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

[Dani-Ellie]

I generally like Hook and enjoy how the relationship with Emma has played out, but I don't think these things should be immune from criticism and I can see why people take issue with them and would even agree on some points.

 

And yet some of the loudest voices who decry Hook also ship Swanfire and Swan Queen. These fans would be willing to accept (and actually push for) a relationship between Emma and the guy who dumped her 17-year-old self in jail (and the only reason I'm not including "pregnant" before 17-year-old is because Neal didn't know) and then never contact her again or a relationship between Emma and the woman who tried to have her killed as a baby, tried to kill her multiple times over the course of the series, is the reason Emma grew up without her parents, and who has killed two of her previous partners as well as her father. Neither of those relationships strike me as particularly healthy and Regina, in particular, comes across to me as someone who should never enter into a romantic relationship with anyone, for the safety of the other party.

 

So at a certain point, I really question how much of it is concern for social consciousness and how much of it is just not liking the ship. I'm not saying there are no problems with the portrayal of Hook, and I'm not saying I don't see where some fans are coming from. I'm just saying that there's more going on here than fans taking exception with the writing of certain lines.

 

Even still, what someone likes is what they like. If someone finds a problem with it, more power to them. If someone doesn't find a problem with it, more power to them. I personally find Rumbelle extremely unhealthy and problematic for a great many reasons, not the least of which because the symbol of their engagement was a deception, for crying out loud. But you know what I do? Stay the hell out of Rumbelle fandom. I'm not going to rain on the Rumbelle-ers' parade by tweeting them "but don't you see the power imbalance?!" messages.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[FurryFury]

But you know what I do? Stay the hell out of Rumbelle fandom. I'm not going to rain on the Rumbelle-ers' parade by tweeting them "but don't you see the power imbalance?!" messages.

 

This. I'm sorry, but I have enough experience with fandoms to know one thing: only people actually invested in a rival ship (or just fans of a character they perceive as a rival for screentime) will continue to pester the actors/writers that they don't like it for that long. If they have a legit dislike for something, they will say their piece and move on. Frankly, I hated that one character on Arrow (you probably know who I mean if you ever watched just one episode). I stayed with the show for a while and continued to criticize its faults. However, it soon became apparent the writers don't see their faults, so instead of whining about it I stopped watching and writing, because it was a deal breaker for me. I think shipping or just hardcore "stanning" is the only driving force powerful enough to make people repeat (and sometimes invent) their grievances all over the place for so many times. It's all about investment.

Edited October 16, 2014 by FurryFury

[Featherhat]

Yeah that's why I've been in and out of OUAT since 2B, can't stand the writers take on Regina (most other things I can take). 

 

For me fandom (In general) is at its worst when serious real life issues (LGBT rights/rape/race etc) get bought in purely to try and win ship wars and not due to the depictions of such on the actual show, especially when creators/actors get involved or people trying to bait the actors. It's not always easy to draw a line between legitimate discussion and shipping as the two do get tangled up with the best of intentions though. But yeah people bitching to JMO about the order of her hashtags have clearly shown what is actually important to them. 

[Rumsy4]

Rape Culture, by definition, is acceptance of problematic behavior. I don't see how a discussison of Rape Culture on the show does not include Regina, Neal and Rumple as well. Rumple's brutal murder of his wife is excused because Milah is not likable, and because he is supposed to have a good heart.

24/224 yr old Neal's impregnation, abandonment, and complicity in setting up a 16/17 yr old homeless girl for jail is excused as him having "no choice".

Regina is an actual rapist who has not been called out for her rape by anyone in the show (and lbr, by the writers as well). She got her husband murdered. She also roofied a whole civilization and made many of them commit sexual acts they would not normally do, like the hyper-sexualization of Red, splitting spouses and putting them in extra-marital relationships. But she has not been called out for it, and indeed, has been "rewarded" with Henry, and the friendship & support of her victims.

As for Hook, I understand that not everyone is comfortable with sleazy jokes or overt sexuality in a man. But that does not make him a proponent of RC. Sex joke is not equal to a rape joke, and his bad jokes haven't gotten him anywhere.

The "win your heart" line is anything but removal of Emma's agency. He states, in medieval terminology, that he is confident he will prove worthy of her affections. And he confirms to David that he does not see Emma as a prize to be won.

Charming's line saying that he will make Snow see that they are mfeo is not taken as RC. Why? Because, in the overall context of the Snow and Charming relationship, we can see that Charming is not the kind of guy to force a woman. In context, Emma's walls have been made pretty clear in the Show. And yet, when Emma yelled at Hook and Neal and told them that she choose Henry, only Hook stopped pursuing her.

