I've read a number of blog and journal entries on the so-called "BNF" phenomenon ... arguments as to whether it exists, or attempts to define it, denounce it, or defend it. Despite the democratization inherent to the internet -- and thus, to internet fandoms -- the fact that social groups create hierarchies is well-established. In other words, the phenomenon of BNFs certainly exists, whatever one's personal view of it, good, bad or indifferent.

But I'm not concerned here with addressing questions of its validity or value. I want to take a more forensic approach. What criteria are being used for the assessment of a "BNF"? Confusion over the criteria will (I think) help to explain why there's been little agreement as to what (or rather who) qualifies.

BNF has become the somewhat derogatory if popular acronym for "Big Name Fan" -- high-status fandom figures (usually, but not exclusively, authors). There are also BNFs in "metafandom." Metafandom is a (relatively) recent development, aided by the creation of multi-fandom lists, blogs and LJs, which examines writing and fandom itself, not simply a particular show or book. As such, metafandom is the center circle into which a variety of other fandoms overlap. A BNF in one fandom who crosses over into another may not become a BNF there, although there seems to be a high one-to-one ratio of cross-fandom status (i.e., BNFs in one fandom tend to become BNFs in another). This does, I think, point to a certain consistency of status markers. If there wasn't, such one-to-one ratios wouldn't be found. But the only way to make a truly unbiased assessment of status marker consistency would be to study BNFs who write under different aliases in different fandoms without any apparent connection. The trouble with such a study is that either one accepts anonymous self-report surveys -- which may or may not reflect reality -- or one asks these fans to reveal their "dual lives" ... to which they're unlikely to agree.

In addition, there seems to be a growing group of individuals who may be recognized as BNFs within metafandom, but whose status in their home fandom(s) is less high. To complicate matters even further, we shouldn't overlook the fact that many fandoms -- especially the larger ones -- are divided sharply, and a BNF in one arena may be nearly unknown (or derided) in another.

But however one slices it, the BNF title is a generalized status formed of multiple dimension markers, which are then ranked as to greater or lesser importance. However, there appears to be little firm agreement on the proper ranking of these markers. Likewise, some BNFs have "mixed strata results," producing ambiguous status, or what's called "low status crystalization." That is, high status in one or more dimensions, but low status in others. This creates tension for (and sometimes resentment in) the fan in question.

Status -- or social stratification -- within larger societies are traditionally measured by the following variables (in no particular order):

1) Power (the capacity for achieving desired goals within a social system)
2) occupational prestige (not to be confused with income; ministers and firemen, for instance, are traditionally high prestige, low income)
3) income or wealth (inherited wealth precedes earned income)
4) education/knowledge and/or wisdom
5) religious or ritual purity (applicable in only some modern societies)
6) family position or fame
7) age, gender and/or ethnic background
8) local-community status (evaluation within a subgroup of the larger society)

Not all of these dimensions carry the same weight in all communities (or eras). High status via fame may outweigh ethnicity, family or education. For instance, in modern America, actors may have low educational status or may rank low in terms of family and ethnicity. But the "shine" of Hollywood outweighs other factors when gaining them attention in a social gathering. Sports heros are much the same. Once again, we face low status crystalization. High status in one arena completely overshadowing low status in others. That doesn't mean the other markers don't count; and arguments to that effect are usually attempts to eliminate the tension created by low status crystalization. (In general, human beings dislike tension and seek to eliminate it.)

Now, obviously, the social variables delineated above will not apply in fanfic communities since the internet obscures certain factors, while highlighting others. Moreover, subgroups within the larger society do create additional/different sets of variables. I'd propose the following as dimensions for status determination in fanfic communities. They aren't ranked since (as noted) I haven't seen a great deal of agreement on what the weighting should be.

1) length of time in the fandom (or in fandom generally)
2) contribution to or maintenance of (non-personal) archives
3) contribution to or responsibility for fandom awards
4) maintenance of mailing lists, newsgroups, newsletters, or discussion boards
5) frequent (positive) contributions to mailing lists or newsgroups (including public feedback)
6) frequently cited LJ or blog contributions to metadiscussions
7) number of fanfic awards won
8) amount of public feedback received on lists, or number of reviews on archives like ff.net, etc.
9) number of persons on an individual's fanfic mailing list (e.g. Yahoogroups, etc.)
10) size of "friend of" list on LJ
11) number of citations on recommendation pages and in LJs/blogs
12) 'real-life' age (if revealed)
13) whether one writes 'slash, het or gen' (which ranks higher is fandom-specific)
14) ability to complete complex and lengthy works
15) power to sway opinion within a fandom or to create of seminal elements of 'fanon'
16) contributions in artistic website design and photomanipulation

Notice that I didn't put the amorphous "ability to write." Beyond clean grammar and spelling, what "ability to write" means is not clearly agreed upon, though part of the whole "BNF" question involves validation of one's ability to write, and concrete markers are sought as proof -- frequency of recommendations, awards won, citations in LJ discussions, numbers on personal mailing lists ... these are all quantifiable markers.

Yet that is -- you all realize -- the ultimate problem with applying status markers in matters of art ... quantifiable variables determine status in an area of aesthetics -- which raises the question of "popularity" versus "quality"... the old saw that what is popular can't be good. Yet popularity and quality aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Euripides, Terrence, Shakespeare, Twain, and Dickens were all immensely popular writers in there own eras as well as recognized as masters of their art. Nonetheless, artistic skill isn't mathematically quantifiable and we shouldn't fall into that trap.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But community status is a social phenomenon, and ultimately determined by collective social opinion. Nonetheless, I think it very important to point out the discrepancy. The BNF is -- ultimately -- a social marker, not an artistic marker. A BNF may also be a good writer ... or she/he may not. There are exceptional writers who are not BNFs. And there are (at least, imo) some BNFs who aren't particularly good writers. ;>

In any case, high status crystalization would follow for an individual who could claim high rank in a majority of the variables listed above. Low status crystalization would occur if one had exceptionally high status in 2-3, but ranked low in others.

The issue of debate comes, I think, in determining the weight of our various criteria. Does time spent in a fandom matter more than awards won? Do awards won matter more than the popularity of an archive? What of those individuals who may excel in critique/feedback and other 'support' positions, but don't write fiction? Can one be a "BNF" without being a writer? (Personally, I'm inclined to say 'yes,,' but not everyone would.) And if one CAN be a BNF without being a writer, do writer BNFs automatically have higher status simply by being writers? What if one ran a popular archive or site, or gave good feedback ... but wrote rather badly?

These are not easy questions to answer, and I think our individual answers reflect our own interests, and positions, in our respective fandoms. But whatever the case, I do think we overlook a great deal if we regard the "BNF" phenomenon as the result of a single variable or two. It's not. Recognizing the variety of contributing factors to fandom hierarchy -- and that the ranking of these factors can vary enormously from individual to individual -- helps to explain why there's so little agreement on what a "BNF" is, and who qualifies.