= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ShardPhoenix comments on Do Fandoms Need Awfulness? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (151)
In the same vein as newerspeak's reference to Proust, how about Joyce fans and their annual bloomsday celebrations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomsday
Changing genres, I believe all of these references* have both fans and "conventions", and anyone would be hard-pressed to call any of them "bad" or flawed:
Architecture: Frank Lloyd Wright
Jazz: Davis, Coltrane, Peterson, Brubeck
Toys: Lego, Barbie, and Play Mobil
Military aircraft: P51 Mustang
Racing: Volvo Ocean Racing, F1, World Rally, MotoGP
Cars: 1955 Gullwing, 1965 Shelby Cobra, Enzo Ferrari
Birding: The Great Horned Owl
A lot of people are critical of F1 for various reasons. At any rate it seems necessary to establish exactly what constitutes a true "fandom".