![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A dissertation on the "inner circle"....
Nov. 25th, 2002 11:30 amCygnus posted in his LJ a very amusing list of topics that might be used to discuss real "politics" in the fandom. He was essentially dissing the use of the term "politics" to mean the acts involved with jockeying for position within the fandom.
I started to comment, and it turned into something very long, but I think very worth saying. So here's my expanded 2 Galleons on the subject of the "inner circle."
Yes, "politics" used in this connotation means the power struggles, personality conflicts, and maneuvering/manipulating others within the fandom for some perceived "status" within the group.
The trouble is, there are many groups, and each one has its advantages and disadvantages. Some of them have significant amounts of crossover with each other; some hardly at all. So in that sense, it's hard to say which "inner circle" is THE "inner circle"--or whether any such constructions really exist.
Personally, I think there is a core, but that core fluctuates depending on where you play, and wherever you look, it is difficult to separate the threads of participation, perceptiveness, and talent that permeate those cores. That is to say, if you think of the group as a twist of rope, there are three strands that make that rope. Each person's relationship to the "core" has to do with the levels at which they exhibit the qualities in each of those strands.
The first is participation. A fan could participate in the fandom in any number of ways: lurking, writing, reviewing, posting, etc. But because we are online, there is no way to recognise lurkers until *they* decloak. Someone could join HPFGU, for example, and read the list content for over a year, but if they never post, no one will be aware of their presence--except of course as an anonymous email address on the membership rolls.
A fan, therefore, can't possibly become "known" within the fandom without putting her opinions and beliefs out there, somehow, for people to examine (and judge). So one requirement, I would say, for "membership" in the inner layers of the fandom is active participation.
Furthermore, one can move "up" in the estimation of fellow fans more quickly, IMO, if one offers to help the fandom manage itself. For example, say the moderators at FA spend on average about 3-6 hours a day doing something to help the site run (I'm guessing, based on the number of mods and how much they work--some more, some less, and I may be *way* off). How much more respectable would someone seem who indicates that he appreciates the amount of work that goes into the site, and offers to help out in some small way? Similarly, there are people in HPFGU who volunteer to help work on the FAQ projects, or help design the site--they weren't even necessarily very active on the list before they volunteered, but they saw a need for help on a given project, and they gave of their time and ability to help make it happen.
So in order to participate fully, one has to make the effort to get involved, and, preferably, contribute in some way to the sector of the fandom where one is active.
The second piece is perceptiveness. Obviously, there are people who post once a month, and those who write but never get many reviews, and those who read voraciously and review, but may leave one-line reviews such as "Wow! Write more!" and those who confine their participation to posts such as "OMG! Dobby is soooo hot! I could just dream of kissing him all day!" (Apologies for that mental image--I don't want to get into the character debates, and I am profoundly Swiss.)
These fans are definitely participating in the fandom, but as to whether their participation is seen as perceptive, that's more difficult to say. Depending on the nature of their posts, that one post a month may well be very telling--if it's "Dude! Did you check out that awesome pic that came out on the WB site this week? Whoa, it's soooo kewl! BTW, does anyone know when book 5 is coming out?" then I think it's fair to say few of the fans who are seen as "perceptive" will extend the same judgment to that individual. However, even the occasional, "Has anyone thought about the death imagery JKR uses when describing Snape? I noticed on my last re-read of HP and the Pyramid of Furmat that when Harry follows Snape and hears him talking to the mummy...." will make established fans sit up and notice.
So it's not just being visible and presumably helpful within the fandom. It's also making an effort to show fellow fans that one has a brain and is able to use it. This doesn't mean one must be serious at all times, bar none, but that one demonstrates intelligence and a grasp of basic analysis. Grammar and spelling help, too, but I'd be inclined to accept a poorly written post that contains a brilliant point, sooner than I'd accept a flawlessly grammatical post with not a whit of wit.
Third, after participating/contributing, and showing oneself to be somewhat perceptive, is talent. This is the area where people get the most agitated, I think. But it's actually the least important of the three strands, in my opinion.
