tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1546665963755719151.post7555792826507643331..comments2023-07-15T07:17:49.535-04:00Comments on Professional Wrestling in U.S. Popular Culture: Another belated post on "Pinning Down Fan Involvement."Sam Fordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17233749268141980625noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1546665963755719151.post-91357556561839231162007-03-14T09:32:00.000-04:002007-03-14T09:32:00.000-04:00To Peter- I think my recent posting "wave" post en...To Peter- I think my recent posting "wave" post ends up trying to answer the question of order. Essentially, I think I *would* argue that it's due to innate tendencies. The categories Sam lists are a good way to describe wrestling fans, and would probably overlap significantly with a similar project for any 'fandom.' I can't imagine there'd be any natural progression through them, unless the text itself forced particular manners of engagement over time. Even then, people being people, some will break the pattern.<BR/><BR/>There does seem to be a natural progression, at least insofar as spectator seems to come first, but I think that's more due to the fact that, firstly, you need to know something about wrestling (ie, have first hand knowledge of some time) in order to do anything with it, and secondly, the primary texts are currently readily available.<BR/><BR/>But my answer would have to be that it's all context based, and depends on pre-existing relationships a potential fan has to the media, other fans, and the fan community as a whole. If your best friend likes to shout, you're more likely to construct your own behavior, at least initially, with relation to his - you shout along, learning by imitation, or refrain, because you think he's acting retarded. From there, who knows?narwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07763177822411212052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1546665963755719151.post-50013739733507048342007-03-13T21:04:00.000-04:002007-03-13T21:04:00.000-04:00Peter, you win the No Prize for this week. Very k...Peter, you win the No Prize for this week. Very keen eye. This piece is actually in revision for a journal, and this is the current version of the manuscript, only recently revised. What actually happened is I started out with seven modes of engagement I identified, the five presented along with "fans as colloaborators" and "fans as patients." The collaborators defined their performances as their working with the promoters to protect the fiction of the show, the "suspension of disbelief," but I decided that these behaviors were really part of their performance and their theories about that performance and that there was neither enough evidence to constitute another category of behavior nor enough to distinguish the collaborationists from performers to have a distinct category, so I eliminated that category.<BR/><BR/>The fans as patients were those who explained wrestling as catharsis, that they go there to release tensions, use it as a safety valve, etc. As I was working my way through the ethnographic evidence, again I decided that this group clearly belonged in "fans as theorists" and were not a seperate mode of engagement. However, I neglected to remove those two modes of engagement from the original listing. <BR/><BR/>I applaud you for catching this error, and I am in the process of fixing it in my manuscript.<BR/><BR/>Please, if anyone else finds any errors that make little sense, don't hesitate to tell me.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and also don't hesitate in sucking up. It won't make up for not making enough blog posts, and it won't improve your grade any, but I enjoy it nonetheless.Sam Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17233749268141980625noreply@blogger.com