Neil Faulkner wrote:
A possible list of (provisional) qualities that might be inherent in a show likely to induce fannish response (I supose almost any show might generate a fannish response in somebody somewhere, but some seem to do so more than others):
(1) the need for an active suspension of disbelief (pre-requisite of all SF and fantasy shows). This widens the potential range of plot possibilities, not all of which are going to be realised by the show as broadcast.
Uh. It seems you've changed the "ignoring production flaws/overlooking plot holes" that was mostly what was being cited into the more traditional sort of SF "suspension of disbelief in FTL travel and such." Well, looking at both:
A) Production flaws, caused by lack of funds or inadequate time or the failure of technique, exists in virtually every television series. I don't think the need to overlook such (or explain away such) is a cause of a show being fannish. Fans explain and overlook because the shows they like need it, they don't become fans because the show has the flaws.
B) There are, indeed, lots of SF based fandoms. But I don't think that needing 'classic' suspension of disbelief is an important factor because there are also lots of western series based fandoms and lots of WW2 series based fandoms, neither of which genre requires that type of SoD. Not to mention medical drama based fandoms, sitcom based fandoms, and so on. I don't think I've heard of a game show based fandom, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn there was one or two out there.
(2) episodic structure, a succession of closed stories (though not necessarily without a broader story arc to hold the series together). This creates interstices between broadcast episodes which can be seized upon as missing moments requiring elaboration (unlike say the continuity of most soap operas).
It's true that episodic series offer those openings, but since the start of television series virtually all of them have been episodic. It's a rare and noticeable exception when story arcs actually exist. So I don't see this as particularly useful guide to which series will spawn fandoms: 95% of all shows are episodic, 95% of all fannish series are episodic. So?
(3) multiple authorship, different writers responsible for different episodes, and their individual authorship recognisable for the episodes they write (eg the differences between a Chris Boucher ep and a Ben Steed one). This might invite fannish intervention because it gives the impression that anyone can 'have a go' and write their own contribution.
Again, this is almost universally the norm! Most series either hired freelancers or have a pool of writers -- the need to crank out 26+ scripts for a nine month production span rather guaranteed it.
(4) exagerrated character definition (I would say that all the regulars in B7 and Trek can be considered 'exagerrated', whereas in Who they're little more than puppets danced around by the 'Idea as Hero' plot) to clarify the nature of the antagonisms between them. This also gives viewers a clear handle on which to base their response to any particular character, and might also act to suppress either ambivalence and/or disinterest. (Though it's perfectly legitimate to argue that a show full of uninteresting characters is a pretty crap show.)
Maybe a better factor, except, again, I'd say most television shows (at least in America) have 'exaggerated character definitions' which I think is close to saying they are stereotypes/archetypes. By the end of any pilot episode you can pretty much label every character with a tag so that others will understand it: the brown-noser, the girl next door, the struggling young professional, the geek, the ruthless business man, the bitch, etc. We only get/discover the ways this particular geek varies from the classic mold as the series unfolds.
Really, Neal, I think you are missing the boat when it comes to What Makes A Show fannish. I honestly think it comes down at least 90% to that factor you want to minimize: the Characters.
For example, you center a series on someone
1) who is constantly at risk of physical damage/death 2) who faces enemies/rivals who seek to destroy him/her 3) who is witty in a rather terse/cutting way in the face of danger 4) who has an unhappy past 5) who has faults that have caused harm to those s/he loved 6) who is haunted by and angsts over 3 & 4 7) who nevertheless acts as the "good guy" whether reluctantly or not 8) who is beautiful/sexy/handsome 9) who has a unhappy/nonexistent love life despite #7
and you will probably found a fandom. ;-)
That's not the only pattern for a character who catches the fannish eye, but it's one of the most potent I think.
Susan Beth (susanbeth33@mindspring.com)