Lawrence’s parents — her dad owned a construction business; the two now run a summer day camp-were initially less than thrilled with their daughter’s decision to become an actress.
When Lawrence was 14, she persuaded them to let her spend the summer in New York City going on auditions. As summer came to an end, her parents wanted her to come back home already. In the midst of their arguments, Lawrence happened to see a newspaper story about a boy from Kentucky starring in a new movie called Little Manhattan. “I was like, ‘Look, see? He’s from Kentucky and he made it’ I can do it too!’ And, weirdly, it helped them accept that this is what I wanted to do.”
That boy was Josh Hutcherson. In a nifty twist of fate, he’ll play Peeta, Lawrence’s favorite character from the Hunger Games trilogy.
(Jennifer in the EW Hunger Games issue)
my heart just got shreded
Probably a huge factor as to why she is so close with Josh. Talk about fate. How beautiful.
[cut for length]
I’m not a 1D fan either but this is important for everyone (important to me personally given all the shit in the Sherlock fandom recently). We talk a lot on here about how artists, actors, producers, and writers (TPTB) should be respectful to fans and fandom, but I don’t think we acknowledge quite enough how this is a two-way street. Being a fan does mean contributing to others’ fame, and that should be recognized. But contribution to a person’s fame and success does NOT make fans or fandom entitled to control aspects of actors’ or artists’/ producers’ personal lives. And the fact that some fans think it does… I don’t understand how people get to that point. It’s really disturbing.
I agree, a whole lot, with mymomoness here.
I don’t like the article, because I think it conflates all of fandom with what I think, statistically speaking, are a relatively few number of fans,** and I’d hazard to guess that this is the case across fandoms. Including fan art in a discussion of what’s clearly made out to be deviant psychology is journalistically unjustifiable, to my mind; the existence of pairings (even RPF, which is emphatically not my thing) =/= deviance. Invasion of privacy is the problem, and it’s one that anyone could potentially face, one that’s exacerbated by fame, and where the attention should be directed. Social media, in particular, enables an illusion of closeness with famous people that could conceivably have this kind of effect on fan/star interactions, and it’s here where mymomoness’s reminder of this all being a two-way street is so critical.
But, then (and I’m speaking to the writer of the article), let’s talk about that - the dissolution of walls between audience and performer. The sense of entitlement that seems to come with access for some fans. Let’s not say “they ship X,” ergo they have retreated into a dangerous fantasy world from whence never to return. This kind of article is why I think it’s so, so hard for those of us who research and teach fandom studies to talk about its negative aspects - and god knows there are negative aspects to it. But when you have to try so hard to just convince people that we’re not all deranged nut jobs, you can’t have the more nuanced discussions that might ultimately contribute something back to fandom itself.
**although I’d hasten to add that I bet it only takes one scary person or encounter to make a lasting impression on a celebrity
i never understood why some non religious people get offended or roll their eyes when the religious say they’ll pray for them or something like man i get stoked because i might not believe in their god but they do and to them it’s one of the kindest things you can do for someone so why shit all over it just be grateful that they’re doing something nice for you
can we talk about how the song goes “Baby please come home” - the second he walks through the door? (x)
and then we have
“Cause I remember when you were here”
and we get this
"…and all the fun we had last year"
was that really necessary, BBC? really?