Tarzan 101 | Tarzan of the World Wide Web

Celebrating Tarzan's 101st anniversary by walking through Scott Tracy Griffin's Tarzan: The Centennial Celebration.

Griffin's chapter on Tarzan's Internet fandom includes information on the founders of important sites, especially Bill Hillman of the massive (and massively useful) ERBzine, but it's probably most useful for me to just give links and send you to Griffin's book if you're curious about background. There's plenty to explore.

Official Sites
Official Edgar Rice Burroughs site
Tarzan.com
Tarzan.org

Burroughs Family
John Coleman Burroughs
Danton Burroughs

Fandom
ERBzine
Burroughs Bibliophiles
Edgar Rice Burroughs Chain of Friendship Listserver
ERBmania!

Movies
Tarzan Movie Guide
Tarzan.cc
Johnny Weissmuller

Humor
The Barsoomian Blade: A Tabloid Paper of Mars

Tarzan 101 | Fan Conventions

Celebrating Tarzan's 101st anniversary by walking through Scott Tracy Griffin's Tarzan: The Centennial Celebration.

About half of Griffin's chapter on Tarzan conventions is a lengthy quote from Tarzan of the Apes in which Burroughs describes the Dum-Dum ceremony held by the apes to mark important events. The other half though is full of great information about the real-world legacy of that celebration.

The Burroughs Bibliophiles started their version of the Dum Dum to coincide with the annual World Science Fiction Convention (WorldCon). It was at the 18th WorldCon in 1960 that the Bibliophiles held their first meeting and they continued meeting that way for the next 24 years, only meeting at other conventions when WorldCon was held outside the United States.

When Bibliophiles founder Vern Coriell's health became too poor to allow him to continue leading the club in 1984, the Bibliophiles and the Dum Dum went on hiatus, but Burroughs fans didn't give up meeting. British fan (and pen pal of Burroughs) Frank Shonfeld started the Edgar Rice Burroughs Chain of Friendship, originally a network of letter-writers, and ECOF held its first, formal meeting in Toronto in August 1984.

Though ECOF continues meeting to this day (this year's was in May in Morris, Illinois), when George McWhorter restarted the Burroughs Bibliophiles he also reinstituted the annual Dum Dum, though as a separate event from WorldCon. ERBzine has a wonderful timeline of meeting dates and locations that even includes some short anecdotes from various gatherings. This year's Dum Dum was held in Louisville, Kentucky on August 8-11.

One of the major activities at the Dum Dum each year is bestowing awards. The Golden Lion Award is commonly given to professional creators and actors who've contributed in some way to Burroughs' legacy. The Edgar Rice Burroughs Achievement Award is given to prominent fans for their efforts in keeping alive the author's memory. The Dum Dum has also honored significant contributors to Burroughsdom like Hal Foster, Frank Frazetta, Johnny Weissmuller, Buster Crabbe, Harlan Ellison, and Philip Jose Farmer.

Fans and Crap

Using Uncanny X-Men and Twilight as a jumping off point, Curt Purcell offers a fascinating theory as to why fans love so much crap. In fact, he goes so far as to suggest that crappy storytelling may be better suited to create fans than quality storytelling. He introduces his discussion this way:

X-fans won't thank me for drawing this comparison, but I was reminded [..] of [the] extended, ferocious mockery of the Twilight series [...] There, too, we have something much beloved by legions of fans, that seems to positively invite every nasty thing any hater has to say about it. Twilight actually prompted a lot of head-scratching and even soul-searching among feminist critics who couldn't see past its myriad problems, but nevertheless felt reluctant to dismiss outright something loved so intensely by so many female readers. There was genuine effort to understand what fans got out of it. And no matter what the answer, the question remained--couldn't those fans get that from something better?

Well, maybe not.

Purcell offers a lot of psychology to support his theory, but the core of it is this: when we read or watch something that we like, the existence of crappy elements in it forces us to ignore the crap and focus more attention on the parts we like. That intense refocusing then causes us to invest more heavily in the story than we otherwise would have.

