I’m Your Number One Fan
As human beings, we each have a need to want to connect with something, whether it is a television series, comic books, bands/musicians, or films. As a result, it is only inevitable for individuals with a shared interest to form groups, or “fandoms” to discuss just why they love what they love, how it makes them feel, or the general direction the thing they admire is moving towards. This is fulfilling a human need for connectivity, where we may flock together based on these shared interests, and interact with one another, sharing ideas and (potentially) arguing about the meaning of certain elements of their interest. However, there lies a thin line that has been unfortunately crossed many times, where those “devoted fans” begin taking on new roles within these fandoms, and begin to threaten either the rest of the community, or even the very thing they came to love. Based on my research and connections to real-life examples, I found that toxic and obsessive fan culture has, thankfully, not damaged the nature of creativity nor the production efforts of creators… Though it certainly has shed light on the darker side of this culture that we try to ignore and push away.
What I discovered was this string of events that seemingly had no relation to one another, and were nothing more than instances in history (recent and past) of people taking their love “to the extreme,” or becoming downright obsessed. However, I invite you to play this game of connecting the dots with me, and string along this pattern into a painting that captures both the innocence and the insanity that exists in the world of fandoms. From Benito Mussolini to David Mark Chapman, we will be going in deep, so please strap in, and feel free to challenge these ideas. It is my hope, however, that you may begin tugging at the strings of some of the things you have seen in the world of fandoms and celebrity culture, and may begin to paint your own picture with them. That being said, it is important to start at the beginning and see what attracts people to the darker side of society, and see just how people can be persuaded into siding with a voice that is reason to them, but insanity to us.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s book “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present’’ describes the process by which Facist authorities have taken power throughout history, and features players such as Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Silvio Berlusconi, and even Donald Trump. I hope many of you agree with me in saying that what these individuals had to say was arguably unpopular, and
drove many people to even feel the need to leave their own countries due to the fears they had for speaking out against these powerful figures. However, what remains to be the most common thread that I picked up between these figures is that they spoke for the disenfranchised. Those that had felt their voices were not heard for so long, and had received the short end of the stick, had finally found someone to look up to that would fight on their behalf, and ensure that they were finally heard. Ben-Ghiat refers to these groups of followers as “personality cults,” seeing as how they formed around the personalities of these “heroes.”
Many of these future rulers were also the victims of silencing, as when Hitler had reached Germany to begin spreading his ideas from “Mein Kampf” in 1924, he “[h]ad no live audience, since his hate speech had gotten him banned from public speaking,” with his own propaganda claiming he had been “muzzled by the ‘crooks and fat cats’” (Ben-Ghiat, 2020). Ironically, this almost gave his views more legitimacy from his devoted followers and outsiders, as Hitler had framed this censorship as a means to prevent men (like Hitler) from ever speaking out, or from “speaking the truth.” I’m sure that some of his current fans may even call Adolf Hitler “based”. The fact remained, however, that Hitler had won over the hearts of many individuals, with his conviction and beliefs that what he said was the truth, and that he wanted to return to a nostalgic time in history. Fast-forwarding to the 1990s, Silvio Berlusconi (who had arguably attempted to bring Italy back to a period of Fascist-like ideology) had claimed that “Il Duce [Benito Mussolini] was the greatest statesman of the twentieth century,” showing just how lasting the impact these individuals have had in shaping society, and how their beliefs were still trying to be carried out decades after we’ve reflected on the evil they have brought.
Now, I can see how many of you readers are wondering just how (for example) a Subreddit criticizing Star Wars for their choice of increased diversity can possibly be connected to Benito Mussolini. Well, to you, I would say that we must focus on the bigger picture instead. We have to see these events not as “leading up to each other” or influencing one another, but rather individual dots that we can connect. I would say that the findings from “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present” do an excellent job in both showing how these unpopular opinions may gain legitimacy through them being censored, as well as how the ideas shared between “strongmen” may continue to be passed down over time, until we have modern-day examples. Ben-Ghiat uses Donald Trump as a modern-day example, saying that he had in fact used some of the same tactics performed by figures like Mussolini. For instance, Trump has many times played the victim with claims “[t]hat a mainstream press dominated by liberals and the left conspires to silence him, but has tried to shut out journalists he sees as critics…” and even saying (about the journalists he claimed spread “fake news”) “[t]hat these people should be executed. They are scumbags.”
With this in mind, let us now move onto a topic of discussion I feel is very key to understanding the psychology that goes into these “personality cults,” and this will bridge into my discussion of how the lines between “fan” and “obsession” are crossed. The main premise of para-social relationships is that we as viewers begin to develop these subconscious relationships with the people we see and hear on either the radio and television. We quite literally believe that we are being spoken to directly, and that we have actually built a relationship between these individuals. It is actually why political scientists believe that many people who had voted for Donald Trump (with already similar beliefs) became so devoted to the President, having this almost “cult-like” behavior that even after his loss in the 2020 election, many of his “followers” are still waving his flags and waiting for his “return.” Not only are these relationships formed with politicians, they are also formed with the people we hear and listen to on TV, which leads me to my next point of how we may enter this world of “obsession” and insanity because of these parasocial relationships.
