Fan-Fiction: The Modern Day Diary Entry

Fan-fiction has proven to be more than just a fad or niche pastime for a small group of people. At its core, fan-fiction is fiction written by in the fictional universe or including the same characters of that of a certain media that they are a fan of (ie. television show, novel). Often times these stories fill in backstory for different characters or explore new themes and ideas that the media did not cover (recontextualization, refocalization, etc.) . Perhaps more interesting is the more controversial “slash-fiction”, in which sexual relationships and impulses are explored between characters of fictional texts that did not occur in the original version. An example is the below image of two male Star-Trek characters, an imagined concept created by a fan for fictional purposes:

On the surface, fan-fiction does not seem particularly interesting. So young people are writing cheesy backstories for sci-fi characters, who cares? Well, I think in a sense writing fan-fiction works as a modern day diary entry, where young, confused and impressionable teenagers and young adults alike can express their bottled up feelings about sexuality, race and gender equality and relations, politics, and other larger cultural ideas. The fan-fiction writers imagine themselves in the scenarios they write about, but instead of “personalization” where they literally write themselves into the stories, they express emotions and ideas through characters who they feel comfortable and identify with. It is in this way that it works as a sort of diary entry because although the fiction is often posted into public forums, it is anonymous as they hide behind the identities of the characters they write about. On top of this, readers of the fan-fiction are able to better understand their own sexuality and other feelings through these so called “diary-entries” of  others. Take for example the girl in this Vice article who talks about how reading and creating fan-fiction worked as the sexual education she wasn’t getting from her family and friends:

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/fan-fiction-is-the-sexual-education-i-gave-myself 

This example demonstrates how the diaries not only work as diary entries for the people who write them, but also for the people who read them, who may then be inspired to write their own material or have conversations and dialogue about things they may before would have been to reserved about. Which leads me to what I’d like to talk about next in terms of how fan-fiction writing transcends its surface purpose, which is its ability to bring people together. 

Subcultures are nothing new, and have existed as an alternative to mainstream culture for some time now. From the 1960s hippies in San Francisco to the mods and the rockers in 1970s London, subcultures have been well known and present historically. What is more of a recent phenomenon however is online "fandom" subcultures. Participants of these online subcultures practice similar traits to those who are part of traditional subcultures such as secret languages, distinct style, or inside jokes, but do so online. The members of these online subcultures cherish the source material that they have built their subculture around and work hard to protect continuity and canon, making sure what they are doing is authentic. What is interesting to these online subcultures is similar to that of fan-fiction writers in the way it brings people together to share and express. The internet provides a forum for bringing people of all different cultures together that is unprecedented and the result is a groups of like-minded individuals coming together and expressing themselves who would have never been able to do so before. 

Thus far, this post has highly praised fan-fiction, fandom, and the subcultures that it has created. However, there are some aspects that can be considered as negative. For example, in "Crowdfunding: A Spimatic application of digital fandom" Booth (2015) points out that some scholars argue that  aspects of participatory culture such as crowdfunding can actually take advantage of the fans and exploit their money, time, and work. I think, from this perspective, there is something to be said about participatory culture as a negative thing for fans and consumers. One example that comes to mind is the Doritos "Crash the Super Bowl" campaign, where audience members were encouraged to submit their own commercials for a chance for theirs to appear during the Super Bowl. Here are a few of the more humorous examples:

Now, this may seem fine and innocent, but through a more critical lens it appears that this competition is exploitative in the same way crowdfunding for major film and television production is. Here, instead of money, fans are being "exploited" for their creativity. I emphasize exploited because that's assuming you consider this and crowdfunding to be exploitation. Personally, I agree with the other scholars that Booth includes in the article, who point out that fans are well aware of their role and therefore are not exploited. I think the same way that fan-fiction gives people a level of agency and voice they have not had in the past, participatory culture driven by fandom allows fans the opportunity to play a more meaningful role in their favourite texts and brands.

I think ultimately fan-fiction and audience subcultures are so much more than a hobby and past-time for people. They work as a medium for expression and experimentation for people of all different cultural backgrounds in many different walks of life and transcend their surface level purpose. The pros out weigh the cons and audiences taking a more active role is allowing for more interesting texts and concepts, while simultaneously creating communities and bringing them together. Feeling stressed, misunderstood, confused, or curious?

