fan types

[xparrot]

I've had a theory for a while that there are two fundamental types of fans - the intellectual/analytical kind, and the emotional kind, and major fan conflict and wank can arise when these two types interact, because they approach fanning differently, and therefore have a difficult time understanding where a fan of the other type is coming from.

(Actually, I think it's broader than just this; I have a hunch all fannish personalities can be classified on a multi-axis system similar to the Myer-Briggs personality typing, but with axes particular to fans, e.g. social vs individual interest, or producing vs absorbing. But Intellectual/Emotional would definitely be one of the elements, and one of the bigger sources of conflict, in my experience.)

Intellectual vs Emotional Fanning

Intellectual fanning is analytical in nature. You engage with the text by examining it, evaluating its good and bad points, dissecting its themes and purpose. Such examination can be in-canon (inventing backstories to explain character traits, questioning and explaining away plotholes) or outside-canon (nitpicking, analyzing the writing/direction). Intellectual fans tend to like meta: critiquing (positive and negative), nitpicking, polite friendly debate with reasonable arguments.

Emotional fanning is engaging with the text with your heart more than your mind: to prefer to feel more than think. Character love and character hate, OTPs, personally identifying with a character (or wanting to meet them and live in their world, as with Mary Sues and self-inserts) are elements of emotional fanning. Emotional fans tend to like squee - or bashing, the anti-squee, discussing what they love or hate, and what they'd like to do with it.

Intellectual and emotional fanning types come on a spectrum - most fans indulge in both to a certain extent, and while most fans I know seem to have a preference for one style or the other, most emotional fans do enjoy some meta - it's fun to talk about what you love! - and most intellectual fans do love their shows and chars - or why else would they want to meta about them at all? Both fan types are productive - I know of fanfic and vids inspired as much by the urge to meta as by devotion to a pairing or character - and we all enjoy fanning, even if the source of that enjoyment might differ.

But conflict can arise when people don't realize that what they are getting out of fanning is not necessarily what another fan is getting out of it. An emotional fan may have a difficult time understanding the pleasure of critiquing something they love (I've had people question me outright about why I meta, especially why I'll do negative meta for a series I like. I've had to explain that I find such analysis genuinely entertaining - I love a good friendly debate, I like the process of assembling an argument, finding data to support my conclusions. It's fun for me! But not everyone is so enamored of research.) Likewise, intellectual fans can have trouble understanding why emotional fans get so, well, emotional about their shows and characters (I have friends who don't understand why I have OTPs, or why I'd even watch a show when I detest one of the characters in it. *coughLanaLangcough*)

On Fan-Conflict

Obviously there's a lot of sources for fan-conflict. Intellectual fan debates can escalate into cold (or flaming hot) wars if neither side is willing to back down; emotional fans will turn their passion on one another if their pairings or character tastes conflict. Emotional fan conflagrations tend to blaze up quicker because they're more emotionally charged from the start; but they're also more likely to burn out fast as a lot of emotional fans aren't into protracted debate and so both sides will mutually decide to ignore each other. Intellectual fans might get into open flaming less, but more spectacularly so when they do, since intellectual fans tend to be long-winded.

But I've seen blow-ups occur when intellectual and emotional fans clash and misunderstand one another. An emotional fan might post squee (or bashing) which an intellectual fan might take it as an invitation to debate and comment back with a long, considered refutation (such as they would enjoy getting themselves) while the emotional fan was really looking for some shared excitement. Or an intellectual fan might post a thoughtful critique of a favorite episode which an emotional fan might take as an attack and flame them for, while the intellectual fan was really looking for reasonable argument.

The intellectual fan who gets flamed tends to dismiss the emotional fan as crazy obsessed - who gets so emotional over a TV show? - and might feel hurt/offended/angered that someone seems to hate them just for stating an opinion. The emotional fan who gets an essay back might think the intellectual fan who wrote it is crazy obsessed - who would put so much thought into a TV show? - and may be uncomfortable answering, because emotional fans tend not to indulge in meta as much, and therefore might not be as practiced at marshaling arguments to defend their opinions.

I think it can be difficult for an intellectual fan and an emotional fan to actually have a debate, for a good reason: you can't debate emotions. Intellectual fans think about their opinions; emotional fans feel them. Intellectual fans tend to want to consider why they like a series, or why they don't like it; while as emotional fans more confidently know they like it, or don't, without needing to ask themselves why. They might even find it insulting to be asked - questioning their tastes means you're questioning their personal selves. It's like asking someone to defend their reason for liking chocolate over vanilla; it's nonsensical.

On the other hand, I've rarely seen intellectual fans argued over to an opposite side, no matter how involved the argument (I can't think of a time I've been convinced to change my mind, not when it was any opinion I actually cared about, at least not in fanning); for all we might enjoy marshaling reasons to explain our likes and dislikes, when it comes down to it we pretty much all like something because we like it...

Assumptions

Most people have a tendency to interpret everyone as coming from the same basic place as themselves. So intellectual and emotional fans both tend to make assumptions when dealing with a fan of the other type.

