aléatoire Article: How To Be A True fan Of Something

23

posted by zanhar1

Step one: enjoy/love/like the show, book, movie, and/or band.
Good job, that's it, you're a true fan.

One thing that just never fails to annoy me is when someone tells me (or another person honestly) that they aren't a true fan of whatever it is they are a fan of for having a certain opinion.

One of the most common things I get is 'you're not a true fan because toi like the villains more'. Okay no let's talk about this for a second; the villains are a crucial part of the story. Villains are what essentially gives the show/book/movie its plot. Without villains there is no conflict and without conflict, sure there's a story/plot, but it wouldn't be a very exciting one.
So of course people are going to like the baddies and that's okay. Why? Because villains can be and are well written, interesting, and complex. Why? Because they help make the story fun. I just don't get how one can tell another they aren't a real fan of something for liking a character critical to the story line.

I can't speak for everyone but I personally (as a villain fan) tend to hate the mains. This is another biggy for people pulling the 'you're not a true fan' card.
People it's possible to not like the main character and still like the book ou montrer ou whatever. While, yes, the main is a huge huge part of the media in question, he/she isn't all of it. Harry Potter for example; I think he's kind of boring but I still enjoy the livres due in part to a fascinating plot and the other characters around him. "I don't like the main" =/= "this book/show is boring". It simply means that the main doesn't appeal to toi and that toi enjoy the show/book for other reasons. The main character is not everything.

Hand in hand with this I've seen "you're not a true fan if toi like this character better than this character. Fandoms are diverse in opinions, of course someone is going to think character A is better than character B and vice versa. I don't know why this is even a cause to tell someone they aren't a true fan with such a vast assortment of characters to choose form. Moreover I usually see this the most when character A is a villain and character B is a hero.
And in the musical case; if toi like this singer better than this one. For instance Nightwish; I've seen "you're not a true fan if toi prefer Annette ou Floor to Tarja (the band's first vocalist). Different vocalists are simply plus pleasing to some people's tastes than they are to others. People can't help what vocals are plus pleasant to them. It's like trying to choose to become left handed when you're right handed.

In general having a different and/or strange headcanon ou perspective of a character than someone else is okay. Different life experiences make way for different ways of seeing the story and the characters in it and how relateable the characters are. That in mind someone can very well see something toi don't in a character and the other way around. For example over on the Once spot (way back when spoiler Regina was still evil) I always though she had a lot of good left in her. Person B disagreed...and disregarded my points, telling me I wasn't a true Regina fan for believing she could turn good again and that she truly loved her son. End spoiler. Don't tell someone they aren't a true fan of a character because they view him/her differently from you; for one it's rude, for secondes they're ideals could very well turn out to be true in canon.

How about dubs? Guess what someone can be a fan of something for liking dub X plus than dub Y. This is mostly a thing I've seen in the Winx fandom since we have like 3 versions (4kids, Rai, and Nick--Rai being the original). I have gotten so much crap for liking 4kids to the original. I've also seen the reverse. And with animé like FMA that have two versions; toi can like the 2003 version plus than Brotherhood and the other way around and still be a fan.
Along the same lines (and this is plus of an animé thing too) I think people get way too butthurt when someone says "dubbed is better than subbed". toi can be a true animé fan and prefer an English dub to the English subtitles. Some people don't like trying to read the subs while trying to take in the actual imagery at the same time. It can be kind of a pain. toi don't have to watch the Japanese version of animé to be a true animé fan.

Another thing that gets me every time is when that crazy mega-fan starts freaking out because someone doesn't know every little plot detail, character name, actor name, etc. So what? Are all the people new to a fandom not real fans then? Let me tell you; I couldn't even name all the main and re-occurring characters when I first started watching Naruto (honestly there are so many characters in this one I still don't know all of them). Hell I confused Lydia for another character when I first started watching Teen Wolf. It takes time and getting used to. It takes time to start putting names to faces flawlessly and easily. Eventually toi start get the hang of it and it just comes naturally.
And then there are people who simply don't have the time/patience/capacity to memorize line, important date, character name, and what not in the show.
Some people are just casual fans and casual fans are true fans too. And some people simply aren't obsessed with the show/book. Liking something should not be a chore. Your shouldn't have to do a butt ton of research to be recoginzed as a fan.

