Chris Williams Responds to Our Questions about FanLib

[slashpine]

First, I hafta just add my voice to those saying: What's this we, white man? "Chris Williams Responds to OUR Questions" ... well, yes, but first he avoided responding (civilly; he did real well at the other) to fans politely inviting dialog with the FanLib exec who's all about fandom. It's MIT's Henry Jenkins who CW was willing to talk to,

Comments

[lily_liedtome]

I was just about to post the following to your previous entry in this journal, so I'm glad I decided to check again to see if you had posted this (also, now I can mem and rec you, which is fantastic!).

---

I've just read your response to Henry Jenkin's post of Chris Williams' response to fan's questions, and I wanted to tell you that I found it one of the best summations of some of my personal qualms with the fanlib endeavour that I've read. In particular, this point

FanLib seems to see the form and the function, the
structure and product, as separate. Thus, its desire to preserve and
promote the fan's work, while taking the fan community back into a
narrow, elite-ruled, mercantile-valued predecessor form, claims to
honor the product while exterminating the culture that produces them.was entirely new to me, and, on reading it, I realised that it is really an articulation of something which I previously had not been able to put my finger on about this whole situation

[slashpine]

Hey - I'd be delighted! I think I've seen your comments on metafandom stuff (?) And having just popped over to your lj, I see you have Meta Recs! On gender! Yee-ha. It's amazing how much is said about gender in western societies, and how little people seem to *learn* (grrr). Pleased to meetcha

[lily_liedtome]

I think I've seen your comments on metafandom stuff (?) And having just popped over to your lj, I see you have Meta Recs! On gender! Yee-ha. It's amazing how much is said about gender in western societies, and how little people seem to *learn* (grrr). Pleased to meetcha.

It's so true - people never seem to absorb what they learn about gender. Gender and Gender theory are kind of an obsession - I am a Women & Gender Studies major in RL and I find myself unable to resist a good discourse on gender. (literally, I always get sucked into reading these things)

I finally am learning to use all that lofty Foucault, Marx, etc. for actually analyzing something

Yeahhh...I'm still working on that one. :)

Since I don't think we are in the same fandoms in terms of shows, etc., that just makes this point even more clearly: the community we share is "meta." There's no way FanLib is going to capture that kind of interaction, much less facilitate it.Absolutely. And, honestly, I love meta - I love interacting with fans on a thinky level - not

[slashpine]

Wow! Thanks for focusing me in on this nagging issue of whether gender is the whole issue here. You're right; it's not. In fact, I feel an essay-length response welling up on the subject of "Credibility, Integrity, and Identity in Online Communities" which I will try *not* to draft here (but probably will; apologies

[slashpine]

Gotcha. and - WORD. The privacy is a huge deal.

But all the ways and ends it serves are what I'd never really gotten "thinky" about till now. Is privacy the only end served? Leaving Williams in the shallow end where he's comfortable preferably face down, do women professionals *only* use aliases to protect their RL, even at the cost of segmenting these parts of their identity

[cloviss]

I just popped over from Henry Jenkins blog. Many of the points you expressed so clearly were swarming around in my mind in an inchoate, and irate, mental soup.

Thank you for delineating both my concerns at the exploitative and hazardous nature of FanLib, and for the illuminating cultural parallels.

I am afraid it is a reflection on my own nature and training that I am less concerned at the 'hegemonic mindset', which I feel is only to be expected, than by the 'inadequate analysis' model. I would, however, like to point that inadequate analysis model does not necessarily exclude dubious intent.

As a parallel, I think the actions of G.W. Bush exemplify the marriage of the ethically indefensible with piss poor planning.

[slashpine]

Oooh, THANK YOU! My entire RL seems to be an "inchoate, and irate, mental soup" -- in fact, that is so perfectly put! I see an LJ title coming -- partly because inchoate *is* my middle name, lol, but mainly b/c I'm a graduate student wallowing in that whole soup of where-is-my-research-going and why-did-I-start-this and where-the-hell-did-my-so-called-advisor-go, anyway

[cathexys]

Another one who read your comment and had to tell you in person (am I the only one whose LJ identity seems more "real" than even my real name blog one?) just how smart and articulate and calm and insightful and incisive it was? (I have a few dozen more adjectives...I'll continue if you want :)

And I was certain I had you on my flist...and surprised to find out I didn't!

[slashpine]

Ooh! ::shakes my shoulders with all this feel-good flattery:: From you, this is such very high praise. I'm delighted it made sense! Too much academia has been hell on my sentence length, not to mention any ability I ever possessed to discuss anything without bringing everything else to bear. There may be such a thing as too much interdisciplinarity, certainly at my very science-y R1. It's fortunate for me that LJ is as inter-everything as it gets!

And ... ooh, am I now? Can I be, please? I don't know whether that's because I have adored your infrequent but awesome fics - or your equally awesome work on/in metafandom. Each more than the other :-)

[cathexys]

No fic :) Never fic! And I just left metafandom, but I hope my LJ's still worth readin... *g*

[slashpine]

Oh my goodness, it certainly is. I think I'm going to go lose myself there. (It's that or finish this teaching portfolio to document a film & social issues class that went too well: that is, produced more than I want to document, LOL).

Right, no fiction - of course! silly me. I don't know who I was thinking of. I "saw you on metafandom," as they say. At a glance? I don't know how you keep it all up. I am going to enjoy your LJ much. Thank you for friending me.

And - icon love.

[empathic_siren]

I enjoyed this very much! One aspect that you touched on (that has always been fascinating to me) is the concept of fandom as a cohesive group. This of course suggested to me that HP fandom at large operates as a folkgroup of sorts. (and of course, there are folkgroups within the larger organization, focused on slash, het, gen, etc.--all compartmentalized to some extent. Livejournal cannot be discounted as a folkgroup, as well, as that definitely has it's own "community" in the purest sense

A bunch of worthless beads!

[slashpine]

Thank you for your thoughtful response!

One aspect that you touched on (that has always been fascinating to me) is the concept of fandom as a cohesive group. ... within the larger HP fandom folkgroup, we do have an cultural identity. There is a hierarchy of sorts, rules, a code of ethics, cultural lingo/secret terms, biases, common goals, shared interests, and sense of ritual. People on the "outside" don't recognize this for what it is--a cultural group that, when pressed, can be motivated to collective action. CW certainly didn't see this. He sees a bunch of cowboy writers who dream of success. He doesn't see the relationships, the honest critique, the community learning model you describe, or the cohesiveness of the group. Fascinating.I like every bit of your summary. I am not really conversant with social group or organizational analysis, but other RW involvements at my Uni have prompted me to puzzle over the differences between kinds of groups, networks, "communities," and so forth. LJ fandom does some very cutting-edge