I wish I had been wrong

[edits made for clarity are marked.–Serv]

About the stuff I have been talking about this week. My argument here about how Richard Armitage’s vague statements about ethics turn into a sledgehammer for fans to beat each other over the head with, and my argument here about how people who don’t toe the line of being “good” fans will be told by other fans to shut up because the matter of certain kinds of access to Armitage is too important to risk the possibility that he might be bothered by a fan’s criticisms have both been demonstrated in the discussion here. And since the main person doing the policing is showing no signs of abandoning her attempt to shut me / us / critics of Marlise Boland up, others are now intervening to say we should just take a deep breath and stop it. I don’t think I’m especially negative, actually (if you want to see negativity, read an anonymous course evaluation result sometime), but apparently willingness to disagree with the common wisdom counts as negativity. And disagreement is said to be bullying — something I have never said (disagreement, policing, and bullying are three different hings) — but the charge is being hurled at me. I’m surprised we haven’t heard the Gospel of Friendship according to Richard Armitage quoted on that, because he said something about it this time last year.

I’m used to this on one level, because people have been telling me for years what I should write about. Sometimes this is formulated positively (“I would love to read an analysis of _____”) and sometimes negatively (“You need to stop talking about _____”) and sometimes it’s simply a personal attack on me (“You need to stop acting like _______”) and even, last spring (“If you don’t stop writing about ______ we are going to ______ you”). What’s new in this scenario is that admonition to negative self-censorship used to be located on the margins of the fandom. So many times we’ve had to state explicitly from the center that there’s a place for everyone in this fandom, so telling people they are too serious, too intellectual, too “whatever” in what they do or write is dangerously delegitimating.  Now that argument has moved to the center. Richard Armitage’s presence in social media and the access of one person to him who claims to be a fan and owns a media company are now being present as justification for what I (and perhaps others) who don’t respect that person’s work should write or not write about. With the urge toward positivity on top of all of that.

To clarify: Fans don’t determine what I write about. Richard Armitage doesn’t determine what I write about. I determine what I write about. I decide for me what “being a good fan” is. This idea that somehow other fans’ guesses about what Richard Armitage wants should determine what I say sends chills down my spine. Or, as I was told in a message yesterday from Boland’s [self-appointed] publicist, that her awareness of the fan market mood is “more accurate” means I should stop writing about my reactions to Boland.

Basta ya: What I write is an accurate reflection of my thoughts and feelings.

I knew this wave was coming for a long time because, although I’ve never been thrilled about the prospect of Marlise Boland doing an interview (I did not publicize the poll that started the fandom down this road a year ago), and I didn’t like what she produced (see my very ambivalent comment here, for instance, and the comments here –note that I was already excerpting pieces of private conversation I was having because people didn’t want to criticize her publicly), the second I came out fully and said I felt like the enterprise was making me feel exploited, I was the recipient of an email from Marlise Boland’s [self-appointed] publicist asking why I wasn’t being more positive about Marlise Boland and the interview. Within thirty minutes! The whole thing was disquieting. If Marlise Boland is a journalist, why should she be above criticism? This is my blog, after all. Why should I not be honest about how I feel? The entire premise of this blog is me tracing my honest reactions to things. I don’t say everything, but I say quite a bit. It was clear that Marlise Boland’s [self-appointed] publicist thought I should see myself as Richard Armitage’s [volunteer] publicist. As I have been saying for years, I am not. I am his fan. There’s a difference. I told her that at the time — chacun à son goût, but that’s not me.

Of course, Marlise Boland’s [self-appointed] publicist feels free to express her critical opinions on this and that (and then delete the evidence of it — but don’t worry, we learn early on this fandom to screencap for our protection), but I shouldn’t do it.

I didn’t like the interviews all that much, but as they broke in the middle of this, I didn’t have much energy for any kind of comment; I didn’t like the video from the Old Vic this summer; I didn’t like the ice bucket challenge thing; and I was bothered that The Anglophile Channel was the delivery mechanism for the “end of The Crucible” video. I spent some time in September privately pondering what it would mean for my fandom if Marlise Boland became Armitage’s court press secretary. Note that I am not saying that Richard Armitage shouldn’t have done any of those things, that I can’t imagine [reasons for] what his interest in doing so is, [because I can,] or that Marlise Boland shouldn’t have done them, or that anyone else who likes them shouldn’t like them. All I have ever said is that her interviews do not reach the professional standard and that I was ambivalent about them (in February and March) or have grown to dislike or find them boring (this week).

Seriously, folks. This is how to have a conversation about the criticisms I raised: Present an actual argument about why Marlise Boland’s work is good, about why it is professional. Compare her work to that of professionals and show how it is similar or better. Demonstrate with evidence how her interview questions are interesting and incisive. Tell me why her constant touching of the subject and her requests that he look into her eyes are appropriate behavior in this setting. Explain how the videography and editing are really high quality. Let me hint: if you want to make that argument, you should probably say something not just about medium, but about audience. We could have a really interesting discussion of how Marlise Boland sees her audience vs how I see it vs how fans see it that would do a lot to illuminate the kind of questions that she asks. But it seems that with the exception of about four people who disagree (one of whom, KellyDS, makes a lot of excellent points), no one wants to do that.

I’ve never bought the apparent hierarchy that some fans seem to believe in — that in our fandom, Richard Armitage is more important than we are, and above criticism. (What that usually means is — it’s okay for me to criticize him, but not you.) What I want from Richard Armitage is just as important as what Richard Armitage wants from me (if it were reliably known) in my “relationship” to him. Now we’re seeing a new manifestation of that: Marlise Boland is supposed to be above criticism (in implication, because she has access to him). Let’s all shut up and listen to the echo chamber, beacuse it sounds so sweet and Richard Armitage flirts with Marlise so charmingly. Who’s the next person who’s going to be above criticism?

I’ve got my own blog and I’ve grateful that it gives me that platform and I plan to continue to use that freedom, comments about negativity and bullying and meanness notwithstanding.

[Not sure what to do here. I did not write this post with the aim of prolonging the discussion, but I am aware that it will have that effect. And if I close comments someone will accuse me of censorship, so I will leave them open. I’ve got at least two more posts to write today and I want to see the movie one more time, though.]

~ by Servetus on December 21, 2014.