In the musical sense toi don't have to know all the lyrics nor all the track names and ou albums. If toi like a bad you're a true fan. Nor should toi have to know all the band members' names right away--or ever if you're only interested in hearing the musique (which is perfectly okay too). toi also shouldn't have to be able to say who is who right on the spot. With k-pop bands like SNSD (that have like 9 singers) it's hard to tell who is who right away because they don't have different rolls so toi can't just be like; 'oh so and so is the guitarist' toi actually have to--like a teacher with new students--get used to which face belongs to which name. Basically it's the same as the above. toi don't have to be a super fan to be a real fan.

Much like the preceeder; one doesn't have to have seen every episode/read every book/listened to all the songs on every album. Again, listening to music/watching a montrer shouldn't be a chore...it's entertainment, something toi do for fun. If toi have the time to read every book, see every episode, hear every song, plus power to you. That's awesome. But not everyone can and that doesn't make them any less of a fan.

The same goes for not watching every interview; be it a band interview ou cast interviews. Particularly cast interviews, there's such a vast amount of them, it's hard to keep track.

Shipping is another huge one; someone can ship, ship X and not ship Y and still be a fan. toi can prefer ship A to ship B and you're opinion still makes toi a genuine fan. I really just don't understand how someone can tell another that they don't truly like a show/book because they like/don't like a certain pairing--especially if the shipping is just a subplot...which it usually is unless you're talking about the romance genre.
Hell toi can not ship and all and still be a real fan.

Speaking of likes vs dislikes a person doesn't have to l’amour every. Single. Aspect of a show/book/band to be a real fan. No matter what form of media we're speaking of, it has flaws. There are positives and negatives to everything one likes. toi don't have to l’amour every single character, plot, ou subplot in your favori show. toi don't have to l’amour every song, lyric, album art, ou member of your favori band. A person can see the flaws in their faves and still be a true fan.

A person is allowed to prefer the adaption to the original as well. Be it toi prefer the movie to the book ou the tv montrer to the book ou the other way around. You're still a true fan. It doesn't matter if toi like the adaptation plus than the original nor if toi prefer the original to the adaptation. I just don't see the need for people who like the original media plus to have such a superiority complex.

Finally toi don't need to own all the merch ou any at all to be a true fan. Some people just aren't interested in fangear others don't have the money to blow. Likewise with cosplay. Cosplay is expensive shit. Whether toi make your own costume ou not, it's expensive and sometimes time-consuming.

I lied...this is the finally. To go with cosplay are Cons. A person doesn't have to attend any cons to be a real fan; like cosplay cons are expensive shit (especially if they are out of state ou country). Or--for all toi HP fans--you don't have to go to the Wizzarding World of HP ever in your life if toi don't have the money. You're still a fan, end of story. Excessive spending doesn't make toi any plus of a fan than the suivant guy.

And these points are just scratching the surface; these are only a few of the things I've been told and/or seen around the net.

toi can totally be and are a true fan of something if toi hold one ou plus of these opinions. Why? Because everyone has a different perspective; everyone has gone through different things and has different knowledge levels and therefore everyone has different points of view of the same show/book/movie/band. Just because someone holds a different view point than your own, doesn't mean they are any less of a fan than you.

To sum up; the notion of a 'true fan' and the very term 'true fan' is bullshit. :)

DivaChipette1, suck_toad and 21 others like this

6 more comments

loading additional comments...

BlindBandit92 ^That's an interesting counter point and it's food for thought as well. But I don't think a true fan and a diehard fan are relatable. A diehard like you pointed out: is a fan that will stay with the fandom for a certain amount of time. In that sense there's a certain realistic requirement to a degree. Whereas a true fan is more of an opinion-based requirement that vary from person to person and therefore can be used as mostly a discriminatory device rather than something that is based on more evidence as with the diehard fan. So virtually I agree with your counterpoint generally speaking as it does make sense but I disagree with the idea because of the fact other types of fans exist, true fan exists. That's essentially what you're saying correct? How is there a feasible requirement for true fan? The other types albeit can be also biased just like you said tend to have somewhat of a general idea what the requirements for those types are. From what you said you described the diehard requirement and most people tend to accept that as a universal truth. But what exactly is a true fan requirement? In some people opinions a true fan could be synonymous with a diehard so in that case a true fan can exist but it's virtually the same thing as a diehard fan. You're saying they are both distinct types of fans. I don't see anything that make a true fan distinct. Let alone the validity of a true fan. Also if you would compare true fan to other types of fans to emphasize requirements and notion that true fan exists. Such as if you're going differentiate fanatic to a true fan and so on. The same concept and problem is still applicable

