Pitfalls of Being in Fandoms
Feb. 24th, 2023 09:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. The Pitfall of Being a Fan of a Series of Books or of a writer, only to realize they are a complete asshole.
* I've spent more time this week than I wanted to ...thinking about JKR and the Harry Potter Fandom.
Wales stumbled onto JKR on Twitter via the NY Times. There was a fight with NY Times, who for reasons...had decided to JKR. This erupted into a fight on Twitter. Wales, not reading the article, dove in and said they should pick their battles and defend women's reproductive rights, and well when I tried to explain, she clarified that this including women who no longer had access to their reproductive organs. To which, I had to clarify further.
Then Wales texted me that she was listening to The Witch Trials of JKR.
So, I explained to Wales in a series of texts that JKR is a TERF - and I sent her the link defining it. TERF = trans-exclusionary radical feminist. I also went into the history of the Harry Potter fandom and JKR, abbreviated.
Anyhow today, Book Twitter was all-a-Twitter about JKR and Joyce Carol Oates having separate viral tweet wars about transgender. Joyce Carol Oates was defending trans-gender rights, while JKR was denouncing them. Book Twitter was hoping they'd discover each other - and enter into a flame war that would take down Twitter.
They didn't. Unfortunately.
This has all sprouted up because of the forthcoming Harry Potter video game. (I have no interest - it's a video game.)
* Penguin Puffin is apparently publishing the works of Roald Dahl, who as you may or may not already know is an anti-semitic asshole or was one. I think he's long dead. I can't remember whose dead and who isn't sometimes. He's a good writer, biting. JKR actually - always reminded me of Roald Dahl light. Both have the biting British Wit, although he's more biting than she is.
Roald Dahl Controversy
The controversy is about how his works were rewritten - to get rid of offensive material. Which means he is undoubtedly dead, because there's no way in hell that he'd have permitted that.
“The Roald Dahl Classic Collection” will be available alongside the newly released Puffin Roald Dahl books for young readers, “which are designed for children who may be navigating written content independently for the first time,” Puffin said. “Readers will be free to choose which version of Dahl’s stories they prefer.”
Last week, Puffin was in the eye of a storm when it emerged that the works of Dahl, who died in 1990, had been rewritten, with the phrase “enormously fat” edited to just “enormous” and “most formidable female” to “most formidable woman” among numerous other examples from his most famous books. People who opposed the edits include author Salman Rushdie, who described it as “absurd censorship,” and U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
The original versions will be released under the Penguin logo and will include archive material relevant to each of the stories.
* And..I found out Twitter that..Scott Adams the cartoonist/creator of Dilbert is a racist Trump Supporter - and 80 newspapers pulled his cartoon due to racist content.
[ETC: To clarify? He was dropped from newspapers because of a racist rant on Youtube, not because of his satirical cartoon. The racist rant kind of changed how everyone perceived the satire in his cartoon.
Adams rant can be found HERE - if you wish to see it for yourselves.
The majority of newspaper publishers (with the possible exception of the right wing publications) considered it a racist rant and kicked Adams to the curb. Newspapers have dropped dilbert comic strip after a racist rant by its creator.]
Sigh. Remember when Dilbert was cool and innocuous? I've admittedly not been following it since well the early 00s if that. I stopped reading the Sunday funnies sometime around 2008. [ ETC: Not because I disliked Dilbert - I just no longer read print newspapers. I get a digital version of the NY Times. I'm not reading any Sunday comics at the moment - haven't for the last IDK, ten years? ]
2. The Pitfalls of Being in a Long-Running Fandom - Star Wars
Star Wars has always been a dicey fandom to participate in, but that is most likely true of all fandoms? It was even dicey in the 1980s when it more or less began. (The first film came out in 1977, so technically 1977.)
