Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Roffling all over the wanking world ([info]adora_spintriae) wrote in [info]fandom_rant,
@ 2005-03-13 11:03:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:Ranty Mc Rantpants
Current music:Missy Higgins - This Is How It Goes

This isn't Shakespeare, people.
Dear people in HP fandom who treat JKR's books as though they should be The Great Modern English Novel, or something.

Stop. Please. Failing that, get the fuck out of my fandom.

There's not a lot of you, but the few of you are annoying in a really obtrusive way. These aren't pieces of socio-political commentary you're dissecting here. They are, first and foremost, kids books, and if Rowling took your criticism to heart and started acting like a good, politically-correct, always-well-rounded character writer as you suggest, she'd lose her main target audience, and a lot of money.

You want to seriously discuss the depiction of motherhood in a piece of literature? How about you try a piece of writing where the depiction of motherhood is an actual issue that people give a flying fuck about? We don't care. Really. All the average fan wants to know is will or won't their favourite character die in the next book, who will Harry will end up snogging, and what's really in those lollies Dumbledore's always popping.

We don't care that the books fail to come up to your really bloody warped standards of feminist equality. We don't care that the Weasley family fail to give a good example of using birth control according to you. We don't care that JKR fails to address the important socio-political aspects of 1950s culture that would have led to Riddle's desire to try take over the world. Why? Because if we wanted those sorts of Big Important Serious Issues, we wouldn't be reading the books in the first place, now would we?

So please, take your asshattery elsewhere, and leave the rest of us to enjoy ourselves.

Yes, kinda cross-posted from an issue I raised in my LJ in regards to one specific individual, but there are many other offenders I seem to have encountered in the past week because there's something in the water, and so it deserves a proper rant...



(Post a new comment)


[info]iczer6
2005-03-13 02:59 am UTC (link)
Thank you.

While I have my own issues with the books I have to agree. They're meant to be entertainment nothing more. I seriously doubt that JKR is trying to push some political agenda or set a bad example for women, men, midgets, whatever. I think she's just trying to tell an entertaining story.

(Reply to this)


tourette
2005-03-13 03:17 am UTC (link)
Some people like to discuss these aspects of canon because they find them interesting. I don't believe people should have to restrict themselves to discussing only the aspects of the book you care about. Remember, there are some people who think that discussing, in your words "who will Harry will end up snogging" is the most pointless thing anyone in fandom could possibly be thinking about, since Harry et al have quite enough to worry about as it is.

Furthermore, plenty of people who complain about criticisms of the writer and characters by saying "it's only a kid's book, why put some big political agenda into it when nobody cares?" probably wouldn't have any problem with the Death Eaters = Nazis analogy, and possibly not even the Lycanthropy = homosexuality analogy. In fact, a few of those people might even get cross if it was pointed out that neither of those analogies quite measures up (and that the latter is quite disturbing if you look at it closely). It seems that grand political statements are quite okay provided they are agreed with.

I myself like to analyse and criticise canon. I find it stops me from getting too involved with the characters, and helps me to keep things in perspective.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]sepiamagpie
2005-03-13 03:37 am UTC (link)
I always thought the werewolf thing was more of a reference to mental illness, considering there's just as many similarities (maybe more, if I think about it) between peoples reactions to things like schizophrenia as the other one. Especially since I don't remember gay people trying to eat my face.

...that one time didn't count.

This comment is a combination of this just occuring to me and teasing the op a little.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-13 05:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dawnswalker, 2005-03-13 05:38 am UTC
Werewolves: It's what's for dinner - [info]redina, 2005-03-13 10:40 pm UTC
Re: Werewolves: It's what's for dinner - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-14 12:41 am UTC
Re: Werewolves: It's what's for dinner - [info]sepiamagpie, 2005-03-14 02:46 am UTC
Re: Werewolves: It's what's for dinner - [info]iczer6, 2005-03-14 08:35 am UTC
Re: Werewolves: It's what's for dinner - [info]sepiamagpie, 2005-03-14 02:59 am UTC

[info]livii
2005-03-13 04:37 am UTC (link)
What I got from the OP wasn't that people couldn't discuss these things, but they just shouldn't be so damn wanky about it. I was reading a thread on LJ today (I forget which journal) where someone's list of what they "feared happening in HBP" was pretty much everything single thing that the HP series involves or is about. Dude, that's just fucking wanktastic. No, we're not likely to get all the backstory on Voldemort, the Gryffindors will be the heroes, and the Weasleys are an ideal family according to JKR. Y'all can discuss this but to complain over and over about these sorts of aspects of canon is just WTF-ish.

