(no subject)

[graculus]

My immediate response on reading this article about the Accio! conference this weekend was... *headdesk*

You mean there is Albus Dumbledore pornography on the web? "Yes!" she squeaks. "There are different pairings: Snape and Lucius; Harry and Draco; Dumbledore and Harry; even Dumbledore and Fawkes." Fawkes is a bird. "Someone wrote a love story about Draco and a giant squid. Personally I think the author overused the term 'fishy flesh'."

Please remember, when you're dealing with journalists or other 'mundanes' that what to you and I may seem entertaining can much more easily come across as odd / perverse / bizarre / sick / disturbing / just plain strange (delete as appropriate).

Maybe by not making yourself look like slashers deserve to be studied like they're chain-smoking monkeys in the sideshow carnival that is popular culture, newspapers might pick up more on the side of the story they pass on by here: in this case, Warner Brothers intimidating the organisers of an academic conference that they were not in any way supporting into banning the discussion of a whole aspect of literary theory.

Yep, censorship hard at work to suppress the legitimate discussion of queer theory in respect of a literary text at a conference where there were no under 18's present, so no reason to get all 'but will no-one think of the children?'. I'm just annoyed that the organisers knuckled under.

E.T.A - so, it looks like the 'quotes' were equally as make-believe as Harry Potter himself...

Comments

[seanchaidh.livejournal.com]

The whole article was rather... disturbing.

[graculus.livejournal.com]

I read it before I went to work and was just groaning over pretty much all of it. *sigh*

[katemonkey.livejournal.com]

...like they're chain-smoking monkeys in the sideshow carnival that is popular culture...

Speak for yourself!

*chain-smokes*

[graculus.livejournal.com]

Hey, at least it's an excuse to use your monkey icon! :P

[blktauna.livejournal.com]

Luser bastards for backing down

[graculus.livejournal.com]

I don't understand it, really I don't. WB had no financial or other stake in the con and yet they let themselves be bullied this way. I know what my response would have been. ;)

[mer1973.livejournal.com]

You'll be pleased to know, I already learned this lesson. I refused to talk to the reporter who tried to interview while I waited to buy Trilogy Tuesday tickets! Momma didn't raise no attention seeking fools! Or at least she didn't more then once...

[graculus.livejournal.com]

*applauds*

[lexin.livejournal.com]

When I used to run conventions, I banned reporters except for one from the local press who would be escorted around the convention on the day. We never allowed them to interview members unaccompanied, for we knew, from the experience of other conventions, that they'd produce articles exactly like that one.

And when that Guardian reporter tried to collar me, I made my excuses and disappeared. Looks like I was right.

[graculus.livejournal.com]

I thought of you guys when I read it but was certain you had more sense than to get embroiled in all of that. ;)

[cycnus39]

From one chain smoking monkey to another: indeed...but where's the bananas?

[penfold-x.livejournal.com]

omg, why do people let reporters into conventions? It NEVER ends well. They come determined to make you out as freaks, and there are always people there to help them.

[graculus.livejournal.com]

Interestingly enough, all sorts of journalistic shenanigans going on here, if the link I've added is to be believed (and it does indeed seem credible). *sigh*