Glee: What we can learn about fandom through the “Fandomspotting” podcast

Yesterday the weekly live podcast show “Fandomspotting” aired an episode about Glee (entitled “Better Than Regionals!”) with a panel of interesting guests, all of whom consider themselves Glee fans:

The show has been archived on YouTube, and a transcript has been created by some of the listeners.

Thanks to European-friendly timing, I was able to listen to the show live, which resulted in my first time of liveblogging over on Tumblr. Now that I’ve had the chance to revisit the recording and transcript, I’d like to follow up on that with some further thoughts.

First of all I have to say that I was expecting something completely different from this podcast. I expected conversation about Glee fandom, by the selected media professionals and/or fandom experts. I was hoping to hear interesting comments on how Glee works compared to other shows/formats, how it tells its stories, how fandom reacts to Glee (e.g. are there favorite tropes in Glee fanfic?) and how that ties in with fandom/creators interaction, and maybe even a brief summary of the most popular fandom hot button issues.

This is unfortunately not what we got (with some notable exceptions).

What we did get was more or less a repetition of the same debates that have raged ever since Glee fandom became a thing, plus some spoiler-based speculation about the next episode (Sadie Hawkins, 4×11) and general fantasies about the Glee the panelists would like to see.

Perhaps I should have paid more attention to the announcement that claimed that “no one loves to hate their favorite show like Glee fans,” and invited listeners send their “questions and comments—snark and screaming encouraged!—because this week’s panelists are ready for the fray,” (bolding mine) because that sure sounds more like Jerry Springer than like a thoughtful discussion amongst fellow fans…

But let’s look at some parts of the conversation in more detail.

When the panelists first gave their opinions on Season 4 of Glee, I was surprised to find out that one of them (Catherine) clearly didn’t even like the show as it is right now (she later said she much preferred the first thirteen episodes [2]), and another one (Tamila) hadn’t even watched anything after Makeover (4×03) [3]. That seemed odd for a podcast that was explicitly about fandom, and not about the show.

As the discussion went on, it became clear very quickly that there are two different approaches to watching Glee that were represented by one or more of the panelists (and all of the panelists actually represent parts of the larger Glee fandom here) [4]:

  • Some Glee fans (here most obviously Tamila and Catherine) believe that Glee’s goal is (or should be) to show an ideal world with many happy LGBT characters and same-sex couples, and to generally celebrate diversity. These fans often foreground one kind of main interest (e.g. LGBT issues, or gender, or race, or disability) and blame everything that doesn’t relate to that main interest for taking away time from what they believe is the most important aspect of Glee. They also tend to demand unambiguous “heroes” and “villains,” believe that the show should transport a clear moral, and think that offensive statements/actions by characters should always be contradicted within the text. They often expect trustworthy narration, tend to take Glee at face value, and focus mainly on the parts of storytelling that take place in dialogue and in center-stage action on-screen.
  • Other Glee fans (here most obviously Racheline) believe that Glee depicts the terribleness of the world as it is, with the promise of “a happy ending at the end of the tunnel.” They tend to be interested in the intersections of “otherness” in various characters (e.g. being LGBT and a person of color, being female and disabled), even if the show focuses an explicit storyline on one of these aspects only (which may not be their own personal main interest). They believe that the world shown in Glee is fundamentally unfair, that narrative/poetic justice won’t necessarily happen, that all characters are morally ambiguous, and that the main goal of Glee is interesting storytelling (instead of public service announcements or the presentation of a better world). They also assume that what seems to be the storyline of any given episode may in fact not be what that episode actually is about (see the podcast parts about the “lesbian blogger” comment in Glee, Actually [4×10]). They often consider non-verbal elements (e.g. props, sets, costumes, or background action) and implied off-screen action to be a fundamental part of how Glee tells stories and believe that the show’s creators assume a culture-savvy viewer with a lot of pre-existing knowledge, especially about but not limited to past and present LGBT culture and musical theater.

