Muggles. Gotta live with 'em.

[amanuensis1]

Whoa, are we all really that upset over that article in The Guardian about Lumos? I didn't find it negative, really; the article's written by someone who is not only NOT a fan but admits she hasn't even read the books or seen the films ("Well...some of them"). She's not a fannish type at all. She's gone into it frankly baffled by the whole concept of fans who sink into their medium so deeply. She is, to belabor the obvious, a classic mundane (which is what we called 'em before Rowling got Muggle into the OED). And she observes, and there's an air of "okay, this remains distant and odd to me," but, gosh, me, I don't expect anything else from mundanes. I thought the piece was presented with a reasonably neutral "not for me, and some of it's definitely strange to me, but, wow, there's a lot of devotion and variety here" air.

Given that the article didn't purport to be a detached record of the event, I think we got lucky that she didn't shriek "weirdoes weirdoes weirdoes!" all through it. Maybe some of you feel she did? Because she doesn't think Snape/Hermione is so much about empowering women as it is titillation? Because she thought some of the discussions/topics were lame or unfounded? Because the idea of HP bestiality got to her? Shoot, I think we got off light. And she does end on this positive note:

It's all amazing. And seeing anybody, let alone 1,200 people enthused with joy about anything is really quite uplifting. And not just anything. Books! It makes my girlish, swotty heart swell with pride.

Maybe that wasn't enough for fan readers. Perhaps a lot of you feel you've had enough of this kind of "not for me, but, whatever floats your boat" editorializing. Maybe in the same way I don't exactly want to see more films like Brokeback Mountain but rather am waiting for the gay James Bond to unapologetically flaunt the queer all over the screen.

Comments

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

to be honest, a swot is the last thing I'd call somebody who seemed so incapable of doing her homework

Ooh, whatta zing. :D

[elsajeni.livejournal.com]

The thing that ticked me off the most in that article, because I am sort of weird, was the snippy little "Yes, well, she's not Nabokov, is she?" Not only does intellectual snobbery, even in an academic setting, REALLY GET ON MY NERVES, because what I am specifically interested in in an academic context is popular fiction and the way people relate to it, including, maybe even especially, fanfiction and other weirdo aspects of fandom, but also, a small part of me wants to track her down and shriek at her that YOU CAN'T ACT HORRIFIED BY OUR RAPE FANTASIES ABOUT OLD MEN AND TEENAGED GIRLS AND THEN HOLD NABOKOV UP AS A BETTER EXAMPLE.

Rrrrrrrr. I'm actually not surprised to hear in some of the comments here that she may not have identified herself as a reporter with some of the people she was talking to; the way she claims not to have gotten any good explanations of the Harry Potter porn phenomenon suggests that she didn't give anyone a reason to give her a good explanation, because it's my impression that a lot of us are pretty good at that.

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[dancing-moon.livejournal.com]

though I did find the overall tone of the article bordering on mysogynistic.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so! That was actually what bothered me most, because, bestiality is taboo so of course it will freak her. People dressed strangely are always considered odd.

But the wording in many places the (in my eyes) unfavorable comparsion to a Stark Trek con which she included and the whole "since it's mostly girls the con is like this and there can be no other reason at all, nope" tone just bugged me

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Yeah, see, I find the film Trekkies to be a fair (and delightful) treatment of the Star Trek fandom. I suspect it pisses off a lot of fans who look at that film and say, "They picked out the WORST WEIRDOES!" But though I think a lot of people may look at those particular uber-obsessives and laugh, I don't. I look at them and nod simply and say, "Yes. I know what that feels like. Maybe not quite to that extent and not over the same fandom but I do get it. So I was doing a lot of simple nodding and saying, "Yes," all through that article.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

YOU CAN'T ACT HORRIFIED BY OUR RAPE FANTASIES ABOUT OLD MEN AND TEENAGED GIRLS AND THEN HOLD NABOKOV UP AS A BETTER EXAMPLE.

*dies laughing* I can't add a thing to that. You GO, girl!

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Well, I will say that it is something to ponder, because it is the first fandom I've been in where females swelled the ranks. So I do wonder why that would be.

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[dancing-moon.livejournal.com]

I can't go to US cons, for obvious reasons. But I've been to a couple of swedish anime conventions and we don't have panels. About anything really.

Then I read a timeplan for a couple of US cons (to figure out what to do on our own con hehe) and it's filled with panels. About making cosplay wigs, about mechas, about fanfics, about characters and archetypes etc etc. And I think anime fandom as a whole is pretty gender-balanced

Otoh I know I read on fandom_wank about an argument involving yaoi fanart. A guy complains that there's less busty babes and more guy/guy all the time. Several artists state that it's because fanboys look but fangirls buy.

So I don't think it's as simple as she makes it out to be. And what irks me is that she does not ponder it, she does not investigate (which isn't scope of the article either) she just turns things around a bit until she finds an angle that matches her gender stereotypes and bingo, let's present that as a fact.

