Marlise Boland condescends to fans of Richard Armitage who are not positive enough about her

Here. Because we’re not covering Peshawar, I suppose. Then again, I haven’t noticed extensive coverage of that material on The Anglophile Channel, either. Trust me, out here among the people who aren’t seeking access to the stars, we’re equally aware of Peshawar and dozens of other things that went on in the world this week. On my way to see the Hobbit on Tuesday night, I drove past a swathe of homeless people, camped under an underpass, being moved or arrested by the police. Hard to know if it’s better for them to be moved out of their encampment and out of the path of traffic, if they’re under lock and key for trespass — at least it’s warm and dry there. I felt grateful for the security of my car — if that ever happens to me, I thought, at least I’ll have my car — and then guilty about my reaction.

Then there are all the horrors and sorrows we don’t know about, of course. So I guess she doesn’t like our lack of positivity because we don’t care enough about the personal tragedies occurring in our presence. I don’t know what you did with your day yesterday, Marlise. This was how mine went. The term is over, and it was a slow day at work — lots of people took off, but I don’t have enough vacation for that yet, so I was proof-reading and updating our informational brochures — until, in mid-afternoon, our ancient server finished its updates, final grades posted, and the list of students academically dismissed, separated from financial aid, and deprived of veterans’ and voc rehab benefits because of poor academic performance was distributed. Of course, you can say “they deserved it” and maybe some of them do — but there is also an individual story behind each one of those denials and I am (a) the only one who knows it and (b) employed to be the advocate of people who can’t speak for themselves with different agencies and institutions. For reasons of my students’ privacy I won’t tell you what I did, but I can tell you it involved an hour call with voc rehab trying to persuade them to make an exception to a policy, a half hour call with a parent worried about her child’s grip on sanity after he saw his grades, and three calls with students who have lost financial aid for next semester and now won’t be able to pay their rent, discussing what measures they can take — because they have exactly one day to try to intervene on their own behalf before the administrative period flips over and that money is distributed to someone else — because no matter how many students we can help, there are still thousands (my university is that big) who could use it and maybe deserve it as much or more.

I work with the least of these university students, although I am not a Christian any more. It’s my job. I also care personally about the people around me, and abstractly about people in other countries. I donate money to charities, usually educational ones, and time as well, although I have had less of that in the last decade of my life. I won’t donate to homophobic ones, though. And I don’t apologize for not financially supporting institutions that give out food with their hands even as they spread hate with their mouths.

So this is what it comes down to: somehow it’s okay for you to care about the Richard Armitage fandom and how it is represented in the press, but it is not okay for me to care about it so much that I can talk about how you represent it critically? Why is that, exactly, again? Because your commitment to this fandom is of longer term than mine? Oh, wait. Because it is more important to you than it is to me? Oh, wait. Do you know anything about how this fandom has changed my life? Oh, wait. Because as a journalist you should be immune to criticism of unprofessional practices? Oh, wait.

As to holiday cheer — if you are concerned about people spreading negativity, please refrain from telling me, or anyone else, how to feel about the life events that have made Christmas a holiday I prefer to tune out of.

I’m glad you’re so heavily involved in helping the suffering, Marlise, because I agree that’s what we should all seek to do. If you knew anything about the fandom you’d know about the thousands of pounds fans have donated in Armitage’s name. You’d know about the kindness campaigns, the blog festivals, and so on. But as you have demonstrated repeatedly, you don’t know much about us either in the individual or in the aggregate.

~ by Servetus on December 20, 2014.

56 Responses to “Marlise Boland condescends to fans of Richard Armitage who are not positive enough about her”

  1. Thank you Servetus! I was upset to have tragedy used to shame me and how I feel. It frustrates me when I feel I am being manipulated. Every single person I know has some cause for sadness in their life. To equate discussion and rational thinking to being negative is a cowardly way to approach things IMO.

    In addition to the people you mentioned suffering, there are many in the fandom who are suffering. They benefit enormously from the connections they make here.

    BTW in a personal correspondence I had with Marlise she made it very clear TAC is a business and she is a professional.

