a forum, where we think that it is less likely, that the person we're talking about,or whose work we're talking about, might answer us directly? No harm done when they don't read it, is there?

When your work brings you into the public eye because your work produces something for public consumption, you know (and even hope) that people will be talking about it. That goes with the territory and is part of why they get paid the big bucks.

 

To bring this over into real world terms, a forum like this would be the equivalent of a group of friends meeting at a neighborhood coffee shop to discuss the show and the issues related to it. It's a public place, so there's nothing stopping the people actually involved with the show from dropping by, but there's also not a serious expectation that they will do so. Other people in the coffee shop may overhear the conversation and are welcome to join in. Then, say, Jennifer Morrison just happens to be passing through that neighborhood in incognito celebrity mode, with a baseball cap and sunglasses on, just going about her business, and she wants a latte so she stops by the coffee shop. She may overhear someone in the group talking about being disgusted with Emma going with Hook because of his problematic past. It's probably smartest of her to just get her latte and go because her presence is going to alter the conversation. If she thinks they have a good point, she can maybe bring it up with the writers. If not, she can roll her eyes and shrug it off. Even if she's going there on purpose to eavesdrop on fans she knows meet there, it's probably better for her to not engage if they're acting angry or hostile, but even if they're friendly and she's friendly, it changes the conversation. There's been a lot of discussion about this on book-related forums, where a lot of readers don't want the authors to participate in discussions of their books unless it's a chat or forum thread specifically designed for author interaction because even when an author just drops by to say "thanks for the great review," it has a way of completely stifling discussion. Things get nasty if the author argues with the discussion of the book. They know that the author very likely may have dropped by to lurk, but it's considered bad manners for the author to join in unless invited to do so.

 

What's going on with Twitter amounts to people more or less chasing Jennifer Morrison down the street, shouting her name and hurling accusations at her, then acting offended and surprised when she turns around and responds. This YNB thing is as though she was hosting that coffee shop discussion and someone crashed it just to shout their opinions, then got offended when she didn't put up with that. It's not even as though they joined the group and participated in the discussion, then raised their concerns in a way that invited further discussion of the topic.

 

If you do have a problem with the messages a show is sending, then the way to handle that is to write to the producers -- and real letters, not Tweets, because you can't make your case reasonably in 140 characters -- write to the network, and write to the sponsors. Tweeting at the actors or tweeting at celebrity fans of the show is not ever going to change the content of the show, no matter how valid your concerns are, especially if you're doing so angrily.

[Artsda]

Good for both of them.

 

 

 

 

I wanted so badly to ask that same question to the fan who tweeted Jen about CS poster, "Why would you do this when you'd just redeemed yourself?" She had a couple fans giving her shit back and she was getting annoyed with them and told them to leave her alone. Now, I fully agree that the fans who were badgering her shouldn't have been (say your piece and move on, if you feel the need to say something), but the irony that she was getting a taste of her own medicine and didn't like it was not lost on me.

She should just start blocking these people. As classy as her tweets are to be nice and try and make these people get some sense, they probably won't. They're so into hating anything CS that they'll jump on her for anything. And apparently Yvette Brown too. lol

 

She shouldn't have to redeem or prove herself to fans of a character pairing that's got one half dead. 

 

It's a show that has CGI snow monsters. It's a show about fairytales. The people tweeting her about rape culture are taking this show too seriously. I don't know how a show with a snow monster stomping over the town can even be taken seriously enough for people to try and find a crusade.

[myril]

At any rate, yes, I think it's a good thing for fandom to be aware of issues such as diversity, sexism, and rape culture. It's good to raise awareness. But it isn't our place to control someone else's art. We can take or leave it (or criticize it if we want to), but it's someone else's actual work and if they're the one's creating it and who own it, it's their responsibility to change it (or not) not fandom's.

 

Art is controlled by money in our world. TV is first and foremost business. If it as well could be called art is something that some dispute even. Those doing the work, do the creative input and process, writers, cast and crew are not the ones owning the product, or not often, and not even the producers are necessarily owning their product, work, but a production company and or broadcast/cable network. Fans are indeed not in control, they are interesting mostly as numbers, as big mass consuming the product, the bigger the better. A few single fan voices in forums or on social media don't matter, they are just some background noise, annoying and distracting but insignificant as long as the bigger number f viewers doesn't care.

