In a message dated 3/18/01 2:54:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, huh@ccm.net writes:
<< I'd be entirely surprised if any of the main actors failed to know slash existed- and of course slash has been covered in the press as well. >>
Most actors and actresses nowadays are aware of the existence of both adult hetero and slash art and fanfic on the web (as well as elsewhere). They generally ignore it as part of the down side of celebrity. For one thing, celebrity itself is an adaptation of the human process for selecting a mate, albeit an unattainable one. When one falls in love with a celebrity, the chemical process of 'love' has been triggered toward an individual one wants to mate and bond with for purposes of procreation. Fanfic, fan art or any other sort of fantasy that satisfies that unattainable bond is inevitable, and has existed since that burly 'head of the tribe' first rose to prominence. It only took on the odd characteristics that we know it for now since popular media made it possible for many women to know about one exceptionally good-looking or talented man (and vice versa for a female celebrity and many men).
No one seems to be immune, whether we label it something harmless like a 'crush' or worry that it's reached a dangerous obsession.
Bill Hupe used to agent and sell thousands of fanzine titles out of a central location, here in the US. One of this best regular customers was an actress who had been popular herself on DR. WHO. The woman had standing instructions with Bill to set aside any fanzines fitting a certain category of 'Slash' , and she would periodically write a big check and have them all shipped to her.
Isn't anyone here aware of 'boy-band' fanfic on the web? Thousands of teens, unable to realistically have a relationship with the boy groups they idolize, are writing and posting adult fanfic and slash about groups like N' Synch and the others. The groups are well aware of it, and seem to use it as a guage of their popularity. If there was something that was going to be done about this kind of thing, it would have been done a long time ago.
Leah
----- Original Message ----- From: Bizarro7@aol.com
When one falls in love with a celebrity, the
chemical process of 'love' has been triggered toward an individual one
wants
to mate and bond with for purposes of procreation. Fanfic, fan art or any other sort of fantasy that satisfies that unattainable bond is inevitable, and has existed since that burly 'head of the tribe' first rose to prominence.
If one can be permitted to comment on this scientifically, this strikes me as a very biologically-deterministic view of sex, celebrity and fandom. For one thing, there exists a lot of material which suggests that "love" and the urge to mate has to do with more complex things than simply procreation; social bonding, relief of tension and the construction of cultural units: this material ranges from biological studies of bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees who appear to have sex more for social than procreative purposes) to queer studies, most of which revolves around the investigation and critique of social constructions of gender and sexuality. In fact, to construct sexual desire totally as a procreative urge is to ignore the large number of people both heterosexual and homosexual who engage in sex or sex-related activities for purposes other than procreation.
Similarly, the practices of fandom and of celebrity-following appear to take on more complex aspects than simply lust for a particular individual(s). Numerous studies (some of which have already been cited by more knowledgeable people than I) explore the potential of fandom for developing sub- and countercultures and interest groupings, some of which are admittedly sex-related, but others of which involve bonds around common tastes in fiction, shared politics or similar social experiences.
Secondly, the notion of the "burly head of the tribe" as the ideal lust object is also open to question (to say nothing of the notion of sexual attractiveness as the sole criterion for selection of leaders, but that's another story). Leaving aside the large numbers of anthropological examples of leaders, tribal and otherwise, whose sexuality is somehow restricted or socially constrained by their leadership role (Bill Clinton being in no wise typical!), there exists quite a bit of evidence to suggest that primate females of all species, humans among them, show quite a bit of variation in their choice of sexual partners, and that they are just as likely to select a mate based on intelligence or personality as much as looks (yes, it's true, the nerd really does get the girl sometimes-- although usually it's more like the girl prefers the nerd!).
I would actually be quite interested in hearing the views of people in other disciplines on the procreative versus non-procreative functions of fandom and the celebrity crush. Neil?
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From: Fiona Moore nydersdyner@yahoo.co.uk
I would actually be quite interested in hearing the views of people in
other
disciplines on the procreative versus non-procreative functions of fandom and the celebrity crush. Neil?
Huh? Whassat? I wasn't aware that sweating your bollocks off in a hot, noisy factory counted as any kind of academic discipline.
Mate selection in human beings seems far too complicated for me to want to bother with, but one of the more interesting takes on it that I've read comes out of meme theory. If we think of ourselves psychologically as a collection of memes, just as we are physically a collection of genes, then partner-seeking will operate to at least some degree on the basis of memetic selection. Since it's easier to quote a paragraph rather than reiterate an idea in my own words, I'll take the easy (and evolutionarily time-honoured) way out and cheat:
"'Whom should you imitate?' The individuals who are best at the skill in question, certainly, but there is a more general answer to the question. Blackmore suggests that you should choose to imitate the best imitators - they are likely to have picked up the best skills. And her next question, 'With whom do you mate?' is answered in a similar way. You mate with the best imitators of the trendiest memes. So, not only are memes selected for the ability to spread themselves, genes are selected in ordinary Darwininan selection for their ability to make individuals that are good at spreading memes." (Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow, chapter 12)
Way back when Ah wuz but a wee nipper (and B7 episodes were still getting their first showing), youth culture was significantly more fractionalised than it seems to be today. Competing meme-plexes divided Britain's teenagers, and since those teenagers were as much into procreative behaviour then as they are now (only these days they start even younger), they went looking for partners, within their own subcultural meme-plex. So you had mods and mod chicks riding around on the back of a Lambretta, punks and punkettes both sporting badge-festooned leathers, the heavy metal legions etc, all displaying the trendiest memes for their particular subcoterie. I don't think anyone would argue that conforming to prevailing fashion gives you a head start if you want to get laid.
