fannish history etc etc

Dec 15, 2010 18:29

Okay, so is it wrong of me to be annoyed when people don't realise the history of
Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 5

oloriel December 16 2010, 11:17:18 UTC
Only commenting on the "new" thing, since I don't know anything about the rest:
Considering that even some five year old fandom communities consider themselves "fairly young", I can't see how anything's wrong with calling something that's "almost" a year old "fairly new". Or even "new" without the mitigating "fairly". The web may be fast, but one year still isn't such a long time... *scratches head*

Reply

kazaera December 16 2010, 12:29:29 UTC
I think part of it is that looking at as part of the asexual community? Asexuality has reeaally not been visible at all for very long. Was reading some stuff about the history of the movement recently - the main site was founded in 2002, but it took a while to take off. I've ided as asexual for six years and have ided as asexual knowing the community existed and using community definitions for about four-five - and this makes me an old fogey in the ace world, I think. Most of my ace friends now have not known for that long, and it's really only in the past two, three years or so that I've really seen asexual people around off AVEN. In that context, I consider "almost a year" to be fairly old. And with the context of the post, it was clear that "fairly new" was implying it was founded because of Sherlock (e.g. that the person who wrote it wasn't even sure whether they accepted non-Sherlock-centric posts.)

Reply

oloriel December 16 2010, 13:08:06 UTC
Oh, ok, so it was more about the age of the community in relation to the general age of the movement than about the age of the community in relation to the general world of fandom? I didn't realise that.
Although if there aren't a couple of younger communities around (which of course there might be), I still don't think the "fairly new" thing is worth getting annoyed over.

Now annoyance about the wrong Sherlock foundation claim and the erasing busines, THAT I understand...

Reply

kazaera December 16 2010, 17:22:17 UTC
I wouldn't have been annoyed about "fairly new" on its own. In context, it was just another sign that they hadn't bothered to look at the comm at all in favour of projecting onto it what they thought was going on. (And there is asexy_sherlock on LJ which is specifically about asexuality in Sherlock and is eight months or so younger to boot.)

Reply


aiffe December 16 2010, 22:47:28 UTC
Wow, someone really needs to do their research.

I'm actually not sure how I feel about sexual people writing ace fic just yet. It's just, we're so rare, a lot of sexual people have never met an ace person, so even if they do research, it's just all kind of speculating, and it seems likely to result in ~angst~ about how we're in love but can't have sex--asexuality as a barrier to sex, rather than an alternative.

I can understand how like, asexy fic being written by non-asexuals signals a move into mainstream as opposed to a niche genre mostly written and read by people who are asexual themselves--it means asexual people are interesting to the world at large, not just to other asexuals.

But of course, how to tell if an asexy fic is written by an asexual or not, unless they happen to say so? Just assuming sexual as the default is kind of a BAD IDEA here.

It seems like whoever wrote that post is spreading a lot of misinformation. IDK, I'd inform them.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up