But at the same time, being a fan you tend to think a show, to ponder it because you care about it, you do a certain rational work (especially if you've become involved into some fans board devoted to discuss said show) rather than to simply watch it in a passive way in order to be entertained.
There's a great line in William Gibson's novel Pattern Recognition that states - " maybe you've been looking at this stuff for so long you've been reading something into it. And talking to other people who are doing the same thing."
I remember in conversations with "casual viewers" about BTVS, they'd point out, that the fans of the series were in fact more intelligent than the writers, finding things in the show far more interesting and story threads far more gripping than the writers intended. And there is a lot of truth to that. Remember when people were convinced that there was meaning behind the use of numbers on t-shirts in the 6th Season of bTVS and the writers admitted on commentary that no, that was just the costume designer randomly picking costumes?
We think we are rationally analyzing the show. We think because we are more invested that we can put our biases behind us, rationally block them out - but I think if anything they become more pronounced than they would to a casual passive viewer - who has the same biasis.
Casual viewers are more passive and when you're passive you're more subject to passions (that's the etymology) and therefore prone to biases and prejudice. The simple use of your intellect puts you at a certain distance too.
Yes and no. When you're passive you make assumptions take short-cuts, true. But when you are emotionally invested in something - you do the same thing. The difference is - in the latter instance you are also justifying your actions, your hunting proof to back it up. I remember reading the view that Vampires were a metaphor for racism in the series and the argument that a well-versed scholar used to back it up. Was the argument biased? Yes. Did the scholar know it? No. I've seen more biased posts online from obsessed fans than I've seen from casual viewers - the posts have frightenly convincing arguments by the way. A bias does not come from emotion purely, it can come from intellect - it can be a category we've reasoned out. We want to find patterns in things, we want to put things in nice neat categories, we want human behavior to be consistent and dependable. We want to know what will happen next. It's how we think.
So at the end of the day I am not that sure that casual viewers would be less biased than fans.
Maybe not less biased, but less likely to act on the biasis. Less likely to argue it and justify it. I see this in my own watching habits. Catch myself on my biasis all the time. But when I'm obsessed, I can't see the flaws - I don't see the biasis, and when I do, this creates dissonance, so I justify it, because I don't want to lose my obsession, my interest - what is making me anticipate the show. I saw this play out on so many fanboards. "Oh Spike would never do that, they are writing him out of character!" or "Oh Buffy is such a bitch for abusing Spike in that way, she totally deserves this!" or "How can you possibly like Spike after he raped Buffy?" or "Angel is Buffy's one true love?" or "Angel is a complete pedophyile, how can't you see that?" Or "Spike is a racist pig because he killed Wood's mother and spit on it and showed no remorse." Or -" they can't cancel this series it is the only series on TV worth watching." Those are biases. And they aren't ones a casual viewer would come up with - or at least that was my experience having seen the casual viewer response and the obsessed fan response.
Both viewers have biases. But the obsessed fan's biasis is far more pronounced and far harder to deal with. Anything biasis with an emotional investment behind it - is far more difficult to deal with. Someone who hates the show and refuses to watch based on an emotional reaction or biasis is just as difficult for the same reason. Because both have an emotional and intellectual investment in the biasis - obviously, or they wouldn't have that reaction.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2005-11-13 06:30 pm (UTC)There's a great line in William Gibson's novel Pattern Recognition that states - " maybe you've been looking at this stuff for so long you've been reading something into it. And talking to other people who are doing the same thing."
I remember in conversations with "casual viewers" about BTVS, they'd point out, that the fans of the series were in fact more intelligent than the writers, finding things in the show far more interesting and story threads far more gripping than the writers intended. And there is a lot of truth to that. Remember when people were convinced that there was meaning behind the use of numbers on t-shirts in the 6th Season of bTVS and the writers admitted on commentary that no, that was just the costume designer randomly picking costumes?
We think we are rationally analyzing the show. We think because we are more invested that we can put our biases behind us, rationally block them out - but I think if anything they become more pronounced than they would to a casual passive viewer - who has the same biasis.
Casual viewers are more passive and when you're passive you're more subject to passions (that's the etymology) and therefore prone to biases and prejudice. The simple use of your intellect puts you at a certain distance too.
Yes and no. When you're passive you make assumptions take short-cuts, true. But when you are emotionally invested in something - you do the same thing. The difference is - in the latter instance you are also justifying your actions, your hunting proof to back it up. I remember reading the view that Vampires were a metaphor for racism in the series and the argument that a well-versed scholar used to back it up.
Was the argument biased? Yes. Did the scholar know it? No. I've seen more biased posts online from obsessed fans than I've seen from casual viewers - the posts have frightenly convincing arguments by the way. A bias does not come from emotion purely, it can come from intellect - it can be a category we've reasoned out. We want to find patterns in things, we want to put things in nice neat categories, we want human behavior to be consistent and dependable. We want to know what will happen next. It's how we think.
So at the end of the day I am not that sure that casual viewers would be less biased than fans.
Maybe not less biased, but less likely to act on the biasis. Less likely to argue it and justify it. I see this in my own watching habits. Catch myself on my biasis all the time. But when I'm obsessed, I can't see the flaws - I don't see the biasis, and when I do, this creates dissonance, so I justify it, because I don't want to lose my obsession, my interest - what is making me anticipate the show. I saw this play out on so many fanboards. "Oh Spike would never do that, they are writing him out of character!" or "Oh Buffy is such a bitch for abusing Spike in that way, she totally deserves this!" or "How can you possibly like Spike after he raped Buffy?" or "Angel is Buffy's one true love?" or "Angel is a complete pedophyile, how can't you see that?" Or "Spike is a racist pig because he killed Wood's mother and spit on it and showed no remorse." Or -" they can't cancel this series it is the only series on TV worth watching." Those are biases. And they aren't ones a casual viewer would come up with - or at least that was my experience having seen the casual viewer response and the obsessed fan response.
Both viewers have biases. But the obsessed fan's biasis is far more pronounced and far harder to deal with. Anything biasis with an emotional investment behind it - is far more difficult to deal with. Someone who hates the show and refuses to watch based on an emotional reaction or biasis is just as difficult for the same reason. Because both have an emotional and intellectual investment in the biasis - obviously, or they wouldn't have that reaction.