Here, one example:

It's the first time that women have ever dominated fandom in this way, and so of course it's all about doing extra homework and making sure your uniform is nicely pressed.

Is she somehow implying that the sci-fi nerds who have encyclopedical knowledge of anti-matter theory as propsed by author A, or can ramble specs for the Enterprise for hours have "not done their homework"? Is it different because the people at Lumos have focused on other things? I mean, being obsessed and discussing everything to death is part of being both a fan and a nerd yet she turns it into "girls doing their homework". Blah

[annephoenix.livejournal.com]

I'm biased because the author made two "attack" (I realise they're not attacks, but it's rude anyway) on two very good friends, so I'm not about to start looking for stuff I liked in the article hehehe ...

[sinclair-furie.livejournal.com]

YOU CAN'T ACT HORRIFIED BY OUR RAPE FANTASIES ABOUT OLD MEN AND TEENAGED GIRLS AND THEN HOLD NABOKOV UP AS A BETTER EXAMPLE.
AHAHAHAH! WORD.
You know, I thought the article was interesting because of how incomplete the picture it gave of HP fandom was. I dunno, I always find it interesting to see what outsiders glean from short, intense exposure to fandom.
But really, she should have done her homework.

[bethbethbeth.livejournal.com]

Hey, it's summer vacation, but I can't turn the teacher gene off entirely. :)

Meanwhile, I've been like "Okay, you guys over there think plagiarism is bad, and you guys don't care about plagiarism and you other guys are pissed at some random English reporter, and really...could you all just get back to writing pr0n?"

*g*

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[melonaise.livejournal.com]

When I dabbled in Pern fandom, that was also dominated by women. In role-playing games I usually played male characters, because there weren't enough men to keep the game balanced. The Pern track at Dragoncon has a lot of cosplay, and a lot of focus on the culture of Pern. But it's really not much different from the male-dominated (at least it was before the new movies) Star Wars track with its Stormtrooper Legion.

The main difference I see between the Pern and the Star Wars fans is that the Pern fans tend to see their fandom as a living entity-- a real culture that they can adapt and play with. Star Wars fans tend to see their world as more static, well-defined. Even many Star Wars role-players aren't so much trying to make their own characters as trying to recreate "historic" Star Wars events. This difference could be because of the dearth of approved Pern role-playing materials compared to Star Wars source books. Or it could be because women tend to be more creative, men more analytical, if we want to focus on gender.

[naatz.livejournal.com]

Seconded, though I've only read a half. She sounded rather baffled, but charmed at the same time and dedicated.

{By half, I mean the welcoming feast. Next time I think the Lumos people should not declare the ideas behind the doings, unless asked.}

Then again, I wasn't at Lumos, so I can't discern that well what's offending or unoffending. *shrugs*

|Meduza|

[melonaise.livejournal.com]

People are so odd.

[melonaise.livejournal.com]

Indeed! Even porn with Rita Skeeter, if they want some indirect revenge. ;)

[midnitemaraud-r.livejournal.com]

I laughed when I saw that she'd quoted me. Granted most of what she attributed to me was paraphrased. I mean, I absolutely said that I wrote slash (and had to explain to her what slash was - she was rather... shocked), joked about the porn, and I wasn't embarrassed or ashamed of it either. (Hell, I tell my friends at home when they ask what I've been up to since 'retiring' from my former hobby, volleyball)

But in her paraphrasing, she misquoted a couple of things and got a bit of it wrong - especially the parts about people "thinking" the characters were straight, and the tendency of slashers to view characters as bi-sexual, and the biggest one - which is that Hally said the most popular slash ship was Harry/Draco but that she herself shipped Harry/Snape.

I wasn't angered or upset by the article at all¹. I was disappointed. I didn't expect her to suddenly embrace us or fandom or anything, and objectively there were a lot of things about the Con (and fandom itself) that would (and should, to be honest) raise eyebrows. Of course we know this. Or we should.

I've been to a Star Trek convention, and I've been to a sort of Con-cum-vacation/meet-up for my Trixie fandom (and we called it Trixie "Camp" since it wasn't an academic or any kind of symposium - it was fans getting together - in St. Louis when I went - to visit places the characters visited in the books), and I've organized two fannish 'meet-ups' for another fandom, both in Vegas. The term "Fandom Convention" encompasses so many different types of gatherings as it is. I've seen fans dressed up for the Trek Con, walking around NYC dressed as crew members, Klingons, Cardassians, Borg. In some ways I suppose it's no different from those who dress in their favorite sports team's colors when they go to the games, or the ones who paint their bodies and faces, or tailgate in the stadium parking lots, or plaster their bedroom walls with posters and pennants and other memorabilia that they collect.

Not that they likely see it that way, but it's absolutely the same type of human behavior - just a different medium. Only sports fanaticism is a more socially accepted form of fannish behavior from the perspective of society at large. So far.

