From: Ashton7@aol.com

<< Whereas in my case it's precisely the reason why I turned to writing

fanfic

in the first place. Different strokes etc.>>

Yes, of course, but in your original post on this subject, you were

opining

that the reason most, if not all, fans become fans and write fan fiction,

was

for the reasons you gave. Or so I interpreted what you said. I apologize

for

obviously misinterpreting your statements.

I deliberately phrased it that way to see if anyone agreed with it. Clearly not everyone. In fact, not really anyone at all.

Oh well, there's another theory down the tubes...

It seems to be true that many fans, once they become full-fledged, participating fans in one fandom, will participate in other fandoms.

However,

there are often also those who stick to their original fandom and never

find

another show that excites them in the same ways.

So maybe there's such a thing as fannishness generated by the show itself, and a fannish tendency within some viewers that looks for shows to operate on? Two different processes working in different directions, to a greater or lesser degree on any particular individual?

What about all those people who never become fans of anything? Presumably they see at least something of the shows that generate fandoms, but presumably not in any way that leads them on to become 'real' fans.

<<< Ah, but what is it about the characters or show that make them so captivating? Are there any general principles that might be extracted?

Do

shows that generate fandoms have any particular common factor(s)? >>

For me, it's generally a show that has good writing elements and likable characters and relationships.

Yes, but are they on their own enough? One of my all-time favourite series, A Very Peculiar Practice, had excellent writing, captivating characters and very well defined relationships between them. Fannish potential next to zero. (Maybe someone has gone and written the further adventures of Bobby Buzzard, but it's not like there's a thriving and visible VPP fandom presence.)

Some of the shows I really, really like currently are Queen of Swords, Stargate, Buffy, Angel, and Andromeda.

None of which I've seen, one of which I've never even heard of. Still, that's my fault for not having a telly. (But of the two I know a little about, Stargate and Buffy, I know I would never make an effort to watch them even if I had the opportunity.)

On these shows, I like virtually every character to one degree or another and

I

don't find it hard to simply ignore elements of the plot (for example,

Queen

of Swords is a show based on the Zorro genre, requiring a lot of

suspension

of disbelief) that might not normally "make sense." My favorite character

on

these shows is often the character that is hardest to figure out, because usually they become the most interesting.

Ah, so there *is* a tension. I pull my theory back from the tubes. You might not find it hard to 'ignore elements of the plot' (which by your own admission don't 'make sense'), but they still need to be ignored, marginalised, supressed, or somehow prevented from interfering with the elements that you do like. If you couldn't do that, then maybe you would be pushed away from the show, too far away to relate to it fannishly. I'm still hypothesising, I freely admit, but that does seem to be what is happening here.

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.

(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).

(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.

(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.)

There might well be other factors. I can see all four in operation for B7 and Trek, whereas only the 2nd and 4th for A Very Peculiar Practice (no suspension of disbelief required, since everything in the series could have happened - and a lot of it did happen, some of it intriguingly close to my time at the University of Stirling - and all written by Andrew Davies).

The relative importance of each factor (assuming that any of them are important in the first place) is open to question. I would expect some kind of synergy to take place.

Neil