An intellectual fan, confronted with a hostile emotional fan, tends to assume that the other fan is overly emotional and taking things too personally. Sometimes this can lead to ad hominem arguments - interpreting the emotional fan's behavior as juvenile or pathological, assuming they're a drama queen or a "speshul snowflake", that to be so passionate about a TV show, they must be this excessively emotional in all aspects of their lives, unable to separate fiction from reality. This might be true - but more likely the emotional fan derives enjoyment out of getting so emotional over just a TV show, out of being able to put their passion into something that's not that meaningful, but that they can control.

To an intellectual fan, something like character bashing can come across as not only mean-spirited but downright dangerous - what if the bashers hate a real person as vituperatively or violently as the fictional character? What's hard to understand is that emotional fans can find such bashing cathartic because the hated character is fictional; it's the same harmless pleasure offered by violent video games. Likewise, while an OTP fan may seem unreasonably hurt by a canon pairing that denies their OTP, they have the OTP to begin with because they enjoy it; it's part of their emotional bond to a show.

On the other side, an emotional fan confronted by a disagreeing intellectual fan tends to assume the other fan is being hostile, deliberately provoking a fight. For an emotional fan who is looking for fellow fans who share their enjoyment, anyone who disagrees, however well-worded and thought-out a disagreement, looks like a troll; what other motive could they have for harshing on the squee? To an intellectual fan, an opposing viewpoint is simply another fan stating their opinion; but to an emotional fan, an opposing viewpoint can seem like another fan is telling them that they are wrong for feeling the way they do about a character or an episode or whatever.

Emotional fans may not realize that an intellectual fan is intending to show them respect when they offer their disagreement - they're inviting an argument, acknowledging a fellow fan's opinion by asking them to support it. The other fan might even be playing devil's advocate, or looking for reasons to be brought around to the emotional fan's side, but that's not always what it looks like, depending on how strongly the argument is worded.

Of course, this isn't always the case. Sometimes the emotional fan might be right to believe they're being baited and attacked. Sometimes the intellectual fan might be right to believe another fan is unbalanced in their fannish obsession. But a lot of times they're just coming from a different place. I'm pretty lucky when it comes to this, because I fall right about in the middle of the spectrum - I enjoy the dickens out of meta, but I'd classify myself more as an emotional fan. While I like to reason out arguments, I feel first; I experience my favorite character love and my OTPs too powerfully for me to type myself as an intellectual. So when someone is hurt because I've dissed their OTP, I know where they're coming from and try to apologize as best I can, but I'm almost always up for a good debate. Though sometimes I find myself confused, mid-debate, because for all my arguments, really I'm trying to explain why I'm feeling the way I do, and that's never easy...

ETA: meganbmoore makes a good point that "intellectual" has some negative connotations; "analytical" is perhaps preferable as a more neutral descriptor.

ETA2: Reading over the comments (which have been marvelous, thank you! My analytical side is overjoyed with the meaty responses - if you enjoyed reading this theory I definitely advise that you continue on to the comments, a lot of smart people are making a lot of great points) I worry my essay might have muddled a crucial point: intellectual/analytical fans are emotionally involved with their shows and fandoms. I believe intellectual and emotional fans get equal pleasure from fanning; the difference is from where they derive their enjoyment. More clarification here. Also, it should be stressed that this isn't a binary designation, but points on a spectrum - I think most fans are both analyticals and emotionals, but most seem to have a general preference for one or the other.

Comments

[naye]

I love your crunchy, delicious brain a LOT. ♥ You are quite awesome!

I don't really have anything to add, except that I wish I knew exactly where I fall on the spectrum! I do tend to be mostly intellectual, in that I don't really do OTPs, or the kind of character love that could keep me interested in a show I hated. But! I do a lot of pure squee that I don't want harsh. Of course, that might be due to using fandom as a happy place... And there's the warm and fuzzy love for h/c which I just can't explain, and the way I fall in love with shows for no apparent reason, I just. Love them. With all my heart, and it defeats every attempt to really explain or debate.

So - I'm an intellectual fan who takes a lot of pleasure in emotional fanning? *g*

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

whee, glad it makes sense! Gnine advised me that the first draft came across as too patronizingly proscriptive, and while I tried to dampen that, I'm still a bit worried it sounds like I'm passing judgment when I'm really trying to observe (...well, and to tell people to stop flaming and get along! Which maybe is a bit patronizing, but...I can't help but think we'd get along better if we just understood where everyone was coming from? ^^;;)

Anyway - I think to really determine intellectual vs emotional you'd have to survey a bunch of fans, figure out their tastes and how they fall...the personality scales are descriptive, and they need lots of stats to properly describe. I kind of think you might be in the middle - I don't think all emotional fans have OTPs necessarily, more that's one outlet for emotions, but there are others, too. You do have favorite characters, though, yeah, not as strong as me...but the anti-squee-harshing is more an emotional thing, and you're more sensitive to that than me? Hmmm....!

