Where Do You Fall on the Fandom Spectrum?

kypsilon

New member
May 16, 2010
384
0
0
All hail the Doctor!

Seriously, fans are fans because something about their chosen material resonates within them. It's like if something sudden explained everything about how you thought and felt and it gave you such a sense of kinship that you felt it had been created just for you.
 

Loonerinoes

New member
Apr 9, 2009
889
0
0
Though these classifications can work on a certain level, for me there will always be two types of people. Fans and fanatics.

Being a fan is not a problem at all - everyone is a fan on some level or another of one thing or another. Heck, you can be a fan of potato salad and I'd consider that to be just as valid as being a fan of Star Trek because it's not about the subject matter itself - it's moreso about what your love for the subject matter tells others about yourself. But above all else what makes a fan such to me is that they know never to rely on any one of their fandoms much! Potato salad is good, but if I see someone binging on it well...I tend to think twice about them. And the same stands for being a fan of fiction really.

I, for example, like a good amount of the Star Wars mythos. But if someone decides to tell me of how the Clone Wars canon officially 'overrides' some of the stuff I might happen to like, I think to myself "So what? Just like whatever you like about Star Wars and I'll like what I like about it." You can quote me all the freaking G-Canon and C-Canon sources in the world, but if I liked something that is overriden by that through official canon, it'll stay in my head as the thing that happened regardless of what someone in a position of authority says otherwise. And I've never lacked finding people who think in a similarly relaxed way that I do. In fact you'd be surprised that the number of these types of fans is far higher than most assume, though the internet for example can warp that perspective beautifully because these types of fans aren't *nearly* as loud as the other type.

On the other hand there are the fanatics. If anything defines these people it's the fact that they just can't let go of their subject matter. It's like trying to pull a stick out of a dog's mouth. Either it has the elitists bludgeoning others with canon to death so as to stroke their own egoes, regardless of how important that peice of canon actually is to get everyone onto the same page, or it has the obsessives going on drama binges when you tell them that you don't think much of their favorite part of whatever they adore. It doesn't matter much in the end, because *both* types lack any kind of perspective of the fact that hey...the stuff they're a fan of isn't all that important in their life! It's just a *part* of life, so get over it already!

I think it's safe to say that I've grown tired of talking about things I'm a fan of though, or if I do it I am very careful about the person with whom I happen to talk about it. Because either the loss of perspective in the case of fanatics or ultimately not much to talk about in the case of fans tends to guarantee that the discussion would be unsatisfying. There are a few fans out there, who can actually fall into a comfortable medium zone too I guess, but they are very few and far between indeed.
 
Nov 10, 2010
12
0
0
The term "fan" originated in the world of sports. From Wiki

Paul Dickson, in his Dickson Baseball Dictionary, cites William Henry Nugent's work that claims it comes from fancy, a 19th century term from England that referred mainly to followers of boxing. According to that unsupported explanation, it was originally shortened to fance then just to the homonym fans. However, Merriam-Webster, the Oxford dictionary and other recognized sources define it as a shortened version of the word fanatic, and the word did first become popular in reference to an enthusiastic follower of a baseball team. (Fanatic itself, introduced into English around 1550, means "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion". It comes from the Modern Latin fanaticus, meaning "insanely but divinely inspired". The word originally pertained to a temple or sacred place [Latin fanum, poetic English fane]. The modern sense of "extremely zealous" dates from around 1647; the use of fanatic as a noun dates from 1650.) However, the term "fancy" for an intense liking of something, while being of a different etymology, coincidentally carries a less intense but somewhat similar connotation to "fanatic". The word emerged as an Americanism around 1889.
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
I'm a fanboy when it comes to Star Wars. I used to be able to say I knew EVERYTHING about Star Wars, but then the prequels came out, and the universe expanded even more, and stuff started not making sense or changing, that I only follow events that take place after Return of the Jedi. Anything before A New Hope doesn't interest me enough to commit it to solid memory, but I still follow it. Basically, I can give anyone the rundown on pretty much any major character that survived Return of the Jedi, and I'm proud of it. I don't beat people over the head, but if they ask me a question, they better be prepared to listen.

I'm a fan of other stuff, like Naruto, Negima!, video games, etc. But Star Wars is my badge of honor. Different types of fans don't bother me--it's fun to come across someone else who is in to something as much as I am--until they start beating people over the head with information or because said person disagreed with them.
 

Plinglebob

Team Stupid-Face
Nov 11, 2008
1,815
0
0
My problem with fans (at least the hardcore ones) is they try and force their views on whats considered good on everyone else and pity the poor sod who dares to disagree. I'm one of those weird people who thought the prequal trilogy was entertaining, some of the Ulimate Marval line is a decent read and Star Trek: Voyager is perfectly good TV. However, if I was to mention any of this on a related forum (hell, even here its dangerous) I would be told that my own personal view is somehow wrong.
 

Phantomess

New member
Sep 19, 2009
417
0
0
Ah yes, Joel Schumaker. But Elizabeth, we must remind ourselves that ALW was looking for 'an actor who could sing, not a singer who could act'. If he'd had any sense, he would have got Anthony Warlow to play the role like any SENSIBLE person would. Failing that, he would talk Michael Crawford back into the role. Butler was a terrible choice of Phantom for a number of reasons but the one that topped my list was the fact they had to transpose the role because he didn't have the range to...