    Like

    • Yeah, for someone who apparently seeks to spread positivity using tragedy to shame others is a cheap shot.

      re: her professionality, that’s good to know. Maybe it is time for a rhetorical analysis of her work along the lines I have done about the work of other journalists.

      Like

  2. I am so tired. Tired of of being instructed by remote social media outlets about how wrong I am and what I should be doing instead.

    I co sponser a kindness campaign aimed at promoting positvity in this community and “abroad” I try really hars to maintain a positive online presence despite (and because of) ups and downs in the fandom and considerable challenges in my personal life.

    In this context, I’ve highlighted some (not all) of my charity work even though I’ve been taught that it is impolite and unnecessary to trumpet this activity …it is enough that the person I helped know the true story. In order to raise awareness though, I’ve bent this personal creed.

    To be told by a person who’s apparent profession is celebrity/entertainment “news” , who knows nothing about my and evidently very little about the fandom’s social awareness is personally offensive to me.

    Maybe that’s not what she meant to say, but then I often find myself confused as to exactly what role she’s seeks to take.

    I know one she can cross off her list…my social conscience is working vey well without her assistance.

    Like

    • Yes, one can have an active social consequence and still not appreciate Marlise Boland’s “professional” technique. And anyone who took time to read your blog, let alone know everything you do personally, might be ashamed herself about what is written in her post.

      It’s a variation of the crap we took from inside the fandom for so long — because we didn’t do something the way other people did it, we don’t have consciences. Thanks very much, but I’ve got one. I shut up about fans. But if a journalist is going to imply I have no conscience, then she’s fair game.

      Like

      • Well, I don’t pretend to be Mother Theresa, but I do my share.

        While I know some people love it, I don’t have to like her professional style and I don’t have to have to pretend to. As a friend said to me this week, “That’s showbiz”

        I had wondered how Ms. Boland would respond to the criticism leveled at her style. I remarked to another friend that a professional would note it, consider it or not, but not respond publically, much less with such thinly veiled invective.

        Professional careers come with criticism…it’s a cost of doing business. A lot of people (including Ms. Boland) harshly criticized Tanya Gold last summer…I don’t recall that Ms. Gold called them out for their negativity and lack of illustration of horror over events in Syria.

        Like

  3. I read the Marlise’s post early this morning.

    Spreading negativity. Right. Very professional reaction.

    PS: Happy Hanukkah, Serv, and “Happy Groanday” to anyone who has a reason to not like these days of the year.

    Like

  4. It’s a little thing but I think it says a lot, she put “the hacking scandal” and the ensuing film cancellation before the Peshawar tragedy. The fact that it’s even mentioned in the same sentence as a real tragedy seems to say a lot about who she is. I know she’s an “entertainment blog” but the cancellation of a film is not a tragedy compared to innocent lives lost.

    Like

    • well, she lives in California and works in entertainment — that is probably a big deal in her world. I cried about Peshawar — because of the way I wake up, it was the first thing I heard in the morning when my alarm went off that day, and that’s a vulnerable point — but there are tragedies happening in my own immediate vicinity that are more real to me than Pakistan. In general, though, I agree with you that Peshawar is more significant than the Sony hacking, at least on my own scale of values.

      What’s really inconsistent about that, of course, is that she would condemn the self-censorship of the movie industry but I should censor what I write about her in the name of not spreading negativity.

      Like

  5. What a blowhard. Drawing a line between a list of tragedies and “someone was mean about me on the internets” is so arrogant that it beggars belief. Somebody doesn’t like your style? So what. I think she gabs too much in her interviews – she brought that up herself in a FB comment. Either way, what I find hilarious is this sure looks like some of that “competitiveness” that RA talked about. Be careful Ms Boland, you might find yourself cut off from the star to which you hitched your TAC cart.

    Like

    • It does making that “keeping things in perspective” heading on her post seem somewhat ironic.

      Like

    • and you wonder why she thinks she’s gotta compete with me? I’m just a fan, for crying out loud. Who doesn’t have his cell phone number.