[miscellanny.livejournal.com]

That was really interesting to read, thanks! I'd add more, but I'm a quite monstrously emotional fan. ;)

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Hee, yeah - this is why I wonder if I am an intellectual fan after all, because long-winded doesn't begin to describe me ^^

[myownghost.livejournal.com]

excellent and insightful post. i think you're right about all this. it rings very true to my experience. i'm always on the emotional end of life (and therefore of fandom) and tend to get rattled when someone wants to debate anything with me. sometimes i have felt aggressed-upon, when it was probably more as you describe, an intellectual fan wanting to engage but on a level on which i'm not at home. next time that happens, i'll try to remember your post. :)

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Yes, I love debating - to a certain extent, and then I have to pull out before I get too emotional about it - but I have friends who really aren't into it. They can do it when pushed, but it's not fun for them, and fanning is supposed to be fun, as far as I'm concerned! When replying to an intellectual fan, I'd advise keeping your replies polite but brief, to discourage further argument (and I think it's polite to say, "I don't really feel like debating this, sorry.")

[ariadne83]

the emotional fan derives enjoyment out of getting so emotional over just a TV show, out of being able to put their passion into something that's not that meaningful, but that they can control.
That makes so much sense (for the record, I classify myself more as an emotional fan, too). I wonder if emotional fans are more likely to be focused on a single show in their posts, VS intellectuals who like to discuss, compare and contrast the story telling techniques of multiple shows?

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I think you might be onto something here! I know for me personally, I can watch and enjoy multiple shows, and I do compare and contrast them a lot - but I can only really be in fannish love with one show at a time. So right now I'm watching Traders and SPN and Psych among others, but SGA has my heart...even when I'm comparing SGA to the others.

[bluepard.livejournal.com]

Good analysis.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Hee - I like observing fanning too much, I fear! ^^;

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

This is so beautifully spelled out! It's something that's been dawning on me as I've engaged in livejournal fandom (previously I'd been in groups or boards), but without quite getting what I was realizing. Because I adore, I mean adore tearing into things I love: analyzing the nuts and bolts and the whos and whys. And I especially love to chat with people who don't agree with me. (Actually, what I most love is when groups engage, so even more ideas and theories get spilled out.)

And... there was a time or two where I commented on a post with an "ooh, that's interesting, here's how I saw it differently" and didn't get a response or got a sort of coldish response and I realized, eep! not the sort of post wanted. So I slunk away, and I felt kind of bad because I felt like I'd... well, harshed a squee or squeed a harsh, or whathaveyou, without meaning to. Which wasn't my intention at all. So I've been a bit more careful about looking to see what kind of discussion is wanted.

And this explains exactly what the difference is! :)

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Yes - I think livejournal fandom is weighted a bit more toward the emotional side...not that there isn't a ton of meta going on too, but the personal ties between people tend to make for a more emotional environment, perhaps?

And yes, it can be hard to understand that another fan doesn't enjoy something that gives you so much joy! (I've noticed a similar divide when it comes to responding to fan-works, too - like the common debates about concrit of fanfic, when some people crave it and some people think it's rude and uncalled for; both sides are applying their standards to the other group...) I really like debating with you because it's clear you enjoy it as much (or more!) than I do; I never feel like you want to harsh my squee, or that I'm at risk of harshing your squee. But such detailed examination might seem intimidating or even aggressive to a fan not expecting it...

--Which doesn't mean I think you should stop it by any means, just, yeah, make sure you know it's welcome before you indulge! Which you know already...(I wish emotional fans, too, would be more comfortable just saying, "sorry, this isn't my cup of tea!" - it can be difficult to say that to an earnest debater, because it can feel like you're conceding the argument, rather than just walking away...)

[runpunkrun]

Great way of looking at this!

For me, being fannish about a show means having an OTP, reading fanfic for it, and being emotionally involved. I can watch and enjoy shows -- and even read fic for them -- without having an OTP, but without an OTP there's no emotional bond. I'm all about character interaction; sometimes I don't even notice the plot. Which is handy with shows like Smallville and SGA, because it means I'm less likely to trip and fall into plot holes.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Hee - some of this came from a conversation with the bro yesterday - we made the mistake of showing him SGA, because he loved SG-1. He was...not impressed. And keeps insisting it's not a good show because it's so predictable, none of the plots are at all original. To which I can only blink and admit um, yeah, totally true, but why are you watching for the plot? Who cares about plot, there's Rodney McKay! And John's in love with him! What more do you need?

[ugbun.livejournal.com]

I don't think I have ever seen this addressed so well. Its a great theory really.
I actually think it should be interesting to see the two types debate which type of fan is better. Not that I think one type of fan is better than the other, I'd say I am a blend that leans to emotional myslef.

Well, thanks for getting me thinking again. I think this piece and your other writing of how your fav shows are like lovers should be in its own panel about fandom in a anime convention somewhere.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Yeah...I don't think most fans think their type is better, especially, so much as that they don't quite realize the other types even exists. I've seen emotional fans wondering how anyone can truly fan on a show without an OTP; I'm seen intellectual fans thinking that only immature teens could get so worked up about OTPs and things. And then, a lot of us are a blend (I'm wondering if I'm more on the intellectual side than I thought, because most of the commenters here are self-identifying as emotional, when I think it should be more a 50-50 divide...either that or my essay was unintentionally slanted toward the emotional side, so people don't want to be called out as intellectuals? Hmmm...)

