Subject: [WSFA] Re: rehash of mundanes VS fans
From: chuckdivine <chuck.divine at att.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:46:07 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 13:12, Mike B. wrote:
> At 09:03 AM 4/20/05 -0700, N Lynch wrote:
> >--- "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com> wrote:
> >> I'm not sure that "weird conventions" and "not held
> >> in high regard" go
> >> together of necessity.  Consider Shriners.  They
> >> have some of the weirdest
> >> conventions I know of, but they are generally held
> >> in fairly high regard.  Why is that?
> >
> >Probably because they (1) are established as a
> >charitable organization for much longer than fandom,

> They are seen as that, while fandom isn't.  I don't know about length of
> time being much of a factor once you pass a few years.
>
> >(2) come from a long tradition of men's clubs who get
> >together for social and charity work,
>
> Yeah, and most are seen as a bit odd...but acceptable insofar as they do
> "good works".  If they don't do charitable things too (that the public
> sees), they are just seen as a waste of time where guys go to hide from
> their wives and drink and play cards.

>
> >(3) aren't portrayed as *STAR TREK*
> >live-in-parent's-basement-geeks in the media,
>
> Any group with a higher than average intelligence, but generally lacking in
> "social intelligence", is going to get tagged that way by those with more
> social intelligence but less of the other sorts.  Take Mensa for example.

Too, too true.  People are sometimes amazed I'm a leader in Mensa.
After all, I have social skills.  I might be a bit weird, but I can get
along with pretty normal people.  Well, as normal as the kind of folks I
do meet.

>
> >(4) don't have conventions covered in the media as a look
> >at the geeks and women in little clothing,
>
> The Shriners get covered pretty well, and it's a "look at the chubby old
> guys with the funny hats pretending to be college frat boys" deal.  If it
> wasn't for the charity work shifting that attitude away from "weird" and
> "pitiful" over toward "eccentric", they'd be a joke too.

Do Shriners actually register much on the public consciousness as much
as SF does?  There's no Shriners cable network.  Nobody has gotten rich
making Shriners movies.

Shriners seem to be more in keeping with normal society.  Yes, they
throw weird conventions.  But they don't seem anything more than old
guys throwing off conventional restrictions very briefly.

SF fans and conventions, though, are quite distinct from the normal run
of society.  Ideas are quite important -- and that attracts the
attention of various elites in the way that Shriners don't.

>
> >(5) are prominent as a charity group, not as a group of geeks
> >who get together, etc.

That's a very important factor.  When I think of Shriners (and others of
the same type) I think social organization with a charitable side.

> >As for fandom being so accepting, I sure didn't get
> >than impression this past year.  A conservative member
> >of the club even quit over it.

There's a good deal of that going around in all kinds of groups.  It's
depressing.  About the only group I know -- so far -- that seems immune
is the Hash House Harriers.  But, then, we're so off the wall in so many
ways we're not exactly typical of anything but ourselves.  We're also a
bit underground.  We are starting to draw more attention, though.  Some
of that attention is quite unwelcome.  When was the last time the cops
showed up to stop a WSFA meeting?  We last managed that on St. Paddy's
day.  If you don't think the cops don't have better things to do
sometimes, do come to a hash run.

Best,

Chuck Divine