Fandom and entitlement

[Rinel]

It's not a democracy, but horseshit is still horseshit, and while viewers are not owed anything, the whole "GRRM is not your bitch" argument is disingenuous and grating.

No, GRRM does not owe me anything. But when you create a story, there's an expectation that you'll finish it. Do I want GRRM to kill himself finishing his child molestation epic? Not really. Do I think that it's appropriate to hand off your work to someone else when you decide you don't want to work on it any more? Yes. I think that's not only acceptable, but laudable.

And I reserve the right to call a creator who decides to call it quits halfway through mean names. Because while he doesn't owe me anything, I don't owe him my respect, either.

[Arkandel]

There's a flipside to all this, and it's that ironically hatred is also an expression of love.

When Chronicles of Shannara was shit - which was very often indeed - there were no legions of fans expressing their outrage on the internet because... there were no legions of fans. No one cared enough to hate it.

[Cupcake]

Death of the Author has always been an arguable topic. I don't have a problem with fanfic, and my days of reading it with any kind of direct interest are long over. Come to think of it, my favorite fics were always the ones that expanded the content of canon or were very, very obviously AU and intended that way, rather than "agenda fic", particularly of the sort that pushes ships that fandom becomes obsessed with (I'm looking at you, Sterek fans).

On rare occasion, a fanfic writer ascends, and it's rather nice - like for that one lady who Xena fanfic and actually ended up becoming a writer of some pretty good episodes.

So I can't honestly say whether or not I invest in the notion of Death of the Author, or maybe I kinda sorta do, but only in certain ways.

[Coin]

@Cupcake said in Fandom and entitlement:

Death of the Author has always been an arguable topic. I don't have a problem with fanfic, and my days of reading it with any kind of direct interest are long over. Come to think of it, my favorite fics were always the ones that expanded the content of canon or were very, very obviously AU and intended that way, rather than "agenda fic", particularly of the sort that pushes ships that fandom becomes obsessed with (I'm looking at you, Sterek fans).

On rare occasion, a fanfic writer ascends, and it's rather nice - like for that one lady who Xena fanfic and actually ended up becoming a writer of some pretty good episodes.

So I can't honestly say whether or not I invest in the notion of Death of the Author, or maybe I kinda sorta do, but only in certain ways.

Death of the Author can be separated into different sections, only some of which are in play in this conversation.

If I never have to go head-to-head with Adorno again it'll be too soon; but given my university choices, I will. And probably soon.

[Thenomain]

Lindsay Ellis did a bit on Death Of the Author. Mostly about history of the topic, and no real conclusions.

Because there are no real conclusions. There's a stance to take, and that's about it.

[insomniac7809]

@Thenomain said in Fandom and entitlement:

Lindsay Ellis did a bit on Death Of the Author. Mostly about history of the topic, and no real conclusions.

Because there are no real conclusions. There's a stance to take, and that's about it.

I'd say that she did quibble with the idea, particularly in the modern age, that the brand and presence of the author can be divorced from the text, especially with the unprecedented availability of creators in the modern media landscape and social media.

Not entirely sure I agree, as such, if only because (in my limited experience) exposure to the author comes after consuming the text, rather than before, but not sure I disagree either...

[Cupcake]

@Thenomain Oh, you mean my nigh decade long lady crush?

[Thenomain]

@Cupcake said in Fandom and entitlement:

@Thenomain Oh, you mean my nigh decade long lady crush?

She can rub me the wrong way, but she is absolutely someone I enjoy getting rubbed by.

...That came off the wrong way.

... ...I just can't stop the references.

I discovered Ellis via Korra. No joke. I really never liked Nostalgia Critic. Not even a little. His voice, his attitude, so I never ran into Nostalgia Chick, but one day I was curious who did the voice for Eska and it was someone I never heard of named "Aubrey Plaza". Hold on, it gets better. Aubrey did this fake movie trailer for College Humor. "Daria, The Movie".

