Maggie Kay's Horror Blog LTROI feature

[DMt.]

Bull - oh, you think? I saw the original gambit for what it was, I was very tempted to respond like metoo; I saw metoo's original reponse to it, and Pete's kindly one, and then my heart sank as I saw metoo take the bait. I waited for the inevitable response, and well, well, what a surprise - there it was.

Indeed, her original position was perfectly reasonable, and it's an ugly incident, but let's not compound it by turning on each other [OR having a cosy, circular consensus].

Yes, I do think she was mistreated, that your dismissive attitude toward her was wrong, and I felt obligated to say so.

I think you will find it hard to justify this comment from the thread, ACL. I welcomed Maggie Kay here, explained my aaargh response to the 'caretaker' trope; when she put out the carefully-qualified bait "I almost feel...", I had a good idea where it was going [I pm'd both Pete and metoo at the time], asked where she got that from, and got no reply.

A careful re-reading of the whole thread still shows me no reasonable justification for "...I am being treated like an ignorant fool" - IMO this is a trolling gambit, whether consciously so or not, and apparently a very successful one.

I will not willingly offer anyone disrespect or rudeness, and am disappointed that you so quickly judge me as doing wrong in this matter.

Hopefully Maggie will return to the fray, and justify her stated policy of growing through negative feedback.

[jetboy]

Wasnt it us who told her that the book may have a different story then what she took from the movie? Therefore she didnt have to read the book to know that the book and her version of the movie differed. She has every right to her version, is correct that they should be treated seperately and we should just have discussions about it not cross the line into being personal.

One of the things that were talked about on IMDB is how alot of females took the position that Eli was being manipulative, in comparison to males.

[Cuchullain]

Wasnt it us who told her that the book may have a different story then what she took from the movie? Therefore she didnt have to read the book to know that the book and her version of the movie differed. She has every right to her version, is correct that they should be treated seperately and we should just have discussions about it not cross the line into being personal.

One of the things that were talked about on IMDB is how alot of females took the position that Eli was being manipulative, in comparison to males.

I guess we are more susceptible to Eli's cuteness.

[a_contemplative_life]

Bull - oh, you think? I saw the original gambit for what it was, I was very tempted to respond like metoo; I saw metoo's original reponse to it, and Pete's kindly one, and then my heart sank as I saw metoo take the bait. I waited for the inevitable response, and well, well, what a surprise - there it was.

Indeed, her original position was perfectly reasonable, and it's an ugly incident, but let's not compound it by turning on each other [OR having a cosy, circular consensus].

Yes, I do think she was mistreated, that your dismissive attitude toward her was wrong, and I felt obligated to say so.

I think you will find it hard to justify this comment from the thread, ACL. I welcomed Maggie Kay here, explained my aaargh response to the 'caretaker' trope; when she put out the carefully-qualified bait "I almost feel...", I had a good idea where it was going [I pm'd both Pete and metoo at the time], asked where she got that from, and got no reply.

A careful re-reading of the whole thread still shows me no reasonable justification for "...I am being treated like an ignorant fool" - IMO this is a trolling gambit, whether consciously so or not, and apparently a very successful one.

I will not willingly offer anyone disrespect or rudeness, and am disappointed that you so quickly judge me as doing wrong in this matter.

Hopefully Maggie will return to the fray, and justify her stated policy of growing through negative feedback.

Your position boils down to the statement that you are prepared to condone and encourage the "baiting" of new members to become upset in response to insulting conduct when their positions differ significantly from yours.  Not a very welcoming or charitable attitude, in my opinion.  You know, the number of people who have heard of LTROI is small; the number of people who have seen it and have been sufficiently impressed to write a review, and join a bulletin board about it, even smaller.  Why we would do things to alienate such people is a mystery to me.  I reread her posts, too.  They were uniformly thoughtful and polite.  She deserved better from us.  But I guess when someone disagrees with you, it is okay to forego civility in the name of being "right."

[MaggieKayPresents]

Your position boils down to the statement that you are prepared to condone and encourage the "baiting" of new members to become upset in response to insulting conduct when their positions differ significantly from yours.  Not a very welcoming or charitable attitude, in my opinion.  You know, the number of people who have heard of LTROI is small; the number of people who have seen it and have been sufficiently impressed to write a review, and join a bulletin board about it, even smaller.  Why we would do things to alienate such people is a mystery to me.  I reread her posts, too.  They were uniformly thoughtful and polite.  She deserved better from us.  But I guess when someone disagrees with you, it is okay to forego civility in the name of being "right."

A_C_L, nicely said. I urge you all to go back and reread this entire conversation and try to think about it from my shoes as A_C_L has. I never once said that my opinion will never be changed. I did agree to read the book. I stand by my analysis of the film because it is its own work of art, and to expect people to read the any book that any movie was based off of is certainly high expectations.

I also want you to note how many times "Canon" from the book were used against me. this is not fair. My first statement in my article was this: "This article is written on the original Swedish Let the Right One In, and not the American remake Let Me In, or the book to which it was based. The comments and observations I make have no knowledge of these other works. Thank you." With that stated, facts from the book should not be used against me.

Also, I'm actually rather shocked at how some of The Infected (people who are passionate about this story of two people that can accept each others' DIFFERENCES, and truly love each other), cannot accept me or my analysis of this film merely because it is different from yours.

I thank the handful of you who stood by my side. You are very much appreciated.

[DMt.]

Your position boils down to the statement that you are prepared to condone and encourage the "baiting" of new members to become upset in response to insulting conduct when their positions differ significantly from yours. Not a very welcoming or charitable attitude, in my opinion.

I dispute your boiling, and particularly the notion that I set out to upset anybody. I dislike this and all discourtesy.

My Wrong would appear to be even daring admit sharing, to some extent at least, metoo's irritation, which I did; but I did my best to remain civil and be open to true discourse, and I hope I still can.

To understand, or even to forgive, does not mean to condone; and I can't condone metoo's outburst.

I also regret, now, my own description of the 'I almost feel' remark, the posture of hurt, or chosen offence, taken by this lady shortly before her dramatic exit, as 'laying bait' and 'a snide strategy' - whether or not my statement was a true assessment, it was evidently impolitic, and apparently indictably impolite.

You know, the number of people who have heard of LTROI is small; the number of people who have seen it and have been sufficiently impressed to write a review, and join a bulletin board about it, even smaller. Why we would do things to alienate such people is a mystery to me.

Are you saying 'You've helped offend a VIP, and thus hurt the forum's interests"...?

Calling someone, on a mean power play, probably is alienating them somewhat, yes; but not necessarily forever and always, especially if they can grow by negative feedback. I'd like to know more about that.

I reread her posts, too. They were uniformly thoughtful and polite.

Umm...right up to 'I am being treated an ignorant fool', you mean? I would like to be uniformly civil, thoughtful and polite too, but I don't want to be walking around landmines like that one, and having to keep quiet about it. [I never did get a reply, when I asked where this almost-feeling came from.]

She deserved better from us.

Yes; and vice versa, I'm afraid. Perhaps we could all try to agree that everyone has the right to their own view, somehow we have usually managed this before, and re-open the dialogue?

But I guess when someone disagrees with you, it is okay to forego civility in the name of being "right."

Apparently so, and apparently you also didn't see any need to specifically address any of my comments about the matter; perhaps because you had already chosen your policy...?

In your latest response I see only;

a blanket accusation of uncivility in which I am included,

a refusal to consider any notion of complicity by the highly-offended lady in this unfortunate incident,

and a confusing elision of my term 'bait' [tasty item on sharp hook] into 'baiting' [deliberately attempting to anger another] - which serves only to further demonstrate your support for the position of the highly-offended party.

[DMt.]

A_C_L, nicely said. I urge you all to go back and reread this entire conversation and try to think about it from my shoes as A_C_L has.

I have done this, still felt I had to call you on the 'almost feel' number, and that only.

I never once said that my opinion will never be changed. I did agree to read the book.

That's true. I teased you about entrenched positions, and implied you couldn't reconsider. I'm sorry, that was pretty out of order.

I stand by my analysis of the film because it is its own work of art,

yeah, which is a particular take on a story,

and to expect people to read the any book that any movie was based off of is certainly high expectations.

I would have thought that would come under 'further research'...? I don't know how to measure it as a high or low expectation in this sense, I guess you are very busy and time is limited. Fanatics in here have devoured everthing in every field to do with this theme, and still want more...

I also want you to note how many times "Canon" from the book were used against me. this is not fair. My first statement in my article was this: "This article is written on the original Swedish Let the Right One In, and not the American remake Let Me In, or the book to which it was based. The comments and observations I make have no knowledge of these other works. Thank you." With that stated, facts from the book should not be used against me.

I absolutely agree. No fair that.

Also, I'm actually rather shocked at how some of The Infected (people who are passionate about this story of two people that can accept each others' DIFFERENCES, and truly love each other), cannot accept me or my analysis of this film merely because it is different from yours.

The hot button here for all of us, I think, is precisely this highlighted point - because caretaker interpretations mitigate against it, turning the story into a mere ugly predation and manipulation [though I guess that is good horror].

You have already been accepted, welcomed, and it is a given in here, and forums in general, that you are both completely entitled to your interpretation, and that others are entitled to !respectfully! challenge you where theirs differ. Nobody gets everything right all the time, least of all me.

I thank the handful of you who stood by my side. You are very much appreciated.

I would also like to stand by your side, and enjoy honourable discourse - but without emotive booby-traps, self-fulfilling loops, about not being liked! Just because the caretaker trope has become so wearisome to me, and I moan about it, doesn't mean I think you personally are Wrong, Evil and Bad - a very persuasive case can be made for this frequent assertion, and there's some evidence that JAL/TA deliberately cued for its possibility.

