# Why do people say things like this?  Fandom originating in conspiracy



## Extollager (Dec 28, 2021)

I don't know who Gwen C. Katz is.  Mike Glyer's venerable File 770 reports her writing on Twitter as follows:

"The perception of SF culture as separate from and unintelligible to mainstream culture was, at the time, deliberately created and maintained by the fans themselves. They did not want other people in their subculture and they worked to keep them out.

"This gatekeeping was achieved through complex official and unofficial rules, often nonsense linguistic rules like "it's SF, not sci-fi." These rules served as a sort of Masonic handshake with no purpose except to tell insiders from interlopers.

"Allied with and closely related to the esoterica of early SF culture was its bureaucracy; this can be considered its second important driving force. A culture that prided themselves on their intellectual superiority believed that they could do things better than others."

....And so on; I admit I did not persist with this evidently undocumented and, I would say, somewhat unlikely essay.  Is this really what an unbiased reading of vintage fanzines archived at fanac.org, and a reading of Sam Moskowitz's *Immortal Storm*, Harry Warner's *All Our Yesterdays* and *Wealth of Fable*, the *Fancyclopedia*s, etc. would indicate?  

I think Katz might be like the person who finds himself in a situation in which people who know one another are talking about their common interests, and he assumes they are trying to snub him when they are not; like a person who overhears people joking and assumes they are joking about himself.  The fannish slang and so on seem to me largely to have been humorous expressions, often directed ironically against fans themselves -- GAFIA (Get Away From It All), FIAWOL (Fandom Is a Way of Life), and so on.  Kids do that kind of thing and adults might keep doing it for fun.  It doesn't have to mean what Katz asserts it means.  

If someone here has documentation or even anecdotal evidence that Katz doesn't provide, it would be interesting to see it.  I think "diffusing criticism" meant "defusing criticism," by the way.


----------



## Pyan (Dec 28, 2021)

If you haven't already, Extollager, read_* Fallen Angels*_, by Niven, Pournelle and Flynn. Published in 1991, it has some interesting slants on FIAWOL.


----------



## dask (Dec 28, 2021)

I remember the sf versus sci-fi debate when I discovered Science Fiction Review (and therefore fandom) in the mid seventies. SF was genre science fiction and sci-fi was what the non-fan accepted as science fiction, usually stuff fans looked down on. Fans would frequently use skiffy in pace of sci-fi to degrade it further. For better or worse I bought into it and still do to the extent I only use sf or SF when referring to science fiction. I feel a bit self conscious using first Fandom's stf. I think it was Alexei Panchen who used the term mimetic fiction to refer to the mainstream, that is, non-sf.


----------



## Dave (Dec 28, 2021)

> A culture that prided themselves on their intellectual superiority believed that they could do things better than others.


I know little about American culture relating to this, and I see sci-fi as an American term, but from a British perspective, I do know that for anyone growing up in England in the '50's, '60's and 70's, anyone who liked reading science fiction was thought of as weird, a geek, and a nerd. I know of only two boys who read Marvel "comic books" at school and they were both shunned in the same way that train spotters still are today. I worked in Public Libraries in holidays in the 1980's and the science fiction shelves were still, even then, considered not to be very literary. We did read some at school but it was considered childish and something you would grow out of later. There was very little science fiction on TV. Even Star Trek was shown at time slots that favoured children watching. Science fiction films were generally cheesy until 2001: A Space Odyssey came along. It was never mainstream until after Star Wars.

What I'm saying is that the reality was the complete opposite of that quote. It was the others who prided themselves on their intellectual superiority over these nerds, but people who are picked upon generally do form allegiances to fight back. I accept that you need to have some mathematics or physics education to understand some Hard Science Fiction, and probably some IT knowledge to really get cyberpunk, but there was also a massive change in culture in the '80's and '90's and it wasn't anything to do with the opening up of some secret society. It was simply the fact that science fiction and fantasy became popular enough that it was no longer embarrassing to say that you liked it anymore. After that, actual mainstream popular TV and films began to feature fantasy and science fiction storylines, such as characters seeing UFOs.


----------



## Extollager (Dec 29, 2021)

Pyan said:


> If you haven't already, Extollager, read_* Fallen Angels*_, by Niven, Pournelle and Flynn. Published in 1991, it has some interesting slants on FIAWOL.


I couldn't say I've ever heard of this!  But I will submit an interlibrary loan request for it....


