Toxic Fandom

Toxic Fandom

Reviews for the new Amazon Prime series The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power have been delayed by Amazon for up to 72 hours amid concerns of review bombing and trolling. Reports of racist and sexist attacks against the cast has ignited the usual Twitter foray of “forced diversity”, “wokeism”, and other tired generalisations pertaining to modern entertainment, with no nuance to be spared. But while these remarks have thankfully been denounced, a broader discourse on the nature of “toxic fandom” has emerged which adds an unfortunate but very much discernible crinkle to what one might expect of this subject.

This idea of “toxic fandom” has become prevalent in recent years, mostly due to the nature of social media amplifying the voice of disturbed passionate fans. Where the extremist fans were once left to toil away with their posters and toy collections, they now have an avenue for embracing their fellow comrades in arms and turning on them at the slightest criticism of the IP they love. We’ve seen this most notably with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where the fandom has become divided over the old era output and more recent Phase 4 material. Perhaps a brief list of talking points will illustrate where the fandom gets imbued with toxicity:

  • Yeah, I love Marvel but these new series (She Hulk, Ms Marvel) aren’t doing it for me.
  • Your sexism is showing.
  • Well, the stories just aren’t as good.
  • It’s them building up to another Avengers. You’ve gotta give them time.
  • That twerking scene with Megan Thee Stallion was such a low.
  • I bet if it was Tony Stark doing it you’d love it.
  • Why is Harry Styles in the MCU? He can’t act.
  • Harry’s talented. You’re just jelly.
  • Ugh… Marvel’s gone so woke.
  • Tell me you’re sexist without telling me you’re sexist.
  • That election was stolen off Trump! F- the MCU.
  • Wait, what?

These idiots kind of fans can usually be found on Twitter, where vitriol runs rampant more than any other social media but the discourse feeds into entertainment news too and colours the greater picture of toxic fandom. Now, to be fair, there are actual bigots criticising these shows and movies (as evidenced by the comments on Rings of Power and House of the Dragon) but in the chaos of the comments’ section, it becomes a lot easier to paint any criticism of these IPs with the broad stroke of toxicity, which brings us back to Tolkien.

Having watched three episodes of The Rings of Power, I deem it decent without being exceptional. The nature of my criticism may raise an eyebrow or two though because while I feel it is visually stunning, the characters are mostly dull and without personality. Especially the Elves. Now, because one of the leads is a female and because people on social media refuse context and reading beyond click bait headlines, this crictism could be rejected with a comment like “oh of course the man doesn’t like Galadriel doing everything Aragorn could” or something akin to that. It would even give me pause for thought because let’s face it, bigotry is embedded deep within our subconscious from an early age, in one way or another. Maybe there is a case to be made for traditional fans of fantasy (men, mostly white) having a blind-spot and actively trying to gate-keep a genre, without even releasing the extent of what they’re doing. It is genuinely a valid concern.

The question then arises as to where that leaves us however. We shouldn’t accept inferior art just because it promotes diversity or a particular ideology. That’s woefully condescending and allows any creators to invalidate criticisms without anything more than the label of “toxic fandom”. But we must also acknowledge that while not all modern criticisms lean towards toxicity, a fair number still do. We’ve seen this through review bombing of movies, books, and TV shows yet to even be released, like Star Wars: The Force Awakens (when the trailer showed a Black stormtrooper), Captain Marvel and She Hulk. We’ve seen this in the way fans of certain singers (Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Harry Styles) react whenever someone criticises them in the mildest fashion (e.g. 24 writers credited to a recent Beyoncé song- you just don’t get it- Queen B knows what she’s doing). We see this through cult of personalities springing up around certain celebrities like Johnny Depp (and yes I know, Amber Heard was toxic but fans were willing to overlook every single dodgy thing Johnny did or sad with freakish devotion).

