Do we need rec.arts.sf.fandom.media?
User Support
: Over the last few weeks, there has been a real deluge
: of media-related topics to this group. I ignore them
: (of course), but it is kind of annoying. I think
: there might be enough traffic for rec.arts.sf.fandom.media.
: What do the rest of you think?
Redundant with rec.arts.sf.tv.*, isn't it?
Kristin Ruhle
: Over the last few weeks, there has been a real deluge
: of media-related topics to this group. I ignore them
: (of course), but it is kind of annoying. I think
: there might be enough traffic for rec.arts.sf.fandom.media.
: What do the rest of you think?
There's already rec.arts.sf.tv and rec.arts.sf.movies. the problem seems
to be inappropriate CROSSPOSTING.
--
***********************************************************************
"Throw the crib door wide,
let the people crawl inside,
Someone in this town
is trying to burn the playhouse down." -They Might Be Giants
***********************************************************************
Kristin
kru...@netcom.com
Richard Newsome
>: Over the last few weeks, there has been a real deluge
>: of media-related topics to this group. I ignore them
>: (of course), but it is kind of annoying. I think
>: there might be enough traffic for rec.arts.sf.fandom.media.
>: What do the rest of you think?
How about splitting it like this: rec.arts.sf.media.fandom
and rec.arts.sf.written.fandom
I think that a narrower and more restrictive term than "fan" or "fandom"
is needed, since everyone considers him or herself to be a "fan" of
something or other. Maybe, in the tradition of soc.motss, a cryptic
newsgroup name that won't mean anything to most people on the net should
be employed.
Laurie D Mann
of media-related topics to this group. I ignore them
(of course), but it is kind of annoying. I think
there might be enough traffic for rec.arts.sf.fandom.media.
What do the rest of you think?
*** Laurie D. Mann, Technical Writer, Carnegie Mellon University ***
*lm...@ansible.andrew.cmu.edu ** Pithy saying under deconstruction.*
********* CMU Page http://ansible.andrew.cmu.edu/lm3k.html *********
********* Telerama Home Page: http://www.lm.com/~lmann/ *********
Laurie Mann
> Laurie D Mann (lm...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
> : Over the last few weeks, there has been a real deluge
> : of media-related topics to this group. I ignore them
> : (of course), but it is kind of annoying. I think
> : there might be enough traffic for rec.arts.sf.fandom.media.
> : What do the rest of you think?
> There's already rec.arts.sf.tv and rec.arts.sf.movies. the problem seems
> to be inappropriate CROSSPOSTING.
Well...yes and no.
A "fandom" group talks about the cons and zines and people related
to the genre, NOT the "genre" itself. We have this group, for example,
rather than posting fannish info to rasfmisc or rasfwritten, for
example. There's certainly some overlap between litfen and
mediafen, but there's also a distinctly different audience of
mediafen, who may never look at this group.
However, you're right that the mediacon info could be
posted to rec.arts.sf.tv. That doesn't appear to have
occured to the people doing the posting here.
--
****Laurie Mann * * lm...@telerama.lm.com * * Laurie.Mann (GEnie)****
******** CMU Home Page http://ansible.andrew.cmu.edu/lm3k.html *********
******** Telerama Home Page: http://www.lm.com/~lmann/ **************
Chris Croughton
lm...@andrew.cmu.edu "Laurie D Mann" writes:
>Over the last few weeks, there has been a real deluge
>of media-related topics to this group. I ignore them
>(of course), but it is kind of annoying. I think
>there might be enough traffic for rec.arts.sf.fandom.media.
>What do the rest of you think?
Judging by my downloads, no. There is less traffic here than in most
other groups I get (alt.discordia is slightly more, but messages there
are crossposted everywhere). I make it well under 100 messages a week
total - r.a.sf.written has had more than that in a day.
It may be an unpopular view, but I think that SF media fandom is still
part of SF fandom (I wouldn't include other media fandom like Dallas or
Neighbours, though <g>). In fact, I was at a media con a couple of
weeks ago ("Who's 7", a Dr. Who / Blake's 7 combined convention) and
most of the people there seemed to be general fans who like the media SF
productions as an aspect of SF.
If you want to decrease the proportion of media messages, find
something else to talk about - I haven't seen much here of interest
lately except the media ones...
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
Steve Glover
Richard Newsome <new...@panix.com> wrote:
>I think that a narrower and more restrictive term than "fan" or "fandom"
>is needed, since everyone considers him or herself to be a "fan" of
>something or other. Maybe, in the tradition of soc.motss, a cryptic
>newsgroup name that won't mean anything to most people on the net should
>be employed.
r.a.sf.f.ijagh
r.a.sf.f.iawol
--
((@@@*@@@)) All the Steve Glover
(*@|||@*) Talk (Fan programme, Intersection: 1995 Worldcon)
||| Of the (__ OVDG, Evolution: 1996 British Eastercon)
\\|||// Market (\/ This space intentionally left blank)
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> In article <3a4lg4$3...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Richard Newsome <new...@panix.com> wrote:
>>I think that a narrower and more restrictive term than "fan" or "fandom"
>>Maybe, in the tradition of soc.motss, a cryptic
>>newsgroup name that won't mean anything to most people on the net should
>>be employed.
>
> r.a.sf.f.ijagh
> r.a.sf.f.iawol
A constructive suggestion, Steve, but I can imagine that there
might be a lot of crossposting...
O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/
- ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
/ \ (_) (_) / | \
| | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
\ / Bitnet: HIG...@FNAL.BITNET
- - Internet: HIG...@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43009::HIGGINS
Leah Smith
>I think that a narrower and more restrictive term than "fan" or "fandom"
>is needed, since everyone considers him or herself to be a "fan" of
>something or other. Maybe, in the tradition of soc.motss, a cryptic
>newsgroup name that won't mean anything to most people on the net should
>be employed.
I'm beginning to think this we should find a new term for what we mean
by "fan" and "fandom" altogether. A lot of clueless people seem to use
them them to mean "consumers of science fiction," and become quite
offended when told that watching Star Trek doesn't make them a fan.
--
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
Pat McMurray
ch...@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) wrote:
>Judging by my downloads, no. There is less traffic here than in most
>other groups I get (alt.discordia is slightly more, but messages there
>are crossposted everywhere). I make it well under 100 messages a week
>total - r.a.sf.written has had more than that in a day.
>
>It may be an unpopular view, but I think that SF media fandom is still
>part of SF fandom (I wouldn't include other media fandom like Dallas or
>Neighbours, though <g>).
I agree with Chris on this, it's not that busy a newsgroup compared to
r.a.s.w or r.a.s.tv.babylon5. I've been hanging around on r.a.s.tv.b5 and
I've seen a few familiar faces.
Pat
Bill Roper
tomorrow's fringefan and the trufan of the future...
(If, of course, he learns to read. :)
--
Bill Roper, ro...@mcs.com
Erik Olson
>by "fan" and "fandom" altogether. A lot of clueless people seem to use
>them them to mean "consumers of science fiction," and become quite
>offended when told that watching Star Trek doesn't make them a fan.
>
* Erik V. Olson * This is not a clever message *
* er...@bix.com * All .sigs have a clever message *
* Just this guy, ya know * Therefore, this is not a .sig *
Laurie Mann
> >I'm beginning to think this we should find a new term for what we mean
> >by "fan" and "fandom" altogether. A lot of clueless people seem to use
> >them them to mean "consumers of science fiction," and become quite
> >offended when told that watching Star Trek doesn't make them a fan.
> I think that the fan/fen distinction works quite nicely, don't you?
No, because fen has been used as the PLURAL of fan for something
like 20 years.
I don't have a problem with media folks calling themselves fans or
fen. My complaint is the recent barrage of media-fandom-related
postings in this group (and mostly from the same three people...).
David E Romm
> In article <3a4lg4$3...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Richard Newsome <new...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >I think that a narrower and more restrictive term than "fan" or "fandom"
> >is needed, since everyone considers him or herself to be a "fan" of
> >something or other. Maybe, in the tradition of soc.motss, a cryptic
> >newsgroup name that won't mean anything to most people on the net should
> >be employed.
>
> r.a.sf.f.ijagh
> r.a.sf.f.iawol
(0)(-)
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio show in
the galaxy. Riding the wave since the Year of Our Moonlanding 10. Tapes
available.
"Do you know why we do this stuff? We don't know how to do nothin' else."
-- Hee Haw
Dr Gafia
>posted to rec.arts.sf.tv. That doesn't appear to have
>occured to the people doing the posting here.
Having stumbled onto the Internet myself, I'd say it's a question of how
to get people trained so that they understand inappropriate postings.
Dr Gafia
Smith) writes:
>I'm beginning to think this we should find a new term for what we
>mean by "fan" and "fandom" altogether. A lot of clueless people
>seem to use them them to mean "consumers of science fiction,"
>and become quite offended when told that watching Star Trek
>doesn't make them a fan.
Ah, but anyone who claims to be a fan, is; I know precisely what you mean,
Leah, and yet we don't own the word, and it's presumptuous to think
otherwise. Perhaps we should give more consideration to Francis T.
Laney's suggestion that we should call ourselves "amateurs". And in other
situations, I could make the point that we were fanzine fandom--except
that here, we have a lot of fanzine fans and a lot of people who are
borderline fanzine fans and a lot of people who are fans of literary sf
and we need a broad label to cover them all that at the same time would
exclude other-media fans. I do admire Walt Willis's defense of "amateur"
being, in some respects, superior to "professional" because I'm constantly
quasi-quoting it--to the effect that anyone who belives professionals are
"obviously" superior in all cases to amateurs would have to prefer the
ministrations of a prostitute or gigolo to those of a willing and
imaginative lover...
Dr Gafia
>Ah, but remember that that protofan "consumer of Star
>Trek" today may be tomorrow's fringefan and the
>trufan of the future...
>(If, of course, he learns to read. :)
Excellent point. They'll also have to be educated about the real meaning
of certain stfnal terms. "(space) warp", e.g.
Erik Olson
>
>No, because fen has been used as the PLURAL of fan for something
>like 20 years.
>
>I don't have a problem with media folks calling themselves fans or
>fen. My complaint is the recent barrage of media-fandom-related
>postings in this group (and mostly from the same three people...).
>
themselves as FANS, no Fen. Darned what one missing letter can do, eh?
Kathryn Andersen
--
_--_|\ Kathryn Andersen <k...@werple.apana.org.au>
/ \ #include "std/disclaimer.h"
\_.--.*/ Donvale -> Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia
v -> Southern Hemisphere -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy
Chris Croughton
>>I'm beginning to think this we should find a new term for what we mean
>>by "fan" and "fandom" altogether. A lot of clueless people seem to use
>>them them to mean "consumers of science fiction," and become quite
>>offended when told that watching Star Trek doesn't make them a fan.
>>
>I think that the fan/fen distinction works quite nicely, don't you?
What, you mean 1 fan, 2 or more fen? I don't see how that distinguishes
between 'consumers' and 'fans'...
