rethinking fandom
LMControl
Interesting points you raise.
After watching people (including myself) debate over such important and
pertinent matter such as "The Kiss/CPR" or my most recent favorite, "It's
not Scully naked/It is Scully naked" in a grainy photo, it makes you really
wonder why people just don't enjoy things more and stop picking everything
apart.
I mean...... who cares if it is Scully? Like, the whole fate of the series
depends on a kiss or whether or not he sees Scully sans top. Besides, by
the 19th we'll know for sure and its quite pointless right now.
Tonight is the first time I've seriously started to worry about my
obsession. Your post seems to fall in line. Anywho! I'll probably be back
here during the next few, frantic weeks contributing to the madness, as
usual.
LMControl
excio veritas
B.S. CoR
XFU Class of '98
Svatipatel
Has anyone seen the Truman Show yet? I just did and thought it was phenomenal.
I loved it so much and thought Jim Carrey did such a great job. The movie
definitely left me thinking as I walked out the movie theatre. And for some
odd reason my thoughts drifted back to this NG. One of the key things I
noticed in the movie was people's obsession with that show and the grip it had
on people. The lengths the producers went to keep Truman in the dark as well
as the fact that no one responsed to those lengths was greatly disturbing. One
of the eriest moments is when I realized, like everyone else within the movie,
I was also participating in watching Truman's life. It's kind of odd to think
about. Yes, this has something to do with the X-files. The reason why I
thought about this NG was because it perfectly represents that kind of
obsession and grasp that the mythological Truman Show had on it's audience. So
much so that regular posters nitpick plots apart because of disprepancies in
time-lines and argue over who's better - Mulder or Scully - and whether these
characters should or should not be considered role models (among other things).
We argue passionately over such details. I've read post in which people
declare their admiration in Scully and how it influenced them to live their
lives in some way or into some career. Yet, it's all fake. The show is about
two fictional people who are written to be the way they are for a specific
purpose. Even the concepts we have of the real people behind the hocus-pocus
of the X-File (CC, DD, and GA) are fake. We really don't know who these people
are aside from how they are construed on paper and what they say in front of
audiences. What we, as posters, argue over is all, in essence, ficticious and
fake. Nothing is real except the fact that CC, DD, and GA (among others) do
exist in real life. And yet we continue to argue, defend, promote, and obsess.
Why? Why are people influenced by a mirage enough so that they choose to
follow a certain career because of that mirage?
I'm not arguing or claiming we such stop doing any of the above mentioned
things. I like having the opportunity to discuss different points of view on
the show. I like having the opportunity to discuss the show at all. But is
there a point when we lose sight of the facts menitoned above? If so, should
we even be considered? I know in my "fandom" with any show I draw distinct
lines in which I say I will not cross. Simply to keep my fandom in check. For
example, I've been a long time Trekker who will never go to a convention. I
could have gone to the Chicago eXpo but didn't. Do any of you have lines? Or
feel you don't need them?
These are simply thoughts I had coming out of one incredible movie. Anyone who
would care to share theirs about the movie or about X-file "fandom" are
welcomed.
Svati
"but me i'm still on the road
headed for another joint
we always did feel the same
we just saw it from a different point
of view" -- Bob Dylan "Tangled Up in Blue"
BethLynn
Svati writes:
> I've read post in which people
>declare their admiration in Scully and how it influenced them to live their
>lives in some way or into some career. Yet, it's all fake.
Ooooh, this is gonna hurt my head.
Fictional characters are the composition of a person or persons experiences and
ideas. They are a vessel for expressing thoughts and creativity. They are real
in that they have been created as an extension of who we are. They display
human characteristics that we all share. They are just a case or cover that can
hold together the substance of what we can be. Like a book, they can be a
learning tool. History, cultures, races, inumerable beliefs, are explained
through the use of sensory tools. We, as a group, see something in this
composition called The X-Files that helps us to explain the world around us.
It gives us a foundation from which to debate realities and pesonalities
through the use of creative imagry.
From whence came the tiny grain of sand that can build a mountain?
