Why *is* it that Life on Mars fandom produces about ten times the crack as, say, Farscape and Highlander fandom combined? (And so much less angst than you'd think, considering the hyper-angsty premise?)
When I said '... that are current in that fandom' I really just meant certain individual examples - e.g. Prostitute!Sam and SerialKiller!Sam - not a general trend. That was sloppy phrasing, sorry.
(I do think the 'more crack than in other fandoms' thing *is* a valid generalisation, though. It's not supposed to mean 'everybody here writes crack'. It just means what it says - it's more frequent here than elsewhere, from my experience. Same goes for a lot of other things I 'generalise' about - it's never supposed to mean 'everybody does this', it just means I notice certain trends that seem to be significant to me. I believe that those trends do exist; that doesn't mean that I fail to see variety and divergence.)
>Your generalisations about 'this fandom' amuse me. I don't mean that all that snarkily, it's just that you're often treating LoM fandom as some homogenous group,
Am I? In what way?
>and --- didn't the ending discussion on lifein1973 show you that some of your assumptions in that way are, at least partly, wrong?
How? (Possibly I'm being horribly dense here...)
>Hell, some of the more prominent LoMfans are contradictory in themselves, so what do you think the rest of the fandom's like?!
People are contradictory. That's human. Did I ever claim anything else?
Doesn't mean one can't observe certain things they have in common, occasionally. As I said - *trends*. There's a crucial difference between trends and the kind of mental boxes I talked about in my sexuality post - mental boxes are sharply delineated. Trends allow for difference, vagueness, a certain amount of contradictoriness.
>Well, obviously - but that's because they're extremes!
Which is all I was saying, really.
>You can, very plausibly, have an irate, "I know everything, you know nothing" violent Sam. You can also, very plausibly, have a, "my world is crumbling, I wanna crawl into the hole in the wall" crying Sam. Two extremes, same character.
Actually - two sides of the same character. I'd find it difficult to get behind a Sam who was portrayed as *all* this or *all* that, though. Though if it's just a single fic I could still imagine that his other sides simply aren't visible in the slice of his life that the fic presents us with, so that would still be okay with me. But there are fics where Sam ceases to feel like Sam to me, where what I see is not one of his sides but some other character with the same name yet different character traits. From what I've read of them so far, both SerialKiller!Sam and Prostitute!Sam at least verge on that for me (as does loads of crack). This is what I meant when I said that the more extreme versions of Sam that exist in this fandom (see? better phrasing! *g*) are not - to me, anyway; obviously this depends on everyone's personal interpretation of Sam - particularly compatible with what - again, to me - is canon Sam (either version of canon Sam, selfish prick or not).
You may wonder why I keep the distinction of 'canon Sam' if I admit that it's essentially *my* canon Sam, thus admitting the relativity of canon... This is because there is a distinction in my head between 'my canon Sam' (i.e. my interpretation of his character in canon), and 'my Sam' (i.e. a character who diverges from my interpretation of canon Sam in some significant and deliberate ways).
Plus, there's that thing I've had at least three debates about in LoM fandom so far ;-), where I am a bad postmodernist because I say that not *everything* is relative and up for interpretation (although everything is *totally* up for *reinterpretation*), and that there is actually such a thing as, hmm... the authority of the text.
When you talk about trends. It might be phrasing, but it often does come across as, "oh, those crazy LoM fen, look at them now." A type of anthropological study. In some ways, it does seem like you're divorcing yourself from the fandom and looking from the outside in, which I don't think is right. You're one of us.
How? (Possibly I'm being horribly dense here...)
Well, you often say you're highly uncomfortable about the fact many LoMfans wax lyrical about the ending, but, let's face it, many more hardcore fans have a level of criticism about it --- and like I said way back when, the people who love it often love their own interpretation that doesn't fit with Matt's, or yours, or mine. (That green versus blue sky thing... the people who see it one way really are wearing tinted glasses, and I do not blame them one bit.)