For that matter, I feel that the distinction between "fans who are
involved in SF fandom" and "fans who just like like reading / watching
SF but don't like conventions / fanzines etc." to be somewhat artificial
anyway...
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> >I'm beginning to think this we should find a new term for what we
> >mean by "fan" and "fandom" altogether. A lot of clueless people
> >seem to use them them to mean "consumers of science fiction,"
> >and become quite offended when told that watching Star Trek
> >doesn't make them a fan.
> Ah, but anyone who claims to be a fan, is; I know precisely what you mean,
> Leah, and yet we don't own the word, and it's presumptuous to think
> otherwise.
Ah, we are back to the good ole definition game again! :) I can see both
sides of the argument ("presumtuous pigeonholing" vs. "amorphous
non-definiton") and suspect that we'd have an easier time finding a
non-controversial definition of science fiction than coming up with a
brand new definition of fandom acceptable to all parties :)
> Perhaps we should give more consideration to Francis T.
> Laney's suggestion that we should call ourselves "amateurs".
If you mean "amateurs" as in "amateur writers", then let me ask you a few
questions:
Do convention fans count? Do collectors qualify? Need letterhacks apply?
Do 'readers' pass muster? How about personalzines? Non-fiction fanzine
articles? Faans? Didn't somebody doubt Bob Madle's credentials back in
1956? Shouldn't we kick Forry out as a 'primarily media fan'? ;)
See what I mean? :)
OTOH, if "amateurs" means 'anybody involved in SF who doesn't get paid
(serious money)', then we are back to square one and everybody is a fan.
Except that now Bob Bloch and Harry Stubbs (Hal Clement) are excluded and
I can assure you that neither would like it ;) You wouldn't want Bloch's
ghost to haunt you, now would you? ;)
> And in other
> situations, I could make the point that we were fanzine fandom--except
> that here, we have a lot of fanzine fans and a lot of people who are
> borderline fanzine fans and a lot of people who are fans of literary sf
> and we need a broad label to cover them all that at the same time would
> exclude other-media fans.
If there were a lot of media fans flooding this group with zillions of
posts - well, then rec.arts.sf.fandom.written,
rec.arts.sf.fandom.startrek, etc would be in order. But I just don't see
it happening ... yet.
> I do admire Walt Willis's defense of "amateur"
> being, in some respects, superior to "professional" because I'm constantly
> quasi-quoting it--to the effect that anyone who belives professionals are
> "obviously" superior in all cases to amateurs would have to prefer the
> ministrations of a prostitute or gigolo to those of a willing and
> imaginative lover...
The only thing that we know for sure about amateurs is that they don't
sell their "product" - which doesn't necessarily mean that they *couldn't*
sell it if they wanted to. Market pressures are a mixed blessing, often
avoided even by professional writers, e.g. Gene Wolfe. To each his own...
Oh well, just my $0.02...
--
Ahasuerus, definitely not a fan according to most definitions :)
"...and the truth shall make you free"
Chad Childers
Hah!
>offended when told that watching Star Trek doesn't make them a fan.
And well they should be - it certainly makes them a fan of that show, and it
has long been the best way of getting people into fandom. You're shooting
yourself in the foot to tell trek fans they're not as good as you - trekkies
are just as good as filkers, gamers, costumers, or letterhacks, all different
sides of a VERY multidimensional coin.
I'll admit that I want to see people encouraged to read more good SF, but I
don't think that putting them down is the way to go about that. Fandom is
about ACCEPTING differences, not forcing everyone into the same mold.
Didn't we discuss the variety at Ditto last weekend? "some of the best old
fanzines were about baseball", didn't someone say something about that? I
just read a wonderful piece that Howard did about WWII, and there are Mike
Resnick's neverending African safari trip reports... ghod knows Trek is a lot
more scientifictional than that!
--
/* Chad Childers */ http://grimmy.cnidr.org/chad.html
Dr Gafia
(Chris Croughton) writes:
>For that matter, I feel that the distinction between "fans who
>are involved in SF fandom" and "fans who just like like reading
>/ watching SF but don't like conventions / fanzines etc." to be
>somewhat artificial anyway...
If "artificial" are you saying there's no distinction between the two
categories? If so, nonsense!!
Dr Gafia
(Chad Childers) writes:
>>...offended when told that watching Star Trek doesn't make them a fan.
>And well they should be - it certainly makes them a fan
>of that show, and it has long been the best way of getting
>people into fandom.
Your first point is well taken--as I said to Leah, myself, we don't even
have first dibs on "fan". But your second point--that Star Trek "has long
been the best way of getting people into fandom" is laughable. Sorry, but
there it is.
>You're shooting yourself in the foot to tell trek
>fans they're not as good as you - trekkies are just
>as good as filkers, gamers, costumers, or letterhacks,
>all different sides of a VERY multidimensional coin.
Until you got to "letterhacks", I was agreeing that you were right in what
you were saying, even though you probably wouldn't agree with my
interpretation of what's "right" about it.
We have a problem with STAR TREK. On the one hand, we sf readers have
long yearned to see sf given the respect it deserves. Instead, that
respect appears to be going to STAR TREK, even though in many respects we
realize ST doesn't deserve it. You see, when we were all reading fans, we
yearned for good sf movies--and when we saw what we thought were a few
good ones (DESTINATION MOON and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL), we
naturally praised them. But we also had fun poking fun at the stuff that
Hollywood turned out and called science fiction, even though we knew
better; stuff in the I DREAMED I WAS A GIGANTIC TEENAGE LADYBUG WITH THE
ATOMIC BRAIN FROM OUTER SPACE THAT CONQUORED THE WORLD, ALMOST mold got
out laughs and derision. Now, when we point out the stupidities of STAR
TREK (of which there are many), as we used to do in those old "B" movies,
the Trekkies get offended. They think they speak the same language we do,
but they're wrong.
Now this is not to say that ST has never been any good. It has had its
moments. But it has done a lot of dumb stuff, too, and we get blamed for
pointing out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
Regards,
rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> by "fan" and "fandom" altogether. A lot of clueless people seem to use
> them them to mean "consumers of science fiction," and become quite
> offended when told that watching Star Trek doesn't make them a fan.
They're not clueless. They are using the ordinary dictionary meaning
of the word "fan." They are simply not aware of the more specialized
meaning the world has for you and me. So I think they have some
reason to take offense, unless the distinction is explained to them
very gently.
"After you've read through a few hundred volumes | Bill Higgins
you'll find that it's okay as a space opera." | Fermilab
--Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber |
(na...@mips.ruessel.sub.org) | hig...@fnal.fnal.gov
on the 1670-book Perry Rhodan series | hig...@fnal.Bitnet
Leah Smith
In article <7851141...@smith.chi.il.us>, I wrote:
>>I'm beginning to think this we should find a new term for what we
>>mean by "fan" and "fandom" altogether. A lot of clueless people
>>seem to use them to mean "consumers of science fiction,"
>>and become quite offended when told that watching Star Trek
>>doesn't make them a fan.
In article <3anc96$4...@newsbf01.news.aol.com> drg...@aol.com writes:
>Ah, but anyone who claims to be a fan, is; I know precisely what you mean,
>Leah, and yet we don't own the word, and it's presumptuous to think
>otherwise. Perhaps we should give more consideration to Francis T.
>Laney's suggestion that we should call ourselves "amateurs". And in other
>situations, I could make the point that we were fanzine fandom--except
>that here, we have a lot of fanzine fans and a lot of people who are
>borderline fanzine fans and a lot of people who are fans of literary sf
>and we need a broad label to cover them all that at the same time would
>exclude other-media fans.
Yes, that's why I think perhaps we need a new label to describe the people
who are hooked into the network of fandom as you and I understand it. I
don't necessarily even exclude media fen -- Bjo Trimble is certainly a fan
-- but I do exclude the people who we used to call "readers" and nowadays
many of the people who passively attend SF conventions without ever
finding out there's more to fandom than that.
I remember having a conversation with you and Geri Sullivan at a Corflu
awhile back, when I tried to explain why I felt that the Fourth Street
Fantasy Convention ought not to be held opposite Midwestcon any more
than it should be held opposite Corflu -- that these were all
conventions for, more or less, traditional fandom (classic fandom?), as
opposed to big popular culture events like Minicon or Windycon. I'm not
sure either of you understood what I was getting at.
Corflu and ditto are both attended by a lot of what I think of as "fake
fanzine fans," people who don't do fanzines themselves but like to hang
out with those who do. Leslie Smith made the point at ditto this
weekend that these cons remind her of SF cons of 20 years ago. We also
have a lot of former fanzine fans, people who used to do fanzines but
are out of touch today (as the trivia game on recently published
fanzines at ditto made very clear), even though they may be very
active in other aspects of fandom.
My personal fandom has always included a lot of people who were only con
fans or apahacks; to me, being involved in the international fan network
is what makes someone a fan. But, as I said, a lot of people use the
dictionary definition, whereby "SF fan" has roughly the same implication
as "sports fan," and don't understand that in our use it has little
to do with being a fan *of* anything. We need a word to describe
ourselves, our gestalt, that can't be misinterpreted that way.
I don't think Laney's "amateurs" is it, and Bill the Galactic Fesselmeyer's
"thusiasts" won't do either. I've been using the retronym "traditional
fandom," but it has drawbacks.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Leah Smith <le...@smith.chi.il.us> wrote:
>
> In article <7851141...@smith.chi.il.us>, I wrote:
>
> >>I'm beginning to think this we should find a new term for what we
> >>mean by "fan" and "fandom" altogether. A lot of clueless people
> >>seem to use them to mean "consumers of science fiction,"
> >>and become quite offended when told that watching Star Trek
> >>doesn't make them a fan.
>
> In article <3anc96$4...@newsbf01.news.aol.com> drg...@aol.com writes:
> >Ah, but anyone who claims to be a fan, is; I know precisely what you mean,
> >Leah, and yet we don't own the word, and it's presumptuous to think
> >otherwise. Perhaps we should give more consideration to Francis T.
> >Laney's suggestion that we should call ourselves "amateurs". And in other
> >situations, I could make the point that we were fanzine fandom--except
> >that here, we have a lot of fanzine fans and a lot of people who are
> >borderline fanzine fans and a lot of people who are fans of literary sf
> >and we need a broad label to cover them all that at the same time would
> >exclude other-media fans.
>
> Yes, that's why I think perhaps we need a new label to describe the people
> who are hooked into the network of fandom as you and I understand it. I
> don't necessarily even exclude media fen -- Bjo Trimble is certainly a fan
> -- but I do exclude the people who we used to call "readers" and nowadays
> many of the people who passively attend SF conventions without ever
> finding out there's more to fandom than that.
You may need a new term, but even more certainly you need a
definition. "The network of fandom as you and I understand it" sounds
remarkably like "science fiction is what I point to when I say it." It
may be true, but I don't know what you mean by it.
Case in point: Am I a fan? Am I in fandom?
Someone at ConAdian told me, "Fanzine fans like you are always looking
down on media fans." I'm a fanzine fan? The only "fanzine" I publish
is basically electronic, and most fanzine fans protest loudly that
electronic "fanzines" aren't really fanzines. (My writing does appear
in "traditional" fanzines, however.)
