[ETA] Ohhh
At least he didn’t ask for £ 666. With all the boosts and blogs and @RCArrmitage tweets, I feel like my twitter feed and WP Reader is a digital version of telemarketing in favor of Cybersmile, from fans and Armitage alike.
Without actually saying this is what he wants for his birthday, between his two tweets ( one referring to last year’s birthday and one suggesting multiples of 4’s as donations, to mark his 44th birthday,) his directions have been made clear
Each of the prior two birthday years since I’ve been a fan, there’ve always been a number of reminders and links to donate to Richard Armitage’s charities or take some action that will spur some other person to donate on your behalf. It’s one thing to alert fans to the usual links, but I’m finding the relentless, hysterical fan fundraising appeal for CyberSmile, because that’s what Richard Armitage wants, singularly off-putting.
I’m certain part of this is that I find Cybersmile and his conduct with it, off-putting. The other part is the aforementioned fan response to the Cybersmile appeal, including bragging about their contributions, for the virtual pat on the back that is soon to come from @RCAmitage. Charity ought to be a personal choice and a private act.
From me, Richard Armitage will get a birthday greeting that he will never see, and anything else I choose to do, is between me and the recipients. I am looking forward to a few good fan vids, though.
I’ve been frozen, staring at the screen for 15 minutes trying to come up with my first line. I had cold feet. It’s a minefield, but I managed to find clearance.
I’ll just dive straight into the storm, if there is one, and start with my musings and the question I asked myself when I saw this picture and tweet of a young Richard Armitage in school. The original picture was posted by a former classmate.
He looks happy enough there in the back, probably for obvious reasons. From a later tweet, identifying him as a ” a Cov boy”, and the fact that he and the others could easily be 14 or older, this photo was probably taken in Coventry at Pattison College for the Performing Arts. To my eye, he’s at least as cute as any other cute guy in the photo ( one of which may be a girl – front row center, and front row left, definitely a guy.). But maybe that smile of his was just him following directions.
We read a lot this week that Richard Armitage experienced bullying in school and he didn’t strike back ( he turned the other cheek). We don’t know when he was bullied. Was his later stint at Pattison a safe haven for him?
But these questions came later.
The question I first asked myself was this: Was the person who posted this photo one of Richard Armitage’s bullies or tormentors? Do any other kids in the photo fit that bill? Why this posted pic now? Was the poster sleepwalking through Richard Armitage’s popularity and success? Or was the post related to his Cybersmile disclosures?
My gut, and Richard Armitage’s fond memories of Pattison, and other photos we’ve seen that seem to have him near the same age, make me think things were alright for him by then. (Yay, Mrs. Armitage)
Still, my first reaction, after examining him, was to scrutinize the other youngsters, looking for a culprit or culprits. You can’t tell from looking. As we’ll soon be reminded, not every monster looks like one.
Richard Armitage knows that when he speaks, his fans listen, and often, they react. This concept barreled into me about 18 months ago.
Seeing so many at the LA premier (sorry about the un fan-friendly red carpet) Berlin, London, Madrid is really the highlight of the year. I am very proud to have such a dedicated community of ‘well wishers’ (better word than fans…right)
In this portion of the message, Richard Armitage is both using the word fan (un-fan-friendly)) and referring to his own fan base as well-wishers, a term which he wants us to agree is better than the word fans, at least as applied to him. Possibly, he chose the word fan in the first context because he was referring to all those who showed up, most of whom might have been fans of others: BC, PJ, Aidan Turner or just The Hobbit Films. But clearly, as applied to him, he wanted us to know that he prefers well-wishers.
I don’t know for sure that well-wishers was how he, himself would describe us, or did he want us to rename ourselves? I’ve never heard or read him using the term again,
Me, personally? I don’t want to refer to myself as a Richard Armitage well-wisher. It doesn’t quite capture how Perry sees herself in relation to him or what she does, nor does she want Richard Armitage telling her how to define her status. [FYI, there are definitions of well-wisher at the end.]
Others felt differently. Within minutes of reading this message, many other fans on all platforms began referring to themselves as well-wishers, and still do to this day.
Immediate compliance by a wide segment of a group. That’s the power and influence Armitage’s words, opinion and preference holds over some fans.
And that’s why discourse, including criticism of his Cybersmile blog post, is essential, never mind picky. The influence to action that his words motivate, especially those to the fandom, is humongous. When Richard Armitage writes to us about on line identities, that his personal preference is that he believes that we should show our faces and use our real names when we are on line, some fans, or wish-wishers are likely to immediate comply. In fact, some did.
The discourse has been vigorous and wide-spread. Did Richard Armitage give close consideration before publishing his preference to use RL identities on line. Should he have been more specific? Is he sure it’s a good idea, at least the way he worded it? Should he have written those words at all?
A number of bloggers, AA included, wanted to evaluate what it meant to us that Richard Armitage made this statement as part of our watching Richard Armitage. But also, more widely, many fan readers and writers think there is danger and/or impracticality in using RL identities, especially on some platforms, like Twitter. Almost everyone who spoke, criticized the notion that in every case RL identities are safe, practical and preferred. Of course, there was much discussion about whether this is what Richard Armitage meant or said – were we reading too much into it?