I suppose I've always been in the "if you hate it that much, why the fuck are you in the fandom" types, though.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]livii, 2005-03-13 04:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fuzzytowers, 2005-03-13 01:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-13 05:11 am UTC
(no subject) - ataniell93, 2005-03-13 05:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]livii, 2005-03-13 04:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sesana, 2005-03-14 05:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bishounenhuntrs, 2005-03-15 01:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]livii, 2005-03-16 12:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]coffee_mug, 2005-03-13 08:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-14 12:28 am UTC

[info]sesana
2005-03-13 03:40 am UTC (link)
This brings to mind a very long essay I once read, about how Molly Weasley is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad mother. Because she punishes her children, you see. That makes her abusive. Textbook case of projecting personal issues onto canon. Frankly, I'm afraid to try and find it again. God knows what sort of angst fic that has sprung up, and I don't want to wade through more of the like.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]iczer6
2005-03-13 03:45 am UTC (link)
Reminds me of the essay I read that said that Tom Riddle went bad because his father must've forced him to go to church.

It was a classic WTF moment.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sesana, 2005-03-13 04:58 am UTC
(no subject) - ataniell93, 2005-03-13 05:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]plazmah, 2005-03-13 09:35 pm UTC

[info]lurker32
2005-03-13 05:34 am UTC (link)
Oh all kinds of word.

(I think Molly does pretty damn well for a woman with seven rowdy kids and a daffy spouse. Not to mention infestations of gnomes.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sesana, 2005-03-13 05:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lulinda, 2005-03-13 07:24 am UTC

[info]dawnswalker
2005-03-13 05:54 am UTC (link)
Because yelling at her children (and Harry) for being reckless is abusive!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]iczer6, 2005-03-13 07:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dawnswalker, 2005-03-13 09:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]livii, 2005-03-13 04:07 pm UTC

[info]fuzzytowers
2005-03-13 07:32 am UTC (link)
I remember reading essays like that. I've seen a lot of people who have horrible issues with Molly Weasley. Real character hatred that just isn't normal. It's scary.

Molly does have flaws. However, no one in the books is a model of perfection.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sesana, 2005-03-13 07:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fuzzytowers, 2005-03-13 01:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]redina, 2005-03-13 11:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fuzzytowers, 2005-03-13 11:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cmikhailovic, 2005-03-14 05:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]arien, 2005-03-15 01:25 am UTC

[info]coffee_mug
2005-03-13 08:34 pm UTC (link)
I don't get Molly hate. I don't get Weasley hate overall (I get dislike, no character can be liked by all, but vicious hate? Duuude...), but I especially don't get Molly hate. What did she do? She's a fussy, caring mother. Considering the Weasleys in general, I'd say she's done a terrific job raising her kids, they seem like a really happy bunch (could have something to do with seeing things through Harry's eyes, but still).

Textbook case of projecting personal issues onto canon.
I think a lot of the Molly hate is about that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mael
2005-03-18 02:36 pm UTC (link)
I, personally, think Molly is a horrible mother. Really. Truly, I do. I have no personal issues with my mother, I don't like slytherins (so no, it's not a case of defending the baddies and hating the gryffindors) and, frankly, I wouldn't even bother with this issue if people stopped telling me how fantabulously magically wonderful Molly is with her children. IMO.

And I think her being a bad mother has absolutely *nothing* to do with punishing her children. I don't recall her ever punishing her children, in fact.

But my favourite character is Percy, so I guess my bias must be showing ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sesana, 2005-03-18 04:15 pm UTC
OT - - [info]geegaw, 2005-03-18 07:15 pm UTC

[info]fuzzytowers
2005-03-13 07:28 am UTC (link)
Thank you, Ms. McRantpants! I've been thinking the same thing.

Occasionally it can be fun to pick the books apart according to personal taste and experience. However, if someone thinks that JKR is addressing every socio-political-economic issue, from poverty and its effect on women in the Middle Ages, to the War On Terror, they are sadly mistaken.

Sometimes authors hit an unintended nerve. I know JKR's hit them with me.