 

So, ignore those few nasty voices, they are insignificant. Block them, done with it. 

 

On another note and out of curiousity. I read an interesting though about fandom:

 

 

Fandom is not worshipping at the altar of canon. Fandom is re-building it because they can do better.

 

from: A word about fandom

 

What do you think about that?

Edited October 1, 2014 by katusch

[Souris]

On another note and out of curiousity. I read an interesting though about fandom:

Fandom is not worshipping at the altar of canon. Fandom is re-building it because they can do better.

 

from: A word about fandom

 

What do you think about that?

 

I wouldn't really agree with that quote, because I think fandom is not exactly either. I don't think blind worship is good or healthy, and there's generally some amount of criticism in a fandom, but one needs to respect what is actually canon vs. what is fanon.

[KingOfHearts]

Fandoms can either make things better or make them worse, and most do both. I don't think they constitute as worshippers. What makes it a "fandom" is connecting with others who have interest in the same material. People who share custom content, connect on the web, go to conventions, etc. It's not so much between the show and the viewers, but between the viewers themselves. That's just my definition.

[Amerilla]

However problematic we may percieve someone's art and/or writing to be -- it's their art/writing. We can voice criticms and identify problematic issues... but it's still the artist/writer's property. It's not ours to change or control.

 

If we were talking about a book or a movie or painting, sure, but a network television drama is less about artistic vision than it is about keeping the attention of viewers with disposable income - about creating a synergy between the audience and the products that the advertisers and corporate overlords want to push, about creating multiple income streams through marketing and licensing, and through cross-merchandising. This is not to say there isn't a huge level of artistry or creativity that goes into creating and presenting a television show, but at the end of the day, it's a product that is judged primarily on how much money it costs to make, relative to the amount of money it takes in.

 

For example, I don't think A&E are lying when they say how much they loooooove "Frozen." But I don't think they asked for it purely out of artistic vision. They're not idiots. They knew it was a good bet that - even if they do it badly in the long term - the buzz around a live-action "Frozen" would lift their ratings for the short term. At the moment, it's paying off, and that ratings lift will keep them viable for another season or more.  

 

While fandom opinion isn't likely to change the course of the show, it's not like its crazy for fans to think it could if they are loud enough or large enough. TV is a fluid medium. Traditional, 22-episode season, PG-rated network drama can be more adaptive to audience desires than, say, a mini-series or a Netflix series, where it's released all at once, or cable shows that are designed to push a societal envelope.  Most shows that survive on the networks have to evolve and fine-tune their formulas, re-jigger storylines, push forward actors that test well with audiences, sometimes even completely reboot the series.  At the end of the day, there is very little that's sacrosanct. If Swan Queen tested super-well with women aged 18-49, Emma and Regina would almost certainly be making out on the back seat of Regina's Mercedes right now.

 

Katusch, that's a great link. I liked this part in particular:

 

No one is more critical of art than fandom. No one is more capable of investigating the nuances of expression than fandom—because it’s a vast multitude pooling resources and ideas. Fandom is about correcting the flaws and vices of the original. It’s about protest and rebellion, essentially. Fandom is the voice of a mob that can do better than the original, that often flies in the face of the original, that will accept nothing less than the best the medium (and the human at the helm) is capable of. Fandom is about putting debate and conversation back into an artistic process—-especially if the artist or author in question has become so vain that all criticism is ignored, distrusted, thrown back in the criticizer’s face. (Moffat, I’m looking at you.) Fandom is about mutual creative expression—-there are no gods in fandom and every time someone thinks they’ve become a god of fandom, fandom corrects them again. (Cassandra Clare, I’m looking at you.) Fandom doesn’t need permission and it’s certainly not waiting for it. (Robin Hobb, I’m looking at you.) And fandom doesn’t actually want your attention; often, they’d rather you left them alone to get back to what they’re doing better than you anyway. (Supernatural, I’m looking at you.)

[shipperx]

Art is controlled by money in our world. TV is first and foremost business. If it as well could be called art is something that some dispute even. Those doing the work, do the creative input and process, writers, cast and crew are not the ones owning the product, or not often, and not even the producers are necessarily owning their product, work, but a production company and or broadcast/cable network. Fans are indeed not in control, they are interesting mostly as numbers, as big mass consuming the product, the bigger the better. A few single fan voices in forums or on social media don't matter, they are just some background noise, annoying and distracting but insignificant as long as the bigger number f viewers doesn't care.

