|
Post by Sir Black Fox on Aug 27, 2008 11:24:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tigerlily on Aug 27, 2008 13:05:31 GMT -5
I, for one, have a real problem with this article. I find it interesting that the dates that the faire runs are printed at the bottom of the article, as in an effort to inform folks to when they can attend (i.e. an advertisement), following such a scathing review of our fine faire. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, of course, and the writer was well within their rights to review, but this was just a slam on faire and those of us who attend it with love and devotion. I loved the comments posted in retort to the article, as they were just what I would have loved to say, but just don't have the talent or know-how to do so. As far as being historically correct...if I wanted to be a garb nazi and have to have everything perfectly, historically correct, then I would just join our local chapter of SCA and have done with it (yes, we actually do have one here!) But frankly, I am more interested in what MDRF means to my hubby and myself, which is a time for escapism from a taxing work schedule to a simpler and romantic period of history, where we might meet with other like-minded folks whom we now call friends...where we can have FUN! I can attend any number of historical lectures and workshops throughout the country if I want to learn about history. Even though education and a sense of real history is important at faire, I doubt that it's really the reason why most of us attend. I, personally, hated the article, not just for the negative and uptight tone of the author, but also for the condescending way in which people like I, my husband, and all of the folks I've come to know and love at faire, were portrayed. I'm proud to call y'all friends...such a fine group of people I've never met anywhere else. I love each and every one of you and consider you family and so if that, coupled with love of faire makes me a Festival Nerd, then so be it. Frankly, I think the author needs to get a life!
|
|
|
Post by Ana on Aug 27, 2008 14:31:53 GMT -5
The comment I submitted to the article: I also noticed that HRH put in his two pence.
|
|
|
Post by tigerlily on Aug 27, 2008 14:42:04 GMT -5
The comment I submitted to the article: I also noticed that HRH put in his two pence. In a word....EXCELLENT!! You made good points without being nasty and in fact were, quite gracious! I'll have to check out HRH's comments. You hit the nail on the head with your post and yet managed to do it in a REALLY classy way! Way to go!!
|
|
|
Post by tigerlily on Aug 27, 2008 14:46:36 GMT -5
Oh MY! His Royal Highness has SUCH a way with words! I'm in awe! I encourage anybody and everybody here to read his rebuttal to the article referred to in the link posted by BF above! Wow! A perfect comeback! We've got a GREAT King who I, for one, wouldn't trade for the world! HUZZAH!
|
|
|
Post by willpaisley on Aug 27, 2008 15:19:23 GMT -5
Judging from the comments, it appears that the author is learning far more about both the Renaissance and renaissance faires in general than she ever wanted to know (all while being nowhere near a renaissance faire ;D)
|
|
|
Post by tigerlily on Aug 27, 2008 15:30:31 GMT -5
Judging from the comments, it appears that the author is learning far more about both the Renaissance and renaissance faires in general than she ever wanted to know (all while being nowhere near a renaissance faire ;D) You're right! And by the way...nice comment of your own on that article. Again, I wouldn't know where to begin to effectively shoot holes in that article, but thank god there are some folks out there who do! Kudos to you! (by the way...loved the red thong on Sunday! ;D )
|
|
|
Post by Ana on Aug 27, 2008 15:45:44 GMT -5
A few comments have popped up now saying that everybody who commented should "relax" and "take a joke".
Sorry. I didn't notice where the article was an editorial. If it were? I would be more inclined to take it as just a joke. But it portrays itself as being factual and showing the festival as something it fundamentally isn't? (I.e. more than a few statements in the article were quite simply untrue, as was pointed out) That bugs me.
|
|
anonnymouseNoMore
Ren Geek
HRH King Henry VIII
That's a really ugly skinny me in the avatar!
Posts: 71
|
Post by anonnymouseNoMore on Aug 27, 2008 17:21:41 GMT -5
OK, let's put it to bed here.
The following is an email exchange between myself and an official at the paper. I am withholding that person's name, as they have apologized and there's really no need to drag this out.
Hi Mr. Nelson -- Thanks for your message. Our writer's assignment for the blog post you're referencing was to attend the Renaissance Festival and relate her experiences. I apologize if her observations caused any offense; I think her commentary about the fair's royals was intended to reflect her observations on the regality of the characters' manner, not as a judgement of the actors who play the characters.
Readers who disagree with the tone or content of our blog posts are encouraged to express themselves in the comments section below each post. Since you've already done that, you've already made use of the most appropriate space we have for a response.
Best, XXXX
Dear XXXX,
I appreciate your getting back to me.
In fulfilling her assignment, your reporter took a "history buff" there, and then proceeded to list what they felt were our historical inaccuracies. It was the angle of the entire story.
I simply feel that, in future, she should be held to the same standards when it comes to factual inaccuracies.
Either that, or the piece should more clearly be labelled as an opinion piece.
I've said my piece, and will cool my proverbial jets. Again, my thanks for your prompt reply.
Many thanks,
Fred Nelson
|
|
|
Post by Mathemactor on Aug 27, 2008 18:44:06 GMT -5
OK, let's put it to bed here. The following is an email exchange between myself and an official at the paper. I am withholding that person's name, as they have apologized and there's really no need to drag this out. Hi Mr. Nelson -- Thanks for your message. Our writer's assignment for the blog post you're referencing was to attend the Renaissance Festival and relate her experiences. I apologize if her observations caused any offense; I think her commentary about the fair's royals was intended to reflect her observations on the regality of the characters' manner, not as a judgement of the actors who play the characters.
Readers who disagree with the tone or content of our blog posts are encouraged to express themselves in the comments section below each post. Since you've already done that, you've already made use of the most appropriate space we have for a response.
Best, XXXX
Dear XXXX,
I appreciate your getting back to me.
In fulfilling her assignment, your reporter took a "history buff" there, and then proceeded to list what they felt were our historical inaccuracies. It was the angle of the entire story.
I simply feel that, in future, she should be held to the same standards when it comes to factual inaccuracies.
Either that, or the piece should more clearly be labelled as an opinion piece.
I've said my piece, and will cool my proverbial jets. Again, my thanks for your prompt reply.
Many thanks,
Fred Nelson
You are absolutely right, Fred. The two things I found rather unfortunate about the review (and it was a review and not a feature article) are: (1) The piece reviewed audience members (patrons) as well as acts and cast. We can certainly handle reviews and know how to ignore poorly written ones. The audience is not there to be reviewed and a real journalist would know that. (2) The piece was badly written. Regardless of the opinions expressed, I feel that an instrument of the Washington Post should reach a certain standard of professional writing. Although this is just a blog and probably not even edited, it still reflects poorly on what was once a great newspaper. Is the Post now employing writers without credentials? Of course I can post my two cents in the comments section too, but I am sure that it will be ignored by all except others posting comments. Oh well----at least we have the New York Times.
|
|
|
Post by Ana on Aug 27, 2008 18:55:00 GMT -5
That cast/patron thing is carried over the comments. I saw someone who was all like, "yeah those cast people...." as if all of us who commented on the story were employed by the fest.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Lauren Juliette on Aug 28, 2008 21:45:42 GMT -5
Fred, your response to the reporter's blog in the comments section was just wonderful. I was thinking the exact same thing while reading her article. Thanks for representing our fine Festival so well.
|
|