Bizarro7@aol.com wrote:

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

I think this is generally very true when it comes to things like bad special FX (if you can't get past them in the first place, you're not going to give the show enough of a chance to *become* a fan of it). I can see at least one major exception to this, though: plot holes and contradictions. (Well, OK, maybe that's two... Actually, add in "annoying loose ends" and that makes three.) There seems to be a very strong desire to plug those holes, explain those discrepencies, tie up those loose ends. What's the real story with Cally's exile from Auron, and why do the two accounts of why she left contradict each other? Why couldn't they just land the shuttle in "Orbit"? How did Dorian know that Our Protagonists were on Terminal? These are definitely the kinds of things that fans pay attention to, and they've certainly been known to generate fanfic.

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.

I was there last year, and have to agree. If you're into Trek at *all*, it's very much worth a visit.

From: Bizarro7@aol.com

<< What about all those people who never become fans of anything

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.

Actually I did mean mundanes. The word slipped my mind. Thanks for reminding me:)

Some shows are great, but just don't generate a fandom.

And what I'm wondering is, Why Not?

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.

Fandom as a response to the tyranny of sponsor-dictated production constraints? Sounds good, I must admit. But if they gave you the shows you really wanted, would they actually generate a fandom? With no need to add anything, no need to speculate on what might have happened, there would be no fanfic to write.

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.

I detect a slight touch of resentment here...

Ah, Neil; you truly are in an unusual and rare fannish category--a media

fan

with vey restricted media input.

Ah, Leah: you are truly tactful - anyone else would have told me to shut up ages ago.

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 think there's a confusion of terminology here. What you call discomfort is what I mean by tension - a pull towards the show (by virtue of its characters or setting), and a push away from it (through flawed production, flawed internal logic, unsatisfactory plot or relationship resolution, or whatever). All pull and no push and you get a passive viewer (who may be regarded as a fan, but not an active fanfic-oriented fan), all push and no pull and you get no viewer at all.

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

And I maintain that the denial is a necessary reaction to the push factors, necessitated by the pull of all that stuff they love.

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.

I'm not suggesting that they are. Quite the contrary, in fact - these are the push factors. They must be denied, or turned into a consensual in-joke. (Fans are, in some ways, the harshest critics of the show they follow, because they know exactly what to criticise. There is a whole substratum of fan culture devoted to taking the piss out of the fannish object - a lot of filks fall into this category, as well as much of the humorous fiction - and this might be to contain the push factors so that they can be safely acknowledged without them contaminating enjoyment of the 'real' show, ie the one that pulls the fan.)

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.

Unexpected plot elements are almost, well ... expected, really. If we knew what was going to happen, we wouldn't watch it. So any TV drama - almost any fiction - is going to have some unexpected element in it. Irony and angst are common enough in serious drama, fannish or not (they also appear in the better comedy series). Character development over the course of a series is not a universal, I think, since some series (drama or comedy) rely on the main characters staying the same throughout.

Interesting and/or attractive protagonists: well, you've already cited 'handsome and tormented' as a major pull factor, and I think one or two other people might have done the same. Well, on the sex appeal front, (and bearing in mind that did you say '*interesting* and/or attractive') I can only say:

I have never fancied Blake or Avon. Or Kirk or Spock. Or any incarnation of Dr Who.

Since I've never watched Buffy or Xena, I can't offer much comment, beyond the fact that Buffy looks uninspiringly pretty and Xena looks downright nauseating (though I find the whole idea of Xena ideologically repellent). And my 'unusual and rare' status can take a boost from my general disinterest in Gillian Anderson.

So I don't think the attractive appearance of the central characters is a significant pull factor.

Though it might be for fan *writers* and, by implication, readers. Fanfic is, clearly, dominated by women. Fandom, however, is less so, possibly not at all. At the last count I saw, Horizon's membership was about 60% male, and some fandoms - eg Dr Who - are overhelmingly male. A lot depends (my favourite phrase of the month, I seem to be putting it in almost every post) on how you define a fan, and what kind of fan you are talking about in a particular context. But if we're talking about fans as people who are motivated to do more than simply watch, and to participate in fandom through writing, modelling, con-going, putting up websites etc, then there are just too many men to cite the sex appeal of the (usually) male leads as a significant pull factor for *fandom as a whole*.

This factor might be true for female fans, but even then I'm not sure that it stands up with Buffy and Xena, who seem (though I may be wrong) to have a sizable female following. I can, though, see how B and X might appeal to women as attractive role models (and presumably some women might be sexually attracted to them just as some men might have the hots for Avon or Spock)

Neil