Got into a lengthy discussion/debate on a friend's journal posting about Andor, which I enjoyed. But isn't for everyone. Unlike most of the Star Wars stuff - it's geared towards the over-twenty-five group. Most of Star Wars was geared towards the 10 to 25 group by Lucas. He really wrote the films for families and kids. Andor and Rogue One stand out a bit - because they are written for adults. It's not that folks between 18-25 can't enjoy them, but I wouldn't be inviting people between 10-18 to the party. The individual I was talking to - didn't like Andor (they were bored by it, and I suspect not the intended audience for it. Andor is a weird fit for Disney + and may actually belong on Hulu.)
Star Wars is a long-running fandom. Roughly doing the math? It's about forty years old? (Let's see I saw it at 11 or 12, I'm fifty-five now, so about forty.) And like most long-running fandoms, there's disagreement over well everything. And so much of it has to do with when you entered the fandom (if you ever truly did?), and the degree to which you invested, why, etc. Also what you watched, what is canon, what is good, what isn't good, what works, what doesn't, what makes a true fan, etc. And people are fannish in different ways - which I keep trying to explain to folks.
Not everyone likes to interact with other fans, some people are private about it. (I know I am.) Nor do you have to see everything or read everything to be a fan of a series. People can pick and choose. Not everyone feels the need to be a completist.
There's this view in fandom that if you're not "fanatical" - you aren't a fan. Not true. There are degrees. For example, you can be a fan of Star Wars and dislike the films. There's enough content out there now, that you could just be a fan of the comic books and be fine.
The difficulty with long-running fandoms - is it is rather easy to stumble over land-mines or into a heated debate over something as trivial as...Episodes 1-3 were better than Episodes 4-6. Or in the case of Star Wars, the Original Trilogy is better than any of the other films (which in my opinion it was - with the possible exception of Rogue One).
Our debate began over Andor than jumped into Original Series (OT) vs. Prequels, which in turn derived from an disagreement over the non-original character sequels and series being slightly better than those series/films that focused on them. (ie. Andor and Rogue One - are better than say Force Awakens - Rise, Mandalorian, Bobba Fett, Obi Wan...because they are not dependent on the characters from the Original Trilogy. )
This is typical of most fandoms. And among the pitfalls of being in fandom, when all you really want to do is analyze the films, characters, stories, critique them, and figure out what works for you, what doesn't, why you love it, and what intrigues you.
Comparing other long-running fandoms to Star Wars
The Buffy fandom had two problems, one is an asshole creator. At least George Lucas to date isn't an asshole. Although give it time, he's human, and from what I saw in the Industrial Light and Magic Documentary - could be a beast to work with. It took about twenty some years for all the dirt about Whedon to come out.
The other, like Star Wars, Buffy had content across multiple mediums. While lovely, it does pose issues with a fandom. The fandom fights over what is canon to the fandom - whenever you have multiple mediums. And in case of Star Wars it's confusing, because it's not necessarily clear by medium what is canon or not, and Lucas mad it very difficult by stating some things were, then saying, no wait, I changed my mind. For example, Splinter in the Minds Eye was canonical to Star Wars, and approved as such, until Return of the Jedi kind of blew it up. (In Splinter - Luke and Leia aren't brother and sister. Although thinking about it - we should have known, look at the names.)
Buffy like Star Wars has content across various mediums. There's the movie, the novelizations, the comics, the television series, the reboots in the comics, the video games.
For a while, it was which season, or ship you followed. The Buffy fandom was annoyingly "shipper" centric, mainly because the writers wrote it like a soap opera, with depth, so Buffy's ill-fated romantic interests were often front and center to the plot. In S1-3, it was Angel. S4-5(part I) - it was Riley. In S5(Part II)-7, it was Spike. And fans fought over which love interest ruled and she should be with. Including those she hadn't been paired with.
Once the comics came out - it was were you a Buffy comics fan, original series fan, and did you consider the comics canon? I got into a lot of debates with people over whether the comics could be considered canon. (I don't.) It's kind of similar to Star Wars - I'm not entirely sure I buy that the prequels are canon, since not all the collaborators were involved. But unlike Buffy - it was at least in the same medium, and Lucas did the whole thing - he just didn't have the same screen writer. Also, I disliked the prequels. The prequels killed my fandom. Like the Buffy comics killed my fandom in a way?