But that attitude is changing, and the reason is because of us. Us 'middle-aged' (*cough*) women - and in other arenas such a comic cons and Doctor Who cons, and even Trek cons, men. Us run-of-the-mill, 'seemingly-normal' everyday, college educated professionals, mothers, fathers, singles, daughters, sons - people. Just the fact that more and more people attend and/or organize these conventions each year is evidence in itself. And the fact that the Observer actually paid to send someone to attend, regardless of the article is even more proof. We'll probably never be mainstream, and to be honest, I think it's better this way.

What disappointed me about her article was not so much that she condescended to our little sub-culture, but that even in her description of me and Hally:

They just seem like perfectly nice, educated, middle-class women. Who write homoerotic fiction about wizards.

there's an implication that I should be embarrassed by my fannish pursuits. That I should have been standing there, turning my head every which way, checking to make sure nobody was around before leaning forward to whisper in her ear and divulge this deep dark secret that I both write and enjoy slash. And then giggle nervously. That even the teacher she spoke to regarding the programming should have been embarrassed because JKR isn't Shakespeare or Hemingway.

Um. No. I'm not embarrassed by it. I'm not about to take out a full page ad in the local paper to announce it, but I'm not ashamed of it. This is who I am. If our culture can use sex to sell shampoo on television, I can certainly admit to being a sexual being and enjoying it. I'm not ashamed to be associated with other who do, either, nor am I embarrassed by my fannish love of the books themselves.

¹ except where she disclosed the full name of someone who specifically asked her not to.

[ellid.livejournal.com]

I also wonder if there's a sexist element to it. After all, sports fans are largely male, and media fen in particular tend to be female.

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[ellid.livejournal.com]

That statement about this being the first fandom dominated by women is simply not true. Early Trek fandom was so dominated by women that mainline SF fen were at a loss as to why their formerly 85% male conventions were being flooded by women, and that was the case well into the late 70s/early 80s (my first Trek con was in 1979, and over half the attendees were female). Trek fandom didn't become the province of male geeks until after the first or second movie.

[ani-bester.livejournal.com]

have you seen the short fan film by Bruce Cambell at the end of erghhh first movie he was big . . with the book and the tree rape?

. . EVILD DEAD! ha!

Ok right, in the special edition of that movie as a bonus feature of Cambell at cons, he jsut goes around showing cons, and it one of the most honest looks at fandoms I've seen. He doesn't mock, but he doens't pretend like this won't like totally odd to others or that some people don't go waaaaaaay to far.

Way better tha the movie. I'm such a wimp. I wanted the trees taken away from my window do to me fear lobe screaming irrationally that they'd break in and turn me into an undead thing =P

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[dancing-moon.livejournal.com]

Yes, true about the female domination, I think I saw someone else mention it on another post too.

What an interesting glimpse of Trek history :) I wasn't around then, but it's always fun to learn more

[jamoche]

I'd bet it was more a "hey, who wants a paid vacation in Vegas, we'll use this con as an excuse. Don't bother with research, just do the usual fen-are-freaks that we do whenever we cover any subculture event." Because really, it was just write-by-numbers, the same thing I've seen for SF cons or gay pride marches. She'd write the same thing about the 4000 Apple geeks I'm currently sharing an auditorium with, and probably say we worship Steve Jobs. (We don't. We worship Steve Wozniak).

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

Part of the reason I was angry was because this is the second time that I know of that this same paper or its affiliate has covered an HP convention with the writer taking a condescending tone and misquoting people. My feeling was "They're doing this AGAIN?"

[loony-moony.livejournal.com]

Who would you pair with James Bond? Which one was the gayest in you POV? >:D

[phantomminuet.livejournal.com]

It's all amazing. And seeing anybody, let alone 1,200 people enthused with joy about anything is really quite uplifting. And not just anything. Books! It makes my girlish, swotty heart swell with pride.

That reminds me of an article in the local arts paper about the furor over the release of HPatGoF. The reporter described all these children (in costume) and their parents, milling about a bookstore and waiting for midnight, so excited about buying a book, and she wrote, "The republic is saved." :-)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_hannelore/]

Everyone's already said it all, so I'm just going to echo this:

Maybe in the same way I don't exactly want to see more films like Brokeback Mountain but rather am waiting for the gay James Bond to unapologetically flaunt the queer all over the screen.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! :D

[emeraldjay.livejournal.com]

but rather am waiting for the gay James Bond to unapologetically flaunt the queer all over the screen.

All I can think of when James Bond and gay are mentioned in the same sentence is the pair (couple?) that were trying to kill James and loved to blow things up. Seeing James tying them to the bedposts would increase the squick factor a touch.

I suppose we could cast ChiCHi LaRue as "Q" rather than "M" and maybe Elton John in Money Penny's place. Can we call it James Bondage, Life is a Drag.

Anyway, I felt the whole article basically said "WTH did my editor get me into."