I don’t know about that. If I’m a fan of an author, it’s because that author can consistently produce good product. I love the hell out of Joss Whedon, but if he spends the next decade churning out unwatchable crap, I’m probably not going to be calling myself a fan.
On the other hand, the Cubs still have fans. So clearly, there’s some other dynamic in play here.
But doesn’t that sort of presuppose that you’re already invested in the drama? There’s a lot of real-life drama out there. Most of it is utterly tedious to people who aren’t directly involved in it. What makes sports different? What makes the reversal of the fortunes of the Patriots interesting in the first place?
That’s a fair point.
Like I said above, I get that part. It’s just that there are ways of scratching that tribal identity itch that are less mystifying to me. Like actually joining a sports team, which seems to grant all of the advantages of group identity, with the added benefit of getting to actually play the game, instead of just watching it.
I can almost agree with this. However, I can understand how people enjoy watching a game.
But what I can’t understand is loyalty to a team. These players don’t represent your region, they were imported for cash. They have no loyalty to you, so why car about them? The team who won the championship in 1995 is not the same team you’re watching today - all the players, coaches, and maybe even the rules are different. But you speak of them as though they remain the same team throughout the previous 150 years.
Fine, enjoy the individual game. But team loyalty is just absurd; pull your fervour back a bit.
I instantly knew what he meant and identified entirely, so I’m not sure if you didn’t get the meaning the fault mightn’t lie with the sender as much as or more than the receiver.
I’m surprised you can understand one and not the other. From what little I’ve seen of the latter, they comprise in considerable part the manufacture of drama by the imposition of stressors. Further, the stressors often comprise imposition of highly artificial rules necessitating competition, resulting in conflict and interpersonal drama.
Or in other words, a football match.
Because if you don’t there is no emotional kick. I’m (if I do say so myself) a good authority on the subject because I’m not a natural sportsteam fan: I can take it or leave it and I can move my head into and out of the fandom. The more I allow myself to get into it, the more I enjoy it when the Brisbane Lions win and the more of a feeling of cameradery I get from other fans. The more I sit back and think “this is all so Og damned stoopid” the less of a high I get when they win and the less I can identify with the other guys and gals in Lions caps around me.
My thoughts too. I can understand watching and enjoying a specific game, but I’ve always been mystified by passionate, unwavering, fervent support of a local footy team- with extra confusion if it’s not your local footy team and you’ve got no connection at all to the team you support, either.
Okay, I don’t understand “fandoms” either. You know, the type of fans of a TV show or manga series who argue with each other about which of the characters are in a hidden gay relationship with other characters, who are actually depressed when their show is cancelled, and who write endless bad stories about themselves interacting with their favourite characters.
My inability to invest emotionally in a fictional milieu to an extent that parallels my investment in my friends and family probably explains my inability to empathize with sports fans.
I say this because people who don’t like sports or follow sports tend to make it sound super odd or exotic, when it’s really no different than having a favorite author, musician, director, film series, etc. Yeah, your team doesn’t always win, but it’s not through lack of effort. If Joss Whedon writes a great series that tanks in the ratings, it’s not through lack of effort - the fates weren’t on his side this time. Or the show opposite his was somehow better. Similarly, if the Boston Red Sox start not giving a shit and half-assing it on the field, they will lose some fans.
As for me - well, I certainly can see how someone could like the things I don’t get. I mention these things specifically because I don’t see the appeal. I don’t think Russell Brand has ever said anything remotely funny (I’ve seen his UK show, and I particularly remember one in which he was trying to box his dad - and his MTV Music Awards hosting gig was terrible - he essentially kept reminding everyone he was English and how different England was from America). Glenn Beck doesn’t seem particularly bright or interesting. The Kardashians have one very attractive family member, no discernible talents that I can tell, and I’m not quite clear why they have a show. But anybody can like anything for any reason, I guess, and I’m sure people have similar opinions about things I enjoy. But I don’t get them.
I honestly don’t understand how calling this “ignorant” can be considered an inappropriate insult. I’ll happily call myself ignorant up until my early twenties, before learning enough and reading enough to be able to find Shakespeare less than boring.
Aside from the few people who asked about specific aspects of something and the folks that tried to answer, this reply is really all that needed to be posted.
Sorry Miller, I conflated enalzi’s response with yours. See my example in that post - Whedon can put forth a very good product but it doesn’t “win” against another show on another channel at the same time. You’d likely remain a fan, and hope that the next series is more successful. Same thing with supporting a sports franchise. If the franchise stops putting forth effort they’re going to lose a lot of fans. Most professional sports franchises do put their best effort forward, but often the other team is just better.
I agree somewhat, but as an example, I started re-watching the BBC soap EastEnders about six years ago when I was in the UK. I hadn’t watched it since the beginning of its run in the 1980s, and I didn’t really know any of the characters. But after watching one episode I picked up on all of these storylines, and I still watch it today. There are those who have watched nonstop and have a far greater investment and understanding than I do, and point out inconsistencies in the history of certain characters, etc. (I know this from visiting discussion boards) I don’t have that level of understanding but I still enjoy the show. Similarly, my wife, who is not a sports fan, might watch a game on occasion because I’ve explained to her that the captain of the other team is about to retire, or the team has a long winning streak, etc. It seems to me that you can involve yourself in the drama at any level depending on your interest.
Well, a few things. First, most of us can’t actually play the game that well. Maybe we played in high school, or we play with friends - or we don’t play at all. Similarly, let’s say you’re a poet - you identify on some level as such, but you aren’t known as a poet professionally. Surely you feel some kinship to a Prelutzsky, even though he’s much more accomplished, and let’s face it, better than you are. And you can admire his skill and talent without being at the same level as he.
I like to cook. But that joy is as much about great memories, good people, and good conversation as it is about the Mailliard reaction and chopping onions. I would wager most of our pastimes have a link to memories and comradeship that are not central to the activity itself. For me, my sport memories have a lot to do with bonding with my dad. We can talk about great games, or disappointing ones, or favorite players and instantly click. It’s that way when I get around other Redskin or Texas Longhorn fans.
I don’t get collecting things and I never will. I don’t collect anything. Sure, I may have several of one thing, and a few of another, but it was never deliberate. I just don’t like clutter, I guess, and collecting things, unless they are nicely displayed, invariably end up as clutter. It especially baffles me when they are collecting things like…shot glasses. Or M&M paraphernilia. I kind of understand collecing Hummel figurines or something, though I’d never do it.
Dear David Hartwick: If you ever write a TV show let me know I’d like to watch it.
I think sports is boring. But I can understand why people enjoy it.
I am a anime “fan” and I still don’t get cosplayers. Truthfully though, if I was a better writer I’d try writing Fanfics. Why? Because I like imagining these characters in unusual situations. As for collecting: I’m afraid some things simply can’t be explained.
One person’s clutter is another person’s comfortable level of decoration. We collectors can also feel a strong drive, almost a minor compulsion, toward being completist. There’s a Firestorm figure I’ve been unable to find, and it’s driving me mad.
BTVS, Kardashians et al (including, but not limited to, other “reality” “stars” – Breeder Kate, you know, the one with the 8 kids, the other huge families, etc.), pop stars like Lady Gaga.
I also find 2001 and most of Shakespeare to be boring. With S it is because of the old language. I find spending ten minutes looking up words so I know what he is talking about just to read a 20 line sonnet boring. We read S in high school and college and that was fine but I don’t consider it recreational reading.
I don’t get why some anime have a one minute intro song followed by the last five minutes of the previous episode and then the last two minutes are a preview for the next episode and then a one minute outro song. So a 22 minute epsiode only has 13 minutes of new content.
I’ve been watching the latest episodes of One Piece on Hulu and they do this and it annoys me.