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

[marginaliana]

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.

[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.