About this Blog

This is the course blog for Fan Culture (FMST 85) at Swarthmore College, a space to raise questions, continue conversations, and share resources. Use the page tabs above to navigate to the syllabus and readings, or the Login / Site Admin link (under the Meta menu, below) to create a new post.

Calendar

March 2016
M T W T F S S
« May    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Announcements

The Film and Media Studies Spring Screening will take place Thursday, May 8, at 7:30 in the LPAC Cinema. All are invited to come watch the Video Production Lab and senior film projects!

More fans in the mainstream…(joy!)

March 1st, 2008 by Loretta

The Creepy Side of Gaming

ughh… so i don’t have much (read: any) profound insight to shed on this link and its content but when i saw the headline “Gaming Gets Creepy: we all love it, but do you love it TOO much?” i knew there was potential for yet another problematic representation of fans… and i was right! so i figured the best thing to do was to share it with y’all!

this time it’s all about attacking those bizarre gamers!

i stumbled upon this link from the (annoying yet enjoyably distracting) AIM Today site. it links to a slide show that has nine slides that each provide snide comments about different aspects and stereotypes of the gaming community.

Also, I found it interesting that this page is located in the Game Daily section of the AOL website world. This made me question who the intended audience is. Is it for people who don’t identify as a gamer, or for people who play video games and may very well partake in some of the activities that are shown in the slide? My first answer is that it’s obviously for those on the outside who can point and laugh at a community they don’t understand, but placing it on a gamer’s website is slightly contradictory. This also made me think about how gamers would respond… which led me to realize that there is probably some continuum where “extreme” gamers who identify strongly with the identity presented here would probably be offended while more “casual” gamers may be able to remove themselves from the identity and still find amusement in laughing at the “others.” but who knows…

overall, i’ve decided that this example of fan representation just provides more ammunition against the close-minded (and mean) mainstream meadia and more support for why fan communities remain exclusive and are hesitant to stand up to be “loud and proud.”

p.s. i kind of scared myself when i realized that before taking this class i would have seen this link and thought nothing of it except maybe “those people are odd and immature. aren’t i much more grounded and normal? good job loretta!” which i guess is the desired effect. but now i just view it like any other problematic, prejudice piece of poo polluting the public… and that worries me even more.

(final note: i just noticed that there is no link to this slide show on the main Game Daily page… nor is it easy to find without starting at aim today!)

Posted in Fan representation | 5 Comments »

Organization of Transformative Works (OTW)

February 25th, 2008 by Nicole

by Nicole Boyle and Lauren Smith

Our fan artifact is more of a whole fan infrastructure. The Organization of Transformative Works is an ongoing fan movement that began in 2007 as a response to a corporation’s attempt to set up a profitable online archive– called FanLib– for writers to post their fanfiction. Many fans reacted with outrage: Why should an organization of outsiders try to make a profit out of them? As we’ve discussed in class, fandom has historically resisted the idea of fans making a profit from their fannish writing; partially because of fear of legal prosecution, the tradition of fandom as a gift economy works as a self-policing moral imperative. Fans who attempt to charge for their fanfiction are almost universally condemned by their peers. FanLib’s attempt to profit from its “user-generated content”, therefore, was seen as an ultimate violation: a corporate organization in the realm of passionate amateurs, a board comprised of men in a traditionally female space, disregarding fandom’s pre-existing mores in– for the cherry on the cake– a condescending manner. (A BusinessWeek article notes: “The genius of FanLib is realizing that fans can be happy just being recognized“).

In reaction, a collection of fanfiction writers on LiveJournal (an enormous hub for media fandom on the internet) began to envision an “Archive of One’s Own“. This multifandom repository for fanfic was envisioned as a non-profit endeavor, run for fans by fans. As the fans’ plans coalesced, and a board for the nonprofit organization formed, their ambitions expanded. Under the new name The Organization of Transformative Works (OTW), they also started to plan for a wiki of fannish history and an academic journal about transformative works. Finally, the OTW took the unprecedented step of planning for a system of legal help for fans whose works come under attack for copyright violations. This is significant, because a large contribution to keeping fans and media fandom underground has been the fannish fear of legal action by the holders of copyrighted material.

To show that they were serious about this new organization, the board members attached their real names to the organization. (Note that Rebecca Tushnet, who we will be reading later on in the semester, is on the board). Also, to ensure that OTW never profited or became too controlled by a single fan, the board decided to apply for non-profit organizational status.

******************

The OTW’s incorporation has inspired many ripples of reaction around media fandom. Some fans’ reasons for joining/supporting the OTW (gathered from the OTW’s online newsletter) include:

Naomi Novik describes her reason for dedicating herself: I also care about this community that has welcomed me and given me a place to play and grow. I care about and value the creative work I have done here myself and that’s been made by others that I’ve enjoyed. So I am willing to be serious once in a while too, and to buckle down and do some real and not immediately fun work.

