News article about John Cusack calling for a “satanic death cult center” at Fox News and a few other places.

Politics asides, what caught my eye was this claim in the article:

“His provocative tweets could easily incite a rabid fan to commit violent acts against Fox News Headquarters and others he names,” said Dr. Carole Lieberman, a Beverly Hills-based psychiatrist and author of “Coping With Terrorism: Dreams Interrupted.”

“Fans could not only be influenced because of their devotion to Cusack, the man, but also because of their love for one of the characters he plays,” she told Fox411.

Cooper Lawrence, the author of “Cult of Celebrity” told Fox 411: “The fear isn’t that a celebrity will influence someone to do something violent or out of character due to the sheer devotion to the celebrity, the fear is that someone who is already vulnerable, mentally disturbed, already considering something dangerous, may be encouraged to do so if it is advocated by their favorite star,”

Lawrence explained that while celebrities don’t make healthy people do things they wouldn’t normally do, they could impact someone who is on the fence or mentally unstable.

“John Cusack has to know that his words carry weight because he is an actor beloved by many generations of folks who may not get his humor and might think he is calling for something more sinister. The responsibility is on him to not abuse his fame to influence something negative on the off chance that even one person takes his words to heart,” Lawrence said.

I have Cooper Lawrence’s book. I suppose I should get around to reading it.

Actually, I wasn’t aware that Cusack was beloved by all that many generations of folks. Who the heck is he? He was in 2012, right? Anything else? I’m obviously not keeping up on who the latest celebrities are.

At Wikipedia, I found an entry for a nifty acronym that describes people who, for whatever reason,  feel the need to put distance between themselves and fandom.  It’s GAFIA which means “Getting Away From It All.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAFIA

Apparently, it’s origin is the sci-fi community, but based on what I read at Wikipedia, it could just as easily apply to other fandoms such as sports or pop musicians.   I think this can be a very good thing especially when one finds that they are allowing the enjoyment of a person’s talent overshadow other parts of ones life.

So the burning question here is….If one does choose to GAFIA, does it mean they are no longer a “good” fan?

Anyone ever ever chose to GAFIA, either for the short or long term? How was the experience? What reactions did you get from other fans?

Just ran across this show on hulu.com: “Aftermath with William Shatner.” Here’s the description:

William Shatner takes an in-depth look at what happens when people are tragically or infamously transformed from unknown citizens into household names overnight, taking viewers back to … the dramatic events that dominated the American news cycle as he gains exclusive access to the newsmakers at the heart of each story – heroes, villains, perpetrators, victims, family members and law enforcement officials – to dig deep and separate the fact from the fiction. In each one-hour episode, new and often surprising information emerges, not only about the events themselves but about how people’s lives have changed in the years since.

The three issues available so far on Hulu are about Bernard Goetz, the DC Sniper victims, and Mary Kay Letourneau. Shatner has proven himself to be a very good interviewer so these should be pretty interesting. Imagine how weird it must be to be interviewed by Captain Kirk. Anyway, this looks like it might be worth a watch.

Book review from the Wall Street Journal:

“A Short History of Celebrity” is in part a work of cultural studies, written by Fred Inglis, an ardent Geertzian and a self-confessed backbencher in the “herbivorous old Labour Party” that continues to rue Margaret Thatcher’s ascendance and socialism’s demise. One will find in its pages predictable indictments of the shortcomings of contemporary democracy and rants against the “international rich.” Yet for all that, Mr. Inglis is more even-handed than many of his colleagues, and sager too, able to see beyond the ephemera of the moment to take a more expansive view. He asks not simply what the culture of celebrity means today, but where it came from.

Follow the link for the rest.

Haven’t posted a “celebrity behaving badly” article lately, so here’s one. Justin Bieber tweets the phone number of someone he doesn’t like as though it is his own. His fans go wild calling and texting the poor guy.

It’s unclear exactly what Kristopik did that caused Justin Bieber to sic the equivalent of Greater Boston’s population on him. But it appears to be payback on some level for Kristopik hacking the Twitter account of a childhood friend of Justin’s named Ryan Butler, and using it to get Justin’s phone number. On July 27th, Kristopik tweeted “im the one who hacked ryan and got justins #.” When asked today on Twitter, “You hacked ryan, and now jb wants payback so he tweeted your number?” Kristopik replied, “Kinda.” (The hacking incident is well-known in the insular world of Justin Bieber micro-gossip.)

I suppose as far as celebrities behaving badly, this is rather mild.

A long time ago in a fandom far, far away….

There lived a gang of fans that reigned over a vast kingdom of fans.

They exerted their power and influence over all fans who dared to enter their kingdom.

Their laws were unfair and burdensome to all the fans in the kingdom.

Because of this inequitable treatment there were cries of abuse heard throughout fandom.

I started with a bit of brevity to preface a very serious subject: fan gangs. These gangs are much like the gangs you will find in cities all across our country. They prey on the weak and unsuspecting fans. They bully them with threats and accusations. They exert their power and influence over the fan world and chase fans away from their territory if their authority is challenged. Fan gangs find strength in numbers, as do most bullies. The leader of the gang is domineering and strong, attracting the weak to follow them in their quest to be the most powerful gang in their fandom. Just as in real life, rival gangs exist in fandom. They vie for power and authority and actually fight for their turf. Not in a physical manner, but verbally and viciously using threats, accusations and innuendo.

I’ve had personal experience with these fan gangs. They chase off fans every single day from fandoms; they brutalize and hurt other fans with their words and attacks. If they can’t sway you to join their gang, they make it their goal to chase you away. These gangs use their numbers to influence administrators and fan management to oust the “normal” fans from the “acceptable” ranks within the fan clubs. They malign reputations and resort to stalking and harassment. They are protected to some extent by the fan management because they work very hard to put on a façade of normalcy and fan loyalty. But as we’ve seen in Terry’s previous post, they are never what they appear to be. They claim to protect the celebrity and his/her reputation; but they are more often than not fanatics with parasocial behavior.

The anatomy of a fan gang consists of these separate, but conjoined, entities:

• The leader—This is most often a fan whose presence is well-known throughout the fandom. At first glance, “newbie” fans flock to them because they seem to know so much about the celebrity and defend them at all costs. It doesn’t take long to discover the sick and demented underbelly of this beast.
• The 2^nd in command—Every fan gang has a 2^nd in command. This person defends the leader when fans attack her. Truth be told, 2^nd in command would love to be in charge but fears the leader and their perceived power and retribution.
• The captains–These commanders carry out the orders of the leader. They spy on undesirables (by researching blog posts and newsgroups), make their presence known throughout fandom, and recruit new members to the gang.
• The gang members—These little minions are like the mice in the Pied Piper of Hamlin. They follow the leader blindly to their doom. They follow first out of adoration and later out of fear of personal attack if they attempt to leave the gang. It’s much like the mafia: once you commit there is no release except expulsion and “death” within the fandom.

Fandom is a community. And every community has its leaders and its followers. The strength of the fan community is largely determined by those in charge (and I don’t mean the celebrity and their management). If the normal fans are afraid to stand up to these gangs and their tactics, they will continue to rule the community and run fans off, using their strength in numbers. But be forewarned. If you ever chose to stand up to these gangs and their “head bully” you can expect threats, attacks and abusive treatment. The strange phenomena is that the celebrity management tends to protect these fan gangs; partly out of ignorance and partly because they are the largest contributors to their coffers. Don’t expect to be heralded as a hero or deliverer. You will be painted as a traitor and “not a true fan” if you choose to go up against these gangs and their bullies. Ultimately you will be expelled from the fan community and labeled as a disgruntled fan. But once this happens, you are most likely so tainted against the celebrity you couldn’t care less about being expelled.

