Knitting has a community, certainly. We have BNFs (BNKs?) and do the things that you talk about in the post; squeeing over yarn, patterns, released. Fangirling designers and creating our own homages. Knitting can also be a vehicle for people to display their fan interests, e.g. the community who_knits.
I've never really thought of it as a fandom, though. When I analyse that reaction, maybe it comes from the fact that there is no one single source text (i.e. there's no canon per se); that it is usually framed as a mode of production rather than a text itself. It could be comparable to a TV fan community that discusses a number of shows and the ways in which they're created (maybe something like TV Tropes?) perhaps?
BUT on the other hand, there are well known patterns (e.g. Clapotis) which have been interpreted and re-interpreted and actually form part of the knitter's vocabulary; one could argue that each interpretation is just as valid a cultural artefact as the 500th post-countrycide fic.
Yup, that's what I thought re. knitting. You could definitely define it as a fandom by those things... as to canon, i'd even say it would be more "what constitutes knitting'.. so like, cross-stitch might be considered OOC *g*
(['m a multicrafter. I'm making another hoodie this weekend. I need to post up some pictures of my sewing projects tomorrow, including the hoodie with the wobbly pockets because I'm not very good at sewing yet.)
So maybe OOC can then be "multiple perspectives on characterisation"? So next time someone says "hey, I thought having Ianto collapse sobbing because Gwen had shiner hair than him is a bit OOC" I can say "I HAVE MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON CHARACTERISATION!"
I think the fannish 'impulse' is a human one - the one that causes us to get emotionally involved in a hobby/entertainment/non-work or family thing so, in that sense, I think 'everyone is a fan' isn't inaccurate.
My sense about what media fans feel about themselves is ... the strong need to feel as if we are 'other' or different, and also a minority. I think there's a lot of boundary maintenance that goes on in fandom. I also think that all the examples you give of media fandom can be found in other fannish, or human, areas. Dog and cat show aficionados, re-enactment people, doll collectors etc ... all of these have communities, obsesses over things, argue, meta about their area of fandom.
I think it's interesting that, for you, to expand the concept of fandom devalues it for you. Why is that?
It's not so much expanding the concept of fandom - it's using it to describe things that are fan practices, not fandoms. Those examples you give are to me like my knitting example - they are their own fandoms, and i'd absolutely say they could be called such. All those things though are very different to me than someone who obsesses over a music band or football team without participating in a community of those fans.
Just because someone exhibits a behaviour that can be described as fannish, doesn't mean they are in or are a fandom. To me fandom is more than just the fan practices, though they are integral, it's a combination of fan practices and time spent, community felt and negotiated, a feeling of place, production, emotion etc..
Well, all the ones I mentioned do those things. They have communties, they spend time, effort and emotion both in developing and maintaining those communities, and the stuff they're mutually interested in.
I think I don't agree with the idea that media fans are somehow different than other fan groups. I know that renactment (sp) people in particular are very community oriented, tied together, generate a great deal of emotional and physical effort and have a feeling of being part of something larger than themselves as individuals.
No, I think you're spot on. If their appropriation of "fandom" doesn't fit our experience of fandom then the extent of their writing has been to appropriate vocabulary, not an exploration of our experiences.
That's exactly the thing.. all this 'exploration' of fandom really isn't that at all in a lot of these texts.. One article went so far as to lament the fact that they couldn't find anything 'new' and 'surprising' in fandom - until he expanded the definition to include one person's experience with obsessing over different music types.. by himself..
to me that suggests that No, you obviously couldn't find something new in fandom. (Which annoys me, because there's so much interesting stuff going on.. and it's all being missed if we put our academic research into "phases" and say 'let's look at this now' when the first phase hasn't even been looked at in depth!)
I don't want to be too paranoid but it sounds like these articles were by men, where fandom is, typically, women's space and women's hobbies and a community, on the whole, of females. Sort of smacks of the mainstream usurping the disempowered's venue of escape and creative expression.
Yes... this was going through my head too. They are all written by men. Most (though not all) of the actual Books that have been published on fandom are by men. The journal articles are much more evenly gender distributed.
Vedy interesting! I'll say for me, when I think of the word "fandom" I think of media fans, well, more precisely, I think of community of fans for sci-fi, fantasy, and graphic novels & comic books. I think community is key in establishing a fandom. I was (am) a huge fan of Star Wars, X-Files, Alias, LotR, George R.R. Martin books, Battlestar Galactica, amongst others, but I never participated in fandom for any of them and I would not consider myself part of their fandoms, no matter how much I love those things. I think there is also a general sense of fandom that's not community-specific, but I would argue that you have to be involved in a specific community to understand the workings of fandom as a whole
( ... )
Absolutely - fandom isn't all about 'a community' but there are workings that you don't understand until you are in the community part of it.
I find the non-media fandom an interesting thing, 'cause while i can see it applying to some things (such as reanacters as xtricks supplied) I can't see it applying to sports fans. There is something else at work here, even more than community, what it is though is hard to pin down (and maybe can't be). I suppose some of it is just that we have a 'sense of fandom'. I think perhaps music groupies would also fall into that, 'hardcore groupies' that is.. it is another world, another thing to exist in.
I was thinking of fantasy football the other day actually, I suppose I don't consider them run of the mill 'sports fans' ;)
But like I said, I think some of those groups are definitely similar fandoms. Music groupies would absolutely be similar. Oh and I think particular sports fans too(though interestingly, perhaps the ones who have had to fight against perceptions of failure and thus marginalisation - i'm thinking of a lot of the NY sports fans with the looooong histories - yankees?)
I hate 'phases' too, especially for a field of study that is 20-30 years old. How can you possibly argue that a phase is done, if you looked at it for 5 years?? I'm finding similar problems with the 'virtual community' aspect of my research.. it is both 'new' and futuristic - and thus doesn't have a history and yet 'old' and 'done' in that I'm constantly told it's been done, an old subject. It's ridiculous
( ... )
This would be a bad time to point out i'm probably trying to get out of academia and into IT huh? I mean it's my back up plan, but the office politics i've kind of had enough of. Am hoping to find a nice progressive IT company and work on internet 'stuff'.. social networking or the like. Though I will admit, I will miss researching things I love.. it's a pretty big drawcard.
The thing I dislike most about it here is that my department is (apart from male and white) allegedly open to these things, there wouldn't be any talk of 'you can't research that' or 'you can't teach that'. It's simply more insidiously hidden and couched in other things - like this fandom of inclusiveness business.
I have to admit though i certainly worry about submitting the thesis and who might be doing the review of it. The fan aspect if read by the wrong person could still be seen as trivial female stuff.
Comments 43
I've never really thought of it as a fandom, though. When I analyse that reaction, maybe it comes from the fact that there is no one single source text (i.e. there's no canon per se); that it is usually framed as a mode of production rather than a text itself. It could be comparable to a TV fan community that discusses a number of shows and the ways in which they're created (maybe something like TV Tropes?) perhaps?
BUT on the other hand, there are well known patterns (e.g. Clapotis) which have been interpreted and re-interpreted and actually form part of the knitter's vocabulary; one could argue that each interpretation is just as valid a cultural artefact as the 500th post-countrycide fic.
Interesting post, Q. 'Tis making me think.
Reply
Reply
MULTICRAFTING!
(['m a multicrafter. I'm making another hoodie this weekend. I need to post up some pictures of my sewing projects tomorrow, including the hoodie with the wobbly pockets because I'm not very good at sewing yet.)
So maybe OOC can then be "multiple perspectives on characterisation"? So next time someone says "hey, I thought having Ianto collapse sobbing because Gwen had shiner hair than him is a bit OOC" I can say "I HAVE MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON CHARACTERISATION!"
Reply
My sense about what media fans feel about themselves is ... the strong need to feel as if we are 'other' or different, and also a minority. I think there's a lot of boundary maintenance that goes on in fandom. I also think that all the examples you give of media fandom can be found in other fannish, or human, areas. Dog and cat show aficionados, re-enactment people, doll collectors etc ... all of these have communities, obsesses over things, argue, meta about their area of fandom.
I think it's interesting that, for you, to expand the concept of fandom devalues it for you. Why is that?
Reply
Just because someone exhibits a behaviour that can be described as fannish, doesn't mean they are in or are a fandom. To me fandom is more than just the fan practices, though they are integral, it's a combination of fan practices and time spent, community felt and negotiated, a feeling of place, production, emotion etc..
Reply
I think I don't agree with the idea that media fans are somehow different than other fan groups. I know that renactment (sp) people in particular are very community oriented, tied together, generate a great deal of emotional and physical effort and have a feeling of being part of something larger than themselves as individuals.
Reply
Reply
Reply
to me that suggests that No, you obviously couldn't find something new in fandom. (Which annoys me, because there's so much interesting stuff going on.. and it's all being missed if we put our academic research into "phases" and say 'let's look at this now' when the first phase hasn't even been looked at in depth!)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I find the non-media fandom an interesting thing, 'cause while i can see it applying to some things (such as reanacters as xtricks supplied) I can't see it applying to sports fans. There is something else at work here, even more than community, what it is though is hard to pin down (and maybe can't be). I suppose some of it is just that we have a 'sense of fandom'. I think perhaps music groupies would also fall into that, 'hardcore groupies' that is.. it is another world, another thing to exist in.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
But like I said, I think some of those groups are definitely similar fandoms. Music groupies would absolutely be similar. Oh and I think particular sports fans too(though interestingly, perhaps the ones who have had to fight against perceptions of failure and thus marginalisation - i'm thinking of a lot of the NY sports fans with the looooong histories - yankees?)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The thing I dislike most about it here is that my department is (apart from male and white) allegedly open to these things, there wouldn't be any talk of 'you can't research that' or 'you can't teach that'. It's simply more insidiously hidden and couched in other things - like this fandom of inclusiveness business.
I have to admit though i certainly worry about submitting the thesis and who might be doing the review of it. The fan aspect if read by the wrong person could still be seen as trivial female stuff.
Reply
Leave a comment