egscomics
patreon
For Reals - 17 - HD
🕑 Added 2021-11-18 04:00:02 +0000 UTCComments!
Commentary
I originally imagined them getting annoyed by the comments, but no.
Elliot and Susan are too clever for that!
In the course of the storyline, I've been asked about authors defining who is or isn't a "real fan" of their work. My opinion on that is that authors don't really get to decide who is or isn't a fan of their work, and what they're actually expressing is which fans THEY'RE not fans of.
The logic of which, if going by the definition Elliot and Susan settled on for "fan", objectively checks out. There's no part of the definition that involves the creators giving their blessing, and the creator in this instance is stating who they do not enthusiastically like, and may well dislike.
Therefore, who they say are fans of their work is irrelevant to who are fans, and they're clearly not fans of the people they claim don't get to count as fans.
Unless, somehow, they enthusiastically like the people they're adamantly claiming are not real fans of they're work? People can be contradictory like that, but I give it low odds.
Comments
Crissa Kentavr
That's kind of a toxic symbolism in itself. Not all fans have the same purchasing power, and money is not correlated with being nice to interact with.
Klaus
I suppose reading comments on Patron-only posts may be more appealing than on free-for-all commenting features? 😇 I usually read the comic by RSS, might be worth checking the Patreon links more often.
Alex
Everyone here is ... transformitive. ;) There's my comment.
Daryl Sawyer
If Dan had a youtube show, he probably would feel this way about his Youtube comments. :p
John Trauger
Bottom line if we have no right to render judgment on what makes someone else a "fan" or not. It's a personal choice that the fan alone has the right to make. Gatekeeping is inherently petty. We can reasonably ask the person who says they're a fan of Doctor Who because they like the Tardis sound effect, "are you really a fan of the show or do you just like the effect?" If they reply with "yea I'm a fan", that's their right. And there's a decent chance they're trolling but I digress...
Stephen Gilberg
I hope you don't feel that way about the comments you get on Patreon, Dan.
Stephen Gilberg
I'd say it makes you a "casual fan," tho in light of the meaning of "fan," that sounds like an oxymoron.
Professor Harmless
There was a comment here, but now it's missing.
Brooks Moses
So, here's a thought: Now that Elliot and Susan have defined the "fan" part of "being a fan of a thing", what about the definition of the "thing"? I think that's where a good part of the "not a real fan" actually comes in -- sure you're "a real fan" of something if you're a fan of the parts of Stellar Adventure that other people find very superficial, but does that mean you're "a real fan of Stellar Adventure"? If I'm "a fan of Dr. Who" because I think that Tardis sound effect is amazing, and I pretty clearly don't care about anything beyond the sound effect and otherwise am oblivious to pretty basic parts of the show because I just skip anything that isn't the sound effect -- am I really a fan of "Dr. Who" as an entire work? Or am I just a fan of the sound effect? If I'm a fan of Cosmic Wanderings, and I pretty clearly am oblivious (perhaps even seeming to be intentionally oblivious) to the political subtext that is a big part of its foundational mythos and for which its plots are often almost-too-obvious allegories, am I really a fan of "Cosmic Wanderings" as an entire work? Or am I just a fan of the non-political trappings that are lightly wrapped around that political skeleton? What if I completely disagree with you about what's core to the work and what's allegory and what's mostly-irrelevant trappings?
David Fenger
Those are the best fans, certainly. The ones who won't pay aren't worth any attention.
Thisguy
Some Authors: “Who’s a real fan? Easy! Whoever pays for the things, they’re a fan, lalalala.”
