#dontstopherecomespop

The article “Sites of participation: Wiki fandom and the case of Lostpedia” by Jason Mittell discusses the website Lostpedia and how the site classifies different types of fan contributions. When Mittell started studying Lostpedia the site put queer readings and other noncanonical information such as shipping fandom on the same platform as canon readings of the show. However, as noted by Mittell, about a year later “a Lostpedia sysop removed all noncanonical relationships from the page” (Mittell, 2009). The only explanation given was that it was “non-encyclopedic cruft”, devaluing noncanonical readings of the show (Mittell, 2009). Furthermore, the way the Lostpedia categorizes information on the site, presenting canon i.e. the generally more masculine form of fan engagement, as established norm constructs “a clear hierarchy between creator-endorsed truth and fan-created para-truth” (Mittell, 2009). This separation of transformative and affirmational is valuing the masculine form over the feminine pushing it aside and belittling many people’s creativity. In his article Mittell shows that it can be limiting to a discussion of the relationships between gender and fan culture to differentiate between “affirmational” and “transformative” modes of fan engagement. Lostpedia establishes that differentiating between the two forms can create hierarchies, valuing one form over the other. Furthermore, it can also ignore or discount a significant facet of fandom. Mittell references Sarah Toton’s analysis of the Battlestar Wiki and how she “highlights the lack of queer readings as one important limit of the Battlestar Wiki, arguing that their absence means that an important aspect of fan culture and creativity is not represented” (Mittell, 2009). Unlike many wiki type pages including the Battlestar Wiki, Lostpedia does have a space for fanon and “the blurring of boundaries between categories” (Mittell, 2009). This space for blurring highlights the fact that a piece of fan work can be both affirmational and transformative. That one is not necessarily more masculine or feminine, and fans do not need to be generalized by their gender. 

Work cited 

The article by Joli Jensen titled “Fandom as Pathology: The Consequences of Characterization” discusses the way fans have been identified in a negative manner. She specifically highlights two categories that fans have been put into: “the obsessed individual and the hysterical crowd” (9). Another concept Jensen discusses is the idea of ‘us’ and ‘them’, which separates fans from the rest of the population and allows them to be seen as dysfunctional. The ‘us’ typically includes wealthy, educated, and reputable people versus ‘them’, which is used to describe working people, who are often considered less reputable, “Once fans are categorized as deviant, they can be treated as disreputable, even dangerous ‘others’ (9). This concept points out a class hierarchy that has existed within culture for hundreds of years. Jensen also identifies similarities between fans (‘them’) and aficionados (‘us’) poking holes in bourgeois scholarly critiques of fandom. She argues that we should step away from this idea of fans not being ‘us’ to better understand fan practices. 

Posted above is a clip from the HBO comedy series The Flight of the Conchords. In this show the main characters (Jemaine and Bret) are a folk comedy duo from New Zealand who have moved to New York to try and become famous. The band is not very popular, but they do have one fan, Mel, who fits quite well into the “obsessed individual” described by Jensen. Mel does not have a job or friends; although she is married her husband is incredibly passive and appears to be someone Mel uses primarily for his money and car. Mel frequently stalks Bret and Jemaine and in this clip is waiting for them outside of their apartment. The majority of the conversations she initiates with them are sexually charged. In this example she exhibits a more aggressive sexual desire toward Jemaine, who is visibly uncomfortable and tries to exit the conversation. The show is a comedy so the lines are delivered in such a way that the viewer does not necessarily perceive Mel as a serious threat, but if you focus on what she is actually saying her character aligns with the description in Jensen’s article. Mel is not only sexually aggressive towards Bret and Jemaine, but also to other women that show any kind of interest in the band mates. Another way Mel fits into the category of obsessed fan is the way she manages to blur the lines of reality. She believes that Bret and Jemaine are her friends and that is not strange that she carries around a photograph of Jemaine’s lips. Although Jensen wrote her article fifteen years before The Flight of the Conchords aired many of the ideas she describes in her article are still relevant and used in the media.

Work cited

Jensen, Joli. "Fandom as Pathology: The Consequences of Characterization." The Adorning Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media. London: Routledge, 1992. 9-29. Print. 

In the post “Fan Privacy and TWC’s Editorial Philosophy” written by Karen Hellekson and Kristina Busse, they discuss ways in which academic researchers could study fan culture and their communities without alienating or offending the creators of the works being studied. As Hellekson and Busse mention, fandom is becoming increasingly popular and normalized in society. The underground fan culture of earlier decades is gone, and fans who thought they were invisible to the majority of society have been thrust into a spotlight resulting in unwanted attention and criticism. A prime example is the reading assigned this week, which detailed the events of “Theoryofficgate” where one fan found out her work was being studied for college credit and was consequently bombarded with copious amounts of negative criticism.

Hellekson and Busse discuss what they believe is one of the best ways to approach studying fan work, which is to contact the creator of the content and request authorization. This practice not only alerts the fan that a scholar is interested in their work, but also demonstrates a high level of respect for the creator, which could lead to a mutually beneficial rapport between the two.

The post also discusses how many fans use a pseudonym to allow for anonymity. If a scholar has an open line of communication with the fan, as opposed to keeping a more clinical arms length from their subject matter, which is common practice amongst scholars in a variety of different fields, they could be aware of the fan’s goals and make sure to respect their privacy.  Although many people do not think asking permission is necessary and would argue that scholars do not ask other published authors for consent before studying their work, it is important to highlight the fact that creators of fan fiction are self-published and do not create their work for the purpose of making a profit.      

Although Hellekson and Busse suggest obtaining consent from the content creator they do not put the entire onus on the scholar. In fact, they state that fans should be the main guardians of their identities, and that they could publish their work on sites that offer more control over security; these sites are also harder for non-fans to find.

The bottom line is that fan culture is not disappearing from the mainstream media anytime soon and by asking permission and respecting the fans wishes scholars should be able to study the ever-expanding fan universe.

Works cited

Hellekson, Karen, and Kristina Busse. “Fan Privacy and TWC’s Editorial Philosophy." Organization for Transformative Works. Organization for Transformative Works, 5 Dec. 2009. Web. 04 Sept. 2016