If the subject of fan gangs interests you, here are some personal accounts on the subject:

Into the Breach

Terror in Las Vegas

Recently the members of a newsgroup devoted to a celebrity decided to hold an online “convention” at the same time that the celebrity was holding a brick and mortar fan convention at a hotel. One of the newsgroup members posted some screen shots from the celebrity’s official online community where fans can create group sections. The screen shots were of a sexually-explicit chat being conducted about the celebrity by several fans. Someone who visited the site saved the page and sent it to me, suggesting that it would make an interesting basis for a post on Blogilow.

First, here’s a link to the saved “convention” page that contains the screen caps of the sexually explicit chat originally posted on the celebrity’s website. You’ll notice that I’ve removed or painted over all references to the celebrity as I see no reason to submit him to further embarrassment. I spoke to quite a few people in the fandom after I received this and it’s hardly a secret within the fandom. Most of the people I spoke to had seen the sexually-explicit chat and some of them had the original screen caps. However, if you’re not part of this fandom, hopefully my alterations will keep you from guessing who the unfortunate celebrity is.

Second, here’s a link to a PDF of the journal article I read that this incident reminded me of: Extreme celebrity worship, fantasy proneness and dissociation: Developing the measurement and understanding of celebrity worship within a clinical personality context. The authors are Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Houran, and Ashe. The article was published in volume 40 of Personality and Individual Differences in 2006. These authors have written extensively on the subject of fan psychology and psychopathology.

The article, of course, was written by psychologists for psychologists. I’m not a psychologist, I’m a lawyer. The psychospeak and statistics are a bit over my head. However, I’ve read enough of these articles by now that I think I can at least summarize its conclusions.

The researchers administered several paper and pencil tests to a sample of British respondents. One of the scales administered was the Celebrity Attitude Scale. I’ve written about this scale before. Researchers have found that people tend to fall into one of three subscales. The lowest scoring (and therefore the least celebrity-obsessed) is referred to as celebrity worship for entertainment-social reasons. The middle scale is called celebrity worship for intense-personal reasons. The highest scoring, and therefore the most celebrity-obsessed, is called celebrity worship that demonstrates borderline-pathological tendencies.

The authors also administered three other instruments to this sample. One tested for obsessive-compulsive traits. Another tested for “dissociative experiences,” which, from what I’ve been able to find out refers to separation from reality. People with multiple personalities, for example, are dissociative. The final instrument tested for “fantasy proneness.”

The authors offer two possible interpretations for the results of this study:

1. “[A]s individual reach higher levels of celebrity worship, there is a change in their clinical profile, and they become more prone to fantasy, detached from reality, and eventually dissociated from every day experiences.”

2. “[T]hose individuals who are prone to fantasy and who have dissociative experiences approach celebrity worship in different ways from others and their fantasies and uncontrollable thoughts around the celebrity reflect their tendency for fantasy proneness and dissociation.”

The authors recommend additional research studies to test these interpretations.

Why did this sexually-explicit chat about a celebrity remind me of this article? The answer should be obvious. In one of the fandoms I’ve participated in I’ve met some fans who clearly fall into the “borderline-pathological” subscale of the Celebrity Attitude Scale. Fans who fall into this category, if nothing stops them, run the risk of getting deeper and deeper into fantasy and eventually losing touch with reality (dissociation). This sexually-explicit quasi-public chat about a celebrity is evidence of one such situation where this has occurred and a family intervention is called for.

Finally, just let me speak for a moment about the issue of “real person fic.”

I once wrote a piece of fan fiction that would qualify as “real person fic.” I assure you there was no sex involved! It was Hawaii Five-0 fan fiction involving a Star Trek convention in Honolulu in the 1970s. The entire original cast of Star Trek was present for the convention. An armed robbery took place at the convention and one of the Star Trek cast (DeForest Kelley) was kidnapped by the robbers and held for ransom. I treated my “real people” quite well. Although William Shatner came across as a little egotistical (which, by all accounts, he is) and Jimmy Doohan came across as not liking William Shatner (which, it is well known, he didn’t), I didn’t do anything to my “real people” characters that I’m ashamed of.

There are fan writers, however, who prefer to write stories about the actual celebrities than about the characters they portray on TV or in movies. I know of someone who wrote boy band fiction (whichever one Justin Timberlake was in) heavily involving gay sex between Justin and one of the other boy band members. I knew another who wrote stories about David Duchovny in all manner of situations, sexual and not. (Given what we know about DD now, maybe she wasn’t really writing fiction!)

Anyway, I have never understood writing this kind of real person fic. It is widely condemned in mainstream fandoms. It is considered manipulative of the celebrities involved and highly invasive. I can’t help but wonder what it must be like for the celebrities. I suppose they might feel like they’ve been raped. Imagine if the celebrity involved in the sexual fantasy mentioned earlier were to read what was posted on his own website. If it were me, I’d be sure to get a restraining order (or its British equivalent) against those fans as soon as possible. I certainly wouldn’t listen to any complaints they might have about other fans as their own behavior was far more reprehensible.

One of the writers of the pornographic chat is well known in the fandom as a fan bully who has worked hard to drive out any fan who would dare express an opinion that differed from her own, either by sending nasty emails, making public attacks, or by reporting the fan to the celebrity’s manager for daring to say something she thought was critical of the celebrity. The fact that she would then do something as stupid as engage in a pornographic chat about the celebrity on a site controlled by the celebrity is interesting. (Given how paranoid and controlling this particular celebrity and his management are, it’s highly likely that they keep an eye on what goes on in the supposedly “private” group rooms.) It smells of the type of thing that she would try to bully another fan about, but I’ll leave it to Suzanne to address that hypocrisy.

I believe Suzanne is going to address the issues of fan bullies and fan gangs. Watch for her post in a few days.

I ran across this article re: the sale of autopsy tools used on Elvis Presley.  I realize part of fandom is the desire to aquire, but this is weird. Very weird.

http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/07/22/tools-used-in-elvis-presleys-autopsy-up-for-auction-next-month/

As the result of some reprehensible online fan behavior in a popular fandom, I’m planning a post about celebrity smut and what is known in the fan fiction world as “real person fic” (or “RPF”).

Fan fiction is very common in media fandoms. Everyone knows someone who has taken pen to paper and put the characters of Star Trek or some other TV show or movie through their fictional paces. It’s much easier to write with fully developed characters than it is to create characters of your own, thus fan fiction is a fun way to express one’s creativity. I have been involved in writing fan fiction in the Star Trek, Hawaii Five-0, and X-Files fandoms. Some fan fiction is quite good, with talented writing and plotting. Lots of it is mediocre or horrible, but it’s all about fictional characters, so no damage is done.

Real Person Fic is a category of fan fiction, however, that is widely frowned upon in many fandoms, at least in the mainstream part of the fandom. Some celebrities find it quite invasive and even frightening. It usually involves putting the celebrity in sexual situations, often in slash fiction. “Slash” is same sex fiction, such as “Kirk/Spock” and “Mulder/Skinner” (maybe you can see where the “slash” comes from). Sometimes the fic involves putting the celebrity into sexually explicit situations with the writer herself.

In the old days, fan fiction was published in print “zines” which were a major undertaking involving seeking submissions, editing, and working with printers. Now, of course, the Internet has made it very easy to publish anything and as a result you can find some pretty horrible stuff out there.

If you’ve never read or written fan fiction, you can learn more about it at Wikipedia (not exactly an authoritative source but certainly good enough for this!) and by following the links on that site. Here are a few entries to get you started:

Fan Fiction
Real Person Fic
Slash Fiction

Even the L.A. Times op-ed people are calling him on the carpet for the way he treated his ex-girlfriend recently. 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/07/mel-gibsons-outrageous-new-rant-is-it-time-for-anger-management.html

What’s really telling here is not so much the reporter’s comments, but the comments from readers.  Amazing…no matter how bad certain celebrities act, it seems as if all is forgiven.  Pathetic.