Marx suggests that a binary exists between consumers and producers, the media industry being producers and audiences being mindless consumers. However, in the reading McKee discusses the difficulties with this binary distinction, using science fiction texts as examples of how the roles of consumers and producers are intertwined, and rather than being discrete binary categories, people can move between the categories. First, I want to look at the concept of binaries in the media industry. Marx’s definition of production/consumption binary also brings about many other sets of binaries

“Such a binary demands a whole list of other binaries that are associated with production and consumption: active/passive, powerful/powerless, central/marginal and so on” (McKee, 2004:168 )

A few more…

Producers – Fans

The media – Their own interpretations

Powerful – Powerless

Owners - Readers

Industry – Non/cottage/mini-industry

These distinctions seem a bit simple and idealistic. deCerteau argues that:

“the television viewer cannot write anything on the of his set. He has been dislodged from the product. He plays no role in its apparition”

The suggestion that audiences are passive, mindless consumers is a myth, as audiences are more aware now than ever of the ways in which the media machine works as a way to reniforce capitialst ideologies and therefore are able to subvert it. Furthermore, audiences are now able to play an active role in the production of media texts to varying degrees, and are able to move beyond being consumers and actually play a part in the production process.

A more literal example of this might be the myriad of voting shows like Big Brother and Australian Idol. Fans of these shows are able to vote for who they want to stay on the show, ‘producing’ their own programs according to what they want to watch.

From Consumer to Producer

Doctor Who fan culture illustrates the fluidity of the production/consumption binary, showing how people can move back and forth between the ‘discrete’ categories. For example, Gary Russell, a Doctor Who fan and the secretary of the Doctor Who Appreciation Society, felt “powerless” about fans’ ability to be noticed and have influence on the production of a media text. However, he now writes official BBC licensed Doctor Who books and scripts. Russell went from being the passive consumer to an active producer, illustrating the problematic nature of a binary of producers and consumers. He is still a fan of the show, but because of this, its difficult to determine whether he is part of the powerless fan culture, or the powerful industry (perhaps he acts as a medium between the fans and the industry?)

“There is no such thing as canon! Except on your own terms”

“The canon is never absolute. Its definition is achieved by consensus within various groups, but it is never stable. It is always open to a challenge, is different for different groups – and can, of course, change over time. And it is the fans, finally, who make those decisions. It is ultimately they who are the powerful ones” (McKee 2004:183)

So what’s canon?

This….

Or this…??

This quote from McKee is useful in showing how the fans of a show have the ultimate power in the way they ‘produce’ the media. Although the fans – in most cases – don’t produce the texts, they have the power to choose what is canonical and what’s not. So, despite the many different Dr Who texts that exists, the fans ultimately choose the thread of the story, which texts to consume and which ones to discard. Furthermore, the texts that the fans choose as their canon need not reflect the power of the media industry. For example, many Dr Who fans ignored a 1996 telemovie as not part of their canon, but included different fan fictions, such as slash. It would be logical to think that a telemovie, that is backed by a reputable organisation like the BBC would have a more authoritative status than fan fiction. However this just proves the subjectivity of canon and how it is ultimately up to the fans to decide what becomes canon and what doesn’t, regardless of the media industry’s role as a producer.

Technology and the powerless audience

In the past it would have been hard to imagine, as an audience member, having access to means of producing media text. However technological innovation has made it possible for basically the least technologically literate person to make some sort of media text and have it seen by a wide audience on the Internet. McKee argues this point:

“If access to means of production…is possible for a large percentage of the population of a Western country, then binaries that rely on the difficulty of gaining that access can no longer be accepted”

So, if the ability to produce media is no longer a means of differentiation between consumers and producers, what is?? And how has this affected the canon of media texts?? Intuitively, greater access to the means of production would result in more media texts being available to fans. You only have to look at the thousands of fan sites for texts to see this is definitely the case. That being said, it could be possible that the huge number of fan produced texts has made the distinction between the canon of a show and fan produced texts more clear. Using Doctor Who as an example, fan produced texts may take on the characteristics of being cheap and not part of the ‘real’ canon of the show, thereby reinforcing the power of the media industry as being the authoritative voice in production.

Commodification of fandom

Commodification of fandom appears to be a conflicting concept and one which blurs the production/consumption binary. Fan fiction and the creation of fan texts appears to be a way to subvert the powerful industry produced media texts. By creating their own media, fans are able to live out fantasies (eg slash fiction) or just simply produce something the way they want it to be. It seems that fans do this to derive pleasure from their creations, rather than for profit. Jenkins alludes to this when he says that fans “have a distaste towards profit” (in McKee 2004:171). So, the whole idea of creating texts for profit seems to go against the ideologies of the fan culture, and to create fan texts is to subvert the media machine. However, McKee also suggests “many fan producers sell zines and audio or video productions for profit” which directly contradicts his previous assertion. Here it seems that there may need to be some sort of distinction between fans who produce fanzines to subvert the capitalist nature of the media machine, and those who produce fan material to become part of the machine.

An interesting recent example of the ability of fans to affect industry produced media texts is the ‘L-word‘ contest run by FanLib. This contest allowed fans to submit scripts for a scene in the show. It also gave fans the opportunity to browse through the fan fiction in the contest and vote for their favourite scenes which then became part of the show. This contest seemingly awards the fans with the power to produce the show. But, in reality, the fans were given a framework by the show’s writers in which to work (in Molly’s words “recreating a scene” rather than writing a scene). The writers outlined the scenes and what action was to take place whilst the fans could only fill in the dialogue (and even then one of the producers says they “may change the dialogue a little”).

L Word contest winner

Another way in which fans are given ‘power’, yet restricted by the power of the media industry?

Marx’s production/consumption binary is problematic when being applied to fan culture, and the ability of fans to affect the production of media texts. On the one hand, fan culture can be seen as a a way to subvert the capitalist idealogies of the media machine. Fans ultimately have the power to choose what media texts become part of their canon, which do not depend on the modes of production, nor the reach or size of the audience. However, at what point does a fan become a producer? Can Gary Russell still be called a fan if he produces mainstream texts for an official organisation for profit?

Some other fan sites…

FanLib – huge library of fan videos, stories, images and reviews

Fanfiction.net

Godawful.net – really explicit slash fan fiction, prides itself on having the “foulest fan fiction available”

References

McKee, A. (2004) ‘How to tell the difference between production and consumption: A case study in Doctor Who Fandom’, Cult Television, S. Gwenllian-Jones and R.E. Pearson, eds., Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 167-185