My first example is that of the 1981 failed assassination of President Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley Jr. The motives behind this assassination attempt range from political advocacy, to just plain bizarre, as mentioned in Mark Duffett’s “Understanding Fandom: An Introduction to the Study of Media Fan Culture.” To better explain the theory posed in Duffett’s book, we also have to explain the premise of Martin Scorsese’s 1976 film Taxi Driver, in which the character Travis Bickle (played by Robert DeNiro) actually attempts to assassinate a political candidate, but also befriends a child prostitute named Iris (played by Jodie Foster), eventually killing the pimps that had forced her to become a prostitute. Hinckley had been a fan of the film, and formed a parasocial relationship with Foster in the process, leading to him writing to her numerous times. What many believe (including Mark Duffett), is that Hinckley Jr. had attempted to mimic Binkle by trying to assassinate President Reagan (which would have, as a result, “impressed” Jodie Foster), even saying that this was an “unprecedented demonstration of love,” and she was the “Juliet” to his “Romeo” (according to interviews featured in a biography done on Hinckley).
In response to this insane event, Jodie Foster had actually written a segment on Esquire magazine, in which she detailed the days after Hinckley’s assassination attempt. In it, she describes the disbelief that this stalker had actually done such a thing, and was on her way back to her dorm room at Yale when the University’s dean had called, informing her that upon arresting Hinckley, they found photos and addresses of Foster on his person. “I felt the tears welling up in my eyes. My body started shaking and I knew I had lost control… Maybe for the first time in my life,” (Foster, 1982). What I never knew was the fact that soon after, Foster began receiving more notes from alleged stalkers, some of whom had even threatened to kill her after one of her performances during a University production of “Getting Out.” Foster then goes on to say that because she hadn’t been killed by these supposed shooters, she had been “picked to survive,” and began to fear less for her safety. However, there was one instance she describes in which she was in public, and a photographer had flashed a camera “4 inches” from her face, causing her to become terrified and slip on ice, resulting in the photographer to laugh and shout “I got her! I got her!” as Foster lay on the ground crying.
This next case I wish to discuss is (I argue) even more disturbing than the Hinckley case. In 1993, Ricardo Lopez (better known as “The Bjork Stalker”) began his obsession with the Icelandic singer seemingly innocently; doing research on her, sending her fan mail, and even calling her his “muse.” However, this story soon turns down a much darker path, as Lopez had soon been sending countless letters to Bjork, and eventually began recording hour long video diaries claiming the importance Bjork has played on Lopez’s life, and saying that he wishes he could travel back to the 1970s and befriend Bjork as a child. Soon however, Lopez discovers Bjork’s romantic relationship with another singer (Goldie), causing Lopez to become enraged, and wanting to “make an impact” on Bjork. This led to Lopez sending the singer a letter bomb containing sulfuric acid to her London apartment on September 12th, 1996.
Thankfully, the plan failed, and police responded to a report of a terrible odor coming from Lopez’s apartment days later. When they arrived, they found Lopez dead after committing suicide by shooting himself, along with all of his videotapes, with the last one being a recording of Lopez painting his face red, shaving his head, confessing his plans about the letter, and killing himself, with Bjork’s song “I Remember You” ending just as he shouts “This is for you” and shoots himself. Following the tapes’ discovery and police viewing them, they quickly contacted Scotland Yard and informed them about Lopez’s letter, and quickly intercepted it and diffused it. Upon learning about what Lopez had planned, Bjork increased security presence around her family (especially her son) and even wrote to Lopez’s family, describing the sorrow she feels for their son’s death, and that one man could fall so deep into absolute madness. In a statement to the press, Bjork goes on to mainly discuss the sadness she feels for Lopez and his family, and almost dismisses many of the press’s questions about how the event has impacted her. What I find most disgusting, however, is that in a video of her first public appearance after the incident, her voice is almost completely drowned out while making a statement by the snapping photographers that had mobbed her apartment waiting for her to come outside.
My final instance of a “fan” breaking that line into obsession is that of David Mark Chapman, who was the man that had shot and killed John Lennon on December 8th, 1980 outside of his Manhattan apartment. There are many theories as to why Chapman had murdered Lennon, one of the most popular being that Chapman had no longer respected Lennon, and viewed him as a phony for various reasons (hidden resentment for breaking up the Beatles perhaps?) However, another theory states that Chapman simply wanted to become a historic icon; the next John Wilkes Booth if you will. According to Mark Duffett, “When Lennon was shot it meant that the 1960s died: the assassination marked a turning point between naive counterculture optimism and a new era of materialism.” What’s ironic is that the devoted fans of John Lennon and the Beatles quickly took form in fighting any attempts to give Chapman a fair trial, with Chapman’s first attorney having to resign as his attorney due to the number of threats he received, and police received calls for a public lynching of Chapman. Years later, Chapman has still not received parole (despite Hinckley Jr. having received it in 2016), still being deemed too criminally dangerous to this day.
