Been doing a lot of readings about media analysis and social interaction lately and I'm curious if anyone else thinks there's a difference between being a fan of something and being In the Fandom. To me, being in the fandom necessitates some sort of dissatisfaction with the work that leads to a desire for peer interaction and transformative content. And by sense of dissatisfaction, I don't mean that you don't like the work obviously. Dissatisfaction can be as minor as thinking what if this character was explored more, or I wonder what life on this planet is like, etc. It's just anything in the source material doesn't fully satisfy you that leads you to want to join the fandom. But if the source completely satisfies you and you don't feel any desire to transform it in any way, that just makes you a fan. so like in my opinion if all you want to do is talk canon, then you're a fan of the work but aren't really "in the fandom" per say
sorry to drag you out of the replies @megapocalypse but I totally second this. imo basing fandom off of a framework of dissatisfaction rather than mutual appreciation of the source material sounds.. not fun at all?* like there are a lot of things I read/watch offline and talk about with friends or spend lots of time thinking about in my own time, many of which I don't even consider myself a fan of, much less in those works' fandoms. and I'm rarely 100% satisfied by them - in fact, if we're looking at being in fandom through that lens, some of what I consider the worst things I've ever read/watched are things I'm in fandom for, because I've written analysis, explored ways it could have been different, etc. and I would never consider that the case lol.
of course, transformative work is a huge part of fandom! you can disagree with an authors decisions or just wish you could explore some aspect of a story or character that didn't fit into the canon material, and fandom is perfect for all that. but I guess I just don't see that as being the CORE of fandom. imo, fandom is the community itself, the interaction and engagement with others regarding the source content. whether that's writing/reading fanfic that wildly changes the story or meta analysis that follows canon to an obsessive level, it's all fandom if you're involving yourself in the wider community of fans.
*I recognize that op didn't mean dissatisfaction as in dislike, and maybe this is just getting into semantics, but in my view that idea of dissatisfaction as a desire to explore would not exist in the first place if I didn't enjoy/like the source material. so when I say I think the "framework" of fandom is based on the latter rather than the former, I'm talking about the feelings that inspire someone to cross that boundary between casual fan and someone invested in fandom, not necessarily that both feelings can't ever coexist.
(copies from replies) Yeah [the phrasing of "dissatisfaction"] was on me, someone in the rbs explained much better than me what I was thinking by comparing it to eating a burger (American diaspora win). Like in the essence of a burger and fries could be a satisfying meal that would leave you with no hunger left while just fries would leave you lacking that satisfaction. So I just thought a word that means not fully satisfied -> dissatisfied
I really did not intend for it to be negative in any way honestly. If I were to continue the metaphor I guess it would be like if you ate some fries and were like wow those fries were perfect! But they didn't fully satisfy my hunger. In fact, they made me really hungry for a burger, so I'll make a burger that would complement my enjoyment of these fries. But the burger is fan content and the fries are canon or something you know
I'm gonna put myself fully on the side of Fandom being about social engagement.
Because if we don't do that, we cut out all fandoms that aren't about media, and that just seems like an error. Probably the biggest fandoms in the world are sports and music fandoms, y'know? And those are massively based around shared social connections between multiple fans.
Now, I may still be misunderstanding what OP was talking about, but it sounded to me like the criterion being offered had to do with the original Thing being inspirational in the sense of people wanting to make more of That Thing for themselves (whether through writing or drawing or what have you).
But that's not really how fandoms for sports and such work. (And before anyone says it, RPF fic represents a TINY minority of those fandoms.) Those fandoms are formed around the social connections of people who want to enjoy a thing together, and I think it would be stretching the definition OP offers to a breaking point to say that discussing strategies/talking about games after the fact/etc falls into the same category as transformative works.
I will confess to not know much about how sportsball works, but I would argue that people who are fans of things like sports Are indeed inspired to create more of that experience for themselves-- the difference is that since sports is an industry in perpetuity, there's no real need to produce work in the way that media fandoms do. If you're a fan of the Dodgers, you can see them play basically forever until people stop watching baseball. However, if you're specifically a fan of the retired player Bobson Dugnutt or something like that, then there's no in perpetuity canon experience you can fuel your fannish desires with. But instead, you could make a fantasy league with him or collect his old merchandise or draw fanart or frame baseball cards or play him in FIFA or write a fic about him having wild sex with you or whatever. Social engagement is the biggest part, of course, but that doesn't mean there's no desire for more from the source either-- it's just assuaged already by the nature of the industry.
You can also look at the desires of sports fans from the point of view of someone like Ann Pegoraro specifically investigating online activities, who notes that what many sports fans crave is interaction with their idols. You can also see this in bandoms as well-- the "canon extended" content you could say people want to see is anything outside of games or albums or whatnot. They want more information about the source (players biographical information), like people in say an anime fandom also want more information about their source (world building).
This sort of connects to another theory about otaku by some academic I forget the name of which argues that the driving force for otaku is to create a database of knowledge about the canon in their head, contributing to a grand narrative understanding which they can then draw from to create their own smaller narratives divulged from the whole, except here the compilation of the database is more emphasized and doesn't always lead into the smaller fan-created narrative (at least publicly, who knows what kind of fics middle aged dads are writing in their heads about their team winning the next Superbowl or whatever)