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

[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.

[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!

[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.

[sophierom.livejournal.com]

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