----------



## Extollager (Dec 29, 2021)

"They did not want other people in their subculture and they worked to keep them out.  ....Allied with and closely related to the esoterica of early SF culture was its bureaucracy"

I'm still croggled (fanspeak) by that.  






						Croggle - Fancyclopedia 3
					






					fancyclopedia.org
				




"*Bureaucracy*" -- whaaaa?  Who?  Where?  Enforcing what procedures?

It did cross my mind that Katz's postings were a in the cause of a hoax.  Possibly "Katz" is a sociology student who wants to see how fans will react to a bizarre statement.  

I don't think so, though.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Dec 29, 2021)

Dave said:


> I know little about American culture relating to this, and I see sci-fi as an American term, but from a British perspective, I do know that for anyone growing up in England in the '50's, '60's and 70's, anyone who liked reading science fiction was thought of as weird, a geek, and a nerd. I know of only two boys who read Marvel "comic books" at school and they were both shunned in the same way that train spotters still are today. I worked in Public Libraries in holidays in the 1980's and the science fiction shelves were still, even then, considered not to be very literary. We did read some at school but it was considered childish and something you would grow out of later. There was very little science fiction on TV. Even Star Trek was shown at time slots that favoured children watching. Science fiction films were generally cheesy until 2001: A Space Odyssey came along. It was never mainstream until after Star Wars.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the reality was the complete opposite of that quote. It was the others who prided themselves on their intellectual superiority over these nerds, but people who are picked upon generally do form allegiances to fight back. I accept that you need to have some mathematics or physics education to understand some Hard Science Fiction, and probably some IT knowledge to really get cyberpunk, but there was also a massive change in culture in the '80's and '90's and it wasn't anything to do with the opening up of some secret society. It was simply the fact that science fiction and fantasy became popular enough that it was no longer embarrassing to say that you liked it anymore. After that, actual mainstream popular TV and films began to feature fantasy and science fiction storylines, such as characters seeing UFOs.




I agree. My experience was 70s and 80s, and being a fan of scifi - particularly in secondary school (ages 11+) was that it wasn't something you mentioned unless you wanted to leave yourself open to ridicule. Being a fan of sci-fi mags, tv and films was seen as something for adolescents - usually male - and something that we would grow out of. Being a computer owner at the time was not entirely different. The thing is though, that because it wasn't something usually talked about, you never knew quite how popular it might be. And when you were invited round to the cool kid's house one night and saw his boxed collection of Zoids/He Man/Star Wars (not that he'd ever admit it), you realised that there were actually more people out there than you realised.

And just like with computer owners*, when you found others like you, kindred spirits, there would be some kind of bond between you, and you would happily chat together as a group about the latest computer game or scifi tv programme. Which I guess is where the likes of D&D started and eventually gatherings of like minded individuals in places like Warhammer.

*Actually with computer owners there would be a sub division , with those using one computer would look down on others using an 'inferior' machine. and then there was the sub-sub-division with those with rival machines (Speccy and C64) banding together to agree that whatever the differences between the machines, at least they didn't own an Amstrad or BBC.

The thing is that when your hobby or interest becomes more mainstream, it's a double edged sword. Yes, there are more people interested in it, but newcomers haven't had to go through the tough times when it wasn't so popular; it becomes a bit less 'special'. A bit like when you've supported a football club in the bottom division, and now that they are in the Premier League suddenly everyone is a fan.

Perhaps some decided to 'close ranks' and disassociate themselves from the newcomers by making their interest less accessible? I don't know if this is the case, but I do know that in computer gaming 'casual gamer' was a (usually derogatory) term used to  refer to those who came late on the scene (around the time of the Sony Playstation)

As Dave mentions, it was never a case of science fiction fans thinking we are intellectually superior; if anything it was the mainstream considering that science fiction was intellectually inferior to other genres.

You only have to look at the vast majority of science fiction tv and films that were made in the 60s/70/80s; it was almost universally scheduled to be shown in family or children's viewing slots. If you watch many of the shows you can clearly see that they were designed for an adult audience, but at best made it into the family viewing slots, and never the 9pm+ watershed time when the 'adult' programmes were shown.

Again the same applies to computer gamily - we have a multi million, now multi-billion pound industry, and yet it can't get even one regular tv programme out of all the copshow, reality tv and soap operas shown on tv. And why? Because I still think for some still in charge in broadcasting it's seen as something that we'll grown out of and is only for kids, and is inferior to more 'intellectual' programmes.

