Fan Culture @ Swarthmore

While we did talk mostly about entertainment fandoms in class a few days ago, there are numerous others as discussed again in class on Thursday. One fandom which I do want to bring up is historical fandoms. This certainly encompasses the armchair general, the Civil War reenactor, and even the war gamer. These are generally pretty well known ways of participating in historical fandom. With the rise of the internet, however, and the spread of memes, fandoms have been changed at their core, even those like historical fandoms. The link below links to one such alternative depiction of historical fandom:

<a href=”http://s81.photobucket.com/albums/j228/musashi1600/Afghanis-tan/?action=view&current=Afuganisu-Tan_cover.png” target=”_blank”><img src=”http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j228/musashi1600/Afghanis-tan/Afuganisu-Tan_cover.png” border=”0″ alt=”Photobucket”></a>

((the rest at http://s81.photobucket.com/albums/j228/musashi1600/Afghanis-tan/ ) This is a manga version of the history of Central Asia, focusing on the nation of Afghanistan. What makes this so alternative is that the nations of Central Asia (the “stans”) are depicted as “cute young girls.” Not merely an elaborate work of Japanese punning (the suffix “-tan” is used for young girls in Japan and commonly used to modify anthropomorphic personifications of objects as manga-style girls (see Os-tan)), this work shows genuine love and interest for the region. This manga, not merely informative, shows the intensely unique ways that fans make the work, or the history their own. The author/artist, using his unique talents and skills, was able to make this fandom completely his own.

I thought I’d extend our discussion of the aesthetic/sexual desire dichotomy in Love and Death On Long Island a little bit. I brought up Death in Venice, a story that revolves around a writer’s lusting after a young boy because of his “Greek” beauty, but perhaps his desire is more sexual (if we can even claim a difference).

Love and Death on Long Island actually extends these questions in a more subtle way than the classic novel because of the support characters it adds to the “original” story. We haven’t addressed the question of Ronnie’s girlfriend. One could claim that she was infatuated with Giles (and is it sexual or the aesthetic “he is really British”?). Later she seems angry with him or jealous. What is her relationship with Giles like, and how aware of it is he? He is perhaps taking advantage of it.

Additionally, what about the diner owner? Is there a homoerotic element in his relationship with Giles? Most of the relationships in this film are ambiguous (Greg and I discussed the film after viewing and decided that, indeed, it’s all pretty ambiguous. I like our interpretation). Feel free to comment on this post to continue the discussion related to any of the desire questions.

But is this just “meaning building” about the film? Why are we asking these interpretive/intentional questions? This film is very much one of Barthes’ “writerly” texts. It intentionally solicits multiple interpretations. More importantly, however, I see a reflexive quality in the film about its very ambiguity. Giles in his relationship with Ronnie is consciously shaping the experience (presenting it as “chance”). The “text” of the relationship is open to manipulation by people who are traditionally “passive.” Giles wanted this type of relationship and was able to make it happen. We can perhaps all relate in the way we approach our lives as an aesthetic text to be “read” (mere passive reflection) but also shaped into the piece of art we desire it to be.

Before we leave the fanifestos behind us, I’d like to invite you to share your perceptions of the larger patterns organizing the responses. In other words, while I asked in class about your feelings on writing/reading the fanifestos, I’m wondering if now we can draw out some of the common threads and key differences in content.

For example, I was struck by the number of times that parents and siblings (as well as friends) were invoked as “initiators” or “gatekeepers” of fandom: giving you particular books or movies, taking you to concerts or sports events, or sharing their own fan identities (e.g. coming out as a closet Trekkie). This phenomenon, it seems to me, moves us from text to (cultural) context, highlighting the ways in which fandoms are passed on between generations, or among peer groups. And it emphasizes the social aspect of fan activity.

Do you have any thoughts on this or other meaningful patterns in the fanifestos?

Here are some topics and questions to keep in mind while watching Love and Death on Long Island. Feel free to respond to any of them here, or to raise other questions / share other perceptions about the film.

• How is this a movie about fans and fandom — i.e. what is its particular characterization or “take” on the phenomenon? (Some things you might want to think about here: characterization of individuals, of mass and elite culture, the fan’s values, the lifestyle or “etiology” of fandom.)
• What does the film say about texts and the uses we put them to (or that they put us to)?
• What is the role of desire in the film? (Keep in mind the many ways that desire might be defined or measured, from sexual orientation to poetic longing or textual investment.)
• What relationship does the film suggest between “high” and “low” culture? Between aesthetics and value?
• How might the film itself be “readable” as a fan text, whether we consider that to mean “a text that lends itself to fannish investment” or “a text that is a product of fannish investment”?

—————

A general policy for screenings: please silence cell phones or other potential distractions to the viewing experience; have pen and paper or laptop in front of you to jot down notes, questions, and reactions. You will find it extremely helpful to have your notes as a memory aid during discussion on Thursday.