Adventures Into Meta Fandom
Okay, so I saw elynross’s post and then cereta’s. While they both have salient points, I think my ideas somewhat diverge. It is a very general you precept that I find myself thinking again and again, particularly lately as it pertains to my fandom. Canon has split (or so it would seem) the fanbase. This split, in the past, has been acrimonious but mostly contained. Now, however, there’s hostility all over the place that I just don’t get. It’s coming out toward the characters, the actors (which TOTALLY blows my mind, but that’s a whole different issue entirely), and yes the “opposing” fans.
One of the reasons I don’t like the way canon is going is because it is ruining the show in my opinion. That it happens to involve the one character on the show that I absolutely do not like is immaterial. To clarify, if it were to happen between any OTHER two characters, I’d still dislike it. That the established characterization is being completely changed is upsetting regardless of who is involved. At the same time, I have these really arcane ideas of what it means to be a fan. To that end, I feel like it’s my responsibility to find something that helps me to step back and view the situation from a less critical space. In this instance, for me, it was to go back to reading slash. Helped a great deal, and I’ll explain why in another post. This is just a background understanding.
I am not particularly new to fandom, but I am new to fandom online. It’s something I intuitively avoided for many years, and after about a year of this I figured out why. I think regardless of topic (fandom, politics, economics, social issues, etc), the internet bubble, as I like to call it, is a death trap to rationality. Above and beyond the context issues this medium presents (lack of body language, intonation, and the like) that we all suffer from, I think one of the most overlooked issues is the fact that this medium hides with in it a subtle mechanism for grouping. It’s ironic to me that one of things pointed out in the comments of cereta’s post by sophia_helix was “I'm just not really sure I want everyone corralled into their own corners of "squee" and "hate" or whatever.” While I agree with it in theory, I believe the way the internet is set up for discussion makes this a very difficult tide to resist.
After all, the largest draw for reading blogs and comms is to find someone who shares your interest, views, or opinions. You know there are other webspaces out there that may dissent, but you typically only engage them when your view is asked for or their dissent is so egregious, in your opinion, that it must be addressed. I’ve seen it happen time and again. (Here is my sad attempt to model.)
Person A from Group X presents a view, we’ll call it View A.
Person B from Group Y sees it, but keeps her knee-jerk response in her private journal.
Person C, whom I affectionately refer to as The ShitKicker has waffled all over the place publicly posts about both views in a public space.
Wank ensues in both public and private spaces where both Person A and Person B get into it along with everyone else in the alphabet and some numbers.
Change topic, lather, rinse, and repeat.
Just as there are friends in the group who like to instigate drama, so too are there people on the ‘net who enjoy it. Do I think this accounts for all situations? Of course not. There will be stratification and grouping all over the place. I believe this is unavoidable as it’s our nature to do so. It is helpful to avoid where possible? Of course it is. Progress requires discussion. And I am a champion of exchange. However, the idea that people are not thinking about context, or too lazy or too young, or whatever have you leaves out the very real possibility that some people view the internet as a candy land for kicking shit. I could say LJ is particularly rife with it (as has been my experience), but it is definitely not limited to this space. There have been instances where simply asking a question is met with hostility. As I said in my comments on cereta’s post, I acknowledge having some of the same squee harshing reactions, though I manage to keep them to myself. I’m not here to harsh anybody. If I happen to think you’re incredibly lazy for not pumping up your google-fu before wading into verbal battle, eh no need for me to discuss it openly. I simply ignore you, and most other harsh. This goes especially for people who take it to my private journal. You have too much free time.
Additionally, some people have a skewed idea of what it means to debate or discuss. Some see it strictly in terms of “right or wrong” and “win or lose”. I avoid these types of discussions because the merit of the arguments get lost. I think these people, too, contribute to much of the harshing. Exchange of dissenting views does not have to involve a beat down. I can appreciate that you perceive things differently. I can even appreciate you squeeing about it. I tend to heavily exercise my right to not view your squeeage if that which you squee about makes me ill. The hostility, however, will turn me off faster than you thinking the canon on my show makes total and perfect sense when I choose to perceive otherwise.
So, in ramblish conclusion, I think that act of harshing on its surface is good to contemplate, however, I think it’s far more interesting and perhaps enlightening to consider the motive. Perhaps then we’ll all be able to learn when to engage and when not to, and when to let it bother us and when not to. If it’s personal, it deserves a response. No one should be allowed to disrespect someone. When it’s not personal, I think it’s just as interesting to discuss what pushes us to respond in that way in general. As I attempted to illustrate above, there are many different reasons why someone would harsh a squee. Personally, I think it’s fascinating in that trainwreck sort of way. My response is generally to try and figure out why and whether it deserves a response. Perhaps I’ll learn something in the process.