Which is why we have very little science fiction on tv today. No matter how popular, it never seems to find a way into types of show we see on telly today. You'd think that one night a week, one hour a night, there would be room for a science fiction drama?


----------



## Droflet (Dec 29, 2021)

There's a lot of naysayers on the internet. Or as I like to call them, imbeciles.


----------



## Dave (Dec 29, 2021)

Dave said:


> I know little about American culture relating to this, and I see sci-fi as an American term, but from a British perspective, I do know that for anyone growing up in England in the '50's, '60's and 70's, anyone who liked reading science fiction was thought of as weird, a geek, and a nerd.


I'm interested if this was a British perspective or was the same elsewhere. Given that in Back to the Future Marty's 1950's dad is a would-be science fiction writer who never succeeds because he is bullied by Biff, I would assume that it is not. In which case, I'd say that Gwen C. Katz has little knowledge of what she is talking about.

I'd also agree with @paranoid marvin that computer users and D+D players fell into the same grouping. I think I've mentioned this before, but we were accused of being a religious cult for playing D+D in the early 1980's.

What changed?

Certainly, popular films with broad appeal such as Star Wars, but also the growth in cable TV channels that allowed different programming like Science Fiction dramas, and eventually, and much more recently, Game of Thrones (which everyone I know watched, even those who had previously turned up their noses as Star Trek or Star Wars or Stargate). Also the enormous growth of MMPOGs during the 1990's which were invariably science fiction based . Over Christmas we met some in-law relations in their late 50's who were enthusiastically reminiscing about such games like the Halo franchise. They weren't people who I would have ever thought would have been first adopters of computer technology in the 1980's, but maybe they were too, in secret.



> Why do people say things like this?



It sells magazines and gets social media hits from outraged people. It is always best not to feed the Trolls on the internet.


----------



## Vladd67 (Dec 29, 2021)

Since Stranger Things seems to have made D&D acceptable to the masses, I have seen people claim that us players in the 80s were elitist and did our best to keep outsiders, especially girls, out of the game. Personally I only discussed D&D with my fellow players. I was also thought odd by some for reading sci fi, well just reading in general. I would have loved to have introduced more people to D&D back then when I was around 14, and i would have welcomed any girls with open arms. I too remember the cult rumours and the newspaper stories about devil worship, in fact when i was 17 one of my friends became a born again Christian and burnt all the D&D books in his possession, including some of mine and other friends he had borrowed. Far from being an elitist misogynist group back then we were a bullied misunderstood minority. Probably didn't help with the devil bit that I made a point of reading Dennis Weatley books in  front of my book burning friend.


----------



## Tanith (Dec 29, 2021)

I must be an idiot. I've never considered myself as part of any "subculture", I just like several genres including sf.

I like reruns of old Bob Newhart sitcoms, too. Where's the "subculture" for that?


----------



## paranoid marvin (Dec 29, 2021)

Dave said:


> I'm interested if this was a British perspective or was the same elsewhere. Given that in Back to the Future Marty's 1950's dad is a would-be science fiction writer who never succeeds because he is bullied by Biff, I would assume that it is not. In which case, I'd say that Gwen C. Katz has little knowledge of what she is talking about.
> 
> I'd also agree with @paranoid marvin that computer users and D+D players fell into the same grouping. I think I've mentioned this before, but we were accused of being a religious cult for playing D+D in the early 1980's.
> 
> ...




Definitely fantasy is a lot more prevalent, and there have been a number of tv shows based on books. Yes, GoT was a real watershed moment, when shows with dragons, swords and magic was officially 'cool'. Despite the fact that lots of science fiction movies continue to be made, and there are numerous shows on streaming channels, the terrestrial channels (Doctor Who aside) still continue to show little to no adult science fiction shows. Although there is apparently tons of airtime for gameshows, reality tv and cop dramas.

It's definitely improving though streaming channels , and Disney with their innumerable Star Wars spin-offs are really kickstarting the sci-fi serial genre.


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 29, 2021)

Is there a link to this article? We're getting it second or third hand here.

I grew up at a funny time: Dr Who was poor when I was young, then non-existent, and Star Trek: The Next Generation was just beginning. Most SF felt old and intensely fannish (Original Star Trek, LOTR, Hitchhiker's, Golden Age SF etc) or new and "for kids" (Star Wars). It's probably me, but the few conventions I went to felt rather like the (old) stereotype: real ale, prog rock and in-jokes. Perhaps this is what put the writer off, if I'm reading the OP right. Fandom didn't so much put me off as not draw me in.

