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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[annephoenix.livejournal.com]

I'm biased because the author made two "attack" (I realise they're not attacks, but it's rude anyway) on two very good friends, so I'm not about to start looking for stuff I liked in the article hehehe ...

[midnitemaraud-r.livejournal.com]

I laughed when I saw that she'd quoted me. Granted most of what she attributed to me was paraphrased. I mean, I absolutely said that I wrote slash (and had to explain to her what slash was - she was rather... shocked), joked about the porn, and I wasn't embarrassed or ashamed of it either. (Hell, I tell my friends at home when they ask what I've been up to since 'retiring' from my former hobby, volleyball)

But in her paraphrasing, she misquoted a couple of things and got a bit of it wrong - especially the parts about people "thinking" the characters were straight, and the tendency of slashers to view characters as bi-sexual, and the biggest one - which is that Hally said the most popular slash ship was Harry/Draco but that she herself shipped Harry/Snape.

I wasn't angered or upset by the article at all¹. I was disappointed. I didn't expect her to suddenly embrace us or fandom or anything, and objectively there were a lot of things about the Con (and fandom itself) that would (and should, to be honest) raise eyebrows. Of course we know this. Or we should.

I've been to a Star Trek convention, and I've been to a sort of Con-cum-vacation/meet-up for my Trixie fandom (and we called it Trixie "Camp" since it wasn't an academic or any kind of symposium - it was fans getting together - in St. Louis when I went - to visit places the characters visited in the books), and I've organized two fannish 'meet-ups' for another fandom, both in Vegas. The term "Fandom Convention" encompasses so many different types of gatherings as it is. I've seen fans dressed up for the Trek Con, walking around NYC dressed as crew members, Klingons, Cardassians, Borg. In some ways I suppose it's no different from those who dress in their favorite sports team's colors when they go to the games, or the ones who paint their bodies and faces, or tailgate in the stadium parking lots, or plaster their bedroom walls with posters and pennants and other memorabilia that they collect.

Not that they likely see it that way, but it's absolutely the same type of human behavior - just a different medium. Only sports fanaticism is a more socially accepted form of fannish behavior from the perspective of society at large. So far.

But that attitude is changing, and the reason is because of us. Us 'middle-aged' (*cough*) women - and in other arenas such a comic cons and Doctor Who cons, and even Trek cons, men. Us run-of-the-mill, 'seemingly-normal' everyday, college educated professionals, mothers, fathers, singles, daughters, sons - people. Just the fact that more and more people attend and/or organize these conventions each year is evidence in itself. And the fact that the Observer actually paid to send someone to attend, regardless of the article is even more proof. We'll probably never be mainstream, and to be honest, I think it's better this way.

What disappointed me about her article was not so much that she condescended to our little sub-culture, but that even in her description of me and Hally:

They just seem like perfectly nice, educated, middle-class women. Who write homoerotic fiction about wizards.

there's an implication that I should be embarrassed by my fannish pursuits. That I should have been standing there, turning my head every which way, checking to make sure nobody was around before leaning forward to whisper in her ear and divulge this deep dark secret that I both write and enjoy slash. And then giggle nervously. That even the teacher she spoke to regarding the programming should have been embarrassed because JKR isn't Shakespeare or Hemingway.

Um. No. I'm not embarrassed by it. I'm not about to take out a full page ad in the local paper to announce it, but I'm not ashamed of it. This is who I am. If our culture can use sex to sell shampoo on television, I can certainly admit to being a sexual being and enjoying it. I'm not ashamed to be associated with other who do, either, nor am I embarrassed by my fannish love of the books themselves.

¹ except where she disclosed the full name of someone who specifically asked her not to.

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

Part of the reason I was angry was because this is the second time that I know of that this same paper or its affiliate has covered an HP convention with the writer taking a condescending tone and misquoting people. My feeling was "They're doing this AGAIN?"

[loony-moony.livejournal.com]

Who would you pair with James Bond? Which one was the gayest in you POV? >:D

[phantomminuet.livejournal.com]

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.

That reminds me of an article in the local arts paper about the furor over the release of HPatGoF. The reporter described all these children (in costume) and their parents, milling about a bookstore and waiting for midnight, so excited about buying a book, and she wrote, "The republic is saved." :-)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_hannelore/]

Everyone's already said it all, so I'm just going to echo this:

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.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! :D

[emeraldjay.livejournal.com]

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

All I can think of when James Bond and gay are mentioned in the same sentence is the pair (couple?) that were trying to kill James and loved to blow things up. Seeing James tying them to the bedposts would increase the squick factor a touch.

I suppose we could cast ChiCHi LaRue as "Q" rather than "M" and maybe Elton John in Money Penny's place. Can we call it James Bondage, Life is a Drag.

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

[lycoris.livejournal.com]

Having had a quick glance through it, it's better than the article the Guardian did last time there was a convention. At least this lady seems to think it's all rather sweet in an odd sense. And she was very impressed about people being happy and loving books which is nice. The last one they thought we were all batshit barking mad. Which pissed me off and no one else seemed to notice!

At least this time, she was going to it and went to the actual conferences. The other lady just had people talk to her and someone was talking happily about Hogwarts/Giant Squid. Which made me howl with rage that anyone was so stupid as to talk to an obvious reporter about the bits of fandom that I think we should keep private. Whereas at least with this one, she went to talks and seemed to enjoy some of them and said nice things! I think it's a nice article and she's being really good about it. And I don't blame her for being a bit freaked out about some aspects. Hell, I'm not big on beastiality and I'm in fandom. And I'm not overly fond of Snape/Hermione either.

