amanuensis1 | Muggles. Gotta live with 'em.

Current Mood: *shrug*
Current Location: never-never land

Entry tags:

lumos,
trivia

Muggles. Gotta live with 'em.

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.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

I read the article and that side of it makes me feel a bit weird. The dressing up and the academic conference bits I mean. I'll probably never go to a con but if I did I think I'd just want to hang out in a pub somewhere and talk to everyone. And then there'd be a bit of sqeeing and lots of dancing.

That said if I ever see a room with 1,200 lovely fan girls in it, half of them dressed as Hermione or Harry or Snape? I'd probably get overexcited.

Having had a quick glance through it, it's better than the article the Guardian did last time there was a convention. At least this lady seems to think it's all rather sweet in an odd sense. And she was very impressed about people being happy and loving books which is nice. The last one they thought we were all batshit barking mad. Which pissed me off and no one else seemed to notice!

At least this time, she was going to it and went to the actual conferences. The other lady just had people talk to her and someone was talking happily about Hogwarts/Giant Squid. Which made me howl with rage that anyone was so stupid as to talk to an obvious reporter about the bits of fandom that I think we should keep private. Whereas at least with this one, she went to talks and seemed to enjoy some of them and said nice things! I think it's a nice article and she's being really good about it. And I don't blame her for being a bit freaked out about some aspects. Hell, I'm not big on beastiality and I'm in fandom. And I'm not overly fond of Snape/Hermione either.

Um, this long ramble is actually agreeing. I'll stop there!

Although having read some of the comments on here, I can see why some people are very upset. Using real names is a scummy thing to do and if she didn't say she was a reporter before getting stuff out, it's even worse. No wonder someone refused to talk to her saying that the British press has no ethics!

I found the article and felt kind of insulted, although she did kind of redeem herself at the end.

But mainly I'm posting here to say that Bond doesn't even need to be 100% gay. We'll know a New Age has arrived when one of the Bond girls will be a guy. You know, just one of the attractive, overdressed, slutty people in the casino that Bond picks up for a night of passion. Only there will be two tuxedos dropping to the floor of the hotel's penthouse instead of one. I can't wait!!!11one!

I guess I just thought it was an obligation of responsible journalism to do a bit of research beforehand, and having glanced through the first book really made me feel...well, like she didn't make that standard. Also, I did find her tone rather offensive, like the she wrote the whole thing with a slight sneer on her face and only tacked on the ending when she wanted to sound slightly less scornful.

my thoughts exactly...the fact that she hadn't read any of the books (she only read PS on the flight over) was rather insulting.

One of the commenters linked on Daily_Snitch, here. I'm a journalist myself and thought the article wasn't endearing at all, and was incredibly condescending and mean-spirited. For example, she completely misrepresented my presentation (I did the one on HP and journalism, for the record). The using real names when asked not too also bothered me. But it's on my LJ and linked on D_S so I'll shut up now.

Wow...I'm offended....

Anyways...people who aren't fans really can't understand why some people are "obsessive". My mom thinks that I'm insane and that I'll grow out of it, but I won't.

It was a tad on the mysogynistic side. I honestly can't comprehend what people have against slash. If it's not their thing, then they should just leave it alone. We don't bother them, just because we don't like het.

Seriously? They didn't know when they were being interviewed?

I was pretty offended by the "yes, those people are freaks" attitute, I'll admit, but I think the worst part for me was this:

But then, there's something so very female about this. 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. It's really not a coincidence that one of the most popular characters to dress as is Hermione Granger, Harry's over-achieving little-miss-perfectionist friend.

This just hit me as the absolute worst type of female stereotyping you could possibly imagine. I mean, she pretty much came right out and said - shoddy pseudo-academic obsession is a uniquely female trait. Way to tell us to get out of the classroom and back into the kitchen. Sheesh.

And as some people said above, I also felt like that ending was weirdly tacked on, like she felt she couldn't end it on a negative note so she went "oh, yeah, and I guess it's a good thing that people like books. Books = yay!" Which, since she's just spent most of the article arguing that they're not very good books, seems either disingenuous or hypocritical, depending on how you read it.

I don't know. I see your point that we're lucky she didn't go "OMG freaks" but I think she came pretty close. Still, I'd rather have someone honestly go "weirdos!" than pretend to be all "girly book-loving solidarity" while hinting at "weirdos!" all along.

It wasn't the slamming of fandom that got me. It was the misogynistic subtext -- that women who are writing their own porn are just wrongwrongwrongfreakyweirdos.