One of the reasons I don’t like the way canon is going is because it is ruining the show in my opinion. That it happens to involve the one character on the show that I absolutely do not like is immaterial. To clarify, if it were to happen between any OTHER two characters, I’d still dislike it. That the established characterization is being completely changed is upsetting regardless of who is involved. At the same time, I have these really arcane ideas of what it means to be a fan. To that end, I feel like it’s my responsibility to find something that helps me to step back and view the situation from a less critical space. In this instance, for me, it was to go back to reading slash. Helped a great deal, and I’ll explain why in another post. This is just a background understanding.
I am not particularly new to fandom, but I am new to fandom online. It’s something I intuitively avoided for many years, and after about a year of this I figured out why. I think regardless of topic (fandom, politics, economics, social issues, etc), the internet bubble, as I like to call it, is a death trap to rationality. Above and beyond the context issues this medium presents (lack of body language, intonation, and the like) that we all suffer from, I think one of the most overlooked issues is the fact that this medium hides with in it a subtle mechanism for grouping. It’s ironic to me that one of things pointed out in the comments of cereta’s post by sophia_helix was “I'm just not really sure I want everyone corralled into their own corners of "squee" and "hate" or whatever.” While I agree with it in theory, I believe the way the internet is set up for discussion makes this a very difficult tide to resist.
After all, the largest draw for reading blogs and comms is to find someone who shares your interest, views, or opinions. You know there are other webspaces out there that may dissent, but you typically only engage them when your view is asked for or their dissent is so egregious, in your opinion, that it must be addressed. I’ve seen it happen time and again. (Here is my sad attempt to model.)
Person A from Group X presents a view, we’ll call it View A.
Person B from Group Y sees it, but keeps her knee-jerk response in her private journal.
Person C, whom I affectionately refer to as The ShitKicker has waffled all over the place publicly posts about both views in a public space.
Wank ensues in both public and private spaces where both Person A and Person B get into it along with everyone else in the alphabet and some numbers.
Change topic, lather, rinse, and repeat.
Just as there are friends in the group who like to instigate drama, so too are there people on the ‘net who enjoy it. Do I think this accounts for all situations? Of course not. There will be stratification and grouping all over the place. I believe this is unavoidable as it’s our nature to do so. It is helpful to avoid where possible? Of course it is. Progress requires discussion. And I am a champion of exchange. However, the idea that people are not thinking about context, or too lazy or too young, or whatever have you leaves out the very real possibility that some people view the internet as a candy land for kicking shit. I could say LJ is particularly rife with it (as has been my experience), but it is definitely not limited to this space. There have been instances where simply asking a question is met with hostility. As I said in my comments on cereta’s post, I acknowledge having some of the same squee harshing reactions, though I manage to keep them to myself. I’m not here to harsh anybody. If I happen to think you’re incredibly lazy for not pumping up your google-fu before wading into verbal battle, eh no need for me to discuss it openly. I simply ignore you, and most other harsh. This goes especially for people who take it to my private journal. You have too much free time.
Additionally, some people have a skewed idea of what it means to debate or discuss. Some see it strictly in terms of “right or wrong” and “win or lose”. I avoid these types of discussions because the merit of the arguments get lost. I think these people, too, contribute to much of the harshing. Exchange of dissenting views does not have to involve a beat down. I can appreciate that you perceive things differently. I can even appreciate you squeeing about it. I tend to heavily exercise my right to not view your squeeage if that which you squee about makes me ill. The hostility, however, will turn me off faster than you thinking the canon on my show makes total and perfect sense when I choose to perceive otherwise.
So, in ramblish conclusion, I think that act of harshing on its surface is good to contemplate, however, I think it’s far more interesting and perhaps enlightening to consider the motive. Perhaps then we’ll all be able to learn when to engage and when not to, and when to let it bother us and when not to. If it’s personal, it deserves a response. No one should be allowed to disrespect someone. When it’s not personal, I think it’s just as interesting to discuss what pushes us to respond in that way in general. As I attempted to illustrate above, there are many different reasons why someone would harsh a squee. Personally, I think it’s fascinating in that trainwreck sort of way. My response is generally to try and figure out why and whether it deserves a response. Perhaps I’ll learn something in the process.