I think then you're delving into the issues of art vs. show business which is indeed a business, and viewers are consumers. This is always an issue with commercial art.

That doesn't change the essential argument, however. Fans can idolize or criticize. They can boycott, etc. They are not, however, in the position to change the product. The property still belongs to the artist and/or owner.

I'm not discounting the part we as consumers play in that when we buy we are tacitly supporting the profitability of something. We can choose to not buy (or in this case, not to watch).

And, again, we can always criticize problematic elements. If enough consumers agree, and take issue then they can follow suit and cease to consume the product.

But consumers are not entitled to dictate everything about a product, it's overestimating their power in this equation. Similarly, it's difficult to buy that a viewer is entitled to their prefered changes in a story simply because they are viewers/fans.

It is not the fan's responsibility to effect change in a product, nor are they entitled to change it simply by virtue of being a fan of a product. Fans are, however, perfectly entitled to point out difficiencies and concerns and problems. If persuasive, perhaps enough people will agree that it does impacts consumer numbers. Raising awareness re: something may convince other fans to agree with you and if enough do, if enough people tune out, then the producer can decide what's really more important to them.

On another note and out of curiousity. I read an interesting though about fandom:

 

 

from: A word about fandom

Fandom is not worshipping at the altar of canon. Fandom is re-building it because they can do better.

What do you think about that?

That I think that such a view requires context -- at best. And, if taken too simplistically would be misguided.

Fair warning Tl;DR fodder ahead.

First off: canon. What is it good for?

If fandom were a venn diagram, canon is the part that we more or less all have as common ground. We may interpret all sorts of things differently, but we have "this is what aired on the program" / "this is what was explicitly stated in text i.e. this is the specific dialog/wording." While we may disagree on meaning, interpretaion, subtext, etc., disagree on all manner of things, there has to be some common ground, some Venn-level overlap, otherwise fandom is just playing on disparate, disconnected playgrounds that have nothing to do with one another (which, honestly is what fandoms often devolve into anyway). We wouldn't even be capable of conversation, because what would we even be discussing? If I read this fanfic over here, and you participated in thie tumblr whatever over there the only overlap may be the show itself. The fanfic isn't canon. The tmblr screed isn't canon. Canon is the overlap, the common touchstone. In this case -- the show.

What functions as canon is not interpretation or subtext (it's SUB-text, not TEXT after all) and that's because fandom will never reach consensus on interpretation and subtext.) The shared text -- that which we share and can agree-- is that these particular events aired in episode x.x. That's canon -- a common reference point, so that we're speaking the same language (no matter which dialect we prefer). We can disagree on interpretation and subtext surrounding the text. Heck, that's fandom's main fodder! But at least we all recognize Season X, Episode X as having occured as an actual thing, and most participants of the fandom have some knowlege of it having occurred. We agree that certain textural events took place and that certain dialog was stated (reguardless of interpretation or subtext we may assign it).

That's canon. It's a bit like science: it doesn't require that you believe in it (much less worship it). It's just...there.

This is why 'canon' usually is confined to the primary, mass-released product. (It becomes rather more complicated when you begin to have tie-in novels or comics which may be obscure and which large chunks of the fandom may be only loosely aware. Fandoms such as Star Wars, Star Trek or even Buffy then have to struggle with those. It begins to be a bit gray about what counts, what doesn't, and what percentage of fandom is even aware of the tie-in product (which tends to be why tie-ins and comics tend to provoke more disagreement than originating series).

Basically, no single person (except possibily the creator) can determine canon. It's communal text. It's a communal refence.

Now fandom... fandom isn't confined by canon.

So, at least to that point and in that context I agree that fandom analyzes, breaks down, re-invents. Fandom allows many interpretations. Fandom sees many subtexts.

But fandom doesn't actually exist without canon. If you're writing fanfic, you can certainly do AU's or offshoots (i.e. takes place post: episode X.X) but that still requires the existence of a common reference point. Other fans have to know what you are AU'ing and offshooting FROM. They have to know what you're theorizing your subtext FROM. So while fandom plays outside the lines of canon, fandom doesn't get to REALLY rebuild canon -- reinterpret, sure. But if a fan participates in the fandom 5 years after a bunch of other people have left it, they aren't going to appear suddenly knowing what some other fan theorized once upon a time. They're going to know what the book said, or the comic said, or what aired on the TV show or movie...That's the canon. It is the communal ground. And fans don't get to rebuild it from scratch.