[droolfangrrl.livejournal.com]

Hah! I've said "Thanks for sharing your story" and gotten back "You're welcome, I think."

I can end up being overly intellectual, I guess.

Thanks for giving me some perspective one that one.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

There's no such thing as 'overly intellectual' in general, I don't think; it's only in specific interactions. When you're dealing with an emotional fan, it's better to try to tone down the intellectual analysis, but with a fellow intellectual fan, you'll probably both enjoy the hell out of yourselves by indulging! But figuring out another fan's preference when you don't know them personally can be awful tricky...

[astrumporta.livejournal.com]

I think my biggest "conflicts" aside from ship vs not (heh) have been in arguments with people who want to explain what they see in an episode in the context of canon no matter what the production considerations might be. For example, a character is barely in an SGA episode because he/she is filming another ep in which he/she is central. I'll see fans argue about, for example, "Rodney should have gone back to Earth with John! What is his problem!" when it's clear to me it was a production decision, not meant to reflect on the character. So maybe two sub-sets of analytical fans are those who prefer to find canon reasons to explain everything versus those who step outside canon and seek to understand what the writers/producers were up to. Not that one is better than another...

I tend to be more toward the emotional side, which includes getting emo about what the producers/writers are up to. :)

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, yeah, I think you've got a point about in-canon vs outside-canon debates, though I wonder if they're actually a different axis...I think those can be emotional or intellectual, really. An in-canon intellectual would argue the legitimacy of the plot reasons given (Rodney had to help the kiddie planet) while an outside-canon intellectual would cite actor unavailability. While as an in-canon emotional would get mad at Rodney for letting John down, and an outside-canon emotional OTP fan would get mad at the writers for not writing a more convincing reason (As a mostly outside-canon emotional OTPer myself, I was disappointed Rodney couldn't be in the ep more, but happy that they'd given him such a caring scene...)

I tend to be more toward the emotional side, which includes getting emo about what the producers/writers are up to. :)

Yeah...myself, I have a tendency to view things I like inside-canon and things I don't like outside-canon. So John loving Rodney is obviously true and I'll track where it started (we believe he realized it somewhere around "Tao") but Rodney's thing for Keller is just badly written romance, not what the chars really would feel XP

[busaikko]

I have a similar problem with writing, because I tend to write popular OTP-type pairs but from an intellectual (I might say querying or curious?) perspective, not an emotional one. 'Emotional' fans who click the link invariably feel betrayed, because I take the 'ship and the characters apart to see what makes them tick (or not), instead of keeping the OTP sacred. Personally, I think I need to warn for that, but I'm never sure of the wording....

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I keep a cautious distance from your fics, because as good a writer as you are, they tend to clash with my OTP sensibilities. ^^; Especially in fic-reading, I am much more an emotional fan; I will take a ridiculous happy ending over fascinating dark meta fic any day. I don't always write what I like to read, however... The odd thing is, I actually like non-OTP relationships as well - I've found I really rather like writing stories about failed or failing relationships, people trying to make things work and not being able to manage it. I just can't bear reading it done to my OTPs - I'm a part-time intellectual fan, I guess? (Of course some emotional fans love sad emotions, too; people who eat up angst and love to cry over death fic are emotional fans, just with different tastes in emotions. And here I suspect I'm an emotional reader but an intellectual writer, because I've never cried over a death-fic I've written myself, for all I dislike reading death-fic because they make me depressed.)

[absenceofmind.livejournal.com]

i think you and i are similar types of fans. i like meta too, but i don't like OTPs because they fascinate me or anything, i just like them because i like them. it helps if they seem plausible or i get vibes from canon, but i still have to LIKE them both as characters and as a couple.

i know very intellectual fans too, though, and i think my best clue is that i tend to relate better to the emotional ones. DON'T BE MESSING WITH MY OTPs, OK???

XD still, i think the best rule of fandom is that you're out to enjoy the experience, not to ruin anyone else's. if more ppl would just take things a little less seriously, we could probably avoid a lot of nonsense, oh sigh.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes...a lot of my best fan-friends are more intellectual types, and I have great discussions with them, but they tend to give me weird looks when I flail about my OTPs. And I have a hard time explaining exactly what I'm seeing, that it's not just that I think a relationship is intriguing, or that I like both the characters so it's fun to get them together; it's that I love their love, that it makes me squishy inside, and traumatizes me to see it broken...(it's extra confusing for me because I started OTPing as a gen fan, and still will do gen OTPs, to the confusions of slashers - I don't always care if my OTPs have sex; I just care that they're each other's Most Important Person. Gojyo can sleep with as many women as he wants, as long as it's always Hakkai he's coming home to...)

And yeah, sometimes I better understand other OTP fans - even if you have a different OTP than me, you tell me you love a couple, I'm not going to try to argue you out of it! Respect the pairing, dude!