Or I just lost interest eventually. It happens, when the content is no longer rewarding.
And just like the Star Wars fandom, we had fights over whether people were true fans of the show - based on who they liked, which episodes, when they came into it, how they watched it, etc. And since it became a long running fandom, with people who had watched as it aired, on VHS, on DVD, then finally streaming...the fandom much like Star Wars became defused. People weren't seeing the same show, they certainly weren't watching it the same way, and often saw pieces out of order, or cut out.
With Star Wars - Lucas edited the first films and re-released them. So people who saw them for the first time in the 00s didn't see the same films I saw on the big screen in the 1970s and 80s. We didn't see the same movie.
Even if they saw the unedited version - on a big screen in 2003, it wouldn't be the same film. I know, I watched the re-released films on the big screen in the early 00s - they weren't the same films I saw in the 70s and 80s. I also saw them again in the 90s, where various things were enhanced - and no, not the same films. And my perception of those films changed with time - because cinema changed, how I viewed cinema and movies changed - plus I'd seen other films in between.
So in Star Wars - you have fans who saw the films in the 20th Century vs. people who didn't see them until the 21st, because they frankly didn't exist in the 80s and 70s, they were in fact the kids of the people who saw them in the 80s and 70s as kids.
Buffy? Same situation. The kids of the people who grew up watching Buffy are watching it now. My niece watched it with my brother - she binged the entire series within about two or three weekends. Keep in mind this is a seven year series. And she binged both it and Angel. At the age of 14.
I watched the series at the age of 28, as it aired, and long before streaming or DVR's existed. There were episodes I missed upon original airing - and got later either by F/X reruns or VHS. We were mailing tapes to each other back then. Or sending computer files. Hunting spoilers - to find out what happened next in between the long breaks between episodes. Worrying about it getting canceled. I doubt seriously I'd have become a fan of the series - if I binged it in three to four weekends with my Dad. (My father didn't watch it.) I certainly wouldn't have become obsessed enough to hunt down discussion boards and write meta on the internet about it. Not if I just streamed it in under a month. There's no anticipation. Part of the reason I sought out discussion boards and hunted the fandom - was to deal with the long waits between episodes, to figure out where it was going. The "anticipation" fueled the desire for fanfic, for meta, for all of it. Without that? I doubt I'd have ever entered the fandom. And I also seriously doubt that I'm alone in that view - I think a lot of fans wouldn't have. Does that make us less of a fan than someone who binged all the episodes in a month and is writing fanfic and meta on it? Of course not. But we did not see the same series - or experience it the same way.
So there's this cognitive dissonance or gap between viewers.
Doctor Who in Comparison to Star Wars
If Star Wars and Buffy are bad in this regard. Try Doctor Who. This is a 60 year old series. Worse, it's a 60 year series with large gaps between content, and different actors playing the lead role, different creators, different writers, and different companions. So, as a result, there are people who have only seen portions of it, I'm among them. There's Old School Who and New School Who. The people who loved the Tenth Doctor, and those who loved all of the Doctors but Ten, or preferred 11 or 12 or 13 or 7. Some prefer one companion over another. Some prefer a season. Some like all of it, some only liked two seasons of it.
And unless you've seen all of it - which is impossible for everyone, you can be at a loss with die-hard Who fans. Some Who fans don't believe you can be a true fan unless you have seen it all. Much like Star Wars fans, there are Who fans who feel rather strongly that unless you love the early seasons - you aren't a true Who fan. Like Star Wars, Who fans are weirdly competitive about it, and some are obsessive about being a completist - you have to watch all of it. At least Who fans don't appear to insist that you read all the comics and books and cartoons. Different medium, not canon.
