Becoming Youtube and becoming a person

There is a fascinating series on YouTube at the moment called Becoming Youtube, which allows relative newbies (such as myself) to get a brief catchup on the history of Youtube (and I mean very brief, it focuses on very specific areas, mostly due to who is available to intelligent and informative host and creator, Benjamin Cook) while also treating this influential website as an important cultural tool. By no means is it a cheerleader for the site though. Quite the contrary, it engages and challenges how its influence has grown and surpassed its original origins due to the huge growth in its audience. I'm going to be concerned with the latest episode, but every one so far has been fascinating, so here's a link to the first episode. They are fairly long but fascinating nevertheless.

The latest episode looked at fandom, with Nerdfighteria as the case study. I won't repeat the perfectly good summary in the episode (about 2.57) so just check that out and then we can continue.

You watched all of it didn't you? Don't blame you, after all I asked you to, although it was a long and lonely wait. So now we know what being a nerdfighter means we can move on.

Except.

That last sentence is wrong pretty much entirely. If you aren't a nerdfighter, surely you don't know what it is? Even if you think you do, if you were a part of it surely that definition would change. What you thought previously will be proved to be incorrect as you become more involved in the community. This is the problem that fandom has but is by no means unique - any group that encourages its participants to label themselves (fandoms are one example, as are political groups, religions, critical theorists and so on) automatically excludes themselves from those that aren't part of the group. I suppose that is the point of these groups, to find others who share your views and that aren't like everybody else. Until people who claim to be part of your group do things that act against everything that you thought the group stands for. You then have to justify your allegiance to the group to those who criticise it because of one individuals actions. Which can be quite difficult.

"Hi, I'm Kevin. I'm a big fan of the Batman films." Really? How big?
"Bit obsessive to be honest. Haha." Ha. What, like dressing up and stuff?
"Yeah, sometimes. But only when I'm out with my mates who love it as much as I do." So you're like that murderer in Colorado? Wasn't he dressed as the Joker or something?
"Oh, he's not like us." But he said he loves the films as well. He was just as big a fan as you.
"Well, not to me." So you're the representative of your group?
"Well no, there are others like me but they obviously have different views." Like the guy who killed all those people?
"Um..." Um....

Everyone is wrong aren't they? The critic is wrong to generalise a group because of an individual but the participant is similarly wrong to assume everyone in the group shares their view. Examples are evident in the documentary I mentioned above* as indeed there is in real life. And that's my problem with all these groups that encourage their fans to label themselves. They put them within a conflict that nobody wants to get involved in, but as I tried to demonstrate is automatic whenever being a fan of something appears. I'm sure many of us have experienced at some point. And probably from both sides.

Personally, I'm fond of many things and would consider myself a fan of a handful of them- Doctor Who (despite the recent increase of disappointment recently, the concept opens so many possible routes I can't abandon it), theatre and literature are the ones that dominate my life most. Both are capable of disappointing me or not doing things I like, but to me there is something about them that makes abandonment impossible. This doesn't mean you can't stop being a fan. Indeed, in some ways I would encourage it as it will generally cause less arguments. I used to be very passionate about football, but due to a gradual lack of interest and a feeling that if I said I supported Man. United I would be hated by many automatically. Similarly, I have no specific taste in music beyond being fond of certain bands (last night I went to a Two Door Cinema Club concert, who have yet to make a bad song and are incredible live. Check them out if you don't know them). The reason I like to be impartial in most of these areas is mostly because everyone is very proud and (obviously) committed to their opinions. As such, they will defend them to the bitter end, and as such can cause friendships, arguments and some parties to come to a similarly bitter end.

Obviously, being part of a group has many, many benefits which make these negative aspects somewhat bearable. I'm part of a drama society here at university, of which I'm proud of even if I don't know everyone. We all share a passion for performing and watching great shows, which triumphs over any tempestuous personal relations which arises naturally within large groups. What annoys me is those people who choose to use their group membership to be unnecessarily cruel to those who aren't part of their group and, unfortunately, other groups. Disagreement will always occur, but we can at least be respectful about it.

I have friends who like things I don't and vice versa, but crucially they are friends. If you're so committed to your group that friendships are unnecessary, then a reality check is in order. The feeling of fandom can come and go, at least in my experience. Building relationships with people outside that environment is more likely to be more rewarding and beneficial in your life - there are a significant minority of examples where that isn't the case. Even if you get successful through obsession of YouTube or Doctor Who or whatever, it won't be solely because of that. Involvement with the real world is the only way for you to actually do something, rather than just admire people who aren't just fans but able to actually do something (say running a political party or writing a script for a new TV show) that can potentially generate fandoms and group worship in the first place.

