![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
erastesI've finally got around to reading the Observer review of Lumos and I found it brilliant, actually. I can understand completely that the woman found the entire thing completely baffling and not a little amusing. I would too, if I hadn't been aware of Slash and/or the phenomenom of HP4Grown ups.
I loved this : And, even in Vegas, one of the oddest places on earth, the barmen in the hotel casino shake their heads at me when they see my name tag. "You're with the convention?"
"I am," I say. They give me a long, hard look. "You've heard of Star Trek conventions", I say. "It's not so different."
"Nuh-huh," says one. "There it's all about the merchandising and maybe, you know, you get to meet William Shatner. It's not about wearing a cape and going to lectures."
And those lectures - OMG. I'm so glad I didn't go. 'Muggles and Mental Health: Rites of Transformation and A Psychoanalytical Perspective on the Inner World of Harry Potter'......'Comrade Potter: A Marxist Reading' in which the speaker claims that a Nimbus 2000 broomstick is 'coveted not because of its usefulness but because of the value assigned to it by society'. .... And then 'Disney does Derrida', which is subtitled 'Joanne Rowling as a Writer of Our Times'
What ? I mean. WHAT??? I'm not even intelligent enough to understand the fucking TITLES. And I really would NOT want to travel 6000 miles or however far it is, just to have British Food cooked by Americans. I feel sorry for her.
I don't think the fact that she's not a "fan" matters. If I had no knowledge of fandom, I'd want to read this type of review, written by someone who is seeing it for the first time and is amazed by what she sees. She mentions Beatlemania, and she's not far out, I guess. Except of course the fans could actually SEE their idols back then. If I were dropped back on the tarmac when Beatlemania hit, I'd probably just as bemused as this reporter was about Potterdom.
But as usual, the rabid in our midst are horrified by this review. OH NO! Someone doesn't GET that we take kiddie books and write porn! Let's get her!!!
Really. *rolls eyes* Mr Opinion? Meet Mr Someone Else's Opinion.
I loved this : And, even in Vegas, one of the oddest places on earth, the barmen in the hotel casino shake their heads at me when they see my name tag. "You're with the convention?"
"I am," I say. They give me a long, hard look. "You've heard of Star Trek conventions", I say. "It's not so different."
"Nuh-huh," says one. "There it's all about the merchandising and maybe, you know, you get to meet William Shatner. It's not about wearing a cape and going to lectures."
And those lectures - OMG. I'm so glad I didn't go. 'Muggles and Mental Health: Rites of Transformation and A Psychoanalytical Perspective on the Inner World of Harry Potter'......'Comrade Potter: A Marxist Reading' in which the speaker claims that a Nimbus 2000 broomstick is 'coveted not because of its usefulness but because of the value assigned to it by society'. .... And then 'Disney does Derrida', which is subtitled 'Joanne Rowling as a Writer of Our Times'
What ? I mean. WHAT??? I'm not even intelligent enough to understand the fucking TITLES. And I really would NOT want to travel 6000 miles or however far it is, just to have British Food cooked by Americans. I feel sorry for her.
I don't think the fact that she's not a "fan" matters. If I had no knowledge of fandom, I'd want to read this type of review, written by someone who is seeing it for the first time and is amazed by what she sees. She mentions Beatlemania, and she's not far out, I guess. Except of course the fans could actually SEE their idols back then. If I were dropped back on the tarmac when Beatlemania hit, I'd probably just as bemused as this reporter was about Potterdom.
But as usual, the rabid in our midst are horrified by this review. OH NO! Someone doesn't GET that we take kiddie books and write porn! Let's get her!!!
Really. *rolls eyes* Mr Opinion? Meet Mr Someone Else's Opinion.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-13 08:07 pm (UTC)I'm fine with the reporter's befuddlement, with the fact that she's not a fan, even with the fact that she found a lot of the convention strange and off-putting, especially the slash parts. That's to be expected and understood. I'm not ok with the fact that she openly admitted to not having done her homework in reading the books, with her anti-intellectual attitude, with the fact she used people's real names when they asked her not to (because they could get in trouble at work if she did, considering the timbre of her article), with the fact that she misquoted people and with the fact that she misrepresented a lot of academics' work. For example, I went to two of the three panels she mentioned in that quote you provided (I don't get Derrida either, so I skipped that one), and the Comrade Potter paper wasn't at all what she said it was. She just took a quote out of context that by itself sounded very odd and said the paper was all about that. I'm not saying it's anyone's fault they don't know this. I just know about half the people she quoted in the article, and went to several presentations. So I'm just telling people who didn't go what I saw.
I'm sorry for vomiting all over your LJ, erastes. I'm all for having fun at conventions, not taking oneself too seriously and for allowing reporters to have their opinions and express them. I'm also annoyed at people who want to send her flames instead of reasoned rebuttals, who want to mail the paper Harry Potter books, who want to go to the Observer's offices and "raise some hell". If this was just a "look at the weird fans!" piece I wouldn't even bat an eye. I just don't like the sloppiness of the article, its questionable ethics, and its fairly condescending tone. She hurt a lot of people with this piece, and in saying that I wish I only meant hurt their feelings.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-13 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-13 08:33 pm (UTC)The trouble is of course is that she's under space restrictions, so for all we know she may have written a lot more and it was edited to death - we just don't know. I have to say that I enjoyed the style of it - perhaps it's just my evil streak, or "getting" the Brit style or something.
I do agree that she shouldn't have used real names when they asked her to though! That was pretty bad, but then again, Journos! You can't trust 'em.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 01:37 am (UTC)Possibly she did write more and it was edited out. I'm willing to buy that. But given the tone of the rest of her article, I think I can safely say I doubt any cut material would have changed its focus.
To be honest, I've had a couple folks on the other side of the pond mention the Brit style to me , or that I just don't understand British wit or humor (not saying you accused me of that, as you didn't. Just saying it's been brought up). I'm a little bothered by that defense. First of all, I studied in the UK for awhile and I practically grew up on British TV and British literature. I think I "get" British style reasonably well for someone who isn't British, and I don't think being offended at the article has anything to do with not understanding a particular sense of humor. If an American had written an article using our own cruel brand of snark, I'd be just as bothered. But then again, I'm just not the kind of journalist who finds much profit in poking fun at people for their hobbies and interests. I save my more poisonous moments for people who are actually hurting others, and even then I don't take cheap shots. It's really sad to me today that journalists in developed countries (and readers) think that insult, innuendo and laughing at something they don't understand and don't particularly want to (in this case, literary criticism) amounts to any sort of relevant discourse. This wouldn't upset me so much if I didn't see the kind of attitude in this article creeping into every kind of article, instead of staying on the editorial page where it belongs.
Moving on as for the "Journos!You can't trust 'em." ...yes. But this is exactly the problem. If readers can't trust us to report fairly and without actively trying to hurt the people we interview, then it's a seriously bad day for journalism. Our livelyhoods are based on trust. And the sad thing is, I'm dismissed by a national newspaper as some academic loony for saying just that in my paper.