#rtffanculture

It becomes worthwhile to delineate transformational and affirmational fan practices if one is to discern the autonomy of the fan in the creative processes. Is the accumulation and interpolation of every minute detail of a media purely affirmational? To some degree, the fan practice of wiki compilation may be considered as being conventionally celebratory, but to confine this compendium of peer-sourced work to the realm of yea-saying is academically and logically reductive. 

How tangible is the effect of a Lostpedia on television ratings? One can only venture that the site came of use to active members and stray visitors alike after every new episode premiere. Take the example of a con, and consider that at least some portion of the conversations that occur inside its duration are likely similar to banter and fact-checking that occur on wikis and forums online. Where cons provide reason for even lay fans to engage in face-to-face interactions with fellow viewers/readers and cast/writers, wikis and forums are purely exchanges between those who care to archive this discourse in a structured, open manner. Indeed, it is precisely the interactions between fans on these peer-driven digital encyclopedias that make wikis transformational. As Mittell notes, sites like these “function as a space of debate” (2.11).

Lostpedia plays host to “canon, theory, fanon, and parody” and delineates “policies on how to treat borderline material” (Mittell 2.12, 2.4). While the act of being a fan or a transient viewer may be binary, the peer analysis of a media text to the degree that it spawns new maps, theories, and speculative fiction is certainly not. Not all fans strive for accuracy in their conversations, and one certainly need not be versed in the lore of a show like Lost to engage in affirmational practices like t-shirt purchases. Yet, where wikis are concerned, theory and canon exist separately “to further enshrine…authorial-endorsed factual content (2.16). There is value in the argument that any space where “users discuss the page’s content, debate ideas before posting them to the main page, and even vote on proposed policies or major edits” is already transformational based solely on the fact that complex data structures and an informational hierarchy have been created around a media text meant chiefly to be consumed (Mittell 2.6).

Even if one were to argue that the production team of a show like Lost intended to inspire contact between members of its audience, it would be reaching further even still to suggest that television executives were, at the onset, relying on mass digital archiving and lively rapport between a significant portion of their television audience outside of primetime viewing hours. That is to say, if a community of unpaid contributors play the role of part-time investigators hunting the depths of a show’s abstracted and thinly-veiled subtext, this online village of “truth-seekers”, theorists and cartographers go above and beyond the affirmational practices of live-tweeting and merchandise collecting.

Works Cited

It is very easy to blur the line between “affirmational” and “transformative” modes of fan engagement, however, these terms are a good place to start looking at the relationship between gender and fan culture. They serve as a good jumping off point but they are not definitive and should not be treated as such. Fan engagement should not be seen as either/or, but instead as a combination of  “affirmational” and “transformative.” One example of this is mimetic fandom. As Hills states, “it appears to be affirmational from a distance, but transformational details are evident when viewed closely. . . More than simply a part of fans’ material culture, mimetic fandom thus occupies an interspace between materiality and what might be termed soul, building and branding, imitation and individuation.” While mimetic fandom and some other mode of fan engagement like fanfiction seem to be completely different, especially when looking at them through terms like “affirmational” and “transformative,” they share many similarities. In both cases, fans have to have a deep understanding of the text and they have to be creative in order to produce their fan work. Both types of fans also have to be extremely passionate, and in my opinion, that level of passion deserves to be acknowledged. That driving passion is always going to lead to something that is not only textual or “affirmational” because it is always going to hold more significance to the fan than the actual text or official merchandise ever will, making it “affirmational” as well. In the same way, something like fanfiction, cannot be seen as only “transformative” because of the knowledge that is needed, especially if they are staying true to the text in how they write their characters and build their worlds, etc.

Hills also points out that mimetic fandom can be found everywhere, not just in the science fiction, fantasy, or horror fandoms. This is evidence that mimetic fandom blurs the line in more ways than one because it is not just present in fandoms that are traditionally thought of as male dominated spaces, but also in fandoms where females are prominent, such as the music fandom. While Hills focuses on mimetic fandom, this can be seen in other modes of fan engagement, especially on Tumblr. Tumblr is not made up of only females, nor is it made up of only one fandom. Yet, fan texts are circulated everyday in mass quantities and they are consumed by everyone. I have seen things from fandoms that I am not a part of, and yet I now have an understanding of those texts and the ways in which fans read them. Proving that these texts are not just circulated by women doesn’t prove how Tumblr helps fandom reach everyone because it is difficult to study who reads what and whether a blogger identifies as male or female, but it is a good example of where to start looking at how fan texts are shared.

