re: dansez, I believe it was more his attacks on the actual people
than on the author himself that was the problem.
See, one can say, "I don't like author XYZ" but it's something rather different to say, "I don't like XYZ, therefore I don't like the people who don't like XYZ"
For example, "I dislike Tolkien. While the world he presented is an interesting and well-built one, his work is extremely difficult to read to the point of absolute obscurity. His work has value; however I, personally, do not care for it."
As opposed to, "What do you mean, you like Tolkien? The man was a hack. His stuff is just a bunch of pretentious garbage which was all really taken from old english myth anyway. Like, he stole from Beowulf and whatever. Besides which it's an absolute snooze to read. How can you like that crap? God it's awful. what are you, one of those freaks who puts on elf ears and speaks in whatever the fuck that language is?"
The latter is a (somewhat more extreme) version of what I was seeing in Dansez' posts. Particularly the bit about accusing the Gaiman fans of being a cult.
Yes, we REALLY REALLY REALLY like Neil Gaiman, partly because he appeals to us types who like obscure literary references. In some ways, his work's almost like mythology fanfic. you don't read fanfic for its literary value (god help you if you do) or because it's great literature - you read it because you "get" the subject matter and becuase you find it entertaining. There's a story being told. Gaiman just happens to tell the tale quite well and appeals to people like us.
(Wait, I just compared Gaiman to fanfic. I should probably be shot for heresy. Ewww. Or possibly clawed by raptors.)
Which is no reason to go around calling us a cult. Yeah, some of the fans are pretty hardcore... but then you'd have to find a problem with every OTHER fandom out there (... some of which I DO have issues with)
and now I'm rambling completely off topic. I guess to link back to the original: would one consider Bioshock some sort of Ayn Rand fanfic?