As it relates to common media, I agree with Jenkins in that the internet is "fandom writ large." Sharing ideas with other fans, reading up on past events, and possibly interacting with the ultimate content provider is made much easier through the internet. The greatest example of this in my personal experience has been with the show Lost. I had not watched the first four seasons of the show. I only began watching it midway through season five when the island began jumping through time. I had no idea what the hell was going on. However, I was able to go to the website "Lostpedia," and over the course of about a week, I was able to be completely caught up on the show. In fact, I had more thorough and irritatingly pedantic appreciation of all the subtleties that were woven in. I came up with my own wholly rational and entirely inaccurate theories of the show along with the site. In this case, I was truly taking part in a fandom.
On a broader scale, I suppose if you define an interest in something as fandom, all of the internet is fanservice.
- I'm a fan of physics; I'll update the wikipedia article on the double-slit experiment.
- I'm a fan of not driving aimlessly; I'll go on Google Maps.
- I'm a fan of not being in debt; I'll go pay my credit card.
I don't think that definition is necessarily accurate though. My biggest question is: how do you define fandom?
Additionally: does participating in this kind of group setting get in the way of your own personal appreciation and interpretation of something?
I define "fandom" as a community composed of fans and amateurs (instead of professionals).
ReplyDeleteI think participating in certain fandoms--for example, Lostopedia--could spoil your own personal interpretation of something. But I don't think it necessarily spoils it. I think it depends on if you use the fandom as a replacement for the show itself or simply as supplementary material.
Thanks for the reply man. I app-talk to you later.
DeleteI completely agree with what you are saying. I think that fandom is a concept that can be defined many ways. If you define it as a devotion or following to a certain show, movie, book, etc., I feel that Jenkins quote is not valid. I feel that then it does not encompass all of the critics at these sites for different shows and such that post their negative comments to blogs. I think that the conversation between the fans and critics is what creates an environment that allows for a more in depth appreciation and interpretation of something. I definitely feel that participating in this group setting can get in the way, and but I think that having a personal blog that only depicts your opinion can get in the way as well. Another question I have is if someone goes on these fan sites and such but doesn't post anything, where do they fit into this idea of fandom?
ReplyDeleteI think you have a good point here especially with the last few lines. The way you put it changes the way I originally thought about what Jenkins what trying to say. The question really does become what is fandom and what are the criteria for being a fan. In this ideology I'm a fan of the weather channel because I don't like being caught in the rain. This way of thinking makes the authors quote far more plausible. However, I don't exactly think this is what he had in mind though it is an arguable interpretation.
ReplyDelete