![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xparrotI'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:![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
(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.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-07 01:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-07 05:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-07 06:21 pm (UTC)I tend to think that the terms can be used generically because many people have knowledge enough of Sherlock Holmes to recognize the real world author and the within-the-canon author. That is, on hearing the two words used together, I'd expect a lot of people to have context enough to guess what they mean.
I've never seen better terms for the difference anywhere.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-08 07:26 pm (UTC)