scrypt
Head-Fi's Sybil
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2002
- Posts
- 2,382
- Likes
- 125
Terrorists and fanboys have this in common: Both despise people who do things too perfectly, receive untoward attention or otherwise invite excessive scrutiny. The ignored are attracted to celebrity even as they resent it: Sabotage is the toemaiden of envy.
(I mean this to be a sociological comment and not a political one.)
Yesterday, I was thinking of an internet moment I witnessed: When horror writer Poppy Z. Brite appeared on a newsgroup and was summarily flamed by legions of her fanboys. They could not possibly admit they were attracted to her, let alone, impressed by her, without confessing their own wretchedness. Thus, the author who was kind enough to talk to her fans was torpedoed out of the froth. Rather makes you think of the enemies of famous nations, doesn't it? James Bond gone wrong.
Stephen King is loved not only because he is considered good but because he refrains from underlining the mediocrity of his fans. He does not write in an alienating style; he is not particularly good-looking; in short, he does not reinforce his readers' self-hatred. There is something correct about King's appeal, but there is also something limiting.
If only fanboys thought the same way writers did: That seeing how short one falls of perfection is useful only insofar as it effects necessary change. No need to beat oneself up while reading Shakespeare because one can't write like Shakespeare, nor because Shakespeare's existence had an unusual amount of significance, nor is there any need to belittle Shakespeare for those reasons. Better to concentrate on the insights and inspiration Shakespeare affords, to apply what one learns from his work without vanity's sabotage. The aim should be progress without jealousy: look ahead, trapeze artist, but don't look down. Don't derail the evolution of your mind by comparing it unfavorably to the models that nourish its progress.
(I mean this to be a sociological comment and not a political one.)
Yesterday, I was thinking of an internet moment I witnessed: When horror writer Poppy Z. Brite appeared on a newsgroup and was summarily flamed by legions of her fanboys. They could not possibly admit they were attracted to her, let alone, impressed by her, without confessing their own wretchedness. Thus, the author who was kind enough to talk to her fans was torpedoed out of the froth. Rather makes you think of the enemies of famous nations, doesn't it? James Bond gone wrong.
Stephen King is loved not only because he is considered good but because he refrains from underlining the mediocrity of his fans. He does not write in an alienating style; he is not particularly good-looking; in short, he does not reinforce his readers' self-hatred. There is something correct about King's appeal, but there is also something limiting.
If only fanboys thought the same way writers did: That seeing how short one falls of perfection is useful only insofar as it effects necessary change. No need to beat oneself up while reading Shakespeare because one can't write like Shakespeare, nor because Shakespeare's existence had an unusual amount of significance, nor is there any need to belittle Shakespeare for those reasons. Better to concentrate on the insights and inspiration Shakespeare affords, to apply what one learns from his work without vanity's sabotage. The aim should be progress without jealousy: look ahead, trapeze artist, but don't look down. Don't derail the evolution of your mind by comparing it unfavorably to the models that nourish its progress.