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

[sor-bet.livejournal.com]

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!

[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]

We'll put a rubber-band thingy on him and harness useful energy for the country for the next couple of years!

Did I mention my favorite Bond film is The Living Daylights? Where he courts the sweet non-femmefataley girl for the whole film (and only has casual throwaway sex once before the opening creds)?