pslasher

Posted by aninfiniteweirdo

https://fanhackers.tumblr.com/post/808074862186921984

Fandom is fandom because of fans’ activities and participation. The fandom object can be any canon, we could argue then. Descriptions of typical canons still emerge. Sometimes they originate from what is already the result of fannish beheaviour. Indeed, Pearson says about a similar discourse in 2010:

The definition accorded with film studies’ use of cult to refer to marginalised films that were perceived as trashy or, worse, offensive (due to violent or sexual content), that were hard to see (at least in pre-internet days), and that were treasured by a core group of aficionados who kept moving the goalposts to insure that rarity of what they valued.

As these texts were treasured, of course, the fans accessed them even when that required them to put in work, not required by regular viewers. It was not that these texts are treasured because they are hard to access. But Wu, in 2019 does show that a sense of exclusivity can arise from this extra work that the fans do.

So, if my love creates work, can my work also create love? Pearson also points at that many limitations were lifted due to the appearance of the Internet and we live in a different world of global media today. If that sense of exclusivity disappears, will the goalpost move again?

Fans not only help each other to access texts, but also to access different readings, an initiation described by Jenkins. Fandom is still the fandom of fans’ activities and participation.

Jenkins, Henry. 1992. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge.

Pearson, Roberta. 2010. Observations on Cult Television. In The Cult TV Book, ed. Stacey Abbott, 7–17. London and New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.

Wu, Xianwei. 2019. “Hierarchy within Female ACG Fandom in China.” Transformative Works and Cultures, no. 30. https://dx.doi.org/10.3983/twc.2019.1456.

Szabó Dorottya

https://fanhackers.tumblr.com/post/808074862186921984