Log of Smallship One - Passionate and Confused

What a long, strange drip he's been...

On fans and fans...

8th-Feb-2008 08:12 pm

I have been known, when in curmudgeonly mood, to quote famously right-on comics writer Grant Morrison on the subject of fans. In an interview given to the comic fanzine Ark, around 1989-90 sometime, he said that fans were "fat men with beards and fat women with horrible headbands who dress up as elves and sing songs about Blake's Seven. I think they should all be guillotined for the sake of humanity," he went on to say. Charming man. I've never bought anything of his since, and I never will.

He's not unique, though. Many people share his opinion, and some of them are fans. I should explain, though, as they would themselves, that they're not *that* kind of fan, oh no. They're a different kind of fan entirely. This view has recently been articulated by one Ken Lowery in an article on fandom to which

iamza linked.

iamza didn't like the tone, but felt it necessary to concede that Mister Lowery had a point. I have no such scruples. Whether he has a point or not, whether there is any truth in his words or not, even if they are certified as true by God Almighty, the article is scurrilous, it is hateful, and it is bigoted, and I reject it utterly.

Strong words, you may feel. You may think, on reading the piece, that the writer's tone is quite moderate and reasonable. You may think I'm angry because the shoe fits rather too well. If that is the case, take a look at the beginning and the end of the thing. At the beginning, we have a picture, which presumably Mister Lowery has selected to epitomise his view of fandom. Look at it, and then come back to the Grant Morrison quote above. Look similar? Body fascism is an integral part of this bigoted view of fans. If the woman in the spandex costume were what is regarded as a "normal" size, men would be drooling all over that photograph. I don't know if Mister Lowery would, but I would not be surprised. Her enthusiasm for fandom would not be an issue. But because she is a different shape, she is portrayed as an object of contempt and hate.

And now to the end. See Mister Lowery's advice for dealing with fans. The man is advocating shunning. As someone whose wife was shunned in the workplace for nine long months, this renders me speechless with rage. This is hatemongering of the lowest sort, and the man should be pilloried openly for it in a much more public forum than this little journal.

So. Having established that, does he in fact have a point?

There are people in every field of human activity who are by normal standards strange. Communities with a common interest can be very welcoming to those who for whatever reason lack some of the "normal" social skills. That is undeniable, as it is undeniable that passions run high in some fan communities and can lead to the overstepping of boundaries. If the alternative, however, is to view passion as a bad thing, something to be avoided in oneself and ridiculed in others, then I am afraid I would rather have the passion and the overstepping as well. I would rather have the brilliant fan fiction and the "wank" (and how that word is calculated to generate contempt and disgust in itself is something I have touched on before) than the sort of lukewarm feelings that seem to be the best these supposed fans can manage. I would rather see love, however naively and ineptly expressed, than mere "appreciation." And if that offends Mister Lowery and Mister Morrison and his ilk, then I can only suggest, with the greatest respect, that the whole lot of them, at their earliest convenience, go and boil their heads, preferably in ullage.

One final thing: Mister Lowery quotes Russell T Davies on "the fans." RTD, as is well known, has no time for the fans, except of course for the privileged few who are his friends and who he gets to write for him. So, if he has no time for people who love the programme he is now running, who take an active interest in it and who have strong opinions about it, who does he have time for? What is his ideal audience?

Cattle. Ciphers. Uninvolved, uncritical, docile drones who will pay over the money and watch the show because it happens to be on. People who know their place and stay in it. Passive spectators. Consumers.

I am not of that number. And I refuse to let Mister Davies, Mister Lowery, Mister Morrison, or any other arrogant, hypocritical snob make me ashamed of that fact.

Comments

8th-Feb-2008 10:56 pm (UTC)

billroper

It's tremendously hard to ignore vocal groups of fans who don't like your work. Mark Waid (a writer whose work I generally like a lot) seems genuinely wounded by the loud snipers who sometimes savage his work. If he were a friend of mine, I'd advise him to look at the criticism and, if he didn't see that it had merit, ignore it and write for the people who like what he does for as long as he can and has the desire to.

I don't care one bit for the attitude of the author of the article that you linked to and his solution sucks. It's not that you shouldn't engage with your fans, but you do have to be willing to walk away from a bad interaction and not let it ruin your fun.

Because if people don't care about your work, what's the point?

8th-Feb-2008 11:00 pm (UTC)

billroper

Oh, he also talks about how the Internet facilitates little echo chambers where fans meet with other fans to reinforce their obsessions. It strikes me that applies much more to politics on the Internet than it does to fandom.

I could give some examples, but I bet you could too.

8th-Feb-2008 11:35 pm (UTC)

smallship1

Oh yes. In fact I think it applies to most human activities that involve talking and having opinions.

And I agree that sometimes the criticism of fans can be hurtful and of no merit, and that needs to be avoided where possible, and I would respect a creator who elected for that reason not to engage with fans at all. But when someone is actively trying to create a new hate group, a new minority to oppress, that I do not respect at all.

8th-Feb-2008 11:32 pm (UTC)

iamza

You should write diatribes more often. This one made me rethink my own position.

Would it be all right if I linked to this in my post, just for my own future reference?

8th-Feb-2008 11:36 pm (UTC)

smallship1

Of course, and thank you. :)

8th-Feb-2008 11:44 pm (UTC)

shannachie

You are absolutely right. And I adore the word body fascism. hadn't heard it before. But it makes sense.
Would I rather be slim and beautiful than fat and ugly? You bet I would. Would a stupid person rather be more clever? Probably not, because stupid people seldom realise just how stupid they are - lacking the equipment to do so. But they think when they can recognise someone to be fat - all on their own and without outside help, that that is a proof for their wisdom. Well, we all have our flaws, some become apparent when you look at their bulk, some when you read their articles.

8th-Feb-2008 11:57 pm (UTC) - Re: Social Tribalism

kkglinka

Howdy Stranger!

Some weekend just recently, most of my apartment neighbors went stir fry bonkers. They dressed in brightly colored tribal clothing and some of them painted their faces. They gathered together in large groups, played very loud music for a very very long time, while eating specific types of fattening food and drinking alcoholic beverages. They watched this particular show and became so emotionally involved that they jeering, cheered, screamed, moaned, shouted, argued and otherwise carried on like loonies.

They were watching the superbowl. I don't consider their behavior normal because there are more psycho sports fans than psycho sci-fi fans. I consider their behavior normal because tribalism is normal amongst human beings. All tribalism calls for ritualistic displays of adherence, be it face paint and beer or fanfic and costumes.

There. Is. No. Difference.

Except members of the larger tribe will almost invariably claim, at some point, that their greater community size confers greater social approval upon its members.

Nah. Most people are weird and it takes guts to have fun. Life is short, then you die, and nobody cares in the end. Live it up!

8th-Feb-2008 11:58 pm (UTC)

howeird

I'm significantly fatter than average, but at cons I am dwarfed by a significant number of other fans. I have no disagreement with the observation that there are a large number of large fans. And I agree fans are generally shunned by society (I was about to say "at large", but in this case I'll resist). However, Socrates would slap you upside the head with his empty hemlock bowl to hear your "thus, society is body fascist".

There are plenty of average sized and petite fans who are viewed as weird.

We read The Article through different prisms. The message I received from it was more one of fans expropriating the objects of their fandom than it was about passion. The same way I detest the Napsterheads who pirate music "because it's MY music, because I love it", I have little sympathy for the fan who has crossed the line from love to ownership.

9th-Feb-2008 02:28 am (UTC)

smallship1

I read it as merely the latest in a long series of hate pieces (and, again, I feel no need to moderate my language) that I have encountered over my many years of association with fandom in one form or another, in which obesity (and lack of shame therein, especially when observed in women) is linked with what one might call "excessive enthusiasm" and stigmatised as outside the pale of "normal" humanity. That society *is* currently body fascist I think even Socrates would be able to verify by observation in quite a short time; that that body fascism is expressed with less restraint in articles about fandom than in other ways, likewise. The picture Mister Lowery used has nothing overtly to do with "entitlement" or "ownership," but in linking it to the article he perpetuates a stereotype as offensive as Fagin or Stepin Fetchit. I will always have sympathy for any group thus stigmatised, however they express themselves in letters and blogs, and whether I belong to it or not.

I'm also not sure how you equate pirating intellectual property with expressing an opinion on a book, film or television series. I would be very interested in any statistic which purported to prove that a majority of fans who speak in terms of ownership of the object of their fandom actually believe that they own that whereof they speak. Passion leads to extremes of phraseology, as you may have noted here, and does not automatically connote an inability to distinguish between meum and tuum.

9th-Feb-2008 01:08 am (UTC)

kadymae

Here by way of

iamza

So, if he has no time for people who love the programme he is now running, who take an active interest in it and who have strong opinions about it, who does he have time for? What is his ideal audience?

Cattle. Ciphers. Uninvolved, uncritical, docile drones who will pay over the money and watch the show because it happens to be on. People who know their place and stay in it. Passive spectators. Consumers.

I am not of that number.

Word.

I am not passive.

Thank you.

9th-Feb-2008 02:47 am (UTC)

khaosworks

There is a difference, I think, between engaging with fans, listening to fans and ultimately, doing what fans say. The former two are probably not objectionable, but the ultimate result to be avoided is the latter, and in not wanting to engage with fans at all, that's probably throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I can see where Davies is coming from - to an extent. As a successful showrunner with a modicum of talent, you don't really want to get all muddled with the criticism of a (and let's face it) vocal minority. Steven Moffat - who looks pretty much set on course to take over from RTD - has the better attitude. He looks at the forums and the comments, but he doesn't take it to heart and continues to do what he thinks best. And honestly, that's all we should be asking for. Davies, et al. can get criticism from other quarters other than strictly fans - the audience for Doctor Who is mainstream anyway - so that's who he should be really listening to. AI figures are a better gauge of that than Outpost Gallifrey.

In a show like Doctor Who, we've seen what pandering to the fans does: John Nathan-Turner did it, and you wind up with a wank-fest as excruciating as Attack of the Cybermen. That's the one that Eric Saward and uber-fan and "continuity consultant" Ian Levine came up with, in case people had mercifully forgotten.

I don't like the attitude of "do not engage". That is patently ridiculous. But I do propose one thing: listening to the fans doesn't necessarily make the product better. It just makes you a better person.

9th-Feb-2008 03:00 am (UTC)

smallship1

Personally, I think the only difference between JNT and RTD is that Davies panders strictly to himself. I'm not sure what data he can derive from AI figures apart from how many people are watching (which tells him nothing about how many people would be watching if he had done anything differently, or what they were thinking as they watched: I know the only reason I continue to watch his ghastly fanfic is my passion for the original). Perhaps he feels that's all he needs from his audience: bums on seats, laddie. As I said, passive consumers who don't make trouble.

So...presumably "the fans" loved Attack of the Cybermen? (That's not the impression I've gathered, but I could be wrong...) Or are we talking about pandering to one particularly loud fan here? I would certainly agree that that would be a mistake.

Edited at 2008-02-09 03:01 am (UTC)

9th-Feb-2008 06:22 am (UTC)

khaosworks

AI figures are the audience approval/appreciation ratings, so that's more important than the audience numbers for BBC purposes - it's tells you how they rated the programme itself. And the figures for the new Who have been all consistently high, so that means he's reaching the general viewing population at least.

Attack of the Cybermen was of the "be careful what you wish for" variety. It had two returning villains, a story linked back to another story nearly 20 years before, exposition about niggling continuity points... I mean, it's what fans have been demanding for a long time - more links back to the old show, etc. etc. And it came out a right pig's breakfast. Not that you can't do a show like that and have it turn out good. You just have to be very careful, and more often than not, it can go horribly wrong. So it's back to what I was trying to say: listening to the fans won't necessarily give you a better show.

9th-Feb-2008 10:01 am (UTC)

smallship1

Necessarily, no, and I wouldn't try to claim that it would. But as you say, it won't necessarily make it worse either, if you're any good at what you're doing. Returning villains had worked before. Linked stories had worked before. And exposition about niggling continuity points would only have been noticed at all by other fans. And if it comes to it, RTD has done all these things in nuWho and got away with it.

But this is getting off the track. I think my point is that there is not listening to "the fans", or not engaging with "the fans," or whatever, and there is not engaging with "the fans" and making a point of saying so publicly in "ugh, ick, poo, nasty, keep them away" terms. I would like to think that if writers and creators have any social responsibility at all, it might include not fostering uninformed prejudice among their audience. Thanks to RTD, everyone who reads about nuWho in the Radio Times or wherever now knows exactly how sad, pathetic, creepy and worthless he thinks "the fans" are, and they haven't had to meet any of them to find out.

What people think of me and my friends is their business. What they say about me and my friends in public is, I think, to some extent mine. When they have access to a large audience, it becomes not just my business but a matter of urgent concern. So I speak.

9th-Feb-2008 12:52 pm (UTC)

keristor

"Thanks to RTD, everyone who reads about nuWho in the Radio Times or wherever now knows exactly how sad, pathetic, creepy and worthless he thinks "the fans" are, and they haven't had to meet any of them to find out."

We saw his attitude to fans in the first episode ("She [one of your sad Doctor Who fans] is a 'she'?"). And in the one with the group of fans, all of whom were stereotypically 'weird'. Of course it doesn't help to have it in print where those who don't watch the show can see his opinion as well.

Ken Lowery's article lost me at the second paragraph: "You’ll also notice I mentioned mediums and not specific people, works, or teams within those mediums." 'Mediums'? Aren't they people with supernatural powers? Or is he contrasting them with 'larges' and 'smalls'? Or is he (shock, horror) ignorant of the English language?

9th-Feb-2008 02:01 pm (UTC)

smallship1

Perish the thought... :)

9th-Feb-2008 08:18 am (UTC)

lil_shepherd

I'm not saying you're wrong, and anyone who is nasty to the Countess is just well, horrible. However, and unfortunately, media and comics fandom rather contributes to its reputation by courting publicity and trying to become legit. It seeks recognition from the creators, then gets annoyed when the creators find it embarrassing, or start handing out writs and take down notices. Creators don't have to take and notice of fandom, though when they themselves are plainly fanboys, like RTD and Morrison, their denial becomes annoying.

Also, unfortunately, this is typical human behaviour. The same things happen to any group whose obsessions and beliefs a second group does not understand. Looking from the outside, this may look idiotic, as, say, the various splits in the Anglican church look from my atheistic viewpoint. That's because I have nothing invested there.

9th-Feb-2008 10:09 am (UTC)

smallship1

But see my answer to

khaosworks above. Creators don't have to take any notice of fandom, true, but nor do they have to tell the general public what splendid fellows they are for not doing it. As in "We decided to remove Gallifrey from history to simplify the storyline" as opposed to "we decided to remove Gallifrey from history to get rid of all that embarrassing continuity wank that the fans are all so obsessively keen on" (note: this is a composite rather than a direct quote, but words to this effect have appeared under RTD's name).

9th-Feb-2008 03:43 pm (UTC)

mr_rakshasa

Cattle. Ciphers. Uninvolved, uncritical, docile drones who will pay over the money and watch the show because it happens to be on. People who know their place and stay in it. Passive spectators. Consumers.

Nice.

Or maybe they talk about it without doing so on the internet much?

9th-Feb-2008 04:25 pm (UTC)

smallship1

Nice try, but no. I'm not just talking about the net. The kind of fans he's objecting to write letters as well, and publish articles in fanzines.

I'm sure he doesn't mind if his audience talks among themselves about how great his show is. It's when they start to talk in public (not just on the net) about how it might not be quite as great as he thinks that he objects. There's nothing worse than an uppity viewer.

9th-Feb-2008 05:11 pm (UTC)

mr_rakshasa

Mostly, my objection is your tremendously condescending use of "cattle" to describe people who aren't Of Fandom. It's not the medium of conversation, it's the record of it, if you see.
I mean, Dr. Who is a pretty good programme, and I think Mr. Davies has done well with it. It's his work - artistic as well as his actual day job. It's widely watched in Britain, and I think a lot of people just talk about it the way people do at my work - they'll say they liked it or they didn't like it, or they were watching NCIS on the other channel or something. These people are not "cattle" - they're just watching a TV show. Maybe they're fans or maybe they're not. If they don't like it they watch something else and maybe they've got the DVDs and go back and watch the episodes they do like, and then maybe they hear that the end of series 3 was pretty good and they watch that.

9th-Feb-2008 11:31 pm (UTC)

smallship1

So when I answer the hypothetical question "what might be RTD's ideal audience?" with the word "Cattle" you construe that to mean that *I* think of some section of the human race that way. As ways to be wrong go, that ranks fairly high, and I think most people here see that....but let me make it blindingly clear just in case, because you never know.

I do not regard and have never regarded non-fans, or people with red hair, or lawyers, or Norwegians, or people whose last name begins with a D, or any section of the human race as anything greater or lesser than myself. Non-fans are just as intelligent, talented, creative and human as I am, and equally worthy of being listened to and having their views respected. So are fans.

I am not the one peddling bigotry here.

9th-Feb-2008 05:51 pm (UTC)

pink_sweater_uk

Just as a quick, and possibly Quisling, side-note: I don't think that Morrison seriously holds such views any more (if he ever really did). That interview did take place when he was the new, young, iconoclastic British Comics Hopeful, and as a result I get the feeling that he was doing a typical thing for such folk and being deliberately confrontational/controversial. His interviews since do seem to show a much more tolerant (if no less warped) individual.

But as for the likes of Lowery (and Davies)...with you all the way, sir.

9th-Feb-2008 11:33 pm (UTC)

smallship1

Then I'm very glad to hear it.

12th-Feb-2008 12:38 pm (UTC)

pbristow

If you can bear to think about this anymore, I just thought I'd let you know I've finally got around to commenting on the piece in question.
(i.e. over at http://www.ken-lowery.com/index.php/site/radio_free_id_020408_on_fandom/)

The root of the problem: Polite reasonableness doesn't make for cool soundbites. =:o\ Which wouldn't be a problem, I suppose, if people in the public eye actually *valued* politeness and reasonableness more than they value their "soundbiteability"...

12th-Feb-2008 04:45 pm (UTC)

smallship1

Absolutely. Which is why I tend to be less polite and reasonable in response than perhaps I should be, because I take the position that they are saying what they mean. If they set out to provoke, they will receive my full attention. Isn't that what they want?

As regards the shunning, Lowery also advocates it for "saner" members of the fan community as well as creators. In other words, those of us who are passionate about our fan interests are on his recommendation to be cordoned off in our own little Coventry where we can only talk to each other. I don't need to understand that point of view.

Very good point about Joss Whedon, though. I'd forgotten that quote.

Leave a Comment to the Entry

This page was loaded Jul 9th 2008, 2:42 pm GMT.