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

[viverra-libro.livejournal.com]

I think that what bothers people is that it didn't seem like she tried very hard to understand why people were such fans. One might think that her seeing the level of interest might compel her to really try to figure that out, but all she did was think it was odd.

I do think that it could've been much worse.

[cluegirl.livejournal.com]

See, I thought the article was fairly positive, given how inexorably SILLY Fandom can get. I mean really, we ARE dressing up in school uniforms for a place we've never been and will never go to, and starting character assassinations over which nonexistent person would EVER sleep with which other nonexistent person. It's silly. It's fun, but it's still silly.

And she din't brand us as deviant, child eating satanists, which is a hell of a lot better than much of the rest of the press has given us, isn't it?

I thought she seemed rather charmed, really. Bestiality notwithstanding.

[sciencegeek.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, I'm on the fringe of fandom and haven't seen a lot of complaints about the article in question, but one of the ones I have seen is a complaint that the writer used people's real, full names after being asked (and I'm assuming agreeing to) not using them.

[son-of-darkness.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's actually what she said that's got people up in arms, per say. I think it's more the way she got her information. The people I've spoken to, anyway, have said that it wasn't until AFTER they'd spoken to her, thinking her to just be a teacher out to get conference points, and told her lots of personal stuff about their involvement in fandom, that she told them she was actually a reporter. Thus not really giving them the opportunity to say they'd rather not talk to the press if they didn't want to. She also used real names when explicitly asked not to, which may have caused lots of problems for people with jobs where that sort of thing is frowned upon.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

it didn't seem like she tried very hard to understand why people were such fans.

And starting from the position of someone who's read "well, some" of the books, it doesn't make one anticipate that this is the sort of person who will try to do that. Hey, and maybe her department sent her because she'd had more exposure to the books than anyone else in her department; isn't that sad to think?

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

That kind of complaint I can understand.

[the_con_cept.livejournal.com]

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. But that's just my impression. *shrugs* She has the right to write what she likes, though if she did use names when she was asked not to, that's definitely lacking integrity.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Goodness, can reporters do that? I mean, of course they can go in anonymously and observe and write about what's told to them, and use quotes, but can they use people's names without their permission? I didn't think that was on. I thought they had to ask permission before they used names.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Yeah, clearly one's reaction depends on how one perceives her tone. I thought, for example that part about the difference between Star Trek conventions and this type of thing--I thought she was agreeing with us that our kind of fannishness is MUCH more fun and interesting than just merchandising and meeting William Shatner.

[son-of-darkness.livejournal.com]

Well, they do have to. But when asked by my friend not to include her real name, she agreed, then went ahead and used it, anyway. My friend has since had to flock her LJ, due to fear of having it discovered by her work colleagues.

[florahart]

Yeah, this is the thing I've seen, as well, and the thing that pisses me off. Some folks could have gotten (or maybe still could get) in a boatload of trouble, and it's just a crappy thing to do, and the really irritating part is, for the folks who that happened to, they really have no recourse, because to complain, they'd have to further identify themselves, you know?

[melonaise.livejournal.com]

I think she herself must not be a fan of anything (books, movies, TV shows, sparkly shoes, antique china, history trivia), or else she'd be able to sympathize more.

[ani-bester.livejournal.com]

I thoght it was pretty good too . . . but then I was in the Star Trek fandom. The media loved to poke fun at us . . still kinda does. Star Trek fans are almost short for obsessed nerd in media ^^

Given some of the topics presented, I'm glad she wasn's screaming SICK FREAKS! Look at teh evil HP causes!!! So people would have gone there!

but rather am waiting for the gay James Bond to unapologetically flaunt the queer all over the screen.


If Robin Williams doing this will serve in a pinch, see The Night Listener.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

I'm envisioning her department saying, "One of us has to cover this Harry Potter in Vegas thing." "Who here has the most experience?" "I haven't read 'em." "Me neither." "My kid has, but I haven't." "Eh, I read the first one." "Okay, Carole's got the most experience. You go."

The names thing--yeah, if that's the case, I understand the unhappiness. And am less inclined to be gracious if so.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

The Robin Williams thing--really? Whoa, I hadn't heard! But seriously, I want a $120 million blow-'em-up spy extravaganza where the protagonist just happens to be gay and seduces at least two different bishounen guys during the course of the film.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

God, there's a catch-22, isn't there. That's really a crappy thing to do.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Mundanes tend not to get the idea of being a fan of things with plots, I kind of think. They may collect cookie jars or follow football with a passion, but to them that's DIFFERENT, see.

[karadin.livejournal.com]

The gay James Bond should be Orlando Bloom. And it has to be at least two bishounen guys, and they have to have a threesome.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Yes! Ramp it up, baby! ^_^

[sharp-tongue.livejournal.com]

Mm... now that's the kind of movie I would pay to see.

[jenna-thorn.livejournal.com]

I thoght it was pretty good too . . . but then I was in the Star Trek fandom.

Bingo. I was press liason once for an anime convention. A local reporter, being funny, ran down the list I'd prepared of our guests and mocked them, along the lines of "Person XYZ- translator - What, maybe a translator for the UN? Ha! Not likely. Person ABC- actor. Gee, I've never seen him. That's because he doesn't actually show up in the film, just his voice. Voice actor. Ha ha!"

I spent about five minutes being hacked off - it's an anime convention and he's looking for UN translators? - before realizing that he had no idea of what was going on and writing about the goofy kid with the candles taped to his head or the six foot, two hundred pound male dressed as Sailor Mercury was easier than actually finding out. And gave him funny stories to make the girls at the frat house laugh.

[scribbulus-ink.livejournal.com]

My best friend's husband is a sports fanatic. He can rattle off stats, he holds season tickets to a certain team's games, he collects sports memorabilia, and he dresses up for home games - and yet he derides her for being a fan and attending Trek conventions, because that's just "weird". Any attempts to draw the parallels between his behavior and hers is met with complete stonewalling. He absolutely refuses to see it, because hey, at least sports are real, not silly stuff with aliens.

So yeah, there's some kind of wall that prevents a lot of them from seeing that being fanatical about whatever it is they're fanatical about makes them no different from us.

[bethbethbeth.livejournal.com]

*nods*

And it wasn't just son_of_darkness's friend (who's also mine)...others here in NY were in the same boat (although luckily only their first names were used...and she made a complete hash of everything they said, so they're less identifiable than they would have been if she'd got things straight.

Plus, of course, as an academic, I was rolling my eyes at the hearty "we're all morons together, aren't we?" anti-intllectualism. She might as well have been going 'neener neener...huh?" at an MLA converence, for all the understanding she demonstrated of critical approaches to texts. I was surprised she called herself "swotty" at the end...to be honest, a swot is the last thing I'd call somebody who seemed so incapable of doing her homework

Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[gmth.livejournal.com]

I didn't care so much what the reporter herself had to say, though I did find the overall tone of the article bordering on mysogynistic. I did mind, very much, the attitude of the fans who said they weren't "freaky" fans because they aren't slashers. As I said in [info]emmagrant01's journal, we're ALL geeks to those outside fandom, so I think it sucks when people inside fandom try to draw lines between who's a "freak" and who isn't.

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Oh, THEM, yeah, they annoyed me no end. They're IN the fandom and they should know better. She's not to blame for quoting them in all their immature glory. Go find a nice non-freaky sports bar and get your emotional fulfillment that way, then. See how much fun you have. Byeeeee.