Where this case may differ (and some of my readers may point out) is that some speculate that Chapman never really was a John Lennon fan, and that he only posed as a fan to get close to Lennon during an autograph signing earlier that day before killing him. It is an interesting idea, as it would solidify the opinion that he had simply murdered the former Beatle to become this icon of fame and notoriety that he had received, fulfilling the dreams that he may or may not have had (along with other would-be celebrity killers). I believe that Chapman had absolutely been influenced by the idea of becoming famous as a result of assassinating such a prolific figure in society as John Lennon, vs any other star present at the time. It seemed the stars had aligned perfectly, as the statement provided by Duffett on Lennon’s death as being “the end of the 1980s” is an almost too perfect result from the actions of a man with a gun (and possibly a copy of J.D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye).
I promise we are now concluded with our disturbing area of research, though I invite you to further explore other instances of “fans” going beyond the bounds of others. I hope I have done a somewhat acceptable job in helping to connect the dots on these isolated events, showing them more as a bridged set of islands. We’ve discussed how people may be attracted to the more dark side of society, and adapt beliefs that are deemed as unpopular or “toxic.” For this discussion, we will be traveling to the 2000s. I wish to bring up two examples of just how toxic fandoms may impact celebrities today, especially with the prevalence of social media and the internet, as well as what it may mean for the future.
My first example is that of Ahmed Best, who had played Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, and all future Star Wars films involved in the prequel series, as well as episodes in Star Wars: The Clone Wars television show. The character of Jar Jar has long been surrounded by controversy, as there are many views as to why audiences hated the character, ranging from general annoyance, to being a harmful stereotype of African Americans. However, what resulted from Best’s role as Jar Jar, was a storm of hate mail directed toward him, as well as director George Lucas, describing both hate of the character, and desires for harm on both Best and Lucas, including death threats. Internalizing this hate and anger, Best had unfortunately attempted suicide as a result of this hate, for a role that he was paid to play, and really did not have a say in. Thankfully, in recent years, fans of the series came together and provided support for Best, apologizing for the actions of those who directed their hate toward the actor, and Best has thankfully regained confidence in his ability as an actor, and is currently the host of a Star Wars themed game show.
While that example thankfully has a “happy ending,” the next one, unfortunately, has yet to be resolved. Another Star Wars alumni, Kelly Marie Tran was cast as the character Rose Tico in Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Combined with poor writing and other complaints, the character of Rose was very unpopular with viewers, though much of the toxicity emerges from the fact that many people claimed this was an example of “Kathleen Kennedy shoehorning diversity into Star Wars.” Again, rather than directing the frustration and hate toward the writers or production team, fans instead took to Tran’s social media, directing all of their hate and anger toward the actress, sending her numerous death threats. It had unfortunately led to Tran’s exit from social media, and she has yet to reappear online, though her recent role as Raya in Raya and the Last Dragon will hopefully provide the actress with her much deserved recognition and support as a talented actress.
We have really touched upon many examples, and yet, we are left wondering just what that “impact” is that I mentioned at the beginning of this paper. Well, I’m wondering the same thing. Hate mail seems to have evolved today into “hate DMs,” which can be blocked and ignored. When many fans complain that producers of their favorite shows or films are “fanjacking” to appeal to larger audiences, this is justified by the fact that having more fans is the only way to sustain a series through its numerous spin-offs and franchising efforts. The “insane fandoms” of today that I thought I would be able to expose don’t really seem to have much effect on the stars and artists of their favorite bands or productions, and many seem more than willing to pose for a selfie with the person wearing a t-shirt with their picture on it.
The real impact I can see, however, is a much more internal one. I believe that artists and celebrities may now fully see the impact they have on these fans, and just how far some of them are willing to take their obsessions. They see just how devoted some of them can be, and becoming a household name can almost solidify your place as an icon in every home. It is how figures like Donald Trump and Benito Mussolini were able to gather listeners and crowds of up to the thousands, and how many celebrities are able to have tens of thousands of fans purchase their merchandise.
Let’s end this on a positive note! To summarize my research, I thankfully did not find examples of artists and creators bending to the wills of some of their more “unhealthy” fans, who share opinions that we as average listeners would not agree with. The overall production value of content we watch and consume is not corrupted by some of the darker opinions of certain fans, nor is it necessarily an influence when developing new content for fans new and old. However, the darker side of fan culture is a real thing that while many would scoff at and simply ignore, is something that we must tackle. Whether or not these individuals truly believe half of the things they say, or if they simply wish to stir controversy for the community, it is something that has been ignored for far too long. Ignoring this problem only leads to its continued growth, and having creators address these things may lead to fans feeling brave enough to call these individuals out, and perhaps even lead to a much less toxic fan community and culture.
Work Cited
Ben-Ghiat, Ruth. (2020). Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Duffett, Mark. (2013). Understanding Fandom: An Introduction to the Study of Media Fan Culture. Bloomsbury Academic.
“More than just a tweet: The unconscious impact of forming parasocial relationships through social media.” Parvati, et al. APA PsycNet. (2020).
“Star Wars: Jar Jar Binks Actor Ahmed Best Considered Suicide.” BBC News, BBC, 4 July 2018, www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-44708983.
“Why Me?” Foster, Jodie. Douban. (1982).