Recommended column: Greg Hatcher on Toxic Fandom

[ed2962]

They kind of are synonymous. "bad" is so completely subjective that I can say "Celine Dion's music is bad" and I'll be right. Someone else (certainly not me - to be clear) can say "Celine Dion's music is good" and they'll also be right.

Sure, but there's a difference between, "Celine Dion's music is bad" and "Celine Dion's music is bad so I'm going to stalk the A+R guy who signed her until hopefully the record company drops her because her having a record deal is a personal slight against me."

[mathew101281]

Their is a lot of toxicity in fandom that is a fact. That being said I also feel publishers use fan backlash as a scapegoat sometimes. Especially in cases where there were legit issues with the game, comic, book etc. but let a few alt right loons on the web start running their mouths, and a lot of these creators and publishers will conveniently focus everyone’s attention on the loons being loony then sweep the legit critiques under the rug.

[CaptCleghorn]

Well, and that, to a lot of people "bad" and "Doesn't suit my personal tastes" are synonymous.

That's a basis, but over-reaction and inappropriate responses are the problem. There are many posters here who can't differentiate between "bad" and "don't like it", but don't harass anyone or present a threat to anyone.

[kjn]

I do think the thread is focusing a little too much on the creator-fan relation. My experience is rather that the first toxicity starts to appear among fen, and then only later spread towards creators (even if the delineation between fans and pros/creators/writers is very vague in science fiction fandom, and also as I understand it in comics book fandom as well). Tactics like gatekeeping, public shaming, and erasure were first used against women or PoC within fandom, and then later on used against pros.

[Emperor-of-Dragons]

Their is a lot of toxicity in fandom that is a fact. That being said I also feel publishers use fan backlash as a scapegoat sometimes. Especially in cases where there were legit issues with the game, comic, book etc. but let a few alt right loons on the web start running their mouths, and a lot of these creators and publishers will conveniently focus everyone’s attention on the loons being loony then sweep the legit critiques under the rug.

That's a REALLY good point.

[Emperor-of-Dragons]

I do think the thread is focusing a little too much on the creator-fan relation.

They were different threads but Matt screwed the pooch, and ruined it

[Overhazard]

I understand why these guys get upset, they make the mistake that a lot of nerdy people, myself included at one time made, making the thing they like what they are. That's why so many of them say "X ruined my childhood!" When you center your entire identity around what you consume, any change to that thing kind of erases that identity, to them it's like saying they don't matter, they feel like they're being left behind. So, in a deranged act of self-preservation, they attack the people they feel are invalidating them, whom are more often than not, women, and people of color. Though some white men got it too, Dan Slott got death threats over his spider man run. I didn't like a good portion of it, but I never wished death on the man.

Fortunately I grew out of that, but a lot of them don't, and it applies to all sorts of things, sports, politics, education, music, food.

The bottom line is, these guys need to grow up, and discover a healthier sense of self.

[skyvolt2000]

Their is a lot of toxicity in fandom that is a fact. That being said I also feel publishers use fan backlash as a scapegoat sometimes. Especially in cases where there were legit issues with the game, comic, book etc. but let a few alt right loons on the web start running their mouths, and a lot of these creators and publishers will conveniently focus everyone’s attention on the loons being loony then sweep the legit critiques under the rug.

And most companies and creators don't mind it if they hear from folks who actually bothered to read the ENTIRE not parts of the book or movie in question.

No they weren't Matt lol, y'all are talking about controversy-gates, i was talking about fans and how they relate to creative choices made by creators. There's some overlap but we're talking about 2 different things, Merging the two derailed my thread. YOU RUINES IT!!!!

They do go hand in hand. We have at most two sets of fans.

The one you might be talking about is the one who TRIES the book, doesn't like it and might offer a review or something that can be viewed as honest criticism. This tends to be the group that gets buried by the other.

Example-John Stewart fans walked away from Green Lantern because they were tired of how he was written.
Cass & Stephanie fan did not attack Bab Gordon fans-instead took management to task.

Then we have the OTHER side. Including those who have not LOOKED at a book in question and makes up as much crap as they can. And they have no trouble letting facts be ignored to continue spewing nonsense. And will try to block you if you call them out.

Example-Saying Marvel comics will be out of business like Ted Kord's old stomping ground in 2020 because of Wasp & Iceman getting books. Ignoring the fact both are back due to trade sales.
Screaming Duke Thomas RUINED Batman enough to boycott the book and any list of books to boycott-Duke in any Batman book lead the way. Despite it being pointed out that Duke's page count in Batman Rebirth isn't enough to fill up a 64 page annual.
Lies that Moon Girl is why Fantastic Four did not have a book-despite it being someone higher up.

Your thread is not derailed. Both go hand in hand.

[Username taken]

Very good article.