I'm truly glad you came back, MaggieKayPresents, I think it's gutsy and the right thing to do. Hello again.

[a_contemplative_life]

DMt, I think the bottom line here is that you read something into Maggie's comment "I almost feel like I'm being treated as an ignorant fool because I do not look at the book and film(s) as one piece" that I did not. What I saw as an innocent expression of exasperation (and would not have given a second thought, but for all that happened), you read as deliberately laying down some kind of gauntlet, thereby providing a groundwork for being able to leave the site in a dramatic huff. Therefore, when she was, more or less, called just that, why, she had it coming. But ad hominem attacks like these are unnecessary, divisive, and don't advance anyone's understanding of the film or the novel that everyone here loves so much. A gauntlet laid down, even deliberately, does not need to be picked up. One can always choose the high road. Pete laid out the other side of the debate nicely, and it seemed reasonably clear that folks were going to have to agree to disagree. And yes, I understand that you did not make the remarks, but it appeared that you were very quick to accuse her of "trolling"" and adopt the attitude that she had it coming. I can see this sort of a response at IMDB, where all sorts of slanderous remarks fly back and forth, but I really thought we had a legacy of doing things differently here--and I know that you agree with me on this point. So, I am not making a "policy" here. No one's going to be sanctioned or kicked out, or whatever. I just honestly felt that we were being uncharitable to a new member, and I viewed that as unfortunate. I appreciate your last post to Maggie and I hope we can all dust ourselves off and talk about more important things ... like whether Eli's hair grows, what the gray tadpole really was, and whether Oskar's consumption of blood pudding just before Eli came knocking was an intentional detail on TA/JAL's part, etc. etc.

[sauvin]

I can't remember what I did or said that might have contributed to this mess. I, in my own turn, meant no offense if I've given any.

I'm the idiot who says "Your Eli is as apt to be as faithful to the reality behind the story as mine is; my perceptions aren't perfect, either" at least twice a year, and more if I should fear what I'm saying is having an undue influence without basis.

That said, I'm dismayed at the outpouring seen in this topic in the past few days, and find myself looking for a fire extinguisher. If we HAVE to have a fire, can't we all (and I mean EVERYBODY) gather 'round and roast some wieners and some marshmallows, and maybe share a keg of something yummy?

[DMt.]

DMt, I think the bottom line here is that you read something into Maggie's comment "I almost feel like I'm being treated as an ignorant fool because I do not look at the book and film(s) as one piece" that I did not. What I saw as an innocent expression of exasperation (and would not have given a second thought, but for all that happened), you read as deliberately laying down some kind of gauntlet, thereby providing a groundwork for being able to leave the site in a dramatic huff. Therefore, when she was, more or less, called just that, why, she had it coming.

Even if it had all pursued this drearily familiar course, it would not have been any occasion of satisfaction or pleasure to me. However it seems, and I truly hope, that it hasn't.

I would have to feel, if it had, that the normal very high standard of discourse here had been seriously invalidated, broken; that we were actually, as you bitterly implied, a mere circle-jerk of mutual sycophancy, with no care or consideration whatsoever for 'outsiders', and even less for those who will not toe the party line.

But ad hominem attacks like these are unnecessary, divisive, and don't advance anyone's understanding of the film or the novel that everyone here loves so much. A gauntlet laid down, even deliberately, does not need to be picked up. One can always choose the high road. Pete laid out the other side of the debate nicely, and it seemed reasonably clear that folks were going to have to agree to disagree. And yes, I understand that you did not make the remarks, but it appeared that you were very quick to accuse her of "trolling"" and adopt the attitude that she had it coming. I can see this sort of a response at IMDB, where all sorts of slanderous remarks fly back and forth, but I really thought we had a legacy of doing things differently here--and I know that you agree with me on this point.

I wrote in defense of what we both [all?] prize so much, the high level of kindness and courtesy in here, which I could only truthfully see as being endangered by an emo landmine. I recognise and honour your intent to defend anyone who is being ill-treated, and perhaps I took your natural disgust at what, prima facie, looks like a case of bullying in the forum, just a leeetle too personally. I certainly felt my own tone grow colder and more formal in response

So, I am not making a "policy" here. No one's going to be sanctioned or kicked out, or whatever. I just honestly felt that we were being uncharitable to a new member, and I viewed that as unfortunate. I appreciate your last post to Maggie and I hope we can all dust ourselves off and talk about more important things

There is no dagger beneath the olive branch, and there never was any mere malice intended, despite the heat of the issue. There are few, if any, more important things to me than the way we conduct ourselves with each other; and not just in here, either.

... like whether Eli's hair grows, what the gray tadpole really was, and whether Oskar's consumption of blood pudding just before Eli came knocking was an intentional detail on TA/JAL's part, etc. etc.

Oh yes, please...