I'm barely even in HP fandom, so I think I'm a relatively unbiased observer, and I thought the article was sloppy and offensive. Offensive in its sloppiness, in fact. What kind of journalist writes about a topic without having done the slightest research? Not only has she not bothered to find out anything about fandom (or she'd know, for instance, that HP is not the first female-dominated fandom), but she hasn't even read the Potter books or seen the films! Plus, she's unbearably condescending about both fandom and academia (indeed, I'd say that academics come off worse than fans in her piece).

To me, the piece had more than a tinge of "let's point and laugh at the freaks."

Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint in Diamonds Are Forever!

... er, sorry. *goes away, taking hopelessly encyclopedic knowledge of Bond films with her*

I suppose fandom can be a private and intense thing, which is probably why our dear journalist was so surprised. Honestly, I don't blame her; as an "outsider" to the cult of HP, all she did was write down what she saw and heard. But even though Harry Potter is a fictional character in a fictional world, I think she should've prepared herself a lot better. This journalist was marching into a convention where there were people devoted to these stories. Despite the other shocks, what did she expect? She should've at least read through another book, maybe find out the summaries online. Certainly, I would have hoped she attempted to find a fan site.

To me, the fact that she didn't just fucking type "Harry Potter" into Google pissed me off. I mean, I found Hermione/Snape within five minutes of delving into Harry Potter on the internet for the first time. I refuse to believe that the tiniest bit of effort wouldn't have, for the most part, given her some clue about what to expect. Frankly, I have to believe she wasn't half as ignorant as she played, and just wanted to yank the fandom's chain.

Oh, undoubtedly. I think more than anything she went into the whole thing wanting to expose our freakishness to the average joes who'd be reading her article, and once slash was brought up, she knew she'd hit paydirt.

Thanks for the link.

And yeah, this was pretty much what tends to happen when a mundane press-type shows up at an SF/Fantasy convention of whatever sort. You know it's not going to be pretty when they refer to the attendees as "delegates," as though they're all going to be, like, electing someone to something. (I've gotten the "delegates" thing from senior hotel staff as well, and it usually means you're going to be spending a lot of time during the convention explaining yourself over and over and over in order to get what you want the way you want it. It's a good marker of general ignorance, unfortunately.)

One year when I was chairing BayCon I was interviewed by a reporter from the local paper. We went to lunch in the coffee shop and chatted for a couple of hours. I told her what was going on, about a variety of activities and displays and events, and gave her a copy of the program book. The SCA was doing a demo right outside the very large window-wall so she asked a lot of questions about that. I'd been in the SCA for a few years before I got so active in fandom that something had to give, so I answered all her questions and explained what it was about and how it was all organized. Her editor had told her to ask about the Writers With No Future contest, so we talked about that for a bit. After eating, IIRC, I took her through the dealer's room and the art show as well. And the article which appeared the next day was about half SCA and a quarter bad-writer contest, the rest padded out with generalities that I don't remember anymore. I got glared at by some of my staff members, but there wasn't anything I could do -- she asked questions and I answered them. And one of the guys pointed out that there might've been more in her article when she turned it in, that these things get cut down all the time and whatever her editor thought was interesting was what was left.

If you read the chapter on the first Star Trek convention in the book Star Trek Lives (non-fiction about the Star Trek fan phenomenon, highly recommended) you'll see that there was one incident where a committee member got angry at the press. They'd shown up and were wandering around looking at things and taking pictures. The people they'd chosen to photograph were the fattest people they could find, wearing clothing absolutely covered with picture- and slogan-buttons. She asked them why they were taking those pictures, and said, "You're going to run that picture with a caption under it that says 'Typical Star Trek Fan,' aren't you?"

They go for what they think will sell papers or magazines. Or rather, what they think their readers will enjoy seeing, and how they slant the article depends on who their audience is. Those reporters at the Trek convention thought that their readers would enjoy smirking at the fat geeks. The chick at Lumos thought her readers would enjoy feeling superior to the pervy, pseudo-intellectual nerdettes with no social lives of their own. The woman who interviewed me thought her readers would enjoy gaping at the costumed crazies whacking each other over the head with sticks. They're all looking for an angle and when it comes to fandom they're rarely going to bother looking for one that makes us look good. It's just how the mundane press is and I agree that on the whole the Lumos article wasn't all that horrible. It could've been a lot worse, especially given her ignorance going in.

Angie

Yep, exactly. [nod] That's what it's all about, and what it's been about in every fandom/press encounter I've ever seen. They want to sell papers and their audience would rather feel superior to the freaks than try to understand a complex subculture.

Angie

I thought she was trying to be clever, and failed. Granted I didn't go to Lumos, but I've learned to embrace my covert fangirl tendencies, and wished I could have gone. And BTW lady, they're ROBES, not gowns. Sheesh...even high school journalists do better research! Bad ones!

