In a message dated 2/20/01 5:05:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner@tesco.net writes:

<< But I think he goes even further, pointing out that fans themselves defend themselves in the very same way, by referring to the really obsessive geeks that they don't want to be associated with. This actually encourages the popular media view of fans as obsessive geeks by perpetuating the myth of some kind of Ultimate Geek who is out there, somewhere, and fans end up collaborating with the construction of this aprocyphal figure who has come to misrepresent them. >>

Well actually, this is one of the many mistakes in Jenkins' work. Although many fans find themselves uncomfortable around geekfans who haunt every convention and immerse themselves too deeply in the characters they adore, the media seek out these fans with rubber pointed ears, one hundred buttons on their jackets and elaborate costumes. Why? Because TV is a visual medium, and when they send someone to cover a convention, they need to point the camera at something that will epitomize and perpetuate the popular mundane view of the media fan. That isn't the majority of attendees, wandering around in ordinary garb and tee shirts. That's visually boring, and doesn't fit the reporter or camera crew's idea of a "trekkie" or media fan. So they hunt down the guy with bottle-thick glasses and a buck teeth and a klingon head appliance and focus on him, not the visually average folks.

When the news coverage of the con is aired, complete with focus on this character as somehow *representing* the fans, the visually average fan develops an embarassment that leads to resentment and avoidance at future events. Also, these same fans just plain don't like the visual representation of a more 'out of control', extreme version of their own community.

Leah