Aging Fandom
David G. Bell
little bit of a shock to recall how old I was, and how long it has been
since I did more than slip off to a con for a day.
But I wonder what there is to bring new people into fandom? Never mind
the age, what will be attracting the potential fans of the 21st century.
I can remember when D&D was new, and computer games, and media fandoms
rise and, sometimes, fall with bewildering rapidity. I can think of
fannish kids who might stick around, but I've thought that before and
then heard of them vanishing in another direction.
I suppose we have a chance with the LotR movies -- they do have the deep
reality that stuff like Harry Potter doesn't, and which can feed the
diversity of a sensitive fannish mind -- but maybe being in Priscilla
Tolkien's back garden when I was persuaded to go to a Novacon is biasing
me.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Lee Ratner
> There's been some mention of the apparent aging of fandom, and it was a
> little bit of a shock to recall how old I was, and how long it has been
> since I did more than slip off to a con for a day.
>
> But I wonder what there is to bring new people into fandom? Never mind
> the age, what will be attracting the potential fans of the 21st century.
>
> I can remember when D&D was new, and computer games, and media fandoms
> rise and, sometimes, fall with bewildering rapidity. I can think of
> fannish kids who might stick around, but I've thought that before and
> then heard of them vanishing in another direction.
>
> I suppose we have a chance with the LotR movies -- they do have the deep
> reality that stuff like Harry Potter doesn't, and which can feed the
> diversity of a sensitive fannish mind -- but maybe being in Priscilla
> Tolkien's back garden when I was persuaded to go to a Novacon is biasing
> me.
Most of the new fans are fans via anime, manga, and video games.
Go to any anime convention and you'll see that they are filled with
young people. At 23, I was one of the older guests at the Big Apple
Anime Convention this year. Most of the people at BAAF were in middle
school or early high school.
David Dyer-Bennet
Are people going to Anime conventions "fans" in the sense we use it
here? I don't see it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>
Robert Sneddon
b.net> writes
>
>Are people going to Anime conventions "fans" in the sense we use it
>here? I don't see it.
In the UK a lot of the people running anime cons are often people you
see around at regular SF conventions doing committee or gophering.
Next British anime con is Minamicon in March 2004. the membership is
already closed and has been for some time since the hotel they use
limits out at 400. Anime is increasingly popular here.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.
Robert Sneddon
TedJ...@mindspring.com
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2llq0i...@gw.dd-b.net...
> Are people going to Anime conventions "fans" in the sense we use it
> here? I don't see it.
There are anime music videos made by fans, and anime fan
fiction, and fan subtitling of anime not yet released in English,
so there are lots of fans in the sense of people who engage
in active projects rather than merely being passive consumers
of an entertainment product.
James J. Walton
On 28 Nov 2003, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Are people going to Anime conventions "fans" in the sense we use it
> here? I don't see it.
Yes, they are fans. There are people who go to Anime cons, furry cons,
etc. just for the parties and the dances, but there are also those who go
for the fandom and everything that means. The basics of the fandoms are
essentially the same. People wanted to get together with other people
who liked the same things.
One big difference I see is in the ages of the attendees. Anime and Furry
are relatively "new" fandoms which attract new (young) people.
I wish I could see the same liveliness and enthusiasm at Worldcon as I
see at Animes cons and Anthrocon.
Yes, I go to Anime and Furry cons.
Danny Low
("David G. Bell") wrote:
>But I wonder what there is to bring new people into fandom? Never mind
>the age, what will be attracting the potential fans of the 21st century.
Many years ago at a Boskone I sat down in the hotel lobby to rest. The
woman next to me had a Boskone badge but did not look fanish. She was
the mother of a kid who was the one attending the con. She was an
analyst for Arthur D. Little and had worked on their lead balloon and
silk from a sow's ear project. We got to talking about the people at
the convention and fandom. She noted that there was a bimodal
distribution at the con. There appears to be a node around 12 years
and another one around 30 years as a seat of the pants estimate.
I have found since then that in a large general SF con this bimodal
distribution hold true. In certain genre cons such as anime cons and
comic cons, the distrbution also holds but the one around 12 years is
huge compared to the one around 30 years.
Based on our conversation, I would say that cons are the major means
young readers are exposed to fandom nowadays. The web and groups such
as rasff can expose young readers to fandom but fanac is as much a
social activity as it is isolated individuals typing away in their
homes. For the full range of social activities, personal contact is
required and cons are the easiest way for most readers to get that
personal contact. Working as a gopher is often the first experience
young readers get in the personal contacts that make up fanac and is
their first exposure to fandom.
So I would say that conventions are where most of the future fans will
be recruited. As minors the young readers cannot do much until they
are adults but without that exposure they will remain just readers.
Danny
Don't question authority. What makes you think they
know anything? (Remove the first dot for a valid e-mail
address)
Lee Ratner
> > Go to any anime convention and you'll see that they are filled with
> > young people. At 23, I was one of the older guests at the Big Apple
> > Anime Convention this year. Most of the people at BAAF were in middle
> > school or early high school.
>
> Are people going to Anime conventions "fans" in the sense we use it
> here? I don't see it.
Oh yes. Dedicated anime fans write fanfiction, cosplay, look for
Japanese school uniforms, buy as much merchandise as possible, and
debate endlessly on pointless topics.
Dale
> little bit of a shock to recall how old I was, and how long it has been
> since I did more than slip off to a con for a day.
>
> But I wonder what there is to bring new people into fandom? Never mind
> the age, what will be attracting the potential fans of the 21st century.
>
> I can remember when D&D was new, and computer games, and media fandoms
> rise and, sometimes, fall with bewildering rapidity. I can think of
> fannish kids who might stick around, but I've thought that before and
> then heard of them vanishing in another direction.
>
> I suppose we have a chance with the LotR movies -- they do have the deep
> reality that stuff like Harry Potter doesn't, and which can feed the
> diversity of a sensitive fannish mind -- but maybe being in Priscilla
> Tolkien's back garden when I was persuaded to go to a Novacon is biasing
> me.
Like many people said Japanese manga and anime and computer/video
games are bringing many new people into fandom. Many if not most of
the popular cartoons in TV are Japanese animation or at least
obviously insipire by Japanese animation. The internet will also bring
many kids into fandom especially because of on-line games and while
kids are looking up Sailor Moon and Pokemon, they are going to find
fan pages with recomendation to other animes.
I think finding like minded friends also helps but depends too much on
geography. It took me until college to find people my age who liked
fan stuff besides my brother. However several my college friends from
NYC had fan friends since elementary school and I grew up in a town
that was only 35 minutes from NYC. I knew a few people in HS who liked
anime but they kept it under wraps or it was a casual liking. Maybe
something they watched when they had nothing better to do.
In the furture I think the big cons are going to be the ones with
strong anime/videogame conponents like ICON at SUNY Stony Brook.
Dale
This is why city kids have much better access to fandom. NYC cons
especially anime cons have a huge amount of preteen attendees because
they can take public transportation to get to the cons. Kids in the
suburbs or rural areas suffer. When I was in HS (94-98) I didn't know
about any cons, the closest con was probably ICON which is on the
oppositte end of Long Island from me. I highly doubt I would have been
able to convince my parents to drive me to the other end of Long
Island to attend a convention where they would be bored all day and my
parents were pretty supportive people. I didn't know any kids other
kids who would have wanted to go either.
Yes the bimodal thing seems to be very true. At the cons I have been
to, it seems that a fifteen year age gap exists between many of the
attendees. The last time I attended ICON I was 20 and besides my
college friends who went, it seemed like everyone else was 6-8 years
younger or older than me. Of course this is disturibing when you get
30 year old men ogling at 14 year old girls.
AUWG
> Yes the bimodal thing seems to be very true. At the cons I have been
> to, it seems that a fifteen year age gap exists between many of the
> attendees. The last time I attended ICON I was 20 and besides my
> college friends who went, it seemed like everyone else was 6-8 years
> younger or older than me. Of course this is disturibing when you get
> 30 year old men ogling at 14 year old girls.
Are they wearing big badges that say "I'm only 14" or are they wearing
the latest Britney Spears miniskirt (or less)?
All men LOOK at the good stuff, young or old.
If they're smart, they don't mess with the young stuff.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction and Semi-Fiction
http://abintrapress.tripod.com
http://www.fictionwise.com/eBooks/EdHowdershelteBooks.htm
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
for a klondike bar?
Elisabeth Riba
> There's been some mention of the apparent aging of fandom, and it was a
> little bit of a shock to recall how old I was, and how long it has been
> since I did more than slip off to a con for a day.
> But I wonder what there is to bring new people into fandom? Never mind
> the age, what will be attracting the potential fans of the 21st century.
Anime, manga, comics (including online comics), LARPing, gaming...
Several colleges host their own SF cons, if you want to see what kinds of
panels the students running them are interested in:
Harvard: http://www.vericon.org/
Smith: http://sophia.smith.edu/conbust/
Amherst: http://www.amherst.edu/~sffc/conduct/
> I can remember when D&D was new, and computer games, and media fandoms
> rise and, sometimes, fall with bewildering rapidity.
Well, the earliest cons I attended were the touring Doctor Who media cons;
that was all I could get in my area. After I moved to Boston, I discovered
the more generally-oriented fan-run cons like Arisia and Boskone.
