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

[ani_bester]

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]

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.

[karadin]

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]

Yes! Ramp it up, baby! ^_^

Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[gmth]

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]

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.

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[dancing_moon]

though I did find the overall tone of the article bordering on mysogynistic.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so! That was actually what bothered me most, because, bestiality is taboo so of course it will freak her. People dressed strangely are always considered odd.

But the wording in many places the (in my eyes) unfavorable comparsion to a Stark Trek con which she included and the whole "since it's mostly girls the con is like this and there can be no other reason at all, nope" tone just bugged me

Re: Reposted because I screwed up the first time

[amanuensis1]

Hmm. Well, I will say that it is something to ponder, because it is the first fandom I've been in where females swelled the ranks. So I do wonder why that would be.

[elsajeni]

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

[amanuensis1]

YOU CAN'T ACT HORRIFIED BY OUR RAPE FANTASIES ABOUT OLD MEN AND TEENAGED GIRLS AND THEN HOLD NABOKOV UP AS A BETTER EXAMPLE.

*dies laughing* I can't add a thing to that. You GO, girl!

[sinclair_furie]

YOU CAN'T ACT HORRIFIED BY OUR RAPE FANTASIES ABOUT OLD MEN AND TEENAGED GIRLS AND THEN HOLD NABOKOV UP AS A BETTER EXAMPLE.
AHAHAHAH! WORD.
You know, I thought the article was interesting because of how incomplete the picture it gave of HP fandom was. I dunno, I always find it interesting to see what outsiders glean from short, intense exposure to fandom.
But really, she should have done her homework.

[sophierom]

I just had to comment. Your point about Nabokov made me laugh for several minutes straight. Thank you. You've really made my day. ;-D

[annephoenix]

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 ...

[amanuensis1]

Yeah, there's no strong wish to unbias oneself once it gets personal, is there? I'm very sympathetic in that case.

[midnitemaraud_r]

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

[amanuensis1]

Wow, excellently put and complete, including the footnote. What's interesting is that I read that "They just seem" line without that kind of emphasis on "seem." I read it as if she were marveling: "Wow. They seem nice. And they're educated. And they're middle-class. And they write homoerotic fiction. So that must fit the definition of nice."

And there's a WORLD of difference in those reads. That's interesting, innit.

[midnitemaraud_r]

And there's a WORLD of difference in those reads. That's interesting, innit.

You know, I initially read it as you did. Beth emailed me the link last weekend - late Saturday night, and I had a (LJ) friend over and we were giggling while reading it. That was until we got a little further along in the article. When I read it again, the word "seem" in her sentence completely took on a new inflection and emphasis for me. It was a bit at odds from what I remembered of her, because while, yes, she was very surprised upon learning about the 'adult' side of fandom, she didn't seem at all disgusted by it. What I'm still puzzling over is, was it just a 'poker face' or did she write the article the way she did for a reason?

Very interesting indeed.