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

[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!

[themadfish.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I mean, I was just at an anime convention this weekend. Yes, many of the people are stupid and I make fun of them. I'll sometimes make fun of bad cosplay. Or I get really annoyed at squealy fangirls. But the crazier side of fans is NOT the entire convention. And she went in labling everyone as idiots, whether they were or not.

Plus, I believe I have a right to make fun of people in the anime fandom because I'm in it. I know it very well. I know its faults. She didn't know shit.