Well, this is going to be fun

[neadods]

It occurs to me that come August I will have two essays in print, each of which presents and defends a viewpoint of a major character that a significant chunk of each respective fandom has told me is wrongheaded, incorrect, and bluntly to STFU about.

I'll just make plans to eat alone in the lunch room for a while, shall I?

Comments

[tacnukesoul.livejournal.com]

Where is your essay on Dr Who available? Is there an e-book version?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

July or August depending on bookseller, and no.

[thanatos-kalos.livejournal.com]

You can always come sit at the academics' lunch table-- we like debating stuff regardless of what the popular opinion(s) is/are! :)

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Oh, I've never been shy about being opinionated ever...

[themis1.livejournal.com]

It's the soul of academia that there should be opposing views put forward, to lead to intelligent debate.

The 'intelligent' bit may be the give-away as to why some of fandom isn't listening.

(You can tell why I don't go to conventions any more - !)

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's a question of being unintelligent; the suggestion that someone can like something that is "thunderingly racist" (I really wish our editor hadn't given that juicy soundbite) is much the same as hearing "you are thunderingly racist" and that's not an opening that is going to get you a hearing with an open mind.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

There could have been better sound-bites, yes. Because that is definitely positioning the volume as evidence of one of the classic fandom irregular verbs: "I engage critically with problematic media; you indulge occasionally in guilty pleasures; she unthinkingly devours exploitative shit."

Admittedly, the Daily Mail seemed to be spinning it for all it was worth, but I did find the comments of Amit Gupta as quoted

One American writer, Amit Gupta, even highlighted that the show's fifth Doctor, played by Peter Davison in the early 1980s, was obsessed with the sport of cricket, which the writer argues harks back to the "racial and class nostalgia" of the British Empire

distinctly odd, in the light of works like CLR James' Beyond a Boundary which analyses in considerable depth the role played by cricket in West Indies national self-identity in the move towards independence and self-Government - does Gupta position Davison's adoption of a cricketing outfit in 1981-84 against what was actually happening in international cricket at the relevant time?

ETA And, for that matter, international politics in the Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries? Because cricket was my first fandom and I was at university and on the committee of my university cricket society (non-playing) during pretty much the whole of the Davison years and it was a hugely political time, especially with the whole question of the sporting boycott of South Africa predominantly affecting cricket and rugby, the issue of "rebel tours" splitting the game, the West Indies as undisputed, unassailable world champions and riots in Lahore and Hyderabad.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I haven't read Gupta's essay yet - I've only seen the ones that I peer-reviewed, and that was very much the Martha Section. But I don't think I'm breaking friendslock to mention that Gupta is saying that the DM has completely misrepresented the essay's actual thesis.

The Daily Fail wants the book to fail, and they'll twist it as much as necessary to turn people away from looking at it.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

I'd be surprised if the DM wants the book to fail, specifically; more that it wants to position it as an external (notice the emphasis on the nationalities of the authors it references - I imagine there were British contributors, but you'd never know it from that) attack on a beloved British institution. To make that work they have to big up the book's role and credibility, since unless it's positioned as important it's not a credible threat.

And, of course, "thunderingly racist" plays into that narrative, because while one can discuss whether the product of a national, centrally funded broadcaster is in accordance with its charter on equality and diversity and what needs to be done to remedy programmes which fall short of that requirement, "thunderingly racist" material is like apartheid and the Hitler Youth; no-one can actually defend its existence at all(well actually the DM has in its time defended both apartheid and the Hitler Youth, but let that pass).

So the DM story is aimed at supporting a narrative which runs "Yank & Aussie academics clamour to have Doctor Who cancelled!"

[neadods.livejournal.com]

But without letting anyone think the book might be worth reading. And yes, there are British authors.

I get the impression that there's an undertone of "furriers don't understand our wonderful show." Staggering Stories is already under the impression that it was written by some Australian think tank.

congrats

[laceymcbain.livejournal.com]

That's great! And spirited debate is all about having both sides well-represented. I'd say that since both essays are being published -unpopular opinion and all - someone definitely found the argument worthy of being heard. Good for you. What fun would the world be if we all agreed? (Yes, I know, fandom is not the world, and therefore exempt from such things, but some of us still like to look beyond. :-) )

Re: congrats

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Well, one of them isn't a peer-reviewed publication! But I find it interesting to look at the venn diagram of people cheering/decrying the first vs the second.