I can't say anything about Prozzie!Sam, but I can safely say that SerialKiller!Sam was all about taking three specific elements of Sam's character, focussing on them, and rearranging them (his madness, his attention to detail, his dedication.)
I'm not saying that this is Sam, I'm saying, "what if?" So it's a different headspace, definitely. And,... uh, crack is all about the "what if?" of fiction. "What if Sam imagined him and Gene as Camberwick Green puppets?", "What if Sam was plagued by the Test Card Girl?."
It doesn't have to interest you, I don't mind that at all. However, I do think you notice the crack more because it's not your style --- kind of like I notice the lovey dovey fluff (when I'm not writing it), because it's (usually) not mine.
>When you talk about trends. It might be phrasing, but it often does come across as, "oh, those crazy LoM fen, look at them now." A type of anthropological study. In some ways, it does seem like you're divorcing yourself from the fandom and looking from the outside in, which I don't think is right. You're one of us.
Well, I *am* an anthropologist, too. So, there. *g*
(No, seriously. Okay, I stopped studying it after a while, but even so, I'm still doing a lot of cultural studies stuff in American studies - essentially modern anthropology - and I'm an archaeologist, which is the anthropology of the past, sort of. So, yeah, I do have some of that mindset, naturally. Mind you, I always had. Comes with being an outsider while growing up. You never really lose the outside perspective thing.)
But also:
Of course I'm a fan (and a LoM fan, too). I'm also... female, German, a European, a goldsmith, an archaeologist, a human being, a thirtysomething... Does that mean it's impossible/wrong for me to make general statements about thirtysomethings, humans, archaeologists, goldsmiths, Europeans, Germans, or women? Is it impossible to observe something about a group you're a part of?
>Well, you often say you're highly uncomfortable about the fact many LoMfans wax lyrical about the ending, but, let's face it, many more hardcore fans have a level of criticism about it
Do you remember the immediate reactions, back in April/May? That was some truly widespread blissful squeeing I observed there. Now, maybe all or most or at least many of the people who were so happy back then have backtracked a bit now... maybe. Or maybe critical viewpoints have become more visible now because we, the critics, are the only people who just won't shut up about it. From what I see in discussions, the latter seems the most likely option to me.
But if you can point me to some people whose squee is mixed with criticism, please do so - I'd love to be proved wrong on this, as, yes, it still does make me uncomfortable.
As for interpretations... I've read a lot of interpretations of 2.08 by people who like it and who see something quite different in it from what was there/what we saw/what MG says etc. Very few of them I found undisturbing. I *know* that most of the people who cheer do not see it as a suicide (etc.) - but that is exactly what I find so disturbing. Or, well, it's one part of what I find disturbing - it's a humungous, complex mass of disturbingness, which can't be reduced to just one factor.
>I do think you notice the crack more because it's not your style
Hm. But by that rule I would have to notice it in other fandoms, too.
(And, just to emphasise that once more: I do not *mind* that there is loads of crack in LoM fandom. In fact, I kind of like that; it's an outgrowth of the kind of AU 'headspace' (as you so nicely put it) that I *adore* about fandom and that I think fandom is all about. And some of it even works for me. I was merely making an observation about relative amounts, not a value judgment.)
I thought you were. You read like an anthropologist. :D
And of course I remember the immediate reactions, I was one of those disturbingly happy people! Not for very long. 5 hours? 6? Even then I thought it was flawed.
But if you can point me to some people whose squee is mixed with criticism, please do so - I'd love to be proved wrong on this, as, yes, it still does make me uncomfortable.
That's me, isn't it?
As to your parenthetical thought; it sort of did read as a value judgement, which is why I was a bit taken aback. And I am not a great perpetrator of crack by any means, but I do get defensive on behalf of others. ;)
Having said that, I still don't think there's a disproportionate amount of crack, but then, my first major LJ fandom was due South fandom, where... if you thought LoM fan fic was cracky, give dS a whirl. (Once again, the show was quite cracktastic itself.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I wasn't actually generalising.
