Talk:Media Fandom
this page needs love! I feel like I've read material elsewhere on the wiki that could be copied here, but I'm not sure. A few things missing from this page:
- as I understand it, the media designation was originally intended to differentiate it from literary science fiction fandom. has there been any discussion about this that we could link to?
- the term itself is pretty broad, but the community of self-identifying media fans is pretty specific--fans who call themselves media fans are only a subset of the fans in fandoms designated as "media fandoms." YMMV, IMHO, etc.
- I see the term "western media fandom" used instead of Media Fandom a lot more now, possibly because I started reading ffa and arguments about anime fans' marginalization in the OTW. perhaps some meta/discussion points on this could be added.
- boundaries between media fandom and other fandoms before the internet vs. after the internet. we have a page for Fandom and the Internet, but it's more focused on tools.
- aja just posted this critique. it would be good to add multiple perspectives.
--æþel 03:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Relevant for context: Multimedia: History of the Term, MediaWest*Con. See also Talk:Multifandom and Talk:Multimedia. --Doro 20:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
a useful quote from the ffa thread talking about aja's post:I also really wish that everyone who is complaining about Media Fandom self-identifying that way would understand that it was a derogatory label slapped on the group by old-school SF fandom, which the TV show and movie fans then claimed as their own basically as an act of defiance (this was back when non-book fans were outnumbered, mostly new and so not in positions of power within existing fandom circles, and without the independent infrastructure that exists today). [1] Of course, in the same thread, they talk about how we cite them a lot, and then they cite us, so maybe this is getting a bit too recursive to be reliable. I swear I didn't look at the ffa thread before posting here yesterday.--æþel 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- conversation in franzeska's journal--æþel 15:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
historical origins
right now discussion of the historical origins of media fandom is spread across several pages, and it would be good to consolidate, or at least split it in a way that makes sense. I think we should put as much as possible on the History of Media Fandom page and just link/summarize on the other pages, except maybe all the detailed quotes on the Star Trek page. I can get back to this later, but it would be awesome if someone was inspired to organize this. I think it would also help us figure out how to organize if there were more content on the history AFTER the sf/media split.
- Science_Fiction_Fandom#SFF_and_Media_fandom
- History of Media Fandom
- Star_Trek#Star_Trek_and_the_Tensions_with_Traditional_Science_Fiction_Fandom
--æþel 16:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
mea culpa
So when I was editing what is now the scope section, I was trying to describe what I saw on LJ that was called media fandom (mainly by acafans and people who started OTW, or at least the ones on my friendslist). Now that I understand the historical context, I think I made the situation worse, but I still don't have enough information to be sure that changes I make would fix it. I think there shouldn't be a separate scope section; it should be folded into a section explaining the historical progression of who has used the term and when and why: 1. derogatory term used by old school SF fans toward tv SF fans 2. reclaimed by media fans! 3. media fanzine fandom 4. slash media fanzine fandom 4a. still used by other fans somewhere but we lost contact with them?? 5a. Internet??? 5b. acafans on LJ describing mostly Western live-action television fans who create fanworks 6. OTW 7. Internet fans have a lot of debates on tumblr, etc, about what the term actually means. 8. no one but academics, OTW, and ppl actually in media fanzine fandom use the term.
Anyway, I didn't want to actually edit the page while I was having an existential fannish terminology crisis. I think we need more sources (because my thinking was influenced by ffa, franzeska's essay, and possibly Aja's, now that I'm rereading it).--aethel (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)