Internet Fandoms... It's dangerous to go alone

While admittedly once a part of many fandoms myself, I found it difficult to do adequate research for this particular assignment. As I grow older, I find some parts of the Internet to be more and more juvenile, both in writing style and subject matter. It is hard to determine whether or not this is because I myself have matured, or the Internet itself might be getting younger. But, I digress.

As I have done participated in fandoms in the past, I felt it appropriate to return to one of them for this assignment. Since the world of Harry Potter is still fresh on my mind from rereading the books and seeing the newest movie, I thought it was the obvious choice. Since the forums I used to frequent were long gone, I had to find an alternative.

A quick search in google for "Harry Potter Forums" led me to the Harry Potter Forums website, conveniently called harrypotterforums.com. The layout seemed standard enough, with different boards cleverly labeled with references to the books. It seemed pretty benign, though I knew that the true colors of the participants would show when dove into the topics.

As to be expected, upon clicking on the most popular forum (General Discussion of Harry Potter), half the topic titles were misspelled, poorly worded, and generally gramatically incorrect. The discussions themselves were not much different, and though some of them started out mature enough, within a few posts they would resort to one-line answers and provide information that had little to do with the actual topic itself. Adolescent fandoms seem to all have this problem.

The subjects they actually spoke of were not exactly unexpected or unheard of. They discussed the potential relationships of the characters, the actors in the movies, the Harry Potter books vs. the Twilight books, etc. Moderators appeared to keep the place fairly tidy as far as topics went, and seemed to play a key role in keeping threads on topic.

As far as copywrite infringement goes, nothing seemed to jump out at me, though I admittedly did not scan every topic. I believe that when fans use characters for their own pleasure, and do not try to make money off of them, the creator of said character should be flattered rather than offended. There were instances of fanfiction and roleplay, character analysis, fan art, and even a few rewritings of passages from the book from another person's perspective. Generally speaking, most of it was fairly immature, but it had a heart to it that only a true fan can produce.

While I myself find it difficult to partake in such areas of the Internet, I admire the imagination of the people involved. It takes a certain dedication to stick around for years as some of the members have, and as attention spans grow shorter, my respect for those who can stick to what they love grows larger.

On Storytelling

Anyone experienced with storytelling will tell you that throughout time, the stories never change, just the way they are told. While the stories in prehistory were told only by word of mouth, in current times we have many ways to tell stories. Through films, literature, websites, music, theatre, and video games, stories of all scales and genres find their way into our worlds. Often, they are in a form that is more interactive than ever achieved in the past, especially for video games and websites. This interactive form of storytelling is not for everyone, however, as it requires more input from an individual in order for said individual to gain all they can from the story. For some people, their own unique input and hard work makes a story more rewarding and personal, but some simply wish to be spoon-fed the information. While some may argue that some new media has taken over old-fashioned storytelling, some storytellers themselves prefer books exclusively to film or video games. Therefore, storytelling will never full evolve out of its traditions, and instead will simply embrace new methods to perpetuate stories.

In my personal opinion, the future of storytelling within new media lies in blogging and social networking. Though the stories are not all fictitious, anyone can steal a glimpse of another life just by reading their blogs status updates. In a way they can be considered interactive storytelling, as readers are allowed to comment and, naturally, interact with the authors. However, when everyone can participate, the stories become disjointed and incoherent, and their quality fluctuates greatly. Linear stories are better off in a more concrete environment, in which few people have absolute control over what happens.

Source used for research of opinion:
Murray, Janet H. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1998.

On Marketing and Product Culture

Everywhere we go, no matter what we’re doing, someone is trying to sell us something. Whether it is a product, service, or even an idea, everyone seems to be competing for our money and attention. I say “our” to reference the collective people that encompasses everyone who does not live under a rock, including those within the competition. While some may cry that the noise is too much, I really believe that people have the ability to filter through it all and find what is relevant to them. While it may be the marketers job to determine just what is relevant to people in a certain demographic, one should understand that it is rarely just one entity that entices people.

The documentary seemed to objectify advertising, making it seem like a game that is to be won or lost. Advertisers seem to think this way too, which is troubling. As a consumer, when I purchase something, it is namely on the basis of how useful it is to me, or how buying it would enhance my life. Lately, as illustrated in the documentary, some products and services are trying to manifest a “culture” around their product, but they fail to grasp what creates a community around a product. Apple computers offered disenfranchised PC users an alternative that worked well for their needs, and from there it spawned a trend. Linux did the same thing with those who wanted a more technically open operating system than Windows. iPods let users buy the music they want and take it anywhere, rather than dealing with bulky CDs which may have only been purchased for one song. There is a narrow margin for creating a community around a product, and generally speaking it is not something that can be fabricated by marketers. Lasting communities arise from a company fulfilling their needs, often beyond expectations, and continuing to improve on that product over the years. A truly successful product is one that looks at society’s needs, fulfills them with a quality item, and keeps them coming back with new innovations periodically.

Wikipedia

If anyone has ever used the Internet in recent years to “look up” some fact, chances are they’ve used Wikipedia. The idea of collective intelligence manifests itself in the Wikipedia website, and we are able to determine the weaknesses and strengths of allowing everyone to participate in such a broad encyclopedia.

Wikipedia “represents a vast investment of freely given manual effort and judgment,” which means that the collective community both writes and edits the website rather than simply providing information for it (Medelyan). This methodology invests absolute power into the collective, which can act as a blessing or a shortcoming depending on the situation and perspective. While the potential seems limited only by the extent of our collective knowledge, the actual limit is far more restricting, as the website has placed limits on itself to keep it from digging too deep.

That is the flaw of Wikipedia. In the way it limits itself, it keeps itself stable, but also keeps itself from being the end-all be-all of encyclopedias. The website used to allow just about any specific page to be created; there was a time when each of the 400+ Pokemon were allowed their own individual pages. In the way of clarity and moderation, however, they grouped many pages into one, limiting the amount of information that was allowed to be displayed. This brought up many disputes over which pages were given relevance over others, and of course authors were upset that their work was no longer used.

Wired reports that Wikipedia will soon gain a color-coded system of reliability, with each word given a color based on the author’s credibility. This move is to help Wikipedia become a more credible source of knowledge, but limits the amount of information that people will take seriously. Some say it is a step in the right direction, but others feel that some of the charm of Wikipedia is lost when it tries to become a credible source.