Meanwhile, what is in Dumbledore's lollies?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]adora_spintriae
2005-03-13 07:54 am UTC (link)
Crack. Wizard Crack. Fizzes as it goes down. Which is why he always looks twinkly. He's actually just high.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]fuzzytowers, 2005-03-13 11:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-14 12:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fuzzytowers, 2005-03-14 03:36 pm UTC

[info]teratologist
2005-03-13 08:22 am UTC (link)
The dumber canon is, the more rewarding serious, close textual analysis gets. Otherwise, there would be no reason to analyize, for instance, the ReAnimator movies, and if I couldn't analyize the ReAnimator movies, the world would be a sad, cold, barren tundra with snow whipping around in the dark.

In other words, I disagree.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]tintin
2005-03-13 08:52 am UTC (link)
What the hell is a ReAnimator movie?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]eljuno, 2005-03-13 03:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teratologist, 2005-03-13 03:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teratologist, 2005-03-13 03:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eljuno, 2005-03-13 03:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-14 12:20 am UTC

[info]eljuno
2005-03-13 03:22 pm UTC (link)
Some people like arguing whether Hermione is gonna end up snogging Harry or Ron.

Some people like playing with a Marxist analysis of the Weasley family.

I figure as long as the shippers don't bug me that much, I won't make them read my complicated theories about the symbolism chosen for each side (Death Eaters/Phoenix). And we'll all be happy-ish.

...Well, assuming I can find my copy of the Night Battles. The Benandanti come into this SOMEWHERE and I forget the particulars of those cases, dammit...

(Reply to this)


[info]sarajayechan
2005-03-13 07:49 pm UTC (link)
*applaud*

I hate when people treat kids' books, video games and cartoons like they're supposed to be pure beautiful works of art. :P

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]wanktastic
2005-03-13 08:46 pm UTC (link)
I hate when people think kids' books can't be art. I'm not saying the HP books are high art but the assumption that books for kids = mindless fluff is annoying and flat-out wrong. There are several children's books that I would put right up there with the greatest adult literary works.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sarajayechan, 2005-03-13 08:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cmikhailovic, 2005-03-14 03:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarajayechan, 2005-03-14 03:06 am UTC

[info]bishounenhuntrs
2005-03-15 02:19 am UTC (link)
HP may be above and beyond standard kids' books, but they're still kids' books-albiet imaginative and deep kids's books.

And this means we can't take it apart to see what makes it tick?
Why is that, Sara? (I'm not trying to attack you, hon, I just that is.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]bishounenhuntrs, 2005-03-15 02:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarajayechan, 2005-03-15 02:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bishounenhuntrs, 2005-03-15 02:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarajayechan, 2005-03-15 10:36 pm UTC
Re: This isn't Shakespeare, people.
[info]redina
2005-03-13 09:21 pm UTC (link)
So please, take your asshattery elsewhere, and leave the rest of us to enjoy ourselves.

That can be applied to many things. {g}

Fandom is an odd place. If folks can civilly disagree, things would work out better... but then some would miss the wank. ;-)

What finally pushed you into this rant, exactly? Generally, I just jump in and out of conversations that either interest or don't interest me.

Dina

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: This isn't Shakespeare, people.
[info]adora_spintriae
2005-03-14 12:38 am UTC (link)
Well, during the week I had noticed someone discussing the issue of Weasley-hate because of issues of birth control, or because they're poor, or something like that. And I honestly had never heard such arguments until I read some comments made to the post, which seriously made me go WTF.

And then I encountered certaion comments by certain people in a "What are you hoping doesn't happen in HBP?" post that basically said, "I'm hoping that JKR stops writing writing what she writes and starts writing something different", because the changes they were suggesting were just 180 degrees from what she writes. I mean, yes, every piece of media ever has social influences, but these are people who, as I mentioned, expect the book to be 100% PC, The Greatest English Modern Novel Ever, and such rubbish. There's a specific individual mentioned in my LJ post about this, who's probably the worst offender, and I'm starting to notice more and more people in the fandom trying to copy him/her/it/whatever.

It's not so much I'm against analysis of what the books are, what I object to is the judgements these people say the books should be.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cmikhailovic
2005-03-14 05:30 am UTC (link)
Dear people who resent the hell out of anyone who thinks there's more going on in popular entertainment than meets the eye,

1) Claiming that something is worthy of in-depth study is *not* the same thing as claiming it belongs in The Great Literary Canon.

2) Re that Great Literary Canon, every lit scholar besides Harold Bloom has been saying that the Canon, and standards of "high" vs. "low" art in general, is pretty much completely arbitrary and subjective.

3) Therefore, just because a work has not been deemed Worthy of Inclusion in the Great Literary Canon does not mean that it is crap, or that it is less worthy of study.

