That word might not mean what we think it means.

[logovo]

Reading some stuff today I saw several people talking about aca-fans (acafans? AcaFans?) and I'm starting to wonder if they mean the same thing I'm thinking when I hear acafans, as in actual people in academia, writing, publishing, teaching or fanlore's entry. Are people now using that word interchangeably with fans who are just into meta? Anyone else getting that impression?

Also, I still haven't watched SPN and I'm trying not to read spoilers but I'M FAILING SO BAD. Because I'm weak and impatient.

Comments

[rodo]

Hmm, I've seen three different definitions for the word, actually, though I've only ever seen the first articulated. The others were just implied by the way the word was used.

1) academics who are fans and publish about fandom/fannish topics
2) academics who are in fandom (regardless of whether their academic interest is in any way related to fandom)
3) fans who are into meta/intellectuals

[logovo]

Thanks!

It's the third one that really stopped me in my tracks this week, because it's news to me that participating in a meta post would make one an aca-fan. Also, I'm afraid that it's starting to get the ring of an insult, the way that people say BNFs, althoug probably worse.

[isagel]

Hasn't it always been a bit of an insult, coming from some quarters? The academic approach seems to stomp all over some people's fun, though I've never understood why.

[logovo]

I didn't get the insult vibe until days ago, but I do moderate meta reading, so I'm missing out on some discussions, specially those in posts that are very much against meta the aca-fan label has been invoked.

[rodo]

No, not a new trend. It's at least two years old. I first noticed it in 2007, and yes, it can be used in an us ("real fans") vs. them ("those who are harshing our squee") sense.

[logovo]

I think it's only just trickling into my sphere, because I rarely read comms. I first heard the term aca-fen only 2-3 years ago, and it was in the context of academics actually writing and publishing. Thanks for the clarification.

[isagel]

I would say that #2 is the definition I mostly use in my head. I only realized fairly recently that to a lot of people apparently being an aca-fan implies publishing about things related to fandom. I always took it to mean being a person with an academic background who brings the tools they've acquired in that world into their interactions with fandom/fannish texts. It's the ways of thinking, to me, rather than the specific acts of doing "real" research on fannish things. (I would consider myself an aca-fan according to definition #2, but not according to #1.)

[trobadora]

I've seen it used in senses #1 and #2 fairly frequently, but #3 seems to be on the rise lately, and I don't like it at all. :(

[rodo]

I didn't notice any increase in #3. It was actually the one I encountered first, and that was at least two years ago.

[mmanurere]

There might also be a 2.5 -- fans who have a background in the humanities but who aren't currently working in academia, or fans working their way into academia (undergrad and grad students in relevant fields). A bit distinct from "fans into meta", but not quite "show your PhD to gain entry" (or the sometimes not-so-veiled "you have nothing relevant to say until you have tenure").

[lotesse]

I'd got with your 2.5 definition - mainly because it's the one that allows for my own existence! But I do think there's a genuine difference between people applying academic frames/terms to fandom, and those of us getting terminology from both academic humanities and fannish sources.

[mmanurere]

Yeah, I'm in the same position -- working on a second bachelor's before grad school, but still trying to live up to the standards of the field.

I'm also with you on the difference between people taking an academic look at fandom from the outside and people who are fans with some level of academic background bringing the two together in one way or another. In academia it seems to lead to people writing about fandom who have a much more nuanced understanding; and in fandom it helps with the process of collective self-reflection.

[laurajv]

#3 is weirding me out, and I think it's getting more and more common. I'm not sure where it started.

Someone used it to describe me a while ago and I could not even deal. Hi, not an academic!

[logovo]

Yeah, that's my first reaction, because the expectations are totally different.