Neil Faulkner wrote:
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.
Uh. It seems you've changed the "ignoring production flaws/overlooking plot holes" that was mostly what was being cited into the more traditional sort of SF "suspension of disbelief in FTL travel and such." Well, looking at both:
A) Production flaws, caused by lack of funds or inadequate time or the failure of technique, exists in virtually every television series. I don't think the need to overlook such (or explain away such) is a cause of a show being fannish. Fans explain and overlook because the shows they like need it, they don't become fans because the show has the flaws.
B) There are, indeed, lots of SF based fandoms. But I don't think that needing 'classic' suspension of disbelief is an important factor because there are also lots of western series based fandoms and lots of WW2 series based fandoms, neither of which genre requires that type of SoD. Not to mention medical drama based fandoms, sitcom based fandoms, and so on. I don't think I've heard of a game show based fandom, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn there was one or two out there.
(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).
It's true that episodic series offer those openings, but since the start of television series virtually all of them have been episodic. It's a rare and noticeable exception when story arcs actually exist. So I don't see this as particularly useful guide to which series will spawn fandoms: 95% of all shows are episodic, 95% of all fannish series are episodic. So?
(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.
Again, this is almost universally the norm! Most series either hired freelancers or have a pool of writers -- the need to crank out 26+ scripts for a nine month production span rather guaranteed it.
(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.)
Maybe a better factor, except, again, I'd say most television shows (at least in America) have 'exaggerated character definitions' which I think is close to saying they are stereotypes/archetypes. By the end of any pilot episode you can pretty much label every character with a tag so that others will understand it: the brown-noser, the girl next door, the struggling young professional, the geek, the ruthless business man, the bitch, etc. We only get/discover the ways this particular geek varies from the classic mold as the series unfolds.
Really, Neal, I think you are missing the boat when it comes to What Makes A Show fannish. I honestly think it comes down at least 90% to that factor you want to minimize: the Characters.
For example, you center a series on someone
1) who is constantly at risk of physical damage/death 2) who faces enemies/rivals who seek to destroy him/her 3) who is witty in a rather terse/cutting way in the face of danger 4) who has an unhappy past 5) who has faults that have caused harm to those s/he loved 6) who is haunted by and angsts over 3 & 4 7) who nevertheless acts as the "good guy" whether reluctantly or not 8) who is beautiful/sexy/handsome 9) who has a unhappy/nonexistent love life despite #7
and you will probably found a fandom. ;-)
That's not the only pattern for a character who catches the fannish eye, but it's one of the most potent I think.
Susan Beth (susanbeth33@mindspring.com)
From: Susan Beth susanbeth33@mindspring.com
(Originally mailed to me personally, to which I replied personally as follows with slight amendments:)
(1) the need for an active suspension of
Uh. It seems you've changed the "ignoring production flaws/overlooking
plot
holes" that was mostly what was being cited into the more traditional sort of SF "suspension of disbelief in FTL travel and such."
I really meant both - a show that is patently 'unreal' in some way or other. Most TV series suffer from a degree of unreality, but some are more unreal than others. Presumably there's some sort of cut-off point somewhere.
A) Production flaws, caused by lack of funds or inadequate time or the failure of technique
More likely to be prominent in SF/fantasy series because sets, props and costumes have to be designed from scratch and bear no relation to real world artefacts apart from their obvious functionality (eg a ray gun is obviously a gun, but equally obviously not any real world gun).
B) There are, indeed, lots of SF based fandoms. But I don't think that needing 'classic' suspension of disbelief is an important factor because there are also lots of western series based fandoms and lots of WW2 series based fandoms
*Lots*? I can think of several old western series (Gunsmoke, Wagon Train, The Virginian) but WW2? Apart from Hogan's Heroes and Garrison's Gorillas (both blatantly unreal, incidentally, and demanding incredible suspension of disbelief), I can't recall any examples. Oh yeah, two British ones, Dads Army and 'Allo 'Allo - both very good comedies but also SoD-heavy (the latter especially).
Not to mention medical drama based fandoms, sitcom based fandoms, and so on.