On the other hand, I spent a week at the Montreal International Film
festival before ConAdian. I would *think* that would make me a media
fan.
I'm certainly a reader. I am also a reviewer. And I don't think my
convention-going is passive. On the other, I don't frequent the parties,
or get involved in the "fannish" activities.
Give me a definition of "fan," so I know if I am one, and "fandom," so I
know if I'm in it.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | Evelyn...@att.com
"The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice,
and the desire for personal independence--these are the features of the Jewish
tradition which make me thank my stars that I belong to it." --Albert Einstein
Dr Gafia
>In article <3anc96$4...@newsbf01.news.aol.com
>drg...@aol.com writes:
>>Ah, but anyone who claims to be a fan, is; I know
>precisely what you mean, Leah, and yet we don't
>own the word, and it's presumptuous to think
>otherwise. Perhaps we should give
>more consideration to Francis T. Laney's suggestion
>that we should call ourselves "amateurs".
> And in other situations, I could make the point that
>we were fanzine fandom--except that here, we have
>a lot of fanzine fans and a lot of people who are
>borderline fanzine fans and a lot of people who are
>fans of literary sf and we need a broad label to cover
>them all that at the same time would exclude
>other-media fans.
>Yes, that's why I think perhaps we need a new label to describe the
>people who are hooked into the network of fandom as you and I >understand
it. I don't necessarily even exclude media fen -- Bjo >Trimble is
certainly a fan -- but I do exclude the people who we
>used to call "readers" and nowadays many of the people who >passively
attend SF conventions without ever finding out there's >more to fandom
than that.
Well, in fanzine fandom itself we refer to ourselves as fanzine fandom.
So what's wrong with the same here? How about "fanzine fandom on-line"?
We can "exclude" people we don't consider fans from our own definitions of
the term but we can't exclude anyone from so designating themselves.
Whether or not they are "in" fandom depends entirely on their willingness
to participate. You can accept the RIGHT of someone -- a media fan like
Bjo, e.g. -- to be included, but that agreement with their right doesn't
automatically include them in the microcosm if they don't themselves elect
to participate in it. Bjo, who used to be my "sexretary" when I was
second in command of the Soames Investigative Consultants (or the s.i.c.
of the S.I.C.), a GDA takeoff, will certainly be welcomed by me if she
ever elects to participate in fanzine fandom again. But until she,
herself, decides to do so, she is on its face not a "part" of it.
>I remember having a conversation with you and Geri
>Sullivan at a Corflu awhile back, when I tried to explain
>why I felt that the Fourth Street Fantasy Convention
>ought not to be held opposite Midwestcon any more
>than it should be held opposite Corflu -- that these were
>all conventions for, more or less, traditional fandom
>(classic fandom?), as opposed to big popular culture
>events like Minicon or Windycon. I'm not sure either of
>you understood what I was getting at.
I don't specifically recall the discussion but I've often remarked my
cast-iron sieve of a memory. You make yourself perfectly clear here, and
I agree with you. Or I THINK I do--I've not actually been to Minicon or
Windycon, but I think I've been to the East Coast equivalents in the
present-day Balticon and Disclave. Both describe themselves as
"multi-media"; if I go, these days, it's because someone I know is going
to be there and not because the convention itself offers much of anything
that attracts me.
>Corflu and ditto are both attended by a lot of what I think of
>as "fake fanzine fans," people who don't do fanzines
>themselves but like to hang out with those who do. Leslie
>Smith made the point at ditto this weekend that these cons
>remind her of SF cons of 20 years ago. We also have a lot
>of former fanzine fans, people who used to do fanzines but
>are out of touch today (as the trivia game on recently published
>fanzines at ditto made very clear), even though they may
>be very active in other aspects of fandom.
The term "fake fan" is not always a pejorative; in its earliest
applications, it simply meant a person who liked to hang out with sf fans,
even though s/he had never read a word of sf. Sf is not, I trust, the
be-all and end-all of existence for any of us; it's just the common
interest that brought us together. Science fiction is a great attractor of
interesting people, but not necessarily a good "sifter"--as our history of
fuggheads clearly demonstrates. I think you would (and I know I would)
much prefer to get into a conversation with Rich Alex Kirs (a Toronto
"Insurgent" who contributed to A BAS but didn't read sf and never
published a fanazine of his own) or Hal Hughes (a member of the Fanoclasts
in the mid-'60s, New York fandom's "club for fanzine fans", although Hal
never did get around to publishing one) than you would (or I would) with
George Wetzel, who published quite a few fanzines on his own and was so
"into" his skiffy that he is still highly regarded in the field of H.P.
Lovecraft research, for all that he was a stone bigot who would sic postal
and other government authorities on you or write poison pen letters about
you to your employer if you got him ticked off at you. (In your case,
Leah, simply being Jewish would have been enough.) Give me people who
like to hang out with us any day; their "liking" to hang out with us may
say something about them AND about us. Think about it.
>My personal fandom has always included a lot of people who
>were only con fans or apahacks; to me, being involved in the
>international fan network is what makes someone a fan. But,
>as I said, a lot of people use the dictionary definition, whereby
>"SF fan" has roughly the same implication as "sports fan,"
>and don't understand that in our use it has little to do with
>being a fan *of* anything.
>We need a word to describe ourselves, our gestalt,
>that can't be misinterpreted that way.
True. As Walt Willis put it, Hugo Gernsback has a lot to answer for in
naming us "fans". But there's a distiction you've perhaps overlooked;
before we broke things down into club and convention and fanzine fans, we
were "actifans". Anyone who likes sf can legitimately claim to be sf
fans. To be an "active sf fan," however, means to be a current
participant in fandom, which these people cannot claim. (But even that
leaves us with participants in "other" fandoms that believe themselves to
be part of our fandom, like Star Trek. But hey, as Don Marquis so aptly
put it: You can't have everything.)
And you do use a rather magical word there -- "gestalt". That's another
reason, though, that I don't have any problem with "fake fanzine fans"
(who like to hang out with fanzine fans) any more than I used to have any
problem with "fake fans" (who had no interest in sf but liked to
participate in fandom). Max Keasler, editor of Sixth Fandom's FANVARIETY
and OPUS, was a fake fan. So is Pam Wells, currently editing ATTITUDE
coming out of the U.K. You see, they are attracted to the "gestalt" even
as you and I are; we have that attraction in common with them, and they
with us. There are other things that "matter", of course, but they don't
matter that much.
Chad Childers
>there it is.
My reason for saying that is because 1) of the huge influxes of people that
came into fandom back when Trek left the air and 2) because it was successful,
it got the Hollywood types interested in making more SF, some of which just
might be as good as Trek (I still think it's the best thing on television,
which admittedly ain't saying much).
>Until you got to "letterhacks", I was agreeing that you were right in what
>you were saying, even though you probably wouldn't agree with my
>interpretation of what's "right" about it.
Heh. Do you grant all the above (bar letterhacks) their right to exist?
>We have a problem with STAR TREK. On the one hand, we sf readers have
>long yearned to see sf given the respect it deserves. Instead, that
See point 2 above. Also why I like FRIDAY, even though it wasn't that stunning
as a book.
>naturally praised them. But we also had fun poking fun at the stuff that
>Hollywood turned out and called science fiction, even though we knew
Of course.
>the Trekkies get offended. They think they speak the same language we do,
>but they're wrong.
Not necessarily. Okay, if someone gets TOO into ST, to the point where they
actually BELIEVE it, not acknowledging that it's just a dumb TV show, they've
got a problem. Media fans often get that way - all of the Beauty and the Beast
and Trek fans that were at Marcon were amoung my reasons for ceasing to attend
that con. That doesn't mean they're not a fan, tho, does it? Besides which,
what about the legions of people (myself included) who like some things about
Star Trek (I couldn't stand TNG, but that's personal preference) but also have
a sense of humor about it? Are you trying to say that no trufan ever gets
offended by anything? ;-)
Remember, 90% of everything is drek.
Rick Waterson
>They're not clueless. They are using the ordinary dictionary meaning
>of the word "fan." They are simply not aware of the more specialized
>meaning the world has for you and me. So I think they have some
>reason to take offense, unless the distinction is explained to them
>very gently.
Isn't fan defined as a device to move hot air? If so, I met
many people who meet that description at a recent convention.
Rick Waterson - ram...@xnet.com
Leah Smith
>You may need a new term, but even more certainly you need a
>definition. "The network of fandom as you and I understand it" sounds
>remarkably like "science fiction is what I point to when I say it." It
>may be true, but I don't know what you mean by it.
>
>Case in point: Am I a fan? Am I in fandom?
Yes and yes.
I agree that my definition suffers from being rather circular. Fans are
members of fandom and fandom is made up fans. Fans do fanlike things
and communicate with other fans. I guess that last is the most
important part.
I don't care what medium they use -- it can be attending cons, writing
on the net or publishing fanzines, but if you're not in touch with the
rest of fandom on a more or less regular basis then you're not in
fandom. And attending the con in your back yard once a year doesn't
count. (If that's all you do, even running the con in your back yard
once a year doesn't count. I can think of at least one former Worldcon
chairman who isn't -- and wasn't then -- a fan.)
>Someone at ConAdian told me, "Fanzine fans like you are always looking
>down on media fans." I'm a fanzine fan? The only "fanzine" I publish
>is basically electronic, and most fanzine fans protest loudly that
>electronic "fanzines" aren't really fanzines. (My writing does appear
>in "traditional" fanzines, however.)
Well, you read and write for fanzines, don't you? You don't have to
publish your own zine to be a fanzine fan. All Harry Warner publishes
these days is an apazine.
But you can't win. While people here call me a fanzine snob, some
fanzine fans are calling me "New Fandom."
>On the other hand, I spent a week at the Montreal International Film
>festival before ConAdian. I would *think* that would make me a media
>fan.
Being a fan *of* media is not the same thing as being a media fan, any
more than being a fan of SF makes one an SF fan. I probably read more
mysteries than SF these days, but I'm not a member of mystery fandom.
If I went to a Bouchercon, the only people I'd know are those who are
also members of SF fandom.
If you write for Dr. Who fanzines or work on Star Trek cons or dress up
like TV actors, then you might be a media fan. Going to movies isn't
enough.
>I'm certainly a reader. I am also a reviewer. And I don't think my
>convention-going is passive. On the other, I don't frequent the parties,
>or get involved in the "fannish" activities.
It seems to me I've run into you at a party or two. And if writing for
fanzines isn't fannish, I don't know what is. Your writing may not be
*faanish,* but that's no requirement.
Besides, don't you have broad mental horizons and a sensitive fannish
face? :-)
--
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
Leah Smith
>They're not clueless. They are using the ordinary dictionary meaning
>of the word "fan." They are simply not aware of the more specialized
>meaning the world has for you and me. So I think they have some
>reason to take offense, unless the distinction is explained to them
>very gently.
Well, in one particular case, the people were offended even though I had
been explaining the distinction for 20 minutes on a panel, starting with
"Forget about Webster's definition...." I hadn't singled them out or
anything -- I didn't even know them -- all I had said was that it took
more than going to an SF con in their hometown once a year to be a fan.
