Adam, Fandom and Me
This post began as a comment to eleanor_lavish as a reaction to the Out fiasco. When it very quickly became apparent that I was just starting to sort of spew out my personal thoughts on Adam-fandom in general into the comment box, it became its own post instead
( Read more... )
Oh, yes, I completely see your point there. It never occured to me to interpret that comment that way, which is especially odd since I found it exceptionally out of place considering the context of the rest of the letter. But, yes, I can completely see that side now. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
But with that new interpretation in mind, I think it's a little off-putting and slightly hypocritical for him to call Adam out like that inside the same issue where his magazine (regardless of their ultimate presumably good intentions) is... using him as a cash cow. It's a business, after all, and their agenda might be to promote and express gay culture but it's also to make money. So to me that comes across as a little like he's calling Adam out for having questionable judgment and not surrounding himself with people that have his best interests at heart, while he sits back and counts all the money that Adam on the cover of that self-same issue made his magazine. He could have at least included the letter in maybe the next issue? :-/
Reply
I will note that Adam's interview, while not touching on the topics his publicists laid out as off-limits, is still pretty frank and interesting, and they published that in full. I think Out wants Adam to be Adam, but they also want to remind him what that means in a larger context.
I just think it's most frustrating to me that this whole thing keeps coming back to Hicklin's tone, or whether he should have addressed the letter to the publicist instead, or pushed it to a later issue. Those are all semi-valid, though mostly semantic issues, and they obscure the real meat of his letter, which was that Shana had to deal with a completely shocking request, and I think Hicklin was totally in his rights to shine a light on that. He's frustrated with Adam/his management/the fact that Adam wouldn't take a call from Out and instead did the Details cover story with the naked lady, and that certainly comes through. But that isn't his story here.
Is Out a business, looking to make money from having Adam on the cover? Sure. But it's also a magazine with a clientele who (before this all blew up and I realized I am probably sadly wrong about this) deserve to know that Adam's publicist was trying to straight-wash him out of any potentially political or "too gay" statements. Hicklin hasn't made any friends from this, other than... me, I guess. Which is a shame, I think. He's a journalist with a focus on gay issues, and to him, that was CERTAINLY a big enough story to mention.
Reply
I see complete validity in your interpretation of that comment and it DOES make much more sense in context. Though, I still mean the same things I said, but in an 'this is where my mind and gut immediately went and I really hope I'm wrong' kind of way.
As to your new points... Publicists tell reporters the topics they can't talk about in interviews all the time. Adam doesn't want to be political about gay issues, so (in a COMPLETELY wrong and out of line way) Adam's management told her not to talk about them. I don't blame her for being shocked and offended at all. I don't blame Hicklin for being offended on her behalf and on behalf of the magazine either. I just read some hypocrisy from his timing and his tone, I guess?
Ugh, controversy.
And I'm sorry this whole thing got to you so much. Sometimes things just really strike a nerve. Your frustration with it and with Adam in that way is completely warrented.
*hugshugs*
Reply
Mostly I just want to call you and talk about this this weekend - and also we can talk about why you should love JONAS. ;)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment