There are many different levels of fandom in media audiences, but the types that we most likely always hear about are the crazy hysterical fans who have been proven to be very unpredictable. “The literature on fandom is haunted by images of deviance. The fan is consistently characterized (referencing the term’s origins) as a potential fanatic. This means that fandom is seen as excessive, bordering on deranged, behavior”. (McQuail reader 343)
One of the most popular images in recent media history is the Beatles’ fan frenzy. Hundreds of hysterical girls would swarm the band, some stood paralyzed crying, while others at times put their lives in danger to get as close as possible. The music industry had really never before seen such fan devotion, but as the years progressed this has become a standard in fan behavior, more predominately in music. Today we see similar behavior towards Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus by the ‘tweens’ of America.
As these images generally show loving fans, the Beatles story as we all probably know took a tragic turn. When an obsessed fan, Mark David Chapman murdered Beatle John Lennon we have to ask, what happened? How and where does adoration turn into murder?
This type of violence did not stop with Lennon’s death, the other members of the Beatles have been attacked and nearly escaped death at the hands of ‘crazed’ fans. This article http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21485820-663,00.html from April 2007, was about a crazed fan’s attack on Paul McCartney’s home, and also made references to the incident that occurred seven years ago when Beatle, George Harrison was stabbed by a fan. Nearly 40 years after the height of their careers, Beatles members are still living with extreme fandom.
On page 348 of the reader, Joli Jenson talks about the type of Beatle fan that was illustrated in the article. “The psychopathic fan-turned-assassin, he implies, similarly uses mediated celebrities to form an identity, although he kills in order to share their power and fame.” This is basically saying that a fan who kills is one who is socially disjointed from society and uses the connection they feel to a particular celebrity to fill a void in their life. However, there is a point that the person needs to be more connected to the person, and violence or death is what occurs.
Does the constant media attention on celebrities spur on this type of fan obsession, in which a person uses celebrities to fill the void in their own life? Also, should new stars such as like Miley Cyrus be cautious because of the extreme fandom that marks their careers, or is the violence and death that came with the Beatles’ fandom an isolated situation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I do think that an increased amount of media attention may cause some fans to become overly obsessed with their favorite celebrities, but the truth of the matter is that the media is just doing it's job and I don't think those in charge of media distribution can be held accountable for fans who turn violent. The thing is, people are and always have been a little crazy. They emulate celebrities to fill a void or to feel like they are a part of something big. In McQuail, Joli Jensen says that patterns in society have a great affect on the way that fans react to celebs. "What is assumed to be true of fans-that they are potential deviant, as loners or as members of a mob-can be connected with deeper, and more diffuse, assumptions about modern life" (pg. 346). Jensen goes on to say "Communities are envisioned as supportive and protective, they are believed to offer identity and connection in relation to traditional bonds , including race, religion and ethnicity...The absence of stable identity and connection is seen as leaving the individual open to irrational appeals" (pg. 346). In other words, fans become crazy for a reason and it almost always stems from drama associated with disconnection in their communities. They emulate celebrities because they do not feel fulfilled in any other aspects of their lives, and receive satisfaction through the massive fulfillment experienced by their favorite stars. So with this being said, it's hard to blame obsessed fans on the media. Especially because this isn't a new problem. As Jessica said, it goes all the way back to "Beetle Mania" of the sixties. So watch your back Miley...there's probably a creep waiting outside of your dressing room as we speak.
-Carissa
It seems convenient to blame the excessive media attention for the reason behind this fandom phenomenon taking a dangerous/crazy/deadly turn, and after reading this week's material, I think they are to blame. But we always have to keep in mind this idea that what is it that facilitating this coverage? It's the consumer. But there is a supply and demand situation going on here. Are they providing this much "content" because we are demanding it or are they exploiting people who are just doing their job? While I'm not sure if this has a simple answer or if it even has an answer at all that is not concrete.
