(no subject)

[asimplechord]

1. Henry Jenkins is awesome. I want to have his job when I grow up. And he's gonna have a new and interesting dialogue about and between fanboys and fangirls on his blog this summer. *bookmarks* I have a huge list of new fandom/fanthropology books and articles to read now.

2. Just a thought that kept recurring during the Shipping the Velvet slash panel. Why must slashers' ideas of fanfiction follow the traditional romance novel pattern: fall in love/lust, get married, have babies? (And while we're talking about babies, one of the panelists mentioned some SPN mpreg, in which Dean was the "mother". WTF? *bleaches eyeballs*)

3. The presentation on Mary Sues and slash and gender envy? Had to leave before I threw something at the lecturer.

4. The Drunk Eaters? Scary. Especially Bellatrix.

5. ariadne1's roundtable on Granger/Snape and titti's panel on Snape slash this afternoon. Off to be a fandom geek. :)

Comments

[twindowlicker.livejournal.com]

Just curious here, are there any scheduled panels/events concerning our twins, or any Weasleys for that matter? Or are they not important enough in the stories to rate a study at live thingys like this? Hope you're having fun though...

Re: Weasleys

[asimplechord.livejournal.com]

There were several panels, papers, and discussions of Ginny Weasley, and there was one entitled Percy Weasley, You Prat. The only other Weasley session was today's session about the twins, which focused on them as merry pranksters, the original tricksters. It was a roundtable discussion, as opposed to a paper presentation, but the moderator is a big Weasley fan, so her dissertation (if it is published outside scholarly journals) might have some info about the Weasley twins and the role they hold in the HP 'verse, which can be compared to that of the "donor" in folk/fairy tales. (Catherine Tosenberger is the mod's name, and her PhD is/will be in folk and children's literature).

Basically, the discussison focused on their role as a mentor for Harry (just as important, although not as recognized as Dumbledore's) and as the benign tricksters, the clowns who create the world. There were lots of interesting points that participants brought up, including the idea that they are interchangeable in canon (huh, *I* don't think so) but their products specifically change the physical reality of the user, that they are transformative, and that may be significant. (Not clear on that. Scribbled in my notebook, nearly indecipherable.)

One of the things I found interesting was the fact that everyone kept insisting that the twins do what they do out of loyalty (to family, to Harry) not because it is "good" per se. I agree. But at the same time, I think they forget that sometimes they don't think about long term consequences. Yes, the Ton-Tongue Toffee incident was because Dudley was so cruel to Harry, their brother, but did they ever consider what would happen to Harry as a result of their exposing Dudley to magic? And the fact that their behavior, which they look at as a defence of "family", could be seen as Muggle-baiting?

Oh, Gryffindor boys!

Um... I have some more half-finished sentences written down. Something about how the twins don't differentiate between themselves, so they are essentially one person in two bodies. And that most people think their role in the next book will be as a clearinghouse or supplier, the equivalent of Bond's "M", rather than as direct combatants.

Re: Weasleys

[twindowlicker.livejournal.com]

"that they are transformative"
What exactly does that mean? I know you aren't clear on it either, I guess I'll have to research the word a bit.
"And that most people think their role in the next book will be as a clearinghouse or supplier, the equivalent of Bond's "M", rather than as direct combatants."
I wonder why most people are drawing that conclusion? Maybe due to their less than pronounced role in book six. I certainly didn't go there after that, if anything, the presence of the twins at the train seeing Harry off in the end of HBP promised a definite combative role, or protective to say the least.
I love the idea of combative protective twins! As long as they survive. And I think they will.
Thanks for sharing all this!

[ariadne1.livejournal.com]

Iris, share list of fandom/fanthropology books and articles? *waves from [relative direction uncertain]*

[asimplechord.livejournal.com]

The AB: VH archive is Pomme de sang (http://pommedesang.com/efiction/index.php).

Reading list:

1. Camille Bacon-Smith, Enterprising Women.
2. Ehrenreich et al., The Adoring Audience
3. Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide , Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Media Consumers in a Digital Age, and The Wow Climax: Tracing the Emotional Impact of Popular Culture
4. Alex Doty, Flaming Classics: Queering the Film Canon (Paperback)
5. Film, feminism, and science fiction, Penley et al (ed)
6. Sheenagh Pugh, The democratic genre: Fan fiction in a literary context
7. Theorizing fandom: Fans, subculture and identity, Cheryl Harris and Alison Alexander (eds)

There are some more specific journal articles Jenkins mentioned, but I don't know if maybe some of their contents are re-hashed in the various collections of essays listed above, especially his two most recent, Convergence and The Wow Climax. I'll have to check the books and see.

[angela-snape.livejournal.com]

2. Just a thought that kept recurring during the Shipping the Velvet slash panel. Why must slashers' ideas of fanfiction follow the traditional romance novel pattern: fall in love/lust, get married, have babies? (And while we're talking about babies, one of the panelists mentioned some SPN mpreg, in which Dean was the "mother". WTF? *bleaches eyeballs*)

Not familiar with SPN, but I totally don't understand the need for mpreg.

[asimplechord.livejournal.com]

I'm sure there's a deep psychological explanation somewhere. Somewhere. :)