Easy and simple. This post was inspired by a few comments I've been informed about. Actually, I knew about these a while ago, and first heard of them when I decided to move from writing and reviewing in one fandom to another.
Why didn't I realise there are traditional connections between fandoms? For some reason, I thought the fact I wrote for fandom A would have no effect on reception my writing would have in fandom B. Apparently, everything is interwoven and if you want a clean slate, you start with one fandom and hang with it or find a section of fandoms that wouldn't mind being in a mix. It's like mixing vegetables in a salad: some ingredients just don't go well together. One would have to work under exceptional conditions to negate this rule. One exception would be setting oneself a challenge to write a fic for every fandom that starts with the letter B. Readers would understand that. However, if one has ten fics for fandom A, five for fandom B, which belong to the same group, but decides to grab fandom C writership from another group...chances are fandom C will get bounced as unfit in the writer's portfolio. Likewise, the damage could increase if there are two fanfics for fandom A and fandom C, totalling in four. The kind of equality in a chaotic ingredient mix can eventually tear one's fans apart and kill them, in my view.
This is why certain writers separate their K fiction from their M fiction. I've seen a few people try to be appealing to several crowds while not letting the crowds overlap in one place. It's like cheating on someone and never getting caught. In the end, it should be a win-win. The K crowd doesn't know the author cares and serves a crowd other than them while the M crowd applauds maturity and whatnot, being an insider in both places. Naturally, settling two accounts instead of one comes problematic, but if it works for some people, must be a worthy investment for those intending to get less interference from fandom friction.
Friction is a good word to describe some relationships between fandoms, in my opinion. Though, I like putting them in groups more. One interesting group that I've been involved with for a while was Nintendo. For those not involved, I should explain that Nintendo is a company that houses several brands of games like Mario, Legend of Zelda, Super Smash Bros. The catch is that fans of any of these brands see the other brands under the Nintendo umbrella favourably as well. Since Super Smash Bros. broadened the ties between different series, the Nintendo group may also include Pokemon and Sonic the Hedgehog. Whether other series can belong to the group is pretty much decided by how much of an addition or alternative something is. For instance, a game that is aimed to press out any of the heavy-weight core group franchises may easily be seen as a shunnable outsider doing God knows what. The sort of competition might be compared to the way football fans of one club see a competing club. In the end, fans of either team will not vouch for the 'enemy camp' no matter the odds. It's interesting how bias affects our judgement here. You see, when dislike for brand A is born out of loyalty to brand B, various perks might be seen as disadvantages, sad attempts at trying to win you over. Even when bias is stomped on with tremendous arguments for, irrationality may remain the crucial argument against. In the end, an ardent fan remains ardent in the immediate future and won't take a 'fake'. By the way, it's quite peculiar how Sonic, developed by Sega, a competitor of Nintendo, fits into the same group. That's for later.
For now, we return to these lovely little groups. Age-wise, sex-wise, hobby-wise, a set of franchises, like a thematic package of TV channels, caters its crowd. Instead of leaving others indifferent like the said channel packages, it may easily cause emotions from the unsolicited crowd. I explain. If your cable company has several thematic packages like "Movies HD (5 channels)" or "Anime Haven (7 channels)" and "Sports Galore (6 channels)", you'd be willing to just pick the ones you want and just ignore what you dislike if other factors remain unimportant. In case of groups we have in fandoms, the situation is like this: "This cable company has Movies HD and Sports Galore, which I'd love to accept, but it also offers me the Anime Haven option, which is useless to me, so I'm not going to take anything from these guys." We follow up: "Instead, I'll buy my cable from another company that would have something like Movies HD and Sports Galore, but not have anything anime-related on offer." It's penalising the provider for offering services to a crowd you find unattractive for whatever reason. Sort of like, if you are expected to be loyal, the service provider has to be loyal to you and not try to serve anyone else's needs. Especially when that anyone else is different.
FFN writers are, in a way, service providers as well. Depending on what one writes about, they may be encouraged or penalised. In the case of encouragement, when a fan of, per say, Nintendo, finds out randomly that someone writes not just about Zelda, but also (OMG) about Mario, they are exhilarated to find a soul even closer to theirs than they thought. The "we're so much alike" syndrome. Likewise, the writer is penalised either in word ('hahaha, you write for fandom C, you suck') or action ('i had respect for you, but you lost me when you started writing for fandom C. no longer going to read your work') whenever the reader perceives there is something insurmountably different on the writer's visible portfolio. The less stories one has, the more visible that portfolio is. Conversely, the more brand A gets in the number of stories in one's portfolio, the more likely it is that minority franchises may have ejected readers since it is visible "that person wrote only once for brand C, my favourite, so there's no reason to like them, as they find brand A more important."
