Short-sighted and closed-minded fools.

[mijan]

I'm sure many of you have seen the article posted in "The Guardian" now, under  "The Observer", by Carole Cadwalladr.  If you haven't, feel free to check out this pathetic excuse for a real piece of journalism.

I decided that I needed to write to these people.  We, the people of the Harry Potter fandom, have a good rapport with J.K.Rowling.  We pride ourselves on our open communities, the events we hold, and the fun we have as an extended fandom community.  Some of us write, some read, some draw, some costume.  Some of us do all of these things.  Yet, we all have the common thread of calling ourselves Harry Potter fans.  Citizens of the fandom, as it were.  And here, this clueless woman presents an entire article of baseless insults against ALL of us.  So, I wrote to the Guardian.  What follows is the e-mail I sent.  Please, feel free to read it.  And then, feel free to pass it on.  

I'm sure JKR has seen this woman's article by now.  I think it's high time she heard what the people of the fandom really think, and see who we really are.  (Look for my next post... trust me, you won't want to miss it.  I have something big in the works.)

Never in my life have I seen such a disgusting display of journalistic faux-pas.  Carole plainly has no clue about the topic on which she's presenting.  She refers to the attendees of the Lumos conference as (and I quote) "common-or-garden fans", and that "most of the audience aren't academics at all".  What constitutes an "academic", dare I ask?  Must I be a university professor with three Ph.D.'s?  I'm a writer and a scholar, and also a biologist working in a cancer research lab.  I study philosphy, and make a hobby of analyzing literature.  I consider myself an academic.  However, I also have a sense of humour and enjoyed wearing a costume to the convention.  Does this make me "common"?  Or a "garden-variety" fan?  Carole took a look at the surface-level of this convention, and made snap judgements based on appearances only.

 Of course, only a few paragraphs later, Carole writes, "[The two convention delegates are] fairly typical, I come to realise, of a certain Lumos constituency.  They're both in their thirties and both teachers."  So... are teachers NOT academics?  That seems quite contradictory to me.

 Obviously, people who attend these conventions are going to be Harry Potter fans.  Seeing as these books are currently the most popular novels in the world amongst adults and children alike, I would guess that we're in good company.  As for the nature of these books as "children's" books, I would suggest you refer back to J.K. Rowling's statement that she did NOT write these to be children's books.  They were marketed as such, but they are, first and foremost, a set of novels which can be (and are) read by people of all ages.  If Carole were to have actually READ the books (not just the first one, which was certainly the "youngest" of the books), she would have realized that the Harry Potter books are not just a mere children's book series.  It is sheer irresponsibility on the part of a reporter not to fully research her topic.  Carole not only didn't research her topic, she seemed to scoff at the topic from the beginning.  She wrote:

"The last time I paid attention, Harry Potter was a phenomenally successful series of children's books."

It would appear to me that she hasn't paid attention at all, by her OWN ADMISSION.

 Carole also wrote:
"This is Harry Potter for adults. A concept that I'd always thought of as one of those minority tastes like quantum physics for children. Or Star Trek for girls."

Amusing that I did study quantum physics as a child.  And I've been a Star Trek fan since I was an 8-year old girl.  Funny, that.

Of course, seeing as she likens Harry Potter to quantum physics, I would postulate that perhaps the concepts presented in Harry Potter are just far too difficult for her feeble, prejudiced, and stagnant mind.  I would be a fair assumption.

 Now, the next piece of obnoxious reporting on the part of Carole: The use of a person's whole name without permission.  "Rachael Livermore, a 25-year-old from London" never gave Carole consent to use her full name and residence, and her occupation, as you see several lines lower.  You just DON'T do that.  NEVER.

 Next, there's this line:  "Oh yes, I think, JK Rowling and the Complex Trope of Female Delusion."

Excuse me?  Now, this was mentioned in regards to the character Severus Snape, who is consistantly portrayed throughout the books as an ambiguous character, not a villain.  Fans look to see the final outcome for Snape, whether he's a villain or a hero.  He might be either one, yet Carole snits that many fans' wishes to see Snape "redeemed" is a "Complex Trope of Female Delusion."  Snape is the wild-card in the books, and arguably the most fascinating character.  Of course, Carole would have had to read the books to understand that.  Which she hasn't.