If there was any doubt left: my own approach to Glee falls firmly into the second camp, so this colors my opinion of Glee and this podcast. Like anyone else, I am no objective observer. I believe that Glee is a smart show that assumes smart viewers who are willing and able to look (at least) twice, do their research, and understand intertextuality as one of the ways to produce any kind of culture these days (no matter whether they can talk about it in fancy university-speak or not) [5].

If we look at most of the debates that repeatedly rage through Glee fandom as debates between these two approaches (and shades and variations of them), it might be easier to understand why we keep saying that “we are all watching a different Glee.” Because we are. Because depending on our expectations, Glee shapeshifts from a horribly offensive show with some terribly botched storylines and a ton of serious issues about the depiction of women, people of color, people with disabilities, etc. to a brilliantly intertextual show with amazing micro-continuity, a ton of inside references to LGBT culture that fly right under the radar (or over the heads) of any potential censors, and a spectacularly diverse cast of characters, none of whom actually is a stereotype (no matter how much they seemed to be one at first). And very often, all of this is true at the same time.

And since so much of this seems like Reception Theory 101 [6] and general basic Literary Theory [7] to me (yes, I have an academic degree in this area), I can’t finish this post without saying how bitterly disappointed I was that a “fandom academic” (Catherine), who has written her doctoral dissertation on fanfiction of all topics, didn’t seem to be able to apply any of these things to Glee. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t expect a conversation in academic jargon (of which I’m actually not particularly fond anywhere), but I did expect academic ideas about cultural “texts” and their reception to influence her private fandom and her public discussion of a show like Glee. I did expect someone with an academic degree in these areas to be able to at least wonder if maybe Glee is the way it is (and always has been) on purpose, and if so, what that might mean for watching it. But the only person who actually did any of that (and did it well) was Racheline.

I also would like to say that I found it upsetting to hear Tamila (who, remember, hasn’t even watched any of the seven episodes that have aired after 4×03) first demand “evidence” from Racheline for a claim she made about the development of the character of Blaine Anderson in this season (a claim which she has already written about on her blog and for which she could have offered plenty of supporting data from the show) and then basically prevent her from saying anything about this at all. I also found it upsetting that the moderator (David) just let this happen and then immediately switched topics [8].

This, together with Catherine’s claim that “Will Schuester getting really really drunk, ripping off all his clothes, running screaming down the halls of McKinley and finally molesting a student like he’s so desperate to” was her “fondest dream for [future] Glee” and her and Tamila’s interruptions of Rae’s explanation why she thinks Glee needs to stay at least partially in Lima to share their hate of Finn left a really bad aftertaste for me about a podcast that was otherwise mostly calm and respectful in tone.

All in all, I found the podcast an interesting example of existing conversations in fandom (that I now get to analyze – yay!), rather than a source of new thoughts about aspects of Glee or Glee fandom.

Mostly, however, I mourn all the contributions we didn’t get from this group of people, and I’m afraid the moderation is mostly to blame for that [9]. I know that a lot of the conversation in Glee fandom happens around speculation and spoilers and favorite episodes/characters/songs/relationships. I know that these are all easy conversation starters and/or ways to make sure everyone can contribute something (and all listeners can relate to something). So I’m all for having some elements of that in a podcast like this. But why have experts/professionals (who are also fans) on a show like this when they don’t get to be experts/professionals? I would have loved to hear how everyone’s work (paid or volunteer) influences their way of being a fan. I would have loved to have some input from their different areas of specialty (academic fan studies, professional media work/writing, involvement with huge fandom projects and charity). I would have loved to hear how their different perspectives impact how they perceive Glee fandom at large. And I’m very sad to say that I consider most of this podcast a waste of the potential and knowledge and experience every single panelist brought to the table [10].

