Board 8 > Opinions, Identity Politics, and How to Kill a Fandom

(+) Yeah! (+)

This week I attended my second week of classes on my return tour of college, in and among my time running my comic shop. And normally I don't experience multiple facets of my life lining up into simple patterns which beat something over my head repeatedly, but this week I was gifted with an after-school special replete with two distinct examples of the same thing happening.

I've had, for a long time, difficulty understanding why it's become so unpleasant to talk about the things I love. Those things of which I'm a fan. At the shop, for example, proselyting about the good news of whatever comics are coming out in a given week has become a chore. The conversations with various customers are less positive, more confrontational. I daresay customers are antagonistic. Now, I could go on a tangent of how I think running a shop is becoming more and more of a negative experience over time, but this is different. The communal gathering of fans discussing something they love shouldn't leave a bitter taste in my mouth.

In a similar way, in my English lit. classes on campus, I find that the discussions of the novels or poetry we read has lost a lot of the depth that really drove me to this major in the first place. There are certain universal truths we can uncover in even the simplest works, and if nothing else, I can develop an understanding of a different style of writing that helps me convey my own messages in a better way. But that does not seem to be the end-result of the four sessions I've attended in English lit. thus far. Instead, after reading a particular work, the discussion inevitably turns to the writer's gender, sexual orientation, race. Discussions don't focus on what the writer was exploring in their world, it's constantly about holding a modern judgmental lens up to the writer's era and determining just how courageous or politically incorrect they are by current standards.

We read a short essay written by a black modernist who had traveled to Europe in between World Wars. The essay clearly states in the third or fourth page that he set aside the fact he was African-American to explore what it was like to be from a younger country travelling in an older one. The discussion topic was about America, this young nation, as it breached the main cast of the world stage in a volatile time and as it stacked up against older, more storied nations with a very different cultural mindset. And I swear to god, the first thing out of the gate was about Donald Trump. Some other student, a front row student of course, couldn't resist the opportunity to immediately derail the conversation by sharing their totally unnecessary opinion about how they hated Trump. This caused some guy in the back row to launch into a tirade about how everything had to be so PC and we couldn't have real discussions (none of this related to what the front row student had said, which was totally unrelated to the essay at hand).

The teacher, in his infinite wisdom, tried to course correct at this point and ask the class to talk specifically about the experience of the writer here, in this essay. This writer in the 1920s. What is the author trying to convey? Well, first thing out of the shoot, we have to denote he's black. He's talking to us as a black man in a time of great segregation. And at this point, I chime in because apparently I'm masochistic, and I say, "Well, if you look at page three, he flat out says he has to set aside his personal experience as a black man to explore this topic, and he does."

Well, the teacher liked this because it was more to the point of the conversation, but the class was immediately launched into a tizzy because we need to talk about how his experience as an African-American is the root of this entire essay. Someone said to me very pointedly, "Are you discounting the experience of this writer as a black American?"
---

My response was, "Not on pages one and two."

The teacher smirked but I found it cowardly; the class was derailed most of the rest of the night by discussing modern politics in relation to an essay that was anything but. There was some truth to be learned and discussed, but it was more important to gain social capital in this class. Either glorify the identity of a man who was so much more, who offered so much more in this essay, or rebuke the glorification as an act of independence and free thinking. And, subsequently, the death of critical thought was on full display for the rest of the evening.

Two days later in my shop, a relatively new comic reader was asking for recommendations for Superman comics. I walked him along my long wall of graphic novels and pointed out several great titles as another longterm DC customer (mainly a Batman reader) stood quietly, perusing the same shelves. The new customer was picking up a healthy little pile of volumes as I did my normal song and dance about some of the great DC stories over the years.

As if he was destined to be a buzzkill, the veteran customer spat out the statement of, "If you ask me, Superman is the most boring superhero." Well, this caused me to stop dead in my tracks and stare at him. Surely, his interruption would come replete with some, you know, follow-up supporting statement. Because, like him or not, Superman has been a founding part of the DC Comics world. After probably 5 seconds of no continuation on that line of thinking, I just said, "Well, thank you for that inspiring piece of insight."

