Book squee, extended version part one
Two things first--
1) I owe you and you (and also, you) comments, because you're being all interactive and insightful and stuff, but I already know I won't get to it tonight, because I'm being all hermetic.
2) I just fixed a window with a hammer.
WHY did I not know this book existed until so recently? Why?
I've taken to writing in the margins, because I want to TALK about this book, I want to discuss it with people, but I'm first on the block to read it. So I'm holding my conversation in the margins and page breaks. I'm demanding interactivity, because that's part of what fandom is to me. Interaction, discussion, commentary, META (yes, please).
But what I'm saying into the pages is half "Yes, yes, exactly, that's the experience, and what an interesting explanation," and half "No" -- or at least "What, for real? Was it ever really like this?"
Enterprising Women is copyright 1992, and the research itself is largely from the eighties. So, yes, obviously media fandom has changed. More than the source material itself, it's the mode of expression that's altered -- this study predates widespread internet usage. (Would I have found fandom without the internet? How?) While zines are still around, I believe websites and mailing lists have largely usurped their formerly central place. In many ways, this is an ethnography of the way things used to be.
But even bearing that in mind, some things, such as the division of thematic genres, sound off to me. And I can't tell if that's simply because I've been indoctrinated into the current genre-system, or if the divisions actually are off the mark. The listed categories are described as being of two types:
First, "Genre categories the fan women conceptualize to be about the community's 'us': women." (pg 52) These categories include "Mary Sue stories," "Lay-(Spock, Kirk, etc.) stories," and "hurt-comfort stories."
The second type is "Genres about 'them,' the culturally unknown: men." These categories include "Relationship (nonsexual) stories," "hurt-comfort stories" and "K/S stories." (Interestingly, when mentioning slash stories, she starts with a specific subset of slash -- namely, Kirk/Spock-- before going on to describe slash as a genre, whereas when mentioning 'lay' stories, she starts with an attempt to be nonspecific --'Spock, Kirk, etc.')
Now, maybe it's just me, but I don't conceptualize the different types of fanfiction as being about 'us' or about 'them,' divided along genderlines, much as I love gender issues. Then again, I'm a slash fan, and much of what I read would fall entirely into the latter category as a result. Is it different out there to nonslash readers?
(I'm trying to think of how I DO conceptualize different types of fanfic. I guess the broadest divisions I make within a particular source's fandom are Gen, Het, or Slash/Femslash. Because then I know which friends I can rec a story to.)
The ways in which the ethnography does resound with me, though, are more numerous. A few of the things I've underlined:
"In the fan community, fiction creates the community. Many writers contribute their work out of social obligation, to add to the discourse, to communicate with others." (pg 57) Because, yes.
"...the rules of structure, like the grammar of a native language speaker, operate at a level of tacit knowledge which surfaces primarily in the presence of a breach in preferred structures..." (pg 63) Despite knowing that the author's refering to larger structures -- genre, related universes and the like -- I can't help but be reminded of ellen_fremdon's point for discussion: "Grammar has displaced sex as a locus for shame." I still want that on a tee shirt.
And this interesting theory: "Fan stories typically depend on more than point of view, and a single event may be repeated twice or three times as it is experienced by the different characters present in the scene." (pg 65) I'm not sure how true this is generally -- Bacon-Smith also makes repeated reference to shared fan universes she calls 'story trees' which I have rarely encountered in current fandom -- though it puts me in mind of the 'remix' fanfics I've been seeing recently. This theory is then used to explain the prevalence of drabbles -- which she labels vignettes -- as the often new writer attempts to add "missing" dimension to the source material.
Behind that theory, though, is a slightly more challenging assertion about how women perceive the world: "Fanwriters... want to see characters change and evolve, have families, and rise to the challenge of internal and external crises in nonlinear, dense tapestry of experience. Whether because of inate qualities or socialization, women perceive their lives in this way, and they like to see that structure reproduced in their literature." (pg 64) Okay, that? I'm not convinced that's true. But I'm awfully close to it, so maybe I can't see the forest for the trees? I don't know. I like a degree of linearity. I like my stories to have a beginning, middle, and an end. On the other hand, I do tend to read a lot of fanfiction that retreads the same ground but in new ways. I have read how many get-together fics for the same two characters? How many "Post-episode significantturningpoint" for the same episode by various authors? I'm not convinced that's necessarily a gender-marker for me, but she may be on to something. At the very least, it's possible that "What appears to an outsider as boring repetition is the logical result of a worldview that sees every interaction as a multi-layered experience out of which reality is negotiated." (pg 66) I'm just not convinced that's necessarily gender-based.
Okay, I have GOT to cut this short so I can get some sleep, so I won't get into her interpretation of costume and material art after all, though I think her ideas of defining space through clothes is really pretty cool.
One final thought, though: Bacon-Smith found that fandom schisms fill a necessary social function. When a fandom's core grows too far past the number of people a member can have a 'personal acquaintance' with, which the author says is between 250 and 500 members, "the stress builds to an extent that the group must fragment or self-destruct." (pg 24) This is interesting to me, because most of the fandoms I've wandered into seem to have had some sort of major division at some point in their group history. A time of strife referred back to by the old-time fans whenever the subject of flaming or not-so-con crit comes up. And now I've been handed a hint towards why, which I HOPE will get explored in later chapters.
