I don't know. Especially considering how prone academics are to wank in their own right (and in their own venues, I mean). Badly-copyedited screeds in specialized publications? Check! Rival organizations diverging over petty slights? Check! Traveling hundreds/thousands of miles to meet in person and shout at each other in stifling conference rooms? Check!

Really, academia and fandom were made for each other!

I mean, there have been self-proclaimed academics in fandom who've behaved badly, but that's because they're assholes, not because they're academics.

I don't know, but it appears that fandom is in the midst of a struggle over its own allowances toward or accommodations of authority figures. Being wary of Joss's feedback on vids and being wary of academics' discernment strike me as different flavors of the same ice cream.

(If it's a general anti-intellectualism you're speaking about, well, that too. But I find anti-intellectuals aren't worth my time, so I don't do them the favor of reading them.)

Matters of authority being fresh in my mind, I'm attempting to argue myself out of a commentary on one of my stories. There's no way to do those without coming across as a bossy egomaniac, is there?

What the hell is up with the, "OMG, the academics make fandom less fun!" complaints?

Dude, I can't help it. The academics make fandom less fun. (Even though several of them are friends of mine! So, you know, not those academics.)

I think that for me, the issue is... well, there are multiple issues, and number one is that I have had an extremely uneasy relationship with textual criticism since I was no lie twelve years old. So the more that fandom becomes a place that is about criticism rather than the text, the less fun it is for me, and that's something that's becoming progressively more and more true over the years. I'm also viscerally angered by people talking about what fandom is, or what I'm doing in fandom--particularly if those people are in fandom. I end up with a kneejerk "don't you fucking tell me what to do" response, which... I don't know. Maybe this is all just me turning into a BOFQ.

You'll note that I'm not posting screeds about OTW over it. I'll check out the archive when it arrives, and may use it if I like it; certainly I'm all in favor of its existence. Go archive! And it's no skin off of my nose if there's a journal attached to it--I don't feel any desire whatsoever to complain about that. I do find posts in which anyone who has any of those negative feelings toward the academicization of fandom is, you know, mocked heartily, kind of hurtful, though. At the same time, I can sympathize with people who are putting a lot of effort into trying to do something good and getting abused for their trouble, which I understand is happening. That's not okay, and it's going to engender some upset that I'm feeling kind of trampled on by.

The last straw for me, or Friday's last straw, because I have a lot of last straws, was a post that said that the only reasons fandom was no longer under the radar was because acafans instisted on studying it and writing about it.

I was like, "Uh, no, I think you can blame THE INTERNET for that one."

I would say not only the internet but people handing stories and vids to people associated with the show.

And asking questions about slash at cons.

I'm also viscerally angered by people talking about what fandom is, or what I'm doing in fandom--particularly if those people are in fandom.

I'm more angered by it if I'm seeing people not in fandom declaring What Fandom Does. There was sort of a fannish perfect storm last year, not just Fanlib or Strikethrough, but the whole issue with panels and a male/female acafan split as seen in MiT5 (http://kbusse.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/mit5-review/), and believe there *is* as much of a need for a safe fannish academic space as there is for a fannish-owned archive. Of course, as a Frequent Metafandom Contributor (on hiatus from the meta at the moment), I'm possibly feeling defensive now, too. Despite not being an academic. I love navel gazing. Love it! When I have time for it. And when I'm not too busy rolling my eyes at Certain People With Agendas and stuff.

I end up with a kneejerk "don't you fucking tell me what to do" response, which... I don't know. Maybe this is all just me turning into a BOFQ.

But... where are they telling you what to do? That's what I don't get, I guess. Most of what I see is descriptive, not prescriptive. But I see this response often, and I do *want* to understand it. I do.

I think that for me, the issue is... well, there are multiple issues, and number one is that I have had an extremely uneasy relationship with textual criticism since I was no lie twelve years old. So the more that fandom becomes a place that is about criticism rather than the text, the less fun it is for me, and that's something that's becoming progressively more and more true over the years

How are you defining criticism here (I kind of hate the word, like I hate the word theory, because common use != specific academic use, and it gets confusing)?

At the same time, I can sympathize with people who are putting a lot of effort into trying to do something good and getting abused for their trouble, which I understand is happening. That's not okay, and it's going to engender some upset that I'm feeling kind of trampled on by.

There's a lot of frustration all around.

Bypassing the meta--

Did anyone read the Leave no Man Behind HIMYM story on Yuletide?If you didn't you must because it's ...wait for it-- legendary.

Augh! Accidental deletion. Let's try that again.

How are you defining criticism here

I'm defining it as, you know, rather than talking about Xander lying, talking about what Xander lying says about the construction of masculinity in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and what it says about us that we're talking about the construction of masculinity in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc., and what is the construction of masculinity versus the construction of femininity in horror in general...

Etc. I'm kind of allergic to that sort of conversation, outside of conversations with friends. I don't think that people shouldn't have them; they're just pretty commonly non-fun for me personally.

as a Frequent Metafandom Contributor

Yeah, see, I had to stop reading metafandom for my sanity. I kept being sent into spirals of self-hatred and realizing that if the rest of fandom knew what I really thought they would all hate me, yada. So it was bad for my mental health, and I had to step away. To the extent that fandom is more and more about fandom and less and less about the stuff we're supposedly fannish about, my experience in fandom becomes steadily more circumscribed.

(ETA: If it helps, I am aware that this is, you know, mildly crazy. I'm in fandom! I'm not allowed to be completely stable.)

But... where are they telling you what to do? That's what I don't get, I guess. Most of what I see is descriptive, not prescriptive. But I see this response often, and I do *want* to understand it. I do.

If someone says to me "women like makeup," they're being descriptive, not prescriptive, but the fact that I personally don't like makeup (usually, and I totally support your makeup interest!) then defines me out of womanhood. And that makes me angry. I get angrier when a) someone says that from a position of authority and, particularly, b) when someone says that from a position of both academic and fannish authority. I really don't care what J. Random Professor thinks; I care what, say, Cesperanza thinks, because she has influence (*cough*social capital*cough*) that then influences the rest of fandom.

I do want to point out that I really have no issue with OTW. I just wanted to be dumb and stick my head up for once and say, look, you're talking about me there, whether you know it or not. Because I feel like I spend a lot of time not doing that.

(Also, I have visitors this weekend so may not be back for a while.)

Thanks, Laga. The fic link is in Suela's post, #4890. (And yes, it's Sally from "Blink")