There are people in this world who will pass judgement on everything under the sun, without taking the time to understand what they're criticizing. It seems to be too much effort to do otherwise. Too bad for them; they'll never know the exhiliration of playing Quidditch, or being sexually tortured by Lucius...*sigh*

But if she compares fans to Scabbers one more time, she's history.

Here via newsletter :-)

You are definitely right, in one of the comments, that the reaction to this is based a lot on how one reads the article; I f.x. had the feeling that she felt the Trek-fans were more sane than us *S* No way of telling, really, short of asking her.

Anyway, my point in commenting here was something entirely different:
Yes, this may be an article that "could have been a lot worse" (as paraphrased from a lot of people) and yes, we fans are weird to the outside view.
But why do we have to be happy that it isn't worse? Why can't we, like any other group of people, expect to be treated better than this simply because we are weird or odd to the onlooker? I think we do need to value ourselves and our hobby highly enough to expect or even demand a certain amount of respect.
This being said, I hate when people go all high and mighty and holier-than-thou on something - I do not want us to lose the irony inherint in claiming that Harry is better off with Draco than Ginny (which I happily do and laugh about *S*).

I hope what I'm trying to say here is coming through: It's about not short-changing ourselves and accepting being ridiculed just because it could've been worse. It's like saying the school bully is okay because at least he didn't punch your front teeth out...
Yes, this sort of article is a fact of life and letting it run off you is a lot more comfortable than getting upset. (I'm mainly upset on behalf of two friends, one of whom was mentioned by name despite asking not to be. Being ridiculed is no news to me, hey, I have people chuck water at me for how I look *G*)
So I'm not saying it's great to cry bloody murder, but I think it's great to call attention to the fact that this was in many ways a highly unethical article and that better should be expected.

(P.S. And that way of dismissing other people's research was appalling too.)

Here through Hogwarts Today...

One of the things that bothered me about this article that no one has really touched on is the fact that this wasn't an American paper but a British one. American culture is different from British, we react differently to different things. Reading the article made me feel as though she came "across the pond" to poke fun at American pseudo-intellectuals in a forum where they would have little recourse.

How many of us have read a hard copy of the article? If it weren't for the Internet how many of us would've known what she had written it?

I've been dressing up on weekends for fun since I was little. (My whole family, including grandparents were really into the Bicentennial celebration in the mid 1970s.) I've done Rev War, Buckskinning, Civ War, SCA, and Sci-Fi Cons at various times over the last 30 years. I've seen various media representations of all of the above and I found the abovementioned article to be one of the worst.

Instead of trying to learn something, she poked fun. Her article reminded me of the "popular girls" that used to torment me in grade school for being smarter and more imaginative than they were. Since it was in a forum that few of the attendees would ever read in hard copy, who cared if a bunch of middle-aged, disaffected, American housewives were teased.

It's one thing when it's good natured teasing but I, at least, felt there were some very nasty undercurrents in the article, that struck a very sour note with me.

I'm not going to say fandom of any stripe isn't weird. I've been in enough to know that each fandoms have their own weirdnesses and some are weirder than others. But what I've found and why I've stayed past the point of what brought me to begin with is the acceptance.

Fandom in all stripes is one of the most accepting places I've ever been priveledged to be. As long as you share a similar interest, we don't really care about your ethnicity, religion, gender, physical abilities, or sexual orientation. She didn't care to look at that side. All she wanted to do was show off the American geekettes so her readers could snicker behind our backs and that disgusts me.

I'm with you on the Brokeback Mountain thing. I'm still holding out for a mainstream movie or tv series featuring a gay main character, where the gay-ness isn't the whole point of the story. I think that'll be the true mark of acceptance. Of, y'know. Gay-ness. ;)

I just had to comment. Your point about Nabokov made me laugh for several minutes straight. Thank you. You've really made my day. ;-D

YES to the covert misogyny, YES to the lack of homework (and, um, for future reference, if you're going to piss on academics for substandard con programming, I think you should at the very least have your background research done when you step off the plane).

And here's another thing: the fact that she casually assumes she knows why we're all here, as if we're all, the many thousands of us, here for the exact same reason. She's not the first to make this type of all-encompassing pocket-diagnosis -- hell, I've seen fen do it -- and I'm sure she won't be the last, but it infuritates me every time I see it.

Ms. Carole Cadwalladr made it demostrably clear that she knows almost almost nothing about fandom; ergo, she should keep the amateur psychiatrics to herself.

Okay, I had this nice response I was going to post, but then it became a post of its own, so lookit, you are pop culture gold, you have spin-offs.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 3 of 6

Muggles. Gotta live with 'em.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject