Lots of stuff happened in the past few days – yes, I’m aware
of the new releases and I’ll have something about the “Gold Chestnut” Valegro
next post – but this apparently showed up today and it’s worth a dissection
here:
Yes, an article about BreyerFest on Gizmodo, of all places.
Although I have been interviewed and filmed for media pieces before, I wasn’t
for this one. My social media profile is a little outside of Gizmodo’s comfort
zone, I guess: I don’t have an Instagram, Facebook, or YouTube account, and not
really interested either.
Which apparently makes me some sort of dinosaur? I was busy trying to have a good time. (Mostly a
success.)
As you may know, I do not “hide” my participation in this
hobby; if anyone asks me about it, I tell them about it in the same tone and terms
any one would use to describe any other avocation, like knitting, sharpshooting
or baseball card collecting.
If you act ashamed about something, people are going to
assume – rightly or wrongly – that there might be something there to be ashamed
about. But there isn’t and I’m not.
Sure, there’s lots of weirdness, and arcane language, and
some people do have a hard time wrapping their heads around the concepts like live showing
and breeding (pedigree assignment for you noobs). But you get that with any
activity.
I’ve been to my fair share of Comicons and conventions for
other things. I’ve seen stuff.
That being said, the article was … interesting. It was
better than most “an outsider looks in” articles I’ve seen (I have a collection
of those in my archive, too!) though there was strange thread of tech-shaming
in it – which is a bit odd, considering the hobby’s early and enthusiastic
adoption of the Internet.
Just because a chunk of us don’t participate in whatever social
media form is the “it” medium of the moment doesn’t mean we’re irrelevant or
Luddites.
Some of the details were wrong – that isn’t that big a deal
really – but some of the interpretations and observations were a little out
there, and that was. (I’m not sure if they spoke to any actual Breyer/Reeves
people? I couldn’t tell.)
And the tone – well, I’m one of the few that apparently saw
it as a little off; trying a touch too hard to be clever in sort of a slightly
detached anthropological way.
Articles of that type have a tendency to objectify
people or groups into odd little curios to be studied, which is generally not a good thing. Especially
since this hobby, in some ways, is about exactly the opposite: investing
personalities and life into our “curios”.
The comments are the usual minefield, too. (More “Breyers
were better back in the day” nonsense? I can’t even… I was there dudes, no they
weren’t!)
But it was mostly okay. A good jumping point, if you will: if
anyone has come here from there, feel free to peruse mine, as well. It’s a little weird and obsessive at points, but it gives me
joy, sometimes at the most unexpected moments.
2 comments:
I'm conflicted. I'm probably one thousand percent wrong about this, but it seems to me that the author resented being assigned to write about something he knows or cares nothing about, and that resentment and lack of knowledge seems to come through a lot (to me, anyway). But in other ways, it's better than other such articles I've read.
He seemed completely dismissive to me.
Post a Comment