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

Comments

[viverra_libro]

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.

[amanuensis1]

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?

[melonaise]

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.

[amanuensis1]

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.

[cluegirl]

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.

[amanuensis1]

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.

[naatz]

Seconded, though I've only read a half. She sounded rather baffled, but charmed at the same time and dedicated.

{By half, I mean the welcoming feast. Next time I think the Lumos people should not declare the ideas behind the doings, unless asked.}

Then again, I wasn't at Lumos, so I can't discern that well what's offending or unoffending. *shrugs*

|Meduza|

[virginie_m]

I read the article and that side of it makes me feel a bit weird. The dressing up and the academic conference bits I mean. I'll probably never go to a con but if I did I think I'd just want to hang out in a pub somewhere and talk to everyone. And then there'd be a bit of sqeeing and lots of dancing.

That said if I ever see a room with 1,200 lovely fan girls in it, half of them dressed as Hermione or Harry or Snape? I'd probably get overexcited.

[sciencegeek]

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.

[amanuensis1]

That kind of complaint I can understand.

[summerborn]

Ironic, given the line about one female Harry Potter refuses to answer my questions on the grounds that 'the British press lack ethics and principles'.

[son_of_darkness]

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]

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.

[son_of_darkness]

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.

[bethbethbeth]

*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

[the_con_cept]

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]

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.

[jamoche]

I'd bet it was more a "hey, who wants a paid vacation in Vegas, we'll use this con as an excuse. Don't bother with research, just do the usual fen-are-freaks that we do whenever we cover any subculture event." Because really, it was just write-by-numbers, the same thing I've seen for SF cons or gay pride marches. She'd write the same thing about the 4000 Apple geeks I'm currently sharing an auditorium with, and probably say we worship Steve Jobs. (We don't. We worship Steve Wozniak).

[amanuensis1]

WOO! APPLE! STEVE!

(there, we don't even have to specify which Steve. ^_^ )

And, yeah, I really think your perspective is likely to be right.