Merri-Todd Webster ([info]mommybird) wrote,
@ 2003-09-02 11:02:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: thoughtfully baffled

Whatever happened to fandom?
So [info]prillalar and [info]iamrosalita and I were reminiscing in comments about the Good Old Days when there was but one e-mail list devoted to X-Files, and all three of us were on it. That was back in the days before eGroups and Onelist and Yahoo Groups, when knights in shining armor roamed the land and fought herds of dinosaurs.

It got me to thinking about what's happened to fandom. I should preface my remarks by saying that I am, at present, marginally involved in but one fandom, namely Harry Potter. By "marginally" I mean that I sometimes read HP fanfic, sometimes write it, and read the LJs of some folks who are fairly active in it. I am not on any HP-related mailing lists, nor do I belong to any HP-related LJ communities. But I do have behind me six years of involvement in Voyager, XF, Sentinel, TPM, and Velvet Goldmine fandom, and I can officially claim to remember the Good Old Days in those fandoms, I think. *g*

Somewhere in those six years, the thing that fandom is *about* has changed. When I got involved in slash fandom, it was all about the shiny: About beautiful, complicated men having beautiful, complicated relationships that involved getting nekkid and getting jiggy with it. And those relationships took place in the context of (in my case) television series whose weekly airings were an *event* in the lives of fans. When I checked my e-mail on Monday mornings, it was full of posts from people analysing Sunday night's X-Files episode--and not just analysing it in terms of how many smoldering looks, ambiguous kisses, or flirtatious lines Mulder exchanged with Krycek or Skinner, but in terms of what worked, what didn't, how it fit into the overall series arc, what was funny, what was scary. If people were disappointed with an ep, they could explain why in lengthy essays which marshalled examples from all the previous seasons.

And besides the essays, there was fic. Lots of fic. One of my fondest memories of fandom will always be the XAPen list, moderated by Cici Lean. *moment of silence for one who has disappeared from fandom entirely* XAPen was all fic, except for Fridays, which were devoted to feedback, and it welcomed all types of fiction: case files, MSRs, slash, epics, vignettes, what have you. The only rule was there were no rules. Post what you like.

Something has changed since then, and not for the good. It seems to me that, collectively, fandom is no longer interested in The Shiny Thing, the show, the film, the book, the actor who captures one's imagination. Fandom is interested in itself. Fandom is all about The Meta.

Individually, of course, people still get into new fandoms through their enthusiasm for the source material, or the fanfiction, or an actor. Individually, people are still writing, vidding, screencapping, or just watching episodes with as much gusto as ever. But *collectively*, in fora like Livejournal and Fandom Wank,, what people are talking about is The Meta.

I'm not entirely sure that I can define The Meta in a precise, scholarly sort of way. I'm certain that one aspect of The Meta is status within fandom: who's a BNF, who's not, whether being called a BNF is an insult, who's pretentious, who's snarky, who has minions and who doesn't. When I see people who post to LJ and *routinely* get upwards of fifty comments, most of which involve readers saying some clever variation of "Wordy McWord", I know that poster's got minions. Lotsa minions. More minions than I have beanie babies, and that's saying something.

The Meta is more than status issues, however. Let me try to illuminate my meaning with examples. Discussing whether the prejudice against Muggles and Muggle-born wizards in the Harry Potter books is analogous to race prejudice is not meta. Discussing why people like slash is meta. Discussing whether or not we are meant to believe that Krycek killed Bill Mulder is not meta. Discussing why people try to redeem evil or morally ambiguous characters in fanfiction is meta. Discussing whether Qui and Obi could really have had a sexual mentoring relationship is not meta. Discussing whether chanslash is morally wrong is meta. Writing Lotrips fic is not meta. Discussing whether Dom and Lijah are really gay is very, very meta.

See what I mean? Ninety percent, if not more, of the "kerfuffles" so gleefully examined on Fandom Wank are about The Meta--about issues that really have nothing to do with The Shiny Thing, whatever it may be. And I find, more and more, that if something really is A Shiny Thing for me, I don't go looking for online (or real-life) groups to share it with. I hug my treasure to myself and maybe post a little about in Livejournal, as I have with my recent re-viewing of Original Trek episodes (Trek is practically the Original Shiny Thing) for me. Or maybe I don't--maybe I just hug it to myself like an old stuffed bear and enjoy it in private.

