What is fandom culture?

Sophie Turner, Y12 

A fandom refers to a group of people who have a shared common interest that unites them. Whether it be a TV series, a singer or book trilogy, fandoms often connect with one another using social media like instagram and twitter, to discuss their shared interest.

Some notable fandoms include the Potterheads (Harry Potter fans), Directioners (One Direction fans), the Barbz (Nicki Minaj fans) and Marvel fans. These fandoms have gained notoriety online for their power and influence they hold, and the sheer size of the number of passionate and vocal members. 

How did fandoms begin? 

What is widely considered to be the first fandom in existence is the Sherlock Holmes fandom. Going back as far as 1893, the fans held public mourning demonstrations after Holmes was “killed off”. The group is also considered responsible for the creation of the first pieces of fan fiction, with pieces being written by fans as far back as approximately 1897. The fandom, which is sometimes referred to as the Sherlockians or the Holmesians, still remains active till today. 

Are fandoms a good thing?

There are many benefits associated with being a part of a fandom: it’s a tool for connecting with new friends who have similar interests, and to express your creativity, with all the fanart that is associated with partaking in a fandom. 

However, there is a darker side to fandoms that some fail to consider. They can quickly become a toxic space: with bullying going on not only between the fans themselves, but also towards the people who feature in the work (ie. actors, characters, etc…). 

It's not meta-analysis, but it's a meta analysis

George Lyden, Y12 

On June 28th of 2023, Colleen Ballinger posted a ukulele solo that is sure to go down in the annals of internet history as one of the most egregiously presented youtuber “apologies” of all time. Despite the admitted catchiness of the tune (the phrase “toxic gossip train” has permanently wormed its way into my lexicon), what I find most fascinating is the sheer amount of content that has proliferated regarding the 10 minute video. In what is certain to be a painfully meta piece of analysis, I will be commentating upon commentary culture as a genre, the criticisms of it and defences of it. 

Commentary exercises a power over knowledge by approving and undermining it as it sees fit. But what legitimises commentary? An “official” source of commentary would be a film critic. This individual has studied the craft, and it is this “education” that forms the distinction between a critic and a critical consumer. At least it used to. Social media has platformed “influencers” lacking expertise beyond packaging their thoughts in a way that pleases the algorithm. Thus arises the infamous “commentary youtuber”. These semi-celebrities can now give their two cents on anything from overpriced cakes to Miranda Sings’ child abuse allegations. Commentary culture has evolved into something that is now not only distributable, but profitable. 

Obviously, this form of content is highly criticizable. Often, these videos don’t even require forethought, just some half baked jokes and a decent video editor. Furthermore, the “commentary” these youtubers create also very rarely generates new thoughts, aiming instead to capture the cultural zeitgeist and capitalise off of it. Their objective is to act as a vessel for preconceived ideas in order to satiate an internet niche. In this way, criticism becomes a movement, and it becomes clear that the only point of making videos is for the sake of personal gain. 

However, there are defences to be made for this “unoriginal” and “indolent” genre. Firstly, internet algorithms punish original content creators. Creators' success is subject to the whims of current trends, so the most successful content is pieces pushed by said trends. Even the term “original content” is subject to scrutiny. Content has truly reached critical mass, so how can we complain that “originality” no longer holds any stock, that consumption is now what is being rewarded rather than innovation? Commentary youtubers are skilled in cultivating something different, parasocial relationships. Because ultimately, anyone watching the latest youtube drama video isn’t actually seeking a subversive take. We’re looking to have our opinions validated. We’re looking for a place to convene. 

Commentary culture is neither a particularly stimulating form of content, nor an entirely detestable one. It is the product of algorithms, and a culture having reached content critical mass. There is an argument for it just creating a way to capitalise off of the same points phrased differently, but that can be said for most media nowadays. Regardless of motivation, youtube drama does have its appeal, between likeable creators and just general intrigue.