> I suppose we have a chance with the LotR movies -- they do have the deep
> reality that stuff like Harry Potter doesn't, and which can feed the
> diversity of a sensitive fannish mind
And what's wrong with Potter? It's an excellent gateway drug (just as Star
Trek and Doctor Who and other media fandoms. For many that's sufficient,
but it leads some select others deeper into fandom) and it can certainly
spark some fascinating panels (along with some very repetitive ones). I
still point people to http://fanac.org/worldcon/Philcon/x01-rpt.html#swift,
and I'm psyched that the next Nimbus (http://www.hp2003.org/nimbusbasic.html )
will be local so I'll be able to attend.
--
------> Elisabeth Riba * http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/ <------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
David Dyer-Bennet
> "David G. Bell" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I suppose we have a chance with the LotR movies -- they do have the deep
> > reality that stuff like Harry Potter doesn't, and which can feed the
> > diversity of a sensitive fannish mind
>
> And what's wrong with Potter? It's an excellent gateway drug (just as Star
> Trek and Doctor Who and other media fandoms.
See, that's where I have a problem with it. I watched some of Star
Trek (before I found fandom), and if that had been my introduction to
SF it would have put me off it big-time. If I had found fandom to
consist mostly of people who thought Star Trek was a wonderful example
of SF, I would have been driven away from fandom, too.
Elisabeth Riba
> Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> writes:
> > And what's wrong with Potter? It's an excellent gateway drug (just as Star
> > Trek and Doctor Who and other media fandoms.
> See, that's where I have a problem with it. I watched some of Star
> Trek (before I found fandom), and if that had been my introduction to
> SF it would have put me off it big-time.
But that's your experience.
I'll also point out there are two separate things that may be conflated:
introduction to SF/F
and
introduction to fandom.
Doctor Who wasn't my introduction to SF, but it *was* my intro to fandom.
I was already reading SF for a long time, but my comfort and interest in
Doctor Who made Whovian cons a safe niche where I could be comfortable and
meet other fans. [Also, the more rigid programming of media cons made them
a safe place for my *parents* to feel comfortable leaving a youngish
14-year-old girl alone for the day.]
I then was able to take the comfort from media cons and transfer that to
the broader general cons with their bewildering array of choices.
Elisabeth Riba
> Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> writes:
> > "David G. Bell" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I suppose we have a chance with the LotR movies -- they do have the deep
> > > reality that stuff like Harry Potter doesn't, and which can feed the
> > > diversity of a sensitive fannish mind
> > And what's wrong with Potter? It's an excellent gateway drug (just as Star
> > Trek and Doctor Who and other media fandoms.
> See, that's where I have a problem with it.
I realized that my first response got off the subject.
The issue raised was "aging fandom" and how to attract younger fen.
One of the advantages of fandom is the diversity of topics it encompasses.
To attract younger fen may mean opening cons up to anime and other
nontraditional topics.
> I watched some of Star
> Trek (before I found fandom), and if that had been my introduction to
> SF it would have put me off it big-time. If I had found fandom to
> consist mostly of people who thought Star Trek was a wonderful example
> of SF, I would have been driven away from fandom, too.
But you are okay coexisting with fans who were introduced to SF and fandom
through Trek, even if you're attending entirely separate programming
tracks at WorldCon, right?
I'm trying to come up with some less threatening way of saying adapt (to
encompass the interests of younger fen) or die.
And it IS a choice, and I'm trying not to put value judgements on either
side. Comfort-level is important, and if cons change too much that they no
longer feel like home to current attendees, maybe the price is too high
and folks would be happier staying as-is, even if cons don't outlast them
and later generations reinvent fandom in their own image.
[For some reason I'm now thinking of David Brin at last year's Boskone,
where he tried to use the demographics of his Guest of Honor speech to
make a point about what programming might attract younger fen to cons --
neglecting to notice that younger fen were attending the con in decent
numbers, and just preferred other programming to the GoH speech. (I
believe I heard later there was something really popular showing in the
anime room.)]
Niall Harrison
> But I wonder what there is to bring new people into fandom? Never mind
> the age, what will be attracting the potential fans of the 21st century.
University SF groups? At least, that's been my route in.
(Although sad to say the group is faltering now, and has been for the past
couple of years; on the other hand, the media groups aren't doing
badly...)
Niall
--
When memes collide.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> writes:
> > > "David G. Bell" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > I suppose we have a chance with the LotR movies -- they do have the deep
> > > > reality that stuff like Harry Potter doesn't, and which can feed the
> > > > diversity of a sensitive fannish mind
> > > And what's wrong with Potter? It's an excellent gateway drug (just as Star
> > > Trek and Doctor Who and other media fandoms.
> > See, that's where I have a problem with it.
>
> I realized that my first response got off the subject.
> The issue raised was "aging fandom" and how to attract younger fen.
>
> One of the advantages of fandom is the diversity of topics it encompasses.
> To attract younger fen may mean opening cons up to anime and other
> nontraditional topics.
Sure. Nothing against any *medium* (although statistically...); there
are lots of ways to make spiffy science fiction.
> > I watched some of Star
> > Trek (before I found fandom), and if that had been my introduction to
> > SF it would have put me off it big-time. If I had found fandom to
> > consist mostly of people who thought Star Trek was a wonderful example
> > of SF, I would have been driven away from fandom, too.
>
> But you are okay coexisting with fans who were introduced to SF and fandom
> through Trek, even if you're attending entirely separate programming
> tracks at WorldCon, right?
Well, the ones who learned better, anyway. Real drooling Trek fen
give me the pip.
> I'm trying to come up with some less threatening way of saying adapt (to
> encompass the interests of younger fen) or die.
And I'm trying to come up with a less obnoxious way to say that if we
invite just anybody into fandom, it won't be fandom any more (and
hence won't serve the purposes I got into fandom for).
> And it IS a choice, and I'm trying not to put value judgements on either
> side. Comfort-level is important, and if cons change too much that they no
> longer feel like home to current attendees, maybe the price is too high
> and folks would be happier staying as-is, even if cons don't outlast them
> and later generations reinvent fandom in their own image.
I think fandom, if it stays *my* fandom, will be smaller. In many
ways that's good -- it means that the smart curious kids aren't being
as lonely any more.
Danny Low
wrote:
>See, that's where I have a problem with it. I watched some of Star
>Trek (before I found fandom), and if that had been my introduction to
>SF it would have put me off it big-time. If I had found fandom to
>consist mostly of people who thought Star Trek was a wonderful example
>of SF, I would have been driven away from fandom, too.
Your bigotry is showing. However it was a common bigotry among fans
when trekkies first started appearing in fandom. However living well
is the best revenge and the trekkies got their revenge by radically
changing the demographics of fandom from a mainly aging white male
organization to a near equal ratio of male and females with minorities
and children. There are many fans today considered to be "regular"
fans who started out as trekkies. You probably know quite a few of
them without even knowing it. Furthermore the trekkie experience has
enabled the anime fans, furry fans, etc. to become integrated into
regular fandom much easier and kept fandom alive by tapping the new
genres as they appeared.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 30 Nov 2003 16:37:44 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
> >See, that's where I have a problem with it. I watched some of Star
> >Trek (before I found fandom), and if that had been my introduction to
> >SF it would have put me off it big-time. If I had found fandom to
> >consist mostly of people who thought Star Trek was a wonderful example
> >of SF, I would have been driven away from fandom, too.
>
> Your bigotry is showing.
Now wait just a fscking minute. You're calling me a bigot because I
didn't like a TV show that I watched?
You're torturing the language beyond the bounds of decency.
> However it was a common bigotry among fans when trekkies first
> started appearing in fandom. However living well is the best revenge
> and the trekkies got their revenge by radically changing the
> demographics of fandom from a mainly aging white male organization
> to a near equal ratio of male and females with minorities and
> children.
Perhaps, but I know very few women in fandom who got here via Trek.
They may be around, but they're not the ones who have enhanced my
experience of fandom :-).
> There are many fans today considered to be "regular" fans who
> started out as trekkies. You probably know quite a few of them
> without even knowing it.
Sure, I don't hold people's old opinions against them much.
Dale
> Dale wrote:
> > Yes the bimodal thing seems to be very true. At the cons I have been
> > to, it seems that a fifteen year age gap exists between many of the
> > attendees. The last time I attended ICON I was 20 and besides my
> > college friends who went, it seemed like everyone else was 6-8 years
> > younger or older than me. Of course this is disturibing when you get
> > 30 year old men ogling at 14 year old girls.
>
1. It is usually pretty easy to tell the age difference between a 14
year old, 20 year old, and 30 year old. Their are people who do look
radically older or younger than they are but I find that most people
look their age.
2. "All men look at the good stuff" is exactly what is wrong with the
way many men think. I like taking glances at pretty women too but it
has been a long time since I thought a 14 year old girl was hot or
sexy. After teaching teenage girls in Japan, I wonder how any adult
male could find them sexually attractive (there are always several
teachers who would get fired for sleeping with a teenage girl every
year)Some of them were cute but personality wise, most of them were
still kids. So unless a guy has teacher/corupter fantasies or just has
to date women he considers "Intellectually inferior" I don't see how
an adult male can look at a teenage girl and consider it "the good
stuff"
AUWG
> 1. It is usually pretty easy to tell the age difference between a 14
> year old, 20 year old, and 30 year old.
Usually.
> 2. "All men look at the good stuff" is exactly what is wrong with the
> way many men think.