      Like

  6. […] the way, I noticed, as did Servetus on Me and Richard that Marlise Boland has never addressed these issues before using them now as some sort of sympathy […]

    Like

  7. That is great!:D really great! :D…and it means end of subscription 😉

    Like

  8. As a professional “journalist” Ms. Boland seems to take criticism of her interview style a little too personally. I thought you gave her very even-handed treatment, Serv, by posting the link to a blog which loves her work. I don’t know how you could have been more fair to her. You showed both sides, pro and con, which is what a “real” journalist should do.Then she takes fans to task for what? Not taking the tragedies in the world seriously enough (like she implies she does) because some of them dare to critique her? I would humbly suggest she grow a thicker skin if she wants to be taken seriously.

    Like

    • I do try to avoid passive aggressive argumentation, to leave “tu quoque” alone (as tempting as it can be), and to point out the positions that contradict mine, so I appreciate your comment.

      What she probably doesn’t know is that we ran into this long ago — during the 2nd fanstravaganza, I think — when the Fukushima disaster occurred during our blog fest. So we’ve dealt with this kind of argumentation before. This isn’t our first rodeo, as we said in Texas.

      Like

    • Yes, I agree with Kathy Jones, Servetus very fairly presented a link to a positive viewpoint in the name of fairness and it was good to see both sides. I consider Marlise Bolands interviews fun but definitely just fluff pieces. I actually became aware of the inhuman deeds in Peshawar from Yael Farbers tweet one morning while getting ready for work. If Ms. Boland used that (I haven’t read what she wrote yet) because her nose is out of joint because of some criticism towards her, then that is about as low as you can go.

      Like

      • My quibble has never been with fans who ilke Boland’s work — and it’s incidentally never been with Boland personally. It’s been with Boland’s work. I have good friends in the fandom who like her stuff.

        Maybe we should talk about Peshawar. A lot of us seem to be sad about it.

        Like

        • It is truly sad that in so many places children are used as the ultimate weapon….the girls kidnapped from school by Boko Haram, the students in Mexico, now Peshawar (not to mention every day somewhere in domestic situations). It is sad indeed and unfortunately not new in the world.

          Like

          • And after this I will just shut up….I do wholeheartedly agree that Marlise Boland has no place speaking for the fans or telling RA what his fans do or do not like…she does not speak for me and we all have different views, we are not some homogenous (sorry for the spelling) blob. And, if I were ever brave enough to write a blog or post fan art or fiction or anything creative revealing my innermost self, I certainly would not feel comfortable having Mr. Armitage reading it as he would certainly not be my intended audience, although he might be my intended content.

            Like

  9. Just a quick note to say “brava” for saying what needed to be said. She doesn’t live my life, she doesn’t walk in my shoes, and she needn’t be patronizing. Thank you very much.

    Like

  10. True to what I’ve stated before, I won’t give Ms Boland the attention. I continue to consider her a fan. In her interview with RA she has challenges herself with her role, i.e. at some point she says: “…I’m a Richard Armitage…” – a Richard Armitage what? The sentence is never finished. Do analyze her interviews and messages, Serv; they are littered with fallacies.

    Like

    • we’ll see what happens. To be fair, some of it isn’t her. She has an editor and a videographer, so it’s a whole team of people.

      Like

  11. I really hope Rich sees the amount of viciousness going on here.

    Like

  12. I´m sick of it, totally sick. Though I´ve to admit I enjoyed her interviews and I don´t care how professional the vids are done, or if she´s a journalist or a fan or both or anything else.
    Nonetheless her Facebook post is unprofessional and small minded. Is this the spirit of charity?
    She´ll never speak for the fandom, especially not for individuals like you and me and all of us.

    Like

    • Maybe the fandom will change (shrugs). I never claimed that no one loved her — obviously people do — only that what she does is unprofessional, and that her masquerade as a fan has made it impossible to talk about all the problems with what she does. Somehow she gets to be immune from criticism for reasons I have never totally understood. Even though it feels like something decisive is changing, now, I don’t regret having put this out there, because in the end I do feel a lot of loyalty to the people I’ve been talking about this with for months, who don’t feel represented in her work.

      Like

  13. …Wow. As a fan of her work, reading that post on The Anglophile Channel’s facebook was incredibly disappointing.

    Someone isn’t a fan of your work. Someone takes the time to carefully write down and critically analyze your work in context with RA’s fandom. Place their criticisms and concerns side-by-side with Peshawar.

    Makes sense. /sarcasm

    It’s a horrible attempt at shaming, which is something I take great issue with on fellow fans, but even more so from those involved in media, what with the media’s tendency to throw fans under the bus in exchange for a quick laugh. What I love most about the RA fandom, apart from the abundance of charity work, is that quite a number of its members tend to be cerebral and analytical people. Part of me is really hoping those messages of hers were for anon trolls e-mailing her or whatever, but I’m more inclined to believe that’s not the case. Timing and wording, etc.

    Sigh.

    Like

    • Before I wrote this, I paused a good long while and asked myself, is there any possibility this isn’t about what you wrote? Because there are always lots of things going on this fandom and no one can watch all of them in real time. But in essence, apart from griping and the people on imdb who just despise her, this is the only coherent critique of her work that’s been published …

      Like

      • Yeah, and she mentioned blogs specifically, along with letters and e-mails. There really aren’t that many active RA blogs around talking about TAC’s RA interviews. 😦 I don’t have a good handle on Tumblr, though–blocked too many people there.

        Like

  14. As someone who defended Marlise I find her response disappointing.

    Like

    • I’m going to venture to guess — because it wasn’t a response to the actual issue raised, which is the quality of her work, or why she does what she does in her interviews (although I can imagine she doesn’t have a lot to say that wasn’t raised by people who like her work in the previous thread). It was just a command to stop being negative; i.e., an attempt to delegitimate a speaker rather than address an argument.

      Like

      • I should’ve elaborated before I hit “Post Comment.” I’m disappointed that she didn’t address the legitimate criticism but was patronizing instead.

        Like

        • Yeah. I could almost make her argument for her, in fact. Or I know what I would say if I were in her position if I wanted to respond to criticism.

          Like

  15. Dear Servetus
    This is your blog and you can write whatever you want but I feel compelled to comment on what I see as your totally un-necessary criticism of Ms. Boland. I happen to agree that she is a fan rather than a journalist but your posts about her come off (to me) as petty, jealous of her access to RA and unworthy of your skills as a blogger. She brings out a side of him that I enjoy seeing. She flirts; he flirts; I believe he humors her. It’s all harmless fun and nice break from the insipid and redundant questions from other fully accredited “journalists”. I hope you will see fit to drop it and get back to your more admirable work. Once your poll showed that the majority of your followers see her as a fan you should have left it at that.
    All good wishes, Anoriel

    Like

    • This is ad hominem at me, Anoriel. If you want to defend her skills as an interviewer, that’s fine — I don’t see them, as I have detailed. If you want to say her questions are incisive and original, that his body language doesn’t regularly reveal signs of discomfort, that it’s appropriate for her to touch him all the time, that the videography and editing in her finished product are professional and impressive — make that argument. But saying that I am criticizing her because don’t like her because I am jealous is first, not an actual argument, and secondly, it’s not even accurate. As I have said many times, I don’t want to interview him. And no, Marlise Boland is not the kind of person I am jealous of. I can name you some people I am jealous of, if you’re interested, in the sense that they have something I wish I had: Kate Atkinson, Angela Hewitt, Anthony Grafton, Lisa Jardine, Terry Gross.

      What this is about for me, in the end, is the freedom of expression in an independent fandom that isn’t controlled by the object of the crush. Paradoxically, your comments proves exactly what I’ve argued — that certain kinds of access become so important to some fans that they are willing to sacrifice that freedom of expression — and attack fans who are critical and disagree over it — in the name of maintaining whatever the (in this case substandard) form of the access is.

