Fannish generosity and fannish entitlement

[selenak]

Ah, fandom. Place of joyful sharing and endless bitching, and each time on thinks one aspect dominates, on gets reminded the other is also there. This meaning, I read a post by londonkds which put me in a rather cynical mood – more about this below – and then I checked out theatrical_muse, and my emails, and lo and behold, two of my muses got presented with paid accounts by a generous fellow player. I’m tickled and thrilled to death about this, and promptly went icon-hunting, telling myself this means I did something right with my writing of these two Jossverse characters.

(Meanwhile, Londo wants to know why he never got presented with a paid account, but I told him three icons are absolutely enough for him, and that he’s mostly on challenge replies and hardly rps these days anyway due to my lack of time. He then sauntered off to have a chat with the Alien Queen which is all titania_le_fey’s fault.)

Now, about that cynical thing. Seems to me that ever since Arthur Conan Doyle’s readers flamed him into resurrecting Sherlock Holmes, the sense of fannish entitlement has only grown stronger. londonkds brings up fen complaining that an actor doesn’t do DVD commentaries. And I recall a lot of posts citing the fact SMG up to very recently didn’t go to conventions and didn’t do commentaries either as evidence of her being “snobbish” and “ungrateful to the fans”.

Then there is the whole prickly author/headwriter – readers/audience thing. These days, several main producers/headwriters of tv shows grew up being fans themselves. They know about fandom and fannish rituals, and depending on their age, they’re avid users of the internet. I think JMS, the creator of Babylon 5, was one of the earliest examples of someone in this position posting at a regular basis, thus communicating with the fans. Joss Whedon and some of his writers and fellow producers like Tim Minear or David Fury posted regularly on message boards during the course of Buffy, Angel and Firefly (and Joss still posts). Neil Gaiman and some other authors write blogs. J.K. Rowling has a website and answers questions there, and of course she gives interviews. I wasn’t in the fandom, but I seem to recall Aaron Sorkin posted at TWP (and promptly got into a kerfuffle or two, resulting in him being banned). As far as the new Battlestar Galactica is concerned, Ron Moore writes a blog and does podcasts for the episodes.

About two weeks ago, there were some posts along the lines of “Ron Moore needs to shut up”, apropos the podcast for The Farm, I think, or maybe the newest blog. And of course JKR only has to open her mouth in an interview for at least a part of the readership to declare she ought to shut up, too.

The usual argument is that the authors/producers, by giving opinions on their creations, “force” interpretations, and mostly simplistic interpretations, on their readers/watchers who otherwise would be at liberty to go for far more interesting interpretations. I don’t get this. I mean, of course I get that you want to be at liberty to interpret, and that an author’s opinion isn’t necessarily nearly as interesting as some outside interpretations. I absolutely agree with this, and also with the definition of canon as only what the creative work shows us – i.e. the episodes of a tv show, not the commentary, a book by a writer, not the interviews.

But nobody forces people to read the interviews, the blogs, or to listen to the podcast. For that matter, nobody forces the writers to do this. They don’t get paid for this, either. They do it in their spare time, out of enthusiasm for their show/books/whatever, and possibly because they remember being fans themselves. Fans aren’t entitled to get these extra contributions from them. They are entitled to get a good book, a good show. Or, in the case of an actor, a good performance. No more than that. Certainly no convention appearances, DVD commentaries or podcasts. These things are gifts, presents. Do we have to like the presents once we open them? No. I’ve listened to some dreary commentaries in my time. (I also got presents which I really didn’t want.) But in my not so humble opinion, it’s only good manners to regard this stuff as a gift nonetheless, and say thank you. Then you can put it in the attic if you don’t like it, and not look at it ever again.

To react with “shut up”, otoh, is the behaviour of a spoiled child.

Comments

[grimorie.livejournal.com]

word. you've articulated a lot of what i'm feeling about the intense fan hate against creators who voice their opinions on characters/shows they've created. especially, JK Rowling....

it's like damn if you do, damn if you don't situation for them everyday....