A talent for writing, for art, for posting, for acronyms, for HTML--these are all the factors that contribute to one's impact on the fandom. Consequently, especially in fanfic writing, it's the factor that often receives the most attention. It's also the one most likely to be used as the basis of judgment, because it's the most likely place people will see a fan trying her best (posting being the second place, probably) to base her work on the questions and issues she wants to address from the books. Unfortunately, one's ability to create a plausible and enjoyable reading experience will affect the reader's conclusions immeasurably--and bad writing may result in people not even sticking with you long enough to see your points in action. But again, no one can tell exactly what attracts people to one story or another. There are good fanfics out there that have a very small following. There are bad fanfics with hundreds of reviews. What is good does not necessarily equal what "sells," and what "sells" does not necessarily equal what is good.
It's a harsh reality of life. Luckily, in the real publishing world, not all authors are required to be best-sellers in order to publish. So, too, in the world of the fandom, not all authors need to be at the top of the review charts to produce something they can be proud of. However, every one of the authors and artists out there in the fandom can always improve, and the only "hopeless case" is someone who will not listen or respond to criticism of his work--and try to evaluate the comments given and put the valuable ones to good use.
The "talent" issue comes closest, I think to the "popularity" issue. There's a (mis)perception that everyone at the apex of fandom notoriety is "popular." Well, not true. Some are more diligent and dependable than they are sparkly and exciting to know. There's also a belief that "everyone in the inner circle was brought there by a friend on the inside." This is how cliques work, and yes, in some cases, people "rise" in the fandom ranks because they become friendly with someone already near the top. However, I don't think one can truthfully say that their friendship alone is what gains them respect, or what recommends them to the movers and shakers as someone who would make a good addition to the team. More often, it is their ability to show participation, perceptiveness, and some (needed) ability or talent, that causes them to get to know and become friends with the existing top dogs. And out of that rises the recommendation.
Example: FinAlley moderator Quizats Haderach announces, "We're looking for a new Nifmentelf. We need someone who can be kind to newbies, can check the membership list on a regular basis, and will be able to answer questions in a timely fashion. It would also help if this person had read the books and knows something about the kinds of stories people might look for, or at least, knows where to direct the question."
FinAlley Nifmentelf Patsy squeaks, "Hey, I've been corresponding with this kid named Horton. He seems to be a pretty good sort of a guy, dependable, reads a range of fanfic. He might be a good person to ask."
Another Nifmentelf whom we'll call B says, "Yeah, I've talked to Horton. He had a little problem last month because he thought people were making fun of his floppy ears and nose, but he settled down once the mods came in and thwapped everyone."
FinAlley Moderator Ceethree also says, "Well, I've never heard of him. But if no one has any objection, sure, let's see if he's interested."
And thus Horton, formerly just a clover-counting hack, is initiated into the illustrious ranks of Nifmentelfdom.
I contend that it is *after* one displays a modicum of participation, perceptiveness, and talent, that one is accepted. Out of that acceptance comes friendship. The trouble is, what people "see" is the friendship; they then discount the factors that formed that friendship, in favour of perceiving a system rooted in favouritism or elitism or even "fandom nepotism"--i.e., bringing in people because they are some author's beta-reader, or because they hold another position that is related to the one they are considered for. This does happen, but not because of any conscious desire to maintain the playground only for the like-minded. Again, it's because those people prove themselves capable of handling the tasks that will be asked of them. For what it's worth, "membership" in the upper echelons by no means guarantees universal popularity with the other "members."
I guess there's one other misperception within the fandom that the "inner circle" theorists tend to uphold: It is that the "inner circle" participants have it easy. In reality, the only thing I've noticed during my "climb" to fandom infamy is more work, less play. As I've taken on responsibilities to help keep the fandom running, growing, and playing nice, I've had less and less time for my own projects. All those who are impatiently waiting for my Lucius fic, or the next chapter of Between the Lines, or the next installment of Against Better Judgement can attest to this! I spend most of my online time working for the fandom, and precious little of it playing in the fandom for my own edification and delight. I'm far behind on most of my regular reading, and I haven't posted to HPFGU--or hardly any other general fandom list--in any substantive way since I fulfilled my obligation to lead the "house-elf" discussion question back in May.
These are my choices, my responsibilities, and my decisions about how I'm going to serve the fandom. I don't regret agreeing to them--but I can say that it is often very frustrating not to have the time to be a member of the general fandom, because I am so busy providing for it. I promise, when Nimbus is done, I won't be shouldering any huge tasks anytime soon--I'll take a little "me" time. I guess it just annoys me to see people complaining about some mythical "clique" within the fandom, when the subset they're referring to are by and large the same people who bust ass to ensure that the communities we have continue to exist.
Someone recently asked me whether HPFGU was a community controlled by a small number of people--essentially, was there an "inner circle?" This person came from a different online fandom where a few self-appointed experts maintained a whole lot of control over the posts, popularity, and general reception of a very large number of plebian fans. She wondered whether she was about to get into the same situation by joining the yahoogroup.
I told her that quite honestly, I believed that the only factor of influence to be seen (on that list, at any rate) was whether someone's posts were consitently cogent and readable. I still believe that to be true. Similarly, one's "influence" on the fandom as a whole, IMO, has more to do with one's ability to *ennable* fans than to *disable* them. For example, I absolutely detest the theory that Snape loved Lily. I acknowledge, however, that it's a real possibility for the story, and I don't think that the people who believe it are "stupid," though I do reserve some hope that they are wrong. More importantly, I don't make it my mission in life to tell them how wrong they are; I let them think what they think and we'll just have to wait and see. It doesn't physically, mentally, or emotionally harm me that there are people out there who believe Snape had a crush on her (or something more serious, for that matter). It makes no difference to me, on a daily basis, whether they are right or not. So I may post my differing opinion, from time to time, and try my best to produce examples that support my stance from the pitifully small amount we know about either character. But I don't ever villify someone for "daring" to state their theory. That's the mark of someone who can't tolerate any interpretation but his own. And that's just plain silly.
So, I guess what I'm saying here is that the "influence" and "power" I see within the fandom rests with an individual's level of participation/contribution, perceptiveness/tolerance, and to a lesser extent, talent/cogence/entertainment value.
Maturity is another factor, divided as it is between the three additives in this formula. It takes maturity to know that to participate, you must contribute (and to understand that no one will cry for you if you never make your presence felt to begin with). It takes maturity to read between the lines in the books and understand the themes, resonances, and depth in their message and story, and to set your own "rightness" aside from time to time in order to listen to an opposing viewpoint. And it takes maturity and diligence to take your time with your posts, your fics, your pics, or anything else you do in the fandom, to realize that every time you put yourself out there, you are being judged for your abilities, for whether people find you likeable or your fic plausible/readable. It takes maturity to put effort into your work, listen to criticism, and incorporate the comments in the next try. And it takes maturity to understand that popularity is not the most important factor for a successful life in the fandom.
Gwe
I started to comment, and it turned into something very long, but I think very worth saying. So here's my expanded 2 Galleons on the subject of the "inner circle."
Yes, "politics" used in this connotation means the power struggles, personality conflicts, and maneuvering/manipulating others within the fandom for some perceived "status" within the group.
The trouble is, there are many groups, and each one has its advantages and disadvantages. Some of them have significant amounts of crossover with each other; some hardly at all. So in that sense, it's hard to say which "inner circle" is THE "inner circle"--or whether any such constructions really exist.
Personally, I think there is a core, but that core fluctuates depending on where you play, and wherever you look, it is difficult to separate the threads of participation, perceptiveness, and talent that permeate those cores. That is to say, if you think of the group as a twist of rope, there are three strands that make that rope. Each person's relationship to the "core" has to do with the levels at which they exhibit the qualities in each of those strands.
The first is participation. A fan could participate in the fandom in any number of ways: lurking, writing, reviewing, posting, etc. But because we are online, there is no way to recognise lurkers until *they* decloak. Someone could join HPFGU, for example, and read the list content for over a year, but if they never post, no one will be aware of their presence--except of course as an anonymous email address on the membership rolls.
A fan, therefore, can't possibly become "known" within the fandom without putting her opinions and beliefs out there, somehow, for people to examine (and judge). So one requirement, I would say, for "membership" in the inner layers of the fandom is active participation.
Furthermore, one can move "up" in the estimation of fellow fans more quickly, IMO, if one offers to help the fandom manage itself. For example, say the moderators at FA spend on average about 3-6 hours a day doing something to help the site run (I'm guessing, based on the number of mods and how much they work--some more, some less, and I may be *way* off). How much more respectable would someone seem who indicates that he appreciates the amount of work that goes into the site, and offers to help out in some small way? Similarly, there are people in HPFGU who volunteer to help work on the FAQ projects, or help design the site--they weren't even necessarily very active on the list before they volunteered, but they saw a need for help on a given project, and they gave of their time and ability to help make it happen.
