fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3918 ]

But it's not like they pick up and do it en masse. In fact, even saying that they "move on" is a little inaccurate - it's not like it's impossible to be fans of more than one thing at a time. They're more overlapping fandoms. They're not locusts.

I think there are some fans that do genuinely "move on", because they are more interested in being involved in the most active fandom (and therefore getting the most hits, comments, likes, reposts, etc etc). As for the rest of the fans - well, there are overlaps, so in that way you are right and it's not as exactly accurate as I initially said it was. But it is a persuasive metaphor that I think accurately describes how fandoms change their focus (and definitely describes the phenomenon from an outsider's POV).

I can certainly see that it's an accurate metaphor when it comes to the experience of it, but I think when people start talking in terms of locusts and all of that stuff, it goes too far. And as a metaphor, it's a very limited metaphor - it kind of treats the process and the fandoms as monolithic and ignores the structural dimensions and all the rest of that stuff.

Yeah, I'm not into the 'locusts' stuff easier because I think this is just a thing that happens in the subculture of fandom across all fandoms to varying degrees, and 'locusts' seems like one group of fans trying to put down another group and say 'we're not like them' (yes you are motherfuckers, you just don't like weird animated shit, you like your own weird shit).

interested by what you mean by structural dimensions - I'm probably too sick to think too deeply about social theory atm, but to my mind 'migratory' fandom is really just the human reaction to fads/ herd mentality playing itself out in a particular subculture, and the process is visible because fandom uses online public forums as its main communication platform. I agree, fandom isn't monolithic and so this plays itself out differently for individual fandoms and fans. However, I think the general phenomenon of a group of people moving from one interest to another is not unique to fandom and is just a thing that happens.

Despite this, migratory fandom can still be a useful term, because it describes this phenomenon as it occurs within the subculture of fandom, which, on top of operating mainly through internet forums, also has its own internal social dynamics which both act to influence the manner in which this process occurs between fandoms.

Yeah, I'm not into the 'locusts' stuff easier because I think this is just a thing that happens in the subculture of fandom across all fandoms to varying degrees, and 'locusts' seems like one group of fans trying to put down another group and say 'we're not like them' (yes you are motherfuckers, you just don't like weird animated shit, you like your own weird shit).

FWIW this is basically the substance of my issue with the phrase in general. it seems to me like it is used primarily if not exclusively with that sense. even if it's usually not as explicit as calling them locusts.

I don't remember what I had in mind when I used the word structural, exactly. But talking in terms of migratory fandom is a massive simplification that elides a ton of different things, and i'm not sure that the use of being able to describe faddishness in fandom outweighs the connotation and all of that side of things.

Fair enough. When I first encountered the phrase it was referring to migratory slash fandoms and didn't seem so derogatory (more exasperated IIRC), but I can well believe that it's become much more negative since then.

I also get the irritation with the generalisation - generalisations are, after all, only useful up to a point if they are useful at all. And if there's a bunch of cultural baggage attached to migratory fandom I'm interested in a better term as well.

[ SECRET POST #3918 ]

Re: Is this right?

Re: Is this right?

Re: Is this right?

Re: Is this right?

Re: Is this right?

Re: Is this right?