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Precisely. If they don't communicate, they're condemned as elitists who feel they're too good for their audience, if they do, they're interfering and ruining and what not the fannish experience.

[raffaella.livejournal.com]

I read your posts via friendsfriends. I was also a little surprised by people's virulence regarding Ron Moore's podcasts and the blog, then I noticed that most people weren't angry because they existed, but because Moore didn't validate their point of view or kept talking about technical details that didn't interest them. I can get that, but only up to a point. Sometimes, I listen to the podcasts and he gets to a scene that I find interesting, and he drones on about something I consider a technical detail. I can find that a little frustrating, but that's only because I wanted to hear what he thought about something that caught my attention. But it's not about me. To get angry because of that would imply that he owes it to me to talk only about what interests me, which would be childish in the extreme. The only thing that can annoy me about his podcast is when he gives information (that the jacket belonged to Kara's father, or, more importantly, that there are also reproductive farms for men) that should be given on the show, because not everybody listens to the podcast. But that's a storytelling problem.

See, I think that he meanders on and isn't a very good talker (I prefer his blog) but I don't care. Because what I expect from him is to produce a good show, and he delivers on that count. I read comments to the effect that he must make a good show by accident, or that he's the one who brings all the bad ideas (only because he spends a lot of time on his podcast detailing things he wanted to be done and admitting that they were mistakes. I shudder sometimes, but I like his honesty.), and...I don't know. His podcasts aren't always interesting? Don't listen to them. After all, to hear them, you have to go looking for them. They're easy to avoid.

But just because he's not the most brilliant and engaging talker when he comments on his work (or just because he has a different opinion) doesn't mean that he should shut up, that he's stupid or that he's going to ruin his own creation at any moment now (I've read several condescending comments to that effect). Just like the fact that people write brilliant commentary on a show doesn't mean that they'd be able to write a good screenplay, let alone produce a show.

You're right, people like Moore do this out of fannish enthusiasm and because they want to share, and the fans are initially very excited about that, before they start hating the showrunner for daring to express an opinion that contradicts their vision of the show.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Just like the fact that people write brilliant commentary on a show doesn't mean that they'd be able to write a good screenplay, let alone produce a show.

Yes. Not always compatible talents; in fact, more often they aren't.

You're right, people like Moore do this out of fannish enthusiasm and because they want to share, and the fans are initially very excited about that, before they start hating the showrunner for daring to express an opinion that contradicts their vision of the show.

untrue_accounts once made a sad but true list of most popular fannish reactions to showrunners, which went something like this:

1) OMG, person X who brings me this goodness is wonderful!
2) Hm, I don't like this and that. Can't be X, because he/she is wonderful. Must be the fault of the evil Y who is also involved in the show.
3) X said he/she sees the plotline that way? So it's X' fault! X SUCKS! We hates X! We hates it forever!

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

I think my issue with DVD commentaries/podcasts etc. is twofold - first of all, the first ones I ever really got into were the LOTR commentaries and they were absolutely superlative which raised the bar very high for me. And I have been disappointed by nearly every other one - in fact, I think the decision NOT to do a DVD commentary on "Master & Commander" was quite a wise one from Peter Weir ;)

The other problem I have with them (particularly over TV commentaries, etc.) is that people use them to validate their arguments by saying "well, the creator/writer says X so no other interpretation can possibly be valid" which is clearly not the writers fault, but it's the flip-side of what Raffaella is talking about in her comment. Someone on my f-list used the analogy of a writer standing at your elbow explaining each chapter of a book as you finish it. For me it detracts from the experience rather than adding to it. (And I don't think it's so wrong of me to say "hey, that was a really dumb thing to say, you! It makes no sense!") But these days I definitely use the "put it in the attic" approach unless it's Peter Jackson talking!

As for the fannish entitlement, yes, indeed - part of it is the way that TV producers/writers etc. are so easy to interact with now that you feel like you personally know them ... Part of it is, well, a general sense of entitlement. But hey, I've never been to a con, I'm not going to fault anyone ELSE for not going!

