|
|
Charmian (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} charmian) wrote,@ 2008-10-29 10:07:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
http://wemyss.livejournal.com/149288.ht
Eh, while academics=/=literary theorists, also intellectuals=/=academics. However, the whole wide-ranging discussion in fandom has always been hampered by a lack of concrete examples of "the problem."
Thinking back on debates of the past, I recalled an occasion that might be an example of that, which I made a locked post about, after I read an entry by an acafan, which is still locked, but was not locked at the time, and which I quoted from. Unfortunately it is now locked. In any event, from what I can reconstruct, a group of acafans (although, of course, I do not claim that all acafans or fan-academics or academics who are also fans would have agreed with their positions on the issue at hand, or on their conclusions about the discussion itself) were frustrated that people (disclosure: including myself and one of my friends) did not agree with them.
One of them said something to the effect of they just wished that they could get others to agree with their idead without getting them to accept the theories behind them. Which as I said at the time, struck me as a really weird way of thinking, because obviously people would accept or reject the ideas based on the thinking behind them! Quoting myself: "it seems rather arrogant to say your theoretical foundation is so true that people should just be convinced of its conclusions, without being bothered to argue the foundational assumptions. :P "
Unfortunately, as I said, I can't really eh go into greater details as the post is all locked. But it was a real moment, I think, where there was a clash between a group of academic lit theory inclined fans, and a group which did not have such a background.
I guess there are two groups of "acafans" who might clash with non-acafandom. One is the field of acafans who study fandom itself, the other is when academically influenced interpretations and assumptions collide with non-academic ones. Obviously everyone believes their interpretations are correct, really, but with academia, there's often an investment in believing that this is the Version 3.0 and those other ideas are old fashioned, bourgeois, etc.
I suppose to play devil's advocate, it is entirely out of line for a scholar to believe that their thoughts on literature and writing are more valid than a non-scholar who has not been through that training? And if someone denies the foundation of one's profession, is that not galling? So in some senses one can't blame the acafans for their dislike.
Eh, while academics=/=literary theorists, also intellectuals=/=academics. However, the whole wide-ranging discussion in fandom has always been hampered by a lack of concrete examples of "the problem."
Thinking back on debates of the past, I recalled an occasion that might be an example of that, which I made a locked post about, after I read an entry by an acafan, which is still locked, but was not locked at the time, and which I quoted from. Unfortunately it is now locked. In any event, from what I can reconstruct, a group of acafans (although, of course, I do not claim that all acafans or fan-academics or academics who are also fans would have agreed with their positions on the issue at hand, or on their conclusions about the discussion itself) were frustrated that people (disclosure: including myself and one of my friends) did not agree with them.
One of them said something to the effect of they just wished that they could get others to agree with their idead without getting them to accept the theories behind them. Which as I said at the time, struck me as a really weird way of thinking, because obviously people would accept or reject the ideas based on the thinking behind them! Quoting myself: "it seems rather arrogant to say your theoretical foundation is so true that people should just be convinced of its conclusions, without being bothered to argue the foundational assumptions. :P "
Unfortunately, as I said, I can't really eh go into greater details as the post is all locked. But it was a real moment, I think, where there was a clash between a group of academic lit theory inclined fans, and a group which did not have such a background.
I guess there are two groups of "acafans" who might clash with non-acafandom. One is the field of acafans who study fandom itself, the other is when academically influenced interpretations and assumptions collide with non-academic ones. Obviously everyone believes their interpretations are correct, really, but with academia, there's often an investment in believing that this is the Version 3.0 and those other ideas are old fashioned, bourgeois, etc.
I suppose to play devil's advocate, it is entirely out of line for a scholar to believe that their thoughts on literature and writing are more valid than a non-scholar who has not been through that training? And if someone denies the foundation of one's profession, is that not galling? So in some senses one can't blame the acafans for their dislike.
