In a message dated 2/17/01 2:11:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner@tesco.net writes:
<< What about all those people who never become fans of anything? Presumably they see at least something of the shows that generate fandoms, but presumably not in any way that leads them on to become 'real' fans.<<
I'm assuming that you mean people who never become fans of anything 'in particular'. If they weren't fans of anything at all, they would be mundanes, not fans. It's long been recognized in the SF community (apart from just 'media' SF fandom) that there are all different degrees of fannishness, and they've even designated names for some of those degrees. For example, a fan who isn't particularly devoted to any one author, universe or show but simply hangs around because he loves the milieu of fandom and fans itself is called a "ffan". Don't ask me how it's pronounced!
Yes, but are they on their own enough? One of my all-time favourite
series, A Very Peculiar Practice, had excellent writing, captivating characters and very well defined relationships between them. Fannish potential next to zero. (Maybe someone has gone and written the further adventures of Bobby Buzzard, but it's not like there's a thriving and visible VPP fandom presence.)<<
Some shows are great, but just don't generate a fandom. Some shows generate a fandom, but don't compel much in the way of fanfic. Some shows are fan favorites and generate tons of fanfic. And there are even some shows where the show itself is oddly detached from its active fandom and fanfic (ie: PROFESSIONALS). I don't know what makes that rainbow, but I don't know if there would be any point to bottling it if one were to figure out the colors. Here in the US, the producers wouldn't buy it. They don't want to produce what we want. They want us to like what they produce. And the 'we' they want is a specific desirable demographic that will go out and buy the Mountain Dew, Pringles Chips, 1-800 dialing and Tostitos they push during every commercial. The crowd that has disposible income and no bills to pay yet, no family to save for, no resposibilities.
None of which I've seen, one of which I've never even heard of. Still,
that's my fault for not having a telly. (But of the two I know a little about, Stargate and Buffy, I know I would never make an effort to watch them even if I had the opportunity.)<<
Ah, Neil; you truly are in an unusual and rare fannish category--a media fan with vey restricted media input.
Ah, so there *is* a tension. I pull my theory back from the tubes. You
might not find it hard to 'ignore elements of the plot' (which by your own admission don't 'make sense'), but they still need to be ignored, marginalised, supressed, or somehow prevented from interfering with the elements that you do like. If you couldn't do that, then maybe you would be pushed away from the show, too far away to relate to it fannishly. I'm still hypothesising, I freely admit, but that does seem to be what is happening here.<<
You seem to be smooshing together 'tension' generated by plot and character elements, and 'discomfort' generated by errors in the internal logic of a show. I maintain that fan devotees of a particular show go into denial of those errors of logic and don't think about them again, all of their attention devoted to the stuff they love: delicious character conflict; chemistry; plot twists and irony; continuity and internal logic within the show; humor and pathos; hurt and comfort etc. etc. They aren't held spellbound as fans by dissatisfaction that a mask is never sufficient to really hide the identity of a superhero, or that starships couldn't possibly be designed 'that way', or that the character was holding a book in one shot, and the book was across the room a moment later. At least, if I interpret your proposed theory correctly, that is...
A possible list of (provisional) qualities that might be inherent in a show
likely to induce fannish response (I supose almost any show might generate a fannish response in somebody somewhere, but some seem to do so more than others):
(1) the need for an active suspension of disbelief (pre-requisite of all SF and fantasy shows). This widens the potential range of plot possibilities, not all of which are going to be realised by the show as broadcast.<<
Yes, by all means...*deliberately generated* suspension of disbelief.
(2) episodic structure, a succession of closed stories (though not
necessarily without a broader story arc to hold the series together). This creates interstices between broadcast episodes which can be seized upon as missing moments requiring elaboration (unlike say the continuity of most soap operas).<<
Yep. There *has* to be some continuity. The one thing the STAR TREK producers did take to heart was that the continuity and consistency through the TREK universe was very near and dear to the fan's heart. They have a 'bible' of TREK continuity for the writers of the series; in fact, you can actually see this bible laid out in the form of a 'history timeline' at the STAR TREK EXPERIENCE attraction in the Las Vegas Hilton. It's fantastic, and flanking it is a continuous display case, many yards long, filled with actual costumes and other 'artifacts' from the corresponding part of the timeline as you pass. It's an incredible monument to a fandom.
(3) multiple authorship, different writers responsible for different
episodes, and their individual authorship recognisable for the episodes they write (eg the differences between a Chris Boucher ep and a Ben Steed one). This might invite fannish intervention because it gives the impression that anyone can 'have a go' and write their own contribution.<<
Good point. I suppose realistic lives often have that element of randomness about them that might suggest multiple authorship; maybe the original inspiration for the notion that there is a pantheon of gods out there, not just one orchestrating everything!
(4) exagerrated character definition (I would say that all the regulars in
B7 and Trek can be considered 'exagerrated', whereas in Who they're little more than puppets danced around by the 'Idea as Hero' plot) to clarify the nature of the antagonisms between them. This also gives viewers a clear handle on which to base their response to any particular character, and might also act to suppress either ambivalence and/or disinterest. (Though it's perfectly legitimate to argue that a show full of uninteresting characters is a pretty crap show.)<<
Well, some folks like crap, ya never know. But the differences you mention automatically generate chemistry and conflict, the meat and potatoes of really intense fandom. Add elements like interesting and/or attractive protagonists, unexpected plot elements and irony, angst and development within the arc of the series, and you might have a nice fannish show simmering...what you referred to as synergy, Neil.
Anyone have more to add to this recipe?