habitually probing generalist

Recently, Dorothea Salo of Caveat Lector used the word ‘fangirl’ in regards to Lorcan Dempsey.  That use got commented on in a few places (it’s all good, Family Man Librarian), and she followed it up here.  I then used ‘fanboy’ the other night in reference to Rory Litwin and then in a comment in reference to Walt Crawford on the same post.

Disclaimer:  I have absolutely no pop culture credit to use such a word.  I get the gist of it (denotation), of course, but I probably misunderstand the connotation(s).

I was basically just riffing on Dorothea’s use.  I was trying to be a bit lighthearted in a rather serious discussion, and maybe trying to feel just a bit more hip than I do on a daily basis.  But truth be told, I don’t consider myself a fanboy of anybody.  I just am not the celebrity or hero worshiping type. 

The closest I get to being a fanboy of a still living person would be with Ani DiFranco.  But that is because I absolutely adore (most) of her music.  It has provided so much meaning in my life in difficult times.  I respect the messages in her songs and the messages she sends by her actions in the world.

Having read a bit more around the web about the use of fanboy/girl and based on comments here, I’d like to offer the following:

First, I don’t imagine you’ll see me using it much anymore.

Second, I am and am not a fanboy.  It all depends on how you parse it.

Here’s Dorothea’s initial comment:

But I got to Lorcan Dempsey’s talk this morning, and he came down, saw my nametag, and shook hands with me, so I’m all fangirly and stuff. (I refuse to feel silly about being a Lorcan Dempsey fangirl, because Lorcan has a posse of CiL fanchildren. I don’t know if he knows it, but he does. I can give him names!)

This is what I initially said about Rory Litwin:

This post was hard for me to write, because while Lorcan Dempsey may have fangirls, you have at least one fanboy (if someone nearing 50 can even be a fanboy).  See the above excerpt on community for why.  And, no, I’m not a fanboy of you per se.  We haven’t yet met.  It is of your "voice" and your intelligent writing.

Here’s part of Walt’s comment at this post:

As for being a fanboy over, oh, 30, I’ve got a good decade on you, and I’ll say it was a considerable pleasure to meet Lorcan Dempsey, for example, although I’m not sure the pleasure would rise to "fanboy" level. (Meeting Tim Berners-Lee might have qualified, if I hadn’t been sharply skeptical in person about one of his pet notions, the Smart Web. It’s hard to be a fanboy when you’re disagreeing with someone…)

Here’s most of what I said in response to Walt:

Heck, I’m a fanboy of you too! But my description of "fan" is probably different than most people’s. I really am not one for celebrity. I could care less about most "celebs," and even those I do care about I don’t need or want to know who they are dating, what their views on some political question is, etc. To me, being a fanboy means that upon meeting someone I admired I probably would end up saying something inane like, "Ooh, I really enjoy your blog," instead of something more meaningful that leads to discussion.

When I met you at the OCLC blogger salon at ALA Annual 2006 I told you I was the one who had sent you a link to the CEA press release …but probably didn’t say much of merit after that.

I certainly meant no disrespect to Lorcan. I wouldn’t describe myself as a fanboy of him, but I DO highly respect him and would love to meet him also.

And while I agree with you that it’s kind of hard to be a fanboy while disagreeing with someone, I’d want to nuance that a bit, because we will always disagree with any specific individual on some topic. Thus, I might want to say something along the lines of the disagreements should not be over substantial areas of why we are a fan in the first place. I think your Tim Berners-Lee example is perfect in this case, and for me it is for the same reason. [Emphasis not in original.]

Walt’s reply:

Hmm. Defining fanboy the way you do, I’d say I was a fanboy at the first Blogger Salon and, to some extent, the second. Lots of smart, interesting people whose thoughts I’ve been reading in what appears to be fairly unvarnished form, and most of whom (not all, but probably 95%!) I can disagree with, without things getting disagreeable. What’s not to like?

Exactly!  What’s not to like about that?

Then Rikhei chimes in (and at this point, you are *not* off topic as this is the turn the comments clearly took):

I’m sorry to get so far away from your original post, Mark, but I am inspired to confess that I am a huge librarian fangirl myself. I’m actually pretty embarrassed by my behaviour at the ALA 2005 bloggers’ salon: I found myself completely unable to utter anything other than "hi" when I discovered myself in the elevator with Roy Tennant, Walt Crawford, and Karen Schneider, and couldn’t bring myself to say even that to most others, including some librarians that I dearly wanted to meet. Strangely, I find this phenomenon almost strictly limited to librarians.

Over the past few days of my non-continuous, mostly partial attention and this morning with a bit more breathing room, I found these:

Alane at it’s all good (Actually I knew about this one last Friday.):

And thankfully, many people blogged his talk about metadata in a Web
2.0 world(on Technorati, use the tag CIL2006 and "Lorcan" and you’ll
find all the mentions) so now I know what he said. Dorothea of Caveat Lector, though, wins hands down, for her remarks. "Fangirly" has been added to my vocabulary.

Here’s Steve Oberg of Family Man Librarian:

And I particularly got tired of the "fangirly" comments about — gush — actually being able to — gush — speak face-to-face with the Library Gods (a.k.a. aforementioned Mr. Dempsey, among others).  Yes, I’m being sarcastic. 

From there, go check out the comments. Some really good stuff by everyone.  Discussion, clarification, and nuance as it should be, and not just about ‘fangirl’ and ‘squee.’

I think Dorothea makes an excellent point, and Steve Oberg agrees:

No worries; I wasn’t offended.

I guess I’m a little disappointed, though. We’re not allowed to be excited about other people in our profession? We can’t admit a thrill at meeting people who shape it?

Sure, squeeing is more than a little sophomoric. But “I deeply respect so-and-so because of her N years doing X…” is BORING. Librarianship has enough of the boring. I don’t think slipping it a little of the squee is a bad thing.

There are, or at least should not be, any rock stars in our profession.  There are people we (as individuals, and sometimes collectively) respect.  It may be for their minds, it may be for their contributions to the field, it may be because they are a warm and decent human being who is happy to give of their time, ….  We should promote these people to each other, we should laud them, we should express our admiration.

But that is a very long way from believing every word they say, it is very different from "luving" them.  It does not mean we’ll become their bulldog the first time someone else criticizes them.

Good Lord, if we can’t appreciate each other in this undervalued profession, then what is left?  I am not a martyr!  I’ll work for peanuts.  I’ll make myself physically and mentally ill for the right mission and boss (well, maybe not again, but I have).  But, dangit, I want a little bit of props once in a while, and I believe that we all do.  We deserve it, and we owe it to each other when it’s honest.

I fully understand what Rikhei and Walt said about the first OCLC Blogger  Salon.  While I may not be embarrassed about my behavior, I would say that I was unhappy with myself.  I did talk to several people, and a few made it far easier than others.  But I also walked around a lot not saying anything to anybody.  And some folks who I did want to talk to didn’t seem very welcoming.  I’m not naming any names and I honestly think that everyone was a decent person.  It’s just that some were more welcoming than others.

But, yes, I definitely had my squee moments there and in a few other places and times in my life.  Then, in others I haven’t.  Part of my problem isn’t necessarily squee, it is often more like I am not worthy to take up this person’s time.  Maybe they would rather be talking to So-and-so….  Silly?  Maybe.  But many of us feel that way when we meet people we admire.

But Rikhei, you really should talk to all of those folks (and more) that you mentioned.  I did not spend a lot of time talking with Walt and Roy Tennant, mainly for the reasons I just mentioned.  As for Karen, well, I found her to be exceptionally warm, easy to talk to, and encouraging.  I actually had several conversations with her.  Maybe the known past military connection helped to break the ice, but she was (is) wonderful.  I really, really wish I could remember (after several glasses of wine) exactly what she said later in the evening when we were discussing "my voice" on my blog.  Heck, I didn’t even know I had one.  She was extremely encouraging and it may have been the highlight of my conference. 

I have no idea if this is ‘squeeing’ or not, as it is another word I shouldn’t attempt to use.  But it is truly heartfelt. 

So, my point?  I see no harm in being a fangirl/boy and maybe squeeing a bit around our peers that we admire.  A little unabashed respect can’t hurt.  Hopefully, though, the object of our admiration will make it easy on us to quickly move past the squee stage to actual dialogue and the sharing of knowledge and interests.

Or to see it put more eloquently, see Dorothea’s followup, "Starchless Blogging."

Sorry about all the meta-blogging.  Just trying to work through some pop culture I don’t fully understand, and trying to rehash an actual conversation that took place out here for once.  If there were others that commented one way or the other that I missed, I’m sorry.  But, honestly, there has been a whole lot of non-continuous, highly partial attention on my part lately due to school/work issues.