So this is my wish for future rounds of conversation amongst different kinds of Glee fans: Let’s not be satisfied with the smallest common denominator of topics. Let’s not consider our vastly different backgrounds and experiences of Glee a hindrance. Let’s not repeat the same old conversations that we have already had a hundred times on Tumblr in other fan-made media. Instead, let’s be curious about each other. Let’s find out what story each of us has to tell and what we can teach each other about how life (and Glee) looks from where we stand (or sit, or lie, or dance). Let’s take closer looks at aspects of Glee that help people understand how its intertextuality works and how its non-dialogue storytelling adds so much depth and nuance to the show. Let’s talk more about what we love about Glee. And if we don’t particularly love Glee at any given point, then let’s talk about what we love about Glee fandom and its products. And if we criticize things about Glee (as we also should!), let’s do so in a way that doesn’t assume there is only one right way of telling a story or getting a message across to an audience. And if there’s really nothing to love anymore about Glee and its fans, then maybe let’s go and watch Teen Wolf instead [11]?



[1] I’m going to refer to the podcast participants by their first names from now on, because not all of them have given their last names and I don’t want to create hierarchies that way, and also because they addressed each other by first names on the podcast.

[2] Episodes 1×01 to 1×13 were produced in a block before any audience reaction could happen and influence the show. Later Glee episodes were and are written and filmed only a few weeks before airing, with some scenes being shot a lot closer to the air date. Because of this, the “First Thirteen” are often considered a different kind of Glee than everything that followed them.

[3] Please keep that firmly in mind when you consider her plentiful comments about later episodes.

[4] My explanation of these approaches is of course simplified, and there are probably many shades of the two as well as paradoxical combinations of the two. I don’t mean to imply that any of the panelist’s opinions are as unambiguous as my summary. In summarizing these two approaches, I’m also extrapolating not only from what has been stated in the podcast but also from what I have seen on Tumblr in the past six months of my own active participation in Glee fandom.

[5] Of course I know that this is not an accurate description of the average (read: very casual) Glee viewer. I also acknowledge that Glee (like any other cultural product) works differently when looked at only once. But none of the Glee fans who come together on Tumblr (or a podcast about fandom, for that matter) are “average viewers,” and hardly any one of us looks at any given episode of Glee only once (especially not if we also count the massive amounts of gif sets and screenshots that constantly float across our Tumblr dashboards). That said, I wish we would stop assuming that “the average/casual viewer” of Glee is automatically too little involved to understand the complexity of Glee. And that we also stop assuming that young LGBT people are unable to be media-savvy about Glee (especially since many young people are infinitely more familiar with remix culture and finding out shit on the internet than many of us 25+ or 35+ folks).

[6] Basically, reception theory says that a “text” (that is, a book, movie, piece of art, TV series, song, etc.) isn’t just passively consumed and accepted as-is by its audience. Instead, the reader/viewer/listener understands and interprets the meaning of this “text” based on their individual cultural background and life experiences. That means, the meaning of a text is not some kind of “truth” hidden in the text itself, but that the meaning (or rather, meanings) of the text is created in the relationship between the text and the reader/viewer/listener.

[7] Most importantly, deconstructivism, postmodernism/post-structuralism, and queer theory. Please forgive me for this one academic footnote without explanation of these concepts. Some tiny summaries of them (and of course links to further information) can be found in the Wikipedia article on Literary Theory, but to expand on all of them here would completely blow the scope of this post and footnote.

[8] The show went on for almost another fifteen minutes, so I don’t buy the argument of there being time constraints. It also didn’t seem like an undue elaboration of a single point after the panelists spent a huge chunk of time on discussing bisexuality earlier on.

[9] Or possibly the concept of “Fandomspotting” as such. I know too little about how the podcast generally works to judge that.

[10] This is not to say that fans who have more-than-average knowledge/experience in entirely different areas wouldn’t also bring immensely interesting perspectives to such a podcast (personally, I’ve read fascinating comments about aspects of Glee from teachers, singers, fencers, etc.).

[11] Which I haven’t seen a single episode of. Probably because I’m way too happy with Glee and Glee fandom.

