Enthusiasm can be a productive force for good, but our culture has rapidly become a fan-based landscape that the rest of us are merely living in

Of that hardly-a-hundred schoolkids, office boys and junior librarians, the great majority were actively involved in their pursuit, publishing or contributing to a variety of – for the most part – poorly duplicated fanzines, or else going on to work professionally in the field, such as Kevin O’Neill, Steve Moore, Steve Parkhouse or Jim Baikie, all of whom were downstairs at the Waverley hotel that weekend, keen to elevate the medium that they loved, rather than passively complain about whichever title or creator had particularly let them down that month. Of course, this was the 1960s and the same amateur energy seemed to be everywhere, spawning an underground press, Arts Lab publications and a messy, marvellous array of poetry or music fanzines that were the material fabric of that era’s counterculture; flimsy pamphlets as important and innovative today as they were then, although considerably more expensive, trust me.

Soon thereafter, caught up in the rush of adolescent life, I drifted out of touch with comic books and their attendant fandom, only returning eight years later when I was commencing work as a professional in that fondly remembered field, to find it greatly altered. Bigger, more commercial, and although there were still interesting fanzines and some fine, committed people, I detected the beginnings of a tendency to fetishise a work’s creator rather than simply appreciate the work itself, as if artists and writers were themselves part of the costumed entertainment. Never having sought a pop celebrity relationship with readers, I withdrew by stages from the social side of comics, acquiring my standing as a furious, unfathomable hermit in the process. And when I looked back, after an internet and some few decades, fandom was a very different animal.

An older animal for one thing, with a median age in its late 40s, fed, presumably, by a nostalgia that its energetic predecessor was too young to suffer from. And while the vulgar comic story was originally proffered solely to the working classes, soaring retail prices had precluded any audience save the more affluent; had gentrified a previously bustling and lively cultural slum neighbourhood. This boost in fandom’s age and status possibly explains its current sense of privilege, its tendency to carp and cavil rather than contribute or create. I speak only of comics fandom here, but have gained the impression that this reflexive belligerence – most usually from middle-aged white male conservatives – is now a part of many fan communities. My 14-year-old grandson tells me older Pokémon aficionados can display the same febrile disgruntlement. Is this a case of those unwilling to outgrow childhood enthusiasms, possibly because these anchor them to happier and less complex times, who now feel they should be sole arbiters of their pursuit?

Never imagined fandom being described as being gentrified but here we are.

There are, of course, entirely benign fandoms, networks of cooperative individuals who quite like the same thing, can chat with others sharing the same pastime and, importantly, provide support for one another in difficult times. These healthy subcultures, however, are less likely to impact on society in the same way that the more strident and presumptuous fandoms have managed. Unnervingly rapidly, our culture has become a fan-based landscape that the rest of us are merely living in. Our entertainments may be cancelled prematurely through an adverse fan reaction, and we may endure largely misogynist crusades such as Gamergate or Comicsgate from those who think “gate” means “conspiracy”, and that Nixon’s disgrace was predicated on a plot involving water, but this is hardly the full extent to which fan attitudes have toxified the world surrounding us, most obviously in our politics.

  • LGOrcStreetSamurai [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Allowing her lasting happiness with Poison Ivy means something might lastingly change and the hogs can’t have that.

    As a comic dork I always hated how comics treat relationships. Outside of some comics like Saga (which is a great read), most comic relationships traditional/atypical/gay/straight/committed/flings/whatever are treated more as plot devices rather than things that make a character interesting. Which is a shame because love and relationships when they mean something is what makes them cool. For good or bad, it’s just a good place for storytelling. There is nothing worse than seeing Ivy and Harley hinted at knowing that it will be dissolved in like next month’s issue. That sort of eternal tease of a relationship is just so wack to me.

    Fuck man that’s part of the reason Mr.Freeze is a such a good character to me because that he is defined by the love his wife. Literally a wife-guy but the good platonic ideal of it. That’s just a cool character trait, like being motivated by love in a world of super-people and all that insanity really gives a wonderfully human. Which

    Part of what I hate about lazy “multiverse” crossover gimmicks is they just about require default state or even Flanderized versions of such characters.

    Exactly man. Fuckin’ exactly. A “multiverse” creates a boundless space for exploring what makes a character a character. What are their defining traits, what is their core identity, what are the things that make them who they are across all versions of themselves. What are the things they think are a part of them but happen to just be cicumstance. Would they be different if things were different? Would they always find a way to create the version of themselves we know?

    Really plainly cool writing space if you ask me, but because that involves risk, they don’t really show characters or ideas explore outside of “What if Character X, but with a mild cosmetic change or different background”. Which is such a bummer because you can really do some cool stuff, you can explore the very idea of identity cross the infinite expanse of the multiverse.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      20 days ago

      Exactly man. Fuckin’ exactly. A “multiverse” creates a boundless space for exploring what makes a character a character. What are their defining traits, what is their core identity, what are the things that make them who they are across all versions of themselves. What are the things they think are a part of them but happen to just be cicumstance. Would they be different if things were different? Would they always find a way to create the version of themselves we know?

      Really plainly cool writing space if you ask me, but because that involves risk, they don’t really show characters or ideas explore outside of “What if Character X, but with a mild cosmetic change or different background”. Which is such a bummer because you can really do some cool stuff, you can explore the very idea of identity cross the infinite expanse of the multiverse.

      I hate the Batman franchise now, especially because of its fascist pro-cop leanings especially around and after the Nolan era (and Miller too, probably), but one alternate universe idea I actually liked was establishing a surprise identity for that particular Batman’s Joker: someone that knew his weaknesses, his motivations, how his detective methology worked, even knew how he was raised especially after becoming an orphan in a way that could keep one step ahead of what was ostensibly the world’s greatest detective:

      spoiler

      Alfred!

    • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 days ago

      As a comic dork I always hated how comics treat relationships. Outside of some comics like Saga (which is a great read), most comic relationships traditional/atypical/gay/straight/committed/flings/whatever are treated more as plot devices rather than things that make a character interesting.

      It’s why I feel Midnighter and Apollo’s relationship works, which adds depth to their characters - you also see their personal life but if Midnighter were in trouble, Apollo isn’t riding the rescue, Midnighter is figuring out how to kill everyone in the building with that plastic spoon that was carelessly left lying around.

      • LGOrcStreetSamurai [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 days ago

        It’s why I feel Midnighter and Apollo’s relationship works, which adds depth to their characters

        Agreed! It’s a bit of a shame the two of them were born out of what I would call a low-point in Wildstorm’s edgy history but they are objectively a interesting couple. Yes they are “What if Batman and Superman… but gay?”, which is reductive and lame but there are much more than that. They are two people who have complex and nuanced feelings for each other and their relationship has WAYYYYY more depth that most of the mainstays of the genre. Which is crazy because If I recall Midnighter correctly we was like the precursor to Billy Butch creatively speaking. Which is an odd thing to think about.

        I haven’t been keeping up with whatever the modern incarnate of the character is,