This was likely my mistake. The other customer snorted a laugh, but the veteran customer seemed enraged at my dismissal of his statement that was totally with merit. He snapped at me, "What? You think I'm wrong?"
---

"I think that you are entitled to a personal opinion," I said as I tried to return to my explanation on why this new customer should read All-Star Superman.

He muttered something under his breath and I continued with assisting the other customer. After ten minutes, the new customer purchased about 100 bucks worth of volumes and left. A short while later, as I talked with another customer at the counter, chatting about how I was looking forward to the new Domino series, Older Customer returned to the counter. He launched into a "Marvel sucks because it got rid of all of its old heroes for minority characters" shpiel. I've heard it a thousand times. I don't even disagree with it when its framed properly. But my response to him was, "Are you okay, man? You've been really negative today."

This led to what was essentially an antagonistic pushback. He told me that I shouldn't tell him how he should read comics and what characters he should like. I responded that I didn't, and that if I did, he would be told to read Animal Man if anything. The back and forth eventually revealed that this guy just didn't like anything. He didn't like minority characters. He didn't like reboots. He didn't like Superman. And on this last point, I said, "Have you ever read _____?" Here I filled in the blank with the titles I had just recommended to the other customer. He had not read any but one. I said, "Did you like that story?" He responded affirmatively. I said, "Have you read any other Superman comics?" No. "So the only Superman comic you've ever read you liked. But you hate the character." And he tried to respond but at this point I was finished myself. I admit that I was mostly frustrated with this individual's inability to be polite in front of a new customer. And he vaped. I hate the smell of vape and the cloud of vape smoke that lingers whenever someone puffs those damn cartridge things.

I'm not saying that comics and the sort of essays I read in English lit. are of the same caliber. Some of them deserve more recognition, sure. I think there's value in exploring what writers have to say in almost any medium or genre. But everywhere I go, there's a blanket dismissal of what a writer really has to say based on surface expectations. And, honestly, it does my heart ill to see the discourse among fans and critics alike become more base and elementary. "ME NO LIKE SUPERMAN" is not far off from "THIS WRITER IS BLACK." It ignores all of the subtlety, the nuance, the storytelling, the message, the skill of the writer, the passion of the person. It is the opposite of world-building. It's world-destroying. And it stems from the wedge issue driven tug-o-war at the heart of American politics and society. I don't care what your politics are if you have nothing to say about them, and I don't care about your base subjective opinions. I just want to talk about and learn from good books and great storytellers. I just want to explore the topics about which I never get to talk. I wish I could be less sarcastic and aggressive and find a way to turn dead-end arguments into opportunities to learn and discuss.

I know this is a string of posts no one cares about; this is all just an info dump without much editing or probably even substance. But hopefully someone else here on the board is equally as dismayed with how the sense of community all over just seems to be drying up.
---

I've seen it in Magic, too. People are at each other's throats and apoplectic more than I've ever seen before. It doesn't help that Wizards has screwed up a lot lately, but I can't help but feel that this is a larger cultural problem that tearing communities apart. People aren't just miserable; it's like they want to miserable. Like they're scared of not being miserable. I don't get it.
---

I've experienced that some at my shop with Magic as well. I try to always redirect that anger in a positive way but people are angry about everything Magic-related now.
---

Dont tell me what to read he says, after being dismissed for telling someone what to read without being asked
---

only a small percentage of the population has generally had the ability to understand complicated ideas or to approach delicate subjects with nuance. this isn't actually a new phenomena.

I agree it is frustrating how a decent amount of modern culture revolves around the idea of being miserable and even glorifies it. this does seem to be a fairly recent thing but, like all trends, it will likely pass.

I don't think you should be getting into arguments with customers at the place where you work.

personally I never gained any enjoyment out of arguing with others or beating my head against the wall trying to get shallow people to understand complicated ideas. the only thing that ever made me happy was learning how to ignore them and move on with my life.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

don't think you should be getting into arguments with customers at the place where you work.

