I Like Information

[oudeteron]

I would like to know how we can get anything said at all if, before we even open the virtual equivalent of our mouths, we are judged by whatever forum or platform we use to host our statements on. Lately I've seen LJ users flinging mock-insults at Tumblr users, the internet at large tut-tutting LJ users, and so on, all based upon the assumption

Comments

[anactoria]

Hello again. ;) Well, what this really put me in mind of was a conference I attended earlier in the year. The last presenter on the first day was a really young guy (an MA student), and after he'd given his paper I heard quite a few people being very disparaging because he'd referred to TVTropes in his presentation. I'm not talking about silver-haired old professors, mind -- they were fellow PhD students, in the 20-30 age bracket.

And yeah, the paper definitely wasn't perfect, and you certainly need a greater variety of references than the presenter gave. But the fact that people were so ready to dismiss the paper completely because the guy had referred to something online that wasn't an academic journal (you know, the kind that you can only access with a subscription costing several hundreds of pounds annually, so you've got no chance if you're not part of an institution...) was kind of depressing. Not that I'm suggesting that anyone should build an essay or a paper solely from info off TVTropes or Wiki or anything, but the fact that there are all these thoughtful, well-researched conversations about literature and TV and film out there that are going completely ignored... gives me a bad feeling, I guess.

Also, it was kind of hugely obvious that there were maybe 4 or 5 people there who were fannish, and there were just these occasional bits of the conversation that seemed to fly over the heads of everyone else there. Which, y'know, felt kind of cool because it was like being in a secret club. ;) But on a more serious level, I do hope that it becomes more acceptable to refer to these kinds of conversations and have them taken seriously. But at the same time, there are a lot of vested interests (particularly academic publishers) who may well want to prevent that happening. IDK if I'm hopeful or not, I guess.

Anyway, yeah, the point of the above is mostly... I agree. Sorry about the long-windedness *g*.

[oudeteron]

Hey! :D Thanks for sharing this experience since it's certainly enlightening on people's attitudes, to say the least. Also, wow.

But the fact that people were so ready to dismiss the paper completely because the guy had referred to something online that wasn't an academic journal (you know, the kind that you can only access with a subscription costing several hundreds of pounds annually, so you've got no chance if you're not part of an institution...) was kind of depressing.

Can I just say "this" over and over? Because, yeah, the fact alone that the journals considered "respectable" are again restricted and dependent on either money or institutional support illustrates the point perfectly. It's so obviously about what's seen as legitimate and what isn't by some arbitrary consensus that it's not even funny. And then they go and make it less available.

Those fannish people must've made it worth it, though. I love inside jokes and finding people who get them. XD

No need to apologize for long-windedness; this was interesting to read! And, yeah, I agree with you too.