For Reals - 09 - HD
Added 2021-10-30 06:20:49 +0000 UTCWhoops we skipped a step
Commentary
For this to make any sense, there has to be an accepted distinction between a "fan" and a "true fan", "real fan", etc. Otherwise, they've already acknowledged they don't know what a "fan" is.
My hope is that the last panel addresses that bit of nuance enough, but I'm the person writing this. I won't be entirely sure if I'm being clear enough until people see this.
Actually, let me take something back. There doesn't have to be an "accepted distinction". Part of what they're discussing is whether that distinction exists at all. What there has to be is the possibility of a distinction.
Comments
I'd tend to say it can't be compared from one person to another. I've known someone who was introduced to a TV show that they found "watchable". We agreed to see the show again together at a later time. On that later date, she presented the chronological timeline of the show that she'd created based on a variety of sources and asked for my opinion. My opinion was more or less "that's a lot of effort to spend on something that's just `watchable`." Even if you were to do it based on blood chemistry, it's *still* not conclusive, because different people are receptive to stuff at different levels. I'm thinking of a Chinese gentleman I knew years ago who was quite slender, but he generally had a very high tolerance for drugs, to such a degree that he woke up in the middle of a surgery. The anesthesiologist then gave him the maximum "safe" dosage for his body weight, and he remained conscious. This wasn't particularly surprising for him; he was used to drugs not seeming to do much for him. That Chinese gentleman's brother, on the other hand, tended to be more sensitive to drugs than one would expect for someone of his body weight (or even his considerably lighter brother's body weight.) It wasn't quite as across the board for him as it was for his brother, but it seemed like pretty clear evidence that even having the same parents doesn't really mean that you'd have the same receptivity to any given substance.
Some Ed
2021-11-01 06:11:26 +0000 UTCFans can be powered by any number of things. I've seen gas powered fans, water powered fans, and I've personally powered one with a hand crank. I've even seen a wind-powered fan. No, I don't mean a windmill. This particular device had a rather small air turbine outside, but the load on the inside was just a fan. Someone want a 'natural breeze' without the pollen of the air outside. It's also probably notable that fans can move other things besides air. They're usually called different things in that case, but from a mechanical standpoint, they're still very much the same thing. They might need to be built in a more sturdy fashion, but it's still a set of relatively thin, fairly rigid vanes connected to a central axle which is spun to move the material it's in, whether that's gas, liquid, or even solid.
Some Ed
2021-11-01 05:53:56 +0000 UTCIt feels to me like most people around me tend to operate with a definition of fan that is more short of fanatic than short for fanatic. That said, they also seem to mean something a bit more than Elliot is suggesting. I think for some it may be somewhere close to, "Someone who likes x enough to plan their schedule around x." That is, not only is `x` on their schedule, but there are other things on their schedule that would lose in a timing conflict with x. X isn't just squeezed in where they would otherwise have copious free time. But other people? All over the place on this definition. Just like we are on most things. There are even different working definitions people have on the word 'most'. I feel like 'most' means 'greater than 50%'. That said, if I know something is greater than 50.0000000000000000% of the sample population, but less than 51%, I'll probably qualify that with a `technically`. I may do that even if it's just less than 60% of the population. I know a number of people who feel more or less the same about `most`. But I've known a number of people who've argued pretty strenuously that `most` either "means" or "implies" a significant majority. Some people would reserve its use for a 2/3 majority, while others want a 3/4ths majority for it. There's probably at least a dozen other thresholds that some people have for it.
Some Ed
2021-11-01 05:33:41 +0000 UTCBah humbug! A _TRUE_ fan is powered by a turbine!
jubs
2021-10-31 10:52:06 +0000 UTCI remember years ago (the 70s) that there was a fannish term "trufan", which I think referred to people who were _active_ in the fandom community for a show, as opposed to someone who just liked watching the show on TV. Active meaning someone who went to conventions, contributed to fanzines, engaged in public discussions, and so forth...
Adama
2021-10-31 06:49:20 +0000 UTCFan is short for "fanatic". The word defines who is a fan.
Opus the Poet
2021-10-31 05:39:06 +0000 UTC"True Fan" is like "True Love"; you can't measure it, you can't prove it, and whether you have it is a matter of internal decision only.
Otter Annason
2021-10-30 21:32:30 +0000 UTCThanks! Now to carve up a pumpkin!
allanfranta
2021-10-30 18:26:13 +0000 UTCI'm going to disagree with Eliot on this distinction. If you just like one superficial thing about a show (e.g. the presence of a certain actor/theme/exaggerated body part) Then you are not a fan of the show, but rather a fan of that thing. The show is merely a vehicle to supply you with the thing you are an actual fan of.
Wolf Avatar
2021-10-30 18:13:10 +0000 UTCThere's a question of whether a casual fan can be considered a true fan. Like, if I read a comic regularly but don't bother to sponsor it or buy the merchandise...
Stephen Gilberg
2021-10-30 17:39:59 +0000 UTCAccording to Merriam-Webster, it first appeared with that meaning in the late 17th century but disappeared until the late 19th, when it was applied primarily to sports.
Stephen Gilberg
2021-10-30 17:38:53 +0000 UTCStar Wars and Star Trek have seen the era problem surface twice now. First with the Prequel/Franchise era, then again with the Disney Sequel/Kelvin Timeline era. (I'm not sure if Trek's current TV side is set in the original timeline, Kelvin or its own thing. It is still a part of the "Kelvin Timeline" era)
John Trauger
2021-10-30 16:12:58 +0000 UTCHow do you define “fan”? I’d say “enthusiasm about something." If you mention that something to a fan, their eyes will light up and you’ll find yourself with more of a conversation than you expected. I’m largely a fan of technical, artistic, and literary things - but there are as many kinds of fans as there are of things.
Ellen Kuhfeld
2021-10-30 16:06:11 +0000 UTCJust curious, when was the term "fan" first used? We know it stems from fanatic. I could look this up myself, but I'm busy and searches turn into rabbit holes...
allanfranta
2021-10-30 14:12:42 +0000 UTCThat... Feels rather specific =P But yes, that would make you as true a fan as the opposite, someone who only watched because of the occasional strong female cast members and was going around telling everyone that it was high time for a female doctor and proceeding to lay out all the facts that supported their claim.
AstroChaos
2021-10-30 12:00:58 +0000 UTCIt's more complex than that. You can be a fan of particular "eras" of a work and keep watching hoping things change more to the time where you loved it. You can be a fan of Tom Baker's Doctor and hate Jodie Wittaker's Doctor, or even the entire show after the jump. Does that mean you're not a fan of Doctor Who? No. You can even follow the show and complain about every choice they make, obsessively memorise every detail of the show so you can point out what you hate about it compared to when the show was "good". People can say you hate the show, and yet not even a man with a gun could take your 7m scarf away from you. You keep watching because you desperately want the magic back. Are you then "not a true fan"?
Cat Tillinghast
2021-10-30 10:43:00 +0000 UTCHow do you define an "amount" of affection? Is it unreasonable to imagine that a fan like Susan describes in panel 1 could have "more" affection than someone who likes it for something more integral to the work?
Daniel
2021-10-30 07:48:58 +0000 UTCTrue definition of a fan: A machine using an electric motor to rotate thin, rigid vanes in order to move air, as for cooling.
Prof Sai
2021-10-30 07:34:46 +0000 UTC
