It's just riveting--more fandom thoughts

[smg01]

I've been thinkin more about the MsScribe drama and the comments in my original post on the topic about it and other comments elsewhere.

Thinking about the stories of the Bronze dramas that were before my time, the MsScribe stuff, and other fandom stories, I've come to the following conclusion:

There are a lot of similarities between fandom and high school. My high school wasn't really all that cliquey--at least not in the sense that people were desperate to get into the "popular" crowd. There was a popular group, but pretty much everyone had their own group and few people cared that much about moving up any sort of social ladder. In fact, a lot of people floated between various groups. But I've heard enough stories to realize that for many the high school experience isn't like that.

I think there must be people out there that just never get over the need to be part of the in crowd. We all want and need acceptance. That's human and healthy. But it seems like there are some people that have some sort of hole that just can't or won't be filled. And I wonder if the behavior we see from some people is a reflection of a long-standing need to be popular. I'd like to think that to some extent most of us outgrow that. You look back to your high school or junior high years and realize that not only were you unhappy, so was almost everyone else. I've never known anyone to look back at their junior high years and say "oh, that was a good time. I miss those days." Yet at the time, there's a tendency to think that everyone else has it together and is pretty happy, but you're the loser who will never be happy and never figure it out. Time and distance lends perspective, you grow up and find balance and, well, a life.

But I'm thinking that some people never find that perspective. Maybe what we see in some fandom behavior is that continuing desperation/obsession with chasing the popular. That belief that if I just find my way into the elite, the "it crowd," my life is going to change. It'll be better, and I'll be fulfilled and people will love me, etc., etc. The thing is, though, I don't think you can really find happiness that way. If you haven't found any sort of contentment or acceptance within yourself, no one else can give it to you. Others can help you find it, but in the end you have to take it for yourself. Otherwise, even if you manage to claw and scrape your way into the group that you're so anxious to be a part of, those holes in life still remain. Because the things that are missing, self-acceptance and an honesty in the way you interact with others, are still there. And until those things are discovered, it's a continuing saga and quest to find the right crowd that's going to make life good and you feel worthy.

So, I'm thinking some of the behavior that we see sometimes from people in fandom is suspended adolescence. It's a sad and pitiable thing to see it in people who should be old enough to know better. And it's particularly sad because these are the sorts of people that tend to be self-destructive--often without recognizing it--and destructive to the people and networks around them. The latter destructivenss often deliberately done as part of an attempt to gain status and control. To borrow from Cordelia Chase, there comes a point when you just have to spank your inner moppet, grow up, and get over it. I don't know what It is, but until It is dealt with you will continue to be miserable and to make others miserable. And it's just sad that to see someone who never figures it out because they often leave a swath of destruction in their wake.

Comments

[datawhorevoyeur.livejournal.com]

My first impression upon discovering The Bronze -- at the time in the midst of one of the many, "who's really a member" arguments? A mix of high school and 19th Century constitutional convention debates.

:-D

[suzannemarie.livejournal.com]

Bwah!

[tourogal.livejournal.com]

i joined in the middle of one of kirby's (i think that's who it was) rants about something obnoxious. i earned my stripes on that one.

[aka-becker.livejournal.com]

LOL I can sort of see that. hehehe

I do believe that the above argument is/was true of some people.

[aizjanika.livejournal.com]

I still haven't read that. *g*

I've never been part of any in crowd. *g* I think you can guess that I've always been the outcast/weirdo type. heh I've been at Our Stargate for maybe a year and a half and I'm still not part of the "in" crowd there, and probably never will be. I like everyone and I think that most people like me okay, too, and I've made some friends from there (mostly here on LJ), but I wouldn't know how to be "in" if I tried. (I never felt part of the "in crowd" at TWOP either. *g*)

If you are interested in how fans interact online, though, perhaps you'd find this post (http://sistermagpie.livejournal.com/126269.html) a bit interesting. There was another related one that I was saving for along time, but I've forgotten it now. It was about how forums sometimes change character mid-stream and people don't really know how to react to it. I've had that happen to me a few times. *g*

Over at TWOP, the Dawson's Creek forum was filled with tons and tons and tons of heated discussions, but it was all happy and friendly, too. Nobody took offense to strong opinions expressed about nearly anything at all. Everyone had strong opinions and nobody was shy about posting them and the back and forth was just amazing. We all disagreed about everything and just sparked off each other. It was wonderful. I have not yet found a forum that could support such diversity of opinion without hurt feelings and/or calls for "no negativity" or whatever. *g* I honestly don't get the anti-negativity type of posts that I see so much in the SG-1 fandom. *g* I don't see negativity; I see opinions. :-)

I know this is off-topic for what you posted about. Nearly everyone on my flist is reading that msscribe thing, but I haven't and don't intend to--at least not now.

[uufarmgirl.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting way to look at it, and certainly makes sense. What I find interesting about this take is the implicit assumption made by those pursuing this route to social approval that it is somehow easier to become popular/well-liked/"in" if you remove the physical and have to rely solely on your intelligence, wittiness, and general ability with written communication. One of the worst writers I've ever known rose to position of extraordinary prominence in the Bronze (and we all know who I mean) whereas there were others (Bruddah Max, anyone?) who were fantastically witty, clever writers and never really caught on. I'm sure we can all relate to meeting people in RL we had rather liked digitally and discovering they weren't as all that as we'd thought, and vice versa. It would therefore seem to me that if you're going to pursue cyberpopularity as an antidote to RL social insecurity, you should stick to the cyber and avoid meatspace as much as possible, yet that's not what Ms.Scribe did. She was confident enough to reach beyond the digital, which begs the question (again) of why she did it in the first place. I find the whole thing rather remarkable.

[uufarmgirl.livejournal.com]

kirbyclause! And sweick! AKA the Topic Cops.... But not aardwolfe, because I met him in Calgary and he was a wonderfully entertaining and charming gentleman of a dining companion, so it was tough for me to find him as annoying as the others, even when he was being as annoying as the others. *grin*

this post turned into a novel, part one

[suzannemarie.livejournal.com]

Be warned: if you start reading, you'll be devoting a lot of time to it. It's one of the most interesting things I've read, but it is long. Reading it was like reading a really good book that I couldn't put down.

I think everyone probably measures online communities by the first one they were a part of. The Bronze that I've been talking about so much lately was my first real community. It was a linear posting board where conversation was wide-ranging and passionate. Wit, obsession, snark, and a sense of fun were highly prized. It was the "official" posting board for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but official moderation was very, very light. The few rules there were were mostly self-enforced: only four posts per hour (to conserve bandwith), keep things PG-13 were the main rules. Because the rules discouraged treating the board like a chat room, posters were set up to make longer, more thoughtful posts. You could be carrying on as many as three or four different conversations all at once. It took a a few days to get used to the clamor, but once you did, it was an invigorating place to be. Conversations ranged from show debates, to real life stuff, to wacky posting board hijinks, and everything in between. Nothing was off topic.

I think that's why I gravitate more toward TWoP show forums that are single thread format like the Stargate one. The forums where every single topic has it's own little specific thread seams so restrictive and conversation stifling compared to what I'm accustomed to. I like a conversation where you can draw all kinds of different topics into one post.

On an individual basis, I think it comes down to finding a place where you feel comfortable and where you feel like you can be yourself. It's not fun (for me) to be at a place the prevailing opinion consistently and vigorously runs counter to my own. And that may be a part of where conflict about negativity arises for other people. It can be hard if you feel like you always have to be on the defensive for liking something that's constantly being railed against. There's sometimes a subtle and/or not-so-subtle intimation that those who don't fall in line with the dominant opinion are stupid or too sensitive. Or at least it's easy to get that perception. And that's where the defensiveness starts to set in. (If Sam or Mitchell were my favorite character, I’d probably have moved away from TWoP. Because I’d feel so much on the defensive about liking someone that the majority seem to enjoy running down.)

What I see happen sometimes is that a comfort level sets in with the dominant school of thought in a place. People speak eloquently and passionately on behalf of it. Often with less and less tact. Someone with a minority viewpoint reaches their limit and speaks up passionately, sometimes defensively, on behalf of a storyline or character that they like and see being maligned. And then somewhere along the way he or she is accused of being too weak (or some other adjective) to take a difference of opinion, while the other side is accused of always harping on the negative and putting things down. Both are probably right and probably wrong at the same time.

Re: this post turned into a novel, part two

[suzannemarie.livejournal.com]

A constant drumbeat of criticism about a cherished character, or show, or storyline can start to seem personal after awhile. And what used to be fun becomes less fun and more combative. And there’s the other perception issue that what some people see as a vigorous discussion, others see as relentless negativity. To some extent, it may be that ne’er the twain shall meet. I don’t know. But I must admit that I have a hard time relating to an attitude of always finding fault. I can and do criticize, and I like inventive snark, but I like to be able to talk about what I enjoy as well. Sometimes I feel like there’s an attitude that if you like to talk about what you enjoy, you’re somehow some sort Pollyana that wants to live in Fantasyland. I’m overstating that for effect, but I think that gets at where some disputes about “negativity” and “anti-negativity” begin. It’s two somewhat divergent camps as to what provides fun. And it can be hard to reconcile the two. The most fun and healthiest communities find a way do it, but it takes effort and understanding to make it happen.

(I'm sure it's understood, but I'll just mention that in all cases the use of the word "you" is the rhetorical you and not personal to any individual.)

[suzannemarie.livejournal.com]

That's true. Some of the initial attraction to being online may be the opportunity to try on new personas. You're "meeting" people who don't know you or have preconceived opinions and that gives a freedom to express new attitudes and ideas. If you're in it for the long haul, I think you still have to stay true to yourself--but you can explore other aspects of your personality. It's exhausting, though, to maintain a completely new and foreign persona, so if you have any interest in actually forming relationships it's certainly in your best interests to maintain the "you" in the baseline of what you present. (Or at least it seems that way to me.)

MsScribe, as you say, showed a great deal of confidence to do what she did. And she did it skillfully and was able to keep it going for a long time. It's a shame she couldn't apply that skill and wit in more constructive ways that didn't involve hurting and tearing down others.

[jungleeyedgirl.livejournal.com]

aww. Bruddah Max. I'd forgotten about him. Though he said some wacky stuff as well.