The internet certainly provides for the kind of pop culture enthusiast Jenkins identifies in his article, and I see nothing incorrect with identifying it as an environment where fans can interact with one another, gain exposure and engage not just new fans but also creators, artists, and writers they are fans of. To qualify the internet as fandom in and of itself seems a bit simplified though - a passive user may only go online to retrieve emails at work, wholly forgoing message boards, forums, and fan sites. The internet is no longer an elite place for coders, hackers, and forums, it has been commercialized in a more utilitarian way. Although Jenkins identifies something important, that even passive email checkers can become seen as grouped into a community of, say, fans of Convenience, it seems doubtful that the group would self-identify in that way. Another media, like cell phones, even those with internet access, resists qualifying its users as Fans, so it seems an arbitrary word for the whole internet too. What, then, makes a fan? Can any group sharing sentiments be considered a fandom, or are they required to share more than coincidental media preferences? Must they identify as being fans of something in particular, or is trolling the internet enough to unify all of these people?
"In many ways, cyberspace is fandom writ large." --Jenkins, p. 159
ReplyDeleteI'm responding to that, bee tee dubs.
I agree that not all internet users are fans. I'd say that, for the purposes of this article, any shared interest or shared purpose, if the purpose is specific enough, qualifies someone as a fan. If that's the case, most people are fans of something. Their internet usage may or may not reflect that.
ReplyDeleteI think that people on the internet are unified by how the internet must be used--certain conventions and limitations affect all people and make all discourse at least somewhat similar. So "trolling the internet" does unify all people, but not as fans. It is interesting to note, however, that the conventions and limitations which unify people were originally established and dealt with by groups of fans.
Good point about cell phones. I think some phones are a lot less interactive than the internet, which does precludes a sort of "fandom" label, but when you get to smart phones with all the apps you can use to apply to your life, that seems to be approaching fandom again. The self identifying as fans question is interesting, too. I think probably a lot of people don't feel connected to a community online. Maybe in some ways people can be "fans" without knowing it, though. Even people who are using their email, all bored, probably organize their account in some way, which is a sort of interaction and user preference with the system.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the definition of "fan" is important here, and I think it is up to interpretation. Does one have to label themselves as a fan to be considered a fan? In the sense that Jenkins is referring to the word, I think not.
ReplyDelete