 Then, there's this: "But then, there's something so very female about this."

And what, pray tell, is wrong with female?  First of all, regarding this "need to dress the same as each other, in the way teenagers do", did it occur to Carole that seeing as people were wearing costumes from a specific fictional world, we'd all select costumes related to that world?  Standard "Hogwarts" robes were common, but also found would be the costumes of the various Hogwarts professors, the Death Eaters, the bad guys, minor characters, and even Fawkes the Phoenix (complete with feathers).  I found very few "Hermione" costumes.  In fact, I only recall three.  I saw four Harry's.  One Lily Potter.  One James Potter.  No Ronald Weasleys.  Three Draco Malfoys.  Four Lucius Malfoys.  Two Rita Skeeters.  One Professor Slughorn.  Two Luna Lovegoods.  Two Professor McGonagalls.  Three Snapes.  Two Trelawneys.  Two Cedric Diggorys.  One Dementor.  And the list goes on.  I've even seen people dressed as the Whomping Willow at fan events.  (In case you're also ignorant of the books, the Whomping Willow is indeed a tree.  A tree with attitude.)  And then there were just many costumes which were just purely creative.  People dress as specific characters if they happen to resemble a specific character.  If they don't - you find random works of creativity, or simple Hogwarts school robes.  Dressing up is fun, and innocent.  If your esteemed reporter has nothing better to do than to mock people because they have fun dressing up in costumes (none of which are racey or revealing), then she needs to sort out her priorities.

 If Carole has ever attended another fan convention, she'd see far more obsessive costuming than she saw at Lumos.  In the Star Wars fandom, there's a group of people who wear Stormtrooper costumes.  They spend thousands of dollars on fine details for their costumes.  They consider themselves a real "troop", and stay in character for entire conventions.  There are Darth Vader costumes.  Jedi robes.  And I'm sure some even dress as Chewbacca.  Then, look at Star Trek conventions.  People walking around in Star Fleet uniforms, with Vulcan ears, greeting each other with "Live long and prosper". Or full Klingon facial makeup, carrying on entire conversations in Klingon.  And then there are anime conventions (where half the characters from half the series are openly gay, might I add).  The costumes for those are endless.  A friend and co-worker of mine, who happens to be a brilliant scientist in one of the world's leading cancer research labs, dressed in an incredible demon costume for a recent anime convention.  Is it strange?  Possibly.  But in the end, it's innocent, and it's fun.  It's the nature of a fan convention.  Compared to most of this sort of event, the Harry Potter conventions have a noteworthy ring of academics, art, and intellectualism.  But that doesn't mean we can't have a bit of levity.

 Have you ever worn a costume?  Dressed up for a Halloween party, or a masquerade?  Oh dear, you mustn't do that, because then you're obviously just desperate to fit in, like all the other pitiful people with teenage mentalities.  Carole wrote: "Over three days, I start to realise why so many of them need Harry Potter."  Yet, she never clearly states a conclusion.  She simply makes a broad, condescending statement with no real base.  So, I'd like to make her conclusion for her.

 We don't NEED Harry Potter.  We LIKE Harry Potter.  We like the people we've met through our enjoyment of the books and movies.  Are we trying to "fit in"?  Not hardly.  If we were, we wouldn't do this at all.  It's not the social norm.  We do this because it's fun.  We all have lives outside of the conventions, the books, the fanfiction, and so on.  As I said, I'm a Biologist.  And a Soldier, if you must know.  I have a family and friends and a career, none of which is based on a fictional book series.  However, life is stressful, and when I come home in the evenings, like everyone else, I enjoy an escape.  Some people spend hours on their video game systems.  Some get wrapped up in so-called "reality TV" and sitcoms.  ("Can you believe who they voted off American Idol last night?!?" they say, as if it's the end of the world.)  Some lose themselves in internet chat rooms.  Some get drunk, or high.  Considering all these options, there are many worse things I could do.  As for me, I think it's a perfectly acceptable use of my time to come home from the lab, run a few miles, take a shower, cook a light meal, and sit down to write, read, and share with friends over a common interest.  If that interest happens to be Harry Potter, I don't see a problem.