That being said - I think there is a problem sometimes when peoples' definition of enjoyment clashes. To an intellectual fan, inviting a friendly debate is a fun way to fan, a way to share their enjoyment with other fans; but an emotional fan might not read it that way. Or a fan might leave concrit on a fic because they honestly like getting detailed concrit on their own fic, so they think they're being friendly - but an author who doesn't want concrit isn't likely to take it well. So both sides end up upset and baffled at the other fan's rudeness, when they were just being polite...it's a mess!

[ender24]

LOL, I should totally say something intellectual, but OMG , I AM SO EMOTIONAL! right now!

(my state still didnt stop me from pimping your meta to your own com *g*)

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Hee! (thanks for the pimping, is much appreciated! ^_^)

[blisstasteful.livejournal.com]

You make alot of very good points here. I definately fall closer to the emotional end of the spectrum.

And is it just my reading, or should these to points;

in-canon (inventing backstories to explain character traits, questioning and explaining away plotholes) or outside-canon (nitpicking, analyzing the writing/direction).

be the other way around? Apologies if I'm just mis-reading.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Yes, given the prevalence of OTPing and such, I think there might be more of us emotional fans out there - though the intellectual fans tend to be more verbose and perhaps better known!

Ah, I didn't really properly define in-canon/extra-canon. "In-canon" here refers to examining the text from within the text - in-story explanations, as opposed to outside-canon, which is looking at the text as a TV show (or whatever) - looking at the production, actors, special f/x, whatever. For example, in-canon, Lex left Smallville because he (supposedly) died; outside-canon, Lex left because Michael Rosenbaum quit the show. (Nitpicking can actually be in-canon or extra-canon, so I misspoke myself there a bit.)

[attaccabottoni.livejournal.com]

I am both an intellectual and emotional fan of your meta. *beams* Seriously, I read personality psychology for fun, even though I generally get bored of dry academic texts. I don't claim to know individuals in fandom very well, but I do make distinctions of types of fannishness, and it's pretty much like figuring out puzzle pieces and see where they fit, not for the convenience of typecasting or labeling people, but in simple acknowledgment that we are all part of this and that we all belong here one way or another, and hopefully when organized altogether somehow we make a pretty picture.

I've been waiting for someone to make an honest psychosocial analysis of fannish behavior without REAL ISSUES giving everything a more colored context or pushing a point towards a certain judgment. (Which is why I prefer staying in the fandom sidelines, not because I'm spineless and unprincipled, but because I just like having to think without there being some debate scoring or high stakes over vested interests.) Frankly, I'm pretty much content to bask in the disjointed company of people who find meaning in fandom, and I feel like my life is made richer from being exposed to the mere existence of it already. In inspiring each other to think and feel, it can be a painful process and friction is unavoidable. But if we're reminded that we each bring our own objectives and messy selves into this common realm of wonder, then there might be less hurt.

Despite many unwritten guidelines, we haven't really got a firm definition on what good fan behavior consists of or what good fan is, but my idea of it is working together towards enjoyment and betterment through outward expression of inner creativity. Or in emotional terms, it's having all sorts of fun with others in doing what you love.

Er, I didn't mean for all of that to come out, esp. since I should be sleeping by now. To summarize my personal view: Fiction is my catharsis. I geekily squee at your meta. :D

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Hee - I love pop psychology (was a psych major, yo!) and analyzing people, though, as much fun as I have with it, I do get nervous about doing it, too - worried that I might come across as passing judgment, as you say. And personality typing is a tricky business, because I think it's fine when it's purely descriptive, just observing what people are like; but it's dangerous if people try to make it prescriptive, if you try to say, "this person has trait X, so that means they will do Y." Because you can't predict behavior...which is why I tried to sprinkle many "may"s and "might"s and "can"s throughout the essay; I never want to be caught saying that everyone of one type thinks or acts in one way, because that would just be ridiculous!

And I like interacting with both emotional and intellectual fans (I say I'm emotional, but more of my friends are intellectual type, I think!) - both types bring a lot of great stuff to the fandom table. It just makes me unhappy when those differences that should bring us joy cause friction instead...what I hope for is not for emotionals and intellectuals to stop talking, but for them to understand one another so that they might talk more, share more...

...all that being said, I still can't bear OTP-breaking fic. Breaks my wee heart, it does! XP

(now go to bed! which direction are you off from Japan? it's going on 3 AM here ^^;)

[less-star.livejournal.com]

Very interesting idea, and it rings true, too. I'm a pretty emotional fan, myself, although it's easier to be "intellectual" about parts of a fandom that you're not as invested in. For example I've spent a lot of time analyzing the various aspects of SGA's Elizabeth, both in the show and how people write her in fic. Rodney? He's awesome in every way and just the thought that not everyone might think so is nearly painful to me (I, uh, gave up pretending to be an adult when it comes to fandom quite a while ago). Lots of food for thought, thanks for posting!