BethLynn
Debbie Long
My little epiphany came while listening to Rob Bowman at the Expo talk about how it
was hurtful to read stuff on the internet that savaged something that you had
really put a lot of hard work into. I always knew that movies and television and
the people that make them have an effect on us, but I hadn't given much thought on
the effect we could have on them. It was startling to think that a nasty remark I
carelessly toss out on the NG about some episode would be read by the writer or
someone else from the show and that I could really hurt their feelings. We've
gotten used to saying all sorts of nasty things about people and programs while
watching TV. We know they can't hear us in our living rooms and in some ways the
TV and a computer monitor feel the same. The interactiveness of the internet make
it possible to break down the walls that usually separate the producers from the
consumers of entertainment. After you hit send it can be hard to imagine it
actually reaching someone you're talking about and the effect you might have on
them. It has only been recently since I've met some of the people from this NG
that I have started thinking of this group is a collection of people when I post
and not just a bunch of screen names. I have been much more careful about what I
write ever since.
~Debbie
Svatipatel
>Tonight is the first time I've seriously started to worry about my
>obsession. Your post seems to fall in line. Anywho! I'll probably be back
>here during the next few, frantic weeks contributing to the madness, as
>usual.
>
>LMControl
>excio veritas
>B.S. CoR
>XFU Class of '98
I didn't mean to have anyone question their love of the NG. I too will be back
(obviously) because I love reading the feedback. I don't think one is obessive
because they contribute to the NG or even participating in a fan club. No one
can draw those kinds of lines. But when we forget that it is all only a TV
show is when the problem begins.
Svatipatel
>
>Fictional characters are the composition of a person or persons experiences
>and
>ideas.
and then later....
>Like a book, they can be a
>learning tool. History, cultures, races, inumerable beliefs, are explained
>through the use of sensory tools.
Valid points. It is important to realize, as you've stated above, that these
characters are "COMPOSITIONS", and are not complete personalities. To learn
about our society using the characters Mulder and Scully as a reference is
wonderful. To model one's self after Mulder or Scully may not be. Because,
afterall, we don't see or experience complete personalities, only what the
writers show us.
Josh Neeman
Good thoughts. Keep thinking critically. However, the type of chatter
around the XF is nothing new. Same things been occurring for centuries
around literature. Check out all the the parsing done to the fictional
characters and stories in the Bible, done in churches and sometimes right
out in the open, on the streets. Really. There's this guy Jesus, who
loads of folks look to for moral guidance and exemplary behaviour. Sane
people, probably some you actually know. I know this one fellow who
chose to become the Son of God based solely on some passage he scanned in
the Bible. Can you imagine?
Josh
Svatipatel
>
>My little epiphany came while listening to Rob Bowman at the Expo talk about
>how it
>was hurtful to read stuff on the internet that savaged something that you had
>really put a lot of hard work into.
Wow, Debbie, that's something I never really considered before. Every once in
a while it does entire my mind, but I never really assessed the ramifications.
Criticism is good, but down right characters destructions, etc... aren't .
Jen
On 07 Jun 1998 05:06:17 GMT, in alt.tv.x-files the esteemed
svati...@aol.com (Svatipatel) opined pensively:
>Valid points. It is important to realize, as you've stated above, that these
>characters are "COMPOSITIONS", and are not complete personalities. To learn
>about our society using the characters Mulder and Scully as a reference is
>wonderful. To model one's self after Mulder or Scully may not be. Because,
>afterall, we don't see or experience complete personalities, only what the
>writers show us.
Well, sure we could model ourselves after characters on television, in
books, movies or the media. I know enough about Scully's traits to
want to be somewhat like her. I don't mean that I'm going to run off
and join the FBI, go to med school or dye my hair red, but I aspire to
be as poised and confident as she is.
Deeper than that... how much do we know about ANYONE's complete
personality? I've met people in my real life that I've admired,
wanted to be like, but never got to know them well-enough to fully
understand them. As humans, we appreciate certain behaviors in others
and try to emulate them.
When looking around for a role model, I'd much prefer that people
choose Scully or Mulder than a Spice Girl (all of whom are, allegedly,
real people), or Dennis Rodman.