I mean, I've been to Mass, but that doesn't make me a Catholic, does it?
--
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
Richard Newsome
>But you can't win. While people here call me a fanzine snob, some
>fanzine fans are calling me "New Fandom."
I've heard something about Ted White's attacks on New Fandom, but it is not
clear to me who "New Fandom" are and why they are presumed to be horrible,
awful people. Can somebody fill me in? Are we talking about Astromancer
Quarterly here, or what?
lm...@telerama.lm.com
This is certainly a new term to me. Leah and I've been around about
20 years, and certainly Ted's been around much, much longer than
that...but to call people who've been around THAT long new
sounds stupid.
Perhaps "New Fandom" is an attack against fannish folk who prefer to
do their fanac via computer rather than on paper "as Ghu
intended?"
(PS: Richard---your check should have been in the mail, except
that I dropped it in my purse and forgot to mail it. Tomorrow,
for sure!)
David E Romm
wrote:
> And you do use a rather magical word there -- "gestalt". That's another
> reason, though, that I don't have any problem with "fake fanzine fans"
> (who like to hang out with fanzine fans) any more than I used to have any
> problem with "fake fans" (who had no interest in sf but liked to
> participate in fandom). Max Keasler, editor of Sixth Fandom's FANVARIETY
> and OPUS, was a fake fan. So is Pam Wells, currently editing ATTITUDE
> coming out of the U.K. You see, they are attracted to the "gestalt" even
> as you and I are; we have that attraction in common with them, and they
> with us. There are other things that "matter", of course, but they don't
> matter that much.
There was a time, several hundred years ago, when it was possible to know
everything. One could have a library of ALL the important books every
published. Such a person was called (retroactively) a 'Renaissance Man'.
After a while, there was too much knowledge for one person to master. The
term has stuck to someone who is adept in many fields, but it isn't the
same.
Similarly, fandom. There was a time, several decades ago, when it was
possible to know everything fannish. One could subscribe to ALL the
important fanzines and make ALL the major cons (or at least read conreports
of them). Such a person was called (retroactively) a Trufan. But now,
that is no longer the case. There are too many fanzines, too many cons,
too many new media of fannish communication (such as this Usenet group) and
science fiction in many, many places. The term has stuck to someone who
uses fandom as their primary social unit, but it isn't the same.
Even if fandom is your way of life, it is someone else's hobby, even if
that someone else also has fandom as a way of life.
I tend to see the distinction that you, Leah and others are trying to make
as one between 'audience' and 'participant'. We have this problem at
Minicon all the time. As a 'fan', are you expected to write fanzines, help
with cons, or otherwise disperse and collect egoboo? Or are you a fan
because your VCR is set to tape Mystery Science 3000 even if you don't
actually watch the episode?
The unique thing about SF fandom (as opposed to any other kind of fan
groups, such as baseball fandom), is that it has a written history. This
is no longer a) true or b) unique.
In large part, that's a measure of our success. Fandom's only true
invention was the Mailing Comment. Now, Usenet groups are nothing but.
Fandom has grown so large that it is no longer necessary to write up your
filk session/convention/trip to consider yourself a fan.
I don't see that as inherently bad, but just a matter of the changing
nature of fandom. I wouldn't want to go back to the fandom of the 30s or
40s, where you only connected with other fen a few times a year, when their
zine came out or you met at a con.
Personally, I like living in the future.
Well, that's my $0.03 (allowing for inflation).
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio show in
the galaxy. Riding the wave since the Year of Our Moonlanding 10. Tapes
available.
MilliChaney: The amount of skill needed to make one face.
Ahrvid Engholm
>>But you can't win. While people here call me a fanzine snob, some
>>fanzine fans are calling me "New Fandom."
>I've heard something about Ted White's attacks on New Fandom, but it is not
>clear to me who "New Fandom" are and why they are presumed to be horrible,
>awful people. Can somebody fill me in? Are we talking about Astromancer
>Quarterly here, or what?
to organize the first worldcon in 1939. The whole think became rather
controversial due to the Exclusion Act (when Don Wollheim and some others
of the Futurians, enemies to Moskowitz, weren't allowed to enter the con-
vention). This thing still generates some heat.
Dr Gafia
(Chad Childers) writes:
>> [the notion that Star Trek has] been "the best way
>>of getting people into fandom" is laughable. Sorry,
>>but there it is.
>My reason for saying that is because 1) of the huge
>influxes of people that came into fandom back when
>Trek left the air....
Clueless newbies and people wandering around in Spock ears and dressed as
Klingons. People who get upset if you laugh at William Shatner's
ham-handed "acting" . . .
>and 2) because it was successful, it got the Hollywood
>types interested in making more SF, some of which just
>might be as good as Trek (I still think it's the best thing
>on television, which admittedly ain't saying much).
I wd grant that it got Hollywood types looking to make blockbuster sf. A
small portion of which was been MUCH BETTER than Trek (e.g., Back to the
Future, Alien [but not the sequels], &c.). Compare ST to "The Twilight
Zone" and Trek loses; compare Trek to Lost in Space and ST wins. This
much I grant.
>>Until you got to "letterhacks", I was agreeing that you
>>were right in what you were saying, even though you
>>probably wouldn't agree with my interpretation of what's
>>"right" about it.
>Heh. Do you grant all the above (bar letterhacks) their right to exist?
Yes, everyone but a certain class of filk singer--the ones who come into
parties where people are conversing, sit down and begin to render 27
choruses of "My Space Bucket's Got A Hole In It." These pipple should be
taken out and shot.
>>We have a problem with STAR TREK. On the one hand,
>>we sf readers have long yearned to see sf given the respect
>>it deserves.
>See point 2 above.
No, "success" is actually irrelevant. I grant there are people who will
only grant their respect to something that makes a lot of $$ but I'm
talking about the kind of respect that acknowledges that something is
good.
>>...the Trekkies get offended. They think they speak the
>>same language we do, but they're wrong.
>Not necessarily. Okay, if someone gets TOO into ST,
>to the point where they actually BELIEVE it, not
>acknowledging that it's just a dumb TV show, they've
>got a problem.
I <snip> the rest of it because I agree with what you're saying but it's
not what I meant. There's not a Trekkie alive who knows what "warp"
really means, for just one example. They've never questioned the
inaccurate science in the ST universe.
>>That doesn't mean they're not a fan, tho, does it?
They're fans of Star Trek, certainly. And Star Trek (both the old series
and ST:NG) have had individual episodes that are pretty good by sf values.
So Trekkies might actually like the written brand too. Or maybe not. So
chances of a Trekkie being a fan of science fiction are arguably 50%
better than for someone you would pick at random off the streets. :~)
>>Remember, 90% of everything is drek.
An interesting rendering of [Theodore] Sturgeon's Law. (He's the sf
author who wrote the "Amok Time" episode of ST.) Then there's my
corrolary: The 10% left over isn't necessarily good--it's just not drek.
Dr Gafia
Newsome) writes:
>I've heard something about Ted White's attacks on New Fandom,
>but it is not clear to me who "New Fandom" are and why they are
>presumed to be horrible, awful people. Can somebody fill me in?
>Are we talking about Astromancer Quarterly here, or what?
Look for Ted's meanings in what Ted has written, not in what people tell
you about their opinion of what he's written. I'm just here to say that
I'm certain Ted has not been attacking Leah on this basis, since he has
suggested that she would be a good candidate to write fanzine reviews for
a prozine, if a prozine could be found that was willing to have fanzine
reviews.
Dr Gafia
71443...@compuserve.com (David E Romm) writes:
<SNIP>
>...Fandom's only true invention was the Mailing
>Comment. Now, Usenet groups are nothing but.
Ah, Dave, I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about.
Mailing comments are an interesting facet of apa fandom but the better
ones are mini-essays. Most MCs, and comments on the net, are written in
informal mode. There's nothing wrong with that, of course--we get even
more informal when we speak, and there's nothing wrong with THAT, either.
But the BEST stuff, the stuff that's at the heart and soul of fanzine
fandom, is not the mailing comments--they are, like stuff on the net,
ephemeral. There's a 600pp+ collection of writings out there masquerading
as the best single issue of a fanzine ever published--WARHOON 28--which
mostly reprints the writings of a single individual, Walter A. Willis.
There are other collections of other fan writers available. And
individual fanzines that do not go through apas. None of this "best"
material is in mailing comment form. It's personal essays and faanfiction
and memoirs. If you can't see that, you're blind indeed. The net has
nothing comparable to offer that I'm aware of.
Dr Gafia
(Ahrvid Engholm) writes:
>New Fandom was an organization started by Sam
>Moskowitz in the late 30's to organize the first
>worldcon in 1939. The whole think became rather
>controversial due to the Exclusion Act (when Don
>Wollheim and some others of the Futurians,
>enemies to Moskowitz, weren't allowed to enter the
>convention). This thing still generates some heat.
Absolutely correct except for one detail: It's a different "New Fandom"
Ted has been writing about.
P Nielsen Hayden
>There was a time, several hundred years ago, when it was possible to know
>everything. One could have a library of ALL the important books every
>published. Such a person was called (retroactively) a 'Renaissance Man'.
This is, of course, ahistorical nonsense, the product of the common and
sentimental belief that complexity is an invention of the modern age.
Far from it: people in the distant past lived atop depths of past time, and
amidst vexing complexity, every bit as much as we do today.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com
senior editor, Tor Books : opinions mine
P Nielsen Hayden
>Fandom is about ACCEPTING differences, not forcing everyone into the same
>mold.
It certainly is not. Chad Childers and I may agree that fandom is most
enjoyable when people "accept differences" (in fact I do agree), but fandom
is not a social movement or an ideology; there is nothing in being a fan
that prescribes or proscribes any particular behavior.
As Ahrvid Engholm mentions elsewhere in this thread, _not_ "accepting
differences" has at least as old a fannish pedigree as tolerance does; the
very first Worldcon is primarily remembered for the exclusion of several New
York fans, including Fred Pohl and Don Wollheim, for reasons having to do with
personal feuds and mundane politics.
Personally, I prefer to live and let live, but it doesn't seem to me that
any light is shed on this sort of discussion by pronouncements that fandom
is "about" whatever commendable social value the speaker wishes to promulgate.
It isn't.
Farrell McGovern
In a previous article, drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) says:
>There are other collections of other fan writers available. And
>individual fanzines that do not go through apas. None of this "best"
>material is in mailing comment form. It's personal essays and faanfiction
>and memoirs. If you can't see that, you're blind indeed. The net has
>nothing comparable to offer that I'm aware of.
Well, on PODSnet (Pagan/Occult Distribution System net), we have
an echo (eqiv. of a newsgroup) devoted just to "Article" Style postings.
Before it became a net, itwas just a group of three echos...Magicknet,
Mundane and Metaphysical. Meta was the "article" echo, and the idea was to
write something in Meta, and then use either of the other two echos for
discussions that spun off in either the Magickal or Mundane realms.
