When I was 9 years old, I had just started at a new school, in a new city and with new people. At that age, they still have show and tell in school. I could think of nothing else but to share my collection of the babysitter club books. I remember setting them down on the table at the front of the room and not much else.
I'm at the point of reconsidering one of my reoccurring narratives. I believe that I am not the type of person who can be considered a fan. I'm not fan because I don't throw myself wholeheartedly and unabashedly into anything - I'm not a fanatic. It's not in my character to be non-skeptical about anything. In everything I do, there is a moment of doubt, which I always associated with distance.
I'm beginning to realize that my image of fans have been very much associated with the negative representation of them in the media and also the rather hypocritical stance in academia that dictates fandom as unprofessional.
The negative representation of fans is pervasive and remarkably gendered. It harkens back to an old association of good ole Freud between women and hysteria. The fan is hysterical to the point of losing control of one's body and actions. One of the first representations of fans came alongside the Beatles' wave of popularity. The image of a Beatles' fan is overwhelming female and hysterical. Footage of the Beatles arriving a new place or venue is often accompanied by the image of a mass of female fans, crying and screaming. I was always fascinated by these images but could never identify with them. My public face is far too stoic to engage in mass emotion.
A more recent representation of the fan comes from the TV show, Supernatural. Supernatural has a complex relationship to its incredibly active fan base - a relationship that sometimes ends up appearing in the show, and even formed one of the threads for a season's narrative. I've only watched up to the 7th season, so I can't speak to later appearances of fans. The fans that appear in Supernatural are presented as defective in some manner. They are often losers, who have in some way a social deficit that they replace with Supernatural. Becky is a clear example of the female, hysterical fan, who uses the show as a replacement for her inadequate reality. She eventually tricks the character, Dean, into marrying her. Her neediness and love for the show are depicted as abnormal and even monstrous. While she redeems herself in the end by behaving correctly, it involves denying herself the life that she wants.
This is not to say that there are no examples of male fans. Another episode in Supernatural features two male fans at a fictional Supernatural fan conference. Yet, the two male fans are depicted as less attractive and less competent than the two main characters from the show.
Similarly, in an episode of Seinfeld called "The Facepainter" being too much of a fan is looked upon with derision. Although all characters of the show are often shown as being sports' fans, their involvement consists mainly of wearing merchandise or watching their team play. When Elaine's boyfriend paints his face and expresses excessive emotion at a game, this is considered to be abnormal behaviour and requires a correction on the part of the girlfriend. The joke on her is that he responds incompletely to her correction by channeling this emotion into another form.
Where are all the positive depictions of fans? Is this why I hesitate to identify as a fan, because I don't want to be stereotyped as one of those hysterical, female fans or as abnormal? Or is it just that I don't want to be considered unprofessional.
Most academics could probably be considered closet fans. I can't speak for other areas, but in the humanities, our research focus is shaped in some way by our personal interests. Identity and research are often bedfellows (but not always). Otherwise, I believe, it would be difficult to find the motivation to spend all that time thinking about it. Sometimes, it occurs the other way around. You'll have to spend time with a topic or author and then you become a fan of it.
I wonder sometimes that if the ant-intellectualism in the broader publics is in part fueled by what is considered an abnormal, obsessional quest for knowledge. Is not the mad scientist, the fan gone academic? He (and they are mostly hes) are the monstrous reflection of the academic who is driven by an obsessive quest for knowledge. The one difference between the fan and the mad scientist is that often the mad scientist is denied emotion to the point of being emotionally cold and inhuman. At other times, the emotional register is also extreme, cue the maniacal laughter...
To that little girl, who liked her books enough to share with the world. It's okay to be a fan. It's also okay to dare for more than just checking off the "like it" box. To really love it, excessively.
I'm at the point of reconsidering one of my reoccurring narratives. I believe that I am not the type of person who can be considered a fan. I'm not fan because I don't throw myself wholeheartedly and unabashedly into anything - I'm not a fanatic. It's not in my character to be non-skeptical about anything. In everything I do, there is a moment of doubt, which I always associated with distance.
I'm beginning to realize that my image of fans have been very much associated with the negative representation of them in the media and also the rather hypocritical stance in academia that dictates fandom as unprofessional.
The negative representation of fans is pervasive and remarkably gendered. It harkens back to an old association of good ole Freud between women and hysteria. The fan is hysterical to the point of losing control of one's body and actions. One of the first representations of fans came alongside the Beatles' wave of popularity. The image of a Beatles' fan is overwhelming female and hysterical. Footage of the Beatles arriving a new place or venue is often accompanied by the image of a mass of female fans, crying and screaming. I was always fascinated by these images but could never identify with them. My public face is far too stoic to engage in mass emotion.
A more recent representation of the fan comes from the TV show, Supernatural. Supernatural has a complex relationship to its incredibly active fan base - a relationship that sometimes ends up appearing in the show, and even formed one of the threads for a season's narrative. I've only watched up to the 7th season, so I can't speak to later appearances of fans. The fans that appear in Supernatural are presented as defective in some manner. They are often losers, who have in some way a social deficit that they replace with Supernatural. Becky is a clear example of the female, hysterical fan, who uses the show as a replacement for her inadequate reality. She eventually tricks the character, Dean, into marrying her. Her neediness and love for the show are depicted as abnormal and even monstrous. While she redeems herself in the end by behaving correctly, it involves denying herself the life that she wants.
This is not to say that there are no examples of male fans. Another episode in Supernatural features two male fans at a fictional Supernatural fan conference. Yet, the two male fans are depicted as less attractive and less competent than the two main characters from the show.
Similarly, in an episode of Seinfeld called "The Facepainter" being too much of a fan is looked upon with derision. Although all characters of the show are often shown as being sports' fans, their involvement consists mainly of wearing merchandise or watching their team play. When Elaine's boyfriend paints his face and expresses excessive emotion at a game, this is considered to be abnormal behaviour and requires a correction on the part of the girlfriend. The joke on her is that he responds incompletely to her correction by channeling this emotion into another form.
Where are all the positive depictions of fans? Is this why I hesitate to identify as a fan, because I don't want to be stereotyped as one of those hysterical, female fans or as abnormal? Or is it just that I don't want to be considered unprofessional.
Most academics could probably be considered closet fans. I can't speak for other areas, but in the humanities, our research focus is shaped in some way by our personal interests. Identity and research are often bedfellows (but not always). Otherwise, I believe, it would be difficult to find the motivation to spend all that time thinking about it. Sometimes, it occurs the other way around. You'll have to spend time with a topic or author and then you become a fan of it.
I wonder sometimes that if the ant-intellectualism in the broader publics is in part fueled by what is considered an abnormal, obsessional quest for knowledge. Is not the mad scientist, the fan gone academic? He (and they are mostly hes) are the monstrous reflection of the academic who is driven by an obsessive quest for knowledge. The one difference between the fan and the mad scientist is that often the mad scientist is denied emotion to the point of being emotionally cold and inhuman. At other times, the emotional register is also extreme, cue the maniacal laughter...
To that little girl, who liked her books enough to share with the world. It's okay to be a fan. It's also okay to dare for more than just checking off the "like it" box. To really love it, excessively.