[angelwoody]

Art is controlled by money in our world. TV is first and foremost business. If it as well could be called art is something that some dispute even. Those doing the work, do the creative input and process, writers, cast and crew are not the ones owning the product, or not often, and not even the producers are necessarily owning their product, work, but a production company and or broadcast/cable network. Fans are indeed not in control, they are interesting mostly as numbers, as big mass consuming the product, the bigger the better. A few single fan voices in forums or on social media don't matter, they are just some background noise, annoying and distracting but insignificant as long as the bigger number f viewers doesn't care.

 

So, ignore those few nasty voices, they are insignificant. Block them, done with it. 

 

On another note and out of curiousity. I read an interesting though about fandom:

 

 

from: A word about fandom

 

What do you think about that?

I love fandom, lol. I first dipped my toe in the wonderful world of fandom during the days of Buffy and felt like I had come home to a home I had never known. :) Since then I've extolled the virtues of and debated the merits of and bitched about so many shows... But I wouldn't agree that fandom does it "better" than canon.

I think it, in its purest form, fandom lets us play around with other peoples toys - and it's awesome! Ships that never sail in canon have rich, vibrant lives in fandom and it gives us all an opportunity to meet great people and have amazing conversations that make the shows we love (or love to hate) so much more than the 45 minutes an episode we actually get.

I just draw the line (and it is totally my own personal line, YMMV) when fans suddenly think they are entitled to call the shots because they dislike a particular story line/ship/ etc.. I don't want to ruin anyone's fun and I don't want anyone ruining mine with suggestions that because I enjoy X that I must believe/support/agree with a variety of social issues that might never have occurred to me. And I also don't agree that "not seeing " how problematic something is for others makes me ignorant or uneducated on "the issues." (Referring to the whole Twitter thing with Brown)

[Shanna Marie]

Fandom is not worshipping at the altar of canon. Fandom is re-building it because they can do better.

What do you think about that?

I think it strikes me as rather arrogant. It's also a very narrow definition of fandom that's dismissive in a pretty snide way about people who experience fandom in a different way. Yes, there are people whose expression of fandom involves rebuilding the canon through creative works like fanfic or photo manipulations or music videos, but I think that's a tiny subset of fandom overall, and it's really arrogant to say that they can do it better. It may be doing something that they like better, but each person's definition of "better" is going to vary. Your idea of "doing better" may be something I would consider to be ruining it entirely.

 

But fandom is about a lot more than that, and much of it has nothing to do with re-building canon but rather about appreciating it in a variety of ways. There's fanfic that works within canon without changing the characters or the universe. There are costumers who re-create what's seen on screen. There are people who are inspired to create works of art, write music, develop recipes or design embroidery patterns. Then there are those who just like the community, finding other people who like the same things so they can discuss it. That doesn't mean "worshiping at the altar of canon," just accepting that the canon is the canon for the basis of discussion. That discussion can include analysis, criticism or pure squee. And then there's the fun of finding that people who like this one thing you like also like other things you like. Even the expression of that can vary, whether it's participating in a forum like this, creating a tumblr, tweeting, starting a fanzine, finding a local fan group for watch parties or attending conventions to meet fans and people involved with the show.

 

So I would say that a better definition of fandom would be activities that enhance the experience of the canon, whether it's playing with and altering the canon, being inspired by it, or finding a community to share it.

[Featherhat]

So I would say that a better definition of fandom would be activities that enhance the experience of the canon, whether it's playing with and altering the canon, being inspired by it, or finding a community to share it.

 

Oh, that's a really good definition and not something I'd explicitly put my finger on before. It's true for me a probably a lot of others here that I joined TWOP to intensely discuss canon both the good and the bad. Other areas are more focused on using canon as a starting off point for their own ideas but it is all most certainly to enhance the experience that we don't get from only watching the show/reading the book etc and making a few remarks to the non fandom people who we know who watch it.

 

Regarding "doing it better" well, that's easy to say when your only critics are fellow fans who most likely fall into the same subset of fandom that you do. You don't have moive/network execs/publishers breathing down your neck. You can discuss how it affects art but it is a reality if you want to make what you love into your job. Self published novels and low, low budget fan movies are rarely great and in theory should be unencumbered by someone with commercial interest, but that also means fewer people to go "hang on, this needs some work."