Have you seen it? You must see it.

And in the sidebar, there's someone called "Nostalgia Chick" doing a retrospective in what made Daria great, and I watch it and I'm astounded. Here's someone doing the Nostalgia Critic thing in a way that's much more tolerable. I wondered for a moment if Nostalgia Critic knew that someone was doing his thing better than him. That didn't last long. It also didn't last long until my Youtube account started throwing this woman named "Lindsay Ellis" at me, and in short order I was watching this incredibly extensive video essay on what was wrong with The Hobbit movies, and that was it. I was hooked.

—

As an aside: I only now realized while researching this that Eska and Fake Daria was Audrey Freaking Plaza.

—

I can understand if she gets under some people's fingernails. She is very blunt in her conclusions, but I can follow them and learn about things like "death of the author".

Another interesting conversation with the fanbase was had by nerd favorite Joss Whedon, though not framed this way at the time. It's been too long that I don't remember what Buffy episode he was talking about, but he was very vocal on social media that the characters didn't belong to the fans, then a little while later made a much softer-worded statement that yeah, yeah they did.

—

What do I think? I think fans are fine. The problem in any field are extremists, and the current social media scene makes extremism very easy.

[Pandora]

@Ghost said in MU* Gripes and Peeves:

@Arkandel said in MU* Gripes and Peeves:

Should it be? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question.

I think the point is moot.

(I havent seen the latest Fantastic Beasts movie so correct me if this is inaccurate)

The author chose for the details of the sexuality of these characters not to be the focus of the story. The camera, it could be said, isn't focusing on that in either the books or the movies. It doesn't matter if a character is gay, straight, or anything. If their story isn't focused on their romance and relationships, then their personal sexuality may not even matter to the story at all. It's like those people that are quasi-demanding Poe and Finn in Star Wars be a couple because they love the idea. If romance isn't their story arc, then daydream whatever you want is happening off-camera, but not at the expense of the story the author has chosen to tell.

This is J.K. Rowling's fault for Twitter-inserting canon into her stories that she's not actually putting into the books and movies. She's dangling source material, then not including it in her works.

Could there be good story in expounding on Dumbledore's romances? Sure. Is it the story the author is telling? No.

Dumbledore and Grindelwald's past relationship is a huge plot point in the latest Fantastic Beasts movie, you'd have to see it or at least read the synopsis to really wade into this one, this is past the point of Twitter posts now, it's canon af.

[Auspice]

I haven't seen the movie yet but how many sex scenes were in it? Because the main issue I saw with her Twitter posting was that she was commenting on the specific sex lives (not sexuality) of children's books characters.

[Ghost]

@Pandora said in Fandom and entitlement:

@Ghost said in MU* Gripes and Peeves:

@Arkandel said in MU* Gripes and Peeves:

Should it be? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question.

I think the point is moot.

(I havent seen the latest Fantastic Beasts movie so correct me if this is inaccurate)

The author chose for the details of the sexuality of these characters not to be the focus of the story. The camera, it could be said, isn't focusing on that in either the books or the movies. It doesn't matter if a character is gay, straight, or anything. If their story isn't focused on their romance and relationships, then their personal sexuality may not even matter to the story at all. It's like those people that are quasi-demanding Poe and Finn in Star Wars be a couple because they love the idea. If romance isn't their story arc, then daydream whatever you want is happening off-camera, but not at the expense of the story the author has chosen to tell.

This is J.K. Rowling's fault for Twitter-inserting canon into her stories that she's not actually putting into the books and movies. She's dangling source material, then not including it in her works.

Could there be good story in expounding on Dumbledore's romances? Sure. Is it the story the author is telling? No.

Dumbledore and Grindelwald's past relationship is a huge plot point in the latest Fantastic Beasts movie, you'd have to see it or at least read the synopsis to really wade into this one, this is past the point of Twitter posts now, it's canon af.

Fair nuff. Been meaning to see it and was aware that she'd said Albus was gay, but didn't know if they'd actually depicted it in the latest movie. Will check it out.