      Like

      • “This is ad hominem at me, Anoriel.”
        No, it is a plea directed at you, as a fan of your blog for you to get back to your more admirable work.
        “If you want to defend her skills as an interviewer, that’s fine — I don’t see them, as I have detailed.”
        I do not wish to defend her nor do I think she has any journalistic skills
        (which I said in my post) that deserve defending. She’s fluff and I see no harm in occasional fluff, because I love to see RA in all his versions. I just like seeing him and hearing him, no matter how insipid the questions.
        “If you want to say her questions are incisive and original…”
        I do not and I have not. So what?
        “….that his body language doesn’t regularly reveal signs of discomfort”
        I agree it does. So what?
        “…that it’s appropriate for her to touch him all the time”
        I do not. So what? He is a grown man he can make his choice to stop her or not.
        “…that the videography and editing in her finished product are professional and impressive”
        I do not think that. So what?
        ” — make that argument.” Now you seem to be telling me what to say…hmm. I find your inclusion of these details very telling and makes my belief stronger that you are primarily unhappy with the fact that she gets to do all those things – and doesn’t deserve to. You have every right to feel that way, but to spend so much effort on this topic on your otherwise exceptional blog is, in my opinion, a waste of your time.
        “But saying that I am criticizing her because don’t like her”
        Yes, I think ultimately that is the issue. I am not suggesting you HAVE to like her or to to blog anything nice about her. I just think it’s silly to devote this much time and space to it.
        “… because I am jealous is first, not an actual argument, and secondly, it’s not even accurate.”
        Um, wellll….I am stating my belief as to how your overblown attention to this topic comes across to me, your fan. I am entitled to that opinion, and you are entitled to disagree, and even delete me if you see fit.
        “I have said many times, I don’t want to interview him.”
        Yes you have and I believe you. But when I say you strike me as jealous of her access I don’t mean you want to be in her place but that you believe she does not deserve to be in her place. Which I actually agree with, but don’t see it as worthy of debate on a site like this when you have so much else of value to say.
        “And no, Marlise Boland is not the kind of person I am jealous of.”
        You are, of course, the only one who can truly determine that, but from where I sit, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck…
        “I can name you some people I am jealous of, if you’re interested”
        I’m not. No offense.
        “What this is about for me, in the end, is the freedom of expression in an independent fandom that isn’t controlled by the object of the crush.”
        I don’t believe that. I am not addressing your response to her response but your original post. It’s your blog, you have the power to write what you want. No one is taking or can that away from you. I am trying to remind you of your better nature. Think of me as Dwalin and you as Thorin under the spell of dragon sickness (which is attributing far too much nobility to me, but I’m trying to make a point.)
        “Paradoxically, your comments proves exactly what I’ve argued — that certain kinds of access become so important to some fans that they are willing to sacrifice that freedom of expression”
        Whoa – now that’s really way way off. If I never see another Anglophile interview I will not mourn in the slightest. As much as I love seeing and hearing Richard if my internet broke tomorrow I would go back to reading papers. I just find her stuff (and countless other interviews of him) harmless entertainment and not worthy of complaining about in any serious way.
        ” — and attack fans who are critical and disagree over it —”
        Hmmm, if my comment here is really felt by you as an “attack” then you have a dragon sickness worse than I thought. But I will not pursue this further.
        I do not wish you ill. I am grateful for all your wonderful articles, your links, your insight and your intelligence. But please toss that crown on the golden floor of the hall, grab your sword and shield and head out to support your Dwarvish kin.
        Happy Holidays, Anoriel

        Like

        • Anoriel — saying that I say what I say because I am jealous vs actually engaging with an argument I made is ad hominem. It is a criticism of me, and not the argument I have made. In fact, there is nothing about Marlise Boland that makes me jealous. However, if you can’t refrain from criticizing me — as opposed to criticizing arguments I make — then you will be blocked.

          Like

  16. […] https://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/marlise-boland-condescends-to-fans-of-richard-armitage-… […]

    Like

  17. […] effect; that sense of liberation evaporated relatively quickly. But then two things happened. After making a statement intended to shame us on Facebook, Boland blocked me and Perry, and I saw a conversation in which she confirmed (and appeared from […]

    Like

  18. […] poor interviewer or someone that fans would like to see interviewing Armitage again and again, to a defense of the right to speak critically at all about fan matters, and accusations that those who insisted on their right to speak were bullies. This is a button […]

    Like

  19. […] couldn’t hack it. I admit it. I thought it was important and according to my evaluations I was extremely good at it, and I did it with enthusiasm, but I […]

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.