Although Pagandom is not totally fanish, there is a lot of overlap with
Fandom.
ttyl
Farrell
-><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><-
Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!
*-> Current Magicknet Moderator <-*
Sysop Solsbury Hill BBS PODSnet 93:9631/523
Ask me about PODSnet, Paganism, Eris, Wicca...and I might even answer!
-><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><- -><-
Seth Breidbart
Dr Gafia <drg...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <71443.1447-...@dialup-5-129.gw.umn.edu>,
>71443...@compuserve.com (David E Romm) writes:
>
><SNIP>
>
>>...Fandom's only true invention was the Mailing
>>Comment. Now, Usenet groups are nothing but.
>
>Ah, Dave, I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about.
>Mailing comments are an interesting facet of apa fandom but the better
>ones are mini-essays. Most MCs, and comments on the net, are written in
>informal mode. There's nothing wrong with that, of course--we get even
>more informal when we speak, and there's nothing wrong with THAT, either.
>But the BEST stuff, the stuff that's at the heart and soul of fanzine
>fandom, is not the mailing comments--they are, like stuff on the net,
He didn't say that mailing comments were the best of fandom; he said
that mailing comments were the only thing invented by fandom. Good
writing was around long before fandom. Mailing comments weren't.
Seth
Kelly Lockhart
I think part of the problem I am having with a lot of this discussion is
the tendency of certain groups to denigrate other groups that do not fit
a certain definition of what a "fan" is. And these defintions are very
grey, and change from group to group.
It all comes down to a simple question. "If someone who _I_ do not
consider a fan calls themself a fan, who does it hurt?"
I wonder why it is even necessary for anyone to judge anyone else in the
ever-growing world of fandom. I consider myself a fan. If someone else
does not, that is _their_ problem, not mine. I am secure in my own
definiton of what a fan is.
And my grammer is still terrible, no matter how much fanfic I write. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| kelly.l...@lightspeed.com | North American SF Convention |
| kelly.l...@ftl.mese.com | July 13 - 16, 1995 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Harlan Ellison Timothy Zahn Michael Whelan |
| George Alec Effinger Bjo Trimble |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
. SLMR 2.1a #1492 . Hi! I'm heavily armed, easily bored, and off medication.
Loren MacGregor
>> of past time, and amidst vexing complexity, every bit as
>> much as we do today.
"But now we know better; we understand the past and we'll never
make those mistakes again." (Quoting, with tongue firmly in
cheek, a former history teacher of mine...)
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com)
Loren MacGregor
>> fannish face? :-)
Unfortunately, I have a broad face, and sensitive fannish mental
horizons...
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com)
Loren MacGregor
>> Catholic, does it?
Yes. You're trapped. Begin tithing immediately.
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com)
Loren MacGregor
>> "New Fandom" Ted has been writing about.
Absolutely fascinatin' the things one learns when one ungafiates.
What's next? Knee-groining dogs?
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com)
Dr Gafia
<73404...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
Subject: Re: Do we need rec.arts.sf.fandom.med..
From: Loren MacGregor <73404...@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 26 Nov 1994 06:52:44 GMT
Message-ID: <3b6lvs$kfa$3...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>
>>> Besides, don't you have broad mental horizons and a sensitive
>>> fannish face? :-)
>Unfortunately, I have a broad face, and sensitive fannish mental
>horizons...
And I had one once but the wheels fell off.
Dr Gafia
<73404...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
Subject: Re: Do we need rec.arts.sf.fandom.med..
From: Loren MacGregor <73404...@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 26 Nov 1994 06:55:29 GMT
Message-ID: <3b6m51$kfa$4...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>
>>> Absolutely correct except for one detail: It's a different
>>> "New Fandom" Ted has been writing about.
>Absolutely fascinatin' the things one learns when one ungafiates.
>What's next? Knee-groining dogs?
Surprisingly, Loren, that's a strong possibility; I'm going to have this
letter from Harlan in my next fapazine about Just That Topic. Send me
your snail mail address if you'd really like to see a copy. Or not, if
not.
--rich brown
--
P Nielsen Hayden
>I wonder why it is even necessary for anyone to judge anyone else in the
>ever-growing world of fandom.
[stuff deleted]
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| kelly.l...@lightspeed.com | North American SF Convention |
>| kelly.l...@ftl.mese.com | July 13 - 16, 1995 |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Harlan Ellison Timothy Zahn Michael Whelan |
>| George Alec Effinger Bjo Trimble |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because that's something people do: judge one another, for good or ill. You
might as well tell the sky to stop being blue, as demand that people stop.
Or did you select those names in your .sig file at random, out of the phone
book?
Seth Breidbart
Dr Gafia <drg...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <3b6lvs$kfa$3...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Loren MacGregor
><73404...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>>>> Besides, don't you have broad mental horizons and a sensitive
>>>> fannish face? :-)
>>Unfortunately, I have a broad face, and sensitive fannish mental
>>horizons...
>And I had one once but the wheels fell off.
I painted mine green and it works much better now.
Seth
Minstrel
drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) said
<Keris>
>For that matter, I feel that the distinction between "fans who
>are involved in SF fandom" and "fans who just like like reading
>/ watching SF but don't like conventions / fanzines etc." to be
>somewhat artificial anyway...
dr> If "artificial" are you saying there's no distinction between the two
dr> categories? If so, nonsense!!
Personally, I feel the more relevant distinction is between fans
who like SF, and are happy to participate in SF fandom as a
hobby, and those who seem to have no other life, and expect us to
be equally enthusiastic 100 per cent of the time.
Frankly, the idea that SF-readers/watchers aren't true fen,
and the 'fandom versus the mundanes' attitude that results from
this is precisely the reason why some people don't get involved
in 'true' fandom.
Flame-proof trousers on...
Minstrel
--
Minstrel's Hall - The Filk BBS on the South Coast, UK 44-(0)1273-777291
Sysop: mins...@filklore.seuk.com FIDO: 2:441/86.104
P Nielsen Hayden
>In article <mid__3arb5f$9...@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
>drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) said
> <Keris>
> >For that matter, I feel that the distinction between "fans who
> >are involved in SF fandom" and "fans who just like like reading
> >/ watching SF but don't like conventions / fanzines etc." to be
> >somewhat artificial anyway...
> dr> If "artificial" are you saying there's no distinction between the two
> dr> categories? If so, nonsense!!
>Personally, I feel the more relevant distinction is between fans
>who like SF, and are happy to participate in SF fandom as a
>hobby, and those who seem to have no other life, and expect us to
>be equally enthusiastic 100 per cent of the time.
>Frankly, the idea that SF-readers/watchers aren't true fen,
>and the 'fandom versus the mundanes' attitude that results from
>this is precisely the reason why some people don't get involved
>in 'true' fandom.
This is an interesting case of cultural shift. When I was young (he
cackled), it was generally the hard-core serious-about-Science-Fiction types
who seemed to have very little other life, while people who identified as
"trufans" were prone to use their fanzines to talk about "mundane" things
like music or whatever.
Seeing the phrase "true fen" applied to the getalifes makes me a bit dizzy,
but I'm sure I'll be all right once I've had my medication.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com
senior editor, Tor Books : opinions mine : "Jazz and sports cars"
Loren MacGregor
>> to have this letter from Harlan in my next fapazine about
>> Just That Topic. Send me your snail mail address if you'd
>> really like to see a copy. Or not, if not.
(a) Surprising? Mais non, M'sieu; I have a cosmic mind. (NOW
what do I do?)
(b) But <shudder> wouldn't that make me an ACTIFAN? Er...:
Loren MacGregor
1043 Winchester Avenue, #17
Glendale, CA 91201
(c) Don Fitch says that Glendale is where HE started out in
fandom, and that there hasn't been a fanzine from Glendale in
years. *gulp* I feel the walls closing in on me.
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com)
David E Romm
wrote:
> 71443...@compuserve.com (David E Romm) writes:
>
> >There was a time, several hundred years ago, when it was possible to know
> >everything. One could have a library of ALL the important books every
> >published. Such a person was called (retroactively) a 'Renaissance Man'.
>
> This is, of course, ahistorical nonsense, the product of the common and
> sentimental belief that complexity is an invention of the modern age.
No... SCIENCE is a product of the modern age. More specifically, the
scientific method. Before Galileo and the Renaissance, not to mention
Gutenberg, how people spread knowledge was vastly different. What counted*
as knowledge was vastly different. And a diligent (and rich) collector
could indeed own books on any subject in print.
More importantly, you missed my point about comparing the development of
print technology with the development of fandom. For some, the Good Old
Days are when it was possible for all fans to interact with all other fans.
This is no longer true, and those people are whining about it. Tough.
> Far from it: people in the distant past lived atop depths of past time, and
> amidst vexing complexity, every bit as much as we do today.
True enough. But the last part of your sentence does not modify the first.
People in the past lived amidst vexing complexity as much as we do today,
but they did NOT live atop depths of past time every bit as much as we do
today. Before the printing press/radio/tv/info superhighway, a person
could live their whole life without much connection to the past besides a
Bible with their family's birthdates written in it and some oral history.
Now, in order to understand one half-hour of CNN Headline News you need a
fairly extensive background in World History, Current Events and much more.
This is why primitive, pre-literate, cultures tend to die off when they
encounter moden civilization.
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio show in
the galaxy. Riding the wave since the Year of Our Moonlanding 10. Tapes
available.
"There is no tomorrow on the sun." -- Minims
David E Romm
wrote:
> In article <71443.1447-...@dialup-5-129.gw.umn.edu>,
> 71443...@compuserve.com (David E Romm) writes:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >...Fandom's only true invention was the Mailing
> >Comment. Now, Usenet groups are nothing but.
>
> Ah, Dave, I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about.
> Mailing comments are an interesting facet of apa fandom but the better
> ones are mini-essays. Most MCs, and comments on the net, are written in
> informal mode. There's nothing wrong with that, of course--we get even
> more informal when we speak, and there's nothing wrong with THAT, either.
> But the BEST stuff, the stuff that's at the heart and soul of fanzine
> fandom, is not the mailing comments--they are, like stuff on the net,
> ephemeral. [snip]
There I was, expecting you to actually disagree with me based on your first
sentence, and then you don't. I didn't say Mailing Comments were the best
stuff in fandom; they aren't. They are, however, fandom's only true
invention.
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio show in
the galaxy. Riding the wave since the Year of Our Moonlanding 10. Tapes
available.
"Your average asparagus is much more loyal than even the finest chicken."
-- Gonzo the Great
P Nielsen Hayden
I wrote, you wrote, one of _those_ posts, ho hum. Dave Romm wrote:
>There was a time, several hundred years ago, when it was possible to know
>everything. One could have a library of ALL the important books every
>published. Such a person was called (retroactively) a 'Renaissance Man'.
I said:
> This is, of course, ahistorical nonsense, the product of the common and
> sentimental belief that complexity is an invention of the modern age.
Dave Romm responded:
>No... SCIENCE is a product of the modern age. More specifically, the
>scientific method. Before Galileo and the Renaissance, not to mention
>Gutenberg, how people spread knowledge was vastly different. What counted*
>as knowledge was vastly different. And a diligent (and rich) collector
>could indeed own books on any subject in print.
Obviously, saying that "a diligent (and rich) collector could indeed own
books on any subject in print" is very different, and far more defensible,
than saying "one could have a library of ALL the important books ever
published."
The rest of Dave's post, well-intentioned though it is, is conducted with
about this level of attention to precision. Oh well.
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> Dr Gafia <drg...@aol.com> wrote:
> >71443...@compuserve.com (David E Romm) writes:
> ><SNIP>
> >>...Fandom's only true invention was the Mailing
> >>Comment. Now, Usenet groups are nothing but.
> >
> >Ah, Dave, I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about.
> >Mailing comments are an interesting facet of apa fandom but the better
> >ones are mini-essays. Most MCs, and comments on the net, are written in
> >informal mode. There's nothing wrong with that, of course--we get even
> >more informal when we speak, and there's nothing wrong with THAT, either.
> >But the BEST stuff, the stuff that's at the heart and soul of fanzine
> >fandom, is not the mailing comments--they are, like stuff on the net,
> >ephemeral....
There are moderated groups on Usenet that post nothing but reviews. Many
general interest (alt.politics.*) and special interest (r.a.sf.written)
newsgroups have occasional reviews/manifestoes/ets posted on them. The
ratio is admittedly different, though.
> He didn't say that mailing comments were the best of fandom; he said
> that mailing comments were the only thing invented by fandom. Good
> writing was around long before fandom. Mailing comments weren't.
Hmm, I am not sure - APAs precede fandom...
--
Ahasuerus
Chris Croughton
>Ah, but remember that that protofan "consumer of Star Trek" today may be
>tomorrow's fringefan and the trufan of the future...
>
>(If, of course, he learns to read. :)
Yes, I saw your smiley. However, there seem to be a number of people
here who do not consider your remark to be facetious...
I don't think I know any Star Trek fan who does not read. Admittedly, I
don't know any under the age of 5 or so, so my sample is a bit biased
:-) However, most of the ones I know who are of an age to attend
conventions not only read the Star Trek books (and other books), but
they also write as well. They write in fanzines. Remember those? The
mark of a TruFan, or something? Well, Trekkies do that as well. And
some of them write books that sell...
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
Chris Croughton
>In article <785332...@keris.demon.co.uk>, ch...@keris.demon.co.uk
>(Chris Croughton) writes:
>
>>For that matter, I feel that the distinction between "fans who
>>are involved in SF fandom" and "fans who just like like reading
>>/ watching SF but don't like conventions / fanzines etc." to be
>>somewhat artificial anyway...
>
>If "artificial" are you saying there's no distinction between the two
>categories? If so, nonsense!!
As defined by my dictionary (Concise Oxford):
1. Made by art; not natural
2. Not real
3. Affected, insincere; facetious, not arising naturally
I was using it in senses 1 and 2a. If I look at the definition of 'fan'
(same source):
Devotee of a specified amusement, performer etc.
If someone watches Star Trek every week without fail, watches all the
reruns, reads the books (yes, ST fans read books as well), etc., in what
sense are they *not* a fan? Only in the restrictive sense that (I
paraphrase) "A fan is who I say is a fan". That's exactly as useful as
saying "filk is what filkers sing"...
As Minstrel said, if you draw a line between "trekkers" and "TruFen"
then that is *your* line, and they aren't going to cross it because you
don't want them and ridicule them. In 20 years or so, there won't be
any "Trufen" left, because that attitude will have driven away those who
would have been interested in other aspects of fandom...
T Nielsen Hayden
>As defined by my dictionary (Concise Oxford):
> Devotee of a specified amusement, performer etc.
Bugger your =Concise Oxford=. When was the last time it attended a
convention or read a fanzine? Instead it sits at home having crises of
confidence because it knows its place in the great scheme of things is
to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
P Nielsen Hayden
>I don't think I know any Star Trek fan who does not read.
I don't either. It's a common, and quite untrue, slur against media fans to
imply that they're somehow non-literate. In fact I daresay many of them buy
and read a lot more current sf than mainstream fans.
P Nielsen Hayden
>Hmm, I am not sure - APAs precede fandom...
The pre-fandom APAs -- NAPA, etc -- were rather different animals, rather
more focussed on discrete essays and elegant printing than on rapid-fire
give-and-take.
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
[wrt "Mailing Comments were invented by fandom"]
> >Hmm, I am not sure - APAs precede fandom...
> The pre-fandom APAs -- NAPA, etc -- were rather different animals, rather
> more focussed on discrete essays and elegant printing than on rapid-fire
> give-and-take.
True enough. However, APAs precede fandom by *many* years (the first one
was formed in the 1880's, I seem to recall) and I am unaware of any
studies - which is not to say that there haven't been any, of course -
proving that there were no locs for the first 50 years. Until I see such
proof, I am going to stick to "made popular" as opposed to "invented" in
the claim above. Better safe than sorry :)
--
Ahasuerus
Loren MacGregor
>> "TruFen" then that is *your* line, and they aren't going to
>> cross it because you don't want them and ridicule them. In
>> 20 years or so, there won't be any "Trufen" left, because
>> that attitude will have driven away those who would have
>> been interested in other aspects of fandom...
Let me see if I've got this straight. We should call anyone a
"trufan" who is interested in any aspect of science fiction,
regardless of whether or not they have any interest in the aspects
of fandom as it has grown up in the last 50 or 60 years, because if
we don't, there won't BE any fans. Is that it?
Hmm. We should call all EM technicians doctors, because both
doctors and EMT's are interested in medicine, and if we DON'T call
EMTs doctors, they might lose their interest in medicine, and in 20
years there won't be any doctors. Does that about cover it?
The woman I'm seeing at present is by nearly every definition a
"Trekkie"; she goes to conventions dressed as some kind of creature
from Star Trek (whichever one it is that has the big, bumpy
forehead), and she is a costumer by trade. We have a lot in
common, but not that. It would make us much sense to call ME a
trekkie as to call her a truefan; yet we get along. Odd, that.
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com)
David E Romm
wrote:
[snipof whole thing]
You're nitpicking... and not very well. Presumably you agree with the
gravumen of my original post, and I'll leave it at that.
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio show in
the galaxy. Riding the wave since the Year of Our Moonlanding 10. Tapes
available.
"The opposite of a great truth is another great truth... plus sales tax."
-- Shockwave, "You, the Jury"
Leah Smith
>it is not clear to me who "New Fandom" are and why they are presumed
>to be horrible, awful people. Can somebody fill me in?
It isn't exactly clear to me, either. It seems to have something to do
with preferring to spend one's time in fanzine fandom doing something
other than trading personal attacks.
I'm sure it relates only to fanzine fandom, because the people who've
used the term don't recognize any other kind.
--
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
P Nielsen Hayden
>In article <3b8452$c...@panix2.panix.com>, p...@tor.com (P Nielsen Hayden)
>wrote:
>[snipof whole thing]
>You're nitpicking... and not very well. Presumably you agree with the
>gravumen of my original post, and I'll leave it at that.
No, I don't. Although I agree with some of your points, it seems to me that
you simplify too many things too much. Oh well.
Chad Childers
>enjoyable when people "accept differences" (in fact I do agree), but fandom
Well... okay. Let me try to rephrase that and see if it makes more sense.
>Personally, I prefer to live and let live, but it doesn't seem to me that
>any light is shed on this sort of discussion by pronouncements that fandom
>is "about" whatever commendable social value the speaker wishes to promulgate.
Point taken, and speaker chastened.
First, what I was trying to explain was a gut feeling, that the sort of
cliqueishness I was hearing doesn't belong in fandom (although you're right,
it has a long history of being an integral part) and goes against the grain
for me.
Here's something that happened to me. The discussion that followed influenced
my hazy pronouncements.
There are always some people you can't stand. Someone said to me at a
fannish party, "oh gosh, Phred's here. He's such a pain, and he'll never
leave." Now, Phred may get on my nerves just as much, because he has non-
existent social skills, but I try to be accepting and friendly, because I
do not necessarily have perfect social skills myself - hell, I spent most of
my adolescence reading books, not socializing, and I spent most of my young
adulthood on one computer or another. I do most of my socializing these days
with science fiction fans and computer nerds, two groups which society as a
whole looks down on. So I don't feel fit to cast the first stone at anyone.
Maybe those people who feel an urgent need to be part of an "in" group were
never ostracized for being a "brain", or always reading, or too fat, or
wearing glasses, but my impression is that most of us in fandom were outcastes
at one point or another, and should have a little leniency for other people's
wierdnesses for that reason.
I reread Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land recently, the unexpurgated version, and am
reminded of the scene in the zoo, where Smith watches the monkey get pounded
for a bit of food, then beat up a smaller monkey to express its aggression.
RAH may be right, that kind of BS may be part of the human condition, and
Hayden and Engholm are probably right that it has long been a part of fandom,
but I still find it small-minded, and small-time, and I don't consider the
fact that someone was rude to Fred Pohl because he wasn't a TruFan a valid
reason to be rude to trekkies or anyone else because they're not TruFen.
--
/* Chad Childers */ http://grimmy.cnidr.org/chad.html
Chad Childers
>Clueless newbies and people wandering around in Spock ears and dressed as
>Klingons.
Well, I was thinking more of the sexy young space cadets that fell in love with
Spock. And you really haven't *lived* until you've seen the klingon ballet...
we had a trio of klingons in tutus here recently, it was hilarious.
>I wd grant that it got Hollywood types looking to make blockbuster sf. A
Agreed here - so some good certainly came of it (and a lot of bad, see
Sturgeon's Law below).
>>...right to exist?
>Yes, everyone but a certain class of filk singer--the ones who come into
>parties where people are conversing, sit down and begin to render 27
>choruses of "My Space Bucket's Got A Hole In It."
(laughs quietly in corner)
>not what I meant. There's not a Trekkie alive who knows what "warp"
>really means, for just one example. They've never questioned the
Just figure their doubletalk generator is running on overdrive again and try
to enjoy it as mind candy. Hollywood screenwriters are not experts in all
branches of science. They're actually a lot like upper management in the
computer industry - they pick neat-sounding buzzwords and put them together
regardless of meaning.
> So Trekkies might actually like the written brand too. Or maybe not. So
>chances of a Trekkie being a fan of science fiction are arguably 50%
>better than for someone you would pick at random off the streets. :~)
Okay, I'll buy that.
>An interesting rendering of [Theodore] Sturgeon's Law. (He's the sf
I couldn't remember the exact wording, tho I knew Ted Sturgeon said it.
Wasn't he talking about written SF at the time? ;-)
>author who wrote the "Amok Time" episode of ST.) Then there's my
>corrolary: The 10% left over isn't necessarily good--it's just not drek.
Chad Childers
>amidst vexing complexity, every bit as much as we do today.
What about Future_Shock? The only constant is change, agreed, I think
Aristophanes said it first around 300 BC, but Toffler's argument as I
remember it is that the rate of change is accelerating.