If someone has a crush on a person, and the other person does not show signs of reciprocation, it does not mean that person A should completely stay away from person B. In all of 3B, Hook was a support to Emma, and she wanted him by her side. All her nasty remarks were directed at him to wound him (because Emma was messed up), not because she didn't want him by her side. Hook has never had a problem following a woman's lead, starting with Milah, Regina, Cora, to Emma. He supports and encourages Emma at every turn.

Do the writers overplay angst between Hook and Emma? I think so. But the imbalance is tilted in favor of Emma, not Hook. She still holds all the cards in that relationship.

So, at the end of the day, it's okay if people don't like Hook or CS. It's okay for people to like problematic relationships as well. Just because something doesn't float my boat, or because I think it's twisted, I don't judge people who like it. Are we going to start censoring all media so it only includes "non-problematic" stuff as defined by a certain subset of people? That's not right. And neither is it true to real life. And let's be honest, the people making the most noise against CS have a shipper bias. The constant harassment of the writers and actors over shipping is really bizarre to me. But yeah--here's my opinion, for what it's worth.

[myril]

I agree, discussing serious issues with strong, passionate shipper goggles on is barely helpful, neither for the ship nor for the issues. It is a fine line to walk to dismiss the way an issue is (mis-) used in shipping rows, without sounding like dismissing the issue as a whole, or as something that rightfully could be discussed about the show in general (if people would leave off their shipping goggles).

 

But I am somewhat confused, because I haven't seen hate or serious bitching about hashtag orders concerning her latest sitting on flor pic, at least on Twitter to Jennifer Morrison. A few remarks of the ambiguous funny kind (might have been just joking, might have been nagging), but that was it. Don't know about Facebook or Tumblr though. So what are we talking here about, one, three, maybe 5 or 10 people? One online stalker, bully can be enough to turn life into hell (see the case of Kathy Sierra and what Weev did to her), true, still I think we should take a look at proportions here. When I look at the hate thrown at people in the GamerGate thing, I think what I've seen so far against cast and crew of OUaT was still mostly moderate. Not saying it was okay, just saying that talking of hate the moment there is some maybe unjustified criticism and nagging is IMO blowing things sometimes out of proportion.

 

I know, someone tweeted Adam jokingly (as the person afterwards claimed, which is even true, I think, still it's crossing lines and was right to be addressed) a death threat a few days ago, and Adam gave a good answer. There was someone a while ago (during the tea-shipper-gate) wishing AIDS on Adam (think by now that tweet was deleted), so there have been some really nasty things, not denying that. As there have been rather stalkerish things concerning the cast - not just negative tweets, postings can be a problem, some of the seemingly positive stuff gives me some more creepy feelings. Still, not all, that is no doubt no good form, is hate or bullying.

 

 I simply have a problem, how at times in discussions on social media and forums, as in this thread, wrong or overly passionate behavior of fans, people is classified. I don't need death threats or wishes to classify haters, the power imbalance bullies make use of or try to create is not always visible on first sight, and trolls are occasionally hiding quite well (for a while), but not every rude, overdone tweet is trolling, bullying or hate. Sometimes people are just rude.

 

Shipping "wars" are ugly and OUaT is not the only fandom poisoned by too much (aka fanatical) shipping, whoever people are shipping.

Edited October 16, 2014 by katusch

[scenicbyway]

I do think the actors are pushed into promoting ships that are otherwise not going to happen on the show.  I remember last December, when the guy that plays "Happy" was tweeting and, was, essentially baited in to answering questions about different ships.  Not being particularly media savvy, he answered truthfully, by saying that the actors don't take certain shippers seriously because they know the direction the show is going in.  It blew up into a huge thing and it essentially got that actor written off the show until this season (not that he plays a huge role, but he disappeared from any more episodes until this season).  He was publicly admonished by Lana and Jen and Adam.  It was pretty ugly.

 

I like the interaction that Twitter provides between the actors and fans but, at the same time, I hate that because that media is fairly anonymous on the fan side people think they can make threats and say disparaging things because of that anonymity.  They say things there that they would never say to that person if they were standing in front of them.  I wish they'd recognize that the actors are just doing their jobs and they are real people with real lives outside of the show.  They have thoughts and feelings to.

 

I do like that Adam responds to people on Twitter, it does seem like he only responds to those with complaints sometimes, but I get the impression he responds to everyone that tweets him.

[Rumsy4]

I do think we should be careful to not use the word "hate" in describing problematic behavior that includes rudeness, bullying, harrassment, or variations therof. It can be used to overblow a situation, or alternately, to dismiss bad behavior because it may not be as extreme as the word suggests.

We should also keep in mind that one person being annoying over twitter may not be that big a deal, but when several people tweet annoying, rude, harrassing, bullying, or passive aggressive things at you on a daily basis, it builds up.

