I'd be interested to read other people's definitions of "mediafannish" as well. What Nutty was saying about the mediafannish character of Boxed Set makes sense to me, and I think it's an important consideration to bring up, but I might be defining "mediafannish" differently than other people. In particular, Vonnie mentioned that Heroes struck her as a non-mediafannish show -- or, at least, that the way we discuss it here is less mediafannish in nature than many of the other convos in Boxed Set -- while I actually think of Heroes as being fairly mediafannish myself, esp. with the webcomics and all. Then again, that may just be how I engage with it, and other people may not feel the same way about it.

Anyway, my own definition of "mediafannish" involves liking a show enough to not just want to talk about it, but to want to explore that universe in other ways, such as the webcomic (or the Supernatural comic coming out in a few months), fanfic, vids, extensive discussion of the show's mythology, mapping the characters onto archetypes, that kind of thing. To me it means engaging with the source in a different, and more intensive (and creative), way than just talking about what happened in the last episode. I'm interested to see if other people define it similarly or not.

Am I imagining that non scifi/spec-fic show discussion has been frowned upon in Boxed Set? (I might be.)

No, you're not imagining it. The only reason Spooks has come up at all in Boxed Set is that it's a mediafannish show, and it's quickly been squelched because it's not also a science fiction show. Nobody would bring up, e.g., soaps or ER in Boxed Set; but they would occasionally bring up a show that is part of the mediafandom conversation.

What's the difference between mediafannishness and liking a show enough to talk about it?

I'm not sure I can describe it adequately, but it's a cultural difference. "Liking a show" has no cultural tag to it; "mediafandom" has practices and customs and taboos, some of which have become general Buffista practice (intricate canon discussions) and some of which have not (fanfiction gets its own thread, and does not proliferate as a topic elsewhere). People who like a show seem to show up in Natter, asking whether there is discussion of that show (as ND mentioned once, about Stargate, and Burrell did recently, about Heroes); people in mediafandom have automatically gravitated -- fannish osmosis! -- to talking about new shows in Boxed Set whether that talk has been formally defined as kosher (Torchwood, Life on Mars) or not (Spooks).

Does that make it clearer?

Overall, I'm coming around-er to Heroes having its own thread, which is what the original proposal was. Have not thought out ancillary ideas, like the possibility of closing the Lost thread.

In particular, Vonnie mentioned that Heroes struck her as a non-mediafannish show -- or, at least, that the way we discuss it here is less mediafannish in nature than many of the other convos in Boxed Set -- while I actually think of Heroes as being fairly mediafannish myself, esp. with the webcomics and all. Then again, that may just be how I engage with it, and other people may not feel the same way about it.

Heroes is a show that seems like it would/should be very mediafannish (and I agree with how you're defining it, pretty much), but in general isn't, at least in my fannish wanderings. Mediafen in my experience seem to mostly like Heroes, but without going the extra step and being fannish about it.

In particular, Vonnie mentioned that Heroes struck her as a non-mediafannish show -- or, at least, that the way we discuss it here is less mediafannish in nature than many of the other convos in Boxed Set -- while I actually think of Heroes as being fairly mediafannish myself, esp. with the webcomics and all. Then again, that may just be how I engage with it, and other people may not feel the same way about it.

Oh yeah. I think I took some short hand in that conversation. Media-fandom in the way I referred to it has a particular context -- it's the one I engage in more often in my other fannish space (LJ) than here, and applies more to the first few shows discussed in the thread, i.e. Stargate, dS and SV, and less so to BSG and Heroes.

OK. Sweeping generalization forthcoming: "Media fandom" in that context is a predominently female space, with more emphasis on squee and the emotional/libidinal aspect of the show and the fandom rather than the plottiness, with involvement in extra-textual activities (fanfic and fanvids) and a large overlap with the slash community. Of course there are exceptions, and I'm not saying an average media-fan cares nothing about mythology and only cares about the pretty, but there is something of a difference in the way one engages with a "mediafannish" show compared to another that doesn't quite fall under that umbrella.

Overall, I'm coming around-er to Heroes having its own thread, which is what the original proposal was.

I agree with Nutty, and I think she's articulated why I felt ishy about the proposed basic/premium divide. Although I mostly don't care if Heroes gets its own thread or not.

Wow, I had no idea it was so formalized.

Me, neither. None of that is in the Boxed Set descriptions, so I think it's just the culture that developed naturally -- not a rule, per se.

Wow, I had no idea it was so formalized.

Heh. On reading back what I read, it sounds like some kind of a secret cabal, doesn't it? It's my personal take on it, and others' opinions on it may vary. Even though it's a subculture, the community is in a constant flux. Anyway, Box Set as it is now has evolved significantly and somewhat moved away from that culture, so it may be just me being a dinosaur and waving my cane with "I was there back in the days when the thread was still (sort of) about due South!! Getoffa lawn, you punks!"

For what it is worth, I Googled "Buffistas Veronica Mars" and didn't hit on a B.org link until the second page of hits, and then, it was a hit on our Buffista links page, not the show thread. I suspect having TV in its own folder has made our show threads invisible to Google, because of whatever that thing is we do to limit how Gooogle-able we are yada yada bots spiders blah blah blah.

Vonnie, your definition of "media fandom" is really interesting! And also a little surprising to me. I consider what you're describing (mostly female, the slash-colored glasses, more squee-oriented than discussion-oriented) to be *part* of the mediafannish experience--and certainly a big part of my own mediafannish life--but not necessarily more dominant than the part that encourages examination and discussion of the minutiae of a show, its characters, its mythology, its relationship to other shows, etc. I see those two aspects of mediafandom as basically complementary; I can't think of a show that I would squee over, seek out fic and vids for, etc., without also wanting to discuss all its intricate details. To me, mediafannishness essentially implies an intensifying of the discussion about, and engagement with, a show.