Sources:

Booth, P. (2015). Crowdfunding: A Spimatic application of digital fandom. New Media & Society, 17(2). 149-166

Sullivan, J. (2013). Media Audiences, Effects, Users, Institutions, Power. California: SAGE Publications.

Syfret, W. (2015, August 28). Fan Fiction is the Sexual Education I Gave Myself. Retrieved     from: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/fan-fiction-is-the-sexual-education-i-gave-myself

Interpreting Signs and Messages at Brock University

According to Ferdinand de Saussure, signs refer to things that they are not. A “sign” is defined by the interaction of the signifier (the form of the sign) and the signified (the concept the signifier represents). To better understand this concept, let’s break down a sign. Here we have the Canadian flag, which can be seen waiving in front of the tower at Brock University:

The signifiers of this sign are the physical things about it that can be seen. It is a rectangle made of cloth attached to a pole. On the cloth are two smaller red rectangles, and a red maple leaf. The signifiers of a sign can be seen as the way an alien from outer-space would interpret the sign. With no knowledge of its meaning or significance, they would strictly identify its physical characteristics (assuming these aliens can see). The signified meaning of this sign is that it serves as Canada’s national flag and represents our country. There is nothing inherent or natural about a red maple leaf and rectangles that suggest Canadian nationality, but that is the dominant meaning it carries due to human social relations and symbolic codes. The signified is subject to change at any time and possesses its meaning based on the shared agreement and understanding of society rather than its physical characteristics. 

A similar way of thinking can be applied to understand communication messages. When a message producer (for our purposes Brock University) releases a messages, they “encode” the message by having it conform to already existing rules and norms (is this relevant to students/faculty? Is it appropriate for us to weigh in on this topic? Will we offend anyone with this message?). It is then up to the message receiver (students) to “decode” the message and interpret it. In doing so there are two levels of meaning that can be interpreted: the denotative meaning (the literal meaning of the sign), and the connotative meaning (the contextualized understanding of the sign.) Let’s look at a promotional video from Brock University to better understand this concept:

 On a denotative level of meaning, this is a 15 second video with multiple pictures edited and placed together in a way that shows the actors involved as two different types of people. This message is reinforced at the end with the slogan “Discover both sides of your brain” and the Brock University logo. The way you understand this video at this level of meaning is very literal: Brock University wants you to discover both sides of your brain, and is showing one side of a person's face beside some sort of image. On a connotative level of meaning, one can start inferring their own “situational ideologies” to give this message a different meaning. As per this picture, scientists have identified that the right and left sides of our brains are responsible for different types of thinking. 

It is common for people to say they are more “left-brained” if they excel in mathematics or science, or “right-brained” if they excel in the arts. Brock University is demonstrating their commitment to honing both the analytical and artistic abilities of their students using an abstract visual demonstration of people and images that tend to represent prestige and intellect such as finance and professional sport, summarized by the slogan “Discover both sides of your brain.”  In order for the audience to achieve this interpretation of the message, they need to have some sort of background knowledge about how the brain works and why using “both sides” of it is significant or appealing. 

Now to be clear, this interpretation that I have explained is very much the “dominant-hegemonic position”, and assumes the message receiver decodes the message in the exact way it was intended to be decoded by the encoder. Some viewers could interpret the message from a “negotiated position”, where they acknowledge and understand the dominant code but have their own meaning shaped by other ideologies and experiences from their lives that may oppose it. For example, a student may see this and acknowledge that honing both sides of the brain can be useful, but doesn’t feel it necessary for his own education as he doesn’t want to waste his time honing analytical skills as a music major. There is also an “oppositional position” to be taken, where the decoder actively opposes or disagrees with the connotative meaning of the message. In this case, the decoder may think that honing both sides of the brain is a waste of time and doesn’t lead to a better, more rounded education as the video suggests. All three of these positions depend on the ideologies and experiences that the decoder references when decoding the messages. 

Understanding how different signs and messages can be interpreted and understood is important for University students. As critical thinkers it is crucial that we are not only aware of the different levels of meaning that these things have when decoding messages, but also of how others may interpret messages we encode and for what reasons. As audience members and content producers we almost certainly will find ourselves on both sides of the spectrum, and the more knowledge we have about how to effectively communicate and interpret messages the more successful we can be. 

Sources: 

Sullivan, J. (2013). Media Audiences, Effects, Users, Institutions, Power. California: SAGE Publications.

Unknown. [brockuvideo] (2011, May 11) Brock University - Discover Both Sides of Your Brain [video file] Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4LraZT5cqo