Y'all are so cool! and quick. This and esp., understanding where others might be coming from is *exactly* why no one can represent fans but fans.
The hostility to academics that I saw was more than knee-jerk anti-intellectualism or a pet peeve. (Revenge for that low grade last semester, lol.) I was surprised to see people even calling meta "not fandom", along with the debate about how aca-fans should relate to non-acafans.
Some of this is coming from lack of recognition of what the broad continuum of fanwork includes. Efforts to narrow fandom to "just fanfic" or by % of posts, or location, are doomed to failure, because they leave out more than they take in. Fans may switch from fic to modding fests and vice versa, and are still fans. Someone who lurks, recs, betas, comments but doesn't post fic, is still a fan.
A lot of fanwork is not fics: metas, icons and vids, compiling long rec lists and tables of info, making polls and talking about the trends. That's not just "not fic", it's "non-fic." Aca-fans are made of non-fic. As I see it, they may write farther away from the source material, and post in more distant "comms"; but they're still responding to the source material. Fandom's existence is still their work.
Ah, but they get paid! Oh, and they "use" fans' work!
I see three issues in the anti-academic rants. First, the definition of fan activity in terms of type of source material, format for work, or forum for sharing is an issue OTW's already been grappling with. Why not facilitate some discussions? How about posting some rough draft "maps" or definitions to kick that off -- or better yet, find some unpublished, or re-usable work (Henry J?) that could be posted online, for fandom to discuss?
Second is the issue of recompense. Does pay for anything related to fandom disqualify one as a fan? What is an academic "earning" by studying fandom? LOL, not much usually; but still -- the question merits an answer. There's more than money involved. Distrust of aca-fans is similar to discourse about BNFs. At issue, then, is voluntarism vs. reward, anonymity vs. recognition.
Some skeevy myths lurk here too -- the myth that unpaid art is better; that women are above being paid (!); that "community" and recompense are incompatible (also !); and the folk law corollary that if you don't make money off it ("borrowing"?) it isn't illegal. Reduced to bare logic, none of these compute.
OTW will have to be able to articulate these issues for non-fandom audiences. But they're debates that are part of fandom's world, too, as well as fundamental to its definition, which is why they keep coming up in comments. I would urge trying to find the time and fen to host the discussion within fandom. The results would be useful at all levels.
The last issue is the problem of "authorship," which within fandom includes both plagiarism and re-use issues, and for aca-fans broadens out to how they represent fandom material to non-fandom viewers (and on the flip side, how they gained permission from their fandom sources). The "netiquette" of quotation, linking, remixing, commenting, etc., are all related strongly to both the ways that fandom gets its own original material (poaching?) and how it wants aca-fans or pro-fans to treat fandom (not poaching!). Again a core issue, worthy of formal discussion.
How do the ethics of fans vis-a-vis source material, fans v other fans' material, and aca-fans v fandom materials, compare and contrast? Are there uniform principles that do, or should, apply all along the spectrum? Or are there qualitative differences? What specific "netiquette" and guidelines have been developed, how do they vary (by fandom, for instance), and would it help fandom internally, or OTW in its work with the public, authors, academia, or fandom critics, to have this in writing?
All three issues -- fandom's activities, recompense, and control over material -- come into play in OTW's main mission and associated interests, as well as coming up in criticisms of OTW's members. I think OTW should take them seriously, address them as fully as any given stage of thought allows, and help fans think about them publicly so that we all see the different values better.
no subject
The hostility to academics that I saw was more than knee-jerk anti-intellectualism or a pet peeve. (Revenge for that low grade last semester, lol.) I was surprised to see people even calling meta "not fandom", along with the debate about how aca-fans should relate to non-acafans.
Some of this is coming from lack of recognition of what the broad continuum of fanwork includes. Efforts to narrow fandom to "just fanfic" or by % of posts, or location, are doomed to failure, because they leave out more than they take in. Fans may switch from fic to modding fests and vice versa, and are still fans. Someone who lurks, recs, betas, comments but doesn't post fic, is still a fan.
A lot of fanwork is not fics: metas, icons and vids, compiling long rec lists and tables of info, making polls and talking about the trends. That's not just "not fic", it's "non-fic." Aca-fans are made of non-fic. As I see it, they may write farther away from the source material, and post in more distant "comms"; but they're still responding to the source material. Fandom's existence is still their work.
Ah, but they get paid! Oh, and they "use" fans' work!
I see three issues in the anti-academic rants. First, the definition of fan activity in terms of type of source material, format for work, or forum for sharing is an issue OTW's already been grappling with. Why not facilitate some discussions? How about posting some rough draft "maps" or definitions to kick that off -- or better yet, find some unpublished, or re-usable work (Henry J?) that could be posted online, for fandom to discuss?
Second is the issue of recompense. Does pay for anything related to fandom disqualify one as a fan? What is an academic "earning" by studying fandom? LOL, not much usually; but still -- the question merits an answer. There's more than money involved. Distrust of aca-fans is similar to discourse about BNFs. At issue, then, is voluntarism vs. reward, anonymity vs. recognition.
Some skeevy myths lurk here too -- the myth that unpaid art is better; that women are above being paid (!); that "community" and recompense are incompatible (also !); and the folk law corollary that if you don't make money off it ("borrowing"?) it isn't illegal. Reduced to bare logic, none of these compute.
OTW will have to be able to articulate these issues for non-fandom audiences. But they're debates that are part of fandom's world, too, as well as fundamental to its definition, which is why they keep coming up in comments. I would urge trying to find the time and fen to host the discussion within fandom. The results would be useful at all levels.
The last issue is the problem of "authorship," which within fandom includes both plagiarism and re-use issues, and for aca-fans broadens out to how they represent fandom material to non-fandom viewers (and on the flip side, how they gained permission from their fandom sources). The "netiquette" of quotation, linking, remixing, commenting, etc., are all related strongly to both the ways that fandom gets its own original material (poaching?) and how it wants aca-fans or pro-fans to treat fandom (not poaching!). Again a core issue, worthy of formal discussion.
How do the ethics of fans vis-a-vis source material, fans v other fans' material, and aca-fans v fandom materials, compare and contrast? Are there uniform principles that do, or should, apply all along the spectrum? Or are there qualitative differences? What specific "netiquette" and guidelines have been developed, how do they vary (by fandom, for instance), and would it help fandom internally, or OTW in its work with the public, authors, academia, or fandom critics, to have this in writing?
All three issues -- fandom's activities, recompense, and control over material -- come into play in OTW's main mission and associated interests, as well as coming up in criticisms of OTW's members. I think OTW should take them seriously, address them as fully as any given stage of thought allows, and help fans think about them publicly so that we all see the different values better.