1) I owe you and you (and also, you) comments, because you're being all interactive and insightful and stuff, but I already know I won't get to it tonight, because I'm being all hermetic.
2) I just fixed a window with a hammer.
WHY did I not know this book existed until so recently? Why?
I've taken to writing in the margins, because I want to TALK about this book, I want to discuss it with people, but I'm first on the block to read it. So I'm holding my conversation in the margins and page breaks. I'm demanding interactivity, because that's part of what fandom is to me. Interaction, discussion, commentary, META (yes, please).
But what I'm saying into the pages is half "Yes, yes, exactly, that's the experience, and what an interesting explanation," and half "No" -- or at least "What, for real? Was it ever really like this?"
Enterprising Women is copyright 1992, and the research itself is largely from the eighties. So, yes, obviously media fandom has changed. More than the source material itself, it's the mode of expression that's altered -- this study predates widespread internet usage. (Would I have found fandom without the internet? How?) While zines are still around, I believe websites and mailing lists have largely usurped their formerly central place. In many ways, this is an ethnography of the way things used to be.
But even bearing that in mind, some things, such as the division of thematic genres, sound off to me. And I can't tell if that's simply because I've been indoctrinated into the current genre-system, or if the divisions actually are off the mark. The listed categories are described as being of two types:
First, "Genre categories the fan women conceptualize to be about the community's 'us': women." (pg 52) These categories include "Mary Sue stories," "Lay-(Spock, Kirk, etc.) stories," and "hurt-comfort stories."
The second type is "Genres about 'them,' the culturally unknown: men." These categories include "Relationship (nonsexual) stories," "hurt-comfort stories" and "K/S stories." (Interestingly, when mentioning slash stories, she starts with a specific subset of slash -- namely, Kirk/Spock-- before going on to describe slash as a genre, whereas when mentioning 'lay' stories, she starts with an attempt to be nonspecific --'Spock, Kirk, etc.')
Now, maybe it's just me, but I don't conceptualize the different types of fanfiction as being about 'us' or about 'them,' divided along genderlines, much as I love gender issues. Then again, I'm a slash fan, and much of what I read would fall entirely into the latter category as a result. Is it different out there to nonslash readers?
(I'm trying to think of how I DO conceptualize different types of fanfic. I guess the broadest divisions I make within a particular source's fandom are Gen, Het, or Slash/Femslash. Because then I know which friends I can rec a story to.)
The ways in which the ethnography does resound with me, though, are more numerous. A few of the things I've underlined:
"In the fan community, fiction creates the community. Many writers contribute their work out of social obligation, to add to the discourse, to communicate with others." (pg 57) Because, yes.
"...the rules of structure, like the grammar of a native language speaker, operate at a level of tacit knowledge which surfaces primarily in the presence of a breach in preferred structures..." (pg 63) Despite knowing that the author's refering to larger structures -- genre, related universes and the like -- I can't help but be reminded of ellen_fremdon's point for discussion: "Grammar has displaced sex as a locus for shame." I still want that on a tee shirt.
And this interesting theory: "Fan stories typically depend on more than point of view, and a single event may be repeated twice or three times as it is experienced by the different characters present in the scene." (pg 65) I'm not sure how true this is generally -- Bacon-Smith also makes repeated reference to shared fan universes she calls 'story trees' which I have rarely encountered in current fandom -- though it puts me in mind of the 'remix' fanfics I've been seeing recently. This theory is then used to explain the prevalence of drabbles -- which she labels vignettes -- as the often new writer attempts to add "missing" dimension to the source material.
Behind that theory, though, is a slightly more challenging assertion about how women perceive the world: "Fanwriters... want to see characters change and evolve, have families, and rise to the challenge of internal and external crises in nonlinear, dense tapestry of experience. Whether because of inate qualities or socialization, women perceive their lives in this way, and they like to see that structure reproduced in their literature." (pg 64) Okay, that? I'm not convinced that's true. But I'm awfully close to it, so maybe I can't see the forest for the trees? I don't know. I like a degree of linearity. I like my stories to have a beginning, middle, and an end. On the other hand, I do tend to read a lot of fanfiction that retreads the same ground but in new ways. I have read how many get-together fics for the same two characters? How many "Post-episode significantturningpoint" for the same episode by various authors? I'm not convinced that's necessarily a gender-marker for me, but she may be on to something. At the very least, it's possible that "What appears to an outsider as boring repetition is the logical result of a worldview that sees every interaction as a multi-layered experience out of which reality is negotiated." (pg 66) I'm just not convinced that's necessarily gender-based.
Okay, I have GOT to cut this short so I can get some sleep, so I won't get into her interpretation of costume and material art after all, though I think her ideas of defining space through clothes is really pretty cool.
One final thought, though: Bacon-Smith found that fandom schisms fill a necessary social function. When a fandom's core grows too far past the number of people a member can have a 'personal acquaintance' with, which the author says is between 250 and 500 members, "the stress builds to an extent that the group must fragment or self-destruct." (pg 24) This is interesting to me, because most of the fandoms I've wandered into seem to have had some sort of major division at some point in their group history. A time of strife referred back to by the old-time fans whenever the subject of flaming or not-so-con crit comes up. And now I've been handed a hint towards why, which I HOPE will get explored in later chapters.