Actors are, by profession, imitators. Although we all perform to some extent in most of our social interactions, with actors it's explicit. There are good actors and bad actors, of course, but these evaluations are frequently subjective (the histrionic ability of a certain Mr Darrow being particularly open to question in some circles). Actors, at least the good ones, are the best imitators, and by inference capable of imitating those 'trendiest memes' that one looks for in a partner.
You could say that we are genetically programmed to develop crushes on actors!
Successful actors tend to appear in the most successful films and shows (a complex interaction of star and vehicle that I can't be arsed to analyse in greater depth), and box-office success might be gauged as a rough barometer of memetic success - stars of big hits are trendy, so their memes become trendy, and hence the stars become desirable partners. On top of that, stars tend to be sexually attractive in the physical sense (though this too is at least partly memetic, since tastes vary from culture to culture and over time). This is particularly true for actresses, unfortunately. They pass their sell-by date all too quickly.
So there are several factors directing us towards developing crushes on actors: their imitative ability, their physical desirability, and their professional success. Is it ever more than a crush? In the overwhelming majority of cases, probably not. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a small percentage of fans that seem to stake an unreasonable (and quite unrealistic) claim on particular actors. This was recognised by the progress report of a convention I attended (I think it was Who's 7 '94) which included an FAQ for first-timers. It ran something like this (going by memory here):
"Will I able to meet the guests, get autographs etc?" Yes, guests are happy to meet and chat with the fans, and can often be found in bar where you can approach them. "Will [guest] talk to me alone for hours and hours? Will [guest] be interested in my story/play?" No.
That emphatic 'No' should be self-evident to virtually everyone, yet to a few it would seem not to be. However, two points that strike me as valid:
1) it's not unique to media fandom, as the well documented phenomenon of stalking celebrities (or indeed non-celebrities) attests.
2) stalking is a manifestation of social dysfunctionality that resides within the stalker, not his or her society or subculture. I have heard that Paul Darrow has been sent, quite unsolicited, explicit fan material that he personally found upsetting, but I don't think fandom or any particular aspect of fandom - including slash fic or slash art - can be held responsible for that. It's the person or persons who sent it to him that are to blame. It's analogous to the bloke who mails top shelf magazines to the girl in the office because he can't, for whatever reason, ask her out for a date. (An ex-school mate of mine did this, and to nobody's surprise she somehow failed to melt into his arms as a result.) Where such dysfunctionality originates, and to what extent the rest of us collude in promulgating and/or perpetuating it, is another question. (And not an unimportant one.)
Of course, if you don't believe in memes and think that Dawkins, Blackmore, Dennett etc are a wunch of bankers, you're not going to believe any of that.
Neil
--- Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net wrote: > >
'With whom do you mate?' is answered in a similar
way. You mate with the best imitators of the trendiest memes. So, not only are memes selected for the ability to spread themselves, genes are selected in ordinary Darwininan selection for their ability to make individuals that are good at spreading memes." (Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow, chapter 12)<<
I am currently alternating between fascination and confusion by this meme theory, I'm not sure, but I interpreted the above as Dawkins saying that 'survival of the fittest' is as much a psychological function as it is a physiological one - in as much, that we seek out those that are compatible with our memes in the hopes that a perpetuation of the species continues as per our own individual formula. What are memes exactly? Genes shape our physiology and specify psychological traits - are memes fixed within our personalities or are they malleable? If they work on a sort of pulse system, then are we perhaps drawn to certain individuals through an internal radar?
So you had mods and mod chicks riding around on the
back of a Lambretta, punks and punkettes both sporting badge-festooned leathers, the heavy metal legions etc, all displaying the trendiest memes for their particular subcoterie.<<
The trouble with the 'birds of a feather' attitude though is that it doesn't allow for a varied mix, (as with genes) if memes don't go beyond their own group type then we are setting ourselves up for mental stagnation - lateral thinking and innovative thought is restricted to only a few individuals.
There are good actors and bad actors, of course, but
these evaluations are frequently subjective (the histrionic ability of a certain Mr Darrow being particularly open to question in some circles).<<
Hmmm, very difficult for me to respond to this without being subjective - in fact, I personally believe that all acting performances are viewed in a subjective way - you can (for e.g.) go to the theatre to see a show that you don't think is really your cup of tea and the show is starring someone whom you don't particularly think much of, yet when it is over you are enraptured by it all - your assessment of the actor is objective, your assessment of the show is objective, however; your assessment of the performance of the actor is subjective - the performance was to your liking - however; there would be others who came away disenchanted, yet you all saw the same performance. Therefore; whether Mr Darrow shows a great degree of histrionics or not and whether it is appropriate for that performance or not will always be debatable - for me personally, a certain amount of drama is in keeping with the personality of Avon. What I found to be a poor showing was his role in 'Timelash' - not his acting - that was as good as ever as far as I was concerned but all I could see was Avon with longer hair and a bad outfit - he didn't create a new personality for this character - that was bad - but the same could be said for Jaqueline Pearce of her role in 'The Two Doctors' - Still I must finish on a PD high :-) I thought his minor role in "The Silurians' was good.