 

And it cuts both ways. In early seasons on a popular TV show the creators are revered as geniuses and the network handing down notes to make sure a certain storyline is controlled the way they want it are the bad guys. When  a show inevitably has a drop in quality the fandom cries out "oh why can't the network keep a closer eye on what the writers are doing?!" "It's so successful that they're letting the showrunner call the shots when they should have someone telling them No, that's terrible!" (That was me and others at TWOP a few years ago in the Greys fandom).

 

Similarly GRRM is revered for ASOIAF but that doesn't mean people aren't hoping his business minded agent/publisher/editor aren't trying to help him speed up the process as much as possible.

[FurryFury]

Similarly GRRM is revered for ASOIAF

 

Eh, not really. The last two books aren't regarded very well, and the less said about his schedule, the better. In fact, many books fans are hoping the GoT showrunners will change a few less popular aspects of the books (me included, although I had to stop watching the show outright when they ruined one of my favorite book character without any good reason).

[Featherhat]

That wasn't really meant to be my point. Despite the fact that a lot of people love his books there is also a call for him to hurry up and just finish the damn things already. Thus people are asking his editors to set a deadline and hurry his creative process in the same way that TV fans occasionally beg someone to step in against whatever storyline a showrunner is doing on a popular programme. Therefore fandom (in general) cannot claim to be "doing it better" for creativity if they are aware that the commercial part of the products they love should be delivered on time and at the expected standard, something that fanfic and fanart doesn't have to worry about.

[Camera One]

I was reading this review of the latest episode:

http://io9.com/once-upon-a-time-returns-to-its-throne-of-bad-decision-1643192080

 

Apparently, "if there's one thing OUAT loves to do, it's dump on Regina."   Suuuuuuuure, riiiiiiiiiiiight.  I can't roll my eyes any further.

[InsertWordHere]

Apparently, "if there's one thing OUAT loves to do, it's dump on Regina."   Suuuuuuuure, riiiiiiiiiiiight.  I can't roll my eyes any further.

I can, because then I read this: "This oddness is only eclipsed when Henry's birth mother, Emma, greedily assumes that this creeptastic love basket from her son is actually for her. Because EVERYTHING IS ABOUT EMMA." and "Elsa gets her and Emma trapped inside an ice room and Emma almost dies (because that's what Emma does)."  Okay, I agree that the basket is creepy, but disagree with pretty much everything this person says about Emma.

 

However, the comments on this review were entertaining to read!

[Dani-Ellie]

I can, because then I read this: "This oddness is only eclipsed when Henry's birth mother, Emma, greedily assumes that this creeptastic love basket from her son is actually for her. Because EVERYTHING IS ABOUT EMMA." and "Elsa gets her and Emma trapped inside an ice room and Emma almost dies (because that's what Emma does)."  Okay, I agree that the basket is creepy, but disagree with pretty much everything this person says about Emma.

 

*blinkblink* As someone who watches this show for Emma, I can say that everything is not about Emma. Everything is about Emma when the writers remember she exists (which, for the last couple of years, has been a couple times a season). And when the hell else has Emma almost died to the point of needing rescuing like that? Because I must have missed that episode. 

Edited October 8, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[FurryFury]

This writers used to do really hilarious True Blood reviews back when I still watched that show and read io9, but this one... isn't good. There are plenty of things on the show that deserve to be panned, but it being "all about Emma" is not one of them. Of course, if you have no emotional investment in the characters and only enjoy stuff like snark or conflicted ex(?)-villains being badass, you would probably have a very skewed perspective of things. 

Edited October 8, 2014 by FurryFury

[Rumsy4]

This writer has clearly drunk the kool aid A&E are selling. If you take the Show at its face value, and do zero independent reflection, it's going to be a pro-Regina, anti-Emma reading. Because the Show is Regina-centric, and presented from her point of view and/or in reference to her. She is THE main character, and has been since the beginning of S2.

Sadly, many people find Emma boring, and 3B did her no favors. While Regina's internal thoughts and feelings are explicitly and repeatedly expressed, Emma is not allowed the same privilege. Moreover, the Show is victim-blamey and abuse-justifying at its core. And A&E present their warped persceptives in interviews as well. So, really, I am not surprised when we get such reviews.