Toxic fandom is a thing; it’s just not everything though. And by denouncing large portions of a fan base, I don’t think Marvel or Disney or Prime will be doing themselves any favours. Rather, an open discussion is needed in order to articulate where valid criticisms differ from petty, tribalistic ones. Amazon can continue spending all the money in the world but it can’t buy the respect and devotion deservedly earned by JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson before. (But look, I’ll keep watching.)

Advertisement

What Was 2017? Some Thoughts…

What Was 2017? Some Thoughts…

It might seem like folly to try and summarize the events of a whole year in a single article, or even to surmise the prevalent themes which distinguished it. Nevertheless, we’re going to attempt to do just that because something needs to be gained from all this mayhem. (It’s also been awhile since we published anything.) So here’s a few thoughts:

Was it the residual hangover of 2016?

Yes, 2017 can in many ways be regarded as the dark sequel to its predecessor. This is the case with most inaugural years but of course, this year we had the Donald, whose presidency quickly bolstered sales of Orwell’s 1984. Everything we feared he might do came to fruition, although legislatively he was not successful. Rather he inspired fresh bouts of fear not felt since the early 1960s, from the Muslim Ban to unnecessary tensions with North Korea and everything in between. However, this is just the beginning of the hangover and it will not dissipate till at least late 2018, should the Democrats get their act together.

Was the “#metoo” movement a breakthrough?

At the Golden Globes next week, we will see many actresses dressed in black, in a sign of solidarity. Although, sexual harassment scandals can hardly be limited to Hollywood, the cases here have drawn so much attention because of the prolific figures involved (not to justify it.) They’ve also inspired a deep and intellectual, if highly sensitized debate, across the world. Can we merely dismiss the actions of men from another generation as of their time and thus tolerable? Can we separate their art from their character? Do we need to ensure perspective with relation to whats worse (from groping to raping) more readily? Can this then be seen as an attempt to undermine change by bracketing off areas, if less heinous, as forgivable?

There’s still much to suss out and I do not enter this foray lightly, for the level of media scrutiny and social media backlash can be detrimental even to those who have not themselves done anything wrong but who, in others’ opinions, miss the point and thereby contribute to the normalization of harassment (e.g. Matt Damon.) It seems to me, nonetheless, that this has overall been a watershed moment of positive change; one which must not be limited to being labelled as a 2017 talking point or more likely, a Hollywood scandal. In the coming years, it’ll thus be important to find balance between sensible, if insensitive opinions and a zero-tolerance approach.

the-great-wall1
Between the backlash to his remarks on the #metoo movement and his movie, The Great Wall, Matt Damon had a meh year.

Is “Fake News” just a thing now?

Has the word “lies” lost sustenance? The idea of “Fake News” grew during the 2016 election and was dismissed by most as a “stupid”. Unfortunately, like most Trump labels, it stuck and with it, an array of other baffling terms like “Alternative Facts”.

Yes, the media has been known to sensationalize the wrong things and some papers are more reputable than others but with Trump, fiction’s become redundant. You merely need to collect his quotes these days to form an article. It may be a coherent, slobbering mess but so is every Trump speech. So, in 2018, let’s stop paying into the idea of “Fake News” because you can’t hide the video footage of Sean Spicer hiding in the Rose Garden bushes, inauguration crowd sizes, or the words Trump spoke mere weeks ago. It’s out there, in the open.

Are people ready to accept the Left again?

Roy Moore was inexcusably awful but still, a Democratic Senator from Alabama is not something you hear about every day. Grouped with the #metoo movement (not exactly political, though women’s rights are generally sided with the Left), Trump’s low approval ratings, Obama topping Gallup’s most admired man poll, the Women’s March on Washington, and more however, it begins to paint a picture. In November 2018, we’ll of course see with the Mid-Terms but this time, we’ll need a United Left. Even though, we’re discussing 2017, the lesson of 2016 must not be forgotten.

