Continuation of defining fandom
January 29th, 2008 by KathyGoing off our discussion in class today, I’ve been thinking about fandom of inanimate objects. Ariel’s point about the importance of narrative in fandom is well-taken but still, what about food? This sounds ridiculous but can someone be considered a “fan” or food or a particular type of food? The knowledge of some wine “connoisseurs” about the intimate details of French vineyards rivals that an X-men fans knowledge of different characters and backstories. Plenty of people devote considerable amounts of time and energy learning about differences that completely escape the causual wine drinker. People will travel from vineyard to vineyard tasting different wines in the company of other wine connoisseurs (indeed there are trips you can take that tour several vineyards in a day in Napa Valley, CA). Is this comraderie based on wine that different from the conventions of Harry Potter fans? I would argue that there is no real difference between a “fan” and a “connoisseur” beyond the mental connatation attached to the different words. Both have an extensive knowledge of a subject, beyond what in necessary for basic enjoyment, and a group of people and culture that supports and shares their interests. Any thoughts?
Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »
The difference, I think, lies is the amount of time something has had to become established as a fan text. Wine? Centuries. X-Men? Decades.
The passage of time lends perceived legitimacy to the fandom of a text (Jenkins mentions Star Trek fans being disdainful of the newer Star Wars fans in chapter 3 (I think)).
I agree though that food and comic book connoisseurs are two expressions of the same basic phenomenon. Food fans even a have a preferred name for themselves, a la Trekkers: Gourmands.
but if wine had been around for centuries shouldn’t it be more legitimate as an object of fandom? Or are you saying that X-men has been considered part of fan culture longer? (Because wine fandom relates to the fandom as mainstream phase)
While not denying wine/food/cigar connoiseurship as legitimate types of fandom, I think the difference between connoiseurships and comic book/HP/Star Trek fandom is the former’s lack of fluidity in the creative realm. One can’t really engage creatively with wine beyond the protocols of wine tasting (except for maybe if you make your own wine). Same with food and cigar: there’s a set rubric of tasting and judging that can’t be deviated from (granted I know nothing of connoiseurship in any of those areas despite having a cigar enthusiast for a dad). Within the fandoms that have to do more with pop culture, especially sci-fi/fantasy, there *is* an established set of information concerning certain worlds (Middle Earth or Hogwarts); however, such “rules” are often flaunted, i.e. AU (Alternate Universe) or OOC (Out of Character) fics–with little or no outcry. Like I said at the beginning, I’m not denying wine/food/cigar fandoms the ability to identify as such–just saying that, to me, it lacks what I love most about the “geekier” types of fandom.
I think that it is totally legitimate to say that you are a food or wine fan in the same way you can be an X-Men fan. The difference in the way we perceive the fandoms is due to the cultural value we place on things that are considerend “high culture.” Hence, fans of a certain comic book artist are performatively no different than a fan of a certain painter, but their status varies tremendously. Somehow we find it inappropriate to call a Trekker a connoisseur, but definitionally she most certainly is.
The problem I have will Illy’s (I think iquinta1 is Illy) perspective is that we’re again de-valuing people who don’t engage in what you might call participatory fan culture as fans. If you just happen to love analyzing the details of Star Wars or Star Trek, i.e., the kinds of conversations that happen in Kevin Smith movies (what happened to the contractors on the Death Star?), I think that that’s relatively similar to engaging wine-tasting–it’s more of a critical approach than a creative approach, but it shows a certain devotion to the object of interest that could definitely qualify as “fannish.”
My biggest problem with where I’m going with all of this is that I’m worried that we’re starting to allow the definitions of “fandom” and “fan” to branch out such that they mean everything and therefore nothing. Maybe this isn’t a problem, but for the purposes of our study, should we be drawing boundaries? This is part of the reason that I really liked what the Gray, et. al. intro had to say about studying fandom in a specifically modern sense–saying that technology makes some fandoms qualitatively different from others, without stigmatizing those differences as “worse,” or “nerdier,” or “low-culture,” seems to me to be a useful way to avoid the trap of making this topic so general and all-encompassing that it’s impossible to say anything about it at all.
I, too, agree that a wine connoisseur would be considered a fan. There is a clear object of focus (wine), and a high level of devotion the consumption and critique of this object.
But this brings me to my next question: Can one be a fan of an activity, as opposed to an object or “text”? In other words, is it possible to be a fan of a verb, such as running, instead of a noun, such as wine or Beethoven? I absolutely love playing guitar and play on average an hour a day, but didn’t really cross my mind to include it in my fanifesto. Moreover, this is primarily a solitary activity; I don’t usually play with other people, and am not part of a larger community of guitarists. So, what do you guys think?: Given my level of devotion, am I a “fan” of playing the guitar?
And while I can appreciate agraber1’s concern with broadening our definition of fandom, and certainly her (his?, I don’t actually know who this is) Clerks reference, I also have a bit of a problem with “drawing boundaries” in terms of who we consider a fan. What I like about fandom is its ability to include; it gives people a place in society who might not otherwise have one. By excluding certain people who consider themselves fans, we contribute to the social hierarchy that was observed in the second wave of fan studies.
I think Greg brings up a good point with the legitimacy of something based on its value.
In a very first-wave fan studies look at wine, because it has legitimacy in high culture, it loses it’s “fan culture” status. It is an object that people should aspire to appreciate, not be looked down upon for appreciating.
As I am also from northern California, I completely know what Kathy is talkin about. There are certain wineries that are meccas for people interested in wine (like ComiCon for comic fans). There is definitely a culture surrounding wine (similar to music right now), where small under the radar wineries are the hot new thing and if you know about them, you’re really IN THE KNOW. There’s also a move among young winemakers to make wine less high-brow. Screw caps are now “in” for many reasons: 1. more environmentally friendly than cork; 2. keeps the wine just as fresh as cork, but makes the prouction cheaper; 3. makes the wine seem more accessible. not just rich people get to drink it now!
The movie Sideways put wine culture in a more people’s knowledge and they learned what they weren’t supposed to do (gulp down a glass during a tasting, drink Merlot). In a second-wave fan studies look at wine culture, this is a demonstration of the reproduction of social hierarchies in the subculture.
sorry for the talk about wine. I think that wine culture (as any subculture) has aspects of fan culture in it. Wine simultaneously exists within the mainstream and outside the mainstream. There are those who know every vintage of a certain winery. They know the stats of wines, which one has won which competition.
I think they are fans, because in Jenkins’ model of fandom, they consume and they forge communities (through magazines and websites). Wine is possibly a text, because the reception of wines influences what the makers of wine will do next, so similar to Hall, they are affecting the initial text/message.