[ShadowFacts]

Aren't there enough woes in this world that we actually live in than to fixate on fictional tv character ships?  Some things deserve to be minimized, ignored, not responded to and immature social media behavior over imagined relationships might be one of them.  I expect these are mostly quite young, immature people who will grow out of some of these obsessions, but if they aren't, I think some people are living too vicariously. 

[Featherhat]

I think a lot of people fall into intense fandom as a way of distracting themselves from the often serious woes of the offline world. Some people are living vicariously for some a particular show or ship just hits an emotional spot that makes them feel invested in them. It's not all teenagers either. Notoriously some of the most intense fans in the Twilight are/were middle aged women. Harry Potter had males and females aged 10-80 participating online. I think a lot of fandoms have a wider age range than you might think.

 

For me personally I've always had a few books or TV shows that I become heavily invested in (not all), ever since I started learning to read or watching TV, not matter what was going on in my life good and bad. I was so relieved when I found online fandom when I was about 11/12 I could finally discuss a topic to death with loads of people instead of just a couple of friends who were the same. Even though fandom has become so much more mainstream I know a lot of people who think its strange to have indepth conversations about TV (even though some of them have studied literature and should know better). I've shipped and not in various fandoms with different enthusiasm (no horse in OUAT apart from Snowing) but I get some of the intensity, even though its always been way to easy for people to loose any sense of perspective, even before you could interact with producers and actors in real time, which has just made a volatile part of fandom even crazier and more prone to explosions than before.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Featherhat

[Aliasscape]

I do like that Adam responds to people on Twitter, it does seem like he only responds to those with complaints sometimes, but I get the impression he responds to everyone that tweets him.

Maybe it's gotten better but I personally tested that theory during the second season. I would tweet him something positive and or a question with no obvious underlying bite to it and he didn't answer. I would tweet him something with the slightest hint of negative (anti something on the show, not him as a person) and suddenly he'd notice me.

 

About the writers who won't admit to the rape issues, I always note the exception that Jane Espenson DID once acknowledge the Regina/Graham situation was rape. It was obvious she'd never looked at any other way, and I don't think Jamie Dornan did either.

[Rumsy4]

Maybe it's gotten better but I personally tested that theory during the second season. I would tweet him something positive and or a question with no obvious underlying bite to it and he didn't answer. I would tweet him something with the slightest hint of negative (anti something on the show, not him as a person) and suddenly he'd notice me.

I have had the exact same experience with Adam. I see him responding to reasonable tweets on occasion, but he seems to predominantly engage with the whiny people.

[daxx]

Adam has responded to my positive tweets several times. 5 times in total, only one was an actual question, the rest were positive feedback basically.

[Emma]

Never mind.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Emma

[sharky]

Another vote for positive Adam response to my positive tweet. I don't feel that special anymore now. :-(

Edited October 17, 2014 by sharky

[Rumsy4]

I guess he just doesn't like answering my positive/neutral tweets then, haha.

[Rumsy4]

Some perspective from a CS fan who was on set recently. http://the-lady-swan.tumblr.com/post/100207406495/perspective-is-everything

I guess this explains Socha's two-fingered salute. I'm not particularly surpeised. Larry (the pap who took Socha's pic) has always been a little shifty.

[Minneapple]

They should at least leave Ginnifer and her baby alone. It's really fucking creepy when paps are taking pics of babies.

 

As for Hook, I understand that not everyone is comfortable with sleazy jokes or overt sexuality in a man. But that does not make him a proponent of RC. Sex joke is not equal to a rape joke, and his bad jokes haven't gotten him anywhere.

I agree. I think a few of the things Hook has said/done have been problematic, but hanging about and being flirty is not rape culture.

[Shanna Marie]

"If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were trying to get me drunk -- which is usually my tactic" could imply he usually gets woman drunk to get them into bed.

I find that one ironic when used as evidence that Hook is a rapist because it was a line he said to a woman who was at that time deliberately getting him drunk while making a point of staying sober, herself, so that she could manipulate him and take advantage of him. The "date rapist" in that scene is actually Emma, though I suppose she kind of had consent from his future self, since he was in on the plan (but not really happy about it).

 

I do think that social media helps fuel some of the more extreme fringes of fandom because it opens at least the illusion of the lines of communication between fans and creators, which in turn creates the probably false hope of being able to influence things. In the Dark Ages, fans might gripe to each other if story lines weren't going the way they'd prefer, but now they have at least the slightest hope of making their voices heard by someone who can do something about it, and that encourages them to get really loud and vocal about their wishes. It doesn't help that a lot of companies are doing customer relations via Twitter these days, so people have come to expect that tweeting someone involved can make things happen, and then there's the overall sense of cultural entitlement that comes when almost all entertainment is seemingly on demand -- get what you want, the way you want it, when you want it. Why not get the content tailor-made to your specifications while you're at it? Add to that the echo chamber effect that makes it easier to feel "right" about these issues rather than remembering that it's a matter of opinion that not all viewers share, and things can get out of control.