Date: 2008-02-20 01:39 pm (UTC)(I do think the 'more crack than in other fandoms' thing *is* a valid generalisation, though. It's not supposed to mean 'everybody here writes crack'. It just means what it says - it's more frequent here than elsewhere, from my experience. Same goes for a lot of other things I 'generalise' about - it's never supposed to mean 'everybody does this', it just means I notice certain trends that seem to be significant to me. I believe that those trends do exist; that doesn't mean that I fail to see variety and divergence.)
>Your generalisations about 'this fandom' amuse me. I don't mean that all that snarkily, it's just that you're often treating LoM fandom as some homogenous group,
Am I? In what way?
>and --- didn't the ending discussion on lifein1973 show you that some of your assumptions in that way are, at least partly, wrong?
How? (Possibly I'm being horribly dense here...)
>Hell, some of the more prominent LoMfans are contradictory in themselves, so what do you think the rest of the fandom's like?!
People are contradictory. That's human. Did I ever claim anything else?
Doesn't mean one can't observe certain things they have in common, occasionally. As I said - *trends*. There's a crucial difference between trends and the kind of mental boxes I talked about in my sexuality post - mental boxes are sharply delineated. Trends allow for difference, vagueness, a certain amount of contradictoriness.
>Well, obviously - but that's because they're extremes!
Which is all I was saying, really.
>You can, very plausibly, have an irate, "I know everything, you know nothing" violent Sam. You can also, very plausibly, have a, "my world is crumbling, I wanna crawl into the hole in the wall" crying Sam. Two extremes, same character.
Actually - two sides of the same character. I'd find it difficult to get behind a Sam who was portrayed as *all* this or *all* that, though. Though if it's just a single fic I could still imagine that his other sides simply aren't visible in the slice of his life that the fic presents us with, so that would still be okay with me. But there are fics where Sam ceases to feel like Sam to me, where what I see is not one of his sides but some other character with the same name yet different character traits. From what I've read of them so far, both SerialKiller!Sam and Prostitute!Sam at least verge on that for me (as does loads of crack). This is what I meant when I said that the more extreme versions of Sam that exist in this fandom (see? better phrasing! *g*) are not - to me, anyway; obviously this depends on everyone's personal interpretation of Sam - particularly compatible with what - again, to me - is canon Sam (either version of canon Sam, selfish prick or not).
Addendum
Date: 2008-02-20 01:55 pm (UTC)Plus, there's that thing I've had at least three debates about in LoM fandom so far ;-), where I am a bad postmodernist because I say that not *everything* is relative and up for interpretation (although everything is *totally* up for *reinterpretation*), and that there is actually such a thing as, hmm... the authority of the text.
Re: I wasn't actually generalising.
Date: 2008-02-20 02:05 pm (UTC)When you talk about trends. It might be phrasing, but it often does come across as, "oh, those crazy LoM fen, look at them now." A type of anthropological study. In some ways, it does seem like you're divorcing yourself from the fandom and looking from the outside in, which I don't think is right. You're one of us.
How? (Possibly I'm being horribly dense here...)
Well, you often say you're highly uncomfortable about the fact many LoMfans wax lyrical about the ending, but, let's face it, many more hardcore fans have a level of criticism about it --- and like I said way back when, the people who love it often love their own interpretation that doesn't fit with Matt's, or yours, or mine. (That green versus blue sky thing... the people who see it one way really are wearing tinted glasses, and I do not blame them one bit.)
I can't say anything about Prozzie!Sam, but I can safely say that SerialKiller!Sam was all about taking three specific elements of Sam's character, focussing on them, and rearranging them (his madness, his attention to detail, his dedication.)