What do you look at? The bad stuff?
Some girls don't look their age, particularly when in costumes.
One should always perform an ID check before leering at bare female
skin.
> So unless a guy has teacher/corupter fantasies or just has
> to date women he considers "Intellectually inferior" I don't see how
> an adult male can look at a teenage girl and consider it "the good
> stuff"
Most teenage girls are skinny little fluff-brains, so we probably aren't
talking about typical teenage girls getting that kind of attention, and
you sound as if you probably don't see a lot of things the way anybody
else sees them.
If she's well-structured, attractive, and showing some skin, I'm going
to look without regard to age. That's what straight men do when there's
bare female skin on display. Looking is free.
For dating purposes, I prefer women who've gotten past the empty-headed
giggle stage. A reasonably well-kept 40 year old woman can be a joy. She
can carry a conversation in something other than a bucket, will have
gotten most of her child-rearing out of the way, knows what she likes
and doesn't, and isn't afraid to share that info with a man.
Bernard Peek
<l...@osmond-riba.org> writes
>And what's wrong with Potter? It's an excellent gateway drug (just as Star
>Trek and Doctor Who and other media fandoms.
I wonder when the current intake of Harry Potter fans will enter
mainstream fandom, and what effect that will have.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti
Elisabeth Riba
> In message <bqdr3s$bj8$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Elisabeth Riba
> <l...@osmond-riba.org> writes
> >And what's wrong with Potter? It's an excellent gateway drug (just as Star
> >Trek and Doctor Who and other media fandoms.
> I wonder when the current intake of Harry Potter fans will enter
> mainstream fandom, and what effect that will have.
A) Well, there are already Harry Potter conventions for adults, such as
http://www.hp2003.org/ and http://www.witchinghour.org
B) Many YA fantasy authors who are convention regulars (such as Tamora
Pierce) have benefitted from Potter's popularity ("If you liked Potter,
then try these books...") so I expect to see more of these readers at cons
where they can meet these authors.
(http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/arizonaliving/articles/0730fantasy.html)
C) What happens after that may depend upon how the rest of fandom reacts.
I remember a backlash when Harry Potter 4 won the Hugo, because it
was a juvie, because it wasn't SF...
If these new fen don't feel welcome because of their interests, it could
be a shortlived bump.
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
"Bernard Peek" <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote in message
news:+CQsYrqi91y$Ew...@shrdlu.com...
> In message <bqdr3s$bj8$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Elisabeth Riba
> <l...@osmond-riba.org> writes
>
>
> >And what's wrong with Potter? It's an excellent gateway drug (just as
Star
> >Trek and Doctor Who and other media fandoms.
>
> I wonder when the current intake of Harry Potter fans will enter
> mainstream fandom, and what effect that will have.
I think that depends on what they've read since.
I'm trying my nephew on some Pratchett now that Potter has him used to the
concept of reading.
Andrew Plotkin
>
> C) What happens after that may depend upon how the rest of fandom reacts.
> I remember a backlash when Harry Potter 4 won the Hugo, because it
> was a juvie, because it wasn't SF...
...because it wasn't the best novel nominated...
> If these new fen don't feel welcome because of their interests, it could
> be a shortlived bump.
True.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Joshua Hesse
> Your bigotry is showing. However it was a common bigotry among fans
> when trekkies first started appearing in fandom. However living well
> is the best revenge and the trekkies got their revenge by radically
> changing the demographics of fandom from a mainly aging white male
> organization to a near equal ratio of male and females with minorities
> and children. There are many fans today considered to be "regular"
> fans who started out as trekkies. You probably know quite a few of
> them without even knowing it. Furthermore the trekkie experience has
> enabled the anime fans, furry fans, etc. to become integrated into
> regular fandom much easier and kept fandom alive by tapping the new
> genres as they appeared.
I know of at least one BNF (Iowa) who was in "Trekkies"...
Around here, the derision seems to be mostly heaped on the
"Creation"-type cons. Then again, ST-Voyger and Enterprise have
pretty much driven the die-hard trekkies underground. If one does
start spouting something off, someone else can be sure to site chapter
and verse about who did/wrote what wrong.
The fans around here refuse to be pigeon-holed into a particular
series/genre/whatever. It's hard to keep on top of stuff.
-Josh
--
SWEN -It's what's new from MicroSoft!
Kevin J. Maroney
<l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>If these new fen don't feel welcome because of their interests, it could
>be a shortlived bump.
It will be even more short-lived if these new fen feel actively
excluded instead of just "not welcome".
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Michael Kube-McDowell
>AUWG <abintr...@atlantic.net> wrote in message news:<3FC97A...@atlantic.net>...
>> Dale wrote:
>> > Yes the bimodal thing seems to be very true. At the cons I have been
>> > to, it seems that a fifteen year age gap exists between many of the
>> > attendees. The last time I attended ICON I was 20 and besides my
>> > college friends who went, it seemed like everyone else was 6-8 years
>> > younger or older than me. Of course this is disturibing when you get
>> > 30 year old men ogling at 14 year old girls.
>>
>
>1. It is usually pretty easy to tell the age difference between a 14
>year old, 20 year old, and 30 year old. Their are people who do look
>radically older or younger than they are but I find that most people
>look their age.
It's gotten increasingly difficult--whether due to trends in fashion
or to the temporal distance from which I am viewing--for me to tell
the difference between the 14's and the 20's on visual cues alone.
Fourteen year old girls did not look like that in 1972--especially not
Catholic high school girls. Teenaged girls are camouflaging older
nowadays.
>2. "All men look at the good stuff" is exactly what is wrong with the
>way many men think.
It isn't thinking, exactly.
It's more like the input from a Distant Early Warning radar station.
Something moves into your zone of awareness and a complex (and mostly
pre-conscious) evaluation reflex is activated: "Ah, what is this?
Should I track it? Do I need to notify higher authorities?"
>I like taking glances at pretty women too but it
>has been a long time since I thought a 14 year old girl was hot or
>sexy. After teaching teenage girls in Japan, I wonder how any adult
>male could find them sexually attractive (there are always several
>teachers who would get fired for sleeping with a teenage girl every
>year)
Well, there's what happens at a distance of 50 feet (someone emerging
from an elevator or turning a corner or driving by in a car), and
there's what happens when you're in closer proximity and/or actually
interacting.
>Some of them were cute but personality wise, most of them were
>still kids. So unless a guy has teacher/corupter fantasies or just has
>to date women he considers "Intellectually inferior" I don't see how
>an adult male can look at a teenage girl and consider it "the good
>stuff"
Teenaged girls are biologically adult, and many of them are sending
adult cues in bearing and behavior as well. If your response triggers
(whether it's "coltish California girl" or "dark taboo-violating
goth") happen to get tickled by a teenaged girl, well, they get
tickled.
(Mine generally don't, and I'm glad about it--the rare occasions I
find myself momentarily attracted to someone who turns out to be much
younger than I first realized are referred to as "Kevin Spacey
moments" here, and a <squick shudder> is obligatory.)
--
Michael Kube-McDowell, author and packrat
http://k-mac.home.att.net/
VECTORS preview at http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac/Vectors.htm
Danny Low
wrote:
>Now wait just a fscking minute. You're calling me a bigot because I
>didn't like a TV show that I watched?
>
>You're torturing the language beyond the bounds of decency.
It is a characteristic of bigots that they do not consider themselves
to be bigots. A bigot is basically someone who is intolerant of people
other their "own kind" and you are certainly intolerant of Star Trek
and trekkies based on your posting.
Danny Low
wrote:
>In message <bqdr3s$bj8$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Elisabeth Riba
><l...@osmond-riba.org> writes
>>And what's wrong with Potter? It's an excellent gateway drug (just as Star
>>Trek and Doctor Who and other media fandoms.
>
>I wonder when the current intake of Harry Potter fans will enter
>mainstream fandom, and what effect that will have.
Probably never. Fandom is a specific subculture with distinctive
cultural values. It is acceptance of those values that make a fan not
an interest in rocket ships and magic wands. An interest in rocket
ships and magic wands only makes you a reader and increase the
probability that you will become a fan. However most readers remain
only readers. Only a few percentage ever become fans as in fandom.
Most Potter fans will remain Potter fans and not become fans.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 30 Nov 2003 23:10:06 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Now wait just a fscking minute. You're calling me a bigot because I
> >didn't like a TV show that I watched?
> >
> >You're torturing the language beyond the bounds of decency.
>
> It is a characteristic of bigots that they do not consider themselves
> to be bigots. A bigot is basically someone who is intolerant of people
> other their "own kind" and you are certainly intolerant of Star Trek
> and trekkies based on your posting.
So anybody who prefers associating with some people to associating
with other people is a bigot? Okay, now that you've disposed of
the word "bigot", what are you going to call the real bigots?
AUWG
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >Now wait just a fscking minute. You're calling me a bigot because I
> >didn't like a TV show that I watched?
> >You're torturing the language beyond the bounds of decency.
> It is a characteristic of bigots that they do not consider themselves
> to be bigots. A bigot is basically someone who is intolerant of people
> other their "own kind" and you are certainly intolerant of Star Trek
> and trekkies based on your posting.
Well, damn, Danny.
I don't like people who apply way too much sensitivity and analysis to
non-issues, so I must be some kind of a bigot, too.
I'll learn to live with it.