Kristina Busse argues from an acafan’s perspective: Context always matters, but rarely as much as it does in fan fiction, created within and meant for a specific community. If we can create an infrastructure that allows such contextualization of individual stories, we might be a long step toward not everyone trying to find the most ridiculous out there example for a story in order to mock both it and fandom through it.

Dafna Greer cares about the public record:I’m tired of journalists getting everything about fandom wrong. I don’t just mean the simple stuff, like what slash is, or that we’re not all 12 (or 45, or whatever the narrative is that week), I mean the whole context of fandom. You have journalists writing about mash-ups as if vidding never existed and about user-generated content as if it was something invented 2 years ago. It’s just embarrassing. Not as a fan, mind you. It’s embarrassing as a journalist.

Speranza wants autonomy for fans, not free content for outsider corporations: The OTW is created on the model of public television or public radio–Channel 13, as we have it in New York. It’s free. There are no ads. Anyone can watch it or listen to it. And a few people who care about public television and who can afford it become ‘members’–you remember the slogan: ‘this is member-supported NPR, this is member-supported Channel 13.’ And so I’m happy to contribute my time, money, and energy to help fans buy servers and write software and keep our ’social network’ a real community. And I hope you will, too.

******************

Of course, not all fans champion the OTW. The long history of fandom being an underground subculture made some fans wary of change: for example, ethrosdemon relishes the subcultural aspect of media fandom, along a model like Dick Hebdige’s: “Anyway, I didn’t make the choice to bring fandom to the blinding light of day, but in the same breath, I’m not ashamed of it. Yes, we are a subculture obsessed with buttsex, incest, noncon, bestiality, and inside jokes. That’s the appeal, frankly. The SUBcultural aspect is what unites us,” she writes.

Some fans criticized the narrow focus of the OTW:

Purplepopple complains that the OTW will pay too much attention to certain parts of fandom: “Fannish works predate the 1970s. They did not all grow out from the same cultural shared heritage. They were not all tied in to English speaking, Anglo-centric fandom. The concept of fandom predates Star Trek and Harry Potter was not the second biggest most influential fandom after Star Trek.”

Boogieshoes takes issue with OTW’s focus on feminism: “1) i really *don’t* value fandom as a female dominated space – i’d be doing this if there were no girls here tomorrow, and i’d be happy and 2) frankly, *i’d* rather be valued for *what i contribute* than for a genetic quirk i can’t actually control.”

spare_change and Rat Creature points out the problems they have with being represented by acafans: “I don’t think that acafen are the only ones dragging fandom into the public eye. I think that the way they are doing so, however, is just as lame, unrepresentative, and self-serving as FanLib or any ‘look at those wackos’ article on a mainstream news site, though, so I don’t see why I should support them any more than any of the other ways fandom gets publicized.”

For some fans, the OTW’s visibility actives the real fear that fannish activities could hold repercussions for one’s personal life. (In Ethan Zuckerman’s post introducing the OTW, he mentions The Church of Subgenius Custody Case, a similar circumstance in which a woman’s online activities impacted her child custody case).

******************

Finally, sympathetic outsiders to media fandom also reacted to the formation of the new organization:

Ethan Zuckerman, mentioned above, thought it was a good idea: “It’s a fascinating new proto-nonprofit determined to defend media fandom from the excesses of copyright and to help fanfic writers and vidders maintain control of their remixed works.”

BoingBoing’s Cory Doctorow also came out in favor of the organization: “This is such a good idea. When Naomi [Novik] described it at the WorldCon at a panel that we were on together, I wrote her a check on the spot for $500 to fund the org. I hope she cashes it now that they’ve formally announced.”

The Institute for the Future of the Book agreed: “All looks very promising.”

Bob Rehak himself is on the board of the academic journal: “The editors, Kristina Busse and Karen Hellekson, have kindly invited me to participate on the editorial review board; I accepted with pleasure.”

******************

We consider the OTW’s incorporation significant because it represents an unprecedented move in media fandom. We’ve talked in class about capitalistic mainstream forces absorbing fan culture– in the manner Dick Hebdige mentioned mainstream fashion absorbing, and taming, punk style– but the OTW came about because a team of fans refused to let themselves become fodder for a FanLib, capitalist organization. Instead, they organized for their own purposes. The OTW is part of the rising visibility of media fandom, just as is the fact that Swarthmore College is offering this class. Sounds cool? Maybe you should write a paper about it and submit it to the journal!