[angelwoody]

I don't agree with the anti-Emma perspective of the io9 review, but the GOT jokes amused me because I was thinking the same thing!  Rub some dirt on David in his 80's rocker wig and he would fit right in on GOT as would "The Wall" of ice...

[KingOfHearts]

I agree the show tends to dump on Regina because it creates DRAMA, but I didn't find anything at all weird that Emma assumed the basket was for herself. If she really needs an excuse, she's been the only mother of Henry for a year and is just now wrapping her brain around co-parenting with Regina. Also, I don't see how almost dying via external forces makes someone the star of the show.

Edited October 8, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Dani-Ellie]

I don't even think Emma really thought the basket was for herself! I think she was making a joke. (Because really, Henry wouldn't have phrased it the way he did if he was making it for her ... he would have said "it's for you.")

[KingOfHearts]

 

I don't even think Emma really thought the basket was for herself! I think she was making a joke.

 

I've only seen that scene once, so I was just going by what I remembered. She probably wasn't sure who it was for.

[Dani-Ellie]

Oh, I do think she was questioning who it was for at first, but after Henry said, "It's for my mom," Emma said, "I don't drink and sheriff." So her first line was a real question but I think the second line was a joke.

[Rumsy4]

I loved this from the recap, though: And once again Henry tumbles into the dangerous "this is not an appropriate relationship" waters. Why? Because in order to help his grown-ass mother deal with a split, her young adult, pre-teen son cobbles together a gift basket with chocolate, DVDs and alcohol. Yes, Regina's creepy son Henry is now plying his grieving mother with booze because that's just the kind of unhealthy interest Henry takes in his mother's broken sex life.

ETA: Let's not forget Henry arranged a booty call for his other mother in NYCS Oh, Henry!

Edited October 8, 2014 by Rumsy4

[ShadowFacts]

They're making Henry problematic. He spends all of his time with adults. School? We don't see it or hear a reference. Kid desperately needs friends his age. Of course, it's not exactly a safe place for him to run around with a pack of young teens.

[Mathius]

*blinkblink* As someone who watches this show for Emma, I can say that everything is not about Emma. Everything is about Emma when the writers remember she exists (which, for the last couple of years, has been a couple times a season). 

 

Specifically, about every other episode in the "A" segments/arcs of the season, one episode in the "B" segment/arc ("Manhattan" for 2B and "New York City Serenade" for 3B), and the two-part season finale. Maybe S4 will break the trend, but from what I hear about 4B, I doubt it.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Mathius

[KingOfHearts]

 

Of course, it's not exactly a safe place for him to run around with a pack of young teens.

Especially when most of them are actually in their 40s.

[angelwoody]

Especially when most of them are actually in their 40s.

Ha!

[myril]

As interesting as it is to discuss the episode review from a professional media site (io9 is no fan project), and veer into all season show issues, I suggest to go back in this thread to Fandom and Viewer issues.

 

 

Regarding "doing it better" well, that's easy to say when your only critics are fellow fans who most likely fall into the same subset of fandom that you do. You don't have moive/network execs/publishers breathing down your neck. You can discuss how it affects art but it is a reality if you want to make what you love into your job. Self published novels and low, low budget fan movies are rarely great and in theory should be unencumbered by someone with commercial interest, but that also means fewer people to go "hang on, this needs some work."

 

Are they really rarely that great or is it more about assumed commercial success. What defines great? Quality, commercial success, audience attention, critical acclaim? And though we all sure will claim otherwises, how much does our tastes influence what we call good quality or great? 50 Shades of Grey is a commercial success, though I am not shy to call it still one of the worst written (fan) fiction I ever read (it didn't get any better turning it into a more or less original story), but I thought already the Twilight saga was badly written fiction.

 

On the other hand, because of copyright issues we have as well the situation, that writers of TV shows, movies, books, comics might avoid reading fan fiction of their works (or at least say so), to avoid accusations, they might have stolen a good idea from a fan fiction author, so some good ideas and writing might be ignored due to commercial restrictions. Kindle worlds now offers to commercialize fan fiction more or less for everybody (with a number of restrictions though, slash is not allowed, while it might make a big chunk of fan fiction), for a few shows where they have an agreement with the right owners. The original author of Vampire Diaries is using Kindle World to go on writing for her work as fan fiction writer, while her work is intellectual property of the publisher of Vampire Diaries, who fired her after some time and others are continuing to write the officially published novel series.  The lines might get more blurry between fan fiction and professional writing.

