Let's say, hypothetically, that there was a show, let's call it "Shmoopernatural"

Actually, I think that's its title already.

It hadn't occurred to me that "where goes this one TV show so goes the mediafannish discussion" but I suppose that might be true. And it also hadn't occurred to me that people don't know what I mean when I say media fandom because I know this has come up in regard to the Boxed Set thread 3-4 times -- in Bureaucracy, not in Light Bulbs, but it has definitely come up before.

Media fandom is a set of subcultural practices that occur in regard toward a source text (usually a TV show). The ways media fandom show up most obviously are in fanfic and vids; in-depth discussion; and an assumption of shared source texts (i.e., even though I've never seen a single episode of Due South, I know a lot about the show, because it is part of my subculture). It is totally possible to participate in an in-depth discussion with media-fannish people and not know it, because media-fannish people can code-switch just as easily as anybody else, and it's not necessary to whip out all the media-fannish shibboleths just to prove that an in-depth discussion is in-depthy enough.

Given our historical respect for subcultures within threads, I think that should be a factor in voting. (Granted, this particular subculture is also happily ensconced elsewhere, e.g. LJ, but I do think enough Buffistas are mediafannish that we want to keep that subculture a part of the board somehow.) Given that a lot of people think that the mediafannish discussion will follow wherever the biggest mediafannish text is, I suddenly have no idea how to vote.

OK, I think Nutty's post confused me even more. It's definitely not her fault, it's mine...

*waits for more people to say more things*

Hrm. I think that's a whole lot of subtext for a thread.

It hadn't occurred to me that "where goes this one TV show so goes the mediafannish discussion" but I suppose that might be true.

This is the core of what I am wondering. (only with bigger words). I don't know if it would happen or not, but I think there is a high enough chance of it happening that I wanted to put the question out there.

Perhaps it would just be easier to substitute "Hoyay!" for "media-fannishness".

You aren't the only one confused. To my reading pretty much every show discussed on b.org could be classed as media fannish. I know it has been discussed and defined before but I have never gotten a definition that either clarifies it for me or narrows the scope to anything other than all show discussed here.

Perhaps it would just be easier to substitute "Hoyay!" for "media-fannishness".

Noooooo. That's a whole other discussion, when it comes to SPN.

DXM, that conversation that engendered Boxed Set is, as you said, prophetic in its discussion. Thanks for posting it, it's fascinating reading.

You aren't the only one confused. To my reading pretty much every show discussed on b.org could be classed as media fannish. I know it has been discussed and defined before but I have never gotten a definition that either clarifies it for me or narrows the scope to anything other than all show discussed here.

Yes and no?

To clarify as best I can, using Nutty's post:

Media fandom is a set of subcultural practices that occur in regard toward a source text (usually a TV show).

This gives you the who (a particular subset of media fandom, primarily, but not exclusively female in composition, who consume media in a particular way).

The ways media fandom show up most obviously are in fanfic and vids; in-depth discussion; and an assumption of shared source texts (i.e., even though I've never seen a single episode of Due South, I know a lot about the show, because it is part of my subculture).

And this is kind of the what and how?

What the sticky point might be here is the how. There are media fannish texts (the Stargates, for example, esp. SGA, which I have seen two episodes of, yet could tell you the names of most of the primary characters, what pairings are popular, and what the most recent fannish upheaval was about regarding) that don't *currently* have the sort of focused media-fandom style discussions that you saw around Smallville and now see around SPN.

I don't know if that's because there's more cross-pollination with non-media-fandom people, or because SG1 is done and SGA is in hiatus, or because SGA as the Bright Shiny Object is now less shiny than it was a year or two ago.

The set of source texts vary. Fandoms wax and wane. Butterflies go from source to source. Etc. Right now, SPN as a fandom is kind of large. It's the bright shiny object in a lot of butterfly brains. Obviously, as we've seen with Smallville through the years, this status can change.

Oh hey, you know what? We have already had this discussion. A lot. This year. In this very thread. When we put Heroes to a vote, we talked about the media fandomness of Boxed Set, what its personality is, and whether strip-mining Boxed Set to give all its popular new shows would make Boxed Set be kind of naked.

See: here, here, and this one has posting stats in Boxed Set over the last year. (Probably could stand to be updated, especially as this year has seen an increase in whitefonted ahem-talk, so much so that it rivals some aired shows in volume.

To my reading pretty much every show discussed on b.org could be classed as media fannish.

This says to me you are not clear on the understanding of media fandom as cultural practice. I got to SFF cons all the time, and at those cons we often discuss TV shows, but that discussion "SFF fans talking about TV shows (sometimes in great depth)," not "mediafannish discussion." It's a culture -- the style and manner of a conversation, not just the topics of a conversation.

ETA: fixed the linky. Twice! Thrice! Wow, take that HTML away from me. Sigh. Four times. I swear, these LTs and GTs are magically disappearing on me.