Fandom is not a lot of fun any more, for me. Meta bores me, baffles me, makes me go look for shiny action-adventure where plot happens or shiny porn where love and schmoop happens. When did The Meta take over fandom, guys? What happened to The Shiny Thing we all used to love?




Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]coollibrarian
2003-09-02 08:43 am UTC (link)
I've never been involved in the fanfic community but I really enjoyed reading your perspective on it. Although back in my Duranie days my daydreams about the Fab Five would have made for some interesting fanfic. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mommybird
2003-09-02 08:44 am UTC (link)
A lot of people on my friends list seemed to be having those "Duranie dreams". I was just developing my countertenor fetish in those days. *g*

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]coollibrarian, 2003-09-02 08:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fragilebroken, 2003-09-03 07:02 am UTC

[info]radegunda
2003-09-02 08:52 am UTC (link)
I don't have any fanfic involvement, either, but I enjoyed reading your thoughts on it - very informative!

And I retain a deep, *deep* love for the original Star Trek - for me, something vital was lost in its subsequent rebirths, in spite of the vast improvements in SFX and whatnot. It'll always be the original one for me :-)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Trek old and new
[info]mommybird
2003-09-02 08:56 am UTC (link)
I didn't used to feel that way until I started seeing the Original Series eps again courtesy of Netflix. I liked Next Generation and Deep Space Nine a lot, but there *is* some kind of vital spark that was in the original Trek, bad aesthetics and all, which is missing later; the sequels are, even when excellent tv, a lot tamer and safer.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Trek old and new - [info]radegunda, 2003-09-02 09:26 am UTC
Re: Trek old and new - [info]mommybird, 2003-09-02 09:46 am UTC
Re: Trek old and new - [info]radegunda, 2003-09-02 09:48 am UTC

[info]amanuensis1
2003-09-02 09:21 am UTC (link)
This cracked me up! Though I like a bit of meta--the "why I like slash" moments for me, are ones that make me want to go find the rest of you for reassurance that it's not just me--and enjoy the discussions on writing itself, which, I'm not sure from your examples, you would define as meta (it's all about becoming a BETTER fic writer, y'see!), I wouldn't ever want to lose sight of The Shiny Thing. Who's going to make us a "The Shiny Thing" icon, here?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mommybird
2003-09-02 09:45 am UTC (link)
/me is no good at making clever icons. *g*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

I wish to marry you and have your children...
[info]evildrem
2003-09-02 09:25 am UTC (link)
No really!

And you don't even know me really.

Thank you. Can I be first in line for a 'The Shiny Thing' icon? *grins*

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I wish to marry you and have your children...
[info]mommybird
2003-09-02 09:43 am UTC (link)
Um, you can be first in line if somebody makes the icon. *g* Which will not be me. *g*

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mhw
2003-09-02 09:38 am UTC (link)
Because, perhaps, for some people shiny only lasts so long but meta goes on forever?

Maybe you don't, but I get bored with the shiny fairly quickly. After you've gazed at the sparkly surface, tossed it into the air and caught it a few times, cradled it to your bosom and cooed "Mine! all mine!" - then what next? do it all over again, or look for the next Yet Another Shiny.

Or look to the meta. Ask "Why shiny? wherefore shiny? whence shiny? is shiny the same as glittery, and if not, why not? can non-shiny be made shiny?" And so on.

Perhaps it's just the scientist in me, happier with better questions than with better answers. It's just the way I do things, that's all.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mommybird
2003-09-02 09:44 am UTC (link)
It's precisely *because* meta goes on forever that I get bored with it. "Of making many books there is no end"--was that St. John or Ecclesiastes?

There's always a third alternative: Make your own Shiny Thing. Which is what I've been doing lately.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mhw, 2003-09-02 09:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mommybird, 2003-09-02 10:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mhw, 2003-09-02 10:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mommybird, 2003-09-02 10:25 am UTC
Addendum - [info]mommybird, 2003-09-02 09:51 am UTC
Re: Addendum - [info]mhw, 2003-09-02 10:02 am UTC
Re: Addendum - [info]mommybird, 2003-09-02 10:14 am UTC

[info]the_star_fish
2003-09-02 09:54 am UTC (link)
Wordy McWord!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Now, about that Shiny Thing... I personally like a mix of both shiny and meta -- for me, one doesn't take the place of the other. Like someone else said above, I go to the meta so that I can write better about the shiny.

I'm thinking of many icons with a single caption:

Bring back the Shiny!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mommybird
2003-09-02 10:04 am UTC (link)
I think I have temporarily become one of those BNF people and acquired minions.... *g*

I don't mean to imply that I'm against rational, critical, even analytical discussion of The Shiny Thing, particularly if it leads to deeper appreciation thereof and new creative endeavors. The Meta, for me, is something other than that and far more insidious, because it uses The Shiny Thing as a springboard to get into larger issues that really don't have anything to do with the Shiny Thing at hand.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mhw, 2003-09-02 10:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mommybird, 2003-09-02 10:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mhw, 2003-09-02 10:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]vulgarweed, 2003-09-02 10:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mommybird, 2003-09-02 10:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mhw, 2003-09-02 10:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]theodicy, 2003-09-02 11:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mhw, 2003-09-03 01:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]theodicy, 2003-09-07 04:51 pm UTC

[info]trickofthedark
2003-09-02 10:50 am UTC (link)
Ooooh, Look at all the comments! That's, like, so meta!

*Dodges deserved slap and runs.*

;)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mommybird
2003-09-02 10:52 am UTC (link)
I know--I've put my foot in it, haven't I? *g*

*longs for the good old days when Krycek smooched Mulder*

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kaiz
2003-09-02 06:47 pm UTC (link)
I think that the Rise of Meta was pretty much inevitable as fandom (especially fanfiction and slash) became more and more an object of academic inquiry.

For a long time, people just "did" fandom--in particular, fanfic. There were a few people here and there who thought about it "critically" but I suspect that it wasn't until: 1) a critical mass of people (esp. those with grad degrees in subjects like Lit Crit and English and Sociology and Women's Studies) started analyzing fanfiction and other fan activities, and 2) when fanfiction became more of a "legitimate" fictional genre, that the Meta really exploded.

All of this was helped along by cheap/free and easy access to the internet and the World Wide Web, and the proliferation of high profile articles in magazines and newspapers about fanfiction, especially slash.

I suspect that as time goes on, Meta will migrate more into its own spaces (I think we're already seeing that happen on LJ--where entire communities are devoted to Meta) and it will be easier for people who dislike it to avoid it.

Ultimately though, I think that fandom still *is* about The Pretty; most of the Meta/Crit/Wanky lists and LJs that I've encountered seem to have a tendency to become moribund very very quickly without fresh infusions of The Pretty at regular intervals. Fandom Wank in particular would starve to death if there was no canon to get all Meta about, which in turn spawns wankiness. ::g::

Just my $.02

For my own part, I have a limited attention span for Meta. Sometimes its amusing but on the whole, I'd rather yack about The Pretty.

(Reply to this)


[info]prillalar
2003-09-02 10:38 pm UTC (link)
First off, I should confess that, perhaps ironically, I linked to this entry in [info]metablog. I thought it deserved a wider audience.

Good thoughts here. While I still see a lot of the shiny around in my corner of fandom, I've often thought that fandom is starting to devour itself. But I've also often thought that about western pop culture in general.

I do like analysis about fandom, though. Not so much "why we write slash" because been there, done that, got the fucking sig lines year after year after year, but more -- why do people feel the need to bring up these topics? What does that tell us about ourselves?

I've been waffling over whether or not LJ has helped bring about the shift towards more meta. Because, hey, the Shiny Things also rocket around LJ at great speed. (Pirates, anyone?)

I think that in LJ, especially, we're in such a multi-fandom arena that meta-topics are often something that everyone can bond over, even if their fandoms are different. (Though of course meta-topics can be fandom specific.)

And, yes, icons would be good. :) I'll think on that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]darkrosetiger
2003-09-03 08:04 am UTC (link)
1. I love your icon. I want to have sex with it. Jason is so teh sexay as Hook the Very Very Gay Pirate.