It's extremely interesting to think about. I didn't buy it at first, but the more I try to poke holes in it, the more I think Purcell's on to something. It's true that whenever we're reading or watching a story for the first time, we haven't already made up our minds about whether or not we like it. It's also true that any alert, critical reader or viewer will be turned off by weak, crappy storytelling. It's hard to imagine such a reader's being redirected (even subconsciously) by the sheer existence of crap to a greater emphasis on the good parts.

But it's also true that most hardcore fans are born at a young age; often before they even become teens. They're not reading critically, so Purcell's theory comes into play. And by the time they've achieved the ability to think about things like quality and craft, nostalgia and habit have so taken hold that it's difficult to approach that same story objectively. Purcell's theory activates again, but on a more (though perhaps not fully) conscious level. Now I don't want to see the flaws. Or, as Purcell observes, I see them and rationalize them as being "part of the charm" of the story.

I know this is true in my own experience. As a kid, I was very hard on critics. I didn't think they liked anything. "Movie critics must hate movies," I figured. Why else would they poke holes in perfectly decent films that I liked? I hear the same kind of comments from my teen-aged friends today.

What I also notice today is that I'm not a fan of stuff anymore. Not in the true sense of the word where I'm so in love with something that I'll keep reading or watching it past its expiration date. I still love certain stories, but if I start noticing that they're crap, I'll quit them and move on to something I like more. I've lost the ability to redirect my attention to the good parts, so I've also lost the ability to become a "fan." Fortunately, it's a loss that I'm perfectly happy with.

Quote of the Week: Boys Don't Read

Teachers have said to me, it’s not that boys don’t read; it’s that they don’t read what we think they should be reading.
--Francoise Mouly on the myth that boys don't like to read. [Robot 6]

Quotes of the Week: That'd go great with a nice bowl of Boo Berry.

How can I ever enjoy a couple of eggs now that are NOT ghost shaped?
--Brother Calvin, on how breakfast is now ruined for all of us.

When did fans get the idea that they could dictate content to creators? If you aren’t enjoying something, stop buying/watching/reading it. (And if the overall ongoing story gets to a place you’d like even more, you’ll feel like an idiot for not having any patience or trust in the creators.) If they’re creating something you like, then have a little faith.
--Johanna Draper Carlson, on the stupidity of fan entitlement.

Quotes of the Week: Overweight Men With Beards

Not really all from this week, but I'm still catching up.

...in a tighter than expected vote this weekend at an emergency meeting of the International Federation of Overweight Men With Beards, Brian Blessed was named world's leading fat, bearded celebrity following the recent death of comic actor Dom Deluise. Deluise had served in the largely ceremonial position for nearly 20 months after the passing of long-time title holder Luciano Pavarotti. Blessed won by three votes over surprise fringe candidate Jorge Garcia, who emerged when John Rhys-Davies was stricken from the field after a qualifications challenge and a last-minute effort to draft chef Mario Batali failed. Blessed's first action in his new position was to order his hawkmen to dive.
--Tom Spurgeon

George R.R. Martin is not your bitch ... You're complaining about George doing other things than writing the books you want to read as if your buying the first book in the series was a contract with him: that you would pay over your ten dollars, and George for his part would spend every waking hour until the series was done, writing the rest of the books for you.
--Neil Gaiman, on fan entitlement.

...I swear to God, if any of you people start writing Young Spock/Old Spock slash fiction, I will hunt you down.
--Mike Sterling, on a possible negative result of the new Star Trek movie.

“Forgive me, Young Spock,” said Old Spock, “for I know this is a thought most…illogical, but my pursuit of knowledge demands that I must know what it is like…to kiss myself.”
--Dorian Wright, being Dorian.

Quotes of the Week: Hannah Montana edition

NPR was on fire this week. Three quotes from them (two being from Linda Holmes). Also: two Miley Cyrus mentions. Weird.

If this plays out as anticipated, all that's going to happen is that he's going to show up in public with the zoo animals and the oxygen tanks and the...whatever, Jedi costume, and there will be pictures of him in magazines where he's in a nun's habit, walking an ocelot and carrying a watering can, and then his nose will fall off during a charity benefit, and he'll make some weird new best friend like Joe The Plumber or Miley Cyrus, and we'll all be back on the Michael Jackson Express Train To Weirdsville, and I cannot take it.
--NPR's Linda Holmes, on Michael Jackson's expected attempt at a comeback.