Was The Last Jedi disappointing? (SPOILERS)

Yes, this is a political blog but we also love Star Wars. So did Rian Johnson deliver the goods? Ultimately yes- it was a beautiful and unusually thematic entry in the franchise. But come on! Is Snoke really just some nobody leader, dispensable to a larger purpose? He looks like a disfigured Goldmember, had a super cool throne room and guards, and obviously influenced Kylo Ren somehow. So, tell us who the Phantom Menace he is! And I don’t want to figure this out through some extended universe graphic novel bullshit or another needless stand-alone movie. He’s relevant to this trilogy! I also don’t care that we didn’t know who the Emperor was in the originals- his origin wasn’t important at that point and since Episode VII, we’ve been baited with questions. Rectify this please, J.J. Abrams. Otherwise, I enjoyed it a lot. Anyways, that’ all- have a happy new year!

snoke-lucasfilm

 

Is Hillary Still A Woman?

Is Hillary Still A Woman?

Is Hillary still a woman? No, I don’t mean in the old hick “look out, she’s going into the wrong bathroom” kind of way, but rather in the context of this entertaining election. As the primaries draw to a close and Donald Trump begins to scour Facebook for any trace of a scandal linked to the Clinton camp, it can’t helped but be wondered whether the question of gender politics is playing the pivotal role it once did in America. At first, I simply thought “no.” Whereas in 2008, the prospect of a first Black or first Female president was so alluring, today it seems like more of a tangent to a larger debate. Upon inspection and analysis of this race, the political commentary and debate however, the question opened up a great deal. So whilst this main point will be addressed further, it’s certainly worth exploring the recent history of women in politics before the related question of why people dislike this woman/politician so much.

Thatchers in America

It’s still difficult to be anything but stern and tough if you want to be a respected female politician in many countries. In the 1980s, many figured this philosophy with the draconian measures of Ms. Thatcher (depending on your viewpoint) and while there’s been progress since then, the gameplay isn’t exactly equivocal between men and women. This might, in some respects, justify the pompous, disingenuous image Clinton has cultivated over the years – a means to survival. It may also just be a theory. In the debate on gender politics and feminism, there can be a lot of conjecture on hand.

Women, of course, have not been fairly represented in US political history. They were only given the vote in 1920. They only saw their first elected Senate representative in 1932 with Hattie Caraway and since then there have only been a further 45 women anointed to that chamber of Congress (and through staggered junctions). In fact, even as recently as 1992, the ‘year of the woman’ (because a staggering five female senators got the job-and all from one party), that divide was evident.

Yearofthewoman%20wiki
1992: Year of the Woman- the same year Bill Clinton was elected to office.

 

In terms of the presidency then, one can imagine there’s been far less representation. As of 2016, seventeen women have managed recognisable attempts for the coveted position (going by popular vote accounts) and two of them are Hillary Clinton for 2008 and this year (the rest would be relatively unknown to most.)

There are now 20 women in the Senate and Hillary is the likely frontrunner for the Democratic Party. In the 1950s, less than half the US population would have voted for a female presidential candidate. Today, over eighty percent would. Whether this politically correct culture has had an affect on how people present their views is also worth considering but for the most part, through all the folds and exceptions, there has been progress.

Haters Gonna Hate, Hate, Hate…

Taylor Swift has a knack for melody but it’s not enough to just say “haters are going to hate.” That’s moronic. People do strongly dislike Hillary though and some of their reasons may be unjustified. For example, in March, the Ms. Magazine blog posted an article on three ways “to tell if your distaste for Hillary Clinton is sexist.” These included a) taking umbrage with the problems of the Clinton years but liking old Slick Willy, b) deciding you hate her first then collecting substantive reasons, and c) holding things against her for which you have forgiven others. Aversive sexism is undoubtedly an issue in modern society and a genuine concern could be that people will preach one thing and act on another (reverting to conservative instincts in the polling booth) by giving Trump the thumbs up. Likewise however, the Guardian also found that many women consider Trump just “creepy.” That said, he has referred to menstruation as being the cause for Megyn Kelly’s “outrageous” questions so it’s hardly balanced.