What about the amount of published SF? You're a SF editor and could certainly
say better than I, but I've heard an oft-repeated statement that within recent
memory (the past 60 years or so) it has become impossible to keep abreast of
all published SF. I've accepted this statement as true, even if you discount
all the Star Trek books, DragonLance books, and the like, and just count
original SF. Was it never possible, even in the thirties and forties, to
read all published science fiction books?
P Nielsen Hayden
>I reread Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land recently, the unexpurgated version, and am
>reminded of the scene in the zoo, where Smith watches the monkey get pounded
>for a bit of food, then beat up a smaller monkey to express its aggression.
>RAH may be right, that kind of BS may be part of the human condition, and
>Hayden and Engholm are probably right that it has long been a part of fandom,
>but I still find it small-minded, and small-time, and I don't consider the
>fact that someone was rude to Fred Pohl because he wasn't a TruFan a valid
>reason to be rude to trekkies or anyone else because they're not TruFen.
Well put, and I agree. Of course, I wasn't advocating any such reason.
Rudeness, of course, is a highly subjective thing. Sometimes humor is
taken as rudeness. And sometimes nice people have grumpy days. :)
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com
P Nielsen Hayden
Oh, I agree that it's harder to keep up with SF than it was in 1935; there's
more SF. What I object to is the presumption that life was easy and simple
in Times Gone By. This is a sentimental illusion that rarely stands up to
scrutiny in any of its particulars.
Chad Childers
>don't want them and ridicule them. In 20 years or so, there won't be
>any "Trufen" left, because that attitude will have driven away those who
>would have been interested in other aspects of fandom...
I agree with this point, and it's been a concern of mine as well.
Janice Gelb
And, of course, to put extraneous u's in words...
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
"Life is something to do when you can't get to sleep."
-- Fran Lebowitz, _Metropolitan Life_
********************************************************************************
Chad Childers
>Well put, and I agree. Of course, I wasn't advocating any such reason.
Thanks.
>Rudeness, of course, is a highly subjective thing. Sometimes humor is
>taken as rudeness. And sometimes nice people have grumpy days. :)
Yep, and I'm often far too grumpy myself! (whether I'm a nice person or not)
As long as we TRY not to be rude to anyone, especially when we're running
some fannish event or publication, that's good enough.
Chris Croughton
>Bugger your =Concise Oxford=. When was the last time it attended a
>convention or read a fanzine? Instead it sits at home having crises of
>confidence because it knows its place in the great scheme of things is
>to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
I'll let you bugger the Concise Oxford if you want to. Or have you
redefined that word as well? Yes, it's descriptive - it describes what
millions of people mean by the word, not just the insignificant minority
who write fanzines and go to SF conventions.
As several people have said, you need a word that is unique. 'Fan' is
not that word - it is used otherwise by far more people than have ever
read SF, and certainly far more than have read SF fanzines. Do you want
to tell football fans that they aren't 'real' fans because they don't
read your fanzines?
As can be seen, even within SF fandom people can't decide what the word
means in any way more accurate than "An SF fan is what I say is an SF
fan", in which case my definition (and that of the dictionary, which is
how millions of people understand the word) is just as 'true' as yours.
Chris Croughton
73404...@CompuServe.COM "Loren MacGregor" writes:
>Let me see if I've got this straight. We should call anyone a
>"trufan" who is interested in any aspect of science fiction,
>regardless of whether or not they have any interest in the aspects
>of fandom as it has grown up in the last 50 or 60 years, because if
>we don't, there won't BE any fans. Is that it?
Not quite. You can keep your 'Trufan' label if it makes you happy (some
folks get upset if you take their security blankets away). However,
just acknowledge that Star Trek / Dr. Who / B5 / etc. fans are 'fen' as
well.
What particular "aspects of fandom" do you have in mind? Wearing
propellor beanies? Getting pissed in the bar? Talking about science
fiction? Writing about SF? Producing fanzines? Writing books? I
admit that I've never seen a Trekkie wearing a propellor beanie - but
then I haven't seen any TruFen wearing them either, and that's part of
The Great Tradition Of Fandom (tm). As far as books go, I would
estimate that the proportion of good books written around Star Trek is
about the same as that in any other SF area - 90% is crud.
>Hmm. We should call all EM technicians doctors, because both
>doctors and EMT's are interested in medicine, and if we DON'T call
>EMTs doctors, they might lose their interest in medicine, and in 20
>years there won't be any doctors. Does that about cover it?
What are the common definitions? Do EMTs go around calling themselves
doctors? Would someone looking at them know which was which by their
behaviour?
What do Trekkies do (or fail to do) that is so different from TruFen?
Qualitatively, not quantatively - for instance, they may wear costumes
more often, but TruFen still wear costumes on occasion (or if they
don't, 99% of British fandom are not TruFen).
>The woman I'm seeing at present is by nearly every definition a
>"Trekkie"; she goes to conventions dressed as some kind of creature
>from Star Trek (whichever one it is that has the big, bumpy
>forehead), and she is a costumer by trade. We have a lot in
>common, but not that. It would make us much sense to call ME a
>trekkie as to call her a truefan; yet we get along. Odd, that.
So you're saying that simply wearing costumes and prosthetics (the
'bumpy bits') makes her not a true fan? Oh, and what she does for a
living is obviously important as well in determining if she's a fan.
Trivia, in my opinion.
P Nielsen Hayden
>In article <3ba2q4$k...@panix3.panix.com> t...@tor.com "T Nielsen Hayden" writes:
>>Bugger your =Concise Oxford=. When was the last time it attended a
>>convention or read a fanzine? Instead it sits at home having crises of
>>confidence because it knows its place in the great scheme of things is
>>to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
>I'll let you bugger the Concise Oxford if you want to. Or have you
>redefined that word as well? Yes, it's descriptive - it describes what
>millions of people mean by the word, not just the insignificant minority
>who write fanzines and go to SF conventions.
>As several people have said, you need a word that is unique. 'Fan' is
>not that word - it is used otherwise by far more people than have ever
>read SF, and certainly far more than have read SF fanzines. Do you want
>to tell football fans that they aren't 'real' fans because they don't
>read your fanzines?
>As can be seen, even within SF fandom people can't decide what the word
>means in any way more accurate than "An SF fan is what I say is an SF
>fan", in which case my definition (and that of the dictionary, which is
>how millions of people understand the word) is just as 'true' as yours.
As far as I'm concerned football fans, model airplane buffs, literary
debating societies and kids in Trekkie-jammies are all entitled to the word
"fan". Teresa was making gentle fun of you for trotting out The Dictionary
Gambit, a method of pursuing an argument which makes sense only if you
believe language to be nothing more than a simple equivalency cipher. Your
hot-under-the-collar reaction, in which you triumphantly assert a variety of
propositions which neither Teresa nor I ever gainsaid, has that particularly
quality for which the only precise term is found in British slang: "naff."
Do try to remember who said what in the argument, eh?
Loren MacGregor
Since you're obviously a lot more wrapped up in this debate than
*I* am ("I came to see the damn forest, but all these damn TREES
are in the way!"), let me point out that to an outsider an EMT
and a physician discussing medicine are two folks who share a
common profession, which doesn't make them the same thing at all.
I was trying to point out, gently, that there are a LOT of
umbrellas out on the patio of the Cafe Fan; you seem to prefer to
be hit with a hammer instead. Fine.
My ladyfriend is a trekkie (or "trekker," which I would have
corrected in my earlier message if my on-line editor had let me),
which not automatically make her a "truefan" (as opposed to
"fan," just to keep the water a BIT less muddy); it also does not
PRECLUDE her from being a truefan. My involvement in "science
fiction fandom," stretching back over 30 years at this point,
does not preclude me from being a media fan if I choose, or a
trekker, or any other group -- any more than being an EMT
precludes an individual from going on to be a doctor, or being a
doctor precludes someone from becoming an EMT in order to have
more involvement in day-to-day emergencies. I'm not even saying
that "being a doctor" is BETTER THAN being an EMT, or that "being
a truefan" is BETTER THAN being a trekker. (more to come...)
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com)
Loren MacGregor
What I *am* saying (are you tired of this hammer yet?) is that
"science fiction fandom" is a recognized group with recognized
boundaries. We are NOT trying to exclude anyone who wants to
join and have fun, but on the other hand, we would like people to
have some respect for what we represent (kind of like media fen
in that respect, hmm?) AND we would like people to have some
sense of our traditions and history BEFORE they start saying "I'm
a fan just like you!" Doctors and EMTs can talk about medicine
and both of them can have mutual respect; but if the EMT starts
telling other people "I'm a doctor," the doctor has a reason to
be upset, don't you think?
Finally ... I don't recall saying that my ladyfriend makes a
living as a costumer; in fact, she works in a warehouse and makes
bears (if you're in Marin, drop by and buy one); you might want
to examine the attitude you have which makes you presume that
everyone who doesn't agree with you is hostile.
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com)
Loren MacGregor
>> fans because they don't read your fanzines?
I'll be more than happy to tell any football fan that he or she
is not a member of science fiction fandom. If you wish to talk
about prescription, bear in mind that that particular
prescription was in place before you removed it. Further,
"science fiction fandom" has been defined by 60 years of usage,
"Star Trek fandom" and "Media Fandom" by about 25. I don't see
any difficulty with defining "Star Trek Fandom" as "people who
are interested in Star Trek" -- do you?
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com)
Chad Childers
Frankly, now that I've gotten involved in this discussion, I'd rather
not be called a TruFan myself. FIJAGH.
>fiction fandom," stretching back over 30 years at this point,
>does not preclude me from being a media fan if I choose, or a
Sure.
>trekker, or any other group -- any more than being an EMT
>precludes an individual from going on to be a doctor, or being a
Certainly not. About 80% of my friends in college were EMTs, and they're
almost all MDs now.
>doctor precludes someone from becoming an EMT in order to have
Nitpick mode on: Lis, one of the above friends who I was dating when she was
in med-school, let her EMT-Special Skills classification lapse because she got
some kind of automatic certification when she got her MD (or maybe it was when
she took her boards, I forget).
>more involvement in day-to-day emergencies. I'm not even saying
You're wrong, they'd just specialize in it.
>that "being a doctor" is BETTER THAN being an EMT, or that "being
>a truefan" is BETTER THAN being a trekker. (more to come...)
To get involved in the flame that someone sent you, personally, I think
being an EMT is better than being a doctor. EMTs are dedicated amateurs,
who work their butts off and usually burn out within a few years. Doctors
are merely professionals, at about the same level as plumbers, and IMNSHO at
a lower professional level than computer experts (modesty mode on :-).
So, if we must have a fannish pecking order, it should be:
1. no-life beanie-wearing fen
2. fen with jobs
3. too wierd to classify (wait a minute, that covers everybody!)
and at the bottom of the heap...
4. Dirty Old Pros
That's obviously not how it is in the real world, so let's just live and let
live.
P Nielsen Hayden
>So, if we must have a fannish pecking order, it should be:
>1. no-life beanie-wearing fen
>2. fen with jobs
>3. too wierd to classify (wait a minute, that covers everybody!)
>and at the bottom of the heap...