zanhar1 @True-Fin-Fan That is a good point. I didn't really mention it because this article is discussing people who really truly do like the show or whatever but are told for any one or few reasons that they aren't a true fan. I do believe that there are people who pretend to be fans just so they can hate on the show. I also do believe that the people who (say) only heard one song but then after awhile of saying they like the band but never hearing any other song may not really be a fan of the band--they just like the one song. Like I like TNT's Punk Heart Fanatic but I can't really call myself a fan because that's really the only song I like by them. If that makes sense. Likewise with shows if you only watched one episode, liked it, but don't ever plan on watching any episode I don't think I would be able to call myself a fan of the show just yet. But in this case all the person would have to do is watch a few more episodes and I feel like it would solve the problem. And of course there are the trolls who claim to be a fan but as you read their comments everything they say about the show/band/book is negative. But as I said, this article is mainly to discuss people who are fans and have been told they aren't for opinions they hold or how much/little they know and what not. [i]At the same time, not every fan is a die hard fan; same concept is true with the True-fan and other variations of fans. you yourself labeled types of fans in your article, from Obsessive to Mega.[/i] I don't think I ever said anything about there not be levels of dedication to a show; hence why I myself labeled types of fans. I was actually about to mention that I do agree that there are different levels of dedication; new or casual fans being the two who kind of loosely follows the show but still likes it (this is the 'lowest level' so to speak), then there are the die-hards, the mega fans, etc. But all of these people (including the casual fan and the new fan) are still 'true fans'. If that makes sense. But then comes the issue of who sets that bar? Who determines what makes you a casual fan or a die hard? My evaluation of a casual fan is just my evaluation. For me an obsessive fan is the one who constantly thinks about the show, who invests a lot of time into watching it, who knows every episode, who knows all the characters and actors, who can recite things line for line, etc. But this evaluation and this criteria is probably different to the next guy. So who decides what level of...fanness lol...someone is? [i]But I don't think a true fan and a diehard fan are relatable. A diehard like you pointed out: is a fan that will stay with the fandom for a certain amount of time. In that sense there's a certain realistic requirement to a degree. [b]Whereas a true fan is more of an opinion-based requirement that vary from person to person and therefore can be used as mostly a discriminatory device[/b] rather than something that is based on more evidence as with the diehard fan.[/i] This is basically what I was trying to say above. Blind worded it much better than I did lol. Basically what I think is that there are levels of being a fan some more intense than others but those levels are still based on reason where as 'true fan' (in the form I see it often being used) is usually someone being a booty and trying to tell others how to watch the show. And it's mostly opinion-based and has nothing to do with how much of the show a person watches. There are just a lot of fuzzy areas and a lot of the levels are used interchangeably; one man's die hard is another man's obsessive--if that makes sense. But no matter what level you fall on, you're still a fan. That is to say unless you're one of the people mentioned in the first paragraph. But I have a feeling people would still debate me on that one, as I don't create the criteria for what makes a person a fan.

True-Finn-Fan @zanhar1: thank you for addressing that the other point, but i can hate something and still watch a few episodes in order to build an argument. And i know from experience that it's not too uncommon either. but your obligation to the other point is fulfilled. @Zan&Blind: die-hard is just as much perception as true-fan, not based on evidence (at least how it is usually termed). Blindbandit said that the True-fan and Die-hard fan were not relatable, that True-fan is more opinion based... well it is, but at the same time your guys's perception of die-hard is also opinion based. I can prove that because the definition i gave for Die-hard was purposefully inaccurate, yet you guys agreed with it because that is a common misconception for die-hard. A die-hard is actually a person who strongly opposes change or who continues to support something in spite of opposition. they're named that because they "don't go down easily." to be a die hard you need to face some kind of opposition/conflict against the thing you're in to (there are many forms of conflict/opposition), to be a true fan you don't. what i described was more or less my interpretation of a true fan. somebody who's loyal enough to the show to stick with it way down the line and/or who genuinely enjoys it immensely after its creation. You can be more than one type of fan at a time. the "reason" for each level of fan is almost always formed out of a perception and opinion. so nothing is different than a true-fan when comparing it to the other categories of fans except that you feel the some are more justified than others. also, there's actually a name for fans who need to feel superior to other fans in fandoms, they're called posers and/or imposers (self-explanatory). thought i will admit, sometimes there are situations where somebody has a legitimate argument for somebody not being as loyal a fan as they pretend to be. just cause people like to misuse and abuse terms and concepts for their own advantage that doesn't mean we should hold a grudge on the thing they drug through the mud. hell, even the basis of all this, the fan, can be opinionated and fuzzy in its distinction. to me: A fan simply has to have seen a few episodes and wants to continue to watch the show. (this is in show terms of course). Fans, with no title in front, are always the first stage (the distinction must be made before a title is added). after that a fan can become any type of fan they want to be, given that they're sincere. (P.S. this is a minor thing but... "Finn" with two n's... don't know why but... it bothered me... and the triple dots appear...) [also, if you would like to check the die-hard definition provided for legitimacy, type in die hard fan definition (i used bing but i don't think the search engine should make a difference)]

True-Finn-Fan immediately after checking over this like ten times and finally posting it... i find a typo.

BlindBandit92 @True I see. We were using a common meaning because in fact it is a used one and accurate meaning. It's not a misconception more like a different sense of what the word could mean. http://www.yourdictionary.com/die-hard "The definition of die hard is someone or something that shows or possesses extreme, absolute or complete loyalty even if facing defeat or hopelessness." It doesn't necessary mean there's some opposition. It's only implied that the die-hard will do anything even IF faced with obstacles so therefore our definitions of what a die hard fan is correct and yours is also correct. The obstacle is not absolute. It's simply a what if but it also shows (Like I said) the fan will do anything.will be loyal,etc. Different dictionaries will produce slightly different explanations of a word. The reason we claim true fan wasn't necessarily applicable in the sense that. it can be easily confused with the other types of fans like I said. A true fan nor a die hard need to go through opposition at all. I will agree that every point that we all have pointed out is very heavily based on opinion so that's what I was going with the majority viewpoint of it to base my opinion. But I will agree that some fans can be posers and therefore virtually not being true what they claim to be. I completely support that opinion.

zanhar1 Yeah no problem. I think I misunderstood one of your points; when I was talking about the trolling I mean the people who actually pretend to like something just so they can go on the fanclub and bashing it. Hating something and watching it a few episodes in so you can give solid arguments and not pull an 'I never tried it but I don't like it' is okay. In fact I'd rather someone watch a lot of episodes and still hate it than to hate it based on one episode and one episode only. [i]but at the same time your guys's perception of die-hard is also opinion based.[/i] I actually did address this on in my initial response when I said; There are just a lot of fuzzy areas and a lot of the levels are used interchangeably; [b]one man's die hard is another man's obsessive[/b]--if that makes sense. But no matter what level you fall on, you're still a fan. That is to say unless you're one of the people mentioned in the first paragraph. [b]But I have a feeling people would still debate me on that one, as I don't create the criteria for what makes a person a fan.[/b] And when I said; But then comes the issue of who sets that bar? Who determines what makes you a casual fan or a die hard? My evaluation of a casual fan is just my evaluation[...] But this evaluation and this criteria is probably different to the next guy. So who decides what level of...fanness lol...someone is? Your evaluation is as good as mine what's a die hard to me seems to be a something else to you. And a die hard fan--for me--simply lies in the 'true fan' spectrum to me. No matter what you call each level of fanness, a person is still a genuine fan of the show. What you call a true fan I just call a fan. Adding 'true' to it (for me at least) implies that lesser obsessed (so to speak) fans aren't real fans...and they are. "You can be more than one type of fan at the same time." Exactly, that's what I'm trying to say; unless you hate/don't like the thing then you're a true fan it doesn't matter how obsessed (or not so much) you are. Honestly [b]this article wasn't so much to X out the term true fan[/b] okay so that bit at the end kind of made that implication, but that was more of a joke statement [b]but to get people to stop using it wrong[/b] and by wrong I mean telling people they aren't actually fans of something they like because of a simple opinion they hold or because they don't like everything about the show or something similar. [b]Basically the point of my article was to get people to stop using 'true fan' as a discriminatory device and/or a means to essentially try to boot someone out of the fandom.[/b] Points bolded for emphasis and nothing more. [i] just cause people like to misuse and abuse terms and concepts for their own advantage that doesn't mean we should hold a grudge on the thing they drug through the mud.[/i] As explained above that wasn't what I was going for with this article. What I was going for was to tell the people who do drag terms through the mud to essentially stop. Sort of how I did with the 'overrated' article. [i]even the basis of all this, the fan, can be opinionated and fuzzy in its distinction. to me:[/i] Forgive me but I don't exactly know what you're trying to say here. To me it looks like we're on the same page with this one? Oh yeah, that was typo, my bad. @Blind [i]I will agree that every point that we all have pointed out is very heavily based on opinion so that's what I was going with the majority viewpoint of it to base my opinion. But I will agree that some fans can be posers and therefore virtually not being true what they claim to be. I completely support that opinion.[/i] These are two other points definitely worth mentioning.