2. In response to this: why do people feel the need to bring up these topics? What does that tell us about ourselves? I've noticed that it's not the people who write slash/RPF/rapefic/chan/BDSM/gummibear sexfic who initiate the manifestos about why we do what we do. Those are almost always generated in response to attacks by other people who are convinced that gummibear sexfic is responsible for the decline and fall of Western civilization, and that it must be wiped out.

There are three responses to this. One is to flame (or flame back, as the case may be. Or you can simply ignore the attack, something that few people have the willpower to do. (Me? Walk away from an argument? Never give up; never surrender!) Or you can attempt to explain why you do what you do in a logical, reasoned, coherent defense. Despite having spent way too many years online, many of us, myself most definitely included, persist in the delusion belief that there is a place for civil debate in online fandom.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]darthfox
2003-09-02 10:52 pm UTC (link)
have made icons, but have also taken codeine and must go to bed. remind me to upload tomorrow? there's one HP, one X-files, one LotR, two Highlander, two Trek, and three Star Wars. and there could easily be more. some time when i'm not on drugs, i mean.

(Reply to this)


[info]copracat
2003-09-02 10:54 pm UTC (link)
I am not a minion. I am a free fan.

*g*

It's an interesting thing you say, that the troubles come from the activity of being a fan rather than from the fanned thing. Certainly troubles seem to flock and gather in currently active and popular fandoms.

(Reply to this)


[info]musesfool
2003-09-02 10:56 pm UTC (link)
Speaking as someone who enjoys both meta (though not, let it be said, the umpteenth iteration of Why We Write Slash? etc.) and the Shiny, I offer a somewhat glib solution...

It's summer.

Pop Television fandom will eat itself over the summer, in the time between season finale and season premiere.

Speaking as an almost-six-year veteran of fandom, I remember the horrible stretches of boredom and flaming on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer during the endless Rerun Hell of summer.

And that's just for one show.

Move things to LJ, where there's many fans watching many shows, multiply and let simmer where there are people who *already* don't like each other from past interaction... yeah, things get testy.

I think this summer's been relatively quite, kerfuffle-wise (at least, *I* wasn't involved in any of 'em *snerk*) until this past week with the slash/anti-slash thing.

There was a lot of new stuff happening - new X-Men movieverse canon, new HP canon, new Matrix canon (is there a Matrix fic fandom?), plus Pirates of the Caribbean, the OC, and MI-5 took over my flist for weeks at a time.

I'm sorry fandom isn't fun for you anymore. I've found that by retreating to LJ, I've kept more of the fun than when I was actively on lists and newsgroups, which just wore me down.

The one thing that I keep trying to make clear to people is that "meta" isn't discussion of the text, it's discussion of the discussion, and it *can* be terribly boring if all it is is another round of "This fandom is so negative" or "People better stop talking smack about Character X" or whatever.

As for discussion of writing, I think that is separate, not-meta, and pretty much always interesting, but then again, I'm also up for another round of Xander Lied or The Mahoney Shoot Was Clean, and both of those discussions are at least 4-5 years old...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]copracat
2003-09-02 11:07 pm UTC (link)
Vic! The Mahoney Shoot Was Not Clean. More angst that way.

One of the most fun aspects of LJ for me is the chance to keep in touch with lovely people as we move in and out of activity in different fandoms. This year we're in the same fandom, next year we'll be active in different fandoms and LJ makes it easy to keep in touch with fan aquaintances.

Unfortunately that ease translates to people who hated each other in one fandom being able to publicly continue hating each other all over the place. Because nothing says mortal enemy like building an LJ community set on shun.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]bethbethbeth, 2003-09-02 11:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]copracat, 2003-09-03 12:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]musesfool, 2003-09-03 09:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]musesfool, 2003-09-03 09:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]marythefan, 2003-09-03 02:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]musesfool, 2003-09-03 09:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]wemblee, 2003-09-03 03:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]musesfool, 2003-09-03 09:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mommybird, 2003-09-04 06:03 am UTC

[info]bethbethbeth
2003-09-02 11:22 pm UTC (link)
I think you've made a number of very good points here, but I also think that the apparent fandom swing to The Meta that you're noticing is only part of the story. I think much depends on what fandoms you're involved with.

