From: Bizarro7@aol.com
In a message dated 3/26/01 5:14:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, stephend999@yahoo.co.uk writes:
<< Is it ? I had better tread carefully here but I would have thought that the feelings one has for Avon, or whoever, who we know are fictional characters are going to be different to the feelings we have for our significant others. Assuming that identical physiolgical changes occur when someone undergoing a crush sees Avon and when someone who is in love with a real person sees their beloved we are, none the less, identifying two discrete phenomenon. >>
The *relationship* we have with our significant others is quite different,
if
only because we have access to them in the real world. The mechanism that makes us fall in love or develop a crush on them at the beginning of the process is identical.
But occurs within a much different social context. To take a parallell example, I think what Steven's saying is that the adrenaline rush one feels at the beginning of a race is exactly the same, biologically, as the adrenaline rush one feels if one is attacked in a dark alley. But this does not mean that running a race is the same thing as being attacked.
The crush on the TV character is "safe" in our society's context because there is no contact and no realistic expectation that the relationship can ever be anything but a fantasy.
See elsewhere, on "stalking." And outside the lunatic fringe-- why do people go to cons, if not to have contact with their idols?
It seems reasonable to assume that the chemical process that triggers this leverence process
was
developed to help us form lasting relationships and allow our offspring a better chance for survival and continuance of our genes, because both of
the
parents might still be together, protecting and providing for the
offspring,
a few years later.
Once again, Leah, I'd like to know where you're getting all this. In your last post I asked you if you could cite references (ideally with dates) to support your position; you haven't, and I'd like to ask again if you can back up your position with reference to extant studies. Without references, we have no idea whether you are speaking based on a body of scientific evidence, tested and substantiated, or whether you are just making it all up.
There would be no logical genetic justification for a 'separate' crush mechanism on an unattainable potential mate.
Plenty of justifications, though, from the meme theory and the anthropological studies you disparaged in your last post on this subject. Even the hardest of biological scientists these days admit that there's more to a human being than just self-replicating DNA.
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
In message 019101c0b62c$0f9c6d60$8cae01a3@1.174.140.stx.ox.ac.uk, Fiona Moore nydersdyner@yahoo.co.uk writes
See elsewhere, on "stalking." And outside the lunatic fringe-- why do people go to cons, if not to have contact with their idols?
To see my friends, hit the dealers' room, and listen to interesting talks which may or may not be by my idols.
Fiona wrote:
And outside the lunatic fringe-- why do people go to cons, if not to have contact with their idols?
It's lunatic to want to meet friends outside of cyberspace?
----- Original Message ----- From: Harriet Monkhouse hflysator@jarriere.demon.co.uk
Fiona wrote:
And outside the lunatic fringe-- why do people go to cons, if not to have contact with their idols?
It's lunatic to want to meet friends outside of cyberspace?
Oh, now really, Harriet, you're letting the old school down :). I said "outside" the lunatic fringe, which if you read my original post you'll know referred to stalkers and other sad people. But I do know a lot of very sane and intelligent people who will go to a con just cause they know Paul Darrow (Sally Knyvette, whomever) will be there.
But to respond to what more than you have said-- yes, there are lots of other reasons to go to cons, it's true, than just to see actors. But it does have to be said, that the no-guest cons I've been to ("relaxicons" I've heard them called) are generally much more poorly attended than ones with guests (and even one I went to where they had a couple of well-know writers along was much more poorly attended than the rather small-scale DW con I went to which could only boast Nicola Bryant as a guest), and it seems to be a truism that the "bigger" the con, the "bigger" the name of the actors they get as guests (probably a positive-feedback thingy). I wouldn't consider myself starstruck by any means-- but the information that David Collings was going to be at Panopticon was a big incentive for me to attend.
So actors aren't the only reason to go to cons, it's definitely true-- but for a lot of people, they seem to be a big part of it, for whatever reason.
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
Fiona wrote:
But I do know a lot of very sane and intelligent people who will go to a con just cause they know Paul Darrow (Sally Knyvette, whomever) will be there.
Yes, but I also know sane and intelligent people who go to meet friends, and it was unclear whether your question was rhetorical or seeking information.
Meeting the actors matters less and less to me; I still turn out when Paul Darrow comes to the Fab Cafe, for instance, but I find I'm doing it more from a sense of duty than from any expectation of pleasure. One to one, I am certain that Mr Darrow is a very interesting person - in my only brief conversation with him, his charm hit me like a physical blast. But I'm unlikely ever to have a long-term one-to-one relationship with an actor; I do have such relationships with many people I have met here, and find them infinitely more rewarding than an hour listening to an actor doing his party piece.
Later this year, for instance, I'm planning to go to a Star Trek con. The guests sound moderately interesting (being baddies from DS9), but it would never have occurred to me to go if I hadn't found out that a list- friend whom I don't see very often is going to be there. Attending will enable me to spend a couple of days with her. Another friend, on hearing that we expected to go, immediately said "Oh, in that case...!"
None of this is to say that guest actors are a waste of time. Last year, I attended Nexus in order to see some friends, and was entranced by a very thoughtful talk/question-and-answer session with Walter Koenig. I would never have thought of going to a convention to see Walter Koenig, though I understood that he had been the chief draw for many of those there. That's fine by me. If other people are chiefly interested in seeing actors, bring on the actors. It enables me to pursue my own hobby of seeing fans, with the occasional actorly bonus.
-
Fiona Moore -
Harriet Monkhouse -
Julia Jones