True-Finn-Fan @Blind: first off, even you definition is different than my original definition, and it is a misconception. also, if even the definitions vary, then True-fan and Die-hard-fan are relatable. also, your own definition emphasizes the level surpassing the conflict. "even if facing defeat or hopelessness" though it states it as an addition, it's included. also, you can't prove die-hard-level without conflict/opposition, not even to yourself; there will always be a shadow of doubt without it. if the definitions can't even completely agree then it's still up to interpretation and opinion. just narrower than True fan. "easy confusion" doesn't mean that elements in the periodic table don't exist simply because they get confused for one another. henceforth, such a claim is not credible (using same logic interpretation). there's actually a good analogy in the "fans and elements" thing. but i'd have to assume you knew your periodic table. @Zanhar: not everything i said in both directly applied to both of you, it's just that the overall points being made were redundant so i combined the post. half of your comment is based on principles like that... so clarifying that. also, i know what bolded words imply but it's always better safe than sorry i guess. it doesn't lower fans for somebody to be called a true fan (to me). not that that's what i'm debating. my initial assumption was correct, at least from my interpretation of this comment. this is more of a call for tolerance, acceptance, end-bulling, etc. thing. It's not an actual debate over true-fans like the name implied. though you disqualified true-fan as a fan level. i never said i was disagreeing with you on anything more than the existence of the true-fan category. i was just putting things into context with the other things touched on and such to make my point. "even the basis of all this, the fan, can be opinionated and fuzzy in its distinction. to me:" this was questioning the basis of the entire subject, the fan (no distinction, just fan). If it's opinionated (fan) then True-fan has no lesser field then any other title of fan. (that was the point being made) "to me:" was the beginning of my interpretation of what a fan needs to be.

BlindBandit92 @True Well at that point I stopped trying to prove my argument so much honestly because of the fact everything relative and we'd never come to a complete conclusion of what the requirements should be. I don't believe it's a misconception considering that meaning came from a dictionary and even though some dictionaries vary it doesn't necessarily make one meaning wrong nor the other one. It's just a different take on it. But alas like we have mentioned it is a different opinion but I don't see that it's misconception just different. I didn't emphasize level of impact. I emphasized "if" being the primary buzzword here. You're saying the conflict is absolutely needed to be a die-hard fan but I don't think there's that huge of a requirement. I actually can prove it to myself because to be honest to me it makes more logical sense that if a definition included the word "if" that means said action is optional. Optional therefore means it's not necessarily. True you could compare this to confusion of the periodic table (using the same logic like you said) but there's much broader and precise guidelines to what element is what element rather than opinion and interpretation. Opinion and interpretation are infinitely broader. You cannot interpret Oxygen or Argon to anything but their elements contrary to a true fan or die hard. After speaking with you I can see how the term true fan could be used to describe someone as you brought up some points but I don't completely agree with the concept of no opposition = true fan and opposition =die hard. If I don't see die hard in this way how should I appropriately interpret true fan then? Thus we're only using theories and slightly different meanings and could be here for ages. By the way I know you were debating on the existence on the true fan category. I was mostly debating with you to see your viewpoints on such a position. Also to the "if the definitions can't even completely agree then it's still up to interpretation and opinion" This is mainly what I was debating all along. I am also debating I can see why one person can say a true fan doesn't exist. Another point was a different meaning doesn't necessary mean misconception. For an example: Heaven is a word and it has quite a few different and similar meanings but that doesn't mean it's a misconception. People use meanings of particular words that are used in real life. And then they put it in a dictionary once it acquired enough notoriety to be accepted as a meaning. There are some words that are misused such as term gay and people thought that word meant to be stupid or anything synonymous with stupid. Gay means happiness and modern meanings denote gay to be homosexual now. Both meanings of die-hard are in the dictionary and should be accepted as such since we started using a dictionary to bring some fact in this theory based discussion. So no I don't really have a doubt in what die hard is. I believe it is both your meaning and my meaning. Other than a few things I can definitely see where you're coming from.

