The poll and the aftermath
There are a few things I could say about that poll that I passed around yesterday. But it all comes down to one thing: nuance does not exist in fandoms or, more generally, on social media. It never has.
More importantly, nuance often does not exist in normal life either. How many times have you said something only for the person you're talking to take it out of context or meaning for what you said and why?
How many times have you said: "I like tacos." Only for some idiot to say: "So you hate burritos."
Or to say: "I think...XYZ;" and for someone to say: "So you believe ZYX?"
This is, from my experience, fandoms in a nutshell. However, it comes from a matter of hearing without listening. Reading without learning. Talking without thought.
People in arguments often listen to argue - which is a great interpretation of all of this. People listen to you to argue. They aren't 'hearing' what you say, they've already decided what you're going to say, are saying, is wrong; so they listen to hear when you stop talking.
You'd think this would be hard to do from a written word. It's not. Among academics, among other fields, it's a skill. Deliberate misinterpretation of someone else's work, of someone's else experience, of someone else's research.
In online spaces, you see this all the time. E.g., the taco/XYZ example above. We call those response people (the burritos/ZYX people) trolls, and some of them are, but others lack a certain ability of nuance. Of looking past the written to what's behind. To asking questions. We've become a society of know-it-alls (or "no-it-alls"), and that to ask is to admit a weakness...like we're going to be eaten by digital lions because we asked a question, or we can't admit we didn't understand what was said.
So what was that poll? I think it was a genuine question. How to enter fandom spaces. How to break through into fandom circles. How to go into online spaces and talk about your faves.
I will admit I'd never thought there was required reading before the source material. I do know that certain interpretations of certain characters (video games, in particular) seem to be...the accepted right. Do I accept them? Not always.
Does that make me not a fan? No.
Do I go out of my way to tell others they're stupid for thinking that? Also no. I see little point. You (ubiquitously applied) enjoy it and that's great. I'm happy for you. Is it my thing? No...and that's fine. My disliking what you like doesn't stop discourse unless you choose for it to stop.
For example: popular headcanon for Dragon Age is to give half-elves elven features despite the games saying that's not what happens. You know what? I get it. I get the need for certain groups (indigenous, marginalized) to want to see the physical representation. Everyone wants to see themselves in their blorbos.
Do I see DA half-elves that way? No. I don't head canon that Alistair has pointed ears. Not because I hate all elves (fill-in-the-blank marginalized community), but because I head canon that the Veil, as described, cut the elves from everything: their gods, their history, their physical stature, and their immortality. And that means half-elves don't look like their elvish parent. The presence of the Veil erased elves, made them less than. I also head canon that if the Veil was taken down (which it should have been), then slowly the features, the memories, the long-lives would return - and that's when you would see elven features in half-elven children.*
If we were in a class I would say: read all of that again. Those two paragraphs and tell me what I said. Not what you think I said, but what was actually said.
I did not say "I hate marginalized people" nor did I say "I'm anti-_____ (fill in the blank)."
And yet, that it what some will see. If you don't believe this thing that's "accepted in this fandom" then you must hate Dragon Age. And me. And my family. And all my friends. And my dog. And want me to die.
(Christ on a cracker! Slow your roll. READ it again. Reading comprehension, like common sense, is a lost art.)
At any point, is that what I said? No. Is there nuance in what I said? Yes. But my head canon world-state in Dragon Age is...long and I'm going to get into it here. Does it match with the information from the games? Probably not. But then the Dragon Age games often contradict one another, so I think I'm safe. And even if I'm not: it's a head canon. MY head canon. Your mileage may vary.
Does MY head canon take away from yours? No. Are they compatible? I've no idea. More importantly, it doesn't matter. MY head canon isn't YOUR head canon. And I have no interest in imposing what MY head canon says on what YOUR head canon says. Nor using YOURs for my purposes. If we agree on certain interpretations, that's stupendous! Truly. If we don't...doesn't mean we cannot have continued dialogue. There have been times, I've changed my mind over certain points, certain interpretations from others. Where I can say: Yeah, I see that. I can appreciate YOUR point of view.
FYI: If I use that phrase, that's exactly what I mean - I see the nuance in what you say, I see the validity in what you say. I honor your view, your thoughts. Historians often see alternate POVs - objective interpretation as opposed to subjective. If I read this letter: what was said? What did they mean? In or out of context. What was their purpose? Good historians can hold multiple interpretations in their heads at once. Good academics are always learning - in or outside of their chosen field.
As for the rest of that poll's implication: the gatekeeping of fandoms. It happens. Sometimes it happens without intention. People circle around certain characters to the exclusion of others. People circle around certain "head" canons to the exclusion of others. Head in quotes because this particular type of head canon takes on a life of its own - a subset of a subset where it's passes into being "fandom" canon. Alistair is a "himbo" is one. Gale is a "yapper" is another.
Sometimes there's push back - and other groups form within a fandom. Factions within factions.
Sometimes there's arguing and finger-pointing and everyone goes home miserable.
Sometimes you use block functions (hashtags, words, phrases) and move on with your life.
Bottom line: It all comes down to nuance and listening. Nuance of thought, or writing, or interpretation. Truly listening to what others think without arguing, without jumping to conclusions. Anything that enrages me online: I have learned to stop and think. Why am I angry about this? Sometimes it's an offline personal event/series of things or I haven't eaten. Sometimes it's the lack of thought behind what I've read, and it's worth the anger and pushing back - if only to open the dialogue. To have a discussion or an argument if it's productive.
One thing I will note: sometimes difference of opinion/interpretation comes down to age and where someone is in their life. Single/dating vs. married/partnered. University vs. career and/or grad school. New career vs. established career. Kids vs. no kids - then how old the kids are. Marginalized vs. non-marginalized. But that's a different post.
