I disagree with the author when he says that the Cliff fandom had a positive impact on its fans. In this case, all people seem dependent on a non-healthy level. People with families that prioritize their fandom before their family, that doesn’t sound quite right.

These fans seem scary. ‘We would pay just to sit and watch him eat his dinner’, that phrase really stroke me.

I have my doubts about skateboarders being still outlaws. Citing Catherine Hardwicke: ‘You can’t help but be attracted to them’, seems weird for outlaws to be an object of attraction. Didn’t skateboarding become something trendy. In my personal experience, back in my primary school, a medium to wealthy private school, the skaters were the trendy ones, and it was a really consumerist thing to do (clothing, shoes, skates, all costs money). In the end of the article these doubts are addressed anyway.

I don’t know if the Sex Pistols reference is appropriate in this case. They were a band from the UK, and I don’t think it’s clear if the realities of US and UK were similar in the 70s. Were the Sex Pistols popular in the US? Could you find something similar to them in the US? Also, let’s not forget that the Sex Pistols were a successful and famous band, and there is ongoing debate as to wether the anti-establishment attitude was spontaneous or was instigated by their manager, McLaren, to have commercial success.

I really liked the idea about the fear for conformity, and how that contributes to our desire to feel at least a little outlaw, with the goal of feeling individuals. The phrase ‘Resolve individuality with belonging’ really stuck into my mind.

I enjoyed the article, especially the last part where he shows ‘Bachies’ criticizing quite irrationally other old musicians.

I completely agree on his idea that there is a disposition towards fandom in some people, who may show fandom towards different and unrelated topics, in contrast to people that are more reluctant to have fandom attitudes in general. This is in relation to people that have addictive predisposition, in opposition of the different substances/activities being the cause of addiction.

About the ‘high class’ or refined vs. ‘low class’ or unrefined fandom:

• First, I think that what is considered a ‘refined’ taste by some, can be considered ‘unrefined’ by some others. As an example, a classic music listener can be disdainful towards a progressive rock listener, who in turn can feel the same with a pop listener. Sometimes, it can be hard to draw a clear line.
• The different words used, fan vs. conoisseur, have clearly different tones. Fan comes from fanatic, a negative word, while conoisseur gives more the idea of an expert, a positive word. By itself, the world ‘fan’ doesn’t denote any kind of expertise in the loved subject. There is obviously an intention in the separation of fan vs. conoisseur.
• Following the previous point, the opposition between ‘high class/culture’ and ‘low class/culture’ in attitude, the reluctance of the ‘high class’ to be called fans, in my opinion stems from an older clash of civilization vs. the savage world. In this case, the ‘high classes’ (that want to be thought of ‘the cultured’) align themselves with the roles of civilizers, of the rationality, while putting the ideas they don’t like on the fringe of irrationality (fanatics). This reminded me of a famous Argentine book.