Jen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Happiness is not a potato...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monkey5s
Svati remarked:
>Wow, Debbie, that's something I never really considered before. Every once
>in
>a while it does entire my mind, but I never really assessed the
>ramifications.
>Criticism is good, but down right characters destructions, etc... aren't .
But, this anonymity granted us by the online community is actually what I feel
makes this forum the most *honest* in terms of reactions to the show. We are
NOT restricting ourselves to posting only nice things, as though we were
writing fan letters. We are posting whatever flip or negative or gushing
comments we feel at the time.
It's like eavesdropping on conversations. If you want to know, REALLY know,
what people think of something, you would have to catch them unawares. In other
words, if the directors or writers or whatever sensitive flowers associated
with the show can't stand the heat, they should certainly know to stay out of
the kitchen.
Besides, we trash one another with impunity. Why should we tone it down for the
show folk?
Monkey5s
dull,thimble
KristBenj
>
>Has anyone seen the Truman Show yet? I just did and thought it was
>phenomenal.
> I loved it so much and thought Jim Carrey did such a great job. The movie
>definitely left me thinking as I walked out the movie theatre. And for some
>odd reason my thoughts drifted back to this NG. One of the key things I
>noticed in the movie was people's obsession with that show and the grip it
>had
>on people. The lengths the producers went to keep Truman in the dark as well
>as the fact that no one responsed to those lengths was greatly disturbing.
>One
>of the eriest moments is when I realized, like everyone else within the
>movie,
>I was also participating in watching Truman's life. It's kind of odd to
>think
>about. Yes, this has something to do with the X-files. The reason why I
>thought about this NG was because it perfectly represents that kind of
>obsession and grasp that the mythological Truman Show had on it's audience.
<big snip>
I know in my "fandom" with any show I draw distinct
>lines in which I say I will not cross. Simply to keep my fandom in check.
>For
>example, I've been a long time Trekker who will never go to a convention. I
>could have gone to the Chicago eXpo but didn't. Do any of you have lines?
>Or
>feel you don't need them?
<little snip>
I don't understand why as a fan of those shows you would "never go to a
convention" of either show. I have attended one Trek convention and well as
the NYC X-Files Expo, and immensely enjoyed both. I did not dress up as a
Klingon, or wear an FBI badge or do anything that might be deemed undignified
in anyone's book.
At the Trek convention I heard a very interesting talk by John DeLancie, a
humorous one from William Shatner, and got to see the gorgeous Terry Farrell
(she is so incredibly lovely in the flesh the show does not do her justice). I
was able to ask questions of them that I had wondered about, and had a great
time.
At the Expo, I was able to see and meet Steven Williams, Dean Haglund, Nicholas
Lea, and Gillian Anderson. This was a very *real* experience - not fictional.
Everyone draws lines as to their interests - I personally set a time limit on
my online time to avoid spending too much time away from other parts of my
life. I would not say I "never" will go past that limit. I have done so, but
try to keep to it as much as possible and still enjoy the online experience.
Treat yourself once in a while - step over the line!
KristinB
By the way, I also found Truman to be very good.
laura capozzola
Debbie Long wrote:
>
> My little epiphany came while listening to Rob Bowman at the Expo talk about how it
> was hurtful to read stuff on the internet that savaged something that you had
> the people that make them have an effect on us, but I hadn't given much thought on
> the effect we could have on them.
I keep thinking, who among us is so perfect that when we go to work or
school every day, we never make a mistake or have only sterling
moments?.
I think "heated" discussions about the characters and the show are fine,
teasing is okay, too, but turning it into a personal attack on a
person's livelihood, is piss ant stuff. You don't like the XYZ Affair
Episode for showing Mulder cheating on Scully doesn't make the producer
a weasely little mother-loving maggot who wouldn't know a good script if
he saw one.
You know, I keep hearing CC say how much he pushes for quality and
excellence and how much it drives him to be better and better and work
harder and harder and harder and frankly I just want to say to him,
"Don't be killing yourself like this for people like me. I don't care
if you got Napier's Constant wrong in Paper Clip. I just want you to be
healthy and happy and live long enough to enjoy it and know we enjoy it,
too." And that goes for everybody else associated with the show.
