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

[yura-slash.livejournal.com]

she made one to many jabs for me to think she was just "clueless." the way i read it, her entire air was one of "i'm so much better than everyone here," and the ending (which you quoted) came across as insincere. then again, it's all about tone, and no matter how one person reads something, others will read it differently :/

[yura-slash.livejournal.com]

i agree with you completely. it's because of people like her that i'm afraid to tell anyone in my RL about how into the fandom i am. and only my sister knows i write slash :(

[summerborn.livejournal.com]

Ironic, given the line about one female Harry Potter refuses to answer my questions on the grounds that 'the British press lack ethics and principles'.

Robes, not gowns

[verdenia.livejournal.com]

*smirks*
Yeah, I had some 20-something Mundane girls in the casino ask, "Why is everybody wearing Long Coats?"
We laughed.

[mordyn4]

I agree. It's the attitude I expect a lot of people to have, especially if they haven't read the books. I was alarmed at the publishing of people's names and credentials, but I thought perhaps these persons were "out". Guess not, though. Not cool.

However, how many fics, which ones, and in what order, do you think it would take before we corrupted her? Because I'm thinking about doing the same thing to my mother. *g*

M.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

at least sports are real,

*stomps around in "ARRRRRGH" frustration*

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

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

Yeah, I can definitely feel how that rubs my sexism sensors the wrong way.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there's no strong wish to unbias oneself once it gets personal, is there? I'm very sympathetic in that case.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

"'Indeed,' said Snape, pausing from where his tongue had licked a wet trail up the underside of Draco's cock. 'Does no one have his priorities in order any longer?'

'Mplagth,' agreed Draco."

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

OH! It's like...guys and baseball statistics! Okay, that's oversimplified, but, YEAH!

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Wow, excellently put and complete, including the footnote. What's interesting is that I read that "They just seem" line without that kind of emphasis on "seem." I read it as if she were marveling: "Wow. They seem nice. And they're educated. And they're middle-class. And they write homoerotic fiction. So that must fit the definition of nice."

And there's a WORLD of difference in those reads. That's interesting, innit.

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you posted this perspective, because I would not have known this. I always believed SF fandom to be male-dominated in general.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

WOO! APPLE! STEVE!

(there, we don't even have to specify which Steve. ^_^ )

And, yeah, I really think your perspective is likely to be right.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

And I sympathise with that, sure. I think I've seen it happen so often that I'm just in the "let it roll off" stage, myself.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

I've never thought about "the gayest"! My favorite Bond movie of all is The Living Daylights, because it's so plotty and ROMANTIC. He courts the girl, who is not a femme fatale but a sweet, loyal thing with tons of backbone (unlike your average "sweet girl caught up in events she's not prepared for who screams and twists her ankle a lot") for nearly the whole film--you think they're gonna get MARRIED at the end, it's so romantic. And Timothy Dalton was a terrific, play-it-straight Bond. None of those dopey puns and jokes that eventually ruined the Roger Moore films for me.

Look, I love Jason Isaacs--you could predict that I'd also pick the Timothy Dalton Bond as my fave!

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Yay for the republic! Hee hee.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

FLAUNT it, baby! Wasn't Rupert Everett supposed to have that duty, wasn't that the rumor? The "suave, gay secret agent" film?

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

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

I feel ya, I do. And perhaps we're all kinda sick and tired of that, and can't just let it roll off anymore. I'm still in the "throwing up my hands and saying, 'what did you expect?'" stage.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I can see why people are Just Not Wanting To Take This S**t Any More, plus the stuff about using names without permission...wouf.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Oh, that would be DEE-lish, no question. Unless they show him going off with a girl at the end as if that's the "right" final pairing for him. I mean, she COULD be, but I don't want the casual slutty guy to be seen as "okay for a night, but you'd never actually CHOOSE him over a chick, right?" kind of thing. OMG, the baggage on this, yiii.

[sor-bet.livejournal.com]

Except that Bond is such a huge slut himself that he sleeps with at least one or two women before going off with the "right" one at the end. So it's not gender, it's just the Bond formula.

Hm, I guess that means that he *does* need to be gay, for the "right" one at the end to be a guy.....Hee. Albert Broccoli would be spinning so fast in his grave that he'd probably burrow out of the ground.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

It really does depend on how one reads the article! Me, I saw a mundane coming to the convention and realizing that such obsession does lurk within the hearts of normal-appearing people, which must by definition make that normal too. That's the tone I got. I'm hearing a lot of people seeing it from other perspectives, though, and I wonder if being a journalist oneself puts one in either camp, reading this?

The disclosure of names, okay, that's really not on. That upsets me.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Tell her we don't. ^_^ We just move on to the next thing, and when we're between things we mope and aren't really ourselves.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Still, I'd rather have someone honestly go "weirdos!" than pretend to be all "girly book-loving solidarity" while hinting at "weirdos!" all along.

I do get that. I think some people are reading on a subtextual level (but not perceiving it as subtextual--perceiving it as what is "clearly" meant) and some are saying, "Hey, for what she SAID and considering how bad it COULD have been, count your blessings." There's one possible division.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Ah, you see, what I got from it was her saying, "Women--who look normal, who seem normal--are writing their own porn! Wow. I guess--that must mean it's normal, then. Wow." And, yeah, I'm coming from the perspective of "Of course it's normal; I've known that for ages," but this reporter is not. I don't know that my read is correct, though; you may be right that it will be taken the other way.