Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 5:05:34 GMT
Are fans too entitled?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 9:51:13 GMT
To what? Is there a fabulous inheritance that can only be garnered by braving the deadly Organ-Eaters of the Maladoom Precipice that no one has told me about? I'm always the last to hear about these sorts of things...
More seriously, you'll want to explain a bit more. The concept of entitlement in his context is a bit vague.
|
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Aug 22, 2017 13:19:44 GMT
I always feel that Neil Gaimain's piece on the subject is obligatory at times like this: journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/entitlement-issues.htmlI would be inclined to say yes. Fans are entitled. But we’ve always been to an extent. I don't think fandom itself has changed in the last thirty years. We've always gathered together to grumble and/or appreciate the latest output and compare it unfavorably to earlier stories. The thing that's changed now is that there is an unprecedented level of interplay between the fans and the creators. As fans, we're saying the same things we've always said. It’s just that more of it gets back to the decision-makers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 23:59:07 GMT
I always feel that Neil Gaimain's piece on the subject is obligatory at times like this: journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/entitlement-issues.htmlI would be inclined to say yes. Fans are entitled. But we’ve always been to an extent. I don't think fandom itself has changed in the last thirty years. We've always gathered together to grumble and/or appreciate the latest output and compare it unfavorably to earlier stories. The thing that's changed now is that there is an unprecedented level of interplay between the fans and the creators. As fans, we're saying the same things we've always said. It’s just that more of it gets back to the decision-makers. *snaps fingers* That's it there. Things go too far when creators are: - Treated as slaves, and;
- Expected to conform to the dictates of a particularly noisy section of fandom.
A good personal example I can think of is our very own John Dorney. Wonderful writer, brilliant actor and it's always nice to have his input on the forum. As with any creator at Big Finish really, it's a delight. We have different views on Season 6B, but I never believe that he has an obligation to write a Second/Jamie story with them working for the CIA. I'm much more interested in seeing him write what he wants to write. That sounds above and beyond more thrilling than anything I could come up with.
I think if there's a story that you desperately want to be told then have a go at writing it yourself. It's what I'm doing at the present. There was no chance of a full-length Six/Peri/Frobisher novel coming from the BBC, so I thought: "Give it a go, see what you can do." It's been hard certainly, I didn't make things easy for myself, but -- 40,000 trepidatious words in -- it's been a terrific learning experience. I've really enjoyed finding out who these people are and what this place is. It's allowed me to explore one of my favourite eras of Doctor Who in an almost unique way through characters I love and been far more rewarding than I imagine sitting back dictating terms to someone else.
Anyway, that's my solution: If you want to see a particular author write a particular kind of story, see if you can write that particular kind of story taking inspiration from that particular author. I wouldn't have gotten started writing original fiction if it wasn't for a combination of Marc Platt and Mark Gatiss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Aug 23, 2017 0:17:40 GMT
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Aug 25, 2017 23:15:23 GMT
Agreed with wolfie: you need to elaborate and clarify your definition a little, as it reads vague. From my end: yes, though I already spieled about it back on one of the Chibnall threads concerning the way some in fandom use staff and creators as glorifed social workers. |
|
|
|
Post by fitzoliverj on Aug 26, 2017 8:44:03 GMT
It ebbs and flows a bit. The reactions - both positive and negative - to the casting of Jodie Whittaker were predominantly on an 'entitlement' basis ("I demand a male Doctor" / "I demand a female Doctor" / "I demand Bradley Walsh dresses as a cabbage and sits on her shoulder"), but things seem to be going the other way at present and people are expressing the concern that it's the *production team* who feel entitled to make what could potentially be significant changes to the feel and structure of the show.
Fans need to remember that they're part of the audience; Chibnail & co need to remember that they are making the show for the audience; and anybody who boycotts Big Finish because they disapprove of Frobisher is an idiot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2017 8:49:40 GMT
You've created 2 threads which are basically asking the same question. Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Aug 27, 2017 0:56:17 GMT
I agree with Gaiman...up to a point, and that point is particular to GRR Martin, though the fault may lie with his publishers and/or agent. I was working for a large book chain back in the day (left in 2003) and fans were frustrated by the constant "promises" that the next book was being written/was written/was being edited and it never appearing. So far so what you say? Well, we had the release schedules, and they WERE promised for those dates. And the lack of communication/outright lies that were given to us were frankly insulting. Plenty of other authors were struggling to release material, some like Robert Jordan for massively sad reasons, but they told people what was going on and were given love and support and so on. Martin or his representatives didn't do any of that. Or if he did *I* didn't see it, and it may indeed have been the publishers, because they want to keep the money coming in for what's already out there. So even giving Martin the benefit of the doubt he should have been aware that his representation was being damaged by what turned out to be spurious information. So while Gaiman is right in his verdict, in the one particular instance cited re that author it's the exception that proves the rule, and he's wrong.
|
|
