by Stanley Anderson » January 19th, 2006, 5:49 pm
How about if a fan is simply someone who wants to be a fan, just as a Wardrobian is someone who wants to be a Wardrobian (at least that's how it was in the past before the official designation under a person's screen name with its "x" number of posts requirement)?
I'm not sure there is a lot of benefit to making sure that the label "fan", self-identified or not, is "accurate" by some sort of quantifiable definition. A person's level of interest/knowledge in things Narnian soon becomes apparent by simply being around them and talking or posting about Narnia. Certainly there is enjoyement in being around others of like interests. But for those with more discerning interests at a fairly high level, the word "fan", even with a defined "minimun standard", will not indicate much without indulging in a certain amount of involvment and time with the other person anyway. And for those who care only about the most superficial "I loved the movie" kind of enthusiasm, the "wannabe" definition is perfectly adequate.
So why not allow the more all-encompassing version and be satisfied with it -- the primary purpose of the word, after all, is to act only as an initial "signal-flag" to find others of like interests.
-------------------------
But if one still wants a "workable" definition for "fan", given some of the views in this thread, I suppose one could say that when the bull starts flying, one can identify them by the irriation that develops when the s--- hits the fan:-)
--Stanley
…on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a fair green country under a swift sunrise.