What about pleasure and passivity, Henry Jenkins?
February 14th, 2008 by abreche1I like Jenkins. His writing style is engaging and I appreciate his efforts to legitimize fans for academics and others. But the whole concept of textual “poaching” really does leave out a large class of fans who just like to consume media and give credence to the original author. This is an issue that has been discussed in class, and surely such people (like me, incidentally) still qualify as fans even if they are not members of the type of fan communities that Jenkins explores, but what kind of fans are they?
Many of the fan activities described by Jenkins in the first two chapters of TP apply to me, especially gossip about texts (interesting that this is so gendered, but, a discussion for another time), but so many others do not. I think Jenkins is responsible enough to recognize that his examples hardly apply to all fans, and has wisely chosen to present a study made up primarily of case studies rather than give readers general rules for describing fandom…but it is still frustrating.
I am passive in many ways. I sit in front of a tv and I wait to see what Ron D. Moore and his team of writers has brought me on Battlestar Galactica this week. I enjoy watching. I talk about the show and that can involve speculation, but not fiction. I often think that the spectrum is a useful model for many academic questions, but is it necessarily the case here? Surely there is a spectrum of the level of fan activity, but is being lower on that spectrum make you a less serious or devoted fan. Am I lower on the spectrum of fandom because I find the material produced by “the establishment” more compelling than that produced by fan writers.
It is an honest question. I would be interested in learning what people think actually constitutes a “hardcore fan” Just a thought….
Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »
I don’t think Jenkins descriptions of fans are meant to be normative. Most of the behaviors a lot of us don’ associate with are the reasons we haven’t received backlash from others (being called pathological) and therefore need to be discussed as a positive alternative to mass culture in Jekins’ opinion. The one concern I have, is that in trying to bolster a marginalized group what effects does Jenkins’ text have o how we view less active fans, since passivity is still considered to be a negative quality?
I understand your frustration as I tend to feel the same way about the book. While I think it gives a great general perception of fandom through choice examples, I can’t help but find our discussions more engaging and ultimately more telling about true fan culture.
Hard-core can be in the “eye of the beholder” I would consider myself a hardcore Star Trek fan because of my scary amount of technical knowledge about the franchise, series and universe as a whole.Most people would not consider me hardcore because I don’t go to conventions, read/write fan fics (although thanks to this class I’m now addicted to fan vids)or do more of the showy fan stuff.
I think there is a difference between a hardcore fan and a hardcore member of fandom. It all come down to what is considered necessary to be considered hardcore by other fan – which seems to translate to hardcore members of fandom.
Honestly, when I think of someone being a hardcore fan, it’s more about priorities, you know? What you’re willing to give up. One of the things I see running through a lot of the representations of fannishness we’ve seen is a lack of a sense of boundaries and, as problematic as there portrayals are, I think there’s a grain of truth there. It’s impressive to know the number of window panes on the outside of the TARDIS, but if you give up seeing your parents, your children, your one true love, etc. to watch Doctor Who, *that’s* hardcore. If you’d lose your job to go to a convention, *that’s* hardcore. I mean, there are so many people who make it a point to know everything there is to know and do everything there is to do, that how do you distinguish between them? I’m sure there are other people who know more about Star Trek than The Commander, but she’s more hardcore than they are because she (to some) sacrificed her dignity in her devotion to Star Trek.
The concept of hardcore fans has always sort of struck me as really really hierarchical, at least in the communities I have experience with.
For instance I remember reading a Taproot messageboard thread which basically went on for three pages with people tearing this kid to shreds because he didn’t know that Billy Corgan co-produced a few tracks on one of their albums.
It so often becomes less about the passion for the content – music, movie, tv-show, etc – and more about the passion for knowing the content, or staying up to date, or being more passionate than others. I’ve stopped paying for my Ten Club membership with Pearl Jam because every thread I start with a question gets moved to another section or is shot down because someone answered that question two months ago.
I could do without the labels, maybe then we’d have less snootiness towards “noobs” or just casual fans and let the cards fall where they may.