Geeks vs. Geeks

[sistermagpie]

Happy birthday, trazzie--an house early!:-D

I think I may have achieved ultimate geekness today. I went to see the the frogs finally and it was great! Blue frogs, red frogs, yellow frogs, huge frogs. Poison frogs, sticky frogs, Jabba-the-Hutt frogs. I saw an African bullfrog eat a mouse (yipes!) and did a virtual frog dissection. Then I swung by the North American birds exhibit to make sure they had a magpie (she's in the case with the bald eagle in case you're looking). I stared longingly at a Zuni crow fetish for a long time before admitting I couldn't afford it. Then I bought a calendar filled with quirky science facts, which I'll probably be blurting out throughout the year. I think the only way I could get geekier is if I moved into my parents' basement. Other than that I've got it all covered.

And speaking of geeky, that leads into recent discussions about why people are in fandom, which connects with Aja's idol_reflection essay. What I have to say is actually pretty obvious, but I'm saying it anyway.

Aja starts her essay with the sentence, "Draco Malfoy is the most controversial character in the Harry Potter canon," which is, of course, controversial in itself. I know somebody commented, "Wouldn't that be Snape?" But I think I know what she means. Snape is probably the most interesting character in canon, the most complex. I suppose he's controversial if you consider it controversial that he used to be a DE. But his controversy is all within the text. What I think Aja meant is that while not everyone likes Snape as much as anyone else he doesn't seem to inspire the same kind of anger regarding his interpretation. Oh, people can fight about his interpretation--I don't want to dismiss the Snape/Sirius fan wars, for instance, and after OotP there's the whole, "Was Snape perpetually picked on or did he deserve what was done to him in the Pensieve?" (A concept which disturbs me as well--I think he gave as good as he got, myself, and still didn't "deserve" it.)

But I think the reason I think of Draco as controversial is that, let's face it, even the author seems to focus in on this character's fans as in need of re-education or at least explanation. JKR's bad boy comments about Snape are usually in the context of questions about his love life. With Draco the mere existence of fans seems to be enough. In fandom what always strikes me isn't that not everybody has the same reaction to the character but that very often it seems like this character makes people very emotional. It's not just that you might disagree about what he will get in canon, it's that for some people (me) the idea that he's a hate object there to show us that "some people are just bad" and so must be punished is really disturbing while for other people (and here I'm speaking of specific posts I've read that have basically said this) the idea that Draco should inspire compassion is just as disturbing and must be stopped or at least explained away as being fangirl fantasy.

Anyway, how this relates back to the other recent discussion is that that thread asked, "Why do you stay in the fandom if you don't like the source material?" and "don't like the material" seemed to include not liking the way the author handled certain things, or not trusting her to handle them in a way you won't find disturbing. The "real reason" behind this attitude was suggested to be that people liked their interpretation of canon better than canon itself. So if one didn't like how the MoM scene was handled it was perhaps because one's idea of Lucius as being competent and cool was wrong, or because one wanted Sirius to marry Remus instead of going through a veil. Draco fans, well we know we're screwed. Anything that doesn't involve leather trousers, a change of heart and an Order of Merlin First Class is going to set us wanking, right guys?

Right. But what's funny--and I suspect cathexys just wrote about this but I'm doing it anyway--what's funny is the insinuation that not liking the way something that happens in canon means you were wrong in the way you read canon before that. This, of course, surprises me because of course what else is an interpretation based on but canon? I know I, personally, like to base everything on canon. It wouldn't be fun at all if it wasn't based there. I get annoyed when I mess something up, a quote or something, and have to rethink when it doesn't back up what I'm saying. So I know that no matter what happens, these things won't go away, unless canon specifically gives me another explanation that speaks to exactly what I see.