 The short of the matter is that I, along with 1,199 other fans, were directly insulted by this baseless article.  Carole Cadwalladr's article was ill-informed, poorly researched, and blatantly biased.  She's a festering sore on your organization's reputation; that is, if your organization has a reputation worth defending.  Her article is nothing but some uppity woman's mightier-than-thou opinions about something she doesn't understand.  I feel sorry for people like that.  People who have to feel better about themselves by insulting others.  People who are so close-minded and tight-arsed that they can't relax and see the fun in things. 

 Good luck to you and your group.  If Carole is the sort of person representative of your group, you'll need all the luck you can get.

~Mijan  (Also known as "Harry" from Lumos 2006)

Comments

[truesalcove.livejournal.com]

*applauds* You said everything beautifully. And I'm glad that someone responded to the article in such a fashion. The article was incredibly insulting and I sat through the whole thing just shocked. Thanks hon!

[mijan.livejournal.com]

*tips hat* T'was nothing. We were all thinking it. I just can't keep my mouth shut, that's all. *grins*

[skarlettfever.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing your reply.
:)

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Very welcome! PASS IT ON! :D

[vampireanneke.livejournal.com]

Everyone is screaming over the article. I read it and just laughed because it was so full of contradictions that it couldn't have been taken seriouslly. (hugs) Take care Harry.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Very full of contradictions. But for those who want sensationalism, they're not going to pay attention to the contradictions - just to the things they want to hear. They're just going to snub us, and continue to say obnoxious things. So, therefore, someone has to speak up, right? :)

[fiona-fawkes.livejournal.com]

Puttin' the smack down. Alright. And can I just say that the icon had me in a fit of giggles. And you have something big in the works? Oh my, now this could get interesting.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

You mean my icon I used for the entry? *grins* That was from the Witching Hour. Can you see Chris Rankin in the background? :)

As for what I have planned... stay tuned!

[glockgal.livejournal.com]

Did you send this to the editor already? *succinct and speedy you*

[mijan.livejournal.com]

But of course, my dear! I just wish I had time to write more, but I've often found that idiots have short attention spans, and anything further would have been wasted on feeble minds. Do you think so? *giggles*

[myashke.livejournal.com]

First, amen. Thank you for taking the time to write what needed to be written to these people.

Second, every article published in a so-called mainstream rag will take anything the likes of you and I might have been enjoying at Lumos completely out of context and make it ridiculous or perverted. That's the quickest way to cheap readership, to ruffled feathers (*smooths yours down a bit*), to the coddling of vanillas who need to be reassured that their way of life is *the* way of life, despite proof to the negative by the slash moral majority's presence at the con.

If you've never considered dressing up, never dreamed of being someone else, never felt the glow of the stage on your face, never lived outside yourself, never created for the pleasure of it, well, you might do something as silly as walk blindly into a fan convention (having very little frame of reference, to boot), ready to condemn those who *do* have such passion. I pity this woman.

And now, love, check your email if you're able.
xoxox

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Already checked it - haven't had a chance to reply. Don't worry, I will. :)

[annephoenix.livejournal.com]

Most excellent open letter :) ... Well-written and clever and sooooo true. When I saw Rachael's name mentioned, I almost blew my top. Real names are No. Especially in that kind of context *headdesk*. The only thing I'd change (if you still can), is the "tight-arsed" at the end. It's dismissively common in comparison to the wonderful formal language of the rest of the letter. I'll be buying that issue your letter gets printed in! They should, technically print it .... But with the press you never know. They might just stick their collective heads in the sand :(.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but there wasn't any other term that described her attitude so perfectly. And sometimes, when placed in the context of an otherwise very tightly-written article, a down-and-dirty insult really clinches it. :)

[emeraldandazure.livejournal.com]

omg that article was horrific!-shakes fist- Good job with the response!

[mijan.livejournal.com]

*grins* Let's see if they reply...

[phantomtale666.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I'd love to be able to responed myself, but I'm not so ordered or eloquent. Its nice to know you've got our backs.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Doing the best I can! Let's see what happens. Just keep passing it on! The more people who see this, the more we can get our voices heard. I mean, I'm not trying to speak FOR the fandom, but I'd guess most of us would generally agree with what I wrote, based on what I've already read of people's responses to the article.

[the_con_cept.livejournal.com]

Wonderful! I was really exasperated by the whole sneering tone of the article and, especially, the complete lack of research. Regardless of whether she'd flipped through the books, less than five minutes on the internet would have garnered a slash fic or two, minimizing her surprise at the actual event, you know? I'm positive of this, because in my first forays into the Potter fandom a few years ago, I found Snape/Hermione fic within moments, and slashfic just after. So come on, it's not difficult.

And the naming of names? THAT'S an offense worth firing her over. Talk about a lack of journalistic integrity.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Yesh, the bitch needs a good smackdown. Lack of journalistic integrity, indeed. She reminds me of a Rita Skeeter, really. Just looking to gain more readers at anyone's expense.

[yaycoffee.livejournal.com]

Well stated! You'll have to let us know if you get a response.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I shall! And I'll post it here! :)

[quidditchmaster.livejournal.com]

[mijan.livejournal.com]

MUAHA!

[vampireanneke.livejournal.com]

Your response left a few holes. I was going to be silent about it, but I was motived to respond to the editor as well. Here is what I sent (however I'm not so elegant in my writing.)...

Dear Editor,

I’m writing in regards to Carole Cadwalladr’s article ‘Harry Potter and the mystery of an academic obsession’. Beyond the obvious contradictions and shock value statements, the article showed a very limited view of the convention and insulted those who attended along with gross stereotyping applied.

This first problem she had with the convention is that it was ‘for adults’ only. They books are marketed as children books but are widely accepted by readers and critics that the powerfully crafted writing has no generational limit. That the Children’s best seller list was created specifically for this series of book, where it could easily top the adult book market. Marketing and merchandising has taken up the large adult fan base so much that there are ‘adult’ covers of the novels. So saying these books are simply for children is contrary to the educated public opinion.

She goes on to comment about the fan base at the convention being primarily female. This is due to multiple factors. Woman read fantasy and fiction more then men. Woman are also more likely to read to their children and/or pick out books for their children to read. Woman are less visually oriented then men, so the books have a higher appeal to them, while men may appreciate the movies more. Book clubs you will also find are primarily woman…why is that?

As for ‘Harry Potter Porn’ as the writer of the article put its, she shows an even more uneducated view of that part of the fandom. It is widely recognized that fanfiction is not for everyone. The write of the article is obviously someone who can not understand or appreciate the creativity and exploration that goes into such stories. Have you never finished a book and wished that it had ended differently? Or found a minor character in a novel far more interesting then the main character? Fanfiction takes those what if situations and expands on them in any direction a person’s mind can take them. The Harry Potter universe is incomplete while we wait for book 7 so this leaves lots of open ended exploration. One such topic that is explored is male/male or slash in the Harry Potter world. One of the most popular pairings is Harry/Draco, and it’s understandable that someone outside of the fandom and who has not read the books, could not understand the pairing. There is a saying ‘I think he doth protest to much’, which is the basic foundation of Harry/Draco slash. Exploring the idea that all their rivalry is actual a cover to their true feelings of love. You may think this is reading to far into a novel, creating stuff that isn’t there, but the Harry Potter books have shown a depth which forces you to explore and think outside the box. A name mentioned in the first book, turns out to be a major character in the third. An item in the second book, turns out to be a major key to the overall mystery of the books, and far more then it appeared to be in book two, but you don’t learn this until book six. With the number of red herrings and plot twists in the novels, the fans have done a lot of exploration and extrapolation on situations. Yes, some of which are slashable or even unrealistic, and far fetched, but haven’t you ever routed for the bad guy in a story or a movie. You know the bad guy is going to lose but you cheer for them anyways, and the slash writers are the same. They know Harry and Draco won’t end up together, but it’s just fun to think about.

[vampireanneke.livejournal.com]

The article continues to where she seems offended by people’s response to the guests of honor and speakers at the conference. At the most basic level the attendees know that the speakers have taken time from their lives to talk about a subject the audience is interested in. You give speakers, even at a business meeting respect, applause and appreciation. When they bring up interesting theories or share sympathy with the crowd, you respond in turn. Steve Vander Ark’s website the Harry Potter Lexicon is a huge undertaking, and database of knowledge that even J.K. Rowling admits to using the site herself. When a billionaire writer admits to using your website for research and checking of her facts on the books that made her a billionaire, you deserve some respect and will get applause.