>4. Dirty Old Pros
Putting pros at the bottom of the heap seems about right. I like it.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com
Arthur Hlavaty
: >> Do you want to tell football fans that they aren't 'real'
: I'll be more than happy to tell any football fan that he or she
: is not a member of science fiction fandom.
Actually I'm a football fan and a science fiction fan, and I do zines for
both.
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
Mike Scott
ch...@keris.demon.co.uk "Chris Croughton" writes:
>I
>admit that I've never seen a Trekkie wearing a propellor beanie - but
>then I haven't seen any TruFen wearing them either, and that's part of
>The Great Tradition Of Fandom (tm).
You should hang around with Paul Dormer more. I think Tim Illingworth
has one as well. They do exist in British fandom.
>What do Trekkies do (or fail to do) that is so different from TruFen?
>Qualitatively, not quantatively - for instance, they may wear costumes
>more often, but TruFen still wear costumes on occasion (or if they
>don't, 99% of British fandom are not TruFen).
While agreeing with your overall point, I must dispute this figure. I
very much doubt that even as much as 50% of British non-media fandom
*ever* wears a costume at a convention. And why, exactly, is a
quantitative difference not significant? The split between
media/tru/filk/whatever else fandoms is not cast iron - quantitative
differences are exactly what define these different fandoms. The
difference between having 90% of the con in the programme and having 90%
in the bar is quantitative, but it's a big difference.
--
Mike Scott || Confabulation is the 1995 UK national SF convention
Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk || Mail Con...@moose.demon.co.uk for more details
Loren MacGregor
>> plumbers, and IMNSHO at a lower professional level than
>> computer experts (modesty mode on :-).
Actually, I think this point has been made science-fictionally
(we ARE on the sf board, right?) by John Varley, in Ophiuchi
Hotline, among other places; he places them at the "technician"
level, I believe.
But what do *I* know; I was a cardiopulmonary tech.
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com)
Loren MacGregor
>> do zines for both.
You, sir, are an aberration; REAL science fiction fans like
baseball. I read it in a fanzine once.
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com)
Janice Gelb
In article 2...@mhade.production.compuserve.com, Loren MacGregor (73404...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: >> Do you want to tell football fans that they aren't 'real'
: >> fans because they don't read your fanzines?
: I'll be more than happy to tell any football fan that he or she
: is not a member of science fiction fandom.
Hey, I'm a member of sf fandom *and* a football fan.
I did, however, find out where my loyalties lie last weekend, when I
stopped watching the FSU/Florida (my alma mater) game Saturday morning
in the fourth quarter so I could moderate a panel at LosCon. And it
cost us, too: when I stopped watching, the score was Florida 31 - FSU
10. By the time the game was over, FSU had tied.
I also had to stop watching the Dolphins/Jets game at halftime to
moderate *another* panel at LosCon on Sunday morning. And thus missed
one of Dan Marino's more spectacular plays. And this coming weekend,
I'm likely to miss the end of the Florida/Alabama SEC conference
championship in order to moderate a panel at SMOFcon.
Ah, the sacrifices we football fans make at the altar of sf fandom...
Chad Childers
>Putting pros at the bottom of the heap seems about right. I like it.
(chuckle) I must admit, I got the idea from Zombies_of_the_Gene_Pool
(sequel to Bimbos_of_the_Death_Sun).
Loren MacGregor
ON the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to have a football fan
tell me, "Don't tell ME about science fiction fandom, you young
scamp -- *I* sawed Courtney's Boat!"
Yes, I know you were at LosCon, Janice; remember, I was quoting
you ad lib throughout the con -- and no, it's NOT ok!
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com)
Chris Croughton
Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk "Mike Scott" writes:
>You should hang around with Paul Dormer more. I think Tim Illingworth
>has one as well. They do exist in British fandom.
But are they worn to cons? I did say "I haven't seen...", not that they
are nonexistant - granted that they exist, they're not exactly common
sights...
>While agreeing with your overall point, I must dispute this figure. I
>very much doubt that even as much as 50% of British non-media fandom
>*ever* wears a costume at a convention.
I'd doubt that it is that low, although I admit that my figure was
probably too high. On the other hand, I've been at media cons where the
proportion wearing 'costume' (as opposed to their normal strange
clothing) has been much lower than at Eastercons. The exception, in my
experience, is Star Trek cons, which do seem to be costume-heavy (and
Masque, which as a costumers' con can be expected to be).
>And why, exactly, is a
>quantitative difference not significant? The split between
>media/tru/filk/whatever else fandoms is not cast iron - quantitative
>differences are exactly what define these different fandoms. The
>difference between having 90% of the con in the programme and having 90%
>in the bar is quantitative, but it's a big difference.
What's wrong with having 90% of the programme in the bar (or a bar in
90% of the programme)? Apart from the 10% that's left out :-)
My point is that quantative differences do not produce the claimed
'split'. Yes, everyone can see the difference between 10:90 :: 90:10,
but if it's 60:40 :: 40:60, is that more than a statistical fluctuation?
Or a difference in ages? You might as well discriminate based on the
average age at a convention.
Inasmuch as I classify fans or conventions, I do it on behaviour. I am
a filker - if a convention says "no filkers" then I don't go. Other
people do the same about costumes, or films, or literary panels, or
fanzines, or cheap beer; that in my opinion does not make them not
'true' fans. I admit that if there were a set of people who claimed to
only watch TV and never read SF, I would be dubious about including them
in general fandom - I suspect that they would not want to be included
anyway. However, I have not found anyone over the age of 10 in fandom
who fits that category (the only actual person I know in fandom who
watches TV and doesn't read SF is under 5, in fact); certainly the Trek
/ Dr. Who / Blake's 7 / Star Wars [1] fans seem to be most prolific in
both reading and writing. The fanzine is alive and well - in media
fandom, at least...
[1] Apologies if I left any groups out...
David E Romm
<73404...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> >> Do you want to tell football fans that they aren't 'real'
> >> fans because they don't read your fanzines?
>
> I'll be more than happy to tell any football fan that he or she
> is not a member of science fiction fandom.
Haven't you ever heard of Fantasy Football?
> If you wish to talk
> about prescription, bear in mind that that particular
> prescription was in place before you removed it. Further,
> "science fiction fandom" has been defined by 60 years of usage,
> "Star Trek fandom" and "Media Fandom" by about 25.
I'm tempted to agree with you, but in retrospect, this is an accident of
etymology. The word 'science fiction' is only about 60 years old (circa
Gernsback). Therefore, any contemporary who liked the science fantasies of
Wells, Verne, etc. couldn't* have been called a 'science fiction fan', even
if they would be so called now.
Similarly Star Trek, or media.
>I don't see
> any difficulty with defining "Star Trek Fandom" as "people who
> are interested in Star Trek" -- do you?
No... but are they Science Fiction Fans as well? Are Fanzine Fans also
Science Fiction Fans if they read/write fanzines but don't read a lot of
science fiction anymore?
General question: Is fandom exclusive or inclusive? Are we fans because
of what we are, or what we are not?
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio show in
the galaxy. Riding the wave since the Year of Our Moonlanding 10. Tapes
available.
"I only wanted ONE wife, you fool!"
-- TNT original Biblical movie "Jacob"
Ahrvid Engholm
>I'm tempted to agree with you, but in retrospect, this is an accident of
>etymology. The word 'science fiction' is only about 60 years old (circa
>Gernsback). Therefore, any contemporary who liked the science fantasies of
>Wells, Verne, etc. couldn't* have been called a 'science fiction fan', even
>if they would be so called now.
>Similarly Star Trek, or media.
word "scientifiction" (or science fiction as most people shortly began
to call it) it was out of a tradition of *writing* sf. The stuff was
written before, by people like Verne and Wells.
The division is not one of age, but one of media.
>No... but are they Science Fiction Fans as well? Are Fanzine Fans also
>Science Fiction Fans if they read/write fanzines but don't read a lot of
>science fiction anymore?
I know of no fanzines fans who aren't also basically (written) sf fans.
They may be less enthusiastic regarding getting the latest book by
Hogu nominee Xbert Yson, but the written side of the stuff still interests
them. Fanzine fandom, as such, has some tracks that doesn't follow ordinary
written sf fandom, but the common foundation is there.
>General question: Is fandom exclusive or inclusive? Are we fans because
>of what we are, or what we are not?
I think that fandom should be exclusive *up to the point* were new fans
remember the old traditions. A totally new fandom that forgets everything
that has happened wouldn't be too fun - or valuable. Fandom is very time-
binding, and should remain so.
Loren MacGregor
commend to your attention the story "Way of Life," by Robert
Bloch, which appeared in the October 1956 issue of "Fantastic
Universe." (It is a proud and lonely thing to be a bibliphile.)
--
Loren MacGregor (73404...@compuserve.com; lm...@tatertot.com)
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> Teresa was making gentle fun of you for trotting out The Dictionary
> Gambit, a method of pursuing an argument which makes sense only if you
> believe language to be nothing more than a simple equivalency cipher. Your
> hot-under-the-collar reaction, in which you triumphantly assert a variety of
> propositions which neither Teresa nor I ever gainsaid, has that particularly
> quality for which the only precise term is found in British slang: "naff."
A perverse impulse makes me ask: What does this word mean?
Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | "Enough marshmallows
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | will kill you
Bitnet: HIG...@FNAL.BITNET | if properly placed."
Internet: HIG...@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | --John Alexander, leader of
SPAN/Hepnet: 43009::HIGGINS | "disabling technologies"
[*Aviation Week*, 7 Dec 1992, p. 50] | research, Los Alamos
Loren MacGregor
>> accident of etymology. The word 'science fiction' is only
>> about 60 years old (circa Gernsback). Therefore, any
>> contemporary who liked the science fantasies of Wells, Verne,
>> etc. couldn't* have been called a 'science fiction fan', even
>> if they would be so called now.
David, David, David...! Are you arguing simply because you LIKE
to argue, or are you honestly ignorant?
Gernsback: scienTIfiction: 1920s
Science fiction and pulps: 1930s
First science fiction fans flowered from the pulps --
coincidentally, in the 1930s. It is 1994. It is ALMOST 1995.
Sixty years ago it was 1934. Ask Julie Schwartz (if you get the
chance) when he first involved in science fiction; ask Ray
Bradbury. Ask Art Widner. Ask LOTS of people.
I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it!
Loren MacGregor
>> invented the word "scientifiction" (or science fiction as
>> most people shortly began to call it) it was out of a
>> tradition of *writing* sf. The stuff was written before, by
>> people like Verne and Wells.
>> The division is not one of age, but one of media.
AS to your last comment, yes, but not in the way you mean it.
Wells and Verne were NOT writing "science fiction"; they were
writing novels, some of which had a basis in scientific
principles or in realms of fantasy. The distinction between
genres of fiction is largely artificial, and largely a creation
of this century, and largely, where it is a creation of this
century, a creation of merchandising. A very minor part of
Wells' writing was concerned with the "scientific romance"; a
great deal more of it, now forgotten, consisted of novels such as
"Mr. Brittling Sees It Through."