sholio | Meta rec

Entry tags:

meta,
recs

Meta rec

xparrot has a a great breakdown on the writers of SGA, which episodes they wrote and an overall analysis of their writing style. (Subjective, of course, but it's impossible not to be, and she's very up-front about that.)

As analytical and meta-riffic as I can be about the shows I watch and the things I read, and though I really enjoyed reading her entry, for some reason my own interests don't really lie in that particular meta direction. After it came up in comments to my last entry, I was thinking about why that might be, because I've basically always been that way -- in comics fandom, for example, I never could remember (or cared to remember) which writer or artists was responsible for which character or story arc ... well, aside from a few outstanding counter-examples. Obviously, I'm not completely tone-deaf to it.

What I realized, though, is that I think I prefer looking at them from an in-universe rather than out-of-universe perspective. I read (or watch TV) because I want to be immersed in their reality, not looking at them with the awareness that they aren't real. (I'm well aware that they aren't real, of course -- I'm not completely crazy -- I just prefer not to watch with that awareness in mind.) I think that might partly explain why a) I don't really like theatre very much (where awareness of one's own role as audience is part of its charm) and b) why the things that bother me most and tend to throw me out of a show are not plot-related, but world-building issues. Also, in general and with some exceptions, I prefer watching relatively unknown actors to famous ones, because it's easier to believe in them as the character.

Some things, of course, can only be explained from an out-of-universe perspective. Sometimes it's really enjoyable to know those little details -- where such-and-such a prop came from, or why a certain questionable plot decision is really in there. But overall, I guess, it's definitely not the foremost part of my fannish involvement, and often not any part of it at all. In most of the fandoms I've been in, I've never even wanted to know anything about the actors or the behind-the-scenes of it. Stargate is one of the few where I've found myself looking at interviews and listening to DVD commentaries -- and reading other people's meta on the behind-the-scenes. *g*

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

That's one of the reasons I don't often listen to DVD actor/writer/director commentaries and find the technical commentaries completely boring. I don't want to know how they made the nifty CGI effect. I want to believe in what's happening on screen as something totally separate from actors/directors/scriptwriters even while I'm totally aware that it's only a show.

It's interesting, because I've never really connected the dots on that before. I knew that I liked and didn't like certain things, and that I don't often want to watch the DVD extras or interviews with the cast and crew, but I hadn't realized how much it all fits together. I think I've gotten a little more externally analytical in the last few years because it's so easy to access that stuff online, and it's interesting to see what other people think about it. But I doubt if I'll ever be as interested in the external analysis (why [x] wrote [y]) as I am in the internal analysis (why [x character] did [y]) even though I know the former is real and the latter is not.

Wow, word! I feel exactly the same way. That's why a lot of the time I will not watch the classifieds and will not try to look up information on the actors because once they become real people to me it's harder to slide into the in-universe thinking about their character. It's nice to see that other people feel like I do!

*nod nod*
I'm mostly into the intra-universe perspective as well, and rarely bother with the DVD commentary and such.

With comics I'm a bit more inot the production side because I'm interested in the "mechanics" of comics far more than into how tv works, but not really when it comes to characterization or plotting and how various "RL issues" affect storytelling (e.g. artist X got killed by an ACME anvil so the series editor had to switch unexpectedly and all is inconsitent), but more in the workings of storytelling with pictures under a techical perspective.

(thanks for the linkage!)

I actually can understand this completely. You know I love internal-text examinations as much external; somehow for me I can separate in-series and out-series without difficulty (and that's a really interesting point about live theater, because I do love live shows - yet somehow seeing RENT 3 different times, with 3 different casts, I can still love the character Mark without being bothered by him having a different face and voice every time.) I've always been fascinated by movie & TV production (I blame my father, we used to watch making-of specials years before DVD specials!) but it doesn't impede my ability to suspend reality when watching - I can simultaneously appreciate David Hewlett's acting and adore Rodney McKay, not sure how that works, but there you go.

I also find, for me, that I resort to examining the external more when I'm dissatisfied with the internal (a lot of Gnine & my writer discussions have been coming up lately in the context of Shipping and Why We Don't Want It.) It's easier to blame the writers than to blame the characters?