Works Cited

While the affirmational and transformative fan practice categories can be useful, the inclusion of gender binaries in these forms of studies are harmful, as they create fan hierarchies that have been combated by many fans for decades. In “Masculine Pursuits? Gender, Generation, and the Fan Collector” Lincoln Gerarthy discusses the ways in which these binaries can be useful for analyzing fans. He claims that “it is important to understand the role gender plays in the choice of things fans collect or how they go about collecting them” but I must disagree (Gerarthy 53). While there are differences in fan practices in each gender, these are often dependent on each individual fan’s own gender identity, as people fall into various places in the gender spectrum.

Likewise, every fan falls into a different level of transformative and affirmational activity. While some fans may be completely affirmational, never touching the world of fanfiction, fan art, or fan vidding, most fans would probably participate in both binaries. Because of this wide spectrum, it is difficult to label fans as either one or the other, and the few fans who are purely affirmational become the socially accepted fans somehow because they can be distinguished from other fans. This creates a divide that makes transformative practices more taboo and fans that may categorize themselves as both affirmational and transformative outcasts or “othered” somehow.

Gerarthy also spends quite some time dividing fans as fanboys or fangirls. These gendered divisions are imaginary and used by fan culture to distinguish between the ‘good’ type of fans versus the ‘bad’ type. Men or fanboys are taken more seriously in their fan practices and can “profit from their fandom” whereas women are often just fans and must share their work through the gift economy rather than make their interests professional as well (Gerarthy 54). I agree with Gerarthy in this sense that the division exists, but we fans and scholars create the division ourselves. While noting it is useful, using it only further widens the gap between fans who in a larger scale, share many of the same interests and qualities. Gendering fandoms is similar to gender socialization from when we are younger kids. The longer we are exposed to these binaries, the more we try to fit into the one that is assigned to us.

As an example, take the difference in fans who create fan art or fanfiction within the One Direction fandom versus fans within a sports fandom. Because these fandoms are highly gendered, fans in the ‘masculine’ sports fandoms may not be able to express themselves through transformative fan practices due to their socialized idea that they are not supposed to. By using gender to study and divide fans, scholars are enforcing existing restrictions on them.

In obsession_inc's blog post, "Affirmational fandom vs. Transformational fandom," the audience is given two types of fan practices to compare. The first, affirmational fandom, is the practice of intimately studying and absorbing the source material without changing it or adding new elements into the universe that aren't already supported by the original text. To contrast that, transformational fandom is the practice of taking a source material and remixing it to either "fix a disappointing issue(...)  in the source material, or using the source material to illustrate a point, or just to have a whale of a good time" (obsession_inc 7). The author points out that traditionally, affirmational fandom is comprised of male fans and transformational fandom contains more female fans. However, I believe that focusing on these gendered differences too closely only hinders our ability to accurately study fan practices.

When we look at the material side of fan practices, or mimetic fandom as Matt Hills puts it, we can see ways that this binary can be both harmful and plainly incorrect. When considering the idea of mimetic fandom, or "the creation of highly screen-accurate prop replicas" (Hills 1.2), we see how one can look at it as a purely affirmational practice. However, to do so would be unfair to a large portion of the mimetic community. For example, if we study mimetic fandom as a male dominated practice, we would be ignoring the hugely popular community of female cosplayers, a community that is not only rapidly growing in numbers, but also distinct enough to be studied on its own.

Mimetic practices are also unique in their ability to blur the lines of affirmational and transformational fandom, erasing the need for a binary where one is unnecessary. When studying products of mimetic fandom, we see how a fan designing a screen-accurate costume might have to take certain liberties in the design where the source material may not have an answer, thereby turning an affirmational work into a transformational one. On the other side, when creating a transformational work, generally an extensive knowledge of the source material is needed to help the new work fit into the universe of the original, further blurring the line of these two forms of fandom practices. When we study fandoms in a binary, we risk either ignoring large communities of fans or misrepresenting the work that goes into both affirmational and transformational practices.

Works cited:

obsession_inc. “Affirmational Fandom vs. Transformational Fandom”. Dreamwidth. Dreamwidth Studios, 1 June 2009. Web.