The Comicsgate thing really opened our eyes to just how toxic some parts of fandom have become and I'm glad people are now pushing back. Even guys like Rich Johnston had to seriously push back when the D&C trolls temporarily invaded Bleedingcool. The social media forums (and even Youtube) need to start policing themselves better because the "anti-diversity trolls" are now organizing themselves into attack groups and from my experience are NOT a small part of the fandom. With the rising importance and ubiquity of social media, "troll culture" and "tantrum throwing media" have become very popular and people are starting to make money off appealing to these people; this isn't something that people should wave off, it's something that many websites and creators should become aware of. There's even the genuinely possibility of this stuff spiraling into something else...something more sinister (like the man that killed someone that self-identified as an "incel"). This is something that needs to be identified and dealt with quickly IMHO. I actually support the Battlefield V guys that shut down complaints about women in the World War (all the talk about historical accuracy is complete nonsense, when have these games ever been anything close to accurate), it's too much of an unnecessary distraction for a non-issue IMO (no one is forced to buy a game they don't like).

That being said, there's still some elements of the toxicity on CBR. The Marvel forums used to be very active with people posting issue synopsis and the likes but the toxicity of the last few years has pretty much kept a lot of people quiet. But around the time Comicsgate broke, virtually every discussion of certain books in the Marvel forum boils down to "politics" and "agendas" which alienates a lot of a-political fans, generally poisons the atmosphere and completely derails the threads. As someone pointed out, the average nerd isn't very assertive and generally are somewhat passive in the face of severe hostility.

Folks need to understand that you can dislike someone's work without attacking the creator for their race, sex and/or gender. Or attacking them for some fictional political agenda. The most dangerous form of thinking that spreading around now is "i don't like this piece of work, so it shouldn't exist"! and i will do everything to destroy it and the people behind it; this thinking should be rejected at each and every turn because it flies in the face of civilised society.

[kjn]

The Comicsgate thing really opened our eyes to just how toxic some parts of fandom have become and I'm glad people are now pushing back. Even guys like Rich Johnston had to seriously push back when the D&C trolls temporarily invaded Bleedingcool. The social media forums (and even Youtube) need to start policing themselves better because the "anti-diversity trolls" are now organizing themselves into attack groups and from my experience are NOT a small part of the fandom.

I very much agree with the need to push back and set standards. It's needed especially with the people with some form of authority (eg big name creators in our field) or with real power to act (forum admins, social media tools, et c.).

To me, there are several different ways to look at the influence and numbers of toxic fans. One way is to look at eg the numbers of people willing to vote for a neo-fascist party like Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden. Then we end up with circa 20% of the total population. But that support is largely passive, and relates to the population as a whole. Here I think the Hugo Awards in science fiction fandom can give a good indication. From that, I get about 200-300 people willing to toss down about $50 in order to participate in a coordinated attack on science fiction fandom.

[Madam-Shogun-Assassin]

"i don't like this piece of work, so it shouldn't exist"! and i will do everything to destroy it and the people behind it; this thinking should be rejected at each and every turn because it flies in the face of civilised society.

This is what really pisses me off. But this tends to come from a lot of people regardless of ideology, be it "anti-diversity trolls" or "SJW's". I just don't like browbeating censorship, and yes wanting to get rid of diversity is a kind of censorship.

[Emperor-of-Dragons]

They do go hand in hand. We have at most two sets of fans.

The one you might be talking about is the one who TRIES the book, doesn't like it and might offer a review or something that can be viewed as honest criticism. This tends to be the group that gets buried by the other.

Example-John Stewart fans walked away from Green Lantern because they were tired of how he was written.
Cass & Stephanie fan did not attack Bab Gordon fans-instead took management to task.

Then we have the OTHER side. Including those who have not LOOKED at a book in question and makes up as much crap as they can. And they have no trouble letting facts be ignored to continue spewing nonsense. And will try to block you if you call them out.

Example-Saying Marvel comics will be out of business like Ted Kord's old stomping ground in 2020 because of Wasp & Iceman getting books. Ignoring the fact both are back due to trade sales.
Screaming Duke Thomas RUINED Batman enough to boycott the book and any list of books to boycott-Duke in any Batman book lead the way. Despite it being pointed out that Duke's page count in Batman Rebirth isn't enough to fill up a 64 page annual.
Lies that Moon Girl is why Fantastic Four did not have a book-despite it being someone higher up.

Your thread is not derailed. Both go hand in hand.

But my thread was more specific, i think the 2 issues should be discussed separately.

[Trey Strain]

If the fans are toxic, then the writers should ask themselves what made them that way.

No business has ever succeeded by PUBLICLY ATTACKING ITS CUSTOMERS. Maybe the comics industry will be the first, but I don't think so.

[Darkspellmaster]

If the fans are toxic, then the writers should ask themselves what made them that way.

No business has ever succeeded by PUBLICLY ATTACKING ITS CUSTOMERS. Maybe the comics industry will be the first, but I don't think so.

In a lot of cases it comes down to either, see girls have cooties, or I don't want to share my toys or change it so I can only play with the people I want to play with and non one else can join.

Which is a very simplified version of it.

Also, it's not the writers in a lot of cases. You can have a bad writer sure, but in most cases it's bern the fact that there was a change at all.

Look I hated the new 52, but that was because management and planning sucked. I never went after the writers. But people that did tended to focus on stuff that was dumb, like babes outfit, or other weird things.