Laura
#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#
"The truth, the truth.....there is no truth.
These men just make it up as they go along."
- Alex Krycek (Tunguska) -
#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#***#
Todd
What do you mean, they're not real?
.
GeoRed
In article <357ADE...@erols.com>, laura capozzola <laur...@erols.com>
writes:
>You know, I keep hearing CC say how much he pushes for quality and
>excellence and how much it drives him to be better and better and work
>harder and harder and harder and frankly I just want to say to him,
>"Don't be killing yourself like this for people like me. I don't care
>if you got Napier's Constant wrong in Paper Clip. I just want you to be
>healthy and happy and live long enough to enjoy it and know we enjoy it,
>too." And that goes for everybody else associated with the show.
>
>
Ah, Laura, I like CC but I don't think he does it for *us*. I think he enjoys
it. I think he sees something turn out really well and thinks to himself,
"That was really good, I bet I can do it that well...or better, again." I
think that is how it works for a lot of people.
Heidi
::::::::with head in hands, rocking slowly::::::::::
"It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter."
<Mulder: He's not just lean.......he's cuisine.>
laura capozzola
GeoRed wrote:
>
> In article <357ADE...@erols.com>, laura capozzola <laur...@erols.com>
> writes:
>
> >You know, I keep hearing CC say how much he pushes for quality and
> >excellence and how much it drives him to be better and better and work
> >harder and harder and harder and frankly I just want to say to him,
> >"Don't be killing yourself like this for people like me. I don't care
> >if you got Napier's Constant wrong in Paper Clip. I just want you to be
> >healthy and happy and live long enough to enjoy it and know we enjoy it,
> >too." And that goes for everybody else associated with the show.
> >
> >
>
> Ah, Laura, I like CC but I don't think he does it for *us*. I think he enjoys
> it. I think he sees something turn out really well and thinks to himself,
> "That was really good, I bet I can do it that well...or better, again." I
> think that is how it works for a lot of people.
>
> Heidi
His producers say that when The X-Files wins an award, CC says that now
people will expect more from us (his staff and himself) and we have to
try harder to do a better job. He doesn't seem to take the time to
savor his accomplishment. He calls himself a quality freak. He has a
reputation for being a tough taskmaster. I just think that there is a
period when you work your butt off and there's a time to let yourself
relax and enjoy what you've accomplished or you just work yourself into
the ground. I keep hearing these quotes from various people associated
with the show about how tough we Internet fans are, as a group, on the
show and the people who do it. But people who are tough on themselves
usually take that criticism to heart and push themselves harder.
I just think nitpicking and personal criticisms have been elevated to an
unnecessary art form just to give the "gotcha" person some kind of boost
without a thought to the people on the receiving end or the efforts
they've made...which is essentially what Spotsy and Rob Bowman and
others have said.
laura capozzola
Tara Charnow wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 00:16:17 -0400, laura capozzola
> <laur...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >I just think nitpicking and personal criticisms have been elevated to an
> >unnecessary art form just to give the "gotcha" person some kind of boost
> >without a thought to the people on the receiving end or the efforts
> >they've made...which is essentially what Spotsy and Rob Bowman and
> >others have said.
>
> show are too sensitive, they shouldn't be reading this ng. I don't
> remember having said anything 'personal' about John Shiban (except
> that I don't think he knows how to write) but this is the nature of
> life. People are going to criticize people. Artists are used to
> criticism. They spend the vast majority of their lives being rejected
> from things or being fired. If this makes them fall apart, they should
> look for another line of work.
> --
> Tara-----Super!Bitch-----HotFudgeSundae
I don't think nitpicking is criticism. According to Webster, I, er,
think it's Ralph Webster, second cousin of the real Websters, nitpicking
is defined as paying too much attention to petty detail. I wasn't
pointing any fingers. It's one thing for a person to constructively
criticize an episode overall. It's another thing to go nuts over a
minor flaw and be calling for the writer's head on a silver platter or
his job because you're sure Harry the Garbageman can do a better job
with a straw up his nose. And it's just plain nasty when people are
asked to come up with a Christmas Wish List to ask Santa if he can axe
murder, have fired, beat up somebody because his/her work doesn't meet
the mouthy person's criteria for "good episode."
