In her reply on Threat Quality, Doyle defined fandom:
“Fandom” says “this is awesome, we’re awesome because we like things that are awesome, let’s have arguments with each other about which parts are the most awesome, or analyze facets of the awesome thing with the tacit agreement that we’re all here because it’s awesome. Anyone who doesn’t think it’s awesome is a hater and we hate them and fuck them, because you would have to be stupid to not understand that this is awesome.” That’s “fandom.”
And, yeah, that's... half right? Because the whole reason I write fan fiction and even spend the time talking about these things is that I think they're awesome, and because when I talk about them, I feel awesome, too. But the big difference between myself and Doyle is: we have different operative definitions of "awesome." Doyle calls out the the unintellectual, emotional "squeee" aspect that's really at the heart/is the heart of fandom. And dude, when Rory William's does that thing with the Cybermen that one time, I'm not thinking about how how terrible it is that Amy has been demoted to "passive participant" in Doctor Who. I'm feeling that Rory is righting a wrong in the most kickass way possible.
But there's another part of fandom -- the intellectual/mind part, that steps back from this emotional investment and can say, there are serious problems with how gender and race are depicted in X media, or Y media, or Z media. Granted, Doyle's experience hasn't set her up for a favorable impression; the sort of people to leave comments on internet posts are mostly motivated by emotion, not thought, and they lash out with ad hominem attacks. But Doyle didn't set herself up for success, either: like Braak says, she intentionally framed her argument in emotional terms, and there's a word for that: trolling.
But that doesn't mean we can't have meaningful conversations about fannish things. That includes talking about how completely screwed up a character is, and admiring her for her strength and calling her out for/empathetically understanding her weaknesses. And this is just a thought, but maybe we should have a similar modus operandi for discussing authors.
no subject
And, yeah, that's... half right? Because the whole reason I write fan fiction and even spend the time talking about these things is that I think they're awesome, and because when I talk about them, I feel awesome, too. But the big difference between myself and Doyle is: we have different operative definitions of "awesome." Doyle calls out the the unintellectual, emotional "squeee" aspect that's really at the heart/is the heart of fandom. And dude, when Rory William's does that thing with the Cybermen that one time, I'm not thinking about how how terrible it is that Amy has been demoted to "passive participant" in Doctor Who. I'm feeling that Rory is righting a wrong in the most kickass way possible.
But there's another part of fandom -- the intellectual/mind part, that steps back from this emotional investment and can say, there are serious problems with how gender and race are depicted in X media, or Y media, or Z media. Granted, Doyle's experience hasn't set her up for a favorable impression; the sort of people to leave comments on internet posts are mostly motivated by emotion, not thought, and they lash out with ad hominem attacks. But Doyle didn't set herself up for success, either: like Braak says, she intentionally framed her argument in emotional terms, and there's a word for that: trolling.
But that doesn't mean we can't have meaningful conversations about fannish things. That includes talking about how completely screwed up a character is, and admiring her for her strength and calling her out for/empathetically understanding her weaknesses. And this is just a thought, but maybe we should have a similar modus operandi for discussing authors.