And then that brings it into the even wider idea that something going one way or another in canon *definitely* won't change the way things really are in life, which also seems to be a question. I mean, at this point I think the books could go either way on this issue and still be consistent. A lot of us are probably preparing ourselves for things to go in a way we're not going to like...perhaps this makes me secretly hope they do go in a way I'll enjoy, not even just because I would like it but because it would freak people out who are possibly even less prepared than I am on this. I mean, sometimes when people say people questioning the books moral position are claiming to be morally superior it does just seem like just a disagreement about moral values. After all, everybody considers their own moral judgment "superior" in terms of being correct. If we didn't think something was right we wouldn't consider it moral. I admit I have had some conversations where this was just laid out, where the very things I thought were ethically bad news were defended, and it usually left me disliking the books more than I did when I started because it scared me.:-)
Anyway, I think it just always comes down to this idea in fandom--all fandoms--that the ultimate thing everyone wants to have is objectivity. That's fandom gold. It's just more valid if you can say, "it's just canon" as opposed to, "this is something I want to see" or "this is what I believe." Everybody wants to remove themselves as much as possible that way. I'm not sure why. On one hand I guess it's part of the whole thing where fans call other fans geeks, you know? "Maybe you personally invest in ships or characters, but I just read what's there and appreciate it in an intellectual way." But maybe it's also about the relief of having something about your worldview validated, even if it's only fictionally: See, I told you these two were meant to be together. Of course I'm really better than those mean kids at school. Evil exists and it uses ethnic slurs...or whatever. Oversimplifying there, obviously. But you know what I mean? That's my big problem with the theory of fans being disappointed because they love their own speculations more than the real thing. Not that that doesn't ever happen, because it does, but because it can also be an easy and dishonest dismissal or real criticism. There's a lot of problems a reader can have that aren't the author's fault (for instance, it's not a flaw in the writing that the couple you like doesn't wind up together), but in general the author's going to have more responsibility about these things, like it or not. If you start blaming too many things on the readers...well, then you're Anne Rice writing insane things on Amazon.com where you claim everybody's reading wrong and the author can never make a mistake or handle anything badly.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Admittedly, I am way late in replying to this, but I was late checking out appleviking's post, too. Hence, I didn't get to read the different comments, since they were already deleted before I even got the chance to get involved, but:

"Why do you stay in the fandom if you don't like the source material?" and "don't like the material" seemed to include not liking the way the author handled certain things, or not trusting her to handle them in a way you won't find disturbing.

Which is actually a suitable interpretation of the phrase "not liking the material"; I mean, the material DOES include the situations and decisions that characters made, iow situations that shape the storyline; not just various characters. And while I agree that "certain things" is a sort of vague statement, if those "certain things" that one doesn't approve of include fundamental aspects of the series which have yet to remain unchanged, such as the way Slytherins are treated unfairly or the story's idea of morality and love, then yes, it's safe to say that they don't like the material, isn't it? That said, I personally felt that Appleviking's question was a legitimate one, which is why I was surprised to hear that the thread turned into a wank. I suppose it depends on what exactly one doesn't like about the series. But if for instance, it's something like the way the whole universe caters to Harry's flaws and strenghs alike. Or that the idea that Draco should inspire compassion IS in fact disturbing to the author herself (never mind the multitude of fans). Well, these are obviously foundational aspects of the series. Disapproving of such views (not just disagreeing with them, but actually disapproving of and/or mocking them) is "pissing on Rowling's books" and, why join the books'/author's fanbase, which by definition is supposed to be a large group of ardent, devoted enthusiasts who admire the series, and by extension these particular viewpoints? (Supposed to be, not IS.)

Again, I didn't get a chance to read the whole thread, but in the original statement, I don't see where Appleviking implied that an idea of people liking their interpretation of canon better than actual canon had any bearing on her original question. I was under the impression that she was asking why people would read books whose fundamental aspects/moral logic/characterization/etc. so disgust them in general, not because they think they can do better (I totally agree that you can do one without doing the other, but I never saw where Appleviking implied that you couldn't). Or would furthermore put themselves under the label of "fan" in HP's fandom while critiquing JKR's work, or even condemning her moral values (to the point where I've even seen it almost become personal).

Still my opinion, but I think this is where the definition of "fan" has become skewed -- I mean, one could be able to recite the whole of OotP verbally off the top of their head, but if they're only ever going to use such knowledge of the books to criticize JKR's characters or whatever else, that doesn't make them a fan. It makes them a critic, true, but that's in no way the same thing. A film critic could give a movie a 'D' or 'F' rating. His job indicates that he's a fan of movies. His grade indicates that he's definitely NOT a fan of that movie, no matter how knowledgeable and in-depth his understanding of said movie happens to be. And no, he doesn't have to be able to direct a movie of his own for his view to be legitimate.

And objectivity is great, but it's definitely not expected from JKR. Not only because she has the cop-out "HP is my baby, I don't HAVE to be objective" line, but certain things in her storyline may not call for objectivity to handle a situation to everyone's liking, as far as she's concerned.

I do agree with Appleviking's original question, but not because I'm questioning anyone's right to be in this thing called fandom; more because I'm honestly confused as to why anyone would want to be a part of a fandom where over 80 percent of the fans, not to mention the author and the source material to boot, reflect ideas or values that are disturbing to them.

Sammy

[skelkins.livejournal.com]

You seem to be using a somewhat peculiar definition of "fan." I don't think that what makes someone a "fan" is an uncritical adoration or acceptance of the foundations of the original material. What makes someone a fan is their participation in fan culture, a culture which has always been characterized by resistant reading practice and acts of subversion -- the writing of fanfic, for example, which is inherently subversive of authorial hegemony.