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

*laughs* I know exactly how you feel - about all of it, really (there are people who don't believe Rodney McKay is one of the greatest things in the history of ever? Seriously?? Say it ain't so! XDDD) But, yeah, that's a great point...when I'm less invested it's more fun to be intellectual, but past a certain point I lose objectivity; I can't manage intellectualism anymore!

[trystings.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to figure out if I'm an emotional fan or an intellectual fan and I guess I'm both. I don't care about the intellectual side of a show (the meta, the back story, the character development) if I'm not emotionally invested as well (Rodney! John! TEAM!!). I also think that getting into the back story and picking apart the characters always calls for emotional investment, so when is something intellectual and when is it emotional?

But I've seen blow-ups occur when intellectual and emotional fans clash and misunderstand one another. An emotional fan might post squee (or bashing) which an intellectual fan might take it as an invitation to debate and comment back with a long, considered refutation (such as they would enjoy getting themselves) while the emotional fan was really looking for some shared excitement.

I'd like to add something to that. I think that when it comes down to fanning, whether emotional or intellectual, you also have to take into consideration that not every fan possesses the same ease with English. Could be that a person is just not articulate period, could be that English is their second language (like for me), could be that they're fifteen years younger and a lot of the world building, back story, genocide references goes over their teenage heads and they stick to their safe OTP. It doesn't mean that they are not intellectual about their fanning, it just means they can't comment *back* with a long, considered refutation.

Speaking for myself, I know I have quite a lot to say about SGA on an intellectual level, but it is all in Dutch and since SGA isn't even aired here in Holland, the only ones to share my impassive cool-as-a-cucumber-opinions with are two (quite clueless meta wise ;)) male coworkers. In English I often find myself reduced to voicing emotions only (omg, squee, OTP, Rodney, John!!) simply for lack of words. I'm also very self-conscious when it comes to voicing my opinion in English (yes, I deleted this comment twice *g*), so you won't see me putting the long-winded meta's that I share with my two male coworkers in writing.

So for assumptions: it may not always be a case of 'omg! hostile, how dare she squash my squee', but in some cases merely frustration of how to get the point across as well worded as the intellectual poster did, which comes off as cool or emotional.

(wow, took me a while to get to the point. Hope it made sense. XD)

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Hmm, great points here! I think I didn't quite make it clear in the original essay - a lot of the difference between intellectual/emotional fanning is not in how you get into a fandom (which I think is for most fans an emotional thing), but how you enjoy the fandom once you're into it - whether you derive more pleasure from the analysis, or the squee, or both.

So for assumptions: it may not always be a case of 'omg! hostile, how dare she squash my squee', but in some cases merely frustration of how to get the point across as well worded as the intellectual poster did, which comes off as cool or emotional.

Yes, this is absolutely true - in my essay I was trying to present a possible scenario (something I've seen played out before), but not the only scenario by a long shot. (I apologize if it came across like I was saying such interactions only happen in one way - I'd never try to account for everything people do in one statement!) There are a lot of reasons why someone wouldn't answer a long refutation, and that it's in opposition to their fanning style is only one of many (not to mention, some emotional fans do like meta when given the excuse to indulge, it's just not something they seek out...)

--Also, may I just say, I didn't realize you were an English-as-a-second-language user, your English is fantastic (wah! There are so many people online with amazing bilingual skills, I envy you! but, yeah, I can imagine the frustration, expressing yourself in your non-native tongue. Considering how I struggle just to say simple things in Japanese - ack, fanning must be hard! Still I'd love to see the meta if you manage to translate any...)

But, yes - I think in all fannish interactions, the most important thing is to try to understand where the other fan is coming from: to not assume anything - or, I think, to assume (until proven otherwise) that your fellow fan is just as interested in enjoying the show and sharing that enjoyment as you are; they just might have different abilities, or different ways of enjoying themselves!

[with-apostrophe.livejournal.com]

Most people have a tendency to interpret everyone as coming from the same basic place as themselves

Ain't that the truth! I think this instinct does more to harm the relationships and dialogue than anything else. It's hard to overcome. This I know from experience.

I see both the intellectual and emotional sides in myself. Interestingly, I have become more emotional when reacting to the show itself, and have drawn away from participating in discussions of episodes after they've just aired. Then again, I love meta, and research but usually meta that spans a few episodes, or all of them. I also often find myself head desking at people who seem to be getting too emotional. It's a TV SHOW!!!

I like the observation you make in the comments about how the intellectal approach can often have its limits. I've seen people who have been able to criticise their favourite character, and point out the plot holes, and analyse things, blow a gasket because the canon suddenly made fanon out of one of their central tenets concerning the show. It's given me whiplash before, but their reactions, and my counter-reaction of shock make more sense now.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I go back and forth myself - if I disliked an episode, I'm more likely to approach it intellectually; if I liked it I tend to be more emotional about it. And yes, the more distance I have from a show, the more intellectual I'll be.

[corvus-imbrifer.livejournal.com]

What a coincidence, I was just talking to someone about the phrase 'are we watching the same show?' It usually means, I suspect 'are we watching for the same reasons?'

