I’d like to correct my previous statement. :D Marz’s fans can argue that his GL was commercially successful, while JFP is blamed for putting three of the five shows she’s managed firmly on the road to cancellation (with one eventually dodging that fate). Bryne is blamed for mismanaging long-running franchises more often than Marz.

That’s just…

Bwah-hah-hah-hah!

I mean…

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!

OK, OK, I am better now. To even be in a position to make that comparisson, whew. Thanks Lyle, that image is just what I needed.

Now the question is, who’s the John Byrne of Soaps?

Historically, I think it’s been true for decades that Marvel and DC react to downturns in the industry by focussing excessively on their core audience, which is how we came to this position. They’ve driven everyone else away. DC is trying to get out of the box by expanding into different areas; Marvel does seem to be increasingly guilty of producing superhero comics which frankly aren’t very good, and then blaming the fans for “not getting it”.

I think the bigger difference is that female targeted media, like romance novels or soap operas, are less likely to be talked about in the mainstream press the way sports or even comic books are. The fans certainly have opinions, but fewer people in power care about the same things they do (or aren’t ashamed to admit they do), so their opinions are mostly invisible to the rest of the public.

I mean used to fans interacting was a rare thing done mainly through letter columns, fanzines and conventions. So like when meeting that friend or relative out of the blue you try to talk about the really good things you’ve been doing, accentuating the positive.

Now fans can talk to each other on a daily basis, and going “This book is great!” and “Yeah isn’t it?” isn’t quite as interesting as talking about things you don’t like and ‘debating’ the minutia.

So buying comics that has things a fan doesn’t like, can probably be (at least subconsciously) more entertaining than only buying one they’ll like. Because you might get 5 minutes of enjoyment out of the comic you like, but hours of yelling about one you don’t.

(Which yes, boils down to fans can be idiots at times, who deserve the scorn tossed at them.)

Oh and on the other thing. At least the premise I got got from the commercials, never watched the show, of Felicity seemed a bit scary to me. Because if you switched that up with a guy doing what she seemed to be doing, and it would have been looked at very differently I think.

I think that depends a lot on how we are defining “stalker”, and what era of TV/Movies we are talking about. Is Kitten’s crush on the boy next door or girl’s screaming for Ricky Nelson “stalking” or merely “fandom”? Do you have to go all “Fatal Attraction”, break into their Coneticut house while they are away, or is it just enough to send unwanted gifts or e-mails?

My first thought, based on nothing but gut, is that there are more female “stalkers”, sending letters professiong love and engaging in rich detailed fantasies of a non-existent relationship. (And even then I would only say 60/40, or at the most 70/30.) However, it’s the male stalkers, more prone to “ownership” fantasies and violence that get mentioned because, well, someone ends up dead. (And note that it isn’t just young actresses who get killed, but also male guitar players blamed for breaking up a favorite band.) Where do we really draw that line between “Secret Admirer” and “Stalker”? Violence is certainly on the far side of the line, but is that where it starts?

(And of course this is in and of itself a sexist analysis, assuming that women are less likely to make death threats. I certainly wouldn’t bet my life on it.)

Yeah. Good times…

Hang out in the right places and you will.

(On a more serious note, outside of Soap Operas and “feeling fresh” commercials, is *any* aspect of Pop Culture that is “Female Targeted”? Even Spears and Cosmo are about trying to make women be the women that men want. It’s pretty easy to say you aren’t abusing your power when you aren’t given any…)