(I recently heard Frank Herbert talking about _Dune_, and he struck me as exactly how I would imagine the "spirit of old sci-fi" to sound: learned, affable and very slightly pleased with himself.)

 I also find it hard to summon the sheer raw intensity of love and fascination for SFF that a lot of fans have: I've met people who were more into _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ than I am into my own novels. Of course, that's just me and other people can do as they wish, but for all that I like a lot of nerdy things, a lot of the subculture still leaves me not so much cold as lukewarm.


----------



## Wayne Mack (Dec 29, 2021)

Help me with the stanchions. Given the large size of the science fiction section at the book stores and libraries, it appears that we have failed to keep people out.


----------



## tinkerdan (Dec 30, 2021)

The reason for the Sci-Fi thing was the use of pejorative pronunciation as Skiffy or some such which which might have been coined at one of those conventions they participate in.






						Skiffy - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



Here be one example of explanation; though I read something better somewhere having to do with a rather well know SF author.

Every institution has its own lingo that can often grate on outsiders--if someone starts with those in a conversation I'm in I might likely ask for an explanation before I continue the discussion, there ain't nothin' wrong with admitting ignorance in those instances.

After much hunting; it appears the op of this Gwen seems to be speaking of something much more complex, which is the WorldCon administration culture.


> (7) *TAKE BIXELSTRASSE TO I-95.* Gwen C. Katz tweeted her interpretation of the history that shaped Worldcon’s administrative culture











						Gwen C. Katz – File 770
					





					file770.com


----------



## Dave (Dec 30, 2021)

Okay, so the context is that she is talking about WorldCon, in particular, and also the Hugo Awards Committee. I personally know very little about those societies, but *all *societies in general are free to make there own rules, are conservative in the views, and have a habit of excluding those who disagree, or do not fit the mould of, or conform to same values as, the existing membership. WorldCon's administrative culture, or any other society, certainly does not speak for every science fiction fan. That may, in fact, be her problem. She thinks that their views are overwhelmingly conservative and influenced heavily by those who have money, by which she means publishers. One would have to wonder why she thinks it is important if they are so out of touch. Membership of those societies are a very small percentage of "the fans" she derides. How many of the members of this forum are members of WorldCon? As I say, I know almost nothing about these societies, but the annual threads we have here moaning about the selection process for the Hugo Awards paints a very different picture, with many of our members saying that the Hugo committee is not conservative enough, and instead picks wildcards to fill quotas. It's all internal politics and best forgotten about.



> Groucho Marx: I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Dec 31, 2021)

I've never been to a WorldCon (or ever even heard of one it before now). But I have been to a number of ComiCons and similar, Star Trek conventions and retro gaming conventions. All of them have been friendly and accommodating, but most importantly inclusive for newcomers. Anyone who has a love of something should want others to experience that same love, and from the convention's point of view it would be financial suicide _not _to want to expand the fanbase and prolong it into the next generation.

I don't doubt that there are some individuals who try to make their hobby or interest more exclusive or elitist, but the same could be said of people in all walks of life; and there are sometimes valid (or at least understandable) reasons for them doing so. But it would surprise me if a commercial enterprise such as WorldCon would be shortsighted enough to shut itself off from the mainstream, if for no other reason than to risk the loss of a lucrative stream of revenue, both now and in the future.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 31, 2021)

Dave said:


> How many of the members of this forum are members of WorldCon?


I was a member for a couple of years. i.e. 2019, the year I went** to the Dublin World Con and (because of that) the following year. Quite a few Chronners were there. (IIRC, quite a few Chronners attended the London WorldCon.)

My only contact with those _running_ that WorldCon was as a consumer of what was on offer at Dublin 2019, i.e. a very broad range of Fantasy, SF and real science (and various social gatherings), the sort of things you'd see at UK Cons such as EasterCon and BristolCon, but on a larger scale.

I have no idea what role those at the "top" of WorldCon played or who they might be, other than they're involved in the setting of the rules for the Hugos (which may or may not be their exclusive right) and, presumably, the rules for choosing where future WorldCons would be held.


** - One can also be a non-attending member, giving one the right to get involved with nominating and voting on candidates for the various Hugos.


----------