So in order to participate fully, one has to make the effort to get involved, and, preferably, contribute in some way to the sector of the fandom where one is active.
The second piece is perceptiveness. Obviously, there are people who post once a month, and those who write but never get many reviews, and those who read voraciously and review, but may leave one-line reviews such as "Wow! Write more!" and those who confine their participation to posts such as "OMG! Dobby is soooo hot! I could just dream of kissing him all day!" (Apologies for that mental image--I don't want to get into the character debates, and I am profoundly Swiss.)
These fans are definitely participating in the fandom, but as to whether their participation is seen as perceptive, that's more difficult to say. Depending on the nature of their posts, that one post a month may well be very telling--if it's "Dude! Did you check out that awesome pic that came out on the WB site this week? Whoa, it's soooo kewl! BTW, does anyone know when book 5 is coming out?" then I think it's fair to say few of the fans who are seen as "perceptive" will extend the same judgment to that individual. However, even the occasional, "Has anyone thought about the death imagery JKR uses when describing Snape? I noticed on my last re-read of HP and the Pyramid of Furmat that when Harry follows Snape and hears him talking to the mummy...." will make established fans sit up and notice.
So it's not just being visible and presumably helpful within the fandom. It's also making an effort to show fellow fans that one has a brain and is able to use it. This doesn't mean one must be serious at all times, bar none, but that one demonstrates intelligence and a grasp of basic analysis. Grammar and spelling help, too, but I'd be inclined to accept a poorly written post that contains a brilliant point, sooner than I'd accept a flawlessly grammatical post with not a whit of wit.
Third, after participating/contributing, and showing oneself to be somewhat perceptive, is talent. This is the area where people get the most agitated, I think. But it's actually the least important of the three strands, in my opinion.
A talent for writing, for art, for posting, for acronyms, for HTML--these are all the factors that contribute to one's impact on the fandom. Consequently, especially in fanfic writing, it's the factor that often receives the most attention. It's also the one most likely to be used as the basis of judgment, because it's the most likely place people will see a fan trying her best (posting being the second place, probably) to base her work on the questions and issues she wants to address from the books. Unfortunately, one's ability to create a plausible and enjoyable reading experience will affect the reader's conclusions immeasurably--and bad writing may result in people not even sticking with you long enough to see your points in action. But again, no one can tell exactly what attracts people to one story or another. There are good fanfics out there that have a very small following. There are bad fanfics with hundreds of reviews. What is good does not necessarily equal what "sells," and what "sells" does not necessarily equal what is good.
It's a harsh reality of life. Luckily, in the real publishing world, not all authors are required to be best-sellers in order to publish. So, too, in the world of the fandom, not all authors need to be at the top of the review charts to produce something they can be proud of. However, every one of the authors and artists out there in the fandom can always improve, and the only "hopeless case" is someone who will not listen or respond to criticism of his work--and try to evaluate the comments given and put the valuable ones to good use.
The "talent" issue comes closest, I think to the "popularity" issue. There's a (mis)perception that everyone at the apex of fandom notoriety is "popular." Well, not true. Some are more diligent and dependable than they are sparkly and exciting to know. There's also a belief that "everyone in the inner circle was brought there by a friend on the inside." This is how cliques work, and yes, in some cases, people "rise" in the fandom ranks because they become friendly with someone already near the top. However, I don't think one can truthfully say that their friendship alone is what gains them respect, or what recommends them to the movers and shakers as someone who would make a good addition to the team. More often, it is their ability to show participation, perceptiveness, and some (needed) ability or talent, that causes them to get to know and become friends with the existing top dogs. And out of that rises the recommendation.
Example: FinAlley moderator Quizats Haderach announces, "We're looking for a new Nifmentelf. We need someone who can be kind to newbies, can check the membership list on a regular basis, and will be able to answer questions in a timely fashion. It would also help if this person had read the books and knows something about the kinds of stories people might look for, or at least, knows where to direct the question."
FinAlley Nifmentelf Patsy squeaks, "Hey, I've been corresponding with this kid named Horton. He seems to be a pretty good sort of a guy, dependable, reads a range of fanfic. He might be a good person to ask."
Another Nifmentelf whom we'll call B says, "Yeah, I've talked to Horton. He had a little problem last month because he thought people were making fun of his floppy ears and nose, but he settled down once the mods came in and thwapped everyone."
FinAlley Moderator Ceethree also says, "Well, I've never heard of him. But if no one has any objection, sure, let's see if he's interested."
And thus Horton, formerly just a clover-counting hack, is initiated into the illustrious ranks of Nifmentelfdom.
I contend that it is *after* one displays a modicum of participation, perceptiveness, and talent, that one is accepted. Out of that acceptance comes friendship. The trouble is, what people "see" is the friendship; they then discount the factors that formed that friendship, in favour of perceiving a system rooted in favouritism or elitism or even "fandom nepotism"--i.e., bringing in people because they are some author's beta-reader, or because they hold another position that is related to the one they are considered for. This does happen, but not because of any conscious desire to maintain the playground only for the like-minded. Again, it's because those people prove themselves capable of handling the tasks that will be asked of them. For what it's worth, "membership" in the upper echelons by no means guarantees universal popularity with the other "members."
I guess there's one other misperception within the fandom that the "inner circle" theorists tend to uphold: It is that the "inner circle" participants have it easy. In reality, the only thing I've noticed during my "climb" to fandom infamy is more work, less play. As I've taken on responsibilities to help keep the fandom running, growing, and playing nice, I've had less and less time for my own projects. All those who are impatiently waiting for my Lucius fic, or the next chapter of Between the Lines, or the next installment of Against Better Judgement can attest to this! I spend most of my online time working for the fandom, and precious little of it playing in the fandom for my own edification and delight. I'm far behind on most of my regular reading, and I haven't posted to HPFGU--or hardly any other general fandom list--in any substantive way since I fulfilled my obligation to lead the "house-elf" discussion question back in May.
These are my choices, my responsibilities, and my decisions about how I'm going to serve the fandom. I don't regret agreeing to them--but I can say that it is often very frustrating not to have the time to be a member of the general fandom, because I am so busy providing for it. I promise, when Nimbus is done, I won't be shouldering any huge tasks anytime soon--I'll take a little "me" time. I guess it just annoys me to see people complaining about some mythical "clique" within the fandom, when the subset they're referring to are by and large the same people who bust ass to ensure that the communities we have continue to exist.
Someone recently asked me whether HPFGU was a community controlled by a small number of people--essentially, was there an "inner circle?" This person came from a different online fandom where a few self-appointed experts maintained a whole lot of control over the posts, popularity, and general reception of a very large number of plebian fans. She wondered whether she was about to get into the same situation by joining the yahoogroup.
I told her that quite honestly, I believed that the only factor of influence to be seen (on that list, at any rate) was whether someone's posts were consitently cogent and readable. I still believe that to be true. Similarly, one's "influence" on the fandom as a whole, IMO, has more to do with one's ability to *ennable* fans than to *disable* them. For example, I absolutely detest the theory that Snape loved Lily. I acknowledge, however, that it's a real possibility for the story, and I don't think that the people who believe it are "stupid," though I do reserve some hope that they are wrong. More importantly, I don't make it my mission in life to tell them how wrong they are; I let them think what they think and we'll just have to wait and see. It doesn't physically, mentally, or emotionally harm me that there are people out there who believe Snape had a crush on her (or something more serious, for that matter). It makes no difference to me, on a daily basis, whether they are right or not. So I may post my differing opinion, from time to time, and try my best to produce examples that support my stance from the pitifully small amount we know about either character. But I don't ever villify someone for "daring" to state their theory. That's the mark of someone who can't tolerate any interpretation but his own. And that's just plain silly.
So, I guess what I'm saying here is that the "influence" and "power" I see within the fandom rests with an individual's level of participation/contribution, perceptiveness/tolerance, and to a lesser extent, talent/cogence/entertainment value.
Maturity is another factor, divided as it is between the three additives in this formula. It takes maturity to know that to participate, you must contribute (and to understand that no one will cry for you if you never make your presence felt to begin with). It takes maturity to read between the lines in the books and understand the themes, resonances, and depth in their message and story, and to set your own "rightness" aside from time to time in order to listen to an opposing viewpoint. And it takes maturity and diligence to take your time with your posts, your fics, your pics, or anything else you do in the fandom, to realize that every time you put yourself out there, you are being judged for your abilities, for whether people find you likeable or your fic plausible/readable. It takes maturity to put effort into your work, listen to criticism, and incorporate the comments in the next try. And it takes maturity to understand that popularity is not the most important factor for a successful life in the fandom.
Gwe