4) There is an entire field of academic study devoted to children's literature, and all of those scholars would tell you that "important social issues," or "literary themes," and "children's literature" are in no way incompatible. Likewise, there are enormous amounts of scholarship devoted to folklore, romance novels, detective stories, graphic novels, rock music, and films of all varieties, all of which are or were considered to be unimportant and unworthy of study at various points.

5) It can, in fact, be argued that such things are even *more* worthy of study than certain traditional aspects of the Canon, because the ideas/themes/arguments/attitudes they convey slip under the radar because the mediums are dismissed. And that's *interesting*. Plus, what the hell can anyone say about Shakespeare that hasn't been said before?

No love,
Catja
Who is going to set up a Smart Missile system that will incinerate anyone who utters "But it's just a kid's book!!1!"

(Yes, I understand you're responding to someone specific who is making what appears to be some dumbassed arguments. But some of your premises for disagreement aren't any better.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-14 11:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cmikhailovic, 2005-03-14 05:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-15 12:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bunny, 2005-03-15 05:17 am UTC
(no subject) - chief, 2005-03-15 06:51 pm UTC

chief
2005-03-14 07:39 pm UTC (link)
Stop. Please. Failing that, get the fuck out of my fandom.

I have a better idea. Why don't you just stop reading the journals of people who, in your own words treat HP as The Great Modern English Novel, try to dissect pieces of socio-political commentary within the text, the depiction of Motherhood or feminist equality? There's the scroll button, the back button, the "X" in the corner of your screen, and hey, you can even defriend and/or filter people out, if you don't like the content of their journal! No one is forcing you to read anything you find uninteresting/pointless/silly. It's a big fandom, I'm sure you can find a safe place to discuss Dumbledore's lollies, or whatever it is catches your fancy, and really those discussions won't be any more or less entertaining or worthwhile, just because a minority sits in a different corner of the fandom discussing what interests them. The problem only comes when someone tries to act Fandom Police and try to forbid others to have any sort of discussion or opinion that they, personally, disapprove of. (Oh, and Good Luck with that, btw! *is highly amused*)

Truth be told, I haven't read most of the responses on Ishtar's apparently so controversial topic myself (because the subject doesn't really interest me, seeing as I don't really have any fears to mention, at this point), so I have no idea which comment triggered this rant, but I have to say I'm quite a bit amazed that it seems to have wakened such a strong reaction. I mean, if you go reading the comments to a post where the question is "What do you fear in HBP?", is it really so surprising that people give honest answers about what they, erhm, fear in HBP? I mean if they don't fear anything, they obviously wouldn't have posted a response in the first place, and those who do fear something, are likely to respond with what they fear, not with what you (think is appropriate to) fear.

I can understand being amused, or even slightly annoyed by, a fear of something that in your own opinion seems silly or unimportant -honestly I can!- but I've never understood people who get all personally offended when they discover that other fans may :gasp!: have different views on the books, and different taste, and read for different reasons than they do. I'm sorry if you're frustrated that you can't find any discussions about Dumbledore's lollies, but that's really not my problem. If I want to discuss feminist equality, I will discuss feminist equality, and if anyone tries to tell me off for the subjects I put up in my own journal, I get pretty damn miffed. Go start your own discussions (which you deem interesting and appropriate), and leave the rest of us alone.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mediumdave, 2005-03-14 11:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-15 12:18 am UTC
(no subject) - chief, 2005-03-15 06:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mediumdave, 2005-03-15 08:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-15 12:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-15 12:19 am UTC
(no subject) - chief, 2005-03-15 06:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-16 06:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mediumdave, 2005-03-16 04:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]waltraute, 2005-03-17 05:28 am UTC
(no subject) - chief, 2005-03-17 10:39 am UTC

[info]myalchod
2005-03-15 04:23 am UTC (link)
I don't mind the in-depth HP dicussions -- as long as they're kept under control. There's amusing overanalysis, and there's OHMIGODthistheONLYWAY analysis.

I do mind the people who claim the books are The Great Modern English Novel, or something equally ridiculous. Grr.

(Reply to this)


[info]nights_mistress
2005-03-15 08:41 pm UTC (link)
Off-topic, but what are you studying at UQ?

Sorry, I had a look at the rant, saw the rant about SINET and thought "OMG! ANOTHER BRISBANITE!"

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-03-16 06:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nights_mistress, 2005-03-16 08:53 am UTC

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map