But what we do know is that the level of intensity can cause major harm and distress to both the fan and the celebrity. But something else to consider is the idea that it's not only the celebrities that cause such frenzies, but the person who is such an intense fan is the kind that is easily influence by others as well. In Jensen's article/chapter he mentions that "As a member of a crowd, the fan becomes irrational, and thus easily influenced," and goes on to describe the different types of reactions from men and women.
Clearly the crazed fan has been around for decades because of how our society celebrates stars, putting them on a pedestal that just asks to be worshiped. I think it is safe to say that the consumer will do anything just to get an idea, a taste of what their idols’ lives are like, and that transcends into this state of frenzied fandom. And although sad, it seems like young stars today have to carry that extra burden of knowing that their life in the spotlight can cause such reactions and have to take extra precautions to ensure their safety. But this is the life they’ve decided to take on, and while I do believe that the media provokes a level of hunger for the minutest detail of a celebrity’s lifestyle, the celebrity should be well aware of their power and understand their effect and influences.
As a Beatles fan, I can say that there's a lot I would do to meet or see the Beatles. Obviously I know that it's not possible since two of the Beatles are dead, but I know I wouldn't go to extreme measures to get to them even so extreme as to kill them to get myself in relation to them. I can understand why these people become so obsessed with their idols, such as John Lennon. They see the constant media attention that the celebrity is getting and they want to be a part of it. The only thing that they can think of to get into the lives of their favorite celebrity is to do something illegal.
We say that we're "die-hard" fans, but I've been using that term more delicately lately. I honestly don't think I'm a die-hard fan of anyone. I love the Red Sox, the Patriots, the Beatles and hockey, but I wouldn't say I'm a die-hard fan of any of those things. I wouldn't rather die or cause someone to die if these things were taken away from me. I'd figure out a way to live my life without them.
However, I can understand how both kinds of fans that McQuail describes in his reader can become obsessed and how the media can fuel that obsession. The "Othello" fan that sits alone all day long just pining after their idol. This is someone like a Mark David Chapman. Someone who is jealous of the fame and wants to become a part of it and doesn't care at what lengths he or she needs to attain that fame. The woman who broke into Brad Pitt's home in 1999 wrote several threatening letters and placed a hex on Gwyneth Paltrow, who was dating Pitt at the time. When she was charged and received her sentence she cried and claimed she was being victimized. She obviously was not in a right mind and had spent too much time alone obsessing over Brad Pitt.
The other type of fan is the group fans. People who find strength in others who have similar fan obsessions as them. This is when the power in numbers becomes dangerous. This is where the Great Who Stampede comes into play. Yes, the building wasn't structurally sound, but all those fans who were revved up about seeing their favorite band felt they had to prove they were the biggest fan by plowing through to get to the front row. To prove they were the biggest Who fan of them all. I've seen fandom like that at concerts I've been to. One minute you're talking to the person next to you about how much you love the band getting along famously, until those lights dim and the band walks out, then you're bitter enemies trying to elbow the other out of prime viewing space.
The media defintiely exacerbates this obsession. They give so many outlets to view and learn about the celebrity that it just fuels these fans. However, there is a level that an obsessed fan can only reach on their own. The media shouldn't have to stop their efforts because some fans have psychotic tendencies. This behavior won't stop. It's a matter of security to keep these celebrities safe, it shouldn't be the media's responsibility. These people want to be famous and they put themselves in the public eye, they have to take the negative consequences. As long as they spend as much on security as they do on stilettos, then they'll have a better chance against the psychotic fan.
If the constant media attention on celebrities really did spur on fan obsessive behaviors which resulted in deaths/hysteria/craziness, I think we would be hearing much more about it. It seems to me that the strange incidences involving fandom out of control are definitely due to more of the “overzealous” fans or the mob pandemonium.
