Fandom ... one must love it... really ...
Firstly: yes, I'm backing everything up (which I haven't done in a few months). But, I don't think LJ is going anywhere that quickly. If you read various posts by people within the IT industry, you'll be reassured that LJ won't collapse overnight. These types of sites can run for months with minimal oversight (absent a major server failure). What happens in the future? ::shrugs:: It all depends on whether or not LJ is profitable at the end of the day. Ergo, backups are always good, but I'm not panicking this time around at this point in time.
Secondly: I've just returned from seeing Twelfth Night at the Wyndham Theater with londinensa, fairyd123 and kingbantam. Fabulous show!! Derek Jacobi truly is incredible (he got the only spontaneous applause of the evening during one of his scenes). But the balance of the cast is extremely good. I have truly learned to love Shakespeare while living here in England. Back in North America, everybody seemed to focus on the prose alone; here, you get fabulous physical interpretation and contemporary takes on the setting. It really does change the entire experience.
Thirdly, I just came across this series of public posts earlier today. From metafandom: Fandom & Source Texts.
Several people on my flist have eloquently commented on this matter. Many others have also responded to the original poster. These words from the post by wistfuljane summarize the issue for me:
The idea that one should be more socially conscious about what one consumes and supports is a noble one, but forcing fandom to move in one flow, asking them to fall in love with some smarter source texts and to operate on the same moral and qualitative compass, is rather an insult to fandom. It assumes that there is one right or wrong way to have a fandom, one right or wrong way to be a fan. That there is one fandom that is better than the other.
In addition to those words, seperis has made some very articulate comments to the original poster which I could not agree with more.
At the very essence of the issue, it becomes a question of original source text: should "fans" (read all of us) boycott a show because, in the opinion of some viewers (possibly the majority), it is: historically inaccurate and suggests racist/sexist/misoygynistic/homophobic/heterosexist themes etc. which makes viewers feel uncomfortable?
I am known to be blunt at times, and tonight will be one of those times. My answer; no. If "fans" only supported shows which were intelligent and witty and did everything perfectly -- ::pffft:: what would we be creating? Fine -- we'd be filling in backstories. But that's not enough for me. I love the creativity of the fans in the shows which are less than perfect in fixing what's on screen. Because -- honestly -- the perfect shows don't leave me longing for anything more. Moreover, there is *no* perfect show.
And one last (slightly -- but not quite off topic) comment: if anybody else mentions the age of actors in "new shows", I'm going to turn around and say "Buffy". How many of us were Buffy fans first time around? Well, weren't they playing high school kids? So why are we bitching and complaining now?
Secondly: I've just returned from seeing Twelfth Night at the Wyndham Theater with londinensa, fairyd123 and kingbantam. Fabulous show!! Derek Jacobi truly is incredible (he got the only spontaneous applause of the evening during one of his scenes). But the balance of the cast is extremely good. I have truly learned to love Shakespeare while living here in England. Back in North America, everybody seemed to focus on the prose alone; here, you get fabulous physical interpretation and contemporary takes on the setting. It really does change the entire experience.
Thirdly, I just came across this series of public posts earlier today. From metafandom: Fandom & Source Texts.
Several people on my flist have eloquently commented on this matter. Many others have also responded to the original poster. These words from the post by wistfuljane summarize the issue for me:
The idea that one should be more socially conscious about what one consumes and supports is a noble one, but forcing fandom to move in one flow, asking them to fall in love with some smarter source texts and to operate on the same moral and qualitative compass, is rather an insult to fandom. It assumes that there is one right or wrong way to have a fandom, one right or wrong way to be a fan. That there is one fandom that is better than the other.
In addition to those words, seperis has made some very articulate comments to the original poster which I could not agree with more.
At the very essence of the issue, it becomes a question of original source text: should "fans" (read all of us) boycott a show because, in the opinion of some viewers (possibly the majority), it is: historically inaccurate and suggests racist/sexist/misoygynistic/homophobic/heterosexist themes etc. which makes viewers feel uncomfortable?
I am known to be blunt at times, and tonight will be one of those times. My answer; no. If "fans" only supported shows which were intelligent and witty and did everything perfectly -- ::pffft:: what would we be creating? Fine -- we'd be filling in backstories. But that's not enough for me. I love the creativity of the fans in the shows which are less than perfect in fixing what's on screen. Because -- honestly -- the perfect shows don't leave me longing for anything more. Moreover, there is *no* perfect show.
And one last (slightly -- but not quite off topic) comment: if anybody else mentions the age of actors in "new shows", I'm going to turn around and say "Buffy". How many of us were Buffy fans first time around? Well, weren't they playing high school kids? So why are we bitching and complaining now?