For one thing, most of the fandoms you pointed to in your post as having a strong meta focus are movie/book fandoms, not current t.v. series, and I think that this makes a huge difference. When new source material only appears every year or two, it's harder to keep focused on the text, which then often leads to much talk about the fandom instead of the source material itself (...and you'll have noticed, I'm sure, that the fandoms most often singled out by fandom_wank *are* the movie/book fandoms).

Yes, there was a month-long flurry of canon-analysis and discussion when OotP was released, but now we're in that long "sit and wait until next June when PoA comes out and we'll have new source material" time, and people are already getting fidgety - something which often leads to meta-analysis.

So...yes, I see dead people...um...The Meta in HP, of course, but in my other main fandom (Due South), I'm seeing almost none of it. And why? Because although dS should, by rights, be thought of as a 'dead show" (and thus, a prime candidate for meta), the DVD's are *finally* being released, which means a whole new crop of fans are getting their first chance to see episodes they'd previously only ever heard about, and they really, really want to *talk* about those eps and the characters and the writing, which, in turn, is helping the fandom geezers re-kindle *their* interest in talking about the show itself, too.

And then there's Smallville. Yes, fandom_wank has had a good time poking at that fandom (or rather, at some of its fans), but the truth is that during the season, when new episodes are showing up regularly, the fandom discussions are almost *all* about the show and not the Meta. It's not my fandom, but a huge number of the people on my friends list are SV fans (even if the show itself is annoying a lot of them *g*) and so I think I have a pretty good sense of the Meta: Not!Meta ratio over there.

So I guess what I'm saying is that even in the multi-fannish world of LJ, the particular fandoms with which one is involved, even peripherally, has a great deal to do with whether one sees fandom as going over to the meta side or not.

Well...that and whether one reads fandom_wank on a regular basis, of course *g*

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]darkrosetiger
2003-09-03 08:07 am UTC (link)
you'll have noticed, I'm sure, that the fandoms most often singled out by fandom_wank *are* the movie/book fandoms

Yeah, well that's largely because HP fandom really is the Wankiest Place On Earth(tm). There really needs to be a corollary to Godwin's Law that states that the first person to bring up Cassie Claire in the context of a fandom debate has automatically lost the argument.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]bethbethbeth, 2003-09-03 08:21 am UTC
It's probably a good thing... - [info]vulgarweed, 2003-09-03 12:23 pm UTC
Re: It's probably a good thing... - [info]bethbethbeth, 2003-09-03 12:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]musesfool, 2003-09-03 09:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ratcreature, 2003-09-03 12:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]musesfool, 2003-09-03 09:14 pm UTC

[info]theodicy
2003-09-02 11:37 pm UTC (link)
I wish I knew, but all I can say is I'm glad I remained on the periphery of it all. I beta'd once, commented often, and wrote 40 pgs of a perfectly awful story (good dialogue, zero plot) that I wisely decided not to inflict upon anyone. But I remember with affection some soaring fiction, swath-cutting dialogue, generous writers, AND Cici, whom I thanked before she disappeared. And Leyla.

As for cool ideas, I still get them, and I still nitpick - alone.

*sniffs in unsplendid isolation*

Thanks for writing that.

(Reply to this)


[info]lovehotel
2003-09-02 11:48 pm UTC (link)
Very insightful, I've only been involved in one fandom - all right; I did a bit of elfquest back in the days when zines were still snailmailed and took a ten year break only to get sucked in by HP fandom.

Where did it go? I'd like to know too; I tend to run away from meta discussion, it is avoidable even if one keeps running into it, which is why most readers are lurkers I suppose. And it is also true that getting involved into meta issues takes up time we could use to read/write the sparkling stuff.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mommybird
2003-09-03 11:47 am UTC (link)
it is also true that getting involved into meta issues takes up time we could use to read/write the sparkling stuff.

Very true. And I find that dull because I'm a creative writer, not a scholar, and therefore my way of exploring an issue is to write fiction about it, and read same, rather than reading/writing analytical/intellectual stuff.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ratcreature
2003-09-03 02:32 am UTC (link)
I don't think there is really more posted about The Meta than The Shiny, I think especially in a loosely connected multi-fandom system like LJ "The Meta" discussions spread far more easily than "The Shiny" ones (case in point: I comment here in your journal on "The Meta").