I don't doubt that such fandoms exist, but they are probably peripheral compared to the SF/fantasy scene. We have several magazines catering for telefantasy fans (SFX, Dreamwatch, Cult TV, TV Zone, Starburst, plus various series-specific publications). A couple of years ago one publisher tried to launch a magazine for ETV ('Emergency Television') fans, based on series like Casualty, London's Burning and Soldier Soldier (episodic and multiple authorship series) - as far as I know it folded within a few months. There are several SFTV-related cons in Britain this year, but not one for non-SF series that I know of.
(2) episodic structure
It's true that episodic series offer those openings, but since the start
of
television series virtually all of them have been episodic.
(3) multiple authorship>
Again, this is almost universally the norm
I've taken these two together because I disagree on both counts. Not all TV series are episodic. Over the past twenty years a steadily increasing proportion of British TV has consisted of mini-series with a distinct and deliberate arc (so-called TV novels - Twin Peaks is the only US example that springs to mind, though I presume they're common enough on your side of the pond). Multiple authorship, in Britain at least, is certainly not the norm. It's common, but not that common. Many comedy series are the work of a single writer or pair of writers. So too are most detective series (or based heavily on a set of books by one author, eg Dexter's Morse, Wingfield's Frost). The mini-serials I just mentioned are nearly always (if not entirely always) single-author works (eg Lynda LaPlante). American TV might be significantly different on both of these factors.
(4) exagerrated character
Maybe a better factor, except, again, I'd say most television shows (at least in America) have 'exaggerated character definitions' which I think
is
close to saying they are stereotypes/archetypes.
Words I was actually trying to avoid using:) I think there is a difference between characters that are meant to be realistic portrayals of believable characters in a real world milieu, and characters that are deliberately exagerrated to fulfil an archetypal or stereotypical role within an unreal milieu.
Really, Neal, I think you are missing the boat when it comes to What Makes A Show fannish. I honestly think it comes down at least 90% to that
factor
you want to minimize: the Characters.
I wouldn't want to put a firm percentage figure on it, but yes, it would be high. Not as high as 90%, though, IMO. And I don't think it's characters alone, it's characters in relation to all the other factors.
For example, you center a series on someone
- who is constantly at risk of physical damage/death
- who faces enemies/rivals who seek to destroy him/her
- who is witty in a rather terse/cutting way in the face of danger
- who has an unhappy past
- who has faults that have caused harm to those s/he loved
- who is haunted by and angsts over 3 & 4
- who nevertheless acts as the "good guy" whether reluctantly or not
- who is beautiful/sexy/handsome
- who has a unhappy/nonexistent love life despite #7
But as someone has now pointed out on Lyst, fannish attention frequently turns to the supporting lead:)
Actually, reading those 9 points makes me think of two central characters I mentioned above - Jack Frost and Inspector Morse. Two central characters who have not generated anything like a prominent fandom, nor indeed any active fandom at all that I know of (my mother is an avid watcher - and reader - of both, and can't imagine anyone wanting to write their own Frost fic or Morse fic. Obviously that's just one woman's opinion and I'm not citing it as evidence, merely mentioning it in passing).
Oh, and by the way, Suzan, it's 'Neil':)
Neil
In message 018801c09a4e$62a0b600$e535fea9@neilfaulkner, Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net writes
Actually, reading those 9 points makes me think of two central characters I mentioned above - Jack Frost and Inspector Morse. Two central characters who have not generated anything like a prominent fandom, nor indeed any active fandom at all that I know of
Can tell you don't read slash zines, Neil...
At 02:27 PM 2/17/01 -0500, Susan Beth wrote:
I don't think I've heard of a game show based fandom, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn there was one or two out there.
"Iron Chef" is classified as a game show by TV Guide, and definitely has what I would call a "fandom" (celebrity stalking, drinking games, eternal flamewars...), including fan-fiction (including a B7 crossover by myself, ObB7 ;-p). -- For A Dread Time, Call Penny: http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/
-
Julia Jones -
Neil Faulkner -
Penny Dreadful -
Susan Beth