I haven’t been doing much in the way of nerdy Japanese media consumption. This will be rectified next week, when epic readings will be filmed (belatedly) and Slayers will be…thonned, I guess. But, for now, I have some thoughts on how different fans choose to interpret things, which may (or may not) interest you.
I won’t attempt to “account for taste” here, as I doubt there’s much point in doing so. In other words, for the time being, it doesn’t much matter to me why different fans choose their interpretive strategies. I simply wonder whether we can agree, generally speaking, on what some of those interpretive strategies might be.
An “interpretive strategy,” for my purposes here, is the way one chooses to assign meanings to discrete cues, assuming that a discrete cue might be damn near any element of a text, or more than one element in tandem. Thus, I’m not really talking about how we choose what to read/watch/etc., and what among those things to like; I’m talking about how we make sense of particular elements within texts we may like, dislike, or not much care about. In the event that you don’t confuse the two, I’ll admit that I do, somehow, and that this paragraph is more for my own benefit than for yours.
I’m going to outline a few interpretive strategies here, breaking things down into particular “kinds” of fan that really shouldn’t be taken as blanket assumptions. Maybe one of these will apply to you, or maybe not. It’s a start, anyway.
The Focused Fan
I assume most people are the “focused” sort of fan: they make interpretations based on personal relevance, and don’t pay a great deal of attention to other interpretations — indeed, a focused fan may come up with the most personally relevant interpretation possible, and not bother with bringing their interpretive powers to bear upon a particular element any further.
The Christian allows Shinji Ikari kinship with a Biblical personage, the troubled teenager focuses on his crises of self-worth, and so on. The image above illustrates a single interpretation chosen over others which are likely not considered, but the focused fan may well stand by more than one interpretation of a given element. The notion of focus reflects this fan’s tendency to interpret through the lens of the self — which may well streamline the whole process of consumption, and prevent the pursuit of enjoyment from being confounded.
Complaints against focused fans probably amount largely to accusations of “not trying hard enough,” which, I imagine, come mostly from the discerning fan contingent. Omnifans may respect the “purity” of what focused fans do, or they may consider focused fans too narrow-minded — too focused, as it were.
The Discerning Fan
The discerning fan’s strategy is cursorily similar to that of the focused fan, as both result in the selection of a rather limited number of interpretations of one element from the pool of all possible. Where the discerning fan differs is, of course, in “discernment:” this fan considers many interpretations at some length, and rejects most in favor of a few.
These are the fans who stand by particular well-worn means by which to reach conclusions about the texts they consume. Some prefer the Word of God, granting truth to all authorial explanations and biographical circumstances; some cross-reference everything they read with history and artistic tradition; some attempt to reach conclusions based on the internal consistency of the text. Whatever the case may be, one thing is certain (to the discerning fan): the discerning fan’s way of making meaning is The Right Way — and perhaps, depending upon who you ask, The One Way.
Focused fans might accuse discerning fans of taking things far too seriously, and omnifans might call them out on their willingness to judge and their assumption that one interpretation could ever be better than any other, but discerning fans do seem to have one advantage over other sorts of fan: they can often explain precisely why they reach their conclusions, and in great detail. These are the active forum users, the skilled reviewers, and, as often as not, the popular anime bloggers.
The Omnifan
While other varieties of fan may allow a textual element more than one interpretation, omnifans prefer to saturate their elements with every meaning that comes to mind — and, when nothing further comes to mind, the omnifan will seek out other people’s interpretations, and throw those on the pile as well.
Omnifans aren’t especially interested in the “right” way of doing things, perhaps because the very concept of “rightness” doesn’t apply to the pursuit of meaning-making, or because right and wrong are simply irrelevant when it’s all make-believe anyway. The staunchest omnifans might even suggest that, insofar as interpretation is a mechanism not unlike gut reaction, sound logic isn’t a requirement; an interpretation founded upon faulty reasoning or incorrect assumptions is still practically a “valid” interpretation, as interpretations can’t be judged in terms of validity anyway, and all are potentially useful for the insight they may provide into their devisers’ states of mind.
This approach to things causes boundless grief among discerning fans, who accuse omnifans of militant apathy; focused fans may not try hard enough, but omnifans are egregious offenders in that they refuse to try hard enough. Furthermore, the omnifan’s tendency to play with texts excessively may appear to be nothing more than pedantry, particularly to inward-looking focused fans. But if you’re looking for reasoned comparison and reconciliation, you’re best off seeking out an omnifan.