I'm not saying that this is Sam, I'm saying, "what if?" So it's a different headspace, definitely. And,... uh, crack is all about the "what if?" of fiction. "What if Sam imagined him and Gene as Camberwick Green puppets?", "What if Sam was plagued by the Test Card Girl?."
It doesn't have to interest you, I don't mind that at all. However, I do think you notice the crack more because it's not your style --- kind of like I notice the lovey dovey fluff (when I'm not writing it), because it's (usually) not mine.
Re: I wasn't actually generalising.
Date: 2008-02-20 02:26 pm (UTC)Well, I *am* an anthropologist, too. So, there. *g*
(No, seriously. Okay, I stopped studying it after a while, but even so, I'm still doing a lot of cultural studies stuff in American studies - essentially modern anthropology - and I'm an archaeologist, which is the anthropology of the past, sort of. So, yeah, I do have some of that mindset, naturally. Mind you, I always had. Comes with being an outsider while growing up. You never really lose the outside perspective thing.)
But also:
Of course I'm a fan (and a LoM fan, too). I'm also... female, German, a European, a goldsmith, an archaeologist, a human being, a thirtysomething... Does that mean it's impossible/wrong for me to make general statements about thirtysomethings, humans, archaeologists, goldsmiths, Europeans, Germans, or women? Is it impossible to observe something about a group you're a part of?
>Well, you often say you're highly uncomfortable about the fact many LoMfans wax lyrical about the ending, but, let's face it, many more hardcore fans have a level of criticism about it
Do you remember the immediate reactions, back in April/May? That was some truly widespread blissful squeeing I observed there. Now, maybe all or most or at least many of the people who were so happy back then have backtracked a bit now... maybe. Or maybe critical viewpoints have become more visible now because we, the critics, are the only people who just won't shut up about it. From what I see in discussions, the latter seems the most likely option to me.
But if you can point me to some people whose squee is mixed with criticism, please do so - I'd love to be proved wrong on this, as, yes, it still does make me uncomfortable.
As for interpretations... I've read a lot of interpretations of 2.08 by people who like it and who see something quite different in it from what was there/what we saw/what MG says etc. Very few of them I found undisturbing. I *know* that most of the people who cheer do not see it as a suicide (etc.) - but that is exactly what I find so disturbing. Or, well, it's one part of what I find disturbing - it's a humungous, complex mass of disturbingness, which can't be reduced to just one factor.
>I do think you notice the crack more because it's not your style
Hm. But by that rule I would have to notice it in other fandoms, too.
(And, just to emphasise that once more: I do not *mind* that there is loads of crack in LoM fandom. In fact, I kind of like that; it's an outgrowth of the kind of AU 'headspace' (as you so nicely put it) that I *adore* about fandom and that I think fandom is all about. And some of it even works for me. I was merely making an observation about relative amounts, not a value judgment.)
I feel like everything is clearer now...
Date: 2008-02-20 02:34 pm (UTC)And of course I remember the immediate reactions, I was one of those disturbingly happy people! Not for very long. 5 hours? 6? Even then I thought it was flawed.
But if you can point me to some people whose squee is mixed with criticism, please do so - I'd love to be proved wrong on this, as, yes, it still does make me uncomfortable.
That's me, isn't it?
As to your parenthetical thought; it sort of did read as a value judgement, which is why I was a bit taken aback. And I am not a great perpetrator of crack by any means, but I do get defensive on behalf of others. ;)
Having said that, I still don't think there's a disproportionate amount of crack, but then, my first major LJ fandom was due South fandom, where... if you thought LoM fan fic was cracky, give dS a whirl. (Once again, the show was quite cracktastic itself.)
Not intended to sound confrontational, btw.
Date: 2008-02-20 02:39 pm (UTC)Re: I wasn't actually generalising.
Date: 2008-02-21 12:21 am (UTC)*G* I studied anthropology as an undergraduate.
Do you think "Jumping Off" might be a haven for those who studied in the more analytical disciplines?