Who like the other two runs across multiple mediums.
General Hospital - A Day-Time Soap Opera that is Celebrating it's 60th Anniversary next month, has the same problem.
60 years of a soap opera isn't going to be seen by everyone. It's impossible. Some fans may have seen all of it. Most will have seen sections. So of course they don't agree on anything. I mean we have people who were into it in the 70s and 80s - the era of Luke and Laura, and Robert and Anna...and soon Sonny and Brenda, then there are folks who didn't start watching until the late 1990s, when all of those pairings were gone.
It's not like the old episodes are easily accessible or rerun anywhere.
So people obviously see different shows. And aren't fans of the same shows or characters. When they argue it is at cross purposes.
On social media - people are constantly throwing things characters did over twenty years ago at fans. Fans hold grudges against specific characters longer than the characters do - and often long after the writers have changed. The actors and writers don't remember the things the fans remember. While character history matters - if it is over ten years old, it's time to let it go. Particularly if it happened to characters who are long dead or gone.
In relation to Star Wars, this is true of the varying types of fans. I can't legitimately expect a fan who was born in 2001 to appreciate the 1970s and 80s films in the same way I did, or prefer them to the other films. The changes in technology and special effects along dictate against that. That said, Star Wars isn't a soap opera, not really. It's more like Star Trek than Battle Star Galatica or Farscape in that regard. While it does have the problem of being around for a long time - it's not 60 years old yet. And it's not really a serial in the same way a soap is, plus it has more continuity (there is relatively little continuity in soap operas).
So it is actually easier to be a Star Wars fan than a GH fan.
***
I can go on and on with examples. Star Trek has this problem, as does Battle Star Galatica (it has two competing versions), as does the Marvel Universe - the films vs the animation vs the comics canons. I am not a fan of the animated canon - the X-men, irritated me. I prefer the comics. But there are those who only saw the animated versions. Or only the movies.
Or only the television shows.
It makes navigating these fandoms dicey at best. And is among the many reasons I've often been leery of joining them.
It's late. Off to bed. [Sorry for the typos and leaving you with a rough draft of this post. I edited, so should be better now.]
* I've spent more time this week than I wanted to ...thinking about JKR and the Harry Potter Fandom.
Wales stumbled onto JKR on Twitter via the NY Times. There was a fight with NY Times, who for reasons...had decided to JKR. This erupted into a fight on Twitter. Wales, not reading the article, dove in and said they should pick their battles and defend women's reproductive rights, and well when I tried to explain, she clarified that this including women who no longer had access to their reproductive organs. To which, I had to clarify further.
Then Wales texted me that she was listening to The Witch Trials of JKR.
So, I explained to Wales in a series of texts that JKR is a TERF - and I sent her the link defining it. TERF = trans-exclusionary radical feminist. I also went into the history of the Harry Potter fandom and JKR, abbreviated.
Anyhow today, Book Twitter was all-a-Twitter about JKR and Joyce Carol Oates having separate viral tweet wars about transgender. Joyce Carol Oates was defending trans-gender rights, while JKR was denouncing them. Book Twitter was hoping they'd discover each other - and enter into a flame war that would take down Twitter.
They didn't. Unfortunately.
This has all sprouted up because of the forthcoming Harry Potter video game. (I have no interest - it's a video game.)
* Penguin Puffin is apparently publishing the works of Roald Dahl, who as you may or may not already know is an anti-semitic asshole or was one. I think he's long dead. I can't remember whose dead and who isn't sometimes. He's a good writer, biting. JKR actually - always reminded me of Roald Dahl light. Both have the biting British Wit, although he's more biting than she is.
Roald Dahl Controversy
The controversy is about how his works were rewritten - to get rid of offensive material. Which means he is undoubtedly dead, because there's no way in hell that he'd have permitted that.
“The Roald Dahl Classic Collection” will be available alongside the newly released Puffin Roald Dahl books for young readers, “which are designed for children who may be navigating written content independently for the first time,” Puffin said. “Readers will be free to choose which version of Dahl’s stories they prefer.”