For me, the cherry on this delightful cake of perversion is the expression on the alien's face. He's looking right at you, without an iota of shame [at] any of the decadence happening around him. You can judge him if you want. But he'll keep on sodomizing Kirk while Spock and McCoy tango behind him... and you can never make him feel bad about it.
--Topless Robot, describing a truly horrifying "collectible."

Can we all agree that "mythos" is a not an everyday word, and should not be treated as such? And further, that dropping "mythos" into a conversation when one is sporting a t-shirt upon which Wolverine is engaged in an act of disembowelment tends to leach the word of its power?
--NPR's Glen Weldon, on the inclination for comics fans to take their funnybooks too seriously.

That's definitely not a straight flush.
--Kevin Melrose, describing a set of yaoi playing cards.

Cyrus said she was so hurt by Yorke’s dismissal, she didn’t even watch their performance of “15 Step” with the USC Marching Band. “I’m gonna ruin them, I’m gonna tell everyone,” Cyrus threatened. She’ll definitely be downloading their next album for free instead of paying-what-she-wants. Plus, Radiohead’s Radio Disney days are so over, and you can expect to see a big dip in sales of In Rainbows in the “Female Aged 5-11" demographic.
--Rolling Stone, describing the inevitable consequences of Radiohead's dissing Hannah Montana.

Will there be kissing? When? Where? What music will be playing? What will everyone be wearing? Will this episode contain kissing? How about next week's? How about in the season finale? Do you think the "dramatic development" in TV Guide is about kissing? Did you see that screenshot that one guy posted from that one episode where there seems to be smudged lipstick on that one actress? I wonder if it's because she was just busy kissing. KISSING KISSING KISSING, and have I mentioned...kissing?

--Linda Holmes again, perfectly communicating how annoying 'shippers are.

You should click on that last Linda Holmes link, in which she also sums up everything that's usually wrong with "romantic" storylines on TV and observes how The Office has managed to avoid that trap.

Writing is Hard: Writing for the Fans

Writing for the fans is a subject I keep coming back to. I don't know why exactly. It's not like marketing where I need to keep repeating certain things until I learn them. I know exactly how I feel about this one and don't need to be reminded of it.

And it's not like I have a ton of fans griping about my pitifully sporadic output, so this isn't something I feel personally. I guess it's more of a pet topic, spawned by my irritation at fan entitlement in general as expressed across the Internet.

Anyway, two recent posts by different people illustrate pretty clearly the balance needed in thinking about this topic.

Science fiction author John Scalzi writes about pissy fans and sums up my usual take on the matter by saying:

Some fans do have a tendency to forget that the creative folks they love are not simply black boxes, who produce desired product at regular intervals. They’re actually real people who do other things than just what the fans want them to do, because humans from time to time want to do the things they want to do, not the things other people want them to do. Yes, some fans don’t like that, but you know what, screw the type of fan who thinks a writer (or musician, or actor, or whatever) exists only to provide them with the entertainment of their choosing.

He follow up that post with another one on Ten Things to Remember About Authors. Both are worth reading, especially if you tend to feel entitled about your entertainment, but even if you aren't it's affirming to hear someone else say what needs saying.

On the other hand...

Jessica at the BookEnds Literary Agency reminds new writers that you can't completely ignore fan expectations when writing.

The difficulty you all face when getting published is living up to the expectations of your readers. There is no publicity as good as the publicity you get when you write a great book, and then your next book is even better. Let’s face it, we’re all fickle readers. We have limited incomes and when an author disappoints it’s often difficult to get us to spend our money on the next book.

... Writing suspense? Your readers are going to expect the same level, if not a higher level, of suspense with your next book. What about fantasy? Your world building needs to be just as strong in your second book as it is in your first. The minute you become a published author you are writing for a lot more than yourself. You’re writing for your agent, your editor and, most important, your audience. Does that mean you need to write the books they think you should write? Not at all, but you do need to come as close as possible to matching the expectations you’ve now set for them.

I don't think that either of these posts contradicts the other (especially not when Jessica adds those last two sentences to hers). They're not opposite viewpoints; they're complementary.