This is also not the first Female Dominated fandom. This however is currently the most publicized fandom the woman are in the majority because of the international renown the books have obtained. The panel on Journalism and Ethics in Harry Potter was in regards to Journalism and Ethics in HARRY POTTER, however your writer seems to think it was in regards to the actual British press. There is some questions about if there is a commentary being made in the books about the British press, and sadly from the article I’m seeing bad ethics in regards to the actual British Press that you represent.

In the end of the article the author makes very nice statements about how the conference is a positive thing because after all it’s a discussion about books. Then she turns it to a caty comment that tries to belittle the educational value of the discussions that were had at the convention. She may not have been aware but college credits were available for certain lectures and presentations, I would say there is value to the discussion. Overall the article showed a very close minded interpretation of the events of the convention. The writer appeared to speak to people in a casual manner, and thus was responded to in the jargon of the fandom. If she had addressed herself properly as a reporter, she would have had the jargon explained to her, and may have enjoyed herself at the convention. What I have gotten from her article instead was of a woman who was given an assignment she didn’t like, didn’t enjoy, that she then saw a part of the fandom that she didn’t understand, most likely found personally objectionable and let her negativity color her assessment of the convention, verses being objective and finding out what the convention was about. The article was offensive with a shock title that was nothing more then a ploy to sell more newspapers and raise un-needed controversy should she have done her job properly. All of this reflects badly on your organization, and further discredits this article and any future articles within your paper.

[toshimasa.livejournal.com]

Well said! I'll say I didn't take the article as serious, as I hear the same type of slander in each fandom I participate in. Harry Potter being one of my three main fandoms, after awhile it starts to all blur together.

But I'm glad you wrote to them against the reporter, as she obviously did not have any understanding of what she was writing about.

I will say, there is one large difference I noticed between Anime conventions and Harry Potter conferences. That would be that anime conventions do indeed have a large amount of scary people, whether that be social inept people or just...slightly delusional people (and I've found this over years and years of attending and working anime conventions). Harry Potter confrences have nothing of the sort. So honestly I don't understand her particular digust towards the fandom when there are far worse as far as fans go.

Either way, well done letter. I'm hoping there might be a reply, I'd like to see how they defend her article.

P.S. There are Chewbacca's out there. Here in Colorado, we have one of the best that goes to Starfest. He's near 7 feet in height and completely fits the part.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Yay for Chewbacca! Being only 5'1", the best I could hope to do is play an Ewok.

[nicolerae4.livejournal.com]

*de-lurks*

This was gorgeous. Oh, she is a real-life Rita Skeeter, isn't she? Shall we squash her like a beetle?? XD I would love to see what (if) their editor's reply is. Thank you for representing us (Harry Potter fans) in a professional, intelligent, (and powerful!) way.

[crikkita.livejournal.com]

BRAVO!! That's very well-written, and I'm proud of you for creating and sending this email. I hope the editor listens, because it would clearly be the wise thing to do.

Looking forward to that next post!

[themadfish.livejournal.com]

'So, you're a fan of the books?' asks Linda.

Well, not really, I say.

'But you've read the books, right?'

Well ... I say, some of them.

'But you've seen the fi lms at least?'

A couple, I say.

'Oh my gosh!' says Linda. She's genuinely shocked even though I may have rather overstated my familiarity with the work. I read The Philosopher's Stone on the plane.

--

And why the fuck would she not be "genuinely shocked"? It's a fucking HP convention! You know, a convention for people who like and read the books. Anyone at the convention who hasn't read the books is going to stick out. Bah.

How the hell are you going to write a non-biased report when you don't know anything about the subject you're writing about?

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Yep, that would pretty much be the point, wouldn't it? It's a Harry Potter convention, so people are going to know and love all things Harry Potter, BOTH fanon AND canon. Only an idiot would show up an an HP convention without a clue, and with a chip on her boney shoulders.

For example, why the hell would I go to an anime convention? I don't know a damn thing about it! BUT, if I WERE to go to an anime convention, I wouldn't be so rude as to insult people for their love of anime. It's THEIR convention!

[shezan.livejournal.com]

I personally believe calling her Ms. [Whatserface] instead of "Carole" would have made your point better, but you do express your feelings beautifully.

Based on long experience, though, I have little hope that the reaction at Farringdon Road will be other than "Look! Another of those crazies has emailed thousands of words!" Subtext among hacks: free copy? Can't take these people seriously, obviously.

It would probably more effective to go write something making those points in a print publication. Isn't there a Sunday Times or Torygraph supplement of sorts that would take a piece by fans dissing clueless reporters sent to the con? ("We could tell the Reporter From A Major Broasheet in seconds. Confronted with the hardship of doing her homework, said homework consisting of reading a couple of children's books over an 8-hour plane flight, she took the time-honoured Fleet Street solution and watched the in-flight reruns of 'Friends' instead," etc. etc., you get the gist.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... tempting. VERY tempting. To whom would you suggest I send a polished version of this letter? I'd love to see it in print, with some additional points added, and the verbage smoothed out a bit.

I called her Carole because that's the pen name I received. To use base insults instead of her name would only lower the impact of my work by weakening its credibility. For now, I'll stick with the bitch's name. *snicker*

And, of course, regarding "Carole's" homework, obviously a short reading assignment is too difficult for her. Perhaps I should recommend some Dr. Seuss. More her speed.

[mimoletnoe.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm... it would have more power to it if it was less emotional.
;-)

My only problem with this article is that the whole premise is wrong. No journalist in their sane mind would go to a convention on, say, sustainable development, and mock the topics, or the jargon or whatnot (although, trust me - those are ridiculous, I have translated them). Were she to treat this con as any other academic event, she would draw different conclusions.
I guess it was the dressing up thingie (which I never, ever will get, either), which threw her off, and then it was the all-female thingie that added insult to injury. And this whole time the background attitude had been: 'one can't study Harry Potter seriously'. Well, to argue with this point - which is, as I say, the stem of the whole piece - one had to refer to the vast amount of HP research and children/young adult lit research that does exist in the world. That would bring things into perspective, I guess. Because once you realize, as an outsider and a layman, that the HP phenomenon can be studied just like any other phenomenon, you can then treat HP conference just like any other conference - a gathering of weird individuals, who are obsessing over something they know and like. ANd if they happen to find something that, to your mind, is not there, good for them. The dressing up, though, I don't know how to treat '-))) No offence, it's just plain weird. ;)

[mijan.livejournal.com]

The costumes are simply a fun thing for most people. Have you ever worn a costume for anything? Halloween? A masquerade? If you haven't... seriously, I'd recommend it. It's fun to be able to step outside of your normal self-presentation, or to temporarily assume the role of a character. I've done stage performing, and it's just FUN to play the role of someone else. Costumes are fun, creative, and yes, just a bit silly. In a world where most things are so serious and bland, it's a joyful relief to see people walking through the halls of a convention center or resort dressed in colourful robes, t-shirts, and scarves. It's nice to see small elements of movies and books come to life, just for a little while.

I've said before, and was quoted in quite a few different articles shortly following the Witching Hour:

"The great thing about Harry Potter fans is that we DO indeed know the difference between fantasy and reality. We just occasionally chose to ignore it."

[ackonrad.livejournal.com]

You rock. I thought their article was misogynistic crap, and I'm glad to see your answer. Show 'em, girl!

[apythia.livejournal.com]

Oh well said!

It would serve them right to get a letter from every one of the participants.

I am a newspaper editor and there is no way in hell a story like that EVER would have been published in my section -- no matter what the topic of the con. I hold the editor just as responsible as the "reporter."

I suggested that perhaps she might read the books. She might find she has something in common with one Rita Skeeter. Neither understand proper reporting.

[furiosity.livejournal.com]

We don't NEED Harry Potter. We LIKE Harry Potter.
Which is really, really the whole point. Well-said.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

*tips hat* But of course! And the rest of the rant... just felt good. *grins*

[silverlily81.livejournal.com]

I wish I could come off as level headed as you. I just read her rubbish and was beyond words. I think that it was very unprofessional of her superiors to send such a biased reporter who obviously did not do her homework.

Well said, Harry.

[karaz.livejournal.com]

Has anyone seen the actual print copy of this story? Because there was a local photographer who took pictures for the Observer. I was in a few of them. I'm going to puke if my face was next to this article.

[owens-mom.livejournal.com]

Just want to say that is a well-reasoned and insightful letter.

and the stuff at the end, about why we are in this fandom? spot on, and made me smile.

*thumbs up*