delayed hostile reactions to my rotk reviews... from people i don't know?

[cimorene]

is scrupulously fair-minded treatment of fictional characters reasonably to be expected in the personal journals of all lotr fans? can any comment about a fictional character be intrinsically classy or un-? neither of these questions is really interesting enough to address at length. but i'm absolutely positive that it's silly to look for classiness in people's personal journals.

also, what constitutes 'bashing' of a fictional character? can it be achieved by disagreement with other readers over whether a particular scene in a movie was appropriately placed?

so many little essays and, er, clever one-liners are trickling in on my first review of rotk that i suspect some rosie-partisan somewhere has posted a link which others are following. if this is the case i hope they stop. i really didn't intend by my review to solicit the opinions of strangers.

eta: the link was posted here by monkeycrackmary.

all is explained.

Comments

[fayemeadows.livejournal.com]

Tell them to fuck off. You're entitled to your own opinion.

[kickthebeat.livejournal.com]

*ahahahah seconds this*

[cimness.livejournal.com]

thanks. i needed to hear that. i think i will. ::mwah::

[mirabella]

Well, that's kind of dumb (says the person who argued extensively with you over that very issue). Maybe you should friends-lock the entry for a while until they all go away, or disable the comments. Let people who don't know you take their essays back to their own LJs.

[glitterdemon.livejournal.com]

It's absurd to say you were even coming close to Rosie-bashing. Your problem was with that particular line in context with the scene and-- well, you wrote it, I don't have to tell you. I'm completely baffled.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

well yeah, but. you're my friend. it's not weird to comment on your friends' opinions of movies. it's weird to go looking for strangers' opinions of movies to comment on. imo.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

me too. baffled. i want to know where they're coming from, but am afraid to ask.

[mirabella]

Yes it is, and weirdly belligerent too, in my opinion. I can see finding something you disagree with and posting about it on your own LJ, but what were they trying to do with yours? Change your mind and convert you to the Rosie-love? Bah.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

more likely to make me feel ashamed. i bet they look at it like calling people on it when they make public homophobic jokes.

[veuki.livejournal.com]

Jesus. Espescially the last commenter: I simply have no words.

You're entitled to your own opinions, and to express them how you see fit, hon. *hugs* Don't ever stop talking! :p

[cimness.livejournal.com]

i'm sorry, billy looked orgasmic for a second in your icon and i just... BILLY.

yes, i had a sorta 'jesus' moment too. but it was all worth it to extort cuddles from you!

[ex-thewayout304.livejournal.com]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/monkeycrackmary/402928.html

i dont expect mary meant for people to go rushing to rosie's defense and all, but you'll have that.

[phineasjones.livejournal.com]

how very odd. i looked at your post expecting to see something hostile and vitriolic - to have inspired such response - but... no. just your feelings about the movie. reasonable ones, even if they're not exactly mine.

there are books to be written on the rosie-sam-frodo issue, book and movie, and that's clearly not what you were attempting. back off, people!

[annlarimer.livejournal.com]

Weird. You issue seems to be with how the subplot was handled in the film, and it's being interpreted as OMG THAT SAM-STEALING HOOR ROSIE!

[cimness.livejournal.com]

ah, thank you.

perhaps her teenie-spelled summary is where they got the idea that i was rosie-bashing!

...

::cough::

9.9

[cimness.livejournal.com]

now that elaine linked me, and i know that the link they are following is monkeycrackmary's, all becomes clear. she and her followers are motivated by... uh... well, i've always interpreted it as some kind of feminist impulse.

[annlarimer.livejournal.com]

No idea. Maybe they just like l'il Rosie a lot.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

well, that does seem fairly clear. i can't blame them for that, really. the idea of adding a real female character to tolkien is attractive. it's the method you have to watch.

[ex-thewayout304.livejournal.com]

i'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that some of them (http://www.livejournal.com/users/cimorene111/1364038.html?thread=2485062#t2485062) didn't read the whole discussion, as interesting as it was.

[ex-shadowleo520.livejournal.com]

You know, you're right. All is explained just by that username alone. ::cough::

[cimness.livejournal.com]

HAHAHAH.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

yeah, that'd be my guess too. unfortunately it's usually very difficult to make people like that feel the error of their ways.

Well. Um.