One of the most useful platforms for finding the unedited, unreasoned thoughts of the public is of course the YouTube comments’ section. I took to this to see if there was some element of truth to the idea of averse hate (even if not sexist). Among misspelled links to bands’ channels and escalating arguments, I found a lot of this, e.g. “I hate that smirk she has every time she finishes a sentence.” Compared to many Fox hosts’ smirks, Clinton’s is far from the worse though I found the majority of discouragement of her to be associated with policy and general dislike, rather than sexism. Granted, most of the commenters appeared to be young men but a lot of anonymous people speak in ways they never would in person.

article-2526437-1A338FB800000578-67_634x407
That smirk from an ABC interview- granted she will have to do something about her laugh.

 

Many people recognise the fear of being labelled sexist too. Just as these YouTube commenters resolve to knock down Clinton, many of her supporters in return react with unqualified claims of bigotry- the PC police.  Articles such as the Huffington Post’s “I Despise Hillary Clinton, And It Has Nothing To Do With Her Gender” convey this level of heightened social awareness. Other articles have attempted in the meantime to contextualise and separate this issue altogether. For example, a New York Magazine opinion piece earlier this year stated; “[there} is no Big Feminism anymore, and no agreed upon figureheads – at least no one to rival Steinem’s fame and iconic status. Today feminism is more about personal identity.” That’s not unreasonable. Many liberals despise Clinton for only her stances, as evidenced by their love of Senator Elizabeth Warren.

So what are these stances? What are her flaws? This hardly needs to be touched upon in detail, considering the feed of commenters out there but for the most part, Clinton’s detractors find her politically motivated and malleable to trends. Her once against-now for stance on Gay Marriage, comes to mind, as one instance of this. Her own compromised marriage too, is drawn upon by many as an exemplification of the calculated moves she has taken this far. Then, there’s the series of scandals that have dogged her career from Whitewater to her Iraq vote, Benghazi, the e-mail scandal and whatever’s next. Against Sanders, these shortcomings have been especially  magnified which lends credence to the argument that Clinton’s detractors have just cause for their outrage.

Hillary-Clinton-testimony-Getty-640x480
For us, it’s just another manic Monday. For Hillary, another Benghazi.

 

As It Is – This Election

Leaving aside the historical context of female political leadership and Clinton’s own facets however, how has the gender card been played out in this election specifically? Naturally, Trump has fudged up his alliance with any suffragette movement by acting the classic 80s’ masochist douche, leaving Clinton with a hefty advantage in that vote. While younger women (18 to 29) have generally preferred Sanders, this margin has played  out in her favour for the most part with 70% women’s support in the Mississippi primary, 63% in Alabama’s and 42% in Texas’. Sanders too, that beacon of dignity, even came under fire from her camp when in response to asserting that “shouting” wouldn’t do anything about America’s gun problem, Clinton replied that it’s never “shouting” when it’s a man. Ouch. Was there justification for this or could it be argued that Clinton was playing the gender card herself? “If [she] were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5% of the vote” opined Trump in April for the Washington Post. Well, that is Trump but many might yet agree.

13CLINTONWOMENjp1-master768

As it is, the poll data is showing that there is no state where women don’t make up 54% of Democratic voters. The gender card, in this sense, is a crucial one which can’t be ignored, even if its utility is immoral. When it comes to the general election then, assuming Clinton’s candidacy (based on today’s results), it is likely that Trump will need a different strategy (given the percentage of population he’s alienating). That said, one of Clinton’s greatest flaws (regardless of any gender politics) has been in her underestimation of the electorate. Sanders already proved her victory was not secure when one year ago her success was inevitable. Female voters too,  though faced with the alternative of Trump, will not vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. Years ago, many would have assailed against the notion of a female president. Today though, they also assail against Hillary Clinton.

Andrew Carolan