THE STATE OF FANDOM
Valentine's Day is here again, love is in the air, and the Stargate SG-1 online fan community is replete with statements like, "I love you," "Thanks for your opinion," and
"I'm glad we're all getting along so famously!"
Is it another trip through the quantum mirror to an alternate reality? Most likely.
Most noticeably in the wake of actor Michael Shanks' decision to leave the show, many Stargate fans are a long way from hugging each other. Even the most casual observer of just about any online message board, mailing list, Usenet group or Web site related to the show has noticed by now that the state of our fandom is fractured.
Battle lines have been drawn. There are the Sam/Jack Shippers, the Sam/Martouf Shippers, the Danielites, the Jackettes, the Anti-Shippers, the Hurt-Comforters, the Daniel-Haters, the Slashers (if you don't know what that one is, don't ask), and countless other subgroups that love Stargate SG-1 -- or some particular element of it. Most members are honest, intelligent men and women. A few can't seem to see past the end of their group's collective nose.
The divisions do not all stem from Shanks' departure, of course. Some believe that the tone of the show and the focus of its stories have markedly changed in the past two years. Some blame newer writers like Joseph Mallozzi and Paul Mullie, and lament the loss of some of the show's original writers and producers, like Heather E. Ash and Jonathan Glassner. And still others charge the producers and the studio that funds the show with selling out, introducing a sexy alien woman to try to boost ratings amongst the young male demographic.
And really, they're all right.
VSPACE=3 ALT="Vanessa Angel as Anise">
Stargate SG-1 has changed, has evolved. It does have a different tone than it did two or three years ago, and the producers have as much as confessed to briefly introducing the Tok'ra Anise for the obvious reasons.
Is Stargate worse for the wear? Has it at best depreciated to entertainment for the lowest common denominator? Or is it becoming altogether unwatchable? Fans from all walks have their opinions, because different things matter to each of us.
Some find Dr. Daniel Jackson to be the glue that holds the show together -- not simply their favorite character, but an integral part of what the concept is all about. Without Michael Shanks in Season Six, some will demand that the show prove itself to them all over again, watching it as they would the first season of a new series. Others, convinced that the
premise cannot work without the character, have no interest in continuing to watch.
Let us be clear, though, that this is a vocal minority. There is no mass exodus from fandom, and The Sci-Fi Channel will see no massive erosion in viewership next season.
Yet if the most "extreme" opinions within fandom remain in a small minority, why does all of SG-1 fandom seem to be fractured?
Fans in nearly every corner of the Internet have, quite simply, felt the shockwaves of disappointment and frustration emanating from those whose favorite elements of the show seem to have fallen by the wayside. Fans devoted to Dr. Jackson caused waves when Daniel was apparently side-lined for much of Season Five's first half -- seen in various petitions, phone calls, campaigns and articles targeted at changing the state of the Gate ... or at least in swaying more of fandom to their opinion. Likewise, fans of the relationship between O'Neill and Carter enjoyed a great deal of attention in the first half of Season Four -- and became quite vocal when that element again sank into the background of the stories.
Many have taken to defending the show and its producers, and even their own desire to keep watching. Still others have been forced to defend their desire simply to not sign this week's petition to change something about the show.
Rather than subgroups within Stargate fandom, some have become the equivalent of political action committees. And backed into a corner by this vocal minority, the rest of Stargate fandom seems to have come out swinging.
These "generalist" fans are wondering what all the fuss is about. They believe that the show's concept and characters are still as true to form as they ever have been. Though they are also disappointed by the loss of Michael Shanks, or might like to see more Sam and Jack togetherness, they have no plans to stop watching the show -- or campaign to see more of what they love most -- because of it.
Why? Because what they love most is Stargate. Pledging one's self to a particular subgroup is great -- it's a fun way to engage one's self with fandom on an even deeper, more personal level. But in the end, we are all "generalists;" no one watches a television show for exclusively one element. "Sam/Jack Shippers," "Danielites," "Anti-Shippers" and the rest are, before all else, fans.
And being a part of a fandom carries a bit of responsibility to the state of that fandom.
The state of our fandom is a little meaner than it should be. Fans of all likes and dislikes have opinions, and have a right to them. Fans have a right to send letters, but not to make demands; they have a right to ask for more of what they like most, but not to make life harder on the majority of fandom by declaring that the show isn't any good any more because it no longer includes (or focuses on) their favorite character or storyline.
Stargate fandom has, until now, gained a bit of a reputation in the eyes of many as being one of the most unusual groups of fans devoted to a science fiction series. Stargate fans tend to be a little older, and a little more mature. They tend to be more polite, and more diverse.
They tend to be nicer.
That's the state of fandom I'd like to see again -- not a fandom rattled by cast changes and story ideas that don't appeal to them. Not a fandom that tries to convince everyone else that a show without their favorite element isn't worth watching, but a fandom that weathers the storms that nearly every show on television faces.
|
