filthy, filthy read
The thing about all of this is that the statements aren’t like, strictly wrong but he speaks about these things like an innate negative even though these concepts of shared communities and shared social scripts are effectively ubiquitous whenever anyone is in any space meant for bonding over anything at all. You go to a night club and you’ll have similar scripts, they’re just about night club related activities. The music, the drinks, the refreshments etc. and it’s the same with any other social gathering really. You talk to a stranger and you’ll know their shared interest, you start with that. And that is often a major foundation for any future relationship they have.
Like yeah, some people DO enjoy the act of camping in line for these events as much as the event itself, because they meet other people doing that. They talk about the thing they’re excited about, share snacks, exchange tips for how to make the experience more fun. This is like, the opposite of anti-social behavior, it’s ADDING a social element. People do it at stadiums too. You go to a ball game and you’ll see people parked in pickup trucks and SUVs and such with music and refreshments and stuff. People who aren’t sports fans go to games as a social event all the time too. Most people wouldn’t bat an eye if you went to a game because friends and family were going even if you weren’t into sports, or if you joined the celebration in your home town after a big win. It’s just a happy event for the community. So why is being a “fan of fandom” any different here?
Sure you could point out toxic elements of fandom including very serious ones but pretty much any flavor of toxicity you could point out for fandoms exist everywhere else. Rodger Ebert was a very well respected critic and for good reason but I gotta suspect he’s falling into the same pitfalls a lot of people do where because HE spends most of his time dealing with media and fandoms as part of his job, he assumes the toxic aspects of these spaces are like, unique to them because he doesn’t spend enough time in other spaces to be reminded that they have the same bullshit.
Different subject matter, but I think this is representative of Ebert’s flaws:
I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place. I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn't seen. Yet I declared as an
I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place. I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn’t seen. Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art. I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself.
One bizarre exchange with a reader led to a debate about whether Mark Twain himself valued Huckleberry Finn above a table game he had been trying to invent. “Show me a man who believes a game can have more value than Huckleberry Finn,” I wrote, “and I’ll show you a fool.” This debate became reduced to a squabble about semantics and technicalities, and in a quixotic moment I put the question to a vote, devising an online Twitter poll which asked readers which they would value more, a great game or Twain’s great novel.
Well, obviously I'd have to see the game, and to Ebert's credit he does say as much re games as a medium in the linked article. That said, sight unseen:
Huck Finn or Twain's little-known board game?
Huck Finn
Twainopoly