Have you seen this:

http://princessofg.livejournal.com/246683.html?format=light

It goes to the heart of the issue, I think, by addressing how the Internet has contributed to the creation of this situation. I'm firmly on the Vulcan side of things (and that does /not/ mean lacking emotion, it means controlling emotions, theng queue) and abandoned general discussion boards (that would be TWoP) because I didn't like trying to have my nitpicking, analytic discussion in amongst the folk that wanted to squee and hear no dissention. Subjectivity is fine, but I would find one of two things would happen: I would be violently and brutally assaulted for harshing squee (clearly I am evil and a hater and must be silenced) or I would cause someone to like something less (by pointing out a flaw). Neither is fun. (And that flaw could not be explained away by saying 'It didn't bother me,' 'you're just wrong' or 'are we watching the same show?')

I am not sure I can sign off on the division of intellect/emotional as a description. I'm of the first camp, but that doesn't mean I'm not emotionally attached. If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother thinking about it, much less posting. On the other side: just because I find something unsatisfactory writing-wise, I'm not calling you stupid for liking it. (Except Ruby. No forgiveness.) Ahem. You like what you like. That's subjective. But it still may be bad writing, and that is objective. And even if it is bad writing, it may be wildly popular, which means it's a good thing for ratings.

While I see the problem of the uneven playing field cited above (how do you argue with the intellectual snob) I'm not sure that need apply. Don't bother, if you don't care about those details. The article I linked to above makes the case that for the fervent fan (the emotional one), the shows themselves have become secondary to the Religious Attachment to the show. Discussing (and defending to the death) the episodes and characters is now the paramount purpose, and one logs on to sites to mingle with the like minded. The sacred whatever (show, character, pairing) must be defended with vigorous zeal and unswerving loyalty. For such folk it is /not/ 'just a TV Show.' It is filling the same emotional (psychological/chemical/addictive) place as religion. At that point, it is not a debate.

P.S. I abandoned TWoP before I posted something like 'Just because I use a show as a scratching post doesn't mean you can't continue to use it as a vibrator.' That would have been unproductive.

Very insightful, and I hope leads to more understanding. Or higher fences.

[amalnahurriyeh.livejournal.com]

'Just because I use a show as a scratching post doesn't mean you can't continue to use it as a vibrator.'

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WIN.

Although this raises a question for me about how TWoP boards differ from show to show--I started out on TWoP as a fan (first for West Wing back when it was still on, now for X-Files) and find TWoP fandom to be much more intellectual than LJ fandom, and than I hear major XF places on the internet are (there has been a lot of hilarious snarking about Haven lately on LJ). Granted, there is copious squee--I remember signing on to the Josh/Donna board the night they finally got together: EEEEEEEEEEE that was madness--but the draconian mod policies do help keep things from going insane. Anyway, random thought from a random person.

[ravenbell.livejournal.com]

Great post. Really well thought out and makes a lot of sense. I think most people are a mixture of both types of fan, or switch back and forth when it comes to different aspects of a show.

I'm mostly an intellectual type who realized very early on that I was the odd one out in most LJ fandom comms that preferred to talk about shipping and squee over plots and meta. Actually, I suspect most single-fandom communites tend to attract more emotional types - I rarely see them on the general movie or television or anime boards that I frequent outside of LJ.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

You're the second person to mention single-fandoms vs multi-fandoms, that emotionals tend to be show monogamists more than intellectuals. This is very true in my experience - I watch more than one show at a time, but I only ever hardcore fan (as far as reading/writing fanfic, etc.) goes on one at at time. Though I do tend to change fandoms faster than many fans do (I've been into SGA for a year now, which is breaking records for me...!)

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Hi, I really liked this post and am going to link to it from my LJ because I think most of your observations are pretty spot-on. (I'll remove the link if you don't want it linked.)

Though, if I can give a small criticism, I think "analytical" suits better than "intellectual." It describes the behaviors a little better, and I think most would be more willing to recognize themselves by that term than by "intellectual," which unfortunately tends to have negative connotations for some people.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link!

Hmm...you have a good point about analytical vs intellectual, though it's tricky to change it now! (For me, intellectual has always been more a positive term...my father's an intellectual snob, it crossed over!) Though "emotional" is often seen as a negative trait (especially among analytical types), so maybe they're equivalently negative?

[issen4.livejournal.com]

But conflict can arise when people don't realize that what they are getting out of fanning is not necessarily what another fan is getting out of it.

Very true. We're all in fandom for different things, and it's difficult to work out our different fantasies, whether it's discussing an episode to bits, or squeeing over a character.

Enjoyed this post, hope it's ok I link to it.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link! ^^

[lizvogel.livejournal.com]

Here via metafandom.

I think you've hit on a key distinction. I have a friend who's almost exclusively an emotional fan, in your parlance -- she likes shows for the emotional satisfaction, and is generally oblivious to things like massive plot holes or internal inconsistencies that make it impossible for me (a more intellectual fan, though not exclusively so) to enjoy the thing. And then occasionally we both like the same show, such as SGA, and end up having some fairly surreal conversations about it. Sometimes we both squee over the same scene for entirely different reasons!

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

(Ah, Metafandom! That explains the comment rush! cool ^_^)

Yeah, I had that problem from the opposite side with my brother - he is not impressed with SGA because of its plotholes and poor scifi; I can't argue his points, can only say I like it for different reasons...

(...heh, I've been in the majority of fandoms in your icon, I think!)

[amalnahurriyeh.livejournal.com]

I am totally fascinated by this way of dividing fanning up. I suspect it's quite accurate, especially about causes of conflict among fen. And I think the Meyers Briggs of fandom would be a very useful project. :)

Now I self-reflect at length (apologies): I would think I am an intellectual/analytical fan first: I have a strong consciousness that I'm trying to do something interesting and transformative to the characters as I write them, and I'm quite political in my fanning. At the same time, a huge portion of my fannish life revolves around the fact that I overidentify to a frightening degree with one Fox Mulder. (So much. SO MUCH.) I also realized during our recent porn battle that I have trouble reading a lot of pairings involving a member of my OTP. (There's one alternate I can handle, but only for teh sexy tiems, not for teh luv.) My investments are deep and personal, while at the same time I have this huge analytical brain that I crank up while I'm writing and meta'ing and everything. Perhaps I could say my fic production comes from an analytic place, whereas my fannish consumption come from an emotional place? Is that logical, or impossible?

Also, I heart your icon.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I could say my fic production comes from an analytic place, whereas my fannish consumption come from an emotional place?

I think this is totally possible, and is the case for a lot of fans - I produce a lot of meta and will happily debate episode plots, etc, at great length; but I prefer to read fanfic that scratches my emotional itches (I cannot handle OTP-breaking fanfic; it depresses me). When I write fic, I sometimes write emotionally based "this is what I want!" fics, and then sometimes I'll write darker, more analytical stories - the irony with those is that they're stories I enjoy writing, but would not enjoy or have any interest reading, if anyone else had written them.

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

The intellectual fan who gets flamed tends to dismiss the emotional fan as crazy obsessed - who gets so emotional over a TV show? - and might feel hurt/offended/angered that someone seems to hate them just for stating an opinion.

Just about every time something in canon has made me deeply upset/angry and I've verbally exprssed it, someone's had that exact reaction ("Why do you hate me for having an opinion? My opinion is valid, too, and by getting so upset when you hear it, you're saying that it's not!" etc.).

The real problem is, deep down inside? If I'm deeply emotionally invested in something, I probably don't think conflicting opinions are valid -- not really, not in my heart-of-hearts. Intellectually, I can acknowledge that people have a right to have different opinions about canon/shipping/characterization/etc., but on a deep, visceral level, I know that their opinions are Wrong, Wrong, OMG Wrong. And the more I'm exposed to conflicting opinions, the more polarized I get -- people attempting to play devil's advocate, for example, just make me more defensive/angry/upset.

I think the commentor who described intensely emotional fannishness as being like a religion was on to something -- I've always referred to the process of acquiring a new OTP as being "converted" to a ship, and I've occasionally jokingly referred to finding my current main fandom as "my Road to Damascus experience". And after all, the very fact that we call our source texts "canon" I think says something about the importance we attach to them (even if did possibly start out as a Sherlock Holmes fandom injoke).

Actually, I have this sort of half-formed meta-thing in my head about how Christianity is basically a fandom of it's own, just a much older one -- and one with a similar intelectual/emotional divide. Look at the First and Second Great Awakenings and difference between, say, Anglican and Baptist sermons for intellectual and emotional fans not understanding and mistrusting one another (18th century Anglicans thought Methodists and, later, Baptists were possibly pathological and subject to "strange enthusiasms"). ...weirdly, despite being a hardcore emotional fan in fiction-based fandoms, I come down on the intellectual side of things in Christianity-fandom.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

*laughs* See, I think it makes more sense to me to call religion a fandom than call fandom a religion! I've had the thought before about Christian fangirls and fanboys. And yeah, we do say "canon" - but rather than say fandom is based on a religious model, I'm more comfortable with the idea that fandom and religion are both based on another social/group model of behavior (at least fans don't kill competing OTP sects. ...yet, anyway!)

The real problem is, deep down inside? If I'm deeply emotionally invested in something, I probably don't think conflicting opinions are valid -- not really, not in my heart-of-hearts.

Yeah...I get this feeling sometimes myself. I think the issue is that most people don't make a point of stating their opinion "this is what I think, but your view is valid" - actually I think intellectual fans are more inclined to say, "Well, you can like it, but objectively it's not very good!" Which is tantamount to telling you you have bad taste - that you like something, but you shouldn't like it, that you're wrong for liking it. It's subtly passing judgment on your personality, and that's hard to handle.

Then, too, polarizing over a issue is a natural human reaction; when someone tells us "you're wrong" most people have a tendency to dig their heels in and fight back. Intellectuals are more likely to gather more opposing evidence, emotionals are more likely to get more passionate; different reactions to the same feelings, really...