To avoid redundancy, I'll just say that, yes, the media does contribute to fandom, but the "psychotic" fans are a product of many factors. Jensen says it best:
...a fan is...suffering from the disease of isolation, or a frenzied crowd member, suffering from the disease of contagion...The influence of the media, a narcissistic society...explain how fans become victims of their fandom, and so act in deviant and destructive ways. (McQuail Reader 345)
This whole issue of fandom and filling voids and being stalkerish is something I'll avoid delving into since I don't want to be a blog hog. I’ll just say this: People who lack solid support/values/direction turn to the media (since the media is just shoving celebrities down people’s throats), they latch on to a celebrity they idolize and identify with, then they obsess, get kooky ideas, and foam at the mouth. The end.
I definitely think that constant media attention leads to the use of celebrities “filling a void” in someone’s life—I mean, how many times have you heard people talking about certain celebrities as if they know them personally? While this, in itself, is not psychotic, it can easily turn that way when someone depends too much on that celebrity to fill that void. However, this does not excuse psychotic behavior. Jensen writes, in the Reader, that “… fans become victims of their fandom, and so act in deviant and destructive ways” (345). This is true—all fans have the potential to become too involved in the life of a celebrity, and thus have the capacity to become overly obsessed and possibly psychotic.
However, I don’t think that media can be found entirely at fault. Although this constant media attention can lead to obsession, it is not the sole reason for obsession. What I mean is that not everyone who consumes media about celebrities (as we all, as students who admittedly check “paparazzi style” websites daily) will turn out to be psychos. That is something that has several factors, and the media solely cannot be blamed for it. Also, a celebrity has to understand that by achieving a status in society that is so public, they are inviting people into their lives. I know this is not going to be a popular statement, but celebrities must assume that risk, as they are the ones who wanted to become public figures.
And yes, undoubtedly, Miley and other current “It” celebrities should be cautious based on historical fandom-violence; however this doesn’t mean that this caution should run her career or her life. All someone can do is to be careful and be smart.
I do believe that the constant media coverage can make one a little bit more obsessed with their idols therefor making them a little bit freaky. However, I do not believe one can blame the media for turning people into psycho's. Beatle Mania was a different time, those people were excited to see The Beatles. It got ugly when people lost touch with what The Beatles were playing and saying. McQuail states, "For these similary and deprived groups, para-socail interaction is an attempt by the socially excluded (and thus psychologically needy) to compensate for the absence of 'authentic' relationships in their lives." People who don't have sincere relationships with anyone they knew reach out and try to impact the people who they idolize and are impacted by (ex: Chapman, shooting Lennon). These people feel as if this is the only way they can make a name for themselves. As for Miley...there's a lot more weirdos out there today then ever before, good luck.
I also think that it is very easy to blame the media in this situation. Let's face it, there are a lot of creeps out there, and how do they find out about these celebrities? TV, magazines and the Internet. I'm not saying that celebrities shouldn't be in the media at all, just pointing out that this is the method that psychos use to get closer and research the stars that they are obsessed with.
I think that in this day and age it is so easy for people to become obsessed with stars and bring it to a much more dangerous level. With a few pulled strings it can be very easy for them to have more access to the stars that they are stalking.
I think that this kind of dangerous fandom is a lot more prevalent now than it was back in the days of Beatle Mania. Those people weren't creepily obsessed with the Beatles, just very excited to experience their music. Nowadays, I think that there are definitely some fans that are in it for the wrong reasons, and that is what makes them very creepy. Jensen's chapter in the reader definitely supports this. He mentions "what is assumed to be true of fans-that they are...deviant, as loners or as members of a mob" (346).
I find this very sad, and I do think that stars, young or old definitely need to be careful of what they do and where they go, because these extreme fans are around, and there's really nothing to stop them from acting on these weird deviances that they have.
Today's society is so engrossed in the media that celebrities are all we hear about and see. There is no way to escape that and go around it. I think the media is to blame for the over obsessed fans because the more we see a celebrity, the more we want to know about him/her. Miley Cyrus and the Hannah Montana fanbase is so large and crazy, that it definitely does resemble Beatle Mania. I don't think it will ever get that crazy or violent, but I do think celebrities, especially ones as big as Miley Cyrus, definitely need to watch out for themselves.
