kevin_standlee | Fan Versus Pro: Fight?

In the ongoing discussions about Fan Writer versus Pro Writer, I've repeatedly made the point (as have others) that "fan" and "pro" are not mutually exclusive states. You can be any of the four possible combinations. (If you're neither fan nor pro, you're not in the field at all, but it's a valid combination.)

I got to thinking about this, and this distinction is true in other areas as well, such as sports. One can be a baseball fan. A few people can be professional baseball players. But a pro can be a fan of the game, too. Some pro baseball players are not fans. Once they end their playing career, they pack away their gear, store it away, and never look at it again. Other former pro players are unabashedly fans of the game, too. Just look at the San Francisco Giants TV broadcasters Mike Krukow & Duane Kuiper. Both of them are former players, and today work as professional baseball broadcasters. But they are both clearly fans of baseball. Everything about they way they carry themselves and talk about baseball screams "fan" to me. And that's not a bad thing.

Update, 18:30: Corrected missing word "not" spotted in comments.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think that people are looking to transfer the dichotomy that does exist between pro and amateur and can't let go of it.

did you accidentally leave a "not" out of that?

Nope. In a field one can be an amateur or a pro, but not both simultaneously. They're opposite ends of a scale (in most cases, the only points on that scale, but that's neither here nor there).

"Fan" isn't on that scale, at least not in this case. It's kind of like a question on the ICG list a few weeks ago: "Is costuming a hobby or an art to you?" The question is invalid; it assumes an exclusive relationship that doesn't exist. It can be a hobby and an art simultaneously.

Some of the confusion probably comes from fanzine, semi-prozine and prozine. Semantically, they're all really fanzines, it's just that a "fanzine" is specifically an amateur or non-commercial fanzine.

I think

yourbob was referring to this sentence:
(If you're neither fan nor pro, you're in the field at all, but it's a valid combination.)

which should probably read:

(If you're neither fan nor pro, you're not in the field at all, but it's a valid combination.)

Right, got it. Fixed.

That would be Kevin's typo, not mine.

Nope. Bovil got me dead to rights and was correct in correcting me. But I like your spin on my words!!

Yup, I enjoy their broadcasts too.

But would you allow Kruke & Kuip in your amateur baseball league?

I was on a flag football team in Seattle sponsored by Eddie Bauer, and one of my teammates was the brother of the Seahawks quarterback Jim Zorn. Jim practiced with us once, and wanted to play in the next game, but we were told we would be disqualified if he did.

But would you allow Kruke & Kuip in your amateur baseball league?

An interesting question; they're far enough removed from their professional careers that I'm not sure it would be such a big deal. I'd love having either of them as a coach, at least.

But in any event, the analogy to Best Fan Writer doesn't work because

fan <> amateur

"Amateur" and "Pro" are opposites, but "Fan" and "Pro" are not.

Some people may read "Best Fan Writer" to mean "Best Amateur Writer" or "Best Non-Professional Writer;" however, that is not the intent of the category, and never has been.

"Amateur" and "Pro" are opposites, but "Fan" and "Pro" are not.

Oh, I'd even argue against "amateur" and "pro" as being opposites. They are, after all, only distinguished by whether one receives payment for one's services (and "professional" usually means, to me, "makes a living wage"). Face it...we're "amateur" convention-runners, but that doesn't really make us the "opposite" of those who do it for money. (Just better able to complain that we're overworked and underpaid.)

Most of the professional writers (or ballplayers) we enjoy spending any time with at all are fans...they love the genre (or the game). Those with disdain for the genre are called Margaret Atwood, actually.

Can we settle on amateur and pro being mutually exclusive?

The ones who aren't called Margaret Atwood are called Terry Goodkind.

Well, in two fields I'm familiar with -- amateur radio and software -- lots of people do both "amateur" and "professional" activities. I know lots of people who are electronic designers or who build, deploy, and maintain communications systems as their livelihood; but then in their free time they may do amateur radio emergency and public service work; design, scrounge parts for, build, and test equipment for microwave communication; or just talk on the radio while commuting. Similarly, a lot of programmers who work on commercial applications and systems then turn around and pitch in on an open source project.

Say, that's another good example! There's no reason someone who is a professional in the radio/TV industry can't be a licensed ham operator as well. The analogy, obviously, with SF/F is that SF "pro" = Radio "pro" and SF "fan" = Radio "ham."

Kevin
KE6APJ

Another example to my mind is the way NBC News Overnight used to get stories from their own network correspondents (they had an almost negative budget). They told them to take a story that Nightly News had "committeed" down to a minute-twenty and re-cut it to the length it needed. As long as the facts were good, Overnight would run it as submitted.

Even though these were professionals doing work for a profesisonal outlet, the attitude was IMO fannish.

Oh, I'd even argue against "amateur" and "pro" as being opposites.

Well, I do agree with you. They are more like a spectrum. And the words have different meaning depending on context. One can be a "professional" house painter (that is, I pay you money to paint my house) who acts in a non-professional (amateur?) way (leave my house a mess and don't do a good job).

In the example you cite, while we are "amateur" convention organizers, we often act very "professionally." (Sometimes more professionally than the nominal "professionals.")

Have to disagree. The definition of professional is someone who gets paid for it. It goes way back to the oldest profession.
:-)

Being paid doesn't necessarily mean being better at it, though.

Well, no. The idea of getting paid for it as the key to understanding a "professional" is relatively new. A profession is "a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation." (The other fields of endeavor were crafts or trades...but somewhere along the way in the late 20th century, the term "profession" morphed.) The professions were those requiring study and theoretical knowledge (theology, law, medicine).

Amateur is one who does not do something as their vocation and is frequently untrained. The lack of training, the lack of pay, and the doing of something for fun rather than vocation are all equally important. (But see Kevin' note above about the way we define terms like "professional" and "amateurish"...)

So what's your take on Dave Langford having been constantly nominated as Best Fan Writer even after he had several works published professionally?

That's easy. "Amateur" =/ "Fan." Fans love the stuff...love to read it, watch it, talk about it, dress up like it, play games with it...and "fan" writing is writing that talks about reading it, watching it, talking about it, and so on.

Langford *definitely* counts.

Now, with that said? I think we should have killed the award years ago. I'd like to do in *all* of the "people" awards. (Not the people, mind...)

Yeah, you'd lose for sure if he was playing on your team.
Oh? was that my out loud voice from the 80's "sorry Seahawk team" days? It only took 'em twenty years to recover.

Fan Versus Pro: Fight?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject