Talk:Fanwank

Writer Craig Hinton claims that he originated the term Fanwank wikipedia entry on Craig Hinton Worth a mention? --rache 02:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason for the mocking tone? Maybe I'm "lacking irony" or something, but some of the phrasings here seem to be quite heavily implying that it was better fan practice to not attempt intra-universe explanations for continuity problems, and as someone heavily in the Watsonian camp of fannish perspective I find that really grating. Maybe we could leave out the judgement phrases ('terribly elaborate' 'incredibly outlandish "explanations" ' and so on). Or add something like "some fans find this a tragic lack of irony." or "others find it outlandish" if others are very attached to show that some fans find this a ridiculous fanactivity.--Ratcreature 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just driving by, but it seems to me that the entry as written postulates fanwanking as something different than Watsonian fannish analysis; in other words, fan meta and discussions are constantly making sense of things that don't make sense in canon, often creating excellent fanon that's better than what the show posited, but I think I might distinguish this from fanwanking, which is more of a desperate groping at straws. However, it might be that fanwanking has become the term for all fannish analysis, especially in this brave new world where people do things for the lulz and any analysis is wanky; if that's true, someone could add a line like that (i.e. "While the term 'fanwank' belies its roots as a humorous and desperate thing separate from fannish analysis, some fans now use the term to refer to any fannish thinking through of episode continuity.") --Speranza 03:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, in comic fandom I've never used "Watsonian" to describe this activity. I called it fanwanking, while doing is seriously, as a self-description. I mean, yes, while being aware that it is convoluted sometimes, so there is an element of self-depreciation, but then comic canon is equally convoluted so it all evens out. I don't think my usage was unusual (or connected to "lulz"), and I think this redefinition of one being "creating excellent fanon" and the other "fanwank" feels artificially imposed to me to distinguish what is genuinely synonyms. --Ratcreature 03:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I find that really interesting! I wonder if calling fannish meta/episode discussion "fanwank" says anything about the more male-dominated comics fandom as opposed to female dominated media fandom? Do you think media fen are more inclined to take canon seriously without needing to dismiss it with even a gently self-mocking label? Or am I totally off?--Speranza 03:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. But for example this LJ entry by me [1] from 2004 in which I try to explain the Spectre-caused reset in a Flash storyline with the DC Hypertime theory is something I called fanwank. So that's the kind of meta post I think of when I use the term. It's convoluted and kind of brainbreaking and self-indulgent, but not for laughs or parody. --Ratcreature 03:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"some of the phrasings here seem to be quite heavily implying that it was better fan practice to not attempt intra-universe explanations for continuity problems, and as someone heavily in the Watsonian camp of fannish perspective I find that really grating." -- As the person who wrote some of the phrases you're referring to, that was the farthest thing from my mind-- I meant it to be affectionately mocking, if anything. (I included the Simpsons and MST3K references because I feel that they were both written from the *insider* perspective, with the writers fondly mocking their own nerdy/fanwanky tendencies. If you feel like particular phrases come off as dismissive, please do change them, as that's not what I was going for at all. -- Liviapenn 03:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My issue isn't with the MST3K or the Simpsons references, and I agree that the perspective that the contortions to make sense of things can end up being funny when you take a step back should be part of the entry, it's just -- I think it should be shown as a more neutral thing too, that the level of convolutedness for example that is common in comic fanwank is in a way just proportional to the complexity of the canon. That fanwank is not just a mocking or self-mocking activity, but a real attempt to reconcile things too.--Ratcreature 03:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)