Posted in Fan Artifact Presentations, Fan representation, Gender, LiveJournal fandom, Visibility | Comments Off

Some thoughts about the Sports Fan

February 24th, 2008 by rturner1

The sports fan seems to be relatively overlooked in most of the literature we have read for the class due to the “mainstream-ness” of it… I, however, feel that this is not the case.  Yes, there are some inactive fans that get season tickets or go to championship games; however, is this so different from average consumers who watch episodes of shows without any real connection to the fandom?  There are a variety of subcultures surrounding sports; take fantasy sports like football and baseball.  Fantasy sports allow for mock drafts, player rankings, and fantasy games that seem quite similiar to fan fiction (in that the fans are taking the characters and putting them on different teams and created situations to see how they will fare.)  It also seemed to fit into several of the “Ten ways to rewrite a television show” that Jenkins discusses on pg. 163.  There can be a refocalization on players that a fan might feel has been overlooked by the media, as well as cross overs and dislocation in the form of different team members playing together. 

Fan artifacts such as jerseys, signed baseballs…etc often illict as much money (if not more) than some of the klingon forehead pieces that we saw on the Trekkies documentary.  The culture of the fans creates the worth of the artifact.  Even though some athletes are more widely recognized, the true fans are a distinct group.  Just as Harry Potter is incredibly mainstream– the fandoms, fan fic, slash and conventions are set apart from the average reader.   I feel that sports fandom is quite similar and worth investigation. 

Posted in Fan representation, Sports Fandom | 9 Comments »

The Top-Heaviness of Participatory Culture

February 23rd, 2008 by Ben

Slate has a great article on the popular “democratic” websites, like Wikipedia, Digg, and Slashdot. The article looks into the myth that these sites are democratic, equal-opportunity, and created by a large number of people. It shows research that indicates that sites like Wikipedia and Digg are actually run by a very small number of people: 1% of Wikipedia users and about 100 Digg users. These people not only write most of the content, but hold controlling administrative positions with the power to control who submits, edits, and can post to the front page.  

Additionally, the article mentions that these sites have a very hierarchical structure, especially wikipedia, with its many levels of administrators. This isn’t necessarily a harsh criticism, but its something we must take into account.We must be wary of describing any “democratic” culture, including fan cultures and movements. We have to question how many people were actually at the core of the culture. When we talk about trekkies and reference the documentary we saw, are we really talking about “trekkies”, or are we talking about a small subset that’s holding all the sway in how this culture is ideologically interpreted? We have to question how we’re defining fans based on the fan groups we examine, and whether or not we’re excluding a more silent majority. 

Posted in Fan representation, Links | 3 Comments »

Fanboy’s Ode to Leonard Nimoy

January 30th, 2008 by Abby

Hey folks,

I don’t know if anyone here used to watch the old cartoon Freakazoid, but there was a character named “Fanboy” who was pretty much exactly what you would expect from a character named Fanboy. Here is Fanboy’s Ode to Leonard Nimoy (courtesy of YouTube). There are probably other Fanboy vids out there if you search for “Fanboy” and “Freakazoid” on YouTube.

I think this is a great example of fan representation in the media, not to mention its relevance for the stuff about fan culture and gender we’ve been talking about. Personally, I’m also interested in the relationship between fans and the people on who they attach their fandom, and in this video is one, um, point of view that I don’t really ascribe to. Anyways, it’s not as deep as some of the other stuff going on in the blog, but I rememered it from probably 10 years ago, so maybe it’ll stick in an interesting way with other people, too.

Posted in Fan representation, Gender, Links, Vids | Comments Off

Giles De’Ath, How You Haunt Me So

January 30th, 2008 by Illy

My apologies to those of you who, for whatever reason, couldn’t make tonight’s screening of Love and Death on Long Island for writing this post… Maybe come back here after tomorrow night’s viewing?

For those of you who did make it tonight, I’ve been kind of mulling this over for the past three or so hours: what was it about Giles’s behavior that was so funny?

I laughed throughout the entire film, not at the hilarity of the characters/situation, but rather at how uncomfortable I felt watching Giles and his growing obsession with Ronnie/Jason Priestley. In retrospect, I can’t think of a single thing Giles did that I didn’t do at the height of my fandom participation (apart from stalking the hometown of my favorite celeb): I watched movies/read books repetively, bought any magazine that had a picture of Leonardo DiCaprio in it, memorized every little detail of his/her personal life, made a scrapbook, enjoyed fanart that was, if not as graphic, more graphic than what he was producing. That about covers it all. Granted, the character of Giles was an exaggeration of such fan activity. Uh…a HUGE one at that.

Was it that exaggeration that had me squirming in my seat? Was I embarrassed at the parts of Gile’s behavior that I saw as being reflective of my own activities? Or was I uncomfortable watching a stodgy, old British intellectual engaging in behavior that would fall into what one would expect of a thirteen year old fangirl? (And yes, that final question falls into the debate of gendered fanroles [fanboy vs. fangirl] that was briefly alluded to in Tuesday’s class!]

Or was he just a weird and awkward stalker dude who deserves no sympathy from the fan community and should be shunned for giving us a bad name?

Those are just a few personal questions I’ve been going over since the viewing. I’m interested in hearing, or reading, what you guys thought of the film.

Posted in Fan representation, Screenings | 11 Comments »