[raffaella.livejournal.com]

is that people use them to validate their arguments by saying "well, the creator/writer says X so no other interpretation can possibly be valid" which is clearly not the writers fault, but it's the flip-side of what Raffaella is talking about in her comment.

The thing is: these people are often the same. They want the showrunner to shut up because he doesn't say what they want to hear, but if there was a podcast where he gave what most fans would consider a good commentary (i.e. talk about what interests them), that would change in a minute. Until he pissed them off again.

It reminds me of all the Veronica Mars fans who hated and despised Joss Whedon until 2 weeks ago and kept repeating that VM was so much better, to suddenly discover that Joss Whedon was The Best Ever OMG! because he said that he was a fan of VM too. Ah, fandom. It could give you whiplash.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

The thing is: these people are often the same.

heh! Well, I know that personal experience is kind of a lousy way to generalize, but I feel like I've been more on the receiving end of "well, so-and-so writer says X so YOU'RE WRONG" than the other way round. But it's a point well taken.

Joss Whedon was The Best Ever OMG!

heh! Well, my dislike of Joss Whedon remains as pure as ever regardless of his opinions on VM ;)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Oh, the LotR commentaries are superb, I agree, but thankfully they weren't the first I listened to, so I knew they were outstanding.*g*

Someone on my f-list used the analogy of a writer standing at your elbow explaining each chapter of a book as you finish it.

The difference is of course that in that fictional scenario, the writer would be intruding and giving you no choice but to listen. Whereas commentaries, whether on DVD or in interviews or on podcasts, all have to be sought out by the fan. They don't start by themselves. You have to download, to push buttons, to open magazines. To correct the analogy - it would be like a reader asking the author to come to his elbow and to talk, and then be annoyed when the author actually does just this.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

To correct the analogy - it would be like a reader asking the author to come to his elbow and to talk, and then be annoyed when the author actually does just this.

Heh! Yes, this is a good point as well – I often go to book-signings by authors I love, but I am very reluctant to attend events where they talk extensively about their work (if it is fiction that they write!) I feel like the work really should speak for itself. And once I know what the “right” interpretation is, I find it hard to hold on to my own interpretation.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of another cultural difference. In Germany, book signings are far less popular than book readings (i.e. author reading from his/her book for about an hour, then answering questions if there are any), and I was amazed to find the later to be rare in the US. Mind you, at these readings people usually don't ask about interpretations, they ask about the writing process and the like.

[smashsc.livejournal.com]

I'm not listening to the podcast or reading Moore's blog because it would interfer with the way I enjoy the show. Now, while the show is still open canon, I really don't want to know Moore's motivation. He is telling the story he wants to tell and carring me along a path. I love guessing at things to come and inspirations. It isn't important to me that I actually know Moore's thoughts. The product speaks for itself. I'm very grateful that Ron Moore does all these things because I look forward to go back through and listening to them in a few years when the show is closed canon.

In other words, I agree completely.

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

Very well said! It always surprises me that people simply don't consider that sometimes actors aren't good at speaking without a script, recognize that about themselves and behave accordingly. There are lots of bad commentaries and interviews out there - why add to them?

Authorial intent is a tricky thing. I think it's just as useful to hear something that completely contradicts my impression because it forces me to examine what baggage I'm bringing to the experience or to look at ways intention and execution can go astray. I don't think anyone who's ever written anything would be unaware of the difficulty of conveying something that makes perfect sense in your head to someone else. That's what much of the episode "Hush" is about after all.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It always surprises me that people simply don't consider that sometimes actors aren't good at speaking without a script, recognize that about themselves and behave accordingly.

Yes, exactly. A bit like some authors who wisely don't read from their own work in public because while they write marvellously, their reading voice is just dull and monotone.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

i'm sure I've said this before, but the SMG commentary I want is on "The Girl in Question." It would be the greatest meta ever.

("there's the black guy. . .and the green guy. . . I think that's Wesley, what happened to his glasses?. . .and, oooh, that's Fred! But why is she blue?")

but seriously, I agree with the point.

and how many Connor & Darla icons can you have now? *swoons*

[selenak.livejournal.com]

100 each. Only for two months, though, but hey! What a gift!