Um, this long ramble is actually agreeing. I'll stop there!

[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!

[upstart-crow.livejournal.com]

One of the commenters linked on Daily_Snitch, here. I'm a journalist myself and thought the article wasn't endearing at all, and was incredibly condescending and mean-spirited. For example, she completely misrepresented my presentation (I did the one on HP and journalism, for the record). The using real names when asked not too also bothered me. But it's on my LJ and linked on D_S so I'll shut up now.

[sirjimmy.livejournal.com]

Wow...I'm offended....

Anyways...people who aren't fans really can't understand why some people are "obsessive". My mom thinks that I'm insane and that I'll grow out of it, but I won't.

[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.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

It wasn't the slamming of fandom that got me. It was the misogynistic subtext -- that women who are writing their own porn are just wrongwrongwrongfreakyweirdos.

[kindkit.livejournal.com]

I'm barely even in HP fandom, so I think I'm a relatively unbiased observer, and I thought the article was sloppy and offensive. Offensive in its sloppiness, in fact. What kind of journalist writes about a topic without having done the slightest research? Not only has she not bothered to find out anything about fandom (or she'd know, for instance, that HP is not the first female-dominated fandom), but she hasn't even read the Potter books or seen the films! Plus, she's unbearably condescending about both fandom and academia (indeed, I'd say that academics come off worse than fans in her piece).

To me, the piece had more than a tinge of "let's point and laugh at the freaks."

[persephone-blue.livejournal.com]

I suppose fandom can be a private and intense thing, which is probably why our dear journalist was so surprised. Honestly, I don't blame her; as an "outsider" to the cult of HP, all she did was write down what she saw and heard. But even though Harry Potter is a fictional character in a fictional world, I think she should've prepared herself a lot better. This journalist was marching into a convention where there were people devoted to these stories. Despite the other shocks, what did she expect? She should've at least read through another book, maybe find out the summaries online. Certainly, I would have hoped she attempted to find a fan site.

[angiepen.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link.

And yeah, this was pretty much what tends to happen when a mundane press-type shows up at an SF/Fantasy convention of whatever sort. You know it's not going to be pretty when they refer to the attendees as "delegates," as though they're all going to be, like, electing someone to something. (I've gotten the "delegates" thing from senior hotel staff as well, and it usually means you're going to be spending a lot of time during the convention explaining yourself over and over and over in order to get what you want the way you want it. It's a good marker of general ignorance, unfortunately.)

One year when I was chairing BayCon I was interviewed by a reporter from the local paper. We went to lunch in the coffee shop and chatted for a couple of hours. I told her what was going on, about a variety of activities and displays and events, and gave her a copy of the program book. The SCA was doing a demo right outside the very large window-wall so she asked a lot of questions about that. I'd been in the SCA for a few years before I got so active in fandom that something had to give, so I answered all her questions and explained what it was about and how it was all organized. Her editor had told her to ask about the Writers With No Future contest, so we talked about that for a bit. After eating, IIRC, I took her through the dealer's room and the art show as well. And the article which appeared the next day was about half SCA and a quarter bad-writer contest, the rest padded out with generalities that I don't remember anymore. I got glared at by some of my staff members, but there wasn't anything I could do -- she asked questions and I answered them. And one of the guys pointed out that there might've been more in her article when she turned it in, that these things get cut down all the time and whatever her editor thought was interesting was what was left.

If you read the chapter on the first Star Trek convention in the book Star Trek Lives (non-fiction about the Star Trek fan phenomenon, highly recommended) you'll see that there was one incident where a committee member got angry at the press. They'd shown up and were wandering around looking at things and taking pictures. The people they'd chosen to photograph were the fattest people they could find, wearing clothing absolutely covered with picture- and slogan-buttons. She asked them why they were taking those pictures, and said, "You're going to run that picture with a caption under it that says 'Typical Star Trek Fan,' aren't you?"

They go for what they think will sell papers or magazines. Or rather, what they think their readers will enjoy seeing, and how they slant the article depends on who their audience is. Those reporters at the Trek convention thought that their readers would enjoy smirking at the fat geeks. The chick at Lumos thought her readers would enjoy feeling superior to the pervy, pseudo-intellectual nerdettes with no social lives of their own. The woman who interviewed me thought her readers would enjoy gaping at the costumed crazies whacking each other over the head with sticks. They're all looking for an angle and when it comes to fandom they're rarely going to bother looking for one that makes us look good. It's just how the mundane press is and I agree that on the whole the Lumos article wasn't all that horrible. It could've been a lot worse, especially given her ignorance going in.

Angie

[kissed-by-fate.livejournal.com]

I thought she was trying to be clever, and failed. Granted I didn't go to Lumos, but I've learned to embrace my covert fangirl tendencies, and wished I could have gone. And BTW lady, they're ROBES, not gowns. Sheesh...even high school journalists do better research! Bad ones!

There are people in this world who will pass judgement on everything under the sun, without taking the time to understand what they're criticizing. It seems to be too much effort to do otherwise. Too bad for them; they'll never know the exhiliration of playing Quidditch, or being sexually tortured by Lucius...*sigh*

But if she compares fans to Scabbers one more time, she's history.