I just discovered your blog and am very late in finding this very thought-provoking post.

My background is in psychology and I, too, am fascinated by the phenomenon. I’ve been through this before with a couple of other actors over the decades, so I’m no longer astounded by my experiences.

I think that making this about desire is missing a big point. What kind of desire are we talking about here, anyway? I don’t particularly care for this thing called PHWOAR either (no offense intended) as the essence of this event, though I guess I can understand a possible sense of liberation. I think the liberation is in being able to express the intensity of experience- not desire, but experience in relation to Richard Armitage. It is unspeakable and that makes it that much more mysterious and puzzling for people who are naturally overwhelmed by the intensity.

It can even seem a bit like being in love. But, again, that misses the point. I think that many intelligent, thoughtful, quite mature women are having a peak experience and it’s like living in an alternate universe, one that includes a sensuous apprehension. It’s rare to have a peak experience in life. Perhaps the birth of the child is like that- suddenly finding oneself in an acute sea of thought and emotion and very focused. In trying to express the experience, in thinking of him, Richard Armitage becomes a Muse.

Well, it’s very late here and I have a few more thoughts about blessing beauty, life-changing experiences, euphoria, resonance and the notion of how one is affected coming face to face with a fellow who as someone so eloquently put it, looks “like he fell from heaven” and is blessed with a surfeit of talent, and why this happens to some and not others, but I guess I’ll have to make a post in response as others have done.

I do know this much, apart from the fanatical fringe, the experience is life affirming in the best possible sense and is another way to self-knowledge. The worst one can do is dismiss it or deny it. Perhaps in that sense, the purpose of PHWOAR is not entirely unfounded. A peak experience, IMO, should be celebrated. I’m personally grateful for it. It certainly can’t be quantified or truly categorized, I do agree. It’s so very late here!

I loved the varied comments, but especially the expressed experiences of some of the commenters. Thank you.

It’s so true what you say about fandom perpetuating itself, and everyone’s contributions making it what it is. As for the hormones.. my body is somewhat in a state of hormonal anarchy so I’m not sure I’m a good point of reference there LOL!

And I think the point about N&S being first is also right on. If I had seen Armitage in Robin Hood first, I’d have thought he was eye candy. The scripts are not that great, and he gets everything he can out of them, but I’d probably have stopped watching at 1.3, I hated the episode that much. And Spooks is not the type of thing I watch generally. I’ve never seen a single episode of 24, either.

Great comment.

I don’t think there’s necessarily a conflict with married women having blogs about RA. Of the few of these I have encountered, it is clear that RA is no substitute for their partners, who they profess to love very much. But I do wonder how some might respond if their husband/partner had an equivalent blog that focused on a female actor.

I think it’s a really important question you raise about RA being an object or subject, and it’s one that I tried to address in the Beatlemania post. I’m inclined to think he is treated as both. One of the things I am interested in is how people “do” fandom. I think fans ought to be mindful of finding a healthy balance between these two aspects of being a fan (object & subject), so as not to diminish the subject to an objectified state, or themselves to that of objectifier. In the blogs I’ve chosen to follow, I feel that I personally am able to achieve that balance.

Having had a chance to sleep on this, I think there is a quandary raised raised by my post – Although one ought not to deny the PHWOARR! factor, what one does with it is a question to contemplate. For me personally I think it’s an ethical one, because too much emphasis on the object as television totty has the potential for harm. “Responsible” fandom is a notion that interests me and I think finds fertile ground in the RA fan community, who in many respects exemplify best “fan practice” but in some quarters reflect fan practice it that is not so great as well.

Time to stop writing!

This combination was lethal, as witnessed by BBC board crashing. There was so much to talk about – social history, industrial history, sexual tension, Richard Armitage’s good looks etc. At that time, no one knew about RA other than he was John Thornton.

After BBC board shut down, these very same women moved to C19 and the rest is history (proliferation of fanboards, sites, blogs etc). But the nature and tone of discussions have continued to this day.

If Robin Hood had been the first introduction to Richard Armitage, I have serious doubts that the nature of fandom would have been the same. Personally, I like him in Spooks but would not have been driven to do something I have never done – have a huge crush on an actor, join the fandom, engage in discussions etc. I mean I like Rupert Penry Jones and Mathew McFadden but it does not even cross my mind to look them up on the net.

I am one of those classic females who isn’t even into movies, doesn’t watch TV, ABHORS entertainment shows which follow celebs. Yet here I am, an avid RA fan, learning photoshop, creating fan art etc. For me, it is both the actor as well as the fan activity that hold my attention. Actor because he APPEARS to be very unlike the personality/character profile I have of actors/actresses. He is someone I would have has a friend in real life, I could admire etc. Fan activity because of its depth and breadth. I mean where else would I be able to have discussions on such esoteric subject as “levels of humidity required for spinning cotton thread” to silliness of “grown women taking Guy of Gisborne’s toy figure to all sorts of locations and adventures”. I cannot even admit to myself that I have enjoyed watching “Little Guy’s” pics.

Final point is being a part of Richard’s journey to heights of success. It brings great satisfaction when he bags a role, is interviewed, recognized etc. As the fandom started with N&S, it has invested a lot of emotional energy in his career. Hence his success is like fandom’s success (vicarious pleasure). Each leg of the journey reveals his talent as well as his own personality. So far he has not disappointed in either.

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to bring a personal perspective into this discussion

The question of why RA in particular is one I don’t really address. I am curious about it but are also reluctant to examine it too much for reasons I mention in some of the comments above. I guess it is folks (like yourself) with little or no fan fervor history that are most fascinating to me. When looking at fandom in a broader sense, RA seems to attract a lot of “outliers”, to use a statistical term! The most interesting thing is that RA has inspired/provoked behaviour outside of the norm for these people, and this is a profound thing! As my scholarly interests tend to focus on “the self”, I enjoy reading narratives from “outliers” attempting to process and understand why they have succumbed to fan fervor (incidentally, is anyone tired of my use of the phrase ‘fan fervor’ yet?!). I find intelligent introspection to be compelling reading (I tend to use auto-ethnographic narratives more often than not as a “data source” in my research).

The only comparison I have for fandom is one that is from a completely different world with an entirely different kind of fanbase (see my other blog Hello Henry if curious). HR’s fans are a particularly passionate bunch and very dedicated. So I guess there are some similarities there, but that’s where comparisons might end.

Yes, the question of demographics is definitely of interest. What is the typical age of an RA fan, particularly as it may tie in with the issue of denial/desire. Women of all ages are increasingly being encouraged to get in touch with that side of themselves these days. Yet for many women, they were raised in environments that encouraged denial. If others have had similar experiences to RAFrenzy, RA Fan forums may be “safehouses” for “working out” denial/desire (this is just speculation on my part, of course). Acknowledging desire, letting go of denial = fervor! (oh, the mathematics of RA fandom!)

Very interesting point you raise about the demographic who enjoy 19th c. novels. That’s a demographic I definitely don’t count myself in! The allure of that which is desired but out of reach? Although I am not particularly familiar with this type of literature, I imagine the theme of desire/denial is not uncommon. Margaret in N&S is an obvious example – serious denial going on there! The denial & desire hypothesis I proposed in the post makes even more sense to me when one thinks about it from the perspective you raised.

Quite interesting also, what you mention about the genealogy of RA fandom and the circumstances in which the tone for it was set. It makes me wonder what might have happened if period fans had been on the internet in 1995 when when Pride and Prejudice was released. Firth fervor, perhaps? ;)

I don’t think that *watching* RA is empowering, the empowerment resides in acknowledging, expressing and claiming one’s own honest primal *response* to what one is watching. He seems to evoke intense feelings of attraction. It’s the act of fully acknowledging and reveling in that desire that is empowering – for that is something that is supposed to be the domain of men. Women are expected to suppress their desires (if they should have them at all) – to not suppress them may interfere with their duty to serve others.

What one does with the response, however, may not be so empowering. Sending a photo of yourself in a bikini with your phone number to RA (as I understand some fans have done), is not empowering, it’s sad and pathetic. Acknowledging one’s own desire is empowering, requiring validation from the object of your desire, is not.

Perhaps when I’m less blurry eyed and more well rested I’ll think about this some more. Crikey! It’s 3:30am!