"Fan" -ning the Flames
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | "Fan" -ning the Flames |
| Creator: | Constance Jenkins |
| Date(s): | spring 1998 |
| Medium: | online |
| Fandom: | Law & Order focus |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | apocrypha: "Fan"-ning the Flames, Archived version |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
"Fan" -ning the Flames is a 1998 essay by Constance Jenkins.
It was published in the Law & Order zine Apocrypha.
Some Topics Discussed
- Law & Order
- Violating the Fourth Wall
- fan service
- TPTB's decisions regarding their shows, casting decisions...
- fan adoration
Excerpts
The admirers of television, movie and sports stars proudly call themselves "fans". Few consider, perhaps, that the term originates from "fanatic", defined by Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary as "one having an excessive zeal or irrational attachment to a cause or position". Nowhere can that origin find truer meaning than in the cyberworld of fan forums and newsgroups, where the true believers congregate. A quick trip across the World Wide Web and Usenet reveals hundreds of forums dedicated to the discussion of our heroes. The Law & Order forums, newsgroups, mailing lists and chat rooms fall easily into the pattern.
It starts innocently enough. One person, two perhaps, put up a note saying "Chris Noth is really hot." Others respond, and the original poster glories in the knowledge that they are not alone. Others share their devotion, so it cannot be silly or strange or anything else to find Noth (or Waterston, or Hennessey, or . . .) exceptionally attractive. Strength in numbers then amplifies the individual response.
Where the one admires and appreciates the actor, the many, finding validation for their affection, form ardent loyalties and unfailing devotion. Next comes the formalization of the group identity. We become Trekkers, X-Filers, Logan Lusters, McCoy Toys, Hearts of Stone.
What starts in simple affection, grows as the group mentality strengthens. Each assertion receives approval, and the process of amplification starts. With the firm belief that "if the group agrees with me, I can't be wrong," the believers' assertions become increasingly lofty.
The point comes when the true believers become incapable of mere admiration. It is not enough to say "this man (or woman) is a fine actor, and I appreciate his (her) work." In the mind of the fan, the actor is not simply good; he is great. Before long, he (she) becomes "the greatest actor to ever grace the planet." It is no longer enough to say, "I think Chris Noth is sexy," he becomes "the sexiest man in the world."
When fandom reaches this stage, another phenomenon occurs, if the object of our affection is the best, then anyone who challenges that position must be bad. Perhaps this position develops because of the tenuous nature of the group. The foundation of our conviction lies in "others agree with me." When different "others" arrive, who, in fact, don't agree, the group circles its wagons to protect its own against the perceived threat. When we push our idol into the realm of superlatives (good isn't good enough, he has to be the best), we push ourselves into the corner of "if you might be right, then I might be wrong." The concept that admiration is subjective and both groups are equally right falls by the wayside. We are right-- we have to be right-- because the "group" agrees with us.
Does any of this mean fandom is evil? Of course it doesn't. The first actor to step from a Greek chorus probably had his groupies, all willing to swear on Zeus' eyebrows that he was the greatest actor ever to live. However, fandom separated from its roots in fanaticism holds less chance of disappointment. Sam Waterston is an incredible actor, but he is not the "greatest actor" on earth. Chris Noth is handsome, but not the be-all and end-all of male pulchritude. Ben Stone may be an admirable, moral man, but he is not Michael Moriarty, a man with failings and weaknesses. Dick Wolf is not Satan incarnate, but a producer, fallible and brilliant by turns.
If we accept our admiration as personal preference, not universal truths, we can live peaceably with those that do not share our opinions. If we accept that our group is not the only viable group, we can occupy the same corners of cyberspace without conflict. If we accept our heroes, real and fictional, as human, we do not suffer the anguish of the hero fallen. If we accept that our veneration exists in a world largely of our own making, we can accept it when reality does not meet our expectations.
We'd probably all be happier for it.