So there are several factors directing us towards
developing crushes on actors: their imitative ability, their physical desirability, and their professional success. Is it ever more than a crush? In the overwhelming majority of cases, probably not.<<
Could not our memes be directing us toward those that complement our own memes - What I mean is, in the case of actors, they are up there on the screen, that makes them so much more accessible to us via their characters than say the person who catches the same bus as you every morning - Let me put it this way - why do we cry when a character we love has been killed off, when (even as disturbed as we are by what goes on in the world) we don't cry everytime we read the morning paper - it's because we know the character, we have come to identify with them and we see something in them that appeals to us, we have become personally involved...the question is why? they are not real - but the person at the bus stop is...what if, our memes are responding to factors in that character that we seek to associate with in RL - to go further, if an actor uses parts of his own personality in a character and it's these very parts of the character that appeal to some fans, this would explain why some fans like the actor in whatever he/she does and others only like the actor in the associated role.
Paul Darrow has been sent, quite unsolicited,
explicit fan material that he personally found upsetting, but I don't think fandom or any particular aspect of fandom - including slash fic or slash art - can be held responsible for that. It's the person or persons who sent it to him that are to blame.<<
This point is debatable - it would depend on the reasons for why it was sent and the personality of the sender - if it was sent strictly to upset him, then it is definitely the individual only who is responsible for this act. If on the other hand the sender is of a simple minded nature (and I don't mean thick - just not able to determine what is fully acceptable and what is not)then they may see all the smut as an acceptable part of B7 and possibly saw nothing wrong in their actions - which of course, was totally wrong.
Where such dysfunctionality originates, and to what
extent the rest of us collude in promulgating and/or perpetuating it, is another question. (And not an unimportant one.)<<
Most definitely not an unimportant one.
===== Cheryl. (My favourite 'Blake's 7' moment) What a fiasco! We could take over the ship you said, if I did my bit. Well, I did my bit, and what happened? Your 'troops' bumble around looking for someone to surrender to, and when they've succeeded, You, follow suit! (Avon to Blake. "Spacefall")
_____________________________________________________________________________ http://calendar.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Calendar - Access your appointments and meetings online.
From: Cheryl _ avonsgirl@yahoo.com.au
What are memes exactly? Genes shape our physiology and specify psychological traits - are memes fixed within our personalities or are they malleable?
Memes, if you believe in them (and not everyone does by a long chalk) are the virtual genes of culture, self-replicating viruses of the mind passing from mind to mind, combining, mutating, evolving. The word was coined in The Selfish Gene (Dawkins, 1976), though Dawkins owed much to the concept of 'thought contagion' propagated by Cloak (1973). Before that, Barthes in the 60s was talking about an 'autonomy of myth' - he may or may not have influenced Cloak.
Memes are not part of us in the sense that we are born with them, as we are with our genes. They come to inhabit our minds. They need us to replicate and pass themselves on to other minds, just as we need them to make sense of the world around us. They may or may not be good for us. Have you ever had a tune that you really hated lodged in your mind, playing itself over and over despite all your efforts to suppress it? That's a successful meme. So is a really scrummy recipe that you've cooked over and over because you like it.
A meme doesn't have to be 'true', as thousands of urban legends prove. Success, for a meme, depends on replication, which in turn depends on popularity. The truth is frequently very unpopular.
Memes, like genes, are prone to error in duplication. They mutate. The successful mutations are transmitted, the unsuccessful ones fail to make it into other minds and wither away. Infinitely recombinable, memes aggregate into memeplexes, complex groups of memes. The Robin Hood meme, the Dirty Dozen meme and the Magnificent 7 meme, along with other memes from pulp era science fiction stories, wartime propaganda, Boys Own adventures and whoever knows what else might all have come together to form the memeplex we call Blake's 7. The very name 'Blake' might spring from another meme, which may be William or Sexton or possibly both. It's often hard to be sure exactly which memes are involved in a particular memeplex (Terry Nation wasn't too sure himself) though it's fun to speculate.
Neil
Neil wrote:
The very name 'Blake' might spring from another meme, which may be William or Sexton or possibly both.
And don't forget the admiral.
Harriet Monkhouse hflysator@jarriere.demon.co.uk wrote:
Neil wrote:
The very name 'Blake' might spring from another meme, which may be William or Sexton or possibly both.
And don't forget the admiral.
-- Harriet
I think the connection with William Blake's Jerusalem (the song/poem) might be mentioned - dark satanic mills etc etc.
Jacqui __________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
-
Bizarro7＠aol.com -
Cheryl _ -
Fiona Moore -
Harriet Monkhouse -
jacquispeel＠netscape.net -
Neil Faulkner