Last week, Puffin was in the eye of a storm when it emerged that the works of Dahl, who died in 1990, had been rewritten, with the phrase “enormously fat” edited to just “enormous” and “most formidable female” to “most formidable woman” among numerous other examples from his most famous books. People who opposed the edits include author Salman Rushdie, who described it as “absurd censorship,” and U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
The original versions will be released under the Penguin logo and will include archive material relevant to each of the stories.
* And..I found out Twitter that..Scott Adams the cartoonist/creator of Dilbert is a racist Trump Supporter - and 80 newspapers pulled his cartoon due to racist content.
[ETC: To clarify? He was dropped from newspapers because of a racist rant on Youtube, not because of his satirical cartoon. The racist rant kind of changed how everyone perceived the satire in his cartoon.
Adams rant can be found HERE - if you wish to see it for yourselves.
The majority of newspaper publishers (with the possible exception of the right wing publications) considered it a racist rant and kicked Adams to the curb. Newspapers have dropped dilbert comic strip after a racist rant by its creator.]
Sigh. Remember when Dilbert was cool and innocuous? I've admittedly not been following it since well the early 00s if that. I stopped reading the Sunday funnies sometime around 2008. [ ETC: Not because I disliked Dilbert - I just no longer read print newspapers. I get a digital version of the NY Times. I'm not reading any Sunday comics at the moment - haven't for the last IDK, ten years? ]
2. The Pitfalls of Being in a Long-Running Fandom - Star Wars
Star Wars has always been a dicey fandom to participate in, but that is most likely true of all fandoms? It was even dicey in the 1980s when it more or less began. (The first film came out in 1977, so technically 1977.)
Got into a lengthy discussion/debate on a friend's journal posting about Andor, which I enjoyed. But isn't for everyone. Unlike most of the Star Wars stuff - it's geared towards the over-twenty-five group. Most of Star Wars was geared towards the 10 to 25 group by Lucas. He really wrote the films for families and kids. Andor and Rogue One stand out a bit - because they are written for adults. It's not that folks between 18-25 can't enjoy them, but I wouldn't be inviting people between 10-18 to the party. The individual I was talking to - didn't like Andor (they were bored by it, and I suspect not the intended audience for it. Andor is a weird fit for Disney + and may actually belong on Hulu.)
Star Wars is a long-running fandom. Roughly doing the math? It's about forty years old? (Let's see I saw it at 11 or 12, I'm fifty-five now, so about forty.) And like most long-running fandoms, there's disagreement over well everything. And so much of it has to do with when you entered the fandom (if you ever truly did?), and the degree to which you invested, why, etc. Also what you watched, what is canon, what is good, what isn't good, what works, what doesn't, what makes a true fan, etc. And people are fannish in different ways - which I keep trying to explain to folks.
Not everyone likes to interact with other fans, some people are private about it. (I know I am.) Nor do you have to see everything or read everything to be a fan of a series. People can pick and choose. Not everyone feels the need to be a completist.
There's this view in fandom that if you're not "fanatical" - you aren't a fan. Not true. There are degrees. For example, you can be a fan of Star Wars and dislike the films. There's enough content out there now, that you could just be a fan of the comic books and be fine.
The difficulty with long-running fandoms - is it is rather easy to stumble over land-mines or into a heated debate over something as trivial as...Episodes 1-3 were better than Episodes 4-6. Or in the case of Star Wars, the Original Trilogy is better than any of the other films (which in my opinion it was - with the possible exception of Rogue One).
Our debate began over Andor than jumped into Original Series (OT) vs. Prequels, which in turn derived from an disagreement over the non-original character sequels and series being slightly better than those series/films that focused on them. (ie. Andor and Rogue One - are better than say Force Awakens - Rise, Mandalorian, Bobba Fett, Obi Wan...because they are not dependent on the characters from the Original Trilogy. )
This is typical of most fandoms. And among the pitfalls of being in fandom, when all you really want to do is analyze the films, characters, stories, critique them, and figure out what works for you, what doesn't, why you love it, and what intrigues you.