9 thoughts on “Glee: What we can learn about fandom through the “Fandomspotting” podcast

  1. This is brilliant, of course, and captures so well my reaction to it, too. I wish the conversation about Glee didn’t always start from some default position of whether or not it’s “any good.” What does it matter if it’s good or bad? What does it mean? And what is its value? That’s what I’d like to see discussed, because that would be fun rather than painful :)

  2. @ slb: That obsession with “is it good or bad?” seems especially pointless since all of us non-casual fans have already decided that Glee is worth spending a lot of time and energy on. So there must be something about it that justifies doing that for us, even if we currently hate the show, right? And that’s what I’m interested in: what about Glee draws us in and keeps us around? There must be so many interesting answers to that question out there, whether they are about a character/ship/storyline that hits home with us, fandom as a community, inspiration for fanart/fanfic, an interest in ways to tell stories on TV, activism around the representation of LGBT people in the media, a source of income as a paid writer, an object of academic research, or some/all of the above. But whatever it is, it will be something intensely personal for each of us. And it will be the reason why each of us cares about this show so much (nd we all do, or we wouldn’t freak out about it to the degree that we do). So let’s talk about this.

  3. Exactly. In fact if we could agree on the following premises, that

    1. The show is worth talking about beyond mere review.

    2. The show may or may not be doing what we think it is, and we should be *curious* about that rather than cynical, and

    3. The show is likable, and admitting that without apology is okay—in fact, encouraged.

    then I think we could move on to the interesting stuff. One thing I noticed, though, is that once you start getting into the interesting stuff, it’s often dismissed, as if the interpretation you have that’s grounded in some evidence of some sort is just “your opinion” on the same level as “it’s good” or “it’s bad.” Even if we don’t see the text the same way, we can still be curious about those views, and that’s still a lot more interesting than discussing what we hate. I mean, we really did get a good example of “hate-watching,” didn’t we? I think that’s only fun, frankly, when Kurt and Blaine do it.

  4. This was such a good read. What we like and what keeps us around are exactly the kinds of conversations I love having, and would love to have more of, when it comes to Glee. There’s really nowhere else to go after “Well, it’s Glee”. I mean, the conversation just stops. And the debates about poor writing are the exact same conversation over and over again.

    But I think what confuses me about the first group of Glee fans you mention is that we’re four seasons into this show. Hasn’t it already shown what kind of show it is? Or specifically, hasn’t it already proven that it’s not the show that gives you reliable narrators, and easy to find villains and heroes? Why keep watching the show hoping it’s going to transform into that sort of program? I think that’s a conversation I’d really like to have with that group of fans. Because maybe there are more interesting reasons if I can just get past the “Bad writing/horrible narration” cry.

  5. @ slb: FWIW, I agree with all three points.

    The only explanation I have for why people think meta (here used as shorthand for the kinds of interesting stuff we detailed above) is “making up random stuff” or “reading too much into it” is that they don’t understand how literary analysis works (because this is what we’re doing here, even if we don’t do it the way it’s done at universities). And then I want to explain it to them because it’s such a great tool and source of enjoyment for me (and maybe could be for them, too?). But, well, not everyone likes things the same way as I do.

    I’m afraid I honestly don’t understand why people hate-watch. I get watching something that’s so bad it’s almost good. I also get watching something you used to like because there’s still a shimmer of hope that it might become that thing you liked again. But watching something despite seriously disliking it? Why do people do that? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

  6. @ poemsingreenink: I’m probably still too new to Glee to even ask that question, but you are absolutely right: Glee never depicted an ideal world (despite all the utter adorableness of Klaine and other occasional moments of “justice” or triumph), presented neat morals to its stories, or any of the other things that traditional “good vs. evil, good triumphs, happy end” stories offer.

    The more I think about it, the more puzzled I am over the expectations some people bring to Glee. It’s like they go, “but it says ‘comedy’ on the package, so why isn’t it funny all the time?!” Which could be a case of advertising gone horribly wrong (or a genius strike by Ryan Murphy & Co that actually enables them to get things on screen that would never pass muster in a straight-up drama on the same network). Or, “but Ryan Murphy said Glee was so LGBT-friendly, so why do they break up Klaine and Brittana?!” Which could be a misunderstanding of what “LGBT-friendly” means for the creators of Glee (and many of its fans, including queer people). Or there could be completely different reasons that I don’t even see, and I’m intrigued to find out more about them. I’m just not sure we’re ever going to have that conversation with fans from the first group. But I’d like to.