Kate Secor
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> writes:
> > I'm trying to come up with some less threatening way of saying adapt (to
> > encompass the interests of younger fen) or die.
>
> And I'm trying to come up with a less obnoxious way to say that if we
> invite just anybody into fandom, it won't be fandom any more (and
> hence won't serve the purposes I got into fandom for).
So let me get this straight.
A community which was founded on the idea that it could and would accept
almost anyone, as long as they read science fiction, a community which
accepts people with Asberger's syndrome and body odor and bad looks and
bad teeth and weird eating habits and no fashion sense and odd
sexualities and anti-social manners and all the other things that make
people think badly of fen won't be fandom any more if you start letting
in people who'd rather watch "KiKi's Delivery Service" than read
"Dahlgren"?
I don't *WANT* to be a part of your fandom, then. I don't want to be
part of a group that's forgotten where it came from, that doesn't
acknowledge that there are still areas of prejudice against certain
forms of science fiction and fantasy (especially in the group, where
people just perpetuate the stereotype that there aren't any intelligent
or worthwhile anime watchers, or filkers, or gamers, or costumers, or
dancers, or fantasy readers, or furries, or goths, or people under the
age of 30).
You can take that version of fandom and keep it. I'd rather be part of
a dynamic culture that understands that even as it came out of a group
of people who couldn't find acceptance for their hobby anywhere else, it
will have to change as the SF/F related hobbies change, that knows that
cultures must change or die, that isn't going to tell me that I'm not a
worthwhile person or that I'm not the kind of person they want to have
around just because I'd rather go watch pretty explosions than listen to
a pompous ass go off about things that happened before I was born.
No, thanks.
Aiglet
Elisabeth Riba
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:33:54 +0000, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> >I wonder when the current intake of Harry Potter fans will enter
> >mainstream fandom, and what effect that will have.
> Probably never. Fandom is a specific subculture with distinctive
> cultural values. It is acceptance of those values that make a fan not
> an interest in rocket ships and magic wands. An interest in rocket
> ships and magic wands only makes you a reader and increase the
> probability that you will become a fan. However most readers remain
> only readers. Only a few percentage ever become fans as in fandom.
> Most Potter fans will remain Potter fans and not become fans.
Can you delineate for me what separates the fandom subculture from readers
(or viewers) who attend conventions?
This is not intended as sarcastic or anything like that; I'm honestly
curious and interested in an answer.
Dave Weingart
>in people who'd rather watch "KiKi's Delivery Service" than read
>"Dahlgren"?
Actually, having done both, I'd MUCH rather watch KDS again than read
Dahlgren again.
FWIW, I don't think that all of fandom is that down on anime, though.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Sixteen Tones (16th UK Filkcon)
mailto:phyd...@liii.com Feb 6-9,2004, Bromsgrove, England
http://www.weingart.net/ GoH: Chris Conway, Bill Roper
ICQ 57055207 http://www.weyrd.org/16tonesindex.htm
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<aig...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
snip
>accepts people with Asberger's syndrome and body odor and bad looks and
Nitpick: it's *Asperger*, not Asberger.
jrw
Nancy Lebovitz
Kate Secor <aig...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>In article <m2ptf9m...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> writes:
>
>> > I'm trying to come up with some less threatening way of saying adapt (to
>> > encompass the interests of younger fen) or die.
>>
>> And I'm trying to come up with a less obnoxious way to say that if we
>> invite just anybody into fandom, it won't be fandom any more (and
>> hence won't serve the purposes I got into fandom for).
>
>So let me get this straight.
>
>A community which was founded on the idea that it could and would accept
>almost anyone, as long as they read science fiction, a community which
>accepts people with Asberger's syndrome and body odor and bad looks and
>bad teeth and weird eating habits and no fashion sense and odd
>sexualities and anti-social manners and all the other things that make
Most people don't know some fans have odd sexualities. After all, having
*any* sexuality except for hopeless but conventional lust would be
counter to the rest of the stereotype.
>people think badly of fen won't be fandom any more if you start letting
>in people who'd rather watch "KiKi's Delivery Service" than read
>"Dahlgren"?
So would I--I liked "Kiki's Delivery Service", but don't feel an urgent
need to see it again. I've bounced off _Dahlgren_.
>
>I don't *WANT* to be a part of your fandom, then. I don't want to be
>part of a group that's forgotten where it came from, that doesn't
>acknowledge that there are still areas of prejudice against certain
>forms of science fiction and fantasy (especially in the group, where
>people just perpetuate the stereotype that there aren't any intelligent
>or worthwhile anime watchers, or filkers, or gamers, or costumers, or
>dancers, or fantasy readers, or furries, or goths, or people under the
>age of 30).
There's both a stereotyping problem and a real cultural problem. I certainly
agree that people can be into media or anime or whatever and be intelligent,
easy to talk with, and well-informed in general. I'm not trying to exclude
anime fans, etc., and I'm not campaigning against programming tracks for
them. I also grant that there are old-line fans who resist every new group
that comes in, and then are apt to complain about the graying of fandom.
On the other hand, *part* of what I go to conventions for is being able
to talk with people who get my references to print sf, and who use
references I understand. I want a high enough proportion of such people
that I have a reasonable chance of running into them.
Print fans have a not-unreasonable fear of getting swamped by more
popular art forms, as at Dragoncon. (Or at least, when I was there some
years ago, there was very little print presence.)
Would you want to only have conventions where anime etc. fans were
5% or less of the attendees, even if most of the rest were good enough
company?
>You can take that version of fandom and keep it. I'd rather be part of
>a dynamic culture that understands that even as it came out of a group
>of people who couldn't find acceptance for their hobby anywhere else, it
>will have to change as the SF/F related hobbies change, that knows that
>cultures must change or die, that isn't going to tell me that I'm not a
>worthwhile person or that I'm not the kind of person they want to have
>around just because I'd rather go watch pretty explosions than listen to
>a pompous ass go off about things that happened before I was born.
I think you've got a false dichotomy there. It's quite possible to
like pretty explosions[1], whether on the screen or on paper. It's also
quite possible to be a bore, whether by going on at dull length about
the past or about the latest thing.
I believe that part of why I like fandom (aside from that it was the
first place I really fit in) is I figured out early on that it's a good
place to find friends, but not a place to expect to like everyone.
[1] Have you read Doc Smith?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers
Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
Nancy Lebovitz
Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> wrote:
>One day in Teletubbyland, Kate Secor <aig...@nospam.verizon.net> said:
>>in people who'd rather watch "KiKi's Delivery Service" than read
>>"Dahlgren"?
>
>Actually, having done both, I'd MUCH rather watch KDS again than read
>Dahlgren again.
>
>
>FWIW, I don't think that all of fandom is that down on anime, though.
>
other incoming group. Admittedly, this is watching from not being in
one of those groups.
Nancy Lebovitz
Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>Danny Low <dann...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:33:54 +0000, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>> >I wonder when the current intake of Harry Potter fans will enter
>> >mainstream fandom, and what effect that will have.
>
>> Probably never. Fandom is a specific subculture with distinctive
>> cultural values. It is acceptance of those values that make a fan not
>> an interest in rocket ships and magic wands. An interest in rocket
>> ships and magic wands only makes you a reader and increase the
>> probability that you will become a fan. However most readers remain
>> only readers. Only a few percentage ever become fans as in fandom.
>> Most Potter fans will remain Potter fans and not become fans.
>
>Can you delineate for me what separates the fandom subculture from readers
>(or viewers) who attend conventions?
I'm not speaking for Danny, but I make a distinction between readers/viewers
and people who have socializing with other fans (whether in print, on
line, or at conventions) as an important part of their lives.
I don't make a distinction between readers/viewers who attend conventions
(and who like them--attending one or two because you've been dragged along
or because you're finding out that you don't like them doesn't count)
and fans.
Stephen J. Rush
Weingart) wrote:
>One day in Teletubbyland, Kate Secor <aig...@nospam.verizon.net> said:
>>in people who'd rather watch "KiKi's Delivery Service" than read
>>"Dahlgren"?
>
>Actually, having done both, I'd MUCH rather watch KDS again than read
>Dahlgren again.
I've never seen KDS, but I can think of _lots_ of stuff that I'd
rather do than read "Dahlgren" again. Lessee, root canal, traffic
court...
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <m2ptf9m...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> > Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> writes:
>
>
> > > I'm trying to come up with some less threatening way of saying adapt (to
> > > encompass the interests of younger fen) or die.
> >
> > And I'm trying to come up with a less obnoxious way to say that if we
> > invite just anybody into fandom, it won't be fandom any more (and
> > hence won't serve the purposes I got into fandom for).
>
> So let me get this straight.
>
> A community which was founded on the idea that it could and would accept
> almost anyone, as long as they read science fiction, a community which
> accepts people with Asberger's syndrome and body odor and bad looks and
> bad teeth and weird eating habits and no fashion sense and odd
> sexualities and anti-social manners and all the other things that make
> people think badly of fen won't be fandom any more if you start letting
> in people who'd rather watch "KiKi's Delivery Service" than read
> "Dahlgren"?
Hell, *I'd* rather watch KiKi's again than read Dhalgren again (the
only reason I finished it the first time is so that I could state my
opinions without being blown off because I hadn't read the book).
On the other hand, Kiki's is fantasy, and media fantasy is less likely
to be stupid than media SF, and Miyazaki is a smart artist creating
original works, which is very unusual in film SF/fantasy.