 

Saying "fandom is not worshipping at the altar of canon" might reflect somewhat the frustration some fans sometimes feel about how they are treated and especially by some authors of works they adore. But as well there is a lingering image in the media, that fans are whoreshippers who have no life, fanatics. And frequently the judgment  about fanworks is, that they are the works of laypeople without much of a real articistic talent, lacking original creativity, having too much time,  leeching of the hard and creative work of others, and in most of the cases producing rather bad work, not worth a look unless you are a fan not getting enough of a thing regardless its quality. Even inside fandoms these images exist, particular concerning fan factions who do to a great degree deviate from the canon of a show or other fictional work.

 

In fan studies, media and cultural studies, the idea can be found, that fan fiction and other fan creations are a form of democratizing art, culture, forming a participatory culture - in difference to consumer culture, or shipperx used the term commercial art. Adorno/Horkheimer speak of culture industry, where art, or what is defined as such more or less, has become mostly a product like any other to consume, losing it's function as a force to look for and discuss alternatives to existing society. Culture industry makes entertainment and is a business (profit orientated) as well as means to affirm, that the world as it is, is how the world has to be, establishing norms. Culture industry might leave even small but still very controlled spaces to act out, an outlet for any frustrations and dissonant ideas, but keeps it entertaining and fictional so they won't question reality.

 

It is referred in fan studies, that art has a long history of plagiarism. Copyrights are a more modern idea, and free culture movement, open culture, creative commons by now question the use of copyrights as we know them. It's not about disrespecting the work of others by blatantly and anonymous coping and using it, but openly use it to create new art, while keeping visible it is based on the work of others, not to take anything away from them, but to enrich all our experience and culture.

 

Once Upon a Time itself can be called, is called fan fiction, making use of  other people's works and as much as of stories, that have been around for a long time, told in many variations and by many authors. The Grimm Brothers claimed, there collection was a collection of oral story telling tradition, which it is in a way, but then again some of the oral tradition processed literature, which as well made use of story, characters and myth probably around for a long time. If seeing that, is Once Upon producing any canon , or couldn't it be right to call it as much just fanon?

 

But that aside, what is canon is debated, and more so, what that, what is eventually accepted as canon by most, means for the development of a character or story. Look at how different Regina is seen. Maybe some of you have heard of Stuart Hall's encoding/coding model, polysemic text  ( a text has different meaning to different people depending on their identity, cultural knowledge, opinions and other things), negotiated reading of text - to give a few keywords. Is canon what is shown on the show, or is canon more, what a majority agrees on to have seen on the show?

 

Differentiating into canon and fanon simplifies a complex argument going on inside audience, fandom, and between audience, fandom and creators of a TV show (or other fictional work). It leads to claims that there is pretty much only one possible reading (or a small corridor of possible readings) of what is shown or told on screen, while everything else is imagination, wishful thinking or maybe fantasy on crack even. Canon defines a preferred and dominant reading, pushing other readings aside as pure fantasy or even wrong readings of the text allegedly given by the show. It is an attempt at best to avoid conflict inside fandoms, excepting as fanon deviant readings, and based on that wishes and suggestions for the characters and stories expressed eventually through fan art, while still denying it as possible legitimate reading of the text.

 

 

So I would say that a better definition of fandom would be activities that enhance the experience of the canon, whether it's playing with and altering the canon, being inspired by it, or finding a community to share it.

 

I think, "fandom is not worshipping at the altar of canon" means mostly that, it doesn't mean to deny or ignore, there is a canon, though it is still debatable what is canon, it's just saying, that fandom is not limited to canon, it is exploring what canon as set, digging into it but as much if not more is going beyond it, look at alternative versions. Can fandom do better? Maybe not, but better is relative.

[FurryFury]

Ugh, 1 episode without Regina and there us already panic.

Why weren't there complaints about barely any Charmings in the premiere? Or maybe there were, but Adam and Eddy just didn't care (more likely).

Edited October 9, 2014 by FurryFury

[FabulousTater]

LOL That article was amusing, FurryFury. Not because of the content, but because the sycophantic followers of the remorseless mass murder are prone to bigger histrionics than Woegina herself!  I'm starting to see why these Evil Regal militants love Woegina so much, She is them...I wonder if some of them have actual skeletons in their closets too....hmmm.