[retrograde]

Some perspective from a CS fan who was on set recently. http://the-lady-swan.tumblr.com/post/100207406495/perspective-is-everything

I guess this explains Socha's two-fingered salute. I'm not particularly surpeised. Larry (the pap who took Socha's pic) has always been a little shifty.

Canadagraphs, the guy she's talking about, is this guy. He's a straight-up pap and autograph hound and appears to be a massive dick, saying really horrible things about actors who won't put up with his shit. Larry, this guy, who took those photos, appears to be a legit fan of the show -- I don't think he's selling his photos -- though he does appear to be on set a lot, and there seems to be some tension with some of the other locals who show up to all the location shoots. 

 

Anyway, this is a good post. I admit I struggle to sympathize with anyone who shows up to the set because I've never had any desire to meet an actor in person (and watching TV shoots is incredibly boring), but at least these guys seemed to be pretty respectful. Actors are always hounded down if they suggest they don't particularly like dealing with fans on set, but it seems like a really annoying thing to have to deal with when you're at work, sometimes bordering on creepy and scary. 

 

I have often wondered if some of the fans who show up day after day to take photos do so more for the "likes" and shares and encouragement from other fans on social media than to further their own enjoyment of the show. 

[KAOS Agent]

I'm not crazy about fans standing around taking pictures of the actors as they walk to and from the set, but if they're genuinely just regular people who are hoping to get a snap of a favorite actor, I don't have a problem with them taking pictures of Ginny as she walks by. If she has issues with people taking pictures of her baby, she could just put him in a carrier and cover it with a blanket when she's walking to wherever on set. It's kind of something you have to expect when your entire career is based on people liking you and wanting to see you. Now, paparazzi or random people accosting her on the street to take photos of her and her kid is a different story, but it's not like it's a surprise when fans are there to take pictures on the set. They've always been there.

 

I don't know where these location shots are being done, but  I once had a movie being filmed across the street from my house and it caused me massive headaches trying to get to and from my home. When I went to try to talk to someone about it, security was really rude to me and acted like I was some crazed stalker instead of a resident who resented the intrusion on my neighborhood. Not everyone is interested in what they're doing and would just like to go home and take a nap after class before going to work. However, if any of the actors had walked to one of the trailers parked directly in front of my house, I might have tried to say hello, at which point I might have been perceived as an annoying fan rather than someone who was just taking advantage of the opportunity to meet someone that I enjoy watching on film. 

[Camera One]

I would feel like a total pest if I were to visit the set.  Though I was travelling in another country once and there was a movie being filmed on the sidewalk so we were stopped from walking any further.  It was interesting to watch even though I didn't speak the language.  

 

For an actor, I would imagine it's harder to get into character with a crowd watching you and it breaks the scene to stop for a fan photo in between takes.  If they were filming in a quiet area in the forest, it would be easier to imagine they actually were Emma, Charming, or whoever.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Camera One

[kili]

I don't know where these location shots are being done.

 

From the description, they are in Stanley Park along the seawall. Stanley Park is the most popular tourist attraction in Vancouver and is extremely popular with the locals as well. One of the most popular things to do in Stanley Park is to go for a walk/jog/cycle around the seawall. It's a paved path around the park offering fantastic views. I can only imagine how many people were walking by with cameras. That's probably Pipeline Rd from the looks of the pictures.

Edited October 17, 2014 by kili

[retrograde]

Most of the location shots that aren't in Steveston are in parks, I believe. I mean, yeah, they're public places and anyone can legally take photos of anyone else in the public view, but that doesn't mean it isn't annoying. I can imagine in an area like a forest where everyone is basically stuck in the same spot that it can be a bit intimidating, especially for female actors, when paps or fans with no sense of boundaries try to evade security and get as close as possible or to catch "candid" shots. 

 

TV shows and movies are basically always filming in my neighborhood year-round, so I feel you on jerk security guards trying to tell you you can't walk on public sidewalks or access your own building, KAOS Agent. But with the exception of Steveston, most of the Once location shoots (this season) at least, seem to have been in fairly secluded locations (ETA I agree that Stanley Park isn't one of them) that fans and paps have had to go out of their way to track down. Again, if it's a public place, it's legal for them to do it, but I get why the cast and crew don't love it -- especially because it's often the same people again and again, and the Steveston shoots do offer ample opportunities for people to watch filming and meet the actors. 

