pegkerr | Condescension

If I was that journalist, I would be embarrassed to show up to cover an event on which I had done that little research. It would be like me going to cover Vikings football preseason stuff right now, on the assumption that I grew up in Nebraska and had to play marching band for some high school football games, so I must know everything there is to know about Vikings football, and anything I don't know is either trivial or disturbing. It's just irresponsible journalism.

Also, I think it's useful for me to be reminded that there are people who really think that serious discussions and costumes are mutually exclusive. I don't know why they think that, but it's good to remember they exist, just in case it becomes relevant.

"Also, I think it's useful for me to be reminded that there are people who really think that serious discussions and costumes are mutually exclusive. I don't know why they think that, but it's good to remember they exist, just in case it becomes relevant."

That they exist? My guess is that they're an overwhelming majority. If someone asked me the question, I would have answered "yes." It would have never occurred to me that anyone who isn't a costumer themselves would say otherwise. I'm surprised you're saying otherwise.

Not that we couldn't find a single counterexample if we looked hard enough, or postulated the existence of two people in costume having a serious conversation (I'm sure the reporter doesn't think the two are mutually exclusive in the mathematical sense of the term), it's just that you don't see much costuming at academic, scholarly, or otherwise serious conferences -- regardless on the discipline. (I guess costuming conferences are the exception; this seems completely besides the point.)

So yes, these people exist. And if you showed up at a physics conference in costume and tried to give a lecture, I can guarantee you that it would be considered noteworthy. (I remember a crypto conference where someone delivering a paper had two different hats that he wore to make a point -- people talked about it for years.)

Why wouldn't people think that? What everyday occurrences have there been to convince them otherwise? (Costuming at national political conventions -- no real serious discussions -- especially by those in costume.)

B

Are all Halloween party conversations limited to total frivolity/idiocy? Am I just going to the outstanding fabulous Halloween parties, in terms of intelligent conversation?

And there really isn't an analog in physics to dress as. It's not like Harry Potter conventions feature people dressed as Green Lantern, mostly -- at least, that's not the part he's sneering at. If someone was interested in textiles in a particular historical period, I wouldn't find it at all surprising if they had period dress at their disposal. Many of the historians and history buffs I know have at least looked into what that would involve -- that is, many of the female historians and history buffs. Rather fewer of the males.

I think, if after someone told you that serious conversation and costuming don't coexist you said "Ah ha! Halloween parties," you'd be looked at quizzically.

One doesn't normally think of Halloween parties as places of serious conversation, although I'm sure any university's mathematics department Halloween party is an exception.

And I'm sure that people "interested in textiles in a particular historical period" have "period dress at their disposal," but I can guarantee you that academic conferences about those historical textiles don't feature the researchers presenting their work in costume. (One wonders if they have a costume ball. Perhaps, but my guess is that it would be a social event and not part of the academic track. The author of the article was talking about costumers at the actual conference sessions.)

But anyway, I thought your point was amazement that there exists people who believe the fact, not that we can all put our heads together and imagine the few exceptions to the fact.

B

I am imagining someone listing venues for serious conversation. I don't think Halloween parties would make it very high on that sort of list.

But I suppose it would be above mud wrestling matches.

B

No, my point was that I live in a subset of the world where people may show up in costume for various events at any time and mostly get the responses of a) "Cool costume!", b) [rolled eyes at lame costume], or c) "Do you know where such-and-such is?", but NOT "this person must not be interested in intelligent conversation." And sometimes the reminder that one's subset is not the entire world is a good thing.

Ah. I get it.

Yes, you live in a three-sigma world. Get used to it.

B

I don't have any particular affinity for Harry Potter books films, (how do you say...) "the fandom," or anything else connected to these works, and it didn't read condescending to me. What made you feel put down in that article? It can't have been where the author called herself "hopelessly naive" nor her conclusion, where she says, "It's all amazing. And seeing anybody, let alone 1,200 people enthused with joy about anything is really quite uplifting. And not just anything. Books! It makes my girlish, swotty heart swell with pride."

Maybe it was her calling some of the panels "rubbish" but I've been to cons and I'd bet my left arm that some of them *were*.

K. [the word "freaky" is a quote from some of the conference attendees, not from the article's author, and I didn't see the part where she said or implies that she was squicked]

Snape, who's been the baddie through six books, is almost universally adored, something which puzzles me until Debbie McLain, a volunteer and 'stay-athome mum' who's the main organiser of Lumos, explains it to me by saying that 'a lot of women are drawn to the characters who they hope may experience redemption'. Oh yes, I think, JK Rowling and the Complex Trope of Female Delusion.

Wow. That doesn't seem condescending to you?

No, not really. I don't think I can change people, and I don't think that people change due to some redeeming event. I'm not attracted to bad guys, either, and so I don't really read that quote as condescending.

K.

So it's okay when George Lucas does it, but it's Female Delusion when fans talk about it amongst themselves? Since redemption is such a prominent theme in myth, why on earth is it appropriate (and not condescending) to call it female delusion here?

I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with George Lucas's work to parse a sentence with 4 uses of the word "it". However, I was also just talking about my opinion.
You make a valid point that I was thinking about my relationship with actual people and not fictional characters.

K.

Oh, so sorry! Let me rephrase!

So it is okay (and downright respectable) for prominent film producers, famous writers (including J.R.R. Tolkien and Shakespeare) to consider the possibility that apparently an "evil" or unpleasant character might be redeemed in the progress of a story, but it's female delusion if Harry Potter fans talk about that same concept of at a event at a con dedicated to the topic?

FYI: Darth Vader is a bad guy throughout the first three Star Wars movies, and he kills lots of people and is the main villain, but it turns out that he's the hero's father and Vader admits that he was wrong right before he dies. And we see him as a happy ghost after that, all redeemed and stuff.

I guess I just don't see the world through the lens of fictional characters.

K.

Not even when reading/interpreting a quote that is directly discussing a fictional character?

Yes, yes it does. Especially from someone who HASN'T READ THE DAMN BOOKS. (Not to mention, it isn't only female readers who think Snape isn't bad.)

Can we trap her in a jar now? Pretty please?

That bit struck me as particularly condescending, considering that she's judging people's affinity for a character she admittedly has read very little of. It also demonstrates her woeful lack of knowledge of the subject on which she's reporting; Snape has not "been the baddie through six books," but rather an unpleasant character who was a red herring through the first five books, and left questionable in the sixth.

I can't believe any newspaper would send someone so uniformly incompetant to Lumos. Did homeboy do no research? Read the website ahead of time to get the scoop? Ridiculous. And while I think his comments on the femininity were interesting, though not entirely valid. And I hate how these journalists always seem simultaneously fascinated by slash and shipping and want to know more but have to act like it's horrible. I mean, c'mon.

Badly conceived and written.

The article was written by a woman.

I read it and, for what it is, it isn't that bad. Why they sent someone out who hadn't read all the books is weird and kinda sloppy, but maybe they wanted an outsider's view?

All fandoms and "weird clubs" get the same treatment, even if the reporter is trying to play fair. Those not of the body don't get it.

Heck, I was an active part of the fandom for years and some of the stuff that comes out of it squicks me still.

Well, I was able to read about a half of the article before I started to "blerg"...

Condescension

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject