Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
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.
So essentially what you are saying is that I don't understand what media fandom is because I'm not part of media fandom.
So essentially what you are saying is that I don't understand what media fandom is because I'm not part of media fandom.
The first rule of Fandom is that we don't talk about Fandom?
Gods, I was even in on some of that conversation and had NO memory of it. Not so much with the brain, pretty much ever.
Perhaps the media-fannishness of various shows has to do with who watches them? Maybe the SPN folk are just the loudest flailers right now?
No, ND, that's not it at all. I can only assume that you don't understand media fandom because the multiple definitions provided to you have not been adequate.
It's a culture -- the style and manner of a conversation, not just the topics of a conversation.
Is this the concept you're having trouble with, or is it something else in the definitions Ple or I provided?
It's a culture -- the style and manner of a conversation, not just the topics of a conversation.
And that style and manner are what? I think my problem with the definition is that it's so broad. If I tell you the Bronzers style and manner of discussing BtVS is much different from our style and manner of discussing it, you still don't know anything about the style and manner in which they discuss the show. What are we talking about -- linking to/discussing vids and fan fic, or what?
I don't get it either, and I do remember the conversations on this topic that happened before. What shows do we discuss in Boxed Set that do
not
generate vids and fanfic and in-depth discussion about character motivations etc? They may not last as long as SPN conversations currently are, but I'm pretty sure "media-fandomishness" is in regards to kind, not quantity.
Maybe I'm missing a salient point, but I can't believe that taking one show out of Boxed Set - any show - would change the essential nature of the thread. It's a place for talking at length about SciFi/Fantasy tv shows. Boxed Set not being a dedicated thread, the idea that a show that's been around for 2 seasons has become the flagship of the thread, without which it will lose its direction and flounder, bothers me.
A high volume of posts on a show that isn't even currently airing new episodes really seems to warrant its own thread. Are SPN watchers really getting something from being in Boxed Set that they wouldn't get in a dedicated thread?
Or maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding the objection.
The issue is that the definitions are broad and vague. The use terms like a particular group and then do not define this group.
a show that's been around for 2 seasons has become the flagship of the thread, without which it will lose its direction and flounder, bothers me.
Not what was said, or what was meant.
It was about changing the flavor, the tenor, the use of Boxed Set. Which a majority of people seem to want, so perhaps it's time to let it go, or move it elsewhere, bow to the majority.
use terms like a particular group and then do not define this group.
It's been defined. Perhaps not to the satisfaction of people who don't participate. Again, an evolving board culture thing, and it appears to be a facet that's no longer valued nor wanted. Time to let it go, here, and find it or take it elsewhere.
What are we talking about -- linking to/discussing vids and fan fic, or what?
I never felt it was appropriate to link to fic and/or vids in Boxed Set, since we've got Fanfiction *and* BuffistaFic.
(If it is, I'm more than willing to get media-fannish all over the place, on many more shows than SPN. If that's what we're looking for...)