I mean, for example take my contributions to the content total of LJ (bear with me a moment, I hope I'm going to have a point further down...somewhere): I'm a fairly multi-fandom person, the last months my LJ has been mostly about comics, Batverse in particular, but when tv series are airing I'll also post my thoughts on episodes, on Smallville, Buffy/Angel, Andromeda and Enterprise for example (usually not review epics, but neither just "OMG isn't he soo cute!!!" squees), and I have a few odd HP and movie posts as well, I also post fanfic recs sometimes, so the thirty-something people who have currently "friended" me probably did so for a variety of topics, but it's unlikely all are interested in all my fandoms. I don't write fic (though I do fan drawings and icons) and fandom meta isn't a focus of my journal. So, say I make a long post about about "The Shiny", say about Batverse continuity, then maybe from the thirty-something people who I assume may see my post appearing on their friends list those who read my journal for the Batverse content (i.e. maybe ten people or less) will perhaps reply and maybe one will react in their LJ (and that's an optimistic "spreading" scenario), but the post won't gain a lot of momentum, it really can't when you don't have huge friends-list of 300 people or so. Most of Batverse fandom will never see my post, and unless it's totally brilliant (which my posts are usually not) word-of-mouth won't spread it to places like the DC message boards, and the chances it picks up steam via "friendsfriends" listing are slim because it's fandom specific, and a lot of the "friendsfriend" people won't be into the Batverse (case in point [info]gotham_gazette a community to post or crosslink Batman content has under twenty members, [info]metablog has 350). So it's unlikely that "The Shiny" content gets spread very far without the aid of a centralized distribution system (like a main fandom list). However the chances of spreading for "The Meta" are much better. Not only are there at least half a dozen communities around to spread interesting (or "mock-worthy" in the case of f_w) posts, a "The Meta" post also has the chance to catch the interest of everybody on your friends-list, not just a small portion, especially when you post about cross-fandom issues (like your general fanfic squicks for example), and the chances are much better that people who are randomly browsing for content via "friendsfriends" will find the post interesting too, and it'll spread simply through word-of-mouth and links in individual journals. I guess my point is, there is lots of "The Shiny" content around, it's just harder to find than "The Meta."

I mean my (fandom-related) LJ posts the last two weeks were about Daredevil and Batman icons, Daredevil continuity, Daredevil/Spider-Man slash, the latest Amazing Spider-Man issue, Spider-Man canon, the X-Men universe, some fanfic recs (SV and X-Men), about some friends-list meta that was going a week ago or so, the newest Outsiders issue, The O.C. and other summer tv (like QEftSG, Dead Like Me and 1-800-Missing), X-Men Evolution DVDs, and the newest Nightwing issue. So "The Meta" has definitely not taken over my LJ, nor the ones I regularly read, but OTOH all posts I've seen with links to journals that weren't on my immediate friends list were about "The Meta" none to other interesting "The Shiny" content posts in other journals.

(Reply to this)


[info]ms_manna
2003-09-03 02:33 am UTC (link)

Fandom -- I'm just here for the porn.

I find that discussions of The Shiny can get just as boring as discussions of The Meta. As for the kerfuffles (RPS/anti-RPS, slash/anti-slash etc), I just invoke the power of 'eh, whatever' and don't read them once they start to bore me. This is one of the big joys of LJ -- it's easy to disengage from the debates or flamefests and head over somewhere more interesting to find something more shiny.

(Reply to this)

(Deleted post)
Re: icons
[info]darthfox
2003-09-03 07:07 am UTC (link)
d'oh. have deleted own comment because am idiot. it should have read:

here are some. [icons, that is.]

i'm also thinking of making a set of "bring on the meta", if i can find graphics for them -- just in the interest of equal time, dontcha know. :-)
(Reply to this)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

ironically
[info]dossier
2003-09-03 06:28 am UTC (link)
I surfed in through prillalar's post at meta-blog...

I joined X-F fandom later, but yes--I remember the Shiny, and discussions about episodes, and was with more than one fandom from inception. I wonder if it's not the form itself, LJ, that incurs the ourobourous-like activity (hey, how's that for a sneaky allegory?). The mailing list, the BBS, were all more or less moderated, with a stated agenda that guided discussion, whether it was unconcious or not. LJ's like the old wild west, gunmen with their chops strapped firmly onto thigh, having meta shoot-outs.