Edited October 17, 2014 by retrograde

[myril]

I do think that social media helps fuel some of the more extreme fringes of fandom because it opens at least the illusion of the lines of communication between fans and creators, which in turn creates the probably false hope of being able to influence things. In the Dark Ages, fans might gripe to each other if story lines weren't going the way they'd prefer, but now they have at least the slightest hope of making their voices heard by someone who can do something about it, and that encourages them to get really loud and vocal about their wishes.

 

In the Dark Ages of predigital life there were things like letters though, just that this happened mostly unseen by public. And they stayed unpublished, because whoever would want to publish such letters would have to get permission by the authors of the letters , which I doubt many would give asked directly. What some people seem to take as perhaps an advantage for them, more power through more visibility and illusion of direct access to cast and crew, has a downside: they are visible as well.

 

Unless they're real trolls, most fans don't bother, don't even want to really stay anonymous, using a funny name as handle does very little for anonymity, and is more about expressing identity, love for a certain show, character, than about hiding real life identities. People post about their whereabouts, things they do, and even selfies, so a lot of fans are quite recognizable, they are publicly visible just seldom person of larger public interest. What once stayed invisible in fan letters to cast and crew, happens now for all to see. Additionally, I think, writing a letter or email is a different thought process, people care about their own language and what they say in a different way when writing a letter than about what they say in a seemingly ongoing chatter or direct talk, even more so if it's not a face-to-face talk but still real time, where we might say some things before thinking it through, with more emotions involved, caught in the moment. People lie more in phone calls and are more honest when writing emails, that's what a study suggests, and it fits my experience in customer service. I think that Twitter is more like a phone talk, an open phone conference, while on Facebook people might feel a slightly more inclined to keep face, having more likely friends and family following them, people they care about and meet regularly in person. It's not so much anonymity in the sense of intentionally hiding identity but a lack of relationship making a difference IMO. Okay, some might believe they are rather anonymous on Twitter, but they seldom really are.

 

And often enough it's obvious, that people don't even realize, that what they write might be noticed by someone outside there own comfort-zone let alone a larger public. It's like mumbling something you think you're friends, followers should hear, but you did so while standing right next to a microphone, which was on, broadcasting your stupid, spontaneous remark out into the world, aka you addressed the person you're talking about in your tweet, post, and the person of public interest you made a remark about gives you an answer or even retweets it. People don't always think through what they're doing at a certain moment in a public place like Twitter, because it creates the illusion of ongoing chatter. Not many of us get a training in Public Relations, but it might be a good idea by now if most of us do as users of social media and other public internet places (this forum is a public place too, not only members can read in it, maybe not the open market Twitter is, more like a pub, still people could and might listen, people you don't fancy to know some things eventually).

 

By the way: It kinda amuses me, that some people don't seem to know (or care?), that if they hit the reply button on Twitter, even if they take out the handles, the tweets are shown in connection. It gets annoying, when two people have an endless private convo following a retweet or reply to another person. Might help to learn a bit about a tool before using it (and as with cars: you can learn in short time to drive it, but it's another matter to drive it in traffic).

 

I don't know where these location shots are being done, but  I once had a movie being filmed across the street from my house and it caused me massive headaches trying to get to and from my home. 

 

Yup, it's nice, isn't it. Once came home from work, all tired, fed up (customer service work makes you wish at times for a cabin in the lonely woods for after work hours, and it's not even so much because of the customers), but couldn't get into my house for about an hour, because they were filming in front of it. Put me in no good mood. Although lightened up a little when I got a glimpse of the lead of the show that was filming there, I like some of the things she does.  But somehow they'd forgotten to announce they were going to film that day there, otherwise would have been prepared. Had more fun when I had a chance to watch filming of a scene for a TV movie at my work place, was a nice lunch and coffee break entertainment. Filming is a lot of standing or sitting around for some people and waiting that others get read with their stuff.

Edited October 17, 2014 by katusch

[Serena]

I'm gonna sound judgemental, but those two guys (paps/set stalkers) are effin' creepy. I can't even imagine what the women of the cast, especially, feel like having those two grown men hanging around set and staring at them all the time. You know, fans coming from far away hoping to maybe met their favourite actor is one thing - yeah, they hang around for a few days, but then they go away. But those people with the huge cameras that are there all the time? Especially when there's Ginny's baby on set? Creepy.

[sharky]

This all reminds me of a tweet that went out maybe two weeks ago a about not accosting actors while they are on set and that security was clamping down. I'm assuming it's because of incidents like this. I can understand fans watching filming on a street in Steveston -- it's out in the open and very public. But then this week someone posted a picture of some of the actors walking from their trailers to the set on the studio lot. That seemed a little much.