[aliena-z.livejournal.com]

Thank you for responding to my comment – sort of. ’Found myself locked out, as you know, when I tried to access the entry again, so I can’t tell whether my comment is the one that gave such offense. (’not sure how, if so – I certainly wouldn’t call my comment ‘hostile’ [!] – but) I apologize if it did. I did indeed follow Mary’s link, but please don’t blame her (if indeed you’re looking for someone to blame) – I admire your work, and I’ve peeked in your journal (and your website, of course) before.

it's weird to go looking for strangers' opinions of movies to comment on. imo.

This is the first time I’ve ever encountered someone’s taking offense at ‘a person they don’t know’ commenting on an LJ entry. Need one be a friend to so do? You posted interesting ideas, and then debated about them extensively with someone else whose work I greatly admire. I read all the comments to the entry, and I wanted to put in my two cents. I won’t do so in future (in your LJ, anyway) without your permission.

Or perhaps there was another genuinely hostile comment, and I’m just being paranoid. I hope so.

BTW, I didn’t interpret your comments as Rosie-bashing. (Oh, well. Perhaps someone else did.)

Now, to cut & paste (for one last [hopefully clarifying] response):

Re: Jumping in belatedly...
i don't debate her ability to create an original character from the hints of rosie in canon, but why should someone's tolkien-based original character change someone else's opinion of the character in canon? it's not the same character from story to story. there might by some question of a work of fanfiction elaborating or explicating what is implicit in a character, even perhaps with rosie, who is so sketchily drawn as to be almost wholly open to reader interpretation. but no one reading or interpretation can be definitive, even once you've made up your mind. in the end, canon is all the information there is and the rest is speculation.

It’s not really Rosie I’m talking about, but Sam - Elenya seems to be suggesting that Rosie had been on Sam’s mind, at least on occasion, all through the quest: not Rosie herself, per se, but Rosie as a representation of the Shire. And I reckon that makes sense. Of course it’s speculation – all fanfic is.

With sketchy characters, I think that one can’t help but flesh them out somewhat in one’s own mind whilst reading. And since those reader interpretations are infinitely variable, as you say, anyone else’s interpretation can give you a new perception of the character. Like, “Oh, yeah – maybe it could have been like that. I never thought of it that way.” And that can, indeed, change one’s opinion of the character in canon, when one re-reads with the new perception in mind.

Re: Well. Um.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

there were several responses more hostile than yours, and i have no doubt that all of them followed mary's link; so i don't know if i'd say i was 'blaming' her, but the mystery is certainly cleared up.

as for adding your two cents to the discussion, you know that since you replied to the whole entry, mirabella and adrienne could see what you said only when they followed my link? the practical result was a series of determined, debatey comments on a conversation so long over with that i had to re-read it to place the new remarks in context.

Re: Well. Um.

[sharpest_rose.livejournal.com]

I wasn't attacking you in particular, there were several posters in the comment thread whom I've discussed such things before. I never intended for people to bring their disagreements onto your turf, and I'm sorry if they attacked you without good cause.

Re: Well. Um.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

no, that's okay. i could see from your entry when i was shown the link that you weren't intending for people to debate with me, only to explain the line of your own thoughts. and honestly, i do the same thing, and if i were you it wouldn't have occurred to me that people would do that either.

Re: Well. Um.

[sharpest_rose.livejournal.com]

Thankyou. I'm glad that you understand that that's what happened.

Also, I didn't mean to imply you speak teenie. Just to make all things clear.

Re: Well. Um.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

> to imply you speak teenie.

::giggle::

no, and my conscience is clear of it. although possibly you expressed a bit extra-forcefully, with that, your scorn for the dissenting points of view.

Re: Well. Um.

[sharpest_rose.livejournal.com]

I admit that, and apologise for it. It wasn't fair or accurate of me to do so.

[sharpest_rose.livejournal.com]

Which I am sorry for, as it was immature of me - the post wasn't a reaction to cimorene specifically, and it's not good that people reacted to my (somewhat histrionic) post as they did. In future I will refrain from belittling those with opposing viewpoints to my own by accusing them of teenyspeak.

Re: Well. Um.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

i understand the impulse. it's okay.

[annlarimer.livejournal.com]

::pets::

Your icon terrifies me. Good job.