zanhar1 [i]not everything i said in both directly applied to both of you, it's just that the overall points being made were redundant so i combined the post. half of your comment is based on principles like that... so clarifying that. also, i know what bolded words imply but it's always better safe than sorry i guess.[/i] Gotchya. Yeah, I'd rather make sure the reason for bolding is known, I know some people misinterpret it as yelling or something. So I'd rather be on the safe side. it doesn't lower fans for somebody to be called a true fan (to me). not that that's what i'm debating. I guess this is a point we'll just have to agree to disagree on. For me true fan (in it's incorrect use) is when someone is trying to use put themselves above another; like saying "yeah well if you like *insert dub* you're not a true fan, because *insert dub* was the first dub, not the one you like." This is essentially the person using the term 'true fan' to invalidate and opinionated argument. [i]my initial assumption was correct, at least from my interpretation of this comment. this is more of a call for tolerance, acceptance, end-bulling, etc. thing. It's not an actual debate over true-fans like the name implied. though you disqualified true-fan as a fan level. [/i] Pretty much, that's exactly what this article is; it's a 'stop being hateful and trying to push your opinions on others' thing. I disqualify it as a level because I think it's a broad term; like 'dog'. 'Dog' is a broad term within the 'dog' category there are sub categories which are the dog breeds (Dalmatian, Yorkie, German Shepard etc.) For me 'True Fan' is the umbrella term, the dog. And the other levels like 'die hard' are the sub categories, the breeds. If that makes sense. I don't count it as a level because I think all the levels are true fans...they're just different types of true fans. [i]i never said i was disagreeing with you on anything more than the existence of the true-fan category. i was just putting things into context with the other things touched on and such to make my point.[/i] Kay, got it. :P Makes sense. I guess that means, for the most part we are on the same page then. [i]"even the basis of all this, the fan, can be opinionated and fuzzy in its distinction. to me:" this was questioning the basis of the entire subject, the fan (no distinction, just fan). If it's opinionated (fan) then True-fan has no lesser field then any other title of fan. (that was the point being made) "to me:" was the beginning of my interpretation of what a fan needs to be. [/i] Oh okay. Yeah, I think we're on the same page here too. No matter what you call it; it's still essentially the same thing. And no matter what you call it, the term itself is gonna be very subjective.

candylover246 Well said. I agree with this article

zanhar1 Thank you.

True-Finn-Fan @Blind since i don't feel like going into a circle with this debate i will say that A) you yourself didn't emphasize anything. it was just the definition, but the definition included the extra for a purpose. B) there are many forms of oxygen; ionized, isotopes, etc. (representing multiple interpretations) so it still lines up with True-fan and Die-hard-fan. the only thing to note is that there is only one basis that must be constant, the amount of protons, which would be like the one thing people can agree one. so the analogy is spot on. and C) Gay=stupid or lame is not a misconception any more than it meaning homosexual. both connotations of the word came about from the actual meaning of the word, lightheartedness. and when you say "modern meanings denote" you can include it meaning stupid or lame, cause gay became known as homosexual in the same way as it became known as lame-stupid, people using the word differently. the most recent meaning of gay is lame or stupid. so if you believe the word should change it's definition to be "modern" then i'm going to use the most recent denotation. if you believe the word shouldn't change from it's origin, then i'm going to use it as lightheartedness. this is a bad example to use. the heaven analogy wasn't bad though. @zan ...i'm glad we came to a conclusion :3