Comparing other long-running fandoms to Star Wars
The Buffy fandom had two problems, one is an asshole creator. At least George Lucas to date isn't an asshole. Although give it time, he's human, and from what I saw in the Industrial Light and Magic Documentary - could be a beast to work with. It took about twenty some years for all the dirt about Whedon to come out.
The other, like Star Wars, Buffy had content across multiple mediums. While lovely, it does pose issues with a fandom. The fandom fights over what is canon to the fandom - whenever you have multiple mediums. And in case of Star Wars it's confusing, because it's not necessarily clear by medium what is canon or not, and Lucas mad it very difficult by stating some things were, then saying, no wait, I changed my mind. For example, Splinter in the Minds Eye was canonical to Star Wars, and approved as such, until Return of the Jedi kind of blew it up. (In Splinter - Luke and Leia aren't brother and sister. Although thinking about it - we should have known, look at the names.)
Buffy like Star Wars has content across various mediums. There's the movie, the novelizations, the comics, the television series, the reboots in the comics, the video games.
For a while, it was which season, or ship you followed. The Buffy fandom was annoyingly "shipper" centric, mainly because the writers wrote it like a soap opera, with depth, so Buffy's ill-fated romantic interests were often front and center to the plot. In S1-3, it was Angel. S4-5(part I) - it was Riley. In S5(Part II)-7, it was Spike. And fans fought over which love interest ruled and she should be with. Including those she hadn't been paired with.
Once the comics came out - it was were you a Buffy comics fan, original series fan, and did you consider the comics canon? I got into a lot of debates with people over whether the comics could be considered canon. (I don't.) It's kind of similar to Star Wars - I'm not entirely sure I buy that the prequels are canon, since not all the collaborators were involved. But unlike Buffy - it was at least in the same medium, and Lucas did the whole thing - he just didn't have the same screen writer. Also, I disliked the prequels. The prequels killed my fandom. Like the Buffy comics killed my fandom in a way?
Or I just lost interest eventually. It happens, when the content is no longer rewarding.
And just like the Star Wars fandom, we had fights over whether people were true fans of the show - based on who they liked, which episodes, when they came into it, how they watched it, etc. And since it became a long running fandom, with people who had watched as it aired, on VHS, on DVD, then finally streaming...the fandom much like Star Wars became defused. People weren't seeing the same show, they certainly weren't watching it the same way, and often saw pieces out of order, or cut out.
With Star Wars - Lucas edited the first films and re-released them. So people who saw them for the first time in the 00s didn't see the same films I saw on the big screen in the 1970s and 80s. We didn't see the same movie.
Even if they saw the unedited version - on a big screen in 2003, it wouldn't be the same film. I know, I watched the re-released films on the big screen in the early 00s - they weren't the same films I saw in the 70s and 80s. I also saw them again in the 90s, where various things were enhanced - and no, not the same films. And my perception of those films changed with time - because cinema changed, how I viewed cinema and movies changed - plus I'd seen other films in between.
So in Star Wars - you have fans who saw the films in the 20th Century vs. people who didn't see them until the 21st, because they frankly didn't exist in the 80s and 70s, they were in fact the kids of the people who saw them in the 80s and 70s as kids.
Buffy? Same situation. The kids of the people who grew up watching Buffy are watching it now. My niece watched it with my brother - she binged the entire series within about two or three weekends. Keep in mind this is a seven year series. And she binged both it and Angel. At the age of 14.