Material which accrues a fandom is usually material that inspires strong ambivalence in its audience. Fannish engagement is by its very nature active, not passive. Material which is simply enjoyed or approved does not tend to inspire fannish interaction; material which both appeals and disturbs does.

Disapproving of such views (not just disagreeing with them, but actually disapproving of and/or mocking them) is "pissing on Rowling's books" and, why join the books'/author's fanbase, which by definition is supposed to be a large group of ardent, devoted enthusiasts who admire the series, and by extension these particular viewpoints? (Supposed to be, not IS.)

Where on earth did you come by this definition of what fandom is "supposed to be?" I suppose that it does adhere to a strict etymological derivation of the word "fan," but it doesn't have very much at all to do with fandom as it actually exists, fandom as a real world social phenomenon.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that what makes someone a "fan" is an uncritical adoration or acceptance of the foundations of the original material.

I don't think so, either, though it might have come out that way. I DO think that an overall positive response to the source material is what makes someone a fan, though. I don't believe that simple interest and passion are all that make a fan, I think it matters what that passion is geared to. If it's geared toward criticism and negative feelings about the books (or finding potentially positive things about the books and immediately feeling aversion toward the author/tone of the books for not allowing or including these positive things), then I don't think that makes someone a fan. I mean, you have the anti-HP activists who are ready to run the HP books into the grounds, and they're definitely not fans, but I don't think anyone would argue that they have a passionate response to the books. I was under the impression that fan culture in general is supposed to be active participation in a positive sense toward whatever it is one is involved in; where, even though you have problems with certain elements, even fundamental elements perhaps, the overall conclusion is that you still really enjoy the source material. Not that I think it has any importance or relevance anymore, but originally, having fans was supposed to be a positive, flattering thing. If everything seemingly disturbs you to the point of refusing to buy another book; that's not fannish.

I disagree that subversive reading characterizes fan culture; because even with HP, 90 percent of the readers do not participate in online fandom, and therefore take whatever JKR writes in the books/says in interviews at face value, as the word of God in the HP universe -- and are still perfectly happy with the series. And in the 10 percent of readers who ARE in the online fandom, at least 70 percent of them are perfectly happy to remain within the tone of the text when writing fanfiction/discussing the books. Going against the tone of the books is fun, too, but getting annoyed with JKR when SHE does not is where it stops being so. And if, like Anne Rice or Robin Hobb (who, say what you want about them, are very much in control of their own universes), JKR decided to disallow fanfiction? What happens to the fandom then? Would people stop reading? Last time I checked, Anne Rice was still a bestseller, still had tons of fans. Discussion about her books still continues. But there are no people in her fandom who read her books once, then throw them away in favour of fanfiction.

Positive response generates strong feelings and discussions about a textual work as well, and it particularly helps if the story, like HP, is unfinished.

I suppose that it does adhere to a strict etymological derivation of the word "fan," but it doesn't have very much at all to do with fandom as it actually exists, fandom as a real world social phenomenon.

Which is why I said it's supposed to be, but it isn't. I recognize that. But I was under the impression that this type of social phenomenon is still supposed to be an overall positive response to the work in question. After all, what would be the point of a fandom that actively inspires negative response not only to the author (which is actually quite common) but also to the texts as they are written, calling itself a fandom? But the original question was wondering why someone would join a legion of people with a positive response to the HP books when they themselves has a largely negative response to it?

Sammy

[skelkins.livejournal.com]

Okay, I see. Yes, I think I did misunderstand your position somewhat. Sorry about that.

I should also mention, by way of caveat, that I the original thread which spawned this discussion was deleted before I had a chance even to look at it. So none of my comments should be construed as relating directly back to the original dispute. Since I never had a chance to read the original discussion, I obviously can't really comment on it!

I don't believe that simple interest and passion are all that make a fan, I think it matters what that passion is geared to.

I see your point about book-burners and so forth, but I also see a significant difference between the activities of critical fen and those of, say, the anti-HP folk. Fans are engaged in creative engagement with the text. They aren't just saying "this sux!" or trying to ban the books. Instead, they are creating art and fiction based off of the source material. Even fannish criticism--which I am guessing was the cause of the original complaint?--is significantly different than academic criticism: it proceeds from different assumptions, it is rooted in a very different type of emotional engagement with the text.

I was under the impression that fan culture in general is supposed to be active participation in a positive sense toward whatever it is one is involved in; where, even though you have problems with certain elements, even fundamental elements perhaps, the overall conclusion is that you still really enjoy the source material.

Well, I think that critical fans do enjoy the source material. It is possible to have serious disagreements with the underlying foundations of a work of fiction while still enjoying it. If it were not possible to do that, then no one outside of the mainstream in certain key respects would be able to enjoy most commercially-available fiction! Yet, quite evidently, they do. I know very few pacifist Quakers, for example, who are incapable of enjoying action movies or fantasy novels, even though these genres are almost always based on foundations antithetical to their beliefs.

Then, of course, with serialized fiction, you also sometimes get groups of fans who did enjoy the series at its outset, but who don't like the direction in which it was later developed. The Buffy the Vampire Slayer fandom leaps to mind here: many fans of that show did not care for the fifth season, and were very vocal in their criticisms. Some even stopped watching altogether. I guess those people comprise the category you meant when you talked about those who won't even buy the books anymore?

In that case, again, I think it clear that you're talking about people who did indeed once very much enjoy the source material. Why else would they be feeling so angry and disappointed?

(Erg. Too long-winded. Continued next)

(continued)

[skelkins.livejournal.com]

I disagree that subversive reading characterizes fan culture; because even with HP, 90 percent of the readers do not participate in online fandom, and therefore take whatever JKR writes in the books/says in interviews at face value, as the word of God in the HP universe -- and are still perfectly happy with the series.

Yes, but that 90% are not really a part of fan culture, are they? We're back to definitions here. People who are not in some way involved with the fandom (whether that involvement be online or through 'zines or whatever), are not all that relevant to a discussion of fan culture, because they aren't actually members of the subculture which is under discussion here.

But I was under the impression that this type of social phenomenon is still supposed to be an overall positive response to the work in question.

It is positive, in that it grows out of a positive engagement with the original source material, but it is also negative in that it is very often highly critical of that material. The original Star Trek fandom, for example, was dominated by feminist critique of the series. Slash is often a reflection of deep discontent with the gender assumptions of the source material. Television shows with active fandoms receive a great deal of critical feedback from readers who do not like the direction the writers take the plotlines. Those same fan bases which deluge the creators with angry messages, however, are also the ones which fight the hardest to try to save those same shows when they are threatened with cancellation by the networks. I think that "positive vs. negative" may be a misleading dichotomy when it comes to the fandom phenomenon, because one of the characteristics of fandom is that it is usually both.

But the original question was wondering why someone would join a legion of people with a positive response to the HP books when they themselves has a largely negative response to it?

Because their response is not solely negative. It is both strongly negative and strongly positive.

I think that this may have been the point that Sister Magpie was trying to make about LotR (although I'm always a little bit nervous about putting words in others' mouths, so if I've got this wrong, please accept my apologies): that she loved the books written by Tolkien, but was never a member of the LotR fandom until the movies came out, because only then did her feelings towards the material become sufficiently strongly ambivalent to warrant a fannish response. Before the films, presumably, she simply appreciated the books--the positive response far outweighed the negative--and she therefore did not feel a need to engage with that text in a "fannish" fashion.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

skelkins pretty much answered this, but reading the whole (deleted) thread was a different thing than just the original post, and I was more responding to the thread in general. I posted in response to the original question myself quite happily, answering the question that you're asking here; just as it seems odd to some that somebody would stay in a fandom when their interaction to the material is so different from their own, I feel the same way about people who feel that way.:-) I mean--not that I don't think they should be in the fandom or that they aren't really fans, but just that to me this kind of thing *is* fandom. So I do think even the original question is not so insightful as it's usually presented as being (having heard this question asked a million times). Fandom really isn't supposed to be the place where everybody just likes everything. That would be like saying a person yelling at a baseball game should obviously go home because the game's upsetting them. To most people it's the people yelling who are obviously the fans.

I seek out a fandom because of the things I wanted to talk about in the books, not because I just really liked them. As skelkins said, fandom culture is known for doing things to the text, not just admiring it. I never felt the need to talk to anybody about LOTR until the movies came out and there was more tension surrounding them. I'm not particularly interested in what Rowling's personal morals are in her real life--that's not really my business and if I wanted to know I'd probably have to ask her personally. But I am interested in what the ethics of the story are. If the idea that Draco should inspire compassion, for instance, really goes against the ethical framework of the story than that gives me even more reason to talk about. It gives us a good fictional space to talk about this ethical idea. Just as I don't think I can draw conclusions about what is in Rowling's head based on her books and interviews (though I think it's okay for somebody to sometimes say, "It almost seems like..." meaning that what she's saying leads one way, without claiming this is true-sometimes you can help that even on lj) I think it's pointless to do what the rest of the thread was doing, which was come up with easy reasons legions of fans don't react the books exactly the same way. That part of the thread is what brought up people who had certain readings of the books being jealous or in denial or not reading the books. That wasn't what the poster said in the original thread, though the last time I checked the thread I seem to recall thinking it did seem like those replies were getting WORD replies, indicating she agreed with them. But maybe she was agreeing with some other part of the post. I can't give any examples now.