The thing that makes it worth hanging out with a bunch of people like
me is that they're as interesting to talk to as I am (well, to me,
anyway). SF is a literature of ideas. Fandom is a place that takes
those ideas seriously -- thinks about them, discusses them, challenges
them. And that takes those habits of thought seriously, and applies
them to real life. Often our humor is also based on taking ideas
seriously -- to extremes, or starting with strange ideas. Of course,
it doesn't *bother* me much that many fans have strange lifestyles or
weird social skills or dress funny or eat weird foods, because I don't
care about that stuff much (or don't care what *others* do very much).
With the rarest of exceptions, media SF simply doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. The connection between a media fan and the TV shows they
like is nothing like the connection between me and the books I like.
I don't know what it *is*; I've never been able to understand it.
They're welcome to it, I'm glad they get pleasure out of it, but we
simply don't fit in the same box. We not only have nothing to say to
each other, we don't have compatible attitudes to frame the discussion
in.
> I don't *WANT* to be a part of your fandom, then. I don't want to be
> part of a group that's forgotten where it came from, that doesn't
> acknowledge that there are still areas of prejudice against certain
> forms of science fiction and fantasy (especially in the group, where
> people just perpetuate the stereotype that there aren't any intelligent
> or worthwhile anime watchers, or filkers, or gamers, or costumers, or
> dancers, or fantasy readers, or furries, or goths, or people under the
> age of 30).
See, I think I'm part of that small chip of fandom that *does*
remember where it came from.
> You can take that version of fandom and keep it. I'd rather be part of
> a dynamic culture that understands that even as it came out of a group
> of people who couldn't find acceptance for their hobby anywhere else, it
> will have to change as the SF/F related hobbies change, that knows that
> cultures must change or die, that isn't going to tell me that I'm not a
> worthwhile person or that I'm not the kind of person they want to have
> around just because I'd rather go watch pretty explosions than listen to
> a pompous ass go off about things that happened before I was born.
>
> No, thanks.
Our awareness of and interest in our own history has been one of the
stronger, more continuous threads running through fandom. Note the
dates on some of the classic works of fannish history. *I* found the
history of fandom before I joined, even before I was born, to be quite
fascinating, and have at least half a dozen books on the shelf about
those periods. Not everybody is interested in everything, of course,
but this concept that nothing interesting could have happened before
you were born is, to me, a very peculiar one.
Brian Henderson
Lebovitz) wrote:
>On the other hand, *part* of what I go to conventions for is being able
>to talk with people who get my references to print sf, and who use
>references I understand. I want a high enough proportion of such people
>that I have a reasonable chance of running into them.
>
>Print fans have a not-unreasonable fear of getting swamped by more
>popular art forms, as at Dragoncon. (Or at least, when I was there some
>years ago, there was very little print presence.)
That's because the age of the print fandom has largely come and gone,
back in the days of pulp magazines and fanzines. Same as Buck Rogers
fandom. Same as Tarzan fandom. Print fandom is, comparatively, tiny.
>Would you want to only have conventions where anime etc. fans were
>5% or less of the attendees, even if most of the rest were good enough
>company?
That's how anime fans had to live for many, many years. But their
numbers have grown to support their own dedicated conventions as well
as programming tracks at most other general purpose conventions. If
print fans had the same numbers, I'm sure you'd see more events
dedicated to them.
>I believe that part of why I like fandom (aside from that it was the
>first place I really fit in) is I figured out early on that it's a good
>place to find friends, but not a place to expect to like everyone.
I think the problem is that you're seeing fandom as some monolithic
thing. There isn't just one fandom, there are hundreds, probably
thousands of smaller, sometimes overlapping fandoms. You can't expect
to like everyone or even have anything in common with everyone because
everyone is there for a different reason.
Ron Henry
news:aiglet-FE7689....@news-central.ash.giganews.com...
> in people who'd rather watch "KiKi's Delivery Service" than read
> "Dahlgren"?
Not sure where this vitriol comes from but personally I've seen a lot
more anti-_Dhalgren_ sentiment among sf fans than I have anti-anime or
anti-young-adult-fantasy bias. YMMV of course.
Ron Henry
Nancy Lebovitz
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>With the rarest of exceptions, media SF simply doesn't stand up to
>scrutiny. The connection between a media fan and the TV shows they
>like is nothing like the connection between me and the books I like.
>I don't know what it *is*; I've never been able to understand it.
>They're welcome to it, I'm glad they get pleasure out of it, but we
>simply don't fit in the same box. We not only have nothing to say to
>each other, we don't have compatible attitudes to frame the discussion
>in.
There are people who like both media and print science fiction.
Kevin J. Maroney
For the record, that's how I feel about it, too. DD-B does not speak
for me on this matter.
Karen Lofstrom
> Not sure where this vitriol comes from but personally I've seen a lot
> more anti-_Dhalgren_ sentiment among sf fans than I have anti-anime or
> anti-young-adult-fantasy bias. YMMV of course.
How about a con for everyone who hated Dhalgren?
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I may not be the president, I may not be the pope
But as long as I have Gritty Kitty, I shall never mope
Nancy Lebovitz
Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>In article <bqj035$bkh$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, Ron Henry wrote:
>
>> Not sure where this vitriol comes from but personally I've seen a lot
>> more anti-_Dhalgren_ sentiment among sf fans than I have anti-anime or
>> anti-young-adult-fantasy bias. YMMV of course.
>
>How about a con for everyone who hated Dhalgren?
It might be unmanagably large.
IIRC, Delany said _Dhalgren_ wasn't all that popular with the people who
usually read his science fiction, but he found a new audience. I'm not
sure who the new audience was--counter-culture? Experimental fiction fans?
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <bqj035$bkh$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, Ron Henry wrote:
>
> > Not sure where this vitriol comes from but personally I've seen a lot
> > more anti-_Dhalgren_ sentiment among sf fans than I have anti-anime or
> > anti-young-adult-fantasy bias. YMMV of course.
>
> How about a con for everyone who hated Dhalgren?
Too big for our usual methods to handle :-).
Mark Atwood
> In article <bqj035$bkh$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, Ron Henry wrote:
>
> > Not sure where this vitriol comes from but personally I've seen a lot
> > more anti-_Dhalgren_ sentiment among sf fans than I have anti-anime or
> > anti-young-adult-fantasy bias. YMMV of course.
>
> How about a con for everyone who hated Dhalgren?
Wouldn't it be smaller and more managable to have a con for
everyone who liked _Dhalgren_?
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Mark Atwood
>
> IIRC, Delany said _Dhalgren_ wasn't all that popular with the people who
> usually read his science fiction, but he found a new audience. I'm not
> sure who the new audience was--counter-culture? Experimental fiction fans?
Lit Professors and their classes' required reading lists, I think.
Thomas Yan
> In article <m2ptf9m...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> And I'm trying to come up with a less obnoxious way to say that if we
>> invite just anybody into fandom, it won't be fandom any more (and
>> hence won't serve the purposes I got into fandom for).
>
> So let me get this straight.
>
> A community which was founded on the idea that it could and would accept
> almost anyone, as long as they read science fiction, a community which
> accepts people with Asberger's syndrome and body odor and bad looks and
> bad teeth and weird eating habits and no fashion sense and odd
> sexualities and anti-social manners and all the other things that make
> people think badly of fen won't be fandom any more if you start letting
> in people who'd rather watch "KiKi's Delivery Service" than read
> "Dahlgren"?
Aside: I'm a fan of both media and print SF, but in this case,
normalizing for the bigger investment of time and energy required to
reading _Dhalgren_, I prefer that to watching "Kiki's".
> I don't *WANT* to be a part of your fandom, then.
-snip-
> You can take that version of fandom and keep it.
-snip-
You speak for me.
Daniel R. Reitman
>Wouldn't it be smaller and more managable to have a con for
>everyone who liked _Dhalgren_?
Smaller, anyway. :-)
Dan, ad nauseam
Sea Wasp
>
> And I'm trying to come up with a less obnoxious way to say that if we
> invite just anybody into fandom, it won't be fandom any more (and
> hence won't serve the purposes I got into fandom for).
DDB: I hate to say this to someone I've had many nice electronic
interactions with, but... this makes you sound like an incredible
jerk. Your definition of "who I want in fandom" eliminates many of my
close friends, many convention acquaintances, my son, and *ME* from
ever being allowed in. Hell, my book, which you overall spoke quite
highly of, has a number of direct anime influences in it. Star Wars
and Star Trek MADE current fandom what it is. They made it halfway
respectable and made the industry capable of supporting multiple
authors -- many of them quite good authors -- who would never have
made a living at it before. Current anime fandom may represent the
next transformative wave.
The kind of attitude you're displaying is not unfamiliar to me; it
may comfort you to know that there is a contingent of anime fans who
are displeased at the broadening of THEIR hobby and would like to keep
the noveau fans out, especially those who aren't "pure" -- like the
ones who like Star Trek and Doctor Who and, worst of all, that WRITTEN
SF stuff.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Nancy Lebovitz
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>>
>> IIRC, Delany said _Dhalgren_ wasn't all that popular with the people who
>> usually read his science fiction, but he found a new audience. I'm not
>> sure who the new audience was--counter-culture? Experimental fiction fans?
>
>Lit Professors and their classes' required reading lists, I think.
I've never heard of _Dhalgren_ as required reading, though I suppose
it's happened sometime.