Maybe this goes without saying, given the nature of this post and others, but I am most assuredly an omnifan.
The Triangle
I don’t think these “types” are mutually exclusive; while their most serious practitioners may have grievances with other kinds of fan, I imagine that most people will exhibit traits of two or even three. But, if we like, we can arrange the three types into a kind of — dare I say it — love triangle:
Or maybe a hate triangle. I don’t suppose I’m helping here; it is a little troubling that we feel inclined to fire arrows over our walls at all the other forts, from time to time. But maybe there isn’t any avoiding this, unless we all agree to make meaning the same way, and that seems neither feasible nor desirable.
Pontifus
kaiserpingvin
cuchlann
Shance
TheKittymeister
digital boy
/ 4 June 2010I am the very definition of a discerning fan LOL. I think you’ve done a very good job with this, as I think I can qualify most major anime fans into one of these or at least elements of two. My best friend No Name is a total omnifan. Both in the sense that he likes everything, and in the fact that he holds no real opinions and agrees with everyone. He doesn’t ever comment, but he reads everyone’s blogs and just enjoys what they have to say, but you could never get him to produce any meaning or opinion about something. He only has four ways of judging a show ‘I really liked it’, ‘I liked it’, ‘I didn’t like it’, and ‘I hated it.’ In my addiction to lists, I tried to get him to make a favorites list once and guided him through. We couldn’t narrow it down farther than 100 shows. Drives me nuts.
My brother is an omnifan, too. My cousin/rommate Funeral I’m not sure where to put him – in many ways he is a focused fan, but at the same time he is one to do lots of research on something and know all about it and entertain other peoples’ opinions, but ultimately, I think he depends on his gut, as knowing everything about a film rarely changes his opinion of it at all.
Ghostlightning is a focused fan, which is the one way that we don’t get along. I get pissed at him for doing posts that I don’t feel are researched enough, or that I don’t like his bias on. But he always says ‘I don’t need to be right like you do.’ Which pisses me off.
ONLY MY INTERPRETATIONS ARE CORRECT. PERIOD. But seriously, I am selective… I will read peoples’ opinions and often times they can radically alter what I think – but only because I see there person as ‘right’. If I don’t trust someone’s perspective, I won’t listen to them. That’s why I’ll read anything 8c writes about moe, but try to avoid anything Ghostlightning writes. It’s a matter of my trust for their ideas.
ghostlightning
/ 4 June 2010digiboy is wrong, and I am as much an omnifan as you are. I find it comical at how far off the mark he is at ‘getting’ me.
I do find it interesting how omnis are accused of not trying hard enough… to eliminate all other possibilities of meaning? Is this what people want us to do? Funny that.
In any case, my critical practice doesn’t eliminate other possibilities, what I present is merely my preferred reading.
digital boy
/ 5 June 2010I feel like you’re full of shit :p
digital boy
/ 5 June 2010But maybe that’s because our fan types just can’t get along.
digital boy
/ 5 June 2010Although, rereading the post, I also think I somewhat twisted the meanings of the fans in my own comment lol.
digital boy
/ 5 June 2010thinking about it, here’s why: I interpreted the vision of ‘omnifan’ as ‘someone who has no opinion’. and I interpreted ‘focused’ as ‘someone who might listen to your opinion, but is ultimately okay with what they think themselves.’
Maybe this isn’t how it was intended/how you read it.
Pontifus
/ 5 June 2010Well, let me try to clear things up, if I can. Maybe I can’t — I’m relieved that people like you have come along to flesh out those fan types that don’t really apply to me.
I think that Ghost’s feeling that he doesn’t need to be “right” about things pretty clearly pegs him as an omnifan. The omnifan doesn’t need to be right because, as far as the omnifan is concerned, interpretations can be neither right nor wrong. They can, of course, be based on textual elements, which lends them a kind of “validity,” but this is true for all fan types — if not founded on textual elements, what we’re talking about is less interpretation and more fan work (Cuchlann’s post is the necessary followup that deals with all that). It’s a common misconception, actually, that the omnifan isn’t concerned with what’s in the text. Really, the omnifan just thinks that one could apply whatever one damn well pleases to what’s in the text; the omnifan’s mental state is such that many, often contradictory interpretations can coexist because, well, why not? This may present logical impossibilities (a serious problem for many discerning fans), but we’re talking about nonexistent worlds, characters, and events anyway — I mean, this isn’t international diplomacy. It doesn’t hurt anything to maintain several contradictory opinions, and jump between them as needed.
So, in short, it isn’t that an omnifan has no opinion. An omnifan has many opinions — and, in fact, might accuse other kinds of fans of having too few ;)
Bear in mind, too, that I’m not really talking about how we choose what we like, though that’s a related concern. I’m just talking about how we make meaning.
Pontifus
/ 5 June 2010And I should add that omnifans are often the way they are out of concern for the subjectivity of such things as textual interpretation. But that’s kind of a big issue, and one that I’ve probably worn thin by now.
Pontifus
/ 5 June 2010Well, I have trouble understanding the “not trying hard enough” complaint myself. It seems to have to do with passivity (if we can’t assert firm opinions, production companies will just feed us whatever they want), or with lack of rigor (we don’t pay any attention to the text, or we force the text to serve other agendas), but both complaints seem more or less absurd to me.
Michael
/ 5 June 2010I think you’ve written a wonderful distinction among the three types of interpretive strategies among fans. From what I’ve read, I believe I am more of a discerning appreciator of the arts, primarily because while I entertain different interpretations I mostly approach the series that I watch from an exegetic standpoint. I’ve been fond of close reading ever since I was young, and all my professors of literature have not really been fond of a postmodern view of things. Sure, they agree that the ‘author is dead,’ but they disagree on some things not mentioned in the text. One can interpret events and occurrences so long as they jibe or concur with the text at hand, and this has been the way I have dealt with things ever since I started blogging. Whether I am popular or not is a moot point, but I have never really strayed from this thinking. Although I recognize alternative interpretations, the ‘text’ usually suggests the most lucid one, and that is what I pursue.
After all, it’s not Ulysses or Finnegans Wake I’m reading, it’s an anime series I’m watching. For example, in Tatami Galaxy, saying that Ozu exists merely in the mind of the narrator is clearly a mistaken interpretation in the light of later episodes. Interpretations may exist that he is just a figment of Watashi’s imagination, but when he exists even without perception from the lens of the protagonist he must be a distinct figure at least in the universe of that series. Saying that he is otherwise may represent one as an omnifan, but it is counter-intuitive in the analysis of the series.
It’s been a while since I have read your blog: I didn’t know you still exist, but great post.
Pontifus
/ 5 June 2010Yeah, I’m still around :3
I think I understand — as I mentioned in the comment above, an interpretation is by its very nature based on textual evidence, but there are more and less stringent ways to handle that. If you have a rather particular exegetic method that you apply across the board, I can see how you’d be a discerning fan.
Is the distinction you’re making here that anime tends to have fewer interpretive “loose ends” than Joyce’s fiction? Really, I suppose practically everything does ;)
Hige
/ 5 June 2010My interpretation of your interpretive strategies is that the omnifan is the one true and correct form of interpretation.
Really, though, a nice summary of how people relate to the things they watch and read and to other fans themselves. I think it’s healthy/legit to be any one of these three types as long as there’s an understanding for opposing thoughts. Shame that sometimes there isn’t the maturity to have that happen.
Pontifus
/ 5 June 2010I am myself a little biased in favor of the omnifan :3 But I really tried to keep things balanced in the post. I can tell you that, for the omnifan in particular, it’s good that the other sorts of fan exist, as they come up with things sometimes that I probably could never think of. I certainly agree that mutual understanding is both beneficial and too scarce.
Impz
/ 6 June 2010Very good analysis (ghostlightning pointed me to this post). I will actually say that many opinonated bloggers, particularly those of the editorial blogger, always consider themselves to be either discerning or omni fans. However, in my opinion, I have seen many writers, particularly those of the holier than thou (I am right, you are wrong, quite plenty these days), who considers themselves to be discerning by virtue of the fact that they read across and put their own view. The only loophole is that they are only reading people that they agree with, and the same similar thoughts that flow through simply means that they are focused fans, and they always clearly portray in their writing that they are the right side of the argument.
That’s what I think many can be oblivious to, and a danger that many editorial bloggers will do well to take note of. It’s not merely reading, it should be reading, synthesizing, arguing your point yet not dismissing or forcing your views down your throat.
Pontifus
/ 12 June 2010That’s always a concern; given the nature of the internet, it’s easy enough to reinforce one’s opinions by seeking out only reinforcement. The result is probably something more like focused fandom than discerning fandom; the discerning fan must consider a variety of opinions, and reject most of them. But it’s possible that the real danger here is that particular sorts of fans will only bother with the opinions of fans like them, and thus the tendency of most fans to believe that their way of doing things is the right way will be perpetuated.