Fans can become crazy people. According to McQuail, "the psychopathic fan-turned-assassin similarly uses mediated celebrities to form an identity, although he kills in order to to share their power and fame" (Reader 348). I think celebrities need to watch out for themselves and be careful. The media hypes up Hollywood and celebrities so much that fans can become crazy as time goes on.
I'm not sure if the media is fully to blame for the obsessive fanbase of certain celebrities, but I definitely think it contributes to it. The media doesn't tell fans to become the way they do and stalk or kill their favorite celebrity, but Hollywood is so hyped up that nothing can be certain what causes this.
Sure. Constant media attention certainly can spur a fan's obsession. The more the celebrity is seen on television, the more a fan can learn, and obsess more and more. We cannot blame the media for fandom and crazy behavior. That is purely the fault of the crazy fan them self.
As for obsession, I believe there are different levels. There are teens that can become completely obsessed with teen idols, or cute actors or what not with posters all over their rooms and always watching that actor’s television show. But, there is also a scary obsession, where people take it to a new level. As it says in the McQuail reader, "..fandom is seen as excessive, bordering on deranged, behavior" (McQuail Reader, 343). Some fans can become so obsessed that it becomes their lives. Thats when things get iffy.
I think any celebrity in the spotlight should be cautious of the extreme fandom that may mark their careers. Miley Cyrus may be young and may innocently be performing her music, but their may be a "loner" out there, excessively collecting information about her. A loner, as McQuail says is, one under the influence of the media, who has entered an intense fantasy relationship with a celebrity figure (McQuail Reader, 344). This is not just an isolated incident involving the Beatles, this can occur with any celebrity. The more popular the celebrity, the more they worry. It’s scary but what can they do. Lennon just lived his life, and was murdered by someone who adored him. The more the media portrays, the more a loner could get information. They become so socially isolated that the one they obsess over is all they feel they have. As McQuail puts it, the fan "seeks identity,connection and meaning via celebrities and team loyalties" (McQuail Reader, 348).Unfortunately this can lead to some terrible outcomes. Is this possible to avoid and can we blame the media? I don’t think you can blame anything but the individual fans out there behaving in such a way. It’s unfortunate that becoming so famous can bring such worry like this into their lives.
I think that the media definitely is a huge factor in spurring on a fan's obsession with celebrities. Because essentially, the media is where fans get their information about that celebrity. However, our fingers cannot solely be pointed at the media as the only contributer to a fan's obsession over a celebrity. As Jensen describes, “Like the fanatic and the deviant, the fan has fragile self-esteem, weak or non-existent social alliances, a dull and monotonous ‘real’ existence” (McQuail reader 348). The fan will use what has been given to he or she and possibly abuse that information (i.e. following or stalking a celebrity). Again, the media is the outlet that the fans use to gain information on the celebrity. We cannot fault the media for doing their job. Do I think the media can sometimes provide too much or an excessive amount of information on some celebrities? Of course. But it is the individual who, in the end, decides what he or she will do with the information they have been provided.
Using Jessica's example, let's say you are a Miley Cyrus fan (which I am not, I am just using her for the example haha), we might see a clip of an interview of her on TMZ or Access Hollywood and then flip the channel. An obsessive fan or a fanatic, however, might become attached to that short television clip and try to find out where she was, what she was doing, try to find her and follow her, etc. People will stalk because they become fixed and infatuated with this person who is constantly on their television screen, in magazines, on websites, etc. Celebrites are everywhere, and for some fans, they cannot distinguish between their own real life and this fantasy world they live in. As Jensen says, “The fan-as-pathology model implies that there is a thin line between ‘normal’ and excessive fandom. The line is crossed if and when the distinctions between reality and fantasy break down" (McQuail reader 348). There is certainly a line that is crossed by many people who may want to use celebrities to fill a void in their own life.