This certainly *wasn't* the case when the book was first published. Afaik,
it's got enough sex and drugs to have some entertainment value.
Long ago, someone ordered some buttons in black writing on navy blue paper--
when I asked them why they wanted something so hard to read, they said it
was about black-on-black paintings in _Dhalgren_. This really isn't
required reading behavior.
Kate Secor
"Ron Henry" <ronh...@blahblahblah.clarityconnectcom> wrote:
Oh, that's my dad's fault. He said to me "Read this, it's the best book
I've ever read, you'll like it." I, having never read anything my dad
had liked that I hadn't, read it.
I *loathed* it. Can't quite remember why, it was about 10 years ago.
In this particular case, it's a stand-in for "long, difficult, not
particularly rewarding books distinctly lacking in plot or philosophical
pay-off that I could find."
AIglet
Kate Secor
Joyce Reynolds-Ward <j...@aracnet.com> wrote:
Ooops, thanks for the correction. I don't see it much in print, so it's
one of the few words I spell the way I speak it and don't have an
internal "oh, that looks wrong, it's probably this other way" check for.
Aiglet
Ken Walton
> Long ago, someone ordered some buttons in black writing on navy blue paper--
> when I asked them why they wanted something so hard to read, they said it
> was about black-on-black paintings in _Dhalgren_. This really isn't
> required reading behavior.
I think we need a straw poll of Raseff. Hands up all those who enjoyed
Dhalgren...
(My hand is not up)
--
Ken Walton
Dave Weingart
>I think we need a straw poll of Raseff. Hands up all those who enjoyed
>Dhalgren...
>
>(My hand is not up)
*sits firmly on both hands, while typing with nose*
Nancy Lebovitz
But why would you think that's the sort of book most print sf fans (even
the snobbish ones) like?
Ken Walton
> One day in Teletubbyland, Ken Walton <ken.w...@freenet.de> said:
>
>>I think we need a straw poll of Raseff. Hands up all those who enjoyed
>>Dhalgren...
>>
>>(My hand is not up)
>
>
> *sits firmly on both hands, while typing with nose*
Raseff Award! I hate to think how long it took you to type that
successfully!
>
> --
> 73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Sixteen Tones (16th UK Filkcon)
> mailto:phyd...@liii.com Feb 6-9,2004, Bromsgrove, England
> http://www.weingart.net/ GoH: Chris Conway, Bill Roper
> ICQ 57055207 http://www.weyrd.org/16tonesindex.htm
--
Ken Walton
Dave Weingart
>Raseff Award! I hate to think how long it took you to type that
>successfully!
I had to cheat to get the *, since that requires a shift key on a
US keyboard. I'm not sure of the UK keyboard; on my last trip there
I brought my laptop with me.
I got some odd looks from my cow-orkers, I'm sure.
Robert Sneddon
<phyd...@liii.com> writes
>One day in Teletubbyland, Ken Walton <ken.w...@freenet.de> said:
>>Raseff Award! I hate to think how long it took you to type that
>>successfully!
>
>I had to cheat to get the *, since that requires a shift key on a
>US keyboard.
You could have used your tongue.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.
Robert Sneddon
Dave Weingart
>>I had to cheat to get the *, since that requires a shift key on a
>>US keyboard.
>
> You could have used your tongue.
*tries* Not quite. Maybe with a little more practice. And AFTER I've
cleaned off the keyboard.
Ken Walton
> One day in Teletubbyland, Ken Walton <ken.w...@freenet.de> said:
>
>>Raseff Award! I hate to think how long it took you to type that
>>successfully!
>
>
> I had to cheat to get the *, since that requires a shift key on a
> US keyboard. I'm not sure of the UK keyboard; on my last trip there
> I brought my laptop with me.
>
> I got some odd looks from my cow-orkers, I'm sure.
Yes, you have to use your ear on the British keyboard too...
--
Ken Walton
Alan Braggins
>
>I had to cheat to get the *, since that requires a shift key on a
>US keyboard. I'm not sure of the UK keyboard
Shift-8, at least on the keyboards I've used. I think you need a keyboard
with a shift lock instead of (or as well as) caps lock.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > And I'm trying to come up with a less obnoxious way to say that if we
> > invite just anybody into fandom, it won't be fandom any more (and
> > hence won't serve the purposes I got into fandom for).
>
> DDB: I hate to say this to someone I've had many nice electronic
> interactions with, but... this makes you sound like an incredible
> jerk. Your definition of "who I want in fandom" eliminates many of my
> close friends, many convention acquaintances, my son, and *ME* from
> ever being allowed in. Hell, my book, which you overall spoke quite
> highly of, has a number of direct anime influences in it. Star Wars
> and Star Trek MADE current fandom what it is. They made it halfway
> respectable and made the industry capable of supporting multiple
> authors -- many of them quite good authors -- who would never have
> made a living at it before. Current anime fandom may represent the
> next transformative wave.
How about separating the question of whether fandom should be
selective at all, and the question of what it should select for? I
was responding to claims that fandom should *not* be selective, which
I think are amazing nonsense.
> The kind of attitude you're displaying is not unfamiliar to
> me; it may comfort you to know that there is a contingent of anime
> fans who are displeased at the broadening of THEIR hobby and would
> like to keep the noveau fans out, especially those who aren't "pure"
> -- like the ones who like Star Trek and Doctor Who and, worst of all,
> that WRITTEN SF stuff.
Good, at least they're not trying to eat everything.
Cally Soukup
> One day in Teletubbyland, Ken Walton <ken.w...@freenet.de> said:
>>I think we need a straw poll of Raseff. Hands up all those who enjoyed
>>Dhalgren...
>>
>>(My hand is not up)
> *sits firmly on both hands, while typing with nose*
I dunno. I kinda enjoyed it. I'm quite sure I didn't catch all that
was going on, mind you.
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Elisabeth Riba
> How about separating the question of whether fandom should be
> selective at all, and the question of what it should select for? I
> was responding to claims that fandom should *not* be selective, which
> I think are amazing nonsense.
How about self-selective -- those who want to be a part of "fandom" are
welcome, barring those who have committed certain crimes or offenses and
are thus barred from the community.
Something I wrote here several years ago seems relevant again.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9pacog%24gqa%241%40news.panix.com
--
------> Elisabeth Riba * http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/ <------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
Sea Wasp
>
> How about separating the question of whether fandom should be
> selective at all, and the question of what it should select for? I
> was responding to claims that fandom should *not* be selective, which
> I think are amazing nonsense.
"Fandom" cannot be selective at all. "Fandom" is "all fans of <x>".
If by "fandom" you mean "some in-group that I'm defining", then it's
by definition selective since you're electing some subset of fans to
be a part of it. But what it selects FOR will depend on who's doing
the selecting and why. I don't see any particular reason to BE
selective unless the idea *IS* to be a Secret Master 31337 Group of
d00dZ. If that's the idea, then certainly you should be selective,
damned selective. Just be honest about saying "We're secret and 31337."
From my POV, if you're a fan of SF/F in any reasonable sense, then
you're a part of fandom.
Del Cotter
Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> said:
>Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> said:
>>>I had to cheat to get the *, since that requires a shift key on a
>>>US keyboard.
>>
>> You could have used your tongue.
>
>*tries* Not quite. Maybe with a little more practice. And AFTER I've
>cleaned off the keyboard.
But think what a popular fellow you'd be after all that exercise. The
tongue is a muscle, you know :-)
--
Del Cotter
Thanks to the overwhelming volume of UBE, I am now rejecting *all* email
sent to d...@branta.demon.co.uk. Please send your email to del2 instead.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > How about separating the question of whether fandom should be
> > selective at all, and the question of what it should select for? I
> > was responding to claims that fandom should *not* be selective, which
> > I think are amazing nonsense.
>
> "Fandom" cannot be selective at all. "Fandom" is "all fans of
> <x>".
Now, that's *not* what "fandom" meant when I got involved. It was
clearly understood that lots of people who liked SF a lot weren't
fans. They were referred to as "readers", to distinguish them from
"fans" and "mundanes".
> If by "fandom" you mean "some in-group that I'm defining", then
> it's by definition selective since you're electing some subset of fans
> to be a part of it. But what it selects FOR will depend on who's doing
> the selecting and why. I don't see any particular reason to BE
> selective unless the idea *IS* to be a Secret Master 31337 Group of
> d00dZ. If that's the idea, then certainly you should be selective,
> damned selective. Just be honest about saying "We're secret and 31337."
Nothing like that, sorry.
> From my POV, if you're a fan of SF/F in any reasonable sense,
> then you're a part of fandom.
There's 60 years of usage of the term to mean something other than
that.
Kip Williams
> One day in Teletubbyland, Ken Walton <ken.w...@freenet.de> said:
>
>>Raseff Award! I hate to think how long it took you to type that
>>successfully!
>
>
> I had to cheat to get the *, since that requires a shift key on a
> US keyboard. I'm not sure of the UK keyboard; on my last trip there
> I brought my laptop with me.
>
> I got some odd looks from my cow-orkers, I'm sure.
Doesn't your keyboard have the * on the number pad?
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"The politics of failure has failed! And I say we must move forward,
not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling,
twirling toward freedom!" --Kodos
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> writes:
>
>
>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How about separating the question of whether fandom should be
>>>selective at all, and the question of what it should select for? I
>>>was responding to claims that fandom should *not* be selective, which
>>>I think are amazing nonsense.
