RAmused: Of Cyberspats and Autographs

An open letter to Lemon Buzz:

I suspect that that you are quite a bit younger than I am. Not that age makes me in anyway better than you, it doesn’t, but it does give me a bit more experience in dealing with disappointment. Please read this with the kind intent I am writing it with.

Are you always so rude or are you just having a bad day?  I thought there was a rule that Candians had to be polite at all times except on hockey night, therefore I am surprised by the amount of vitriol being directed by you at Richard Armitage.

May I gently point out that it says right there, on his Twitter account that he is 1) a moody actor, and 2) anti-social. That, I believe, is code for “introvert”. Introverts need down time. Someone who has spent three solid days being interviewed, photographed, and by all accounts, very graciously interacting with his fans might be just a little bit tired after all that social interaction and might not want to stop and chat.  Please reflect on that. If you caught him in a moment when signing autographs or taking photos was not on his mind, you were warned.

So you didn’t get an autograph or a “legitimate” photo of yourself with him. You spoke to him, and he spoke back. That makes you far luckier than most of us who will never meet him in any capacity. Personally, if I ever saw him in public being a private person,  I would leave him alone and count myself lucky that I saw him at all.  All any actor owes me is an excellent performance, and I treasure Richard’s excellent performances.

So back to my first question. Because I don’t know you, I’m going to hope you are actually a nice person who is just having a very bad, and unfortunately, a very public bad day.  A nice person would apologize to their target of anger.

Time will tell.


11 thoughts on “RAmused: Of Cyberspats and Autographs

  1. The thing is that (due to the young woman’s association with a pap), the goal was likely not a photo with him for her fan purposes. (Or the photo with him would serve as “authentication evidence,” not solely for her own purposes). So she got exactly what she wanted out of this. If she’d have gotten a photo she’d have used it to make a sale. Since she didn’t get that, she got the entire fandom exercised about it for two days — and guaranteed that the photo she did get would be tweeted around the world, thus advertising the pap’s business. It’s frustrating to watch our fandom give trolls *exactly what they want* over and over again. The fact that Armitage got in touch with them was simply icing on the cake from their perspective. If we don’t want to give incentive to such behavior, it would be better for us to shut up about it entirely rather than continuing to give such people our attention.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. And I truly find those who take to social media in an attempt to be manipulative, which is what this looks like to me, both transparent and distasteful. Naive, I know, but I always hope people are better than this.

    Like

  3. I’m well aware of that, Servetus. I know she was working with a pap. There are actually two versions of this post. The version where I wrote exactly how I felt about it all, and the version where I minded my manners. I’m pretty good at spotting manipulation.

    I wonder if she and the photographer are already not well known and privately discussed ahead of time with any celebrity flying in and out of Vancouver, as in, “watch out for these two people” when you are filming in and around VC. I hope it wasn’t actually him that contacted them via Twitter, and is instead a PR person. He shouldn’t have to deal with that crap.

    Like

  4. So this is my question to the entire fandom — if you’re good at spotting manipulation, why encourage it? Believe me, after five years of this I understand outrage like nobody’s business. But posts about outrage? Beget outrage.

    Like

  5. Hmm. I can’t speak for the fandom, only myself, and I was speaking for myself when I said I was pretty good at spotting manipulation. Is your comment truly directed at the fandom or at me?

    I was trying to take the high road, not encourage outrage.

    Like

  6. Are you a part of the fandom? (Some Armitage fans think they are not.) It’s a question for us all (I certainly fall prey to outrage at times). But I wonder to whom this post is addressed. I suspect it wouldn’t be persuasive if the ostensible addressee read it. Assuming we want to attribute to her a legitimate emotion like anger over an encounter gone wrong (as opposed to just manipulation — and there’s no point in lecturing a manipulator, that is what s/he wants, attention), I imagine this would make her angrier.

    That said, I don’t think it matters, in a situation like this, if we think we’re on the high road as commentators. Social media doesn’t really observe distinctions like that, I’ve learned. Those of us who respond in any way have been manipulated. Sometimes, of course, we acknowledge this and are willing to accept it as the price of speech, or the cost of having made a point.

    Like

  7. On Richard’s Twitter account it states ‘anti-socialite” not antisocial meaning someone is not a passive followers of trendiness, a person who values individualism.

    Like

Comments are closed.