Aw damn. Yeah, I'm a "phan". That said, at least I'm a fairly well-researched fan and can see the point to the film.

But the point from the article is valid. Some fans are far too emotional. I know that people often mistake my outrageous love of something to be serious, but I take great delight in just pretending to be completely bonkers about certain fandoms (deep breath, Twilight does not make that list).
 

Scrythe

Premium Gasoline
Jun 23, 2009
2,367
0
0
I'm the kind of guy who get's deep into lore, will argue lore, and will get deeply offended when creator's "fuck up their own lore", but even I have some of my restraints.

For example, I can rant all day and night about how Blizzard completely raped the storyline from Burning Crusade onwards, but I'm still nowhere near the level of the infamous "Red Shirt Guy".

Recently I've gotten really into Spoony's videos about the Highlander series because he pretty much sums up the entire fanbase's feelings towards the series. The only thing that really separates our opinion is that I actually got really into the cartoon series for a while, and it wasn't really that bad. Having said that, I had no idea of the existence of the Jaguar game, nor have I seen the anime.

Sometimes I do get so into something that I'll memorize backstory and behind-the-scenes info and can get very encyclopedic with it, like with the Metal Gear series; to the point where I'm heavily considering either a FOXHOUND or Militaires Sans Frontieres tattoo.
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
Most, however, contained threads such as, "which Cullen bit you and where?" "Sweetest Moments aka I so wish I was Bella right now moments," "Do you think vampires have sex?," "what is your best qutation [sic] in twilight," and "WHAT WILL U DO IF U'VE GOT A MAIL FROM EDWARD CULLEN...?"
So what you're saying here is that the Twilight forums are remarkably similar to a lot of dross thread on the Escapist, if you were to replace the words 'Edward' and 'vampire' with 'avatar' and 'game'?

Yeah, I can see your point - fans are depressingly similar everywhere :-(
 

Geoffrey42

New member
Aug 22, 2006
862
0
0
Obviously, I agree entirely with this article. Emotional fans are just different than intellectual fans, and obsessive fans, etc. Just as long as we all like it for the same reasons, it doesn't matter to which part of our psyche those reasons appeal.

But, I'm sure we can all agree that other people who like what you like for the wrong reasons are harmful to what you love, and entirely deserving of every ounce of your vitriol. Right? They should burn for their sins! BURN!!
 

Penguinishka

New member
Mar 19, 2009
124
0
0
In terms of the article's fan spectrum I fall somewhere in between obsessive and low-maintenance. The are some things, video games in particular, that I really like but very rarely freak out over. Then there's movies and music. OBSESSED over music and movies, not so much in terms of collecting related things but just possessing encyclopedic knowledge.

But yeah, compared to some Twilight fans I would come off like a poser.
 

Mouse One

New member
Jan 22, 2011
328
0
0
You know, compared to Wagner fans, SF/Gamer fans are just pikers. Heck, I got actually yelled at once for saying I liked parts of the Ring of Nibelungen. Apparently, TRUE Wagnerian fans just call it "The Ring".

My point, and I do have one, is that any form of art will have its fanbase. For the most part, fans are cool people. Well, cool by the definition of "stuff I like" as opposed to James Dean. They have a certain unabashed love of something that is so lacking in our modern cynical culture.

But fandom goes bad when fans start traipsing down the ingroup/outgroup path. When you actually believe you're better than someone else for having read more of a series, you need to seriously rexamine your outlook on life. Remember when you first read that book? Wasn't it fun? Why not try to go back to that earlier you? Or better yet, find another series/game/book that is equally wonderful. Trust me, they're out there.
 

minespatch

New member
Jan 13, 2011
71
0
0
I'm part of the 9 fandom and that thing has mutated into some human-looking dolls with stitchmarks and filled with blatant sexually. All this coming from a film based after a short that was meant to show alchemy in a different view.

I'm afraid of mankind at times...
 

fanthropologist

New member
Feb 9, 2011
1
0
0
Elizabeth - very curious about what you're researching on the Twilight fandom. I've studied it professionally since before the first film was cast, and have a fair read of where and when the conversation differs. If you have any questions I can help with, feel free to hit me up on Twitter - @Fanthropologist. Also - I'm genuinely interested in how others analyze Twilight, so if your project ever goes online - please let me know!

For the purposes of the rest of this thread, I'd like to make the point (with all credit to Malcolm Gladwell) that sometimes, having an emotional response to a story is simply a shortcut through our own analysis - especially if the only question we feel is important is whether something is good or bad (which is as far as many people get). Meyers' "purple prose" aside (that sort of language use tends to be trendy at certain historical periods, so it's simplistic to illegitimize a work over it), there are a great may things about the text that are ground-breaking, which is what many people are responding to on some level. Not least of which is her pattern of romantic representation as filtered through conservative fourth-wave feminism - you may not agree with it, but it's difficult to make the literary case that it doesn't strikingly break the mold from what came before.