And yes, feel you guys on the filming near you issue. My son was two years old and in day care when his baby sitter let us know that she got a notice saying they were going to film a movie two doors down from the day care. It wasn't a big deal -- security was very nice when I would drop off and pick up each day. But I got curious about the movie and did a Google search only to find pap pictures of the actors taken less than a block away from my kid's day care. That was a bit unsettling. But on the positive, there weren't any fans there and Steven Soderberg said hi to my son, who responded by singing Darth Vader's theme song.

[myril]

 

 

Scott Michael Foster: Right, I've broken into two other groups of people: the Frozen family, which is a large, growing family, and then we have the Once Upon a Time family, which is full of avid fans. I'm learning about that because they have such a strong presence online. They make their appreciation very known.

Source: Once Upon a Time: Scott Michael Foster Teases Big Scene with Anna and Playing Reindeer Games (interview contains spoilers)

 

That is one way to put it ;-)

Edited October 18, 2014 by katusch

[Rumsy4]

Many Rumbelle/Rumple fans were freaking out on twitter after Robert Carlyle's recent interview came out, where he questions whether Rumple deserves a Happy Ending, and claims that "Rumbelle" is not a unit, but Rumple and Belle are two separate characters in their own right. Even though a lot of people were tweeting at him, there was none of the rancor displayed when they tweet JMo, Adam, or other people. I wonder why that's the case? Perhaps his age protects him to a certain degree?

[Camera One]

Maybe they know he won't engage?  He isn't really that active on Twitter.

[Souris]

Because they know he absolutely won't take their shit? And he truthfully doesn't give a rat's ass anyway. He has a very "no fucks are given" attitude. Bullies target those who will give them the response they seek or who they perceive as weak or susceptible. They know they're not going to get anything out of him.

[FabulousTater]

Ya, Carlyle has zero fucks to give about what the fandumb thinks. If he even did respond it probably would be something along the lines of taking a picture of a bowl of soup and tweeting it. And that as you say, would be that. (If you haven't heard Carlyle telling the Bowl of Soup story here's the link. It's pretty funny.)

Edited October 25, 2014 by FabulousTater

[Amerilla]

Ya, Carlyle has zero fucks to give about what the fandumb thinks.

 

That's not entirely accurate, though, and therein lies the tricky business about stars and fandoms.

 

Carlyle is well aware of the Rumbelle fandom - he's always gracious towards them in his rare social media forays and in public outings, he and Emilie have used it to raise money for charity, etc. He knows the show itself tacitly treates it as something that exists. He knows it's a part of the audience and he knows it's part of his job when publicizing the show to keep them watching.

 

Same with Lana:  we can validly criticize her for queerbaiting the Snow Queen contingent, because it does seem to fall disproprotionately on Jen. On the other hand, it's part of her job to make sure the largest number of people posssibly religiously tune in on Sundays, and odious as we may find that segment of the audience, it is a segment of the audience.

 

Particularly on a show that isn't exactly putting  lot of new asses in the seat, you don't get extra points for pissing people off.

 

All of this is a tempest in a teacup, so to speak. Robert's comment hit that fandom as the reality of the plot is becoming increasingly clear, and that this dagger is going to be sort of like what Csers are enduring with the lip/hand curse - completely random bullshit that makes charaters they like look like morons. Had he said the exact same thing last season, I'm not sure it would have had the same impact.

[Rumsy4]

 

Same with Lana:  we can validly criticize her for queerbaiting the Snow Queen contingent, because it does seem to fall disproprotionately on Jen. On the other hand, it's part of her job to make sure the largest number of people posssibly religiously tune in on Sundays, and odious as we may find that segment of the audience, it is a segment of the audience.

 

Queerbaiting is not fair to Swan Queen fans. Because it keeps dangling the prospect of that pairing in their face, just to get their hopes up, even if it's never going to happen. Some of Lana's recent interview comments can be easily construed as straight up Qb lines

(like saying Regina is playing hard to get, and that Emma comes clean that she needs Regina)

. However, since Lana does make such comments, the rabidly vocal part of the SQ fandom does tend to coddle her, while being overly harsh to Jen.

 

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, Amerilla, but I don't think I'm wrong in saying that most of us do not consider the SQ fandom odious as a whole, just that the behavior of a certain segment of them can be so. After all, there's nothing wrong with crack shipping or fanon shipping. I have shipped many a non-canon pairing in other shows/books. It's when people fail to respect boundaries (or even see them), that it moves into the territory of problematic behavior. (ETA: And the opposite is true as well. People who ship fanon pairings get mocked and criticized unfairly as well. There was this whole debacle over H/Hr shippers being called delusional in a JKRowling interview that people still haven't forgotten.)

 

The ONCE writers have been very careful not to Qb in the Show, and in interviews/social media for the most part. Even Adam has stopped using his dumb "have hope/keep watching" line in his twitter responses when it comes to shipping. One of the ONCE writers made a very thoughtful response on twitter that she tries to be sensitive to the issue and not say/tweet anything that could be considered Qb. 

