That word might not mean what we think it means.
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.
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.
no subject
Now I just remembered that I got my interpretation of aca-fan from an acedemic writing in the field, so yeah, I assumed the term was not in question. Until now!
I would never say, and am kind of uncomfortable with the idea, that you need to be in/employed by academia to be capable of that kind of serious scholarship - and I do feel that way generally, not just in regards to scholarship about fandom. Independent scholars can have valuable things to say, and often bring fresh perspectives.
This is way over my head, because I have no clear idea of independent scholarship and what that really means. The idea of academics in fandom is relatively new to me, considering how long I've enjoyed media fandom (for years the only name I knew was Jenkis'), but anything relating to who is up to serious scholarship, I'd never considered before.
no subject
Excellent work is done by independent scholars: Douglas Anderson in Lord of the Rings, for example!
A lot of excellent work is one on fantastic literatures by independent scholars, and they can and do publish their work in peer-reviewed. The term refers to employment and affiliation, and not to the quality of their work although there are tenured academics who are prejudiced about independent scholars as a group.