A few months ago, in one of these posts i wrote about my experience at a conference where scholars of literature failed to engage in a discussion about the theory presented in the talk but got stuck at the existence of fanfiction – which they learned of then. I expressed my grief with this attitude and described it as a block in the open discourse between fandom studies and other disciplines.

Probably, everyone who would claim themselves to be “in fandom” in any way had this issue: how do i even begin to explain?

When i posted that question, i did so in this context because i see the answer somewhere here: acafans have to explain scholarly methods and framework and the basic existence of fandom, too, all the time. We talk about the identity of acafans a lot but another relevant framework is not of a person but of dicourses: fannish discourse and academic discourse are both languages that talk about themselves in different ways. Talking about fandom studies is, therefore, a series of decisions about what to use of one and what to use of the other language, while constantly being aware of both of them.

I see that as our mission and is what i am going to strive towards in my writing.

What do YOU think?

Notes about the fannish and the academic
Tagged on: