NY Times on the HP Fandom, Redux

[heidi8]

It's not the first time they've written about the HP fandom, or HP slash, but it is the first time they've put "fanfic" in quotes as if it's not a real "thing

Comments

[teaberryblue]

I thought the "fanfic" in quotes was written like that as a sort of nod-nod-wink-wink-it's-really-smut thing, if that makes any sense?

[heidi8]

It's possible, and I did wonder that, but since fanfic isn't synonymous with smut, it feels a little oversnarky and disingenuous that they're trying to make that parallel.

[teaberryblue]

Oh, no, I don't think they're suggesting that all fanfic is smut. I think they're suggesting "We're not going to actually say smutfic and traumatize all the pearl-clutching types who make up the majority of NYT readership, so we're adding some quotes and those of you who understand what sort of story we're talking about will get it, and those who wish to go on casually and blissfully oblivious can read this sentence some other way."

[imaginarycircus]

The article back in like 2001 was what made me stop lurking. I remember that vividly.

[heidi8]

And I am so glad you did! Do you remember the not-insignificant amount of wank about the article itself, though, and the concern by some that The Powers That Be now knew about Fandom?

[imaginarycircus]

Yes. OMG.

Thought you'd want to see this article, too - very well done, I think

[azriona]

Time on fanction