![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
heidiLJ has been purchased by SUP, who are the same entity that's been operating a Russian version of LJ. The NY Times reports on the purchase, and at this point, I'm just most interested in the "community" members who will become a part of LJ's "Advisory Board" "via an open online election process."
The Times an article on fanclubs where they noted:
Well, we've all seen blogposts and coverage by F_W raging in support of, and against, things like complaints to consumer protection agencies when fans see fan-servicing entities that don't stick to their promises or even their written agreements - remember the griping and the praising last summer when people complained to California's consumer protection entities (now run by former CA Gov Jerry Brown) - and it's interesting to see a "third party" take on coverage of these issues.
They cover "Fan Asylum", who manage fan clubs for Maroon 5 and Whitney Houston. Their founder got his start running Journey's fan club (which I was a member of back in 1984? 1985?) and he says,
Well, yeah.
That's one thing that's been discussed over and over - and should continue to be discussed throughout all types of fandoms, IMHO - what sort of service do fans want, and when does the company's interest in in creaing revenue for the sake of the company's owners overwhelm the service they're supposed to be performing for the fan club members? And how much of this crosses paths with the interest by the performers/creators in making money off of their creativity?
I'm especially fascinated by the discussion of Prince.org by the site's founder:
Isn't this what we've seen happening on LJ as people join for or because of fandom participation, and after a while they may migrate to other fandoms, "consume" content created in other fandoms, and just start hanging out with the community, the personalities and the environment?
When I saw the headline yesterday, on the front page of the Times' Sunday Style section, my first thought was that Fandom Wank would have a field day complaining about Fannish Entitlement by the Mylie Cyrus and Prince fans, although they probably won't bother because they haven't yet and these are things that have been in the public eye for a while. If they were going to be turned into wank-subjects, they probably would have already. It's like that with F_W and other wank-ish sites - they cover what's on their radar screen and they don't cover stuff where the majority of participants are under 18, which is probably the situation with the Hannah Montana stuff - and that makes sense.
But if there is a "fannish entitlement" "problem", then it's not limited to, or wholly encompassed on, or manifested solely within the modes that have been the subject of much debate. Some of the Rolling Stones' fan communities gripe about this and that, but when something happens, like Keith Richards' fall out of a palm tree, there's a tonne of concern and sympathy and banding together, and that's what a community does.
It's like the discussion of what makes someone a "bad fan", if they don't like the way the creator has done something - which, interestingly enough, is a discussion that never happened in the Heroes fandom this fall, although it could have gone that way - and it was probably pre-empted by that Tim Kring interview with EW where he detailed all the things that had been Less Than Perfect in the first seven or so episodes of this season - most of which had been mentioned by at least some fans. And that leads me to a weird pondering - if the creators of a show did something - a plotline, a casting choice, whatever - that you liked but it turned out they didn't actually feel proud of (at the time, in retrospect, whatever), does that make you a bad fan because you're disagreeing with the creators? I can think of examples from at least three fandoms, and I'm just not sure what the answer actually is.
Of course, that's assuming there is such a thing as a "bad fan" in the first place - I mean, other than the fans who get stalkery or jump onto the Creators and/or Talent in a physical way. If all you're doing is discussing, or even ranting, can any of that make you into a "bad fan"? Can you be a fan of something if an aspect of the creative work, or the beaviour of those involved in creating it, makes you irked, frustrated, unhappy or disapointed?
And, to hell with it, I'll throw the question out there. What's wrong with being a "bad fan" anyway?
Discussion, contrary opinions, debate and ranting are all welcome here!
ETA: Dinosaur Mummy Discovered! Cool!
The Times an article on fanclubs where they noted:
By definition, members of fan clubs are passionate, but these days they also seem cranky and some are even at war with the performers they supposedly slavishly admire. Fan clubs today are online communities that vent on Internet message boards and gripe directly to performers about everything, including song lists, merchandise and the prices and availability of tickets. And when sounding off is met by dead air, fans sue, complain to consumer protection agencies and even plot concerted action on a global scale.
Well, we've all seen blogposts and coverage by F_W raging in support of, and against, things like complaints to consumer protection agencies when fans see fan-servicing entities that don't stick to their promises or even their written agreements - remember the griping and the praising last summer when people complained to California's consumer protection entities (now run by former CA Gov Jerry Brown) - and it's interesting to see a "third party" take on coverage of these issues.
They cover "Fan Asylum", who manage fan clubs for Maroon 5 and Whitney Houston. Their founder got his start running Journey's fan club (which I was a member of back in 1984? 1985?) and he says,
when the mission shifts from an emphasis on service to one of revenue, “You’re just asking for trouble from the fan base.”
Well, yeah.
That's one thing that's been discussed over and over - and should continue to be discussed throughout all types of fandoms, IMHO - what sort of service do fans want, and when does the company's interest in in creaing revenue for the sake of the company's owners overwhelm the service they're supposed to be performing for the fan club members? And how much of this crosses paths with the interest by the performers/creators in making money off of their creativity?
I'm especially fascinated by the discussion of Prince.org by the site's founder:
But now the site functions more as an international social network where people discuss politics and other topics, he said.
“People stay for the community that’s evolved, the personalities and environment,” he said. “It’s a virtual hang-out.”
Isn't this what we've seen happening on LJ as people join for or because of fandom participation, and after a while they may migrate to other fandoms, "consume" content created in other fandoms, and just start hanging out with the community, the personalities and the environment?
When I saw the headline yesterday, on the front page of the Times' Sunday Style section, my first thought was that Fandom Wank would have a field day complaining about Fannish Entitlement by the Mylie Cyrus and Prince fans, although they probably won't bother because they haven't yet and these are things that have been in the public eye for a while. If they were going to be turned into wank-subjects, they probably would have already. It's like that with F_W and other wank-ish sites - they cover what's on their radar screen and they don't cover stuff where the majority of participants are under 18, which is probably the situation with the Hannah Montana stuff - and that makes sense.
But if there is a "fannish entitlement" "problem", then it's not limited to, or wholly encompassed on, or manifested solely within the modes that have been the subject of much debate. Some of the Rolling Stones' fan communities gripe about this and that, but when something happens, like Keith Richards' fall out of a palm tree, there's a tonne of concern and sympathy and banding together, and that's what a community does.
It's like the discussion of what makes someone a "bad fan", if they don't like the way the creator has done something - which, interestingly enough, is a discussion that never happened in the Heroes fandom this fall, although it could have gone that way - and it was probably pre-empted by that Tim Kring interview with EW where he detailed all the things that had been Less Than Perfect in the first seven or so episodes of this season - most of which had been mentioned by at least some fans. And that leads me to a weird pondering - if the creators of a show did something - a plotline, a casting choice, whatever - that you liked but it turned out they didn't actually feel proud of (at the time, in retrospect, whatever), does that make you a bad fan because you're disagreeing with the creators? I can think of examples from at least three fandoms, and I'm just not sure what the answer actually is.
Of course, that's assuming there is such a thing as a "bad fan" in the first place - I mean, other than the fans who get stalkery or jump onto the Creators and/or Talent in a physical way. If all you're doing is discussing, or even ranting, can any of that make you into a "bad fan"? Can you be a fan of something if an aspect of the creative work, or the beaviour of those involved in creating it, makes you irked, frustrated, unhappy or disapointed?
And, to hell with it, I'll throw the question out there. What's wrong with being a "bad fan" anyway?
Discussion, contrary opinions, debate and ranting are all welcome here!
ETA: Dinosaur Mummy Discovered! Cool!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 03:07 pm (UTC)Because the near-overwhelming spirit of negativity I've been feeling from so many quarters means it's not much fun anymore. When did it stop being about enjoying ourselves?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 03:41 pm (UTC)Aside from the physical and/or stalkery type "bad fans"...I don't see what's wrong with being able to express an opinion and think for yourself. I can love somebody and still realize that they have faults. I can love a show, but still understand that it has areas that could use improvement or areas that irk me. Being a fan doesn't mean that I throw my brain out the window when I'm enjoying whatever it is I'm a fan of. We get so passionate--about the good and the bad--because at the core, we love it so.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 05:22 pm (UTC)Most rational discussion leads to, "Well, I didn't like 'x', but they worked in out in book/episode 'x'. An irrational discussion begins, "'X' (creator/writer/producer, etc...) SHOULD DIE! THAT RUINED MY LIFE! I WILL NEVER CARE ABOUT 'X' AGAIN!!!" Yeah, that's not a great fan. :-)
We see/read things all the time where our mind says, "Wow! I wish they'd have done 'x' there. That would've made it perfect." Disagreeing with a plot choice doesn't make someone a 'bad fan'. Having a fan assume that they're 'entitled' to have it written exactly as they would've wanted it doesn't make them a bad fan, it just makes them a bit irrational. Maybe more than a little. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 06:12 pm (UTC)In terms of ideas, and their expression, I don't think there are bad fans -- only bad members of virtual communities.
In terms of conduct in a larger sense, that's a little more complex. I'd say a bad fan is a fan whose behavior undermines the future creation of quality content.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 08:47 pm (UTC)Somehow this reminds me of when I was living in Albuquerque, and there was a mystery person who kept leaving these scathing yet hilarious notes on the public bulletin board inside a local grocery store. This person hated, hated, hated the store's sushi, but apparently could not stop eating it. He was a "bad fan" of the grocery store.
Seriously, with the exceptions you already mentioned, there's no such thing as a bad fan. Some people just really like to complain. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 10:34 pm (UTC)Nothing. When I buy a DVD, a book, or pay tickets to see a show i feel entitled to complain or discuss things critically.
And I think there is a difference between being a fan and being part of fandom. This is especially visible with HP fandom. I know so many people who consider themselves hardcore HP fans, but are not part of fandom. When I say I am a nut, they argue that no, they are the crazy ones because they have read each book twice and always see the movies on opening day. They are fans, but they're not part of the community called fandom.
It is a shame that the community can get so nasty though.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 06:11 pm (UTC)But I think that when the negative outweighs the squeeage in a major way, that is, when a person stops saying anything about his or her fandom except the negative stuff (the rants, the name calling, the anger), then I don't think that person really is a fan any more. They aren't a bad fan necessarily, but perhaps a former fan or a disgruntled fan. And if that's all I'm hearing from someone about a fandom I happen to love and squee about, then it sort of tarnishes my own enjoyment if every time I want to squee, he or she is being Debbie Downer. But that's what reading filters are for. ;)
Me, though, I don't like to be overly critical about my fandoms. I enjoy talking about them and predicting and looking things up and fan fic, etc. But when I start picking it apart, it stops becoming fun. I can do serious in other parts of my life. Fandom is supposed to be fun. To me.
Also, we're totally counting the days until NatGeo's "Dino Autopsy" on Sunday.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-08 02:40 pm (UTC)Personally (and maybe I'm coming at this more from a member of the anime fansubbing/fan community), I think a bad fan is first and foremost someone who is ungrateful to the creators/producers of the content of which he or she is a fan. Or also, who feels a complete sense of entitlement vis-a-vis the content. Am I being clear? I guess I'm saying, a bad fan is someone who disrespects the creator(s). Critical thinking and disagreement is okay, even encouraged, but not disrespect.