[Roz]

There are no sex scenes, and the romantic nature of their close relationship is generally left as fairly obvious subtext. (It was obvious enough that my dad got it, at any rate.)

[Auspice]

Nope.

No.

I want to discuss this now: https://twitter.com/pottermore/status/1081242428105998336?s=21

Wizards pooping themselves.

[Ghost]

@Auspice No wonder the house elves and Hogwarts janitor were such assholes.

[Lotherio]

@Roz said in Fandom and entitlement:

the romantic nature of their close relationship is generally left as fairly obvious subtext

Obvious, but not a game changer to folks who have missed this. I did explain this to my daughter afterwards, but knowing this did not change her understanding of the movie; and she picks up on things like time paradox potential in the Avengers movie, even though they say 'can't change the past' or whatever they said. It may have changed her understanding of why Dumbledore didn't contribute in going after Grindevald, but otherwise, I don't see it as a game changer to understanding the movie.

[Arkandel]

@Lotherio said in Fandom and entitlement:

It may have changed her understanding of why Dumbledore didn't contribute in going after Grindevald, but otherwise, I don't see it as a game changer to understanding the movie.

And that was a very important plot point. It wasn't like time travel where paradoxes can be expected - time after time Dumbledore explicitly said he couldn't go after the main antagonist but didn't explain why although we kept being told no one but him stood a chance to defeat him.

Obviously an explanation was needed, that wasn't a nitpick. But I can see why you might have needed to explain it.

[surreality]

@Auspice Out of evens to cant with.

BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO GO THERE...

...why not just vanish it as it, uh, accumulates, so you're not dropping a log and poofing your poop. Just... depoop your own personal plumbing, somehow, telepoop to an alternate dimension, or, I dunno, have it all compress infinitely until in old age, you plorp out a diamond or something to pay for your funeral.

Like, as far as solutions go, this is like, 1/10 on creative problem solving.

[Roz]

@Arkandel said in Fandom and entitlement:

@Lotherio said in Fandom and entitlement:

It may have changed her understanding of why Dumbledore didn't contribute in going after Grindevald, but otherwise, I don't see it as a game changer to understanding the movie.

And that was a very important plot point. It wasn't like time travel where paradoxes can be expected - time after time Dumbledore explicitly said he couldn't go after the main antagonist but didn't explain why although we kept being told no one but him stood a chance to defeat him.

Obviously an explanation was needed, that wasn't a nitpick. But I can see why you might have needed to explain it.

It wasn't even necessary to get the subtext in order to understand why Dumbledore couldn't go after Gindelwald. They explained that away in the end without making it about their romantic relationship. So what the understanding of their past romantic relationship does is maybe add layers to the characterization to enjoy, but they actually refrained from hinging anything on any romantic feelings plot-wise.

[Pandora]

Relationships are so rarely important to movies that aren't billed as romances, yet so often gay relationships seem to have this expectation of relevance, like gays are a distraction that had better have a good excuse for existing.

[Ghost]

@Pandora said in Fandom and entitlement:

like gays are a distraction that had better have a good excuse for existing.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Clearly the public is divided on certain subjects, and with that has come a bit of division on what people want to see on screen.

I think people forget sometimes that these movie studios are in the business of trying to grab as much money as possible when a movie is released, so they try to hit that sweet spot where as many people as possible will tell TAKE MY MONEY. Out of focus groups, polls, etc they try to digure out demographically what will track well with audiences. If 80% of the people polled said "I dont care if the relationship on screen is LGBTQ+, but would rather not see sex on the screen" and 20% said "I would not see this movie unless there's a sex scene", the smart movie studio goes with the 80% (just an example).

I think people sometimes read waaaaaay too much into casting decisions or screentime decisions as being about social politics and representation, when it's probably more accurate to say that in INDIE production there's more of that and in MAJOR studios it's a lot more...demographics and cash intake forecasting.