Fan Versus Pro: Fight?
Jul. 16th, 2007 04:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-17 11:52 am (UTC)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"...)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-19 05:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-19 12:19 pm (UTC)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...)