I think I somehow have an inner belief in the "reality" of a fictional world that transcends the presentation - that I know that Rodney and Atlantis are the creations of writers and actors and CGI and such; but the TV show I watch is a shadow of some greater thing that I love, and therefore to study the presentation doesn't impede my enjoyment of the true thing behind it. Umm. If that doesn't sound too weird... To me, [why char X did Y?] and [why did Z write X doing Y?] are both fascinating questions, and one doesn't trump the other.

(--er, I am not trying to convert you over to my side, because I can totally understand why you feel that way - I'm just sort of fascinated myself with trying to figure out why it doesn't bother me!)

Interesting. A friend of mine has commented several times how, in his experience, fandom in "the old days" (i.e. pre-internet) was much more interested in out-of-universe matters - analysing episodes from a technical point of view, studying different writers' styles etc. - whereas "modern" fandom is much more focused on in-universe things. He's found very few modern-day fans who even want to know who's written an episode. They want to suspend their disbelief and talk about it as if it's real. (Although I hardly dare say it, I've also noticed that his "olden days" fandom was largely male, and his "modern day" fandom is largely female, and I wonder if this is a slight factor in the differing approaches.)

Fanfic writing, I feel, tends to push one towards the in-universe approach. I was chatting to a friend earlier today in email, trying to reconcile two slightly contradictory things from two different episodes and make coherent characterisation out of them. "Of course," she said, "you know that the discrepancy is because the writers messed up." "Of course I do," I said, "but that makes no difference. I'm writing about them as real people, so I have to reconcile them in a way that feels real." So, yes, I find it actually inhibits me from writing the characters if I think overmuch about the writers behind them. I'm also not really interested in meeting actors, and don't often listen to commentaries.

That said, I do remember the fanfic writing side of X-Files fandom in the mid-nineties being very aware of the different preferences and styles of each writer, even as we wrote stories that presupposed that the characters were real. *shrugs*

!!! You're right! I wrote my whole post not thinking that way way back in X-files, we were all about analyzing Vince Gilligan's MSR or Darin Morgan's mad genius! (...it frightens me a bit that I remember their names. I wonder sometimes what I could know, if my head were filled with things not from TV shows ^^;;;)

I also agree the difference in fanning is definitely male-fan vs female-fan related (that was my first thought when reading your first sentence) - in my experience fanboys and fangirls are both very much into trivia, but different kinds of trivia and for different purposes; fanboys like to know esoteric factoids about the show to challenge one another and show off their knowledge, while as fangirls are more into cataloging every detail in order to build a cohesive picture of a character/world (--I speak very broadly of course; fans of both sexes cover the whole range of fanning, but there are elements that tend to be found more with men or with women...)

This is odd to me because I usually think I fan more in a female way, but I'm into both internal and external analysis. It doesn't inhibit me to consider the external, but at the same time I'm always wanting explanations that are internally satisfying as well.

Oh yes. It's years since I've watched a single episode of The X-Files, but I can still reel off lists of episodes written by each recurring writer. I was never a shipper, but Vince Gilligan was my god... and, oh, the dread we all felt when a John Shiban episode was approaching...!

I'm so glad that you agree with my very tentatively-expressed male fan/female fan thing. You have no idea how often I wrote and deleted and rewrote and qualified that bit of my comment, afraid I'd be jumped on as sexist. I was quite put out when I realised that I relate to fandom in a "female" way, since in non-fandom life I have no interest in all those things that are deemed "female" by the media and much prefer "male" hobbies. I tend to score slightly as "male brain" on those (very simplistic) online tests, yet here I am writing angsty, hurt/comforty fanfic about emotions and feelings.

That post was interesting, but I don't pay attention to the show hard enough to be able to even differentiate writers. If you told me they were all written by the same person, I would never question it.

In thinking over when I am most likely to enjoy behind the scenes commentary, I think it all comes down to a preference for shorter and/or text-based. I enjoy commentary on movies. I enjoy commentary on novels or fanfic or manga (though manga also often falls into the "too long" category and I can't properly enjoy meta that deals with a whole series because I don't really remember what happened five or ten years ago, or hell, even last year). But TV tends to just be too big for me to really be able to tackle overall meta like who writes what. I can't remember off-hand what happened in five seasons in enough detail to be able to really engage with that sort of meta and I don't have time to rewatch (nor do I enjoy rewatching any TV that's not comedy).