Admittedly I might have handled it poorly but I'm going to defend comics to someone who doesn't even read them. I know I've gained customers by being generally positive about comics and not letting cynics who buy like 2 titles turn the atmosphere miserable. We have lost a few customers but gained way more.
---

Unless you are specifically in a class about African-American lit, it sounds like the experience of the author as a black man should be way down the list of discussion.

UNLESS the book takes a turn where it turns out that his blackness matters even in Europe, but I feel like you would have mentioned that if it was the case
---

Not to mention from a business standpoint, if scarlet trying to sell a guy on some comics and a guy tries to dissuade that customer from buying, then scarlets reasonable for wanting to interject. Just maybe not with that much sarcasm but I get it.
---

It really doesn't. He mostly talks about his observations of other writers who have come to spend time in Paris like Gertrude Stein and their demeanor compared to the established Europeans.
---

Was it the tired old wannabe intellectual shit about Superman being boring because hes so invincible?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Was it the tired old wannabe intellectual shit about Superman being boring because hes so invincible?

Yes. It's the only argument I ever hear. I get it quite a lot. In fact, this customer has often interjected into counter conversation to chime in with these same base arguments. I've even had several people mention this guy before in a negative way. He plays in our Vanguard crowd (although I don't normally work night shifts so I don't have any idea if they like him or not).

But anyways, that argument is why I bring up the good Superman stories and say, "You're welcome to that opinion, but have you ever read _____?" Because almost always the inevitable answer is no.
---

Emeraldegg posted...

Not to mention from a business standpoint, if scarlet trying to sell a guy on some comics and a guy tries to dissuade that customer from buying, then scarlets reasonable for wanting to interject. Just maybe not with that much sarcasm but I get it.

Yeah, I could have been less confrontational. I really was getting irked that he was now bothering a second customer with his pessimistic nonsense and that customer was getting visibly irritated. Still, I could have just let it slide.
---

I think its a thing where people arent satisfied by their favorite media the way they used to be, due to fatigue or life changes or whatever reason, so they want to blame the media they loved for being bad and want to commiserate about it instead of doing the internal/external legwork to figure out what they would like to consume and how to find it.

It PLAGUES wrestling fandom, and Im not immune to bouts of it myself, despite worldwide alternatives being more accessible than ever
---

Jakyl25 posted...

It PLAGUES wrestling fandom, and Im not immune to bouts of it myself, despite worldwide alternatives being more accessible than ever

Even in wrestling I think it's more acceptable because at least with wrestling, you are often speaking about a business that puts a premium on fantasy booking. The whole business is about satisfying fans and create the matches they want to see. Wrestling from a booking standpoint doesn't attempt to tell a grander story or seek out certain truths, so if a discussion comes about talking about how the booking is poor in a company, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person watching is extremely disgruntled. It's a weird mix of a discussion of both fiction and reality that's been propelled by how WWE broke the kayfabe wall years ago.

I don't disagree that it's important to find an alternative that would make you happier, just that wrestling is a very unusual situation in terms of mediums of fiction.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Wrestling from a booking standpoint doesn't attempt to tell a grander story or seek out certain truths

Its kinda neat though that when its booked properly, you will find no sharper mirror into a societys values.

This does not apply when its booked purely to please Vince McMahon
---

I wish I had a quick link to Quack's speech about how wrestling can be a great medium for telling different stories.
---

Maniac64 posted...

I wish I had a quick link to Quack's speech about how wrestling can be a great medium for telling different stories.

It can be, but it's so mired in commercialisric pursuits that the art that once existed has faded away.
---

I think this is due to the age of instant gratification and social media we're in now. We all want to be noticed and because there are so many other voices to compete against, being noticed is harder than ever. Therefore, if we make our views as broad and populist as possible, we'll be noticed. Having an unpopular or controversial opinion in this kind of landscape is often akin to making yourself a social pariah, so you have to be very careful about where you say something challenging, and to whom. It's most potent on Twitter. Thanks to the 140 character limit, there's no space to be insightful or start a substantial discussion, so sweeping statements and crowd-pleasing win the day.