BlindBandit92 @True Eh Like you said we're going in a circle with this. I really don't think my argument had any fallacies really. Yes there's alot isotopes for said elements but you can use facts to discern between then. I haven't seen a fact to really discern true fan from die-hard. Only theories. Excuse me I looked up gay and apparently I was wrong. I didn't know dictionaries have incorporated the slang definition of it since many people were iffy on that definition. So i can say you were right in that regard. I don't agree with comparing isotopes. And my main basis is. There's facts surrounding that subject. Of course there may be theories to a certain extent dealing with isotopes. There's some kind of concrete evidence most times. Name one fact that you have used in discerning a true fan. There's nothing but theories. In isotopes true there's theories but there's also a lot of facts so therefore it should not be applicable. We have not used a single fact directly relating to true fan in this entire discussion. We don't even have a basis or constant that everyone can agree on whereas in isotopes the constant is by your admission. The amount of protons. So the analogy is not spot on anymore than my gay analogy wasn't spot on. I freely admit that might have been a bad choice using the word gay as an example. I have used 7 or so dictionaries online and of the 7. Two dictionaries has the slang term and 5 didn't. So I was wrong because there were some facts to prove said example wrong. Also yes the definition itself included the extra for a purpose but I was clearly using that to emphasize my thoughts on the matter. In my own admission. I said: "It doesn't necessary mean there's some opposition. It's only implied that the die-hard will do anything even IF faced with obstacles so therefore my definitions of what a die hard fan is correct and yours is also correct. The obstacle is not absolute. It's simply a what if but it also shows (Like I said) the fan will do anything.will be loyal,etc. Different dictionaries will produce slightly different explanations of a word. " And by going back on this. I can nullify my argument with gay mainly because of this: "Different dictionaries will produce slightly different explanations of a word." You used an example that's fact based with theories that can used as inferences. There's a lot of isotopes that people have agreed with each other and had no further debate with the constitution of the isotopes. Even with the other forms and types of oxygen. There's some conclusion to be made about some types whereas others are still up for debate. But there is a constant. You said a die-hard fan must have to go through an obstacle to be considered die-hard. I have found a dictionary meaning to disprove that. So therefore that is an inference based a certain meaning but that isn't the only meaning of said word. And if the heaven analogy was somewhat applicable to this. That means different meanings can still have legitimacy. There's really no real constant basis that everyone can agree on other than the fact that everyone will have different inferences. But that alone doesn't prove or disprove the existence of true fan. I guess you could say I am agnostic towards true fan. I am not saying completely it doesn't exist but I am saying I don't see any data to prove it to exist. If there was a definite constant with true fan then I would consider the legitimacy of said term. We might have to just agree to disagree because there's points that we both disagree and agree with.

zanhar1 Right, honestly it's refreshing to finally have just had a nice, friendly debate with no personal insults--or any insults at all actually.

BlindBandit92 ^Indeed. Debates can only occur if two people are willing to talk about something without insults. if insults occur then it turns into an argument.

zanhar1 ^ Pretty much though. And it's annoying how many people just have to throw insults.

True-Finn-Fan @Blind: The periodic table thing was just an analogy. not to be directly compared in every aspect, no analogy is perfect. the comparability is only done to show the relative-ness of the scenarios, also i used it to say it "Represents" inferences. they aren't actually linked by fact. there are no facts in discerning any fan, since we are unable to prove them because we can't see the person's true loyalty and opinions. Anybody can put up an act on anything, convincing or not, unless we are them, we can't ever be certain. but the benefit of the doubt is always in the higher quadrant. agree to disagree doesn't answer the question or solve the problem, it just ends the conflict in perceptions of solving the problem. but i can live with that since the matter isn't important in anyone's eyes.

BlindBandit92 ^There are some perfect analogies. That isn't completely correct lol but ya agree or disagree won't solve the problem and it does end the perceptions of solving the problem but depending on how,why and when that certain statement is used people can still come to an understanding. And I agree. Plus the main reason of starting a debate with you was to see your opinion about this sort of thing. It was never to deviate your opinion to my personal one. So in that regard I have what I wanted. But anyways. It was fun debating with you. It's not often I find cool people to debate with.