As for internal vs external, I do prefer to be able to make sense of things on an internal level rather than just writing it off as bad writing or whatever. But it's not really a suspension of disbelief thing. If I knew every decision that went into it, it wouldn't harm my enjoyment. I don't get into actors, but that's not because I prefer not to have the actor taint my view of the character, but just that I don't care.

I think as an intellectual exercise, or just for fun, purely internal world building or analysis is fun, but I think with some of the real life issues that people have tried to read through with the text if you leave out context and the fact that it IS television etc, etc, it really weakens the debate for me. The same as if people start discussing the characters on an emotional level as if they were real (eg Rodney doesn't get enough respect and his soul is sad, ha!), also makes me take a step back from the discussion.

But maybe this all depends on the flavour of the meta in the first place.

It's so nice to know I'm not the only one who has this problem! I wrote about something similar (meta moments in shows (http://elynittria.livejournal.com/68993.html#cutid1)) in my LJ a while ago.

I think that in all of my fandoms I'm peripherally aware of who wrote which show, but I tend to comparmentalize that knowledge and block it out of my mind as I watch the actual show. Only later, when reflecting on the show and/or discussing it, does it become relevant. While watching, I want to lose myself in the fictional world and totally believe in it.

Different people relate to things differently, that's all. My sister *really* has trouble reconciling two different versions of canon -- for example, the X-Men movies vs. the X-Men comics, or the Red Dwarf books vs. the TV show, which present events in a different order and style. That kind of thing bothers her a lot. She hates AU plots for the same reason. Me, I don't have the slightest difficulty holding two mutually contradictory versions of canon in my head at once (probably a survival trait gained through many years of comics fandom *g*). But thinking too hard about the meta-reality of the show makes it a little harder, or maybe just less fun, for me to accept the internal reality of the show. Basically, as both a fan and a fanfic writer, I'd rather handwave an explanation for a plot or characterization inconsistency than write it off as "the writer screwed up" (even though that's what actually happened). "Because the writers needed [xxx]" is not as satisfying for me as working out an in-universe explanation.

On the other hand, I certainly *can* enjoy this sort of meta-discussion, and I'm glad you made your post; it's fascinating stuff. It's just that I don't incline that way as easily as I lean towards discussing the internal reality of the show. And it's kind of interesting that after all this time in fandom, I'm just now realizing this about myself ...!

Yep! I certainly don't maintain that separation 100% (and I *do* enjoy little bits of interesting trivia about the props, sets and such) but generally I like to work from within the universe rather than without. It's nice to know I'm not the only one!

I just nodded along to everything you said about comics, because yes, as an artist and a writer, I'm very analytical about the process in both comics and novels (much more so than TV) but it's much more "What technical process did they use to do [x] effect?" than "How did the behind-the-scenes fighting between the writer and editor affect the plot direction of the Dark Phoenix arc?"

It's not really a deliberate effort to keep them separate, so much as I just don't *care* all that much. It doesn't enhance my enjoyment of the story to know that the writer quit because he had a disagreement with the artist, for example; it might be momentarily intriguing to know as a side note, but I doubt if I'd remember it because I'm just not all that interested.

The thought also occurred to me that another thing muddying the waters here is that authorial intent has a lot of meaning to me. I initially started to type "I believe in authorial intent" but that's a little misleading because it makes it sound like I feel that other people should be bound by it, and I don't believe that at all. However, for me, in analyzing the text I usually give the author's intent the weight of canon. I'm not going to get all wanky about it and argue "But Mallozzi [or JKR, or whoever] said it, so it must be so!" I don't care if other people believe differently. But if I've been reading one interpretation into the text, and then find out that the author meant it differently, I give up my own in favor of theirs. Which means, the more I find out about what the author meant, the less room there is for me to analyze and revisit the text from my own point of view, and it's especially unpleasant if I have something that I really WANT to believe about the text and then find out that it isn't so. I'm generally happier if I just don't know.

Oh, I think there's definitely a lot of "... just don't care" for me, too. I've never been into celebrity gossip and knowing who's boinking who in Hollywood, and I think this is, at least partly, an extension of that particular mindset. In fact, I'd always written it off entirely as "just don't care" and never (until this discussion) really started to untangle how much of that is, in my case, actually related to suspension of disbelief. It's something I had never realized about myself before.

Like you said, the flavor of the meta makes a big difference. I've definitely been in discussions with people who didn't seem to realize that they were discussing a TV show, and it's *creepy*. I suppose that's the view of fandom that non-fen have from the outside -- a bunch of people who can't separate fantasy from reality -- and there are just enough of us who have that problem to give support to the stereotype.

But I don't think in-universe meta inevitably has to have that creepy feeling. Although, I suppose it's possible that to someone who comes to it from the out-of-universe perspective, in-universe meta might have a claustrophic or overly obsessed feeling that it doesn't have to someone who (like me) *likes* looking at the show from the inside, though. It may be that the frame of reference makes a big difference.

Yeah, though I'm not sure if it's a defined enough process with me to really consider it compartmentalization. The less I know about the creation process, the less I think about the creation process, the easier it is to suspend disbelief. I don't really avoid it on purpose so much as I'm just not really *interested* in it; I know that for some people, it enhances their enjoyment of the show to know and collect behind-the-scenes trivia, but it doesn't give me the same thrill. Though, I *do* think it's important from time to time to take a critical look at the show from the outside, as well as enjoying it from within.

Hmmm...! Now this I can understand completely; I've run into it before, that an author's take counters my own, and it causes unpleasant dissonance. It's one of the things I like about TV, though, because the writer's say is not the be-all-and-end-all - the writer might intend one thing, but the other writers, or the director, or the actors, do not always agree. I think it might be why I get especially interested in the 'why's of TV shows I fan on, because there are so many different POVs, all of them valid in their ways, that I can somehow, hmm, justify my own interpretation? If the writer's take supports my own, it's great; but if they don't, it doesn't deny or devalue mine. While as I'm less interested in an author's deconstruction of a novel, because there is a single intent there, that I have a harder time denying...

...I don't know if I'm making any sense here! But I'm thinking all of this is tied into other aspects of my fanning - like the difference between my Type A and Type B fandoms (Gnine pointed out when we discussing this last night that we both are much less interested in the external-reasons for Type A fandoms, which much more tend to have a single vision). The truth is that much as I love books, I don't *fan* on them the same way I do with TV shows, and I think the constraints of a single vs multiple creator intent has something to do with that. Hmm. My ability to pair up non-canonically paired chars plays into this, too (like, I can see the McShep even knowing the writers/actors don't intend it...putting aside my suspicions about JFlan...but I have a hard time seeing canon slash in, say, Locke Lamara, even though the subtext is even stronger...?)

I'm also thinking about what you said about reconciling differing versions of canon, because I sometimes can manage that but sometimes struggle with it...these are all related things, I think, but I'm not sure how they fit together.

(Except now that I've deconstructed SGA eps from the external perspective, I'm getting really itchy to get back to ficci)ng and viewing them internally...!)

Oh, John Shiban!! I remember when I first starting watching Supernatural, seeing his name in the credits gave me a start! (really, he wasn't that bad, all things considered. Especially considering what happened to the show later seasons... XP)

I often analyze male vs female fanning (my bro's a big fanboy himself, so I've got a fair bit of fodder) and don't think it's especially sexist to do so, especially since it's broad trends more than specific individuals, and I don't think one way is particularly superior to another. Though I think fanning might show a difference in male/female behavior that is really not reflected at all in the standard stereotypes. A lot of female fans that I know tend to be more masculine in certain interests, and not really into/prejudiced against 'girly' things (some of this comes, I think, from being scifi/action show fans, which are traditionally male entertainment, so we female sf fans tend to be a bit, hmm, defensive? or proud of our non-traditional tastes) but we still fan quite differently from the fanboys. I also think certain beliefs about what constitutes classic 'female' entertainment are very misleading (like, I've seen it expressed a lot of places that women are more interested in stories about relationships, and this is largely very true - but people often take "relationships" to mean only "romance" and that's inaccurate.)

But then, some guys can do brilliant h/c (look at The Lord of the Rings, books or movies) - and I've never been able to determine if they're getting the same thing out of it emotionally that we fangirls do (and then, a lot of fangirls don't get h/c, not to mention even among we h/c fans there's a huge range of what the appeal is)...so maybe there's not such a big difference after all.

(Ah, excuse me for going off, this question has long fascinated me, so I tend to leap at chances to discuss it!)

Dissonance, yes, that's an excellent word for it! The thing is, fandom is so heavily emotional -- though usually I can stay on an even keel when confronted with different interpretations from my own, there are times when I don't even want to see other fen's take on canon, let alone the author's! Even if I tell myself intellectually that it shouldn't matter, my emotional side, the part of me that fans, doesn't always get the memo ...!

I see what you're saying about type A and B fandoms, although interestingly, I think I'm actually the opposite -- the ones that I enjoy as complete unto themselves are usually the ones where I can tolerate a lot of external meta-examination of canon, whereas the things I fan on are (usually) imperfect enough that I just want to enjoy them for their own sake and not do a whole lot of soul-searching about them; it's quite likely that I'll just come up with a million reasons not to like them anymore!

I think it might be why I get especially interested in the 'why's of TV shows I fan on, because there are so many different POVs, all of them valid in their ways, that I can somehow, hmm, justify my own interpretation? If the writer's take supports my own, it's great; but if they don't, it doesn't deny or devalue mine.

Heh, if only I were so zen about it, I'd probably have an easier time reading creator and actor commentaries. As it is, I do incorporate the actors' statements about how they play their characters, or the writers' about their intent for a given scene, into my own view of canon. It may simply be that having it pointed out to me is enough to get me to see it in canon, where I didn't see it before -- that is, it's not precisely that I'm taking their word for it; it's more that knowing the actors were playing a scene in a certain way, or the writer had a particular slant in mind when they wrote the scene, is enough for me to totally see it when I watch the scene again. I'm pretty sure that's why I was so completely thrown for a loop, earlier this summer, by some of Jason Momoa's interview comments regarding how he sees his character's relationship with McKay. Granted, I may well be reading more into the interview than *he* intended, but it took me until "Broken Ties" to even get back to the point where I enjoy watching the two of them in the same scene at all, and they used to be my second-favorite character relationship on the show.

The male fan/female fan thing makes sense to me, too. And this is not to say that EVERY male fan or EVERY female fan conforms to even the most general of stereotypes. But I've been in a number of fandoms and exposed to a number of different types of fanning, and I'd say that male-dominated fandoms have a very different focus than female-dominated fandoms -- I agree with

xparrot that male fen, as a group, tend towards trivia and towards figuring out how things work in the canon world (i.e. building model X-Wing fighters) whereas female fen lean more towards exploring the emotional and story-related possibilities of the canon world. In all honesty, I think the motivations are pretty similar in either case (to connect with fellow fen and to immerse themselves in a canon world that gives them pleasure) but the outlets are somewhat different. I tend to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the idea of "fixing" the problems with SGA by adding female writers, but I'm not sure if that's even internally consistent with my whole belief system, since I obviously do believe that males and females, taken as a group, lean in different directions in their fannish inclinations ...

there are times when I don't even want to see other fen's take on canon, let alone the author's! Even if I tell myself intellectually that it shouldn't matter, my emotional side, the part of me that fans, doesn't always get the memo ...!

*nods* This definitely happens to me - I can only take so much criticism about a show before I freak out - either stop being able to enjoy it, or have to hide from it. One of the reasons I can analyze SGA to this extent is that I really, truly love the show in spite of all its flaws, so my affection is pretty much unshakable; and I'm still bothered by too much negative meta.

I'm pretty sure that's why I was so completely thrown for a loop, earlier this summer, by some of Jason Momoa's interview comments regarding how he sees his character's relationship with McKay.

Hah - I almost mentioned this exact thing, because I was thrown for the same loop. Except here's where authorial intent can help, too, because someone asked Mallozzi about that question, and he denied Momoa's interpretation - I can't remember his exact quote, but it was something along the lines of, well, they're not standard friends but they're still friends. In essence, having multiple creators means if I don't like one creator's interpretation, I'm comfortable with telling myself, "They're wrong!" And that SGA has such varying characterizations among the writers and actors gives me a lot of wriggle-room to reach interpretations that satisfy me (One reason I like analyzing the writers is that then, if I don't like an element, I can easily tell myself, "Well, that's just the way this guy writes it, it's not the way the chars really are." And no, I don't know what that "really" actually means, but it exists for me somehow, the reality beyond what we see...?)