I also heard somewhere that feeling intense emotions, such as anger, gives you a dopamine boost (I'm afraid I don't remeber where, or I would find it here.) Because of this, it's not inconceivable that some people might have gotten addicted to anger, and look for things to be outraged by so that they can get their next hit.

Speaking about academia, I remember when I was in University about 6 or 7 years ago now, I was doing film studies for one of my modules. One of the assignments was to make a group presentation on vampires in film, and the group was in discussed the portrayal of vampires in film, and how that has in turn resulted in particularly influential movie vampires influencing vampire mythology to some degree. The presentations were graded by two lectures. One of them loved it and said my group had the best presentation in the class because he thought we took an interesting approach and went outside the box (We had worked in that Spongebob clip of Nosferatu playing with the lights as an example of how widespread and recognisable that Nosferatu had become he could show up in as unexpected a context as that). By contrast, the other lecturer hated it and thought my group had the worst presentation because we didn't go with a more traditional approach, and on our feedback she asked why we hadn't considered vampires as an allegory for race, gender or sexuality, which is what several of the other groups had done. Blade (which we had not mentioned in the presentation) was cited specifically for black vampires. I'll admit I hadn't thought of Blade being black as a significant detail, so I'm not sure sure if this is a case of me not thinking deeply enough, or the trend OP mentioned of their English Lit thinking that the the author being black is the only important thing about them.

If I were to critically analyse Blade, I wouldn't have considered race and would have suggested that the vampires are portrayed in different ways in the first two films. In the first one, they're presented in a hedonistic sexualised sense in the club, with how they drink blood for pleasure more than nourishment, while in the second I'd suggest it's comparable to addiction as the new vampires are designed as more malnourished than the older ones, and they're more scrappy in their mannerisms. In case you're wondering about the assignment, my group got a low pass grade because the top marks from the first lecturer and the terrible marks from the second lecturer cancelled each other out.

There is absolutely a way to deconstruct Blade through a lens of race, but its absurd to say that a broader analysis is lacking if it doesnt
---

it's also not absurd to just forget that Blade exists in general

tag
---

Also, Blade isn't a vampire.
---

GavsEvans123 posted...

I think this is due to the age of instant gratification and social media we're in now. We all want to be noticed and because there are so many other voices to compete against, being noticed is harder than ever. Therefore, if we make our views as broad and populist as possible, we'll be noticed. Having an unpopular or controversial opinion in this kind of landscape is often akin to making yourself a social pariah, so you have to be very careful about where you say something challenging, and to whom. It's most potent on Twitter. Thanks to the 140 character limit, there's no space to be insightful or start a substantial discussion, so sweeping statements and crowd-pleasing win the day.

I also heard somewhere that feeling intense emotions, such as anger, gives you a dopamine boost (I'm afraid I don't remeber where, or I would find it here.) Because of this, it's not inconceivable that some people might have gotten addicted to anger, and look for things to be outraged by so that they can get their next hit.

Speaking about academia, I remember when I was in University about 6 or 7 years ago now, I was doing film studies for one of my modules. One of the assignments was to make a group presentation on vampires in film, and the group was in discussed the portrayal of vampires in film, and how that has in turn resulted in particularly influential movie vampires influencing vampire mythology to some degree. The presentations were graded by two lectures. One of them loved it and said my group had the best presentation in the class because he thought we took an interesting approach and went outside the box (We had worked in that Spongebob clip of Nosferatu playing with the lights as an example of how widespread and recognisable that Nosferatu had become he could show up in as unexpected a context as that). By contrast, the other lecturer hated it and thought my group had the worst presentation because we didn't go with a more traditional approach, and on our feedback she asked why we hadn't considered vampires as an allegory for race, gender or sexuality, which is what several of the other groups had done. Blade (which we had not mentioned in the presentation) was cited specifically for black vampires. I'll admit I hadn't thought of Blade being black as a significant detail, so I'm not sure sure if this is a case of me not thinking deeply enough, or the trend OP mentioned of their English Lit thinking that the the author being black is the only important thing about them.

If I were to critically analyse Blade, I wouldn't have considered race and would have suggested that the vampires are portrayed in different ways in the first two films. In the first one, they're presented in a hedonistic sexualised sense in the club, with how they drink blood for pleasure more than nourishment, while in the second I'd suggest it's comparable to addiction as the new vampires are designed as more malnourished than the older ones, and they're more scrappy in their mannerisms. In case you're wondering about the assignment, my group got a low pass grade because the top marks from the first lecturer and the terrible marks from the second lecturer cancelled each other out.

so you're saying it's the fault of the Casual Revolution of 2007?

wow my phones autocorrect capitalized that
---

People suck. This is what makes good friends so valuable- they are people who don't suck

Comic book fans have never been known for their social adeptness, and undergrads are dumb and looking for approval from their peers above all else. I'd say that cantankerous characters in a hobby shop are just looking for a reaction of some kind.

The specific race/gender/etc lens is relatively new, but the one track thought isn't.

That's my two bits, at least
---

banananor posted...

The specific race/gender/etc lens is relatively new, but the one track thought isn't.

It feels so much more prevalent now than before. I even feel like it's more prevalent on this board in virtually every topic. The dumbing-down of discussion frightens me; every time I feel like a conversation can move into deeper territory, the participants retreat to basic rhetoric.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

"So the only Superman comic you've ever read you liked. But you hate the character."

i don't think there's anything wrong with this. it's entirely possible to like a story but dislike the main character or not care for them.

don't disagree with the overall point of your stories but yeah.
---

I think you're nitpicking the idea. The point is, this guy is railing against Superman and knows nothing about him.
---

The people saying it don't feel like it's being dumbed-down, they feel it's finally something they can speak about honestly without obfuscating the issue. What you call deeper territory is therefore seen as evasion. At least in a lot of cases. So like, I think what you see as "trying to earn social capital" is just them giving their honest beliefs on an essay (that they probably didn't read very closely, because college).

That said, your instructor definitely fucked up by not finding a way to engage both viewpoints, because that could have been an interesting discussion if he had run it better.
---

I think its people who mean well but dont have the right language or approach to adding to the discussion. They feel like they have to win the shouting match, which sometimes they DO, but not in a classroom
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I think its people who mean well but dont have the right language or approach to adding to the discussion. They feel like they have to win the shouting match, which sometimes they DO, but not in a classroom

100% agreed, this is what I was trying to say but much clearer.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

I think you're nitpicking the idea.

well, that was the only part of your stories where i went "uh dunno if i agree with this." you're free to call it a "nitpick" i guess.
---

Kenri posted...

The people saying it don't feel like it's being dumbed-down, they feel it's finally something they can speak about honestly without obfuscating the issue.

"Finally, I can speak honestly on the fact that Gertrude Stein is gay!"

"I'm glad you feel this way. What about that fact helps reinforce the content of this short work?"

"She's gay!"

"Yeah. And...?"

"That's great!"

"It is. It's great that she is gay. Now about this essay. What content of this essay do you speak to you in terms of the actual topic of the essay."

"Well, it's just so great that we're reading works by gay authors!"

This is one side. The response is worse but I'd rather not post that portion since, as someone who has always thought of themselves as moderate-leaning-liberal, this is the argument that scares me the most.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

I think you're nitpicking the idea.

well, that was the only part of your stories where i went "uh dunno if i agree with this." you're free to call it a "nitpick" i guess.

I welcome the discussion, I just feel like in the example so far, multiple people have really focused on the dialogue on my end (which was mostly just detached irritation for his behavior in front of customers) and not on the larger concept of the lack of depth to the argument.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Maniac64 posted...

I wish I had a quick link to Quack's speech about how wrestling can be a great medium for telling different stories.

It can be, but it's so mired in commercialisric pursuits that the art that once existed has faded away.

I watch CHIKARA so I avoid a lot of that.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Kenri posted...

The people saying it don't feel like it's being dumbed-down, they feel it's finally something they can speak about honestly without obfuscating the issue.