  7. I agree with what you’re saying about analysis, and really, people not used to it tend to be skeptical of it, thinking that we’re reading too much into the text. Or alternatively, they think that everything becomes too subjective for their own taste, that well, *anything* can then be said so in some ways, nothing can be said.

    As for hate-watching, I have some theories. One is that there’s a culture of snark online, that it’s safer to be negative and snarky and cynical rather than positive. Because what if you post your positive, honest view only to watch it torn asunder cruelly? Easier to be negative and critical.

    But I think that culture means that some may be negative online, but secretly watch the show, hoping it will be good. They just won’t say it online.

    My last theory is that we’re easily influenced. We go online to see what we should think. At least that’s the opinion of a researcher at MIT, Sherry Turkle, who writes about online culture and community. I used to watch the show and be like, “Oh, that was good!” only to go on TWOP and see everyone bashing it, and then after a while I started reconsidering what I saw.

  8. Yeah. You are really biased and also misrepresenting the critiques made of the show by the panellists you do not agree with.
    Also, the reason certain panellists don’t entertain the idea that Glee is some brilliant, subtle, subversive work of art is probably the overwhelming slew of evidence to the contrary, including people such as the actors stating not-so-subtly in public the issues they have with the show, the music producers admitting that the show is written on the fly, and some of the writers themselves admitting they have trouble remembering the story arcs they have previously written (“We’re trying” – Marti Noxon). Not to mention the nonsensical mess that is the show itself. “Brilliant microcontinuity” is meaningless when the show can’t manage regular continuity and consistency.
    Glee has a plethora of problems, and one of them perhaps is the fans who continue to consume it without ever criticizing just how horrible and offensive it has become.

  9. @ Lee: First of all, everyone in this debate is “biased,” including me and you. It’s a fact of life we have to deal with. And it’s the reason why I choose to be as transparent about my bias as possible, so people can take it into consideration when they read my stuff. It’s also the reason why I gave links to both a recording and a transcript of the podcast, so everyone can go there and compare my arguments with what was originally said.

    Second, I see no contradiction between getting something worthwhile out of a TV show (which I do, and which I will continue to do, no matter how often I’m told that it’s a horrible show) and the fact that it’s made in a different way than other shows are, e.g. because its creators don’t pre-write an entire season (which I said in footnote 2), or the fact that not every writer remembers every detail of every character’s storyline to the degree that obsessive fans like us do (especially not if even major fans frankly admit that they ignore certain characters/storylines, as more than one panelist on the podcast said they do), or the fact that sometimes actors had an understanding of a character that is different from that of the writers (as Darren Criss has expressed early in Season 4) and then they need to adjust their interpretation (which sometimes also goes the other way, as evidenced by the fact that Chris Colfer argued for the Prom Queen scene in S2 to be different than it was originally written and convincing the writers of his take). A character is made what they are by the combined efforts of the writers, actors, and audience. And sometimes there’s disappointment/disagreement when The Powers That Be decide to take a character for a spin that the actor or audience didn’t expect. But, as I said, none of that contradicts the fact that I honestly like Glee as it is, even when it sometimes makes me yell at the screen, and that I find the time I spend with it worthwhile.

    Third, my argument is that Glee is consistent as a show that follows a different set of rules than many other TV shows. That said, of course there have been some “wait, what?” moments for me as well (e.g. Blaine suddenly becoming two years younger between S2 and S3, or certain dropped storylines around Quinn), or I have wondered how a character moved from A to B when it wasn’t shown on screen, but figuring out ways to explain what happened, is part of my enjoyment of the show and my engagement with it. So if someone says they want all major changes to happen on-screen or be spelled out in dialogue, I’d argue that Glee has never done this, and probably never will do this because it’s just not how this show works.

    Finally, of course Glee should be criticized when it messes up (and I said so). But just because we don’t agree on what parts are problematic, or because some of us choose to focus on the things that do work for us and that bring us joy, doesn’t mean that you are right and I am wrong. It just means we approach the show from two different angles, which was one of the major points of my original post.

Kommentar schreiben | Write comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s