Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 30 Sep 1992 11:52:09 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Andrea -- you are seriously overestimating the importance of the
stars in the fan writing. I haven't read much QL, but I've seen
the bleed over in other fandoms. For example, Lewis Collins (Bodie
in the Professionals) said in an inteview that Animal was his
favorite Muppet. Lo and behold, Bodie is mentioned liking Animal
in some BAD pros stories. This is just bad writing, not an example
of fixating on the stars.
I guess my response/question to Henry went a bit astray. First what I
was talking about wasn't just in reference to fan writing but in
context with how fans understand/construct the actor/actress & their
character. I think my question about meta-construction of the
character is still valid. Many QL & B7 (QL= Quantum Leap, B7= Blake's)
work with a character that isn't solely the invention of the series
the character comes from. Some of the difference is writer's approach
to the character, part of it is blending of characteristics of the
actor. I'm not saying that fans can't tell the difference between the
character and the actor, I'm just trying to figure out where the
inspiration comes from.
Also I've been looking/watching/lurking on the edges of fandom for the
past 4 years (as an academic-- as a lit. fan more like 12 years) I'm a
new graduate student, and I'm far from being fixed in my understanding
of how things work.
Recently, my studies have taken me into the realm of the virtual, and
I've started studying how fan and fan networks are affected by
computers. But as I've pointed out before I'm still learning.
My hope in studying fans and fandom is to pull away from the dominant
understandings of fans being crazed individuals (i.e. 11:00 o'clock
news syndrom). I don't think being an academic disqualifies me from
being able to do this.
Great to have you writing and challenging my thoughts/ideas.
andrea
|
|
|