(ah, here, found Mallozzi's quote:
"I’m sure Jason was simply referring to “friends” in the traditional sense. While Ronon and McKay aren’t exactly best buddies, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an unvoiced camaraderie and mutual respect there." (http://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/july-20-2008-tipping-the-scales-okinomiyaki-no-show-and-mucho-mailbag/) Made me feel rather better about it. If nothing else, Mallozzi genuinely seems to believe in the teammanship of the team!)

I will usually watch a commentary on an old ep of Dr Who (Liz Sladen talked about how Ian Marter - Harry Sullivan- pulled her dress down in an episode to make sure she was decently covered) or some of the old movies. Rosemary Clooney did the commentary on White Christmas and talked about working with Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye and Vera Ellen and laughed the whole way through it. It was wonderful :D
*whoops I went on a bit there, sorry*

I think it says a lot about how I react emotionally to these things that Mallozzi's comment really cheered me up! And this after I avoided the Jason interview on purpose, knowing that he had said something I probably didn't want to read. But it's obvious that Rodney and Ronon are friends in the way we mean it. So there! ♥

Oh, it's really nice to know it's not just me, re: the interview. Mallozzi's comment made me grin. If Gero's a Rodney fanboy, I think Mallozzi fans on Team. Which, well, you won't catch me complaining about!

Wow -- lots of thoughts touched on here in the comments and above! I found myself having lots of differing ideas on things, so I can't help but add my two cents (though I'm not sure it's more than a ramble).

As regards the DVD commentaries, curiously, I really enjoy the ones with the writers and the actors, because I *am* curious what they were thinking in certain scenes when they wrote a certain line, or why the actors reacted or acted the way they did, because there is only so much you can extrapolate and, sometimes, its nice to be corroborated (though, as you say, as with the Jason interview, there is also the risk of being contradicted). And, similarly, after each episode, my wee group of fen friends and I often chat for hours on email about what we liked, and we'll discuss anything that didn't quite make sense to us. For example, in Daedalus Variations, we tried to make sense of the strange death grouping of the alt-team, and why they even died in the first place since they did have the ability to *leave* the ship). So I'd love to know what the writer was thinking--what his world view of that tiny moment was. So, yes, I do like the commentaries.

In that way, I guess I lean towards the xparrot ability to separate the show/story from the out-universe (is that the term?) creation of it. I can separate Rodney from David, and I've no issues with that. I like the idea of missing scenes and tags in fanfiction, but I also like the "canon-ness" of finding out what the writers/actors intended (meaning, like you, I will take their opinion as canon if I learn it).

HOWEVER, I will admit this--I'm not sure if I would have loved the show as much if, say, David Hewlett had been a jerk. Or Martin Gero. Or even Joe Malozzi. When I find out an actor is bright or kind, for example, my heart opens up a little more to whatever character they may be playing. This means I am not truly separating the story from the creation thereof -- they're clearly intertwined in my head. But, nonetheless, when I am watching, or, more, when I am writing, Rodney, John, Teyla and Ronon are real people, in a real place. It's really not until afterwards that I deconstruct, unless there's something truly odd in the plot that throws me out of it while I'm watching.

So...(I'm now pursing my lips, because I'm trying to determine if this is at all coherent)...perhaps I lie somewhere inbetween? But closer to xparrot's end of the spectrum, I guess.

I've quite often seen the opinion expressed that no male writer can ever properly write a woman (or vice versa) and that really bothers me, since it implies to me that sex is the single most important thing about a person - that I, as a woman, am better able to understand any woman than any man, regardless of their background, interests, educational background etc. Which is kind of slightly off topic, but has strayed onto a pet peeve of mine. ;-)

I'm actually quite happy for the show itself to carry on not giving me tonnes and tonnes of character stuff and emotional stuff every week (which may or may not be a consequence of having male writers). I love fanfic... but I wouldn't want to show to be like fanfic. I rather like having a subtle, "aagh, they've missed the chance for a good character moment again!" approach, so I can rush off and fill in the gaps. Which is also strayed off topic... Sorry.