These days the media puts a huge emphasis on celebrities and their lives. While this is true, is it unrealistic to suggest that this increased coverage actually has the potential to contribute to fan obsession? Quite honestly, I’m not sure. I believe that the crazed fan phenomena is a result of mental illness and nothing more. According to Mcquail there are a couple kinds of fans. The first, “The obsessed loner is the image of the isolated, alienated “mass man”. He or she is cut off from family friends and community. His or her life becomes increasingly dominated by an irrational fixation on a celebrity figure, a perverse attachment that dominates his or her otherwise unrewarding existence…” If this isn’t a description of a mental illness I don’t know what is.
In my eyes the only reason instances of fan obsession seem to occur so often these days is that media coverage enables a wider range of individuals to experience material put out by celebs. In other words psychos just have a better chance of finding information about celebrities then they used to.
So should today’s artists be more cautious then the celebs of yesterday? The way I figure it today’s world is not a safe place… anyway you twist it… that means if you’re rich and famous and happen to be televised often you should probably be watching your back even more than the average Joe or Jane.
As for the Beatles, it seems that their entrance into the music scene marked the beginning of a new era for fans. The Beatles were one of the first widely televised and marketed bands, as a result, it makes sense that they would be among the first to experience fan based violence. With the way our media outlets are heading I’m positive they won’t be the last.
I do believe that all the attention the media gives to certain celebrities helps feed people’s obsessions, but I don’t think it’s entirely they’re fault. The more attention the media gives to one person, or in the case of the Beatles, a group of people, the more the public knows about them. And when people know a lot about a person, they might start to feel like they know them personally, especially if they don’t have a lot of other personal relationships. “One model of the pathological fan is that of the obsessed loner, who (under the influence of the media) has entered into an intense fantasy relationship with a celebrity figure” (McQuail reader 344). There’s an obvious difference between being a fan of a celebrity who wants to know a little more about that person, or wants to keep up with their career, and an obsessed fan who wants to know every little thing about them, and then thinks that they actually know that celebrity personally. Sometimes the people who cross that line don’t even realize they’re crossing it and that’s when it becomes a problem. I’m sure a lot of people have seen or heard of people who talk about a celebrity as if they are their best friend. “These individuals achieve public notoriety by stalking or threatening or killing the celebrity” (McQuail reader 344). I’m not saying that every obsessed fan is going to kill the celebrity they’re obsessed with, but there are certainly fans that celebrities need to be aware of.
Although I feel that media is doing they’re job by providing the public with information about celebrities, I do feel sometimes they provide a little too much information. Personally I don’t need to be informed every time Britney Spears goes to Starbucks, or if Miley Cyrus goes to Blockbuster with a friend. I’m sure most of us have been to Starbucks and Blockbuster, and while it’s nice to see that celebrities do some of the thing that us “normal” people do, I’d rather be informed when something big happens. And by providing the public with the knowledge of everything a celebrity does and everywhere they go it just helps that obsessed fan gain more knowledge about that celebrity. Do I think that media should hold back a little bit when it comes to the information they provide the public? Of course I do. But I also think that some people need help realizing that these “relationships” they have with celebrities aren’t the real thing. Hopefully these people can get help and not turn into the type of crazed fan that celebrities need to be fearful of.
Posted on behalf of Alyssa Jones:
I don’t know if I would equate the popularity of Miley Cyrus to the popularity of The Beatles. I feel like what was unique about the Beatles, like you stated in your blog, is that they were the first band to have this sort of fan reaction, besides Elvis I suppose. If anything Miley can end up like the next Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan, all products of the Disney Machine. She could be as boring as Hillary Duff but from seeing her in public forums and listening to her new single, I doubt that will happen.
Anyway, I think any celebrity can breed a super obsessed fan that is capable of violent tendencies. I remember hearing reports about fans of Madonna, Jennifer Lopez, and Brad Pitt. I feel like I don’t know enough about the psychology of people who have social voids in their lives, so they fill it by concentrating on a particular celebrity. However, I do feel like if the media has celebrity focal points, like the three celebrities I listed about, that gives the social inept individual an easier target to focus on. So I’d have to say that the media does spur on the people to fill the social void in their lives simply because the media provides them with food for thought, so to speak. “The fan-as-pathology model implies that there is a thin line between ‘normal’ and excessive fandom. The line is crossed if and when the distinctions between reality and fantasy break down" (McQuail 348). The reality and fantasy breakdown is a mental breakdown that I do not believe the media can give, it is the issue of an individual’s psyche. The media, however, I believe is a facilitator in the skewed line of fantasy and reality.
Posted on behalf of Alexandra Cavoto:
I feel that the media definitely does encourage this type of crazy fan behavior. With the constant coverage of celebrities, especially those in the music industry, people are bound to become obsessive and out of control. While the media does play a huge role in this fan obsession, I do not feel the media should be held responsible for the violent actions of a crazed fan. Jensen writes, in the Reader, that “… fans become victims of their fandom, and so act in deviant and destructive ways” (345). It is the media’s job to put celebrities in the public eye and engage our attention to create fandom, but there are simply just bizarre people out there who feel the need to take things to an extreme level.
Celebrities are aware that once they achieve a certain level of fame they are constantly in the public eye and it is very difficult to maintain a private life. Their fame comes along with fandom, and while having a large fan base is generally viewed as a positive all celebrities should be aware that there are a number of crazy people in the world and anything can happen. It is very disturbing to think about the many situations where fandom has turned to violence and even young celebrities like Miley Cyrus need to be smart and cautious.
I think that the media does play some role in the way fans become overly obsessed, but at the same time, people like John Cusack who, lets be honest, aren't really on the mainstream radar 24/7 have crazy stalkers who show up at their homes.
Jenson argues that "fandom is seen as excessive, bordering on deranged, behavior." While I believe this is true to some extent, I wouldn't go so far as to call it deranged if you consider yourself a fan of a celebrity and maybe you try to meet them at an event or talk about them on an online forum.
I think that the people who take it too far are probably mentally unstable. Yes, if the media is constantly focusing on one celebrity, and a crazy person becomes obsessed with them then I guess I can see why the media is being blamed for overexposure, but ordinary people get stalked so the argument goes many ways.
I agree with Kate that it is convenient for society to blame media content for excessive fandom, among a lot of other things. However, it is the media that thrives on and allows access to the personal lives of these celebrities, resulting in obsession that can become dangerous. Literature on fandom often distinguishes between a fan and a fanatic; a fanatic being the more obsessive and extreme person, as referred to by Joli Jensen as “psychologically incomplete,” like Mark David Chapman. These fanatics obviously have some emotional and mental issues, but the media feeds their obsessions. The more they see into the personal lives of these celebrities they become obsessed with, the more they want to bask in their fame and glory. This is where things can become dangerous. As we saw with Chapman, a man who kills someone with the level of fame that John Lennon had, becomes just as well known as the celebrity that they murdered. In a twisted way, Chapman is probably thrilled to be forever associated with John Lennon. The murder of John Lennon is not necessarily an isolated situation because it is not the only time a celebrity has been killed by fan-related incidents. Princess Diana’s death was caused by ruthless paparazzi that were determined to get her picture… a picture for the media that feeds obsession. Although someone like Miley Cyrus has a fan base primarily made up of tween girls, it’s not to say that she shouldn’t be concerned about fanatics. Look at the extremes that these tweens’ parents are willing to go to just for tickets to a Hannah Montana concert. It is definitely over the top, and who knows what crazy people out there are becoming obsessed with her life. When the obsession sets in, a celebrity with the level of fame that someone like Miley Cyrus has becomes what Jensen refers to as a "therapeutic crutch" that they use to fill voids in their own unsatisfactory lives.
Post a Comment