 

As for Robbie, I agree that his comments on Rumbelle reflect the storyline he's been given, but Jen has got hate and harassed for doing the same thing with her ships. That's where the dichotomy of fan response to his comments is obvious. I really do think it's because people know Carlyle's not on twitter that much, and that harassment won't work on him. I love JMo, but I think her life will be better if she stops responding/reacting to the awful "fans" who criticize her every move. 

Edited October 25, 2014 by Rumsy4

[Rumsy4]

And to clarify what I meant about the difference in fan response to Carlyle and JMo, here's an example: Several tweets addressed to him or mentioning him over this interview began with "I like/respect Robert..." But when it comes to JMo, I've seen people tweeting "I've lost all respect for JMo after...", and tagging her name. This has happened in several different instances with different shipper factions when it comes to JMo. I'm starting to wonder if this is a symptom of misogyny.

 

And just to be clear, I think CSers are capable of bad behavior as well. Some CSers try to monitor crack-shipping/fanon-shipping, and respond to hate with hate to the point where things have escalated badly. I really dislike it when people tell SQers that they "don't matter" and stuff like that. Really, people can get multiple PhDs out of studying fandom behavior. 

Edited October 25, 2014 by Rumsy4

[Souris]

That's not entirely accurate, though, and therein lies the tricky business about stars and fandoms.

 

Carlyle is well aware of the Rumbelle fandom - he's always gracious towards them in his rare social media forays and in public outings, he and Emilie have used it to raise money for charity, etc. He knows the show itself tacitly treates it as something that exists. He knows it's a part of the audience and he knows it's part of his job when publicizing the show to keep them watching.

 

I said he doesn't care about the fandumb, not the fandom. Not the same thing at all, though you may have thought I made a typo. I know he's very gracious to the general fandom of polite fans. But he definitely has a persona where you can tell he wouldn't put up with asshat behavior, aka "fandumb."

[Camera One]

Two other possibilities:

- fans might view Jennifer Morrison as their "peer" due to her age and social media savvy and familiarity (false familiarity from reading all her tweets and thinking they "know" her), versus Robert Carlyle as more of an elder, thus more restraint and respect.  Thus, the differential responses to them.

- Rumbelle fans may be largely a different contingent of people than the fans who are fanatic about Emma's romantic pairings.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Camera One

[Writing Wrongs]

No, William Shatner! Don't encourage them.

 

https://twitter.com/OncersSource/status/526578800121757696/photo/1

[Emma]

I try (not always successful) to understand where others come from but when I read comments like Emma got what she deserved, about time Regina put Emma in her place, good to see Emma finally bow to the Queen ... and I just don't get it.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Emma

[Rumsy4]

I posted about this in the Fanfic thread, but it certainly belongs here as well. I listed Regina as a character in one of my fics over at FF.net and Ao3, and included a warning saying it was not a pro-Regina story. I got four anon reviews within the hour, telling me that I was "slagging" off a character I hated, that it was horribly OOC, that people are not supposed to write about characters they "hate", that it was too bad people were going to judge all Emma and Henry fans based on people like me, that I wasn't a good enough writer to pull off a "hate fic", and that I was not supposed to tag Regina in the story because Regina fans would find that fic.

 

I deleted the worst of them, and have included a warning in CAPS that it was not a Regina-friendly story. I've also turned on the moderation option for anon reviews on ff-net. I've read of other CSers posting about reviewers complaining about how Regina was written, and I've seen anons post nasty comments in CS fics about "RC". 

 

In tumblr, tagging developed as a sort of convenience etiquette. It's not some unbreakable rule. It's a freaking lot of entitlement when people want to censor someone on fanfiction sites! These militant Evil Regals are really something else. ;-)

Edited October 28, 2014 by Rumsy4

[Dani-Ellie]

My very first story I ever wrote for Once was called "Breaking Point." It was set during season 1 and had actually come about because of a discussion on TWoP. I tagged Emma and Regina, because they were the main characters of the story. It was mind-blowing how many reviews I got pretty much expecting it to be a Swan Queen story. I never changed the tags, nor did I address the complaints because they weren't mean, just "how are they going to get together now?"-type comments, and my only response would have been, "They're not because I never intended them to."

 

Since then I've pretty much stuck to my Charming Family circle with the occasional foray into Captain Swan. I avoid Regina like the plague. Partly because I find her very difficult to write but mostly because I just don't want to deal with it. I had one reader who continually asked when Regina was going to make an appearance in my stories and left reviews saying she should show up. The only problem was I set many of them during season 2, at the point in the show when Regina was actively plotting to kill the Charmings. Having Regina show up to hang out during the Charming Family bonding time would have been a vastly different story than the one I wanted to write, because no matter what the Evil Regals might want to believe, Regina has done some awful things and I'm not going tp pretend she didn't. Plus, the reason why the Charmings need to bond as a family is because Regina separated them in the first place. So.

[FabulousTater]

I've never quite grasped the tagging in Tumblr. That is, I get how it works, but apparently there are tag police in each fandom that get a stick up their butt if you tag something with a character's name (because your post is about that character) but what you post doesn't put the character in a positive light. It's absolutely insane. Apparently the rule of etiquette is to put "anti" in front of the characters name because reasons. I don't get it. It's like people are incapable of just ignoring something they don't like and instead demand that you tag it as "anti" for them so they don't have to deal. As if they own that tag. Sometimes I just want to respond with,"Did you trademark that tag? Is it yours, did you give birth to it? I can tag my posts with whatever the hell I want to tag it with. It's my blog you immature child, not yours." And shouldn't the positive posts therefore be tagged as "pro"? It seems only fair.

 

Bah, it's all nonsense. BTW, Dani-Ellie, I saw that you were looking to start a fic tumblr (yay! :-D )  Tumblr can be a fun time suck, but let it be known it can also be a cesspool of self-involved, Regina-like hateful whiners. They are everywhere...

Edited October 28, 2014 by FabulousTater

[Crimson Belle]

I blame Upward Sports, where no team is the loser on paper, regardless of how badly it really gets beaten, which I guess is an example of the more general notion in some circles today that you can't have an opinion or have any morality or have any damn meaningful expression whatsoever if it would offend somebody, even if it's 100% truth.

[FabulousTater]

Word, Crimson Belle.

Everyone's a winner!  (Translation: No one is.)

[Rumsy4]

I've never quite grasped the tagging in Tumblr. That is, I get how it works, but apparently there are tag police in each fandom that get a stick up their butt if you tag something with a character's name (because your post is about that character) but what you post doesn't put the character in a positive light. It's absolutely insane. Apparently the rule of etiquette is to put "anti" in front of the characters name because reasons. I don't get it. It's like people are incapable of just ignoring something they don't like and instead demand that you tag it as "anti" for them so they don't have to deal. As if they own that tag. Sometimes I just want to respond with,"Did you trademark that tag? Is it yours, did you give birth to it? I can tag my posts with whatever the hell I want to tag it with. It's my blog you immature child, not yours." And shouldn't the positive posts therefore be tagged as "pro"? It seems only fair.

 

I do appreciate it when people tag stuff, because I can blacklist things that I don't want to see. For example, if people post a lot about shows I don't watch, blacklisting eliminates clutter on my dash. But the policing can get ridiculous. It's treated as a cardinal sin when something is not "tagged right". I always feel bad for tumblr newbies who have no idea of these ridiculous "anti" tag rules, and sometimes get caught up in fan-drama because they "mis-tagged" something. It's not just with the OUAT fandom though. Even some very small fandoms I track end up having insane policing issues. People don't seem to realize that it is a free internet (at least for now--haha). 

[daxx]

If I must rant I usually just don't tag at all. That way my followers can read it but no weird hate response from the offended fandom.

[Souris]

I've noticed Adam and all the writers have been very quiet on Twitter yesterday and today, with little to no Once-related interaction. It could simply be a coincidence or that they're busy, but given the ep on Sunday, it makes me wonder. I haven't looked to see what people are tweeting to them, whether there is a lot of blowback they're wanting to avoid or not. I just thought it was interesting.

[Shanna Marie]

So there are fans who not only harass people involved with the show for not giving their crackship fair and equal treatment, but also demand that their crackship be included in other people's fanfic?

 

I thought fanfic was all about exploring the things in the universe the writer wanted to explore, not catering to other fans' whims about the way they see the universe. You read the fic that shares your whims, since fanfic allows writers to go off-canon and explore widely, which means there are going to be vastly different interpretations.

 

(I kind of wish I had the time for fanfic right now because I could really mess with some people.)

[KingOfHearts]

Moved to Breaking Glass thread.

Edited October 29, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Minneapple]

Once on AO3 I read a Teen Wolf fic tagged Derek/Stiles that...wasn't really Derek/Stiles. People were PISSED in the comments. Like screaming angry at the poor writer, who was clearly just some teenager. And it wasn't like it was some giant waste of time reading it -- it was a pretty short one-shot fic. What's the big deal, man. Just move on with your life.

[Souris]

People who harass authors about how they should write or tag their fanfics just show more of that entitlement that runs rampant in certain portions of this fandom. If they think they have the right to demand things of the show's writers, it stands to reason in their twisted logic they'd think they have the right to demand things of fanfic authors. Because their way is the "right" way. Valid criticism is one thing, but harassing based on a personal fanon is another kettle of fish.