Or maybe, because in those six or more intervening years, fans themselves are realizing that maybe they have to some how justify fandom to themselves, and are digging deep into the philosophy, philology and ontology of the why such and such fandom does it for them.

But, there's bit's of the Shiny to be had, though it's much harder to find anymore.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Totally OT
[info]mommybird
2003-09-03 08:20 am UTC (link)
Where did you find the quote on your icon? I know I've seen it but can't recall the source for certain--one of the Syriac Fathers?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Totally OT - [info]dossier, 2003-09-03 08:50 pm UTC

[info]laurakaye
2003-09-03 06:59 am UTC (link)
I think there's no better time to use my "Maintain the Squee" icon, because this is exactly the sort of thing I mean.

Meta discussion bores and annoys me probably 90% of the time. On the rare occasions I'm in the mood for it, I generally prefer to read published academic books and/or journal articles- probably because I can be pretty safe assuming that no tedious flamewars are going to suddenly erupt from the pages.

Fandom, for me, is no fun unless it maintains my squee. This is why I avoid certain fandoms/LJs/communities/lists like a plague-ridden plaguey thing.

And now I think I need to go work on my Jedi!Mountie AU. :)

The squee will be with you. Always.

Oooh, I should make some icons.

(Reply to this)


[info]kassrachel
2003-09-03 07:25 am UTC (link)
My own fannish experience has become more meta, and also more fannishly-diverse, over the four years (is it only four years?) that I've been here. Part of that, I think, was my natural fannish evolution -- from loving one show, to loving several; from knowing one group of fans, to knowing several. Another part of that shift, for me, has to do with livejournal. (And I wonder whether this applies to fandom in general, or at least to a larger subset of fans than merely me.) Back when my only fannish involvement was in Sentinel, that involvement all happened via SXF and (briefly) Senad and (mostly) Prospect-L. We talked about TS. We posted TS stories. We talked about TS stories. We talked about TS episodes. Period. That's what those lists were for.

Now that I'm involved with several fandoms (dS and HP fairly actively; others in a peripheral fashion), and now that livejournal has become such a fascinating way to stay abreast of the goings-on in my fannish friends' lives, I find that my fannish interactions tend to be more scattershot, subject-wise. We don't just hang out on one list and talk about one show anymore -- we hang out on lists and in irc and all over livejournal, and talk of many things. Often our talk is more meta than fandom-specific.

Personally, I correlate the upsurge in metadiscussion with this fannish culture shift -- my circle of fannish friends and acquaintances has broadened so significantly, and our interests vary so widely, that sometimes it's easier to talk about fandom in a meta way than to talk about our particular interests. Because we don't all share the same Shiny, except inasmuch as we love fandom and our involvement in it -- making fandom itself, in a way, the Shiny Thing that's bringing us together.

As a side note, I suspect the emergence of FCA-L and the Fanfiction Symposium may have had something to do with this fannish culture shift, if indeed the movement towards meta is a larger fannish phenomenon. But I'm not sure where exactly the causality lies. Has fandom become more meta because there are now friendly venues to discuss meta things, or did the venues arise because fandom was already becoming more meta...? Chicken and egg; hurts my brain. ::grins::

(Reply to this)


[info]wickedcherub
2003-09-03 07:35 am UTC (link)
I think both have their place. I find meta highly interesting but I agree with you, that life was so much easier when Krycek kissed Mulder and we analysed the pretty.

Much more fun too.

GIP.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]darthfox
2003-09-03 07:42 am UTC (link)
ooh, that one's loads better than my HP one. [jealous]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]wickedcherub, 2003-09-03 07:50 am UTC
Changes in Fandom or in modes of communication
[info]slashmommy
2003-09-03 07:50 am UTC (link)
You seem to have two different things going on here.