I only really started noticing the differences once I got involved in fanfic and online fandom. At university (before the days of the internet), I was in the Star Trek society (one of very few women) and in the Tolkien Society (equally mixed) and never noticed any difference between how the different sexes related to the source material. Maybe I was naively missing things back then, but I do something wonder if things are polarising more and more. I was away from online (female) fandom between 1998 and... well, 2007, really (though I'd pottered for a bit in tiny fandoms from 2005), and it had changed beyond recognition. Squeeing, the enormous prevalence of shipping, etc. etc. It was quite a culture shock to come back.

I believe the web does make it easier for fans (male and female) to find like-minded fans, but I actually think the polarization predates the internet. The female fanculture was harder to find previously, however; slash was very much underground for years. 'Trekkies' became famous, but they were mostly the male-style side of fandoms, with their devotion to trivia and rebuilding ship models and things (cosplay is cross-gender so not going to mention people dressing up). But at the same time there was the growing zine culture - and there were male-fandom zines, but there were also Kirk/Spock fanfics and vids and such, which were largely unknown to the male side, from what I know.

Though I'm curious - when you were in the Star Trek society, did you have any exposure to fanfic? Especially of the h/c or slash variety? I do wonder, because some of the original officially published Star Trek novels were clearly written by female fanfic authors, with impressive amounts of h/c and angst and borderline slash...I found them in my mid-teens, before I discovered fanfic or online fandom, and was blown away, because they were filled with something I'd only found in dribs and drabs in other books. This is, anecdotally, why I started to believe in differences between male and female fanning, because while I fanned on Star Trek with my brother in more male ways (trivia, universe analyses) and really enjoyed such fanning (and still do), I also became obsessed with the female-authored ST:TOS novels and Kirk-Spock h/c in a way he didn't comprehend; they met a desire in me that few male-written (and published) novels did or do. (Which isn't to say that some men can't write fantastic h/c, but they're rare enough to surprise me...)

--Just jumping in to say I agree with both points - a lot of male writers do struggle with female characters, but some do quite well (especially if they know to think of them as characters and people first, rather than Women). And some women have difficulty writing men (though I think we have an easier time of it, as especially in scifi and action fiction, most of our sources will be male-written, so we've got better models.)

And yes, I love SGA because it's got a perfect balance of what it gives us and what it doesn't - enough character moments that we know we're not imagining friendships, etc; but few enough that we are compelled to write in more!

(Sorry,

friendshipper, for slight thread hijack!)

I'm sure you're right that a lot of this was happening all along, but I just happened to be unaware of it. I was an enormous Star Trek fan at 14, but totally unaware of the existence of fandom. It was just me at home with the TV, and it never crossed my mind that there might be places out there where I could interact with others.

I didn't have any exposure to fanfic in the university Star Trek society. It was just a video-watching thing, really, and no more than that - certainly without the strong social side that my other societies had. Aged 14, though, I used to make up stories in my head in which Kirk saved the day despite serious wounds, so I would so have read it had I known about it.

(Sorry, friendshipper, for slight thread hijack!)

Ha, no worries, I like seeing people have interesting discussions in the comments. Chat away!

Yes, I think that many fangirls were unaware of the existence of fandom (as a full social experience) before the internet - even gatherings like Trekkie conventions can be a far cry from the sort of connections and interaction that develop in true fandom. There are more guys than girls into scifi (though most of them not as obsessively as dedicated fans), so for a while the dominant fandoms were male (because guys had an easier time finding other guys who liked what they liked, while as girls were more likely to find the guy circles than other girls sharing their interests.) But now that fangirls can find each other across distances, we're building our own spaces.

...Er, or something like that. I'm not sure this is all that's going on, but I think it's one reason why the face of fandom seems to have changed with the rise of the internet, but what people like hasn't really changed. Even before the 'net, there were many of us 'proto-fangirls' who did the squee and h/c and fic-in-our-heads and whatnot all by our lonesomes - which is why I think a certain type of fanning is innate to certain types of psyches (some of which can be designated, broadly, 'male' and 'female'). We're not just being influenced by our social circles; we're finding and creating social circles based on our personal tastes.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Meta rec

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

"You're interrogating the text from the wrong perspective!" XD

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: "You're interrogating the text from the wrong perspective!" XD

no subject

no subject

Also...

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Also...

no subject

Re: Also...

no subject

Re: Also...

no subject

Re: Also...

Re: Also...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject