Comments on: Avatar Fans: Wanting to dwell in a fantasy isn’t insane

By: Peter Stromberg

Peter Stromberg — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:55:49 +0000

I want to take the opportunity to respond further to this intriguing comment. First, a minor matter: I wouldn’t trace the concern with authenticity to the 60’s, because this is an idea that goes back further to the explicit “modernism” of the early 20th century. (So, for example, it shows up in the Beat literature of the 40’s and 50’s) That may seem like a pedantic point, but I think it may be important because both “authenticity” and 60’s culture are modified forms of Romanticism, a perspective that is friendly to the idea of narrativizing one’s life. In the spirit of discussion rather than disagreement I’d say that the distinction you are trying to draw has to do with fantasies that have some connection to a person’s reality and those that don’t. It reminds me somewhat of what the British psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott labeled the difference between play and fantasy (the latter being a negative term, in his usage). What healthy adults should have, he said, is a capacity for creative play. And he tended to see some of the offerings of modern society—entertainment, drugs, etc.—as failed substitutes for that creative play, substitutes that ultimately led in the direction of addiction and rigidity.

By: Peter Stromberg

Peter Stromberg — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 04:22:17 +0000

There’s a lot of interesting stuff here, although I don’t think I agree with all of it. But certainly I like your point that there is something very appealing, in today’s culture, about fantasizing while convincing ourselves we are not doing so. You are right that this shows up in the fascination with reality TV; where does this come from?

I have more to say about your comment, but I’ll have to think about it. I’m headed out of town for a few days, I’ll probably return to this next week. Thanks for your thoughts.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:51:19 +0000

Isn’t the problem with the fans is the opposite one: rather than fantasizing too much, their problem is their inability or refusal to fantasize/narrativize their everyday lives. In a way, what they really want is Avatar to not be a fantasy, they want it to be a documentary. But, accepting the rough definition of “being in different mental shoes”, then surely the gap between fantasy and reality must be preserved to serve it’s purpose in our lives.

The empiricist idea that this gap represents a fundamental flaw with fantasy should be turned around: that reality does not conform to our fantasy is the fundamental flaw with reality, and this provides motivation and meaning which lets us change reality to approach the fantasy.

I think this also relates to a previous post “Newsweek has it wrong, celebrities are not real” where the author writes that celebrity is a form of art that doesn’t have to create the pretense of reality — the implication is that not having to create the pretense avoids a basic flaw. But I think this echoes the Avatar fan problem – in a way, celebrities are attractive because we want to fantasize that we aren’t fantasizing. There is related cultural phenomena like reality TV shows, memoirs replacing fiction, behind-the-scenes documentaries about movies.

I wonder if this is a sign of a social taboo against pretense and fantasy, a consequence of the 60s emphasis on authenticity, spontaneity, naturalness, against artifice, etc.