[FurryFury]

Some of the comments just slayed me. 

[Dani-Ellie]

Oh, for Pete's sake. I think we can go back and find at least one episode in which each of the main cast members don't appear. (Wasn't it in "The Crocodile" where there was no Emma or Snow at all?) And it's not like Regina didn't show up at all; heaven forbid other characters in an ensemble show take the spotlight for an episode. Take a chill pill, guys, sheesh.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[FabulousTater]

Some of the comments just slayed me.

I know, right. I skimmed through some of them and I was equal parts amused and also afraid for the world. Like, these are your peers, people of the world. They think anyone deserves a happy ending even if that means they like to murder people to get it. But by Joesph, they deserve a happy ending too because reasons! Ha. Be afraid, people of the world. Be very afraid.

Edited October 9, 2014 by FabulousTater

[Rumsy4]

LOL That article was amusing, FurryFury. Not because of the content, but because the sycophantic followers of the remorseless mass murder are prone to bigger histrionics than Woegina herself! I'm starting to see why these Evil Regal militants love Woegina so much, She is them...

It would a very interesting if someone did a study on whether worshipping a fictional character gets people to start displaying similar behavior.

In real life, many people are attracted to power, and people who ruthlesslessly weild them are admired for the power they hold. Their morality becomes irrelevant. It happpens with politicians all the time. The Show, the Writers, even Lana herself, have so relentlesless pushed the idea of a misunderstood Regina who secretly is a softie, that some fans have become almost brainwashed, I think.

[FabulousTater]

Or maybe it's behavior that they already exhibit and therefore identify with it when they see it on screen? Who knows....But honestly, this is my takeaway from that article.

[Curio]

It would a very interesting if someone did a study on whether worshipping a fictional character gets people to start displaying similar behavior.

 

I'd actually be really interested in seeing a general OUAT fandom study. It would just require grabbing enough willing participants from each sub-fandom (CaptainSwan, SwanQueen, OutlawQueen, EvilRegals, etc.) and giving them a couple different questionnaire tests to take. We could give them personality tests to measure areas like introversion vs. extroversion, passive personality vs. aggressive personality, agreeable vs. prone to fighting, etc. And of course general demographic information like age, gender, amount of time spent online...

[myril]

Remember way back in season 2, Hook was just introduced, people were hyperventilating, Hook might be killed soon or at the end of the season, finding hints in nothing, falling for rumors that weren't even there. Think I upset some people, when around that time I said, I would prefer the writers to kill such a character like Hook, before he would turn into some useless pirate staying around just for being eye candy for major parts of the audience to drool over. Even said something like that I wouldn't like to see him become more or less Emma's lapdog - guess still a view not good to get me friends. Later in that season people freaked every time Collin O'Donoghue was not seen for a day or so on any set, not seen filming in time.

 

Not forgetting the constant wails, that there was not enough Rumple and Belle, after pretty much every episode.

 

Maybe Emma just has the more introvert and guarded fans, who even if emotionally highly invested in their favorite character, are not stridently expressing their fears and angers in all public but fume more in silence or more subtle ways - so they are just less visibile. Different characters attract different people.

 

Fan hysteria.

 

This fandom is so ripe for troll attacks, but might have said that already.

Edited October 9, 2014 by katusch

[Crimson Belle]

 

Later in that season people freaked every time Collin O'Donoghue was not seen for a day or so on any set, not seen filming in time.

I don't remember that in season 2 at all.  In fact, I remember people not so much freaking out when Hook wasn't on screen because everyone realized that Hook wasn't being seen for weeks at a time because Colin broke his leg.

[KingOfHearts]

Frozen is getting considerable hate on the official Facebook page, with several people saying it's boring and distracts from the main cast. I even saw a few say they think it's the worst season ever, and we're only two episodes in. Is it just a bunch of Evil Regals disgruntled from the lack of Regina in 4x02? This is from the same crowd who thought Outlaw Queen and 3B were just epic.

Edited October 9, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[myril]

I don't remember that in season 2 at all.  In fact, I remember people not so much freaking out when Hook wasn't on screen because everyone realized that Hook wasn't being seen for weeks at a time because Colin broke his leg.

 

Before it was confirmed, that he had broken his leg some Hook fans were freaking out.

Edited October 9, 2014 by katusch