Talk:Big Name Fan

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search

See also: aca-fan

So... is it just a huge case of sour grapes that the "see also" for a mostly pejorative term is aca-fan? Because it looks like sour grapes to me. If one wanted to express one's sour grapes opinion, wouldn't it be a good idea to put that into the body of the entry, rather than randomly and without explanation in the "see also" space? --Vee 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why aca-fan should be a "see also". Fanfic author are far more likely to be BNFs and no one would say "see also: Fan Writer". --Doro 23:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Edited outaca-fan. Because, yeah. --Vee 23:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is is problematic as "see also" while the text says that in the past BNFs were made up from con organizers and aca-fans? I have idea about the truth of that, but in light of the article's text the crossreference to acafans in the box made sense, so why remove it?--Ratcreature 05:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, con comm wasn't on the see also list, nor was archivist or moderator. So it seemed like aca-fan was being singled out for "these are BNFs," which is illogical in the descriptive sense and thus seems to be pointed in the pejorative sense. I think we should treat all potential categories of BNFdom the same, and parsmony seems to demand fewer rather than more/cluttery items on that list. --Vee 13:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


Would it be possible to give more references in this article? Some of it can rather be taken for granted, but there are some things I hadn't heard before, like aca-fen being associated with BNF. In fact, aca-fen and BNF seem like rather different things. Bellaboo

See above; I edited out aca-fan. Also, would you like references for the neutral and pejorative connotations? I... don't haz them, but I might be able to google something up. --Vee 23:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see the "see also" was removed, as that was strange. As for references for the neutral and pejorative connotations, it'd be nice, but not necessary? I'm poking around delicious for possible sources, and the best I've found so far is this lj post asking what people think BNFs are. Maybe I could include it in the actual post, if only to show that there's no one single agreed-upon definition of what a BNF is? Bellaboo
Good idea. --Vee 04:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bitter Old Fanfic Queen

Seeing the discussion above on see alsos . . . 13:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm terrified of editing pages, but I like doing research. One older essay is here: And one passage from Sharyn McCrumb's Bimbos of the Death Sun (Random House, 1988):
"What does he write?" he asked Diefenbaker. "Or is he an actor?"
Diefenbaker stopped in mid-wave. "Monk Malone? He's a BNF. I thought everybody had heard -- oh, no, I guess you wouldn't. BNF stands for Big Name Fan. He goes to all the conventions, knows all the filksongs, contributes to a dozen fanzines. He's a household word."
"But what's he so famous for?"
"He's a fan," said Diefenbaker gently. "And he's very good at it." busaikko 14:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You know, I don't know if BOFQ is/should be a see also term. For one thing, BOFQ is the sort of term people use to describe themselves, whereas nobody would claim BNFdom (or, not without wankiness). Also, plenty of people have called themselves a BOFQ (like yours truly) who are by no stretch of the imagination a BNF. At best, I would say that an in-text reference, down in the Lack of Consensus space, would be appropriate, but that putting BOFQ up into the see also space would obscure more than it illuminates. I guess I'm kind of a parsimony hard-liner?
I agree about everything except calling oneself a BNF. Not everyone uses it to mean someone who's wanky and full of themselves; some still use it as a neutral term to mean someone well-known. But yeah, anyone can be a BOFQ just by being in fandom for a long time. (And there are certainly BNFs who are new to fandom.) --Kyuuketsukirui 23:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It was both a self-description and pejorative in the late 1990s on ATXC and to some degree in ST and SW, similar to how I've seen BNF used over the years. I think it's lost some of its bite in general usage since then, but that it definitely did have it back then.--Deirdre 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Busaikko, I'll add that link for you. Thanks for the research!--Vee 15:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is aca-fan back?

The term pre-dates the study of fans by academics, and the notes here say it was taken out. So why is it back? I don't want to take it out again if someone has good reason for why it should stay. --rache 15:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it was only removed from the "see also" in the box after the discussion here not from the text. So nobody put it back in. --Ratcreature 15:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)