"Finally, I can speak honestly on the fact that Gertrude Stein is gay!"

"I'm glad you feel this way. What about that fact helps reinforce the content of this short work?"

"She's gay!"

"Yeah. And...?"

"That's great!"

"It is. It's great that she is gay. Now about this essay. What content of this essay do you speak to you in terms of the actual topic of the essay."

"Well, it's just so great that we're reading works by gay authors!"

This is one side. The response is worse but I'd rather not post that portion since, as someone who has always thought of themselves as moderate-leaning-liberal, this is the argument that scares me the most.

Okay I've literally never seen this or anything like this so uhhh I dunno what to say.
---

I thought this was a paper you wrote for English at first.
---

I think mentioning some hypotheticals or real comic examples of how Superman can still have difficult challenges to overcome in spite of being invincible that don't involve Kryptonite instead of just making fun of the guy would've been more constructive.

Like the customer didn't start the conversation on a particularly insightful note but you didn't help it along either. Not saying you'd have to go down the path of a debate but just exploring the main pitfall of the invincibility hater and leaving it at that would've been better I think.
---

It's like no one is paying attention to what I'm talking about at all. Like I said, he's done this before.

I do like how it's nonstop "you should have been nicer to the guy pissing off other customers repeatedly" though.
---

It's for the new customer you felt he was distracting moreso than him
---

you dealt with the asshole veteran customer just fine
---

The guy came in already seeking Superman. I dont think the cranky guy needed to be countered as much as he needed to be dismissed as lacking any credibility so he could be brushed off
---

Lopen posted...

It's for the new customer you felt he was distracting moreso than him

Well, I would fill you in on the new customer but I had been explaining the minutiae of several famous stories and had already covered Superman's various iniquities with him, but I can see how it might have been helpful for him.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

It's like no one is paying attention to what I'm talking about at all. Like I said, he's done this before.

I do like how it's nonstop "you should have been nicer to the guy pissing off other customers repeatedly" though.

i paid attention to your posts just fine. i just attacked one argument you made against the costumer, i never said anything about the way you phrased the argument.
---

I just think that putting reacting to a dismissive attitude with a dismissive attitude creates a really negative vibe in the air that you can help stave off by not doing that as much as long as you don't go too far down the rabbit hole of a debate.

Like I don't feel you were 'harsh' to the veteran customer as much as not helping the environment feel positive as you could for the other customers.
---

Is it really that dismissive to say, "You've only read one story with the character and you liked it. But you dislike the character," expecting some sort of actual response? I pointed out a discrepancy. He had the opportunity to say, "Hey, this is why I don't like Superman." But he can't articulate it. So it becomes dismissive because he has nothing to back up his emotional outburst.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

"Well, thank you for that inspiring piece of insight."

I'm talking about that being your first response to him, not anything that followed
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Is it really that dismissive to say, "You've only read one story with the character and you liked it. But you dislike the character," expecting some sort of actual response? I pointed out a discrepancy. He had the opportunity to say, "Hey, this is why I don't like Superman." But he can't articulate it. So it becomes dismissive because he has nothing to back up his emotional outburst.

what's the discrepancy? like i said, it's entirely possible to like a story but to dislike a character in it, even the main character. they're two separate things. and at least he read one superman story. sure, it's a laughably sample size and it's like disliking batman because you didn't like him in the 1966 movie or something, but at least he's basing his dislike on something.

also, according to your story he WAS going to respond but "you were finished yourself," so...
---

Lopen posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

"Well, thank you for that inspiring piece of insight."

I'm talking about that being your first response to him, not anything that followed

I waited for a very awkward pause to respond. Both the customer and I turned to the other customer to expound. The guy just stared at us. When he said absolutely nothing, which by the way, was extremely rude to begin with, interrupting me in mid-sentence as I talked about a comic to another customer, I responded as I did. Because I was put off by the very impolite behavior.

Like, fine, I could have said, "Poor baby, I'm so sorry! Please explain your opinion you have offered to the detriment of the conversation in which you intruded." Would that have appeased you?
---