>>
>> "Fandom" cannot be selective at all. "Fandom" is "all fans of
>><x>".
>
>
> Now, that's *not* what "fandom" meant when I got involved. It was
> clearly understood that lots of people who liked SF a lot weren't
> fans. They were referred to as "readers", to distinguish them from
> "fans" and "mundanes".
That's circular, though, because that's the definition that was
used within what you called "fandom". To people outside it, it meant,
well, being a fan. "Star Trek Fandom" was "being a Star Trek fan".
"Doctor Who fandom" was "being a fan of Doctor Who."
If there WAS any general sense of it being different than just being
a "fan", the general sense was "More Fanatical than the usual". In
other words, you weren't merely a Trek fan, you wore the uniform and
considered having your ears pointed. You weren't just an anime fan,
you participated in Cosplay and wrote fanfic. And you weren't just a
SF fan, you were a fanatic -- you read little or nothing else (unless
it was recommended by an author, like RAH often mentioned Other Stuff
in his books).
The only place I ever encountered the exclusive and circular
definition you're using is in fan-referencing works like Fallen Angels.
Dorothy J Heydt
>Dave Weingart wrote:
>> One day in Teletubbyland, Ken Walton <ken.w...@freenet.de> said:
>>
>>>Raseff Award! I hate to think how long it took you to type that
>>>successfully!
>>
>>
>> I had to cheat to get the *, since that requires a shift key on a
>> US keyboard. I'm not sure of the UK keyboard; on my last trip there
>> I brought my laptop with me.
>>
>> I got some odd looks from my cow-orkers, I'm sure.
>
>Doesn't your keyboard have the * on the number pad?
I don't know about his laptop, but my laptop doesn't have a
number pad at all. (It is possible to get one that you can plug
into the back, which I did back when I was playing _Asheron's
Call_* on mine.)
(*In which the numeric * is "take screenshot.)
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Kip Williams
> In article <3FCE7102...@cox.net>, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Doesn't your keyboard have the * on the number pad?
>
> I don't know about his laptop, but my laptop doesn't have a
> number pad at all. (It is possible to get one that you can plug
> into the back, which I did back when I was playing _Asheron's
> Call_* on mine.)
Ah. Laptops. Never mind.
James J. Walton
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Kate Secor wrote:
> people think badly of fen won't be fandom any more if you start letting
> in people who'd rather watch "KiKi's Delivery Service" than read
> "Dahlgren"?
Couldn't you come up with a more interesting example than KiKi's Delivery
Service?
James J. Walton
Okay, one hand up.
David Dyer-Bennet
> The only place I ever encountered the exclusive and circular
> definition you're using is in fan-referencing works like Fallen Angels.
I encountered it -- surprise -- in fandom. That's what fans mean when
they refer to fandom. That's what *I* mean when I say "fandom". Yes,
I'm aware it's a local usage. It's the local usage of my tribe, and
hence it's *my* usage as well.
Besides, nobody has managed to suggest any other term that means
anything like what "fandom" now means to fans.
Danny Low
<l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>Can you delineate for me what separates the fandom subculture from readers
>(or viewers) who attend conventions?
>This is not intended as sarcastic or anything like that; I'm honestly
>curious and interested in an answer.
Basically fans are people who like to socialize with other fans.
Readers generally do not like to socialize with fans. So the best
explanation of what makes a fan is probably what fans do or NOT do
(which can be very important) when they socialize.
1. Fans like to play intellectual games. An example was a what-if mind
game that we played at a local fan group meeting. It was if you were
suddenly transported by to the 12th century, who would you want to go
with you from the local fan community and how would you survive.
Pretty standard SF stuff except it happens to you and not some
character in a book.
This preference for intellectual games can be overdone. Fans all too
often speculate on stuff they know nothing about and just make up
stuff to show off how imaginative they are. The result are heated
arguments that no one wins because no one has any facts. So everyone
just yells my speculation is bigger than your speculation.
2. For fans a social gathering is not an excuse to get puking drunk or
stoned. Excessive drug use does not seem to be fanish thing to do
although many fans do drugs, legal and otherwise.
3. For all their love of intellectual games there are subjects that
fans find boring and do not discuss, such as who will win the World
Series next year. There are definitely sports fans in fandom who will
discuss this subject but overall this is among a list of topics fans
discuss.
4. Fans have a sense of their own superiority. I am sure some people
here will be offended by this but I have seen too many fans trying to
show off the size of their intellect and only get that Blank Stare
from mundanes that indicates that they have made a jerk of themselves.
Fortunately this "fans are slans" attitude is not taken seriously by
most fans but there are still too many fans who have not gotten the
word that this is a joke.
But overall it is "I know a fan when I see one". There have been many
times when I travel to a Worldcon and I am in the waiting area for the
connecting flight to the Worldcon city and I will speculate on who is
going to the Worldcon. In many cases I am right!
Danny
Don't question authority. What makes you think they
know anything? (Remove the first dot for a valid e-mail
address)
Thomas Yan
> I think we need a straw poll of Raseff. Hands up all those who enjoyed
> Dhalgren...
>
> (My hand is not up)
Mine is, although I did bounce off the first one or two times I tried
reading it. Hm. I think I bounced off the Deep/Deepness books
harder. Certainly, I felt that _Dhalgren_ had a faster start than
ADitS, which didn't really get started for a few centapages.
Damien Neil
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> I encountered it -- surprise -- in fandom. That's what fans mean when
> they refer to fandom. That's what *I* mean when I say "fandom". Yes,
> I'm aware it's a local usage. It's the local usage of my tribe, and
> hence it's *my* usage as well.
Yet more proof to me that I am not a fan, and don't particularly want
to be one.
- Damien
David Goldfarb
Ken Walton <ken.w...@freenet.de> wrote:
>I think we need a straw poll of Raseff. Hands up all those who enjoyed
>Dhalgren...
>
>(My hand is not up)
Mine is. I plan to re-read it one of these days, and I hardly ever re-read.
--
David Goldfarb <*>| "When the cat calls at midnight, your shorts
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | will ignite."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- J. Michael Straczynski
David Goldfarb
Kate Secor <aig...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>Oh, that's my dad's fault. He said to me "Read this, it's the best book
>I've ever read, you'll like it." I, having never read anything my dad
>had liked that I hadn't, read it.
>
>I *loathed* it. Can't quite remember why, it was about 10 years ago.
Um, ten years ago you'd have been about 13, yes? I find it hard to
imagine any 13-year-old really liking _Dhalgren_; I tried to read it
at 10 and bounced off hard. You might consider giving it another try,
now or maybe in five years or so. (I had similar experiences with
_Trouble on Triton_....)
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"Why, look, Ted, it's a meeting of the new
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | community leaders."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | "Oooh! A town meetin'! Does we gits'ta vote?
| I jes' loves ta vote!" -- _Bone_ #5
Dale
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> So let me get this straight.
>
> A community which was founded on the idea that it could and would accept
> almost anyone, as long as they read science fiction, a community which
> accepts people with Asberger's syndrome and body odor and bad looks and
> bad teeth and weird eating habits and no fashion sense and odd
> sexualities and anti-social manners and all the other things that make
> people think badly of fen won't be fandom any more if you start letting
> in people who'd rather watch "KiKi's Delivery Service" than read
> "Dahlgren"?
Here comes my bias. I love KDS but have no idea what Dahlgren is.
Guilty secret: I don't read that much SF and Fantasy. MY print SF
tastes are very limited usually to bio and cyber punk. My favorite
series of SF books is the Vurt Trilogy by Jeff Noon. Followed by
William Gibson, Philip K Dick. I am much more interested in Michael
Chabon, John Irving, Don DeLillo, and EL Doctrow than Terry Pratchet,
Piers Anthony, David Eddings, and Robert Jordan.
Medical Question: What is Asberger's Syndrome?
On Body Odor: Im not actually sure about how many people in fandom
accept people with body odor. Around the time of any major con, there
is usually a slightly joking/largely serious thread in some fandom
group about putting up signs that say "No Soap. No admittance" and
stuff like that. I know on r.a.a.m people have wanted to make soap in
the shape of cute anime girls so fanboys will have incentive to bathe
or shower.
>
JFW Richards
two hands, but up where is something I would not care to speculate on.
JFWR
Robert Sneddon
<Shado...@aol.com> writes
> I know on r.a.a.m people have wanted to make soap in
>the shape of cute anime girls so fanboys will have incentive to bathe
>or shower.
Someone on uk.media.animation.anime posted a link recently to ADV who
are selling Noir soap -- clear soap bars with small dolls of the Noir
girls inside.
"Otaku Bar -- a pure powerful anime clean!"
http://www.rightstuf.com/images/large_images/soap002b.jpg
The dolls being inside the soap is perhaps a better incentive for use
than precious anime-girl-shaped soap that disintegrates when wetted.
Dave Weingart
>>*tries* Not quite. Maybe with a little more practice. And AFTER I've
>>cleaned off the keyboard.
>
>But think what a popular fellow you'd be after all that exercise. The
>tongue is a muscle, you know :-)
obTMI: My cow-orkers are cute. They're not THAT cute.
Dave Weingart
>Doesn't your keyboard have the * on the number pad?
Yeah, but it doesn't actually work as a number pad.