I watched the series at the age of 28, as it aired, and long before streaming or DVR's existed. There were episodes I missed upon original airing - and got later either by F/X reruns or VHS. We were mailing tapes to each other back then. Or sending computer files. Hunting spoilers - to find out what happened next in between the long breaks between episodes. Worrying about it getting canceled. I doubt seriously I'd have become a fan of the series - if I binged it in three to four weekends with my Dad. (My father didn't watch it.) I certainly wouldn't have become obsessed enough to hunt down discussion boards and write meta on the internet about it. Not if I just streamed it in under a month. There's no anticipation. Part of the reason I sought out discussion boards and hunted the fandom - was to deal with the long waits between episodes, to figure out where it was going. The "anticipation" fueled the desire for fanfic, for meta, for all of it. Without that? I doubt I'd have ever entered the fandom. And I also seriously doubt that I'm alone in that view - I think a lot of fans wouldn't have. Does that make us less of a fan than someone who binged all the episodes in a month and is writing fanfic and meta on it? Of course not. But we did not see the same series - or experience it the same way.
So there's this cognitive dissonance or gap between viewers.
Doctor Who in Comparison to Star Wars
If Star Wars and Buffy are bad in this regard. Try Doctor Who. This is a 60 year old series. Worse, it's a 60 year series with large gaps between content, and different actors playing the lead role, different creators, different writers, and different companions. So, as a result, there are people who have only seen portions of it, I'm among them. There's Old School Who and New School Who. The people who loved the Tenth Doctor, and those who loved all of the Doctors but Ten, or preferred 11 or 12 or 13 or 7. Some prefer one companion over another. Some prefer a season. Some like all of it, some only liked two seasons of it.
And unless you've seen all of it - which is impossible for everyone, you can be at a loss with die-hard Who fans. Some Who fans don't believe you can be a true fan unless you have seen it all. Much like Star Wars fans, there are Who fans who feel rather strongly that unless you love the early seasons - you aren't a true Who fan. Like Star Wars, Who fans are weirdly competitive about it, and some are obsessive about being a completist - you have to watch all of it. At least Who fans don't appear to insist that you read all the comics and books and cartoons. Different medium, not canon.
Who like the other two runs across multiple mediums.
General Hospital - A Day-Time Soap Opera that is Celebrating it's 60th Anniversary next month, has the same problem.
60 years of a soap opera isn't going to be seen by everyone. It's impossible. Some fans may have seen all of it. Most will have seen sections. So of course they don't agree on anything. I mean we have people who were into it in the 70s and 80s - the era of Luke and Laura, and Robert and Anna...and soon Sonny and Brenda, then there are folks who didn't start watching until the late 1990s, when all of those pairings were gone.
It's not like the old episodes are easily accessible or rerun anywhere.
So people obviously see different shows. And aren't fans of the same shows or characters. When they argue it is at cross purposes.
On social media - people are constantly throwing things characters did over twenty years ago at fans. Fans hold grudges against specific characters longer than the characters do - and often long after the writers have changed. The actors and writers don't remember the things the fans remember. While character history matters - if it is over ten years old, it's time to let it go. Particularly if it happened to characters who are long dead or gone.
In relation to Star Wars, this is true of the varying types of fans. I can't legitimately expect a fan who was born in 2001 to appreciate the 1970s and 80s films in the same way I did, or prefer them to the other films. The changes in technology and special effects along dictate against that. That said, Star Wars isn't a soap opera, not really. It's more like Star Trek than Battle Star Galatica or Farscape in that regard. While it does have the problem of being around for a long time - it's not 60 years old yet. And it's not really a serial in the same way a soap is, plus it has more continuity (there is relatively little continuity in soap operas).
So it is actually easier to be a Star Wars fan than a GH fan.
***
I can go on and on with examples. Star Trek has this problem, as does Battle Star Galatica (it has two competing versions), as does the Marvel Universe - the films vs the animation vs the comics canons. I am not a fan of the animated canon - the X-men, irritated me. I prefer the comics. But there are those who only saw the animated versions. Or only the movies.
Or only the television shows.
It makes navigating these fandoms dicey at best. And is among the many reasons I've often been leery of joining them.
It's late. Off to bed. [