Since I'm dealing with actual names in this post, not as a form of ad placement, we need this extra brand that wouldn't fit in with Nintendo. Perhaps, the most stark animosity is felt coming from darker topics, like the undead. Show a Pokemon fan some Southern Vampire Mysteries fiction and chances are you will get that fan to beg you to stop. Same applies to other fandoms in this group or "channel package". This is also something I've experienced personally, not just general gossip. While it's by no means more authoritative, when a person, who isn't rabid/ardent/squeeingly fangirlish is subjected to such information, it must mean that info is on the surface, easy to find. At least we'll assume that. What's the feedback in our case? Brand A fans call brand B fans emo, unstable, masochistic, posers and not worthy of their time. Brand B fans call brand A fans childish, silly, immature, ignorant and not worthy of their time. You may add et cetera on both ends.
Funnily, when one is a fan of brand A and brand B at the same time, one gets "the best of both world". And I do mean the quotation marks because you have to consider one or more accusations being used by both groups. As the information on what the other side is like "for real" lies on the surface, explaining the situation is more or less futile; new people are more likely to find the surface info, not someone's explanation on how brand A and brand B can live together the way different theme packages exist on a cable company's service list. Indifferent. Now, the animosity some combinations cause is understandable and we're all able to consider various choices. It would have all been find and dandy were it not for the nasties called bias and discrimination, leading to stereotypes.
You've seen stereotypical descriptions of fans belonging to the brand A group and brand B group. Are they realistic? Could be. Are they warped? Could be. Are they reliable? No. Since 'could be' is as much as you can get on both ends, reliability is to be checked. I'm not claiming every stereotype is wrong (because it's difficult to find a person with 0 stereotypes in my belief), but clicking things to the bottom based on what's on the surface may be unreasonable. Not asking anyone to stop. Just think before you assume.
The productive side of this post is done, and you may skip on the rest if it dragged. What I'd like to discuss in more detail is how such group relations affect a group you could see all over the place, the Literate Union (LU). Unlike fans of brand A, B or C, I could see the LU go on various ventures (call them what you like). Every time it would enter a franchise group, there would be two arguments: they are from brand C, which is alien to us; they are going to visit brands A and B, which we like. There is a misunderstanding that the LU discriminates fandoms in a way that makes them appear as belonging to brand C all the time. How does that happen? Information about brand C is on the surface, and people can easily find a member's portfolio with something that belongs to brand C. Stereotype at work creates an assumption that everyone, like that one member, belongs to brand C, and the surface keeps the information brewing. It gets ridiculous when two groups, say Nintendo and undead, are visited at the same time. Since each sees the other as brand C, the bias should create some form of happiness "hah, brand C is getting toasted", but one's own situation comes above, and we have the reality we do.
I'm not a LU member, but I have been trying to document whatever was going on FFN since 2004 and earlier, getting info from primary sources and whatnot, so my words may (or may not) have more credibility than Johnny next door. What I do know is that the experience such documentation gave me is a hands-on perspective of what's going on in fandom A, B and C from the perspective of all three fandoms in every case. This perspective is both a challenge and a perk. On the one hand, it would be easier to concentrate on brands A and B, dumping C, so there would be no negativity in A and B. On the other, A and B make up someone else's loathsome C, and the idea of favouritism comes up. Perhaps, that last bit is crucial. As a critic, I've tried many ways of delivering a message to my colleagues in the writing world. Some were good, some inefficient, but I've learnt a lot with this. For one, if I start favouring one side over the other, giving an appraisal based on personal relations like friendship or dislike, that would give person A a disproportionately positive review (friend deserve those, huh?) and person B would get a disproportionately negative review (die, enemy, die?). Person C would come up and say: "Hey, you sugarcoated it for person A and poured vitriol for person B." It's best, in my opinion, to view work depending on the work's merits, with any background serving no more than background should: comparison with other works, not personal ties.
This is the stance LU members take when reviewing. Does the public find that out? Nope. One disliked review travels the distance of 10 people. One liked review travels through 3 at best. That's what may give a skewered perception, further warped by the brand C phenomenon and "monkey see monkey do", copied from people engaged in disliking brand C. As such, nobody comes to the LU from nowhere. All the members that I know of and have communicated with have some sort of fannish background. If we were to connect those backgrounds into a wholesome image, we'd get a portfolio like no other, full of various franchises, hobbies, ideas, ages and whatnot. Do you know why it's possible? The LU does not have a brand C franchise, something it would be biased against on an institutional level. Members reviewed stories great and small in fandoms from A to Z, crossovers and even Misc. How is that possible? Try arranging that portfolio and you'll see how like-minded people can be different, and how different people can be alike.
Which is your neighbour's brand? You can't choose its name, but you can choose A, B or C. How much is going to depend on your choice?
Have a nice, abuse-free day.
0 comments:
Post a Comment