True-Finn-Fan ^^^*writes the word "insult" multiple times on paper* *crumples paper up and throws it away* I've been throwing "insult"s all day. ^^^^debates are "this is the best solution/answer to this question/problem, your solution is not" conversations (basically conversing over multiple, possible correct answers), arguments are "i'm right your wrong" conversations (basically conversing over 'one' possible correct answer). that's what my History teacher told me. debates can be just as low as arguments though, regardless of "formalities." It's just that we typically use the terms interchangeably based on perception. but this was a pleasant debate.

zanhar1 [i]*writes the word "insult" multiple times on paper* *crumples paper up and throws it away* I've been throwing "insult"s all day.[/i] :'D No, no you take that out of the trash, I was using it. *takes paper out of the trash and hangs it on the wall* I'm just gonna let these insults hang here.

TBUGoth I'm a Phantom of the Opera Phan and I have seen exactly what your talking about. http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/the-phantom-of-the-opera/picks/results/1346369/phan-thinking-christine-should-chosen-erik http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/the-phantom-of-the-opera/picks/results/1225997/film-version-poto-closely-following-leroux-novel http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/the-phantom-of-the-opera/picks/results/1209362/how-important-poto-life http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/the-phantom-of-the-opera/picks/results/1209001/gruesomeness-phantoms-deformity-versions http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/the-phantom-of-the-opera/picks/results/1208997/phan-loving-kays-phantom-hating-phantom-manhattan http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/the-phantom-of-the-opera/picks/results/1208965/phan-hating-dario-argento-version http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/the-phantom-of-the-opera/picks/results/1208948/phan-having-whached-all-versions-poto http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/the-phantom-of-the-opera/forum/post/36187/title/taking-pride-fandom http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/the-phantom-of-the-opera/articles/30349/title/how-better-phantom-phan-fanpop-member-rant The crazy thing is people are creating social hierarchies around other people's thoughts. Without mediums to help us access media that's what it would be. It is like religion except the issue isn't "is it real?" The issue changes from fandom to fandom, and the issue changes over time. Attempting to change people's thoughts lead to the Holocaust, and most recently the ISIS attacks on Paris. I to have unique views based on life experience. http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/the-phantom-of-the-opera/articles/230865/title/tbugoths-analysis-love-never-dies despite my effort to make it make sense, it didn't. http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/the-phantom-of-the-opera/picks/results/1372249/love-never-dies But the thing that most gets on my nerves is when people say Christine is weak because she believes Erik is the "Angel of Music" sent by her dead father. I happen to have a dead Dad, and someone had to tell me there was no such thing as Santa at age 13. However when asked about it in poll form; http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/the-phantom-of-the-opera/picks/results/1256223/father-who-loved-died-told-hed-send-angel-music-wouldnt-believe-erik-wen-angel-pf-music most said yes. I guess what I'm trying to say here is Fanpop has many different formats to express your views so if one doesn't work try something else.

zanhar1 Exactly, I just don't get why people think that someone will change his/her entire viewpoint because someone else said to do so.

nermai Amazing article! It's really well written and totally true! Nobody must say if somebody is or isn't a true fan of something. Every person has his/her personal way to love things. And, as you say, being a true fan isn't being a total addicted to something and loving every part of it. And about the villain thing and the shipping, the same. I am usually a villain's fan; in some shows/films I think they are more interesting than the "good characters", and because of this I'm not less fan than anyone who loves the good characters and hate the villains! And shipping is free, you can ship anyone you like, and in some cases it happens that you ship the same person in a two different shippings (for example, in Reign I shipped Mary&Francis and Mary&Bash). So, to sum up, everybody is free to do what they like, nobody should tell anyone what kind of fan they are or not. :D

LibelluleBleu I agree with everything

zanhar1 @nermai Why thank you. I totally agree, and everyone should have the right to love something however they love it without being judged. Villains for the win! I honestly never got why people say villain fans aren't real fans; the villains are just as crucial to the book/show/movie as the hero! Without them there's no story. @Libellule Thanks. :D