DeltaStar
Tara wrote:
> Artists are used to criticism. They
> spend the vast majority of their
> lives being rejected from things
> or being fired. If this makes them
> fall apart, they should look for
> another line of work.
Yes, they can get used to criticism, but that doesn't make it
easy--especially if it's something into which they've put their heart
and soul. When you care that much and work that hard to create
something that is perfection [sic], you want to do the best job that you
can possibly do. Criticism--even valid criticism--can be tough to take
when someone says that your best isn't very good or that it's crap.
Usenet can be a very useful tool for getting feedback on a person's
artwork, but the smart ones will use a "filter." Someone who isn't as
personally involved as the artist is and can pass on the praise and
criticisms while filtering out the (shall we say) muck. For some
artists, this is the only way to tap into this mine of information
without being driven crazy.
GeoRed
In article <357B65...@erols.com>, laura capozzola <laur...@erols.com>
writes:
>I just think nitpicking and personal criticisms have been elevated to an
>unnecessary art form just to give the "gotcha" person some kind of boost
>without a thought to the people on the receiving end or the efforts
>they've made...which is essentially what Spotsy and Rob Bowman and
>others have said.
Oh, well, I thought that was apparent from the content of this newsgroup on any
given day. ;-)
laura capozzola
Tara Charnow wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 19:58:36 -0400, laura capozzola
> <laur...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >I don't think nitpicking is criticism. According to Webster, I, er,
> >think it's Ralph Webster, second cousin of the real Websters, nitpicking
> >is defined as paying too much attention to petty detail. I wasn't
> >pointing any fingers. It's one thing for a person to constructively
> >criticize an episode overall. It's another thing to go nuts over a
> >minor flaw and be calling for the writer's head on a silver platter or
> >his job because you're sure Harry the Garbageman can do a better job
> >with a straw up his nose. And it's just plain nasty when people are
> >asked to come up with a Christmas Wish List to ask Santa if he can axe
> >murder, have fired, beat up somebody because his/her work doesn't meet
> >the mouthy person's criteria for "good episode."
>
> people were joking. The criticism gets out of hand--it's the nature of
> the beast. If each one of us stopped to consider that someones
> *feelings* might get hurt if we criticize an episode of a television
> show, this ng (and others like it) would no longer exist.
>
> Are you telling me that you *haven't* nitpicked every scene in
> Tunguska? ;-)
Tunguska is my All-Time favorite XF episode. What's to nitpick?
Now wait a second, you may have a point if the definition is paying too
much attention to petty detail. If you really love something a lot can
you be a positive nitpicker? I thought in the case of Philes that was
obsessed/focused.
I love the way Mulder verbally punctuates, "Stupid ass haircut!"
I love the way Krycek dangles from the balcony at just the right angle.
I love how the oiliens co-mingle. ;-D
I absolutely adore the scene between the snarky customs guy and the
whining courier.
I love the look of the skinny dog in the steamy night street militia
scene.
I love how the cold air comes out of Krycek's and Mulder's mouth when
they are digging under the fence.
I love the muddy pants in the rain for Krycek and Mulder.
I love the cold grey Vancouver sky when Mulder and Krycek are digging
under the fence and all of the grey/green/brown tones.
I love the solemn Scully testifying opening teaser with the big flag.
I love the visual imagery for the Russians on horses scene.
I love the teasing/suspenseful music when the militia truck arrives.
I love the suspenseful going into commercial music for Chicken-Wired
Mulder.
I love the clothes on Krycek and how he carries himself when he walks
through the airport.
I like the bald guy that gives Mulder the shot in the gulag. He looked
like a cartoon evil villain.
I love scaredy-cat hazmat-suited Pendrell with Scully and the oiliened
rock doc.
I love the CSM/Skinner Crystal City street dialogue.
I love the sexy music when Marita comes to the door and the 3 minute
issue - are these guys teases or what?
I like the font on the closing credits (just kidding - wanted to see if
you were paying attention...not that there's anything wrong with the
fonts. ;-D)
I love my sig file and the wink in the ep on that issue.
I love the wild ride, throw it all at us we can take it, aspect of this
episode more than anything.
Soooo, unless you can nitpick positively there isn't a thing I can say
bad about Tunguska...including Krycek the punching bag. After Terma,
this was just minor.
deering
TNW7 (tn...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <357C7A...@erols.com>, laura <laur...@erols.com> wrote:
: >It's one thing for a person to constructively
: >criticize an episode overall. It's another thing to go nuts over a
: >minor flaw and be calling for the writer's head on a silver platter or
: >his job because you're sure Harry the Garbageman can do a better job
: >with a straw up his nose.
Yeah, why on earth should people get annoyed if a show wastes their
not-easy-to-come-by leisure time week after week palming off whole
_episodes_ that suck? After all, who is the audience to judge what they
are given to watch--or to demand better? (snicker)
: I completely agree. The excessive criticism on this NG is absurd, and I find
: that serious XF fans who are older (and have no time for this NG) are far more
: reasonable in their expectations.
Excessive criticism _where_? And some of the sharpest, most on-the-money
criticism I've seen 'round here has come from "serious, older" XF fans
who know what XF used to be capable of and aren't seeing that lately. . .
: My theory -- many of the posters are young and haven't had too many real-life
: experiences. It's easy to be *extremely* judgmental until you've been out in
: the world in positions of serious responsibility (which often doesn't happen
: until your mid to late thirties). It's a humbling experience that makes you
: realize how much harder things are than you thought and how poorly you yourself
: would now stand up to the scrutiny you once subjected others to. My sincere
: hope for the extreme critics in this NG -- may they be lucky enough never to
: have their own work subjected to level of criticism and nastiness so often seen
: here.
Shoot, if'n these young 'uns here abouts don't want to settle for the
second-rate, more power to 'em--g! And in _my_ experience, being out in
the world teaches you that the more you settle for the not-great,
ill-conceived and half-done, the more of _that_ the world will give
you. (Geez, if GODZILLA's failure is good for nothing, relatedly, it
should at least be a warning sign to anyone who thinks audiences can be
fooled into accepting crap forever. That movie is failing because even the
most die-hard fan gets tired of being given second-rate stuff and being
told a) it's a masterpiece, b) to like it or lump it.) If people don't do
their jobs well in the real world, they hear about it, and why CC and Co.
should be exempt from what most people here go through beats
me--:PPPPP
C.
**
Alan M. Hurshman
laura capozzola (laur...@erols.com) wrote:
: I just think nitpicking and personal criticisms have been elevated to an
Yup! There seem to be a lot of people who seem to
think that finding a weakness in a plot line or
some other feature of the production automatically
means that they are at least as talented as the
people who made the show. The same is true with
computer software. Everyone can do it better as
long as they don't actually have to do it.
--
Alan Hurshman Topic? We ain't got no topic. We don't need no
THE SPA, X-Ville topic. I don't have to show you any stinking topics.
dull,dishwater
GABAL To Err is Human, To MOOO Bovine.
Cleanup Crew.
Halifax, Nova Scotia
C D SLATTON
Alan M. Hurshman wrote in message <6lr3n6$f9h$1...@News.Dal.Ca>...
>laura capozzola (laur...@erols.com) wrote:
There seem to be a lot of people who seem to
>think that finding a weakness in a plot line or
>some other feature of the production automatically
>means that they are at least as talented as the
>people who made the show. Everyone can do it better as
>long as they don't actually have to do it.
>
Thank you, Alan, for so marvelously voicing my own opinion. And I didn't
have to do that, either. You're right. If people don't have anything else
better to do than flame those who are busy doing, instead of criticizing
then they are in desperate need of a life. Now, I'm off to fan fic land to
write my OWN XF plot...
cslatton