The first is that you feel Fandom is becoming too focused on the meta. However, the meta discussions have always taken place. Over the years, I've taken part in multiple surveys for academics trying to get a handle on the sociology/history/name your field here of Fandom. Most fan run conventions will have at least one panel devoted to some sort of meta topic. I think what you're seeing is actually more a change in the ease of finding meta discussion. Instead of having to go to a convention or private e-mails discussing the current academic views or the "true" views on whatever topic, there are now places one can go for these discussions. There are lists and livejournals and individually run websites that dedicate themselves to it. It isn't that the topic has become more important so much as that the venue has changed.

The other issue was that the Shiny was taking a backseat to the meta. I think part of the problem you're seeing is caused by the volume created by the net. It used to be that there was one mailing list and that was plenty because there weren't that many posts or people. With the increasing numbers of fans involved via the web, a single list became unwieldy. The sheer number of posts a person can receive in a day is what led to the multitude of lists (in the false hope that it will limit the number of messages you don't want in the first place). You only have so much space in your e-mail so you try to pick and choose those lists that will give you "just" what you want whether it be fic about specific pairings or discussions of the show or vids or whatever. IMO, this generally backfires because then you end up joining a ton of lists just to get all the posts for one show.

Another reason for not seeing as much of the shiny may be because of the fandoms you are looking at. The fandoms you mentioned (Harry Potter, Voyager, XF, Sentinel, TPM, and Velvet Goldmine) don't have shiny new episodes to discuss. Harry Potter is the only one of those that has new installments and there is discussion of the films and books out there. I think if you look at one of the newer fandoms where the show is still being made, like MI-5, you might find more of the shiny.

(Reply to this)


[info]phantomas
2003-09-03 08:01 am UTC (link)
don't know how good I am at chirping ;)

I agree with you. Totally. Although in different fandoms, I basically had the same experience, going from a sort of central email list (where discussion was intense ranging from fiction to eps reviews) to a fragmentation of lists where there is very little critical discussion in general and there is more talk about fans' beaviour than about fandoms' content.

You mention XFiles, I was in Highlander, then migrated to The Professionals, and from what I have heard, it seems the same happened there.

Have we fans lost focus? Given that there are more and more ways of circulating material, new series and films...too much stimulation? And rapid responses, which can't but be superficial in most cases, then.

I know I want to write about PotC, but I am taking the long way, reading books abut the historical period and about pirates. I could churn out a decent length story, but I don't want to. I want to think about.

I have my Shiny Thing ..uh...make that Things, but, as you say, I tend to keep it quieter and closer.

I think the web happened, meaning a general expansion of the concept and resources, for good and for bad.

Throw stones that way, please :)

(Reply to this)


[info]valarltd
2003-09-03 08:19 am UTC (link)
It's about the Shiny.

But it's also about overanalyzing. Meta, for me, is the next step in the overanalysis that creates fandom.

I not only want to know that the preference is 6:1 for Spock on top when he's with McCoy, I want to know why. What is it about Len that makes him a beta to Spock's alpha male? And in the course of finding out, I get to read lots and lots of shiny Dr/Vulcan loving. Because when we discuss it, everyone has a different opinion, and a different rec.

I want to understand why people like slash, why one pairing floats someone's boat and another just sinks. I need to know I'm not crazy, and not alone.

I need to know why some writers are insistant that Han and Luke (who hurl themselves at each other at every opportunity) are a less viable couple that Luke and Wedge (Wedge may be in all three movies, but he has no characterization). And yeah, I think that gets into meta in many ways. Including the "Making a cameo character into an OMC" wank.

And in the process of learning these answers, I not only get the meta, and the wank, I get the Shiny too.
Because I'm a big believer in source documents.

Then again, I'm an English major and a librarian. I have a HIGH meta tolerance.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mommybird
2003-09-03 08:27 am UTC (link)
Funny thing... I'm an English major and librarian, too. *g*

You know, lately I've been watching a lot of TOS for the first time in *years*, and sometimes I find myself saying, "Kirk is *so* Spock's bitch!" and sometimes I say, "Hmm... you know, I think Spock and McCoy had something going on, there."

I won't read K/S. But I will occasionally read S/Mc. *g*

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]valarltd, 2003-09-03 08:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mommybird, 2003-09-03 08:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jacquez, 2003-09-03 08:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]valarltd, 2003-09-03 09:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]musesfool, 2003-09-03 09:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mommybird, 2003-09-03 11:51 am UTC

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…