What makes a fandom popular?

[feliciacraft]

(ETA: Anonymous replies screened but enabled.)

So I’ve been thinking about what attributes in canon material-be it a book, a movie, a TV show, an anime series or whatever-tend to create large, popular fandoms.

Comments

[torrilin]

There's a kind of "shape" to universes that leave room for other creators. While Young Wizards fandom is tiny, there's space in the canon the books give for other stories than Diane Duane might write. And Diane's been real clear that was a deliberate choice on her part. Not all her original stuff is as well suited to having fandom make stuff. (and having a creator who makes sure to leave space and nurture the fandom sure doesn't hurt) Looking at some of the stuff she or Marjorie Liu or Kelly Sue DeConnick write about how you make a universe for many creators is probably worth it. (there's probably other useful folks too, but I find it's usually better to look at stuff from female creators because they tend to point out things like how to include female characters, or black characters, or Hispanic ones)

A lot of book fandoms tend to have fairly hostile creators. Sad, but true. And a hostile creator can do a lot to damage a fandom. And most book fandoms aren't all that big and healthy to begin with. Harry Potter, LoTR, Game of Thrones and Wheel of Time are probably the healthiest book fandoms. And all are aggressively hostile to female characters. Plus 3 outta the four have had TV or movies about them, so they're not "pure" book fandoms mostly.

Book fandoms tend to have a very different rhythm than TV or movie fandoms. Book fandoms tend to be driven by canon, so the (hopefully) annual new book tends to provoke a lot of activity. TV fandoms get new canon material a lot more often. And movie fandoms have a lot of tie in merchandise that often gets viewed as canon. And if it's a movie series, there will often be set picture leaks or script leaks. Lots and lots of dribs and drabs.

[feliciacraft]

> Book fandoms tend to have a very different rhythm than TV or movie fandoms.

I think you're right about that. I remember waiting desperately for the next Harry Potter book to come out, and fandom activity would come in bursts. Basically, every time a leak or some news came out. In between, we filled out time analyzing old material TO DEATH, because there isn't much new to obsess over. Predictions are done based on close reading of canon material, or the reading of tea leaves (which, in HP, *is* canon). ;)

Then there was absolute frenzy when the book was finally published. There were advance orders. Midnight book release parties. Lines that wrapped around bookstores (at a time where there were physical bookstores...sigh). A TV show with a weekly schedule is much more focused on fresh content.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "hostile creators"? Insensitivity to fandom? Total disregard for women, minorities, etc.?

[torrilin]

Hostile creators == DMCA takedown notices on many kinds of fannish activity. Fanfic frequently gets targeted. But fan art can be an issue too. Usually meta and analysis are safe. Usually. But a particularly intent creator may go after that too. (most of my fandoms are more book centric, and a number have had pretty hostile creators, so I am a huge fan of OTW and the legal cases that are working to protect fannish activity) Diana Gabaldon and Anne Rice are both notorious for this. And Robert Jordan wasn't too fanfic friendly as I recall. Creators with a heavy TV or comics background like Joss Whedon and Diane Duane tend to be MUCH less antsy about fans.

Racist/sexist/abusive creators happen too, but they don't necessarily hate the whole concept of fandom and all its' works.

[feliciacraft]

I haven't witnessed DMCA takedown notices in action--that must be terrifying to get as a fan! I, too, am all too glad that the OTW exists to advocate on behalf of fandom content creators. I know that fanvids sometimes disappear from YouTube due to takedown requests. So disappointing.