As ever, there are others out there who can summarise my posts into a one-liner and the trend continues today. In the latest episode of Becoming YouTube, Jack Howard says, "If people are Nerdfighters, then fine. Just don't be a prick about it."
Just because you are part of a group doesn't mean you are automatically a good or a bad person - you're just a person who likes something more than most people do. It's not an excuse or a justification for anything that is in and of itself morally repugnant and evil.



*I find I have to defend myself for referring to Becoming Youtube as a documentary. as it's on YouTube, associated with people falling over and funny animals, but the documentary is worthy of being shown on TV** but by being on YouTube, it feels more relevant / focused.

**which people think is somehow a better media than the Internet despite also showing people falling over and funny animals, clips of which are then put on YouTube - it's a vicious cycle the media.

A new perspective

Just realised how out of date this is (events that inspired te post occured on 21st March this year) but I still think it's worth showing. Let's see how it goes...

This blog hasn't gone the way I planned. I thought I'd enjoy reviewing stuff that people may not usually notice but they haven''t come out as I intended - they're either too harsh, too positive or precisely balanced. What I don't think comes across is how I actually feel about them so I'm just going to write anything that may or not be of interest just so I can commit thoughts that I can't say to other people because they'll get bored or they just won't care (yeah i need to sort that out...) Who knows if anyone's reading this but maybe there's something interesting about reading the word of a young guy who just doesn't really know anything...

Two things have happened lately that have made me consider things differently: I am reading 'The Bloody Chamber (and other stories)' by Angela Carter and experienced a seminar at a university with an unconvential lecturer.
This year, I have been studying Gothic literature and so have felt the need to read every book on the list of suggested texts outside of the three I am studying, which includes 'The Bloody Chamber'

As much as I am enjoying the stories, having studied the Gothic for a while now I can't help spotting the numerous motifs and references which are part of the genre. It made me think how easy it would be if I was studying it for the exam, as they are very blatant - the use of mirrors allow for doppelgangers to be created, the heroines are usually set free from their repressed social circumstances by male dominance, the bloody chamber of the title is used as a reference to the sexual awakenings of virgins and so on. There is stuff of interest but there does seem to me a sense that this is a checklist approach, particularly as Carter applies these to classic fairy tales which are either generally impressive (such as the titular story or eponymous if you want to be technical) or baffling like 'The Tiger's Wife'. The blatant references to other literature also become wearying after constant usage, and this is what worries me.
I cannot say I dislike it, but reading this has made me weary about Gothic literature and just, well, tired - which is a shame because I generally like Gothic literature even if I haven't read 'Frankenstein' yet. Speaking of which...

I recently had a very bizarre day - I found out I had been rejected by a university the day I returned from visiting another.
[I won't name names because anyone who cares about my feelings about them will probably know them already]
Dissapointment was the automatic response but I had enjoyed the open day, even though I was irritated that the sample lecture was on 'Frankenstein' so couldn't contribute as much as I'd liked. No such issues with the seminar as the professor quizzed us on our dedication to literature. I think I passed but frankly he was so entertaining it became irrelevant. The best English teachers I've had are those that I know that I could just talk to for ages about literature and when their passion comes across in their teaching. The most striking thing he said, for me, was when he criticised the use of literary theory - he claimed it made the department a laughing stock and subject to criticisms along the lines of "You're still using Freud? Hey, have you heard? Freud, I know!" It had produced siginificant observations but now he was more interested in hearing students talk about the meaning of the text - what we think the text is about. And that's what we can't do so much.

Now it's true it's still a key part for passing exams but that's all it's really needed for. Rather than just writing about what we think the text is about and how by reflecting the Gothic it is worthy of attention, we have to hit certain notes - there must be a debate (obviously, without debate you can't have progess - how do you know what's right without knowing what's wrong?), we have to talk about language, form and structure (i.e. the book) and we have to adress context (what was important about the period it was written, what's the difference between recepetion at the time and now). Now these are basic things for a literature essay but it doesn't seem like that - it feels like unnecessary information that I need to know to pass the exam. It feels like jumping through hoops, it doesn't feel like I'm enjoying studying the book which I do and I really appreciate the moments when I feel that way.
This is what progression in life is starting to feel like - you can't do what you want to do without going through the beauraucracy, wothout crossing the is and dotting the ts in the way expected from us - how ironic that we study the Gothic with a rational mind.


Phew far too serious, but helpful for me. I'm going to press publish and I'm going to put this out there

The most honest thing I've ever written. Man that makes it sound important.