[DWJ] DIR latest

Minnow minnow at belfry.org.uk
Sun May 20 07:00:01 EDT 2007


>On 19/05/07, Melissa Proffitt <Melissa at proffitt.com> wrote:
>> You know, I just can't help myself here...

and Phil Boswell replied:

>You go right ahead, it's better than just seeing my words disappear
>into the luminiferous aether ;-)

Which is why the thing below works, though it takes a little time on some
occasions.  Coventry is, I am told, a perfectly reasonable place if one
chooses to live there, but not so much fun if one has no option.

>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 22:23:10 +0100, Phil Boswell wrote:
>> <on the changes to the Dresden series for TV>
>> >The reaction was pure and simple nerdfury.
>> What I disagree with is the extremely objectionable term "nerdfury" and the
>> implication that fans were wrong to be upset by proposed changes.
>Well, we didn't make the term up: I believe it originated on the Colbert Report

There are plenty of derogatory terms in the dictionaries: just not having
made a word up doesn't necessarily make applying it less potentially
objectionable, or at least I don't *think* it does.

>> ...  I don't have
>> a lot of patience with people who get all riled up over tiny changes (and I
>> appreciate your clarification about the Karrin/Connie Murphy name change; it
>> seemed random and unnecessary, but now I see there was a point) but too
>> many irrelevant changes tend to imply that the people making the show don't
>> give a crap about the original property.  And that *is* insulting.

>What really inspired the epithet was the sheer number of people
>suddenly arriving on the forums and posting the same complaints over
>and over, demonstrating complete indifference and contempt for the
>previous discussion, which had lasted several months and was freely
>available for scrutiny, in which the creators of the show explained
>the changes and Jim Butcher himself explained how he was happy with
>the reasoning and content with said changes.

I'd've thought "nitwitery" rather than "nerdfury", then.  OTOH, since as
far as I know nobody here had been attacking Jim Butcher or the creators of
the show without accepting or (in our case) knowing about their defence of
or possibly vindication of their view and behaviour, it presumably doesn't
apply to any of us, so we don't really need to worry about it.  Cap doesn't
fit, no problem.

What *I* get in these circumstances isn't "nerdfury"; it's "devotee
distaste".  I've got a feeling that Melissa might be in the same position,
but she'll have to say whether that description is closer to the mark for
herself: perish forfend I should try to speak for her.

>It was amply demonstrated that the people making the show cared deeply
>about both it AND the original books, but the visitors completely
>ignored this and continued to be rude and insulting.

Isn't the technical term for them "trolls"?

>You say loyalty goes both ways; well, Jim and the TV guys are being
>loyal to the fans who have been there from the start and have stuck
>through thick and thin.

Parenthetically I would suggest that if one has to put up with *too* much
that one dislikes, one may cease to be a loyal fan and simply wander away.
If there is too much "thick and thin" to stick through, I certainly tend to
give up on a series.

Surely the forums you're talking about do occasionally have loyal fans
muttering about things they have found difficult or have not liked, or what
would be the point of the forum?  If nothing were ever said apart from
"oooh, it's so-o-o-o-o-o-o-o wonderful!" that would be a bit dull, I would
have thought.

>If this annoys people who simply want to drop
>stink-bombs of rudeness into the forums, that is not a problem for me:
>such people deserve to be annoyed.

To ignore them annoys them more than *anything*: all that effort they've
put in to be offensive, and the rest of the world carries on with its
conversation as if they hadn't bothered.  The response to them in many
places is that someone who's been there a while posts "Please don't feed
the troll" as a reply to each one's posts, for a bit, and the original
members of the forum pay no attention to them thereafter.  After a while
they go away again, having been very cross indeed about being ignored, and
made all sorts of remarks about people who can't argue against them, not
apparently noticing that it is "won't" rather than "can't".  The kill-file
is a wonderful thing.

The alternative, though I don't know if it has ever been tried, might be
for lots and lots of people to reply to each post with the words "shut up,
you're boring" and no other comment, having snipped everything the troll
has said.  That would take co-ordination and unanimity, though.

>Phil
>...who doesn't normally go on at quite such length, honest...

I was agreeing with Melissa that I often dislike films made from favourite
books, and that the reason I do so is that the film has altered the book
beyond recognition.  My response isn't to go and inveigh about it on a list
I didn't belong to before (what's the point?  I'd assume people on that
list *do* like the thing or they wouldn't be on a list devoted to it, and I
am not going to change their opinion just by being cross); I simply don't
go to the film unless someone whose judgement I trust tells me that it is
worth my doing so.

I may be one of about ten people who went joyfully to Film 1 of LotR and
thought it did as good a job of the book as one could expect, sat through
Film 2 without walking out and quite enjoyed it sortof but couldn't see the
point of messing about with the original plot, but hasn't bothered to go to
see Film 3 and quite possibly never will -- though I'll admit to a certain
morbid curiosity about horses charging at a gallop down a one-in-four
slope, it doesn't seem worth it just for that.

Minnow





More information about the Dwj mailing list