bothner%Shasta@Sumex-Aim (12/29/82)
My image of the term "fan" differs somewhat from that of ...!eagle!mhuxt!mhux1!macrev (I wish people would sign their contributions -at the end- with human names or even nicknames), at least as it applies to science fiction. "Reading" is an essentially passive activity, whereas a fan is someone who engages in fan activity (fanac). Admittedly there are fans who read uncritically, and others who hardly read at all, though I contend that most "real" fans steer the middle course. (Of course, these days it seems that fandom is being swamped by the media fans who seem not to read at all. These fall into a different category. Even "sf-lovers" isn't immume, as evinced by this month's pointless, longwinded and repetitious "Star Bores" discussion.) Fanac is some subset of, say: - Publishing, reading or contributing to fanzines (e.g. sf-lovers). - Attending and possibly helping to run conventions. - Taking part in other social interaction between fans, such as being a member of a science fiction club or corresponding with other fans. (fen? or is that an obsolete term?) The point of all this is that fandom is a place to meet people (not necessarily in the flesh) who share interests with you. And not just sf, since there will be many correlations among interests - all of you should be aware of the big overlap between people interested in sf and those interested in computers! And if not, their interests, even if you don't share them, are at least likely to be ... interesting! This is because the incidence of boring or shallow people in fandom is a lot less than that of the general population. In conclusion, my connotations of the term "fan" are a lot more postitive than the general (non-sf) use of the term would imply, and they have nothing to do with the amount or selectivity of one's reading. --Per Bothner