Thanks very much for the comment. I'll admit to being a little frustrated by my seeming inability to be clear about what I mean by things like influence and benefit. It's been instructive to see the shifting frames of reference we all seem to employ instinctively and often to the confusion of interlocutors.
Maybe I need to restate, first, that I have no truck with the argument that there's something wrong, inauthentic, immoral, tainted, or otherwise evil about the fannishness of acafen in any of its manifestations. I understand that there are those who do believe this. I wish I could differentiate my arguments from theirs a little better than I seem to be doing so far.
My concerns have nothing to do with individual cases. The fact remains that power to shape discourses about fandom accrues more generously to the class of fans whose fannishness is a cause of their affiliation with an institution (like scholarship) that pronounces on culture. Keeping one's fannish and scholarly identities separate doesn't affect that.
Influence is the ability to amplify some sets of ideas about fandom, and to damp others. Your work is an instantiation of that power. Scholarly affiliation carries cultural privilege, regardless of any individual's experiences within the hierarchy of either academia or fandom itself. (I'm not an academic but I'm not entirely ignorant either. I understand completely that fannish stuff isn't exactly the gold standard in the ivory tower these days. That doesn't actually matter very much to the point I'm trying to make.)
OTW has set out to build power to affect the dominant cultural discourses about fandom. Acafans, pro-writer fans, constitutional and IP lawyer fans are among those who, as a class, have more clout out the gate in the enterprise. Fans who aren't any of those things know this. From my little corner, a lot of us think that's fine, as long as the privilege is acknowledged and open to challenge, and there's respect paid to the fact that unintended consequences are not only possible but certain. My own respect for the commitment and vision evident in OTW so far is enormous.
no subject
Maybe I need to restate, first, that I have no truck with the argument that there's something wrong, inauthentic, immoral, tainted, or otherwise evil about the fannishness of acafen in any of its manifestations. I understand that there are those who do believe this. I wish I could differentiate my arguments from theirs a little better than I seem to be doing so far.
My concerns have nothing to do with individual cases. The fact remains that power to shape discourses about fandom accrues more generously to the class of fans whose fannishness is a cause of their affiliation with an institution (like scholarship) that pronounces on culture. Keeping one's fannish and scholarly identities separate doesn't affect that.
Influence is the ability to amplify some sets of ideas about fandom, and to damp others. Your work is an instantiation of that power. Scholarly affiliation carries cultural privilege, regardless of any individual's experiences within the hierarchy of either academia or fandom itself. (I'm not an academic but I'm not entirely ignorant either. I understand completely that fannish stuff isn't exactly the gold standard in the ivory tower these days. That doesn't actually matter very much to the point I'm trying to make.)
OTW has set out to build power to affect the dominant cultural discourses about fandom. Acafans, pro-writer fans, constitutional and IP lawyer fans are among those who, as a class, have more clout out the gate in the enterprise. Fans who aren't any of those things know this. From my little corner, a lot of us think that's fine, as long as the privilege is acknowledged and open to challenge, and there's respect paid to the fact that unintended consequences are not only possible but certain. My own respect for the commitment and vision evident in OTW so far is enormous.