Vicki Rosenzweig
>na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>>
>> IIRC, Delany said _Dhalgren_ wasn't all that popular with the people who
>> usually read his science fiction, but he found a new audience. I'm not
>> sure who the new audience was--counter-culture? Experimental fiction fans?
>
>Lit Professors and their classes' required reading lists, I think.
Required reading lists don't sell a million copies.
I may be the only person on this newsgroup who actively enjoyed
_Dhalgren_ enough to read it more than once--but there are a lot
of us in the world.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Nancy Lebovitz
Dale <Shado...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Here comes my bias. I love KDS but have no idea what Dahlgren is.
>Guilty secret: I don't read that much SF and Fantasy. MY print SF
>tastes are very limited usually to bio and cyber punk. My favorite
>series of SF books is the Vurt Trilogy by Jeff Noon. Followed by
>William Gibson, Philip K Dick. I am much more interested in Michael
>Chabon, John Irving, Don DeLillo, and EL Doctrow than Terry Pratchet,
>Piers Anthony, David Eddings, and Robert Jordan.
You might want to check out _Dhalgren_. I'll let the people who read
and liked it describe it.
Prachett is a skillful writer, but his sense of humor and/or didactic
tone don't appeal to everyone.
The other three you list are, literarilly speaking, far from the best
in sf, to put it mildly.
You might like the New Wave--science fiction (mostly late 60s/early
70s) which tried a more literary/experimental approach than was usual
in the field. Lets see, there's Malzberg, Aldiss, Ballard, Delany,
Moorcock, Silverberg.....I'm not expert on the New Wave (afaik, nothing
at all to do with New Wave music), but there was just a thread on it
in rec.arts.sf.written.
Anthologies: _England Swings SF_ ed. by Judith Merril, _Dangerous Visions_
and _Again, Dangerous Visions_ ed. by Harlan Ellison, the _Orbit_ anthologies
ed. by Damon Knight.
And possibly the more recent _Trampoline_, edited by Kelly Link. I've
only read about half of it, but it seemed New Wavish.
For more recent work, try Gene Wolfe, Terry Bisson--there are more, but
I'm not coming up with names at the moment.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers
Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
Bill Higgins
Mine is, too.
That said, I am more Vinge's sort of reader than Delany's,
having gobbled down everything with his name on it since I encountered
"Bookworm, Run!" around 1969. I loved *Deepness*.
Death to vermin.
--
Bill Higgins
Fermilab
hig...@fnal.gov
Randolph Fritz
> Quoth Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> on 02 Dec 2003 22:54:08 -0800:
>
>>na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>>>
>>> IIRC, Delany said _Dhalgren_ wasn't all that popular with the people who
>>> usually read his science fiction, but he found a new audience. I'm not
>>> sure who the new audience was--counter-culture? Experimental fiction fans?
>>
>>Lit Professors and their classes' required reading lists, I think.
>
> Required reading lists don't sell a million copies.
>
> I may be the only person on this newsgroup who actively enjoyed
> _Dhalgren_ enough to read it more than once--but there are a lot
> of us in the world.
Not the only.
Randolph
Eu. Harry Andruschak
>> Ken Walton <ken.w...@freenet.de> writes:
>>
>> > I think we need a straw poll of Raseff. Hands up all those who enjoyed
>> > Dhalgren...
>> >
>> > (My hand is not up)
Neither is mine.
Reply to harryandruschak AT aol DOT com
Honorary Menobabe with golden toenails
Abject, humble Cat Harem eunuch slave
Is it just me, or is it hot in here?
"Because Nice Matters"
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>
>On Body Odor: Im not actually sure about how many people in fandom
>accept people with body odor. Around the time of any major con, there
>is usually a slightly joking/largely serious thread in some fandom
>group about putting up signs that say "No Soap. No admittance" and
>stuff like that. I know on r.a.a.m people have wanted to make soap in
>the shape of cute anime girls so fanboys will have incentive to bathe
>or shower.
But those would be collector's items you wouldn't want to ruin by getting
them wet.
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Trinker
Kate Secor wrote:
[...]
> You can take that version of fandom and keep it. I'd rather be part of
> a dynamic culture that understands that even as it came out of a group
> of people who couldn't find acceptance for their hobby anywhere else, it
> will have to change as the SF/F related hobbies change, that knows that
> cultures must change or die, that isn't going to tell me that I'm not a
> worthwhile person or that I'm not the kind of person they want to have
> around just because I'd rather go watch pretty explosions than listen to
> a pompous ass go off about things that happened before I was born.
>
> No, thanks.
Oh. You were eavesdropping on the panel I recently attended, of
40-something men that was spouting off "of course you've all read..."
and acted as if all fandom was Just Like Them, were you?
--Trinker
Trinker
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
[...]
> On the other hand, Kiki's is fantasy, and media fantasy is less likely
> to be stupid than media SF, and Miyazaki is a smart artist creating
> original works, which is very unusual in film SF/fantasy.
False dichotomy, there. There's a hell of a lot of crap litSF/fantasy,
and quite a bit of good mediaSF/fantasy.
> The thing that makes it worth hanging out with a bunch of people like
> me is that they're as interesting to talk to as I am (well, to me,
> anyway). SF is a literature of ideas. Fandom is a place that takes
> those ideas seriously -- thinks about them, discusses them, challenges
> them. And that takes those habits of thought seriously, and applies
> them to real life. Often our humor is also based on taking ideas
> seriously -- to extremes, or starting with strange ideas. Of course,
> it doesn't *bother* me much that many fans have strange lifestyles or
> weird social skills or dress funny or eat weird foods, because I don't
> care about that stuff much (or don't care what *others* do very much).
>
> With the rarest of exceptions, media SF simply doesn't stand up to
> scrutiny. The connection between a media fan and the TV shows they
> like is nothing like the connection between me and the books I like.
> I don't know what it *is*; I've never been able to understand it.
> They're welcome to it, I'm glad they get pleasure out of it, but we
> simply don't fit in the same box. We not only have nothing to say to
> each other, we don't have compatible attitudes to frame the discussion
> in.
Well, gee, dd-b, maybe you oughta cross me off your list, because I
learned to interact fannishly(*) from *gasp*choke*sayitisn'tso*
Highlander fangroups. I'd been reading SF for years, and hung out
around comic book fans, but Highlander was what convinced me that
convention fandom was potentially a fun thing. Mind you, it's also the
same thing that convinced me that major media cons weren't my cuppa, as
well.
(*) Well, sorta. I was playing in alt.callahans as well.
--Trinker
Trinker
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> How about separating the question of whether fandom should be
> selective at all, and the question of what it should select for? I
> was responding to claims that fandom should *not* be selective, which
> I think are amazing nonsense.
Apropos of current discussion, I'm reminded of something I was recently
handed the URL to:
http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
--Trinker
Trinker
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Danny Low <dann...@earthlink.net> writes:
[...]
>>However it was a common bigotry among fans when trekkies first
>>started appearing in fandom. However living well is the best revenge
>>and the trekkies got their revenge by radically changing the
>>demographics of fandom from a mainly aging white male organization
>>to a near equal ratio of male and females with minorities and
>>children.
>
>
> Perhaps, but I know very few women in fandom who got here via Trek.
> They may be around, but they're not the ones who have enhanced my
> experience of fandom :-).
Watching Trek in a group was one of my first fannish activities, long
before I identified as fannish.
Watching new iterations of Trek in groups is one of my continuing
fannish activities.
I'm horribly, terribly, near-unto-suicidally sorry that I'm not old
enough to have been around when APA LOCs were the major form of fannish
communication, and to have come to age in an era of BBSes.
Mea maxima culpa.
--Trinker
Trinker
Danny Low wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:33:54 +0000, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com>
> wrote:
[...]
>>I wonder when the current intake of Harry Potter fans will enter
>>mainstream fandom, and what effect that will have.
>
>
> Probably never. Fandom is a specific subculture with distinctive
> cultural values. It is acceptance of those values that make a fan not
> an interest in rocket ships and magic wands. An interest in rocket
> ships and magic wands only makes you a reader and increase the
> probability that you will become a fan. However most readers remain
> only readers. Only a few percentage ever become fans as in fandom.
> Most Potter fans will remain Potter fans and not become fans.
What defines fannishness? HP fans tend to get dressed in HP garb,
collect the stuff, get together to discuss minutiae, ponder what it
would be like if one applied HP reality to the non HP world, write
fanfic, roleplay in the world...
--Trinker
James Nicoll
Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Kate Secor wrote:
>
>[...]
>> You can take that version of fandom and keep it. I'd rather be part of
>> a dynamic culture that understands that even as it came out of a group
>> of people who couldn't find acceptance for their hobby anywhere else, it
>> will have to change as the SF/F related hobbies change, that knows that
>> cultures must change or die, that isn't going to tell me that I'm not a
>> worthwhile person or that I'm not the kind of person they want to have
>> around just because I'd rather go watch pretty explosions than listen to
>> a pompous ass go off about things that happened before I was born.
>>
>> No, thanks.
>
>
>Oh. You were eavesdropping on the panel I recently attended, of
>40-something men
ObGracie: That's a lot of men on one panel.
>that was spouting off "of course you've all read..."
>and acted as if all fandom was Just Like Them, were you?
I don't see a lot of people in fandom with scarification
induced bald spots. I assume they heal more faithfully after the
light fixtures collapse.
--
"The Union Nationale has brought [Quebec] to the edge of an abyss.
With Social Credit you will take one step forward."
Camil Samson