I concede, we also wanted to discuss much more than this narrow point, Cybersmile, for example, but the on line identity issue seemed to garner the most disagreement with what Richard Armitage said.
Proof of this is the signal boost these posts have enjoyed, So many reblogs, guest-blogs, tweets with links, RT, Facebook links, all to show another viewpoint. Fans without blogs are forwarding posts they come across to bloggers they know, for publishing. I see this as a grass roots, loosely concerted effort to encourage the discourse about all the issues, but most helpfully, to get the word out that using RL identities might not always be a good idea.
Our influence and power is far weaker than that of Richard Armitage, but collectively, we reach a target audience – his fandom. Of course, we’re also part of the fandom. And he is watching – monitoring the pulse.
While it’s a complication that, after watching his target audience, he’s made some missteps in retracting, reposting, recanting, explaining, following, unfollowing – all of which have been noticed and discussed, still, I venture to guess that he might be given a pass, even encouraged, to make better use of his power and influence, and explain or qualify his statement.
His statement was very broad. Maybe it shouldn’t have been, but there is good reason to specify what he meant. Perry would like one, specific, tiny bit of more of Armitage Actuation.
Definitions of Well-wisher
Cambridge US Dictionary a person who encourages or supports someone.
Richard Armitage is waiting for feedback. Whether it’s me, Perry, JHolland, or Frenz, who’ve already commented, you as commenter, or someone else you know and read, some Twitter, Tumblr or Facebook account you follow or those some of us do not know at all, based on Richard Armitage’s blogpost for CyberSmile, he’s been attentive to feedback, and I imagine he will be about his first blog post as well.
He’s waiting to be agreed with, lauded, supported, picked apart, misunderstood, criticized, maybe even ridiculed.
Except for ridicule, you’ll find a little bit of all of that here.
As my grandmother said to me out of the blue, the first time she came to the first family dinner I made as a young married, ” [t]here’s nothing wrong with the pot roast.”
First, I’m going to refrain from a serious or detailed grammatical, literary analysis, line by line ( though I’m happy to discuss some of this in comments). There are plenty of errors, mixing up and interchanging single and double quotes, commas here there and nowhere. Fragments. ( He learned the dot: now he should learn the dash – it’s very useful) Lots of metaphors; not all of them cogent. Sometimes, one thought doesn’t seem logically to follow another. He probably could do better; but I believe he was trying to write more like he speaks rather than adhere to strict grammatical construction or journalist standards of organization.
One thing I am very certain of: Richard Armitage wrote this blog post..
Second, I’m going to state outright that giving up anonymity, using real names and photos, is not always practical or advisable. Richard Armitage can do it, not all of us can, or should.
I’m pretty sure he knows that. Anonymity protects bullies, flamers, and trolls and allows them to come back with new identities and start it all over again. It may protect other more positive online users, and it certainly protects bloggers from intrusion into their personal lives.
So, I’m going to interpret this feeling of Richard Armitage’s to mean that people on line should behave as though they are not anonymous, but named.
On to the substance of the blog post, at least what I want to say, for Richard Armitage fans who have been following him for a while (since before The Hobbit), what may resonate most is not what he says about online behavior or CyberSmile at all, but his revelations about some of his childhood and youth. I think some of us have hypothesized that socially speaking, he probably had a rough time, or rough patches ( though we also hypothesize that he had strong family support). The reasons could be anything, including extreme shyness, growing too tall too fast, nose jokes, lack of interest in more popular peer activities, artsy-fartsiness or something else, or all of the above. It doesn’t matter, but it gives fans more insight into him as a person.
Also of interest to his “watchers” may be his disclosure that he does in fact get angry; needs to rethink what he wants to say; may have bouts where his first reaction is to be a little unkind. This is what many of us do. We vent and take some time, and go back to tone words down. I read into this from what he said about how he writes. ( He’s mentioned in several interviews over the years that he gets angry ( i.e. throws a script across the room, comes to mind).
What we and others sometimes see, is the self-edited Richard Armitage, and I’m glad of it, because I have always had a difficult time with the perfect, Saint Richard view held by some fans.
Of course this description of how he writes ( and really, I’m sure most bloggers or other writers of longer pieces do this – even in emails – it’s called editing,) May also have less to do with anger, and more to do with wanting to make sure his words are precisely describing what he wants to say. On the other hand, I don’t think a lot of tweeters or a few commenters, bother to edit when they are engaged in conversation, or just throwing out their random, present thoughts about something. ( in my circles, anyway).
It’s amazing how it’s almost always the same people who find themselves apologizing, back-peddling or explaining, something they’ve said.
Richard Armitage’s blog post also gave long time watchers more insight, or anyway, some more information, about some of his acting techniques, training, and how he builds characters. I always assumed at one time or another he joined or led workshops and other types of training and continuing education, but this is the first time he’s divulged that much info.
I agree with JHolland ( see link above), that it sounds as though he’s suggesting that both sides of the fence use art (all arts) or other creative outlets to express and repel anger, hurt and frustration. I don’t agree, as he suggests, that this is what art is for, or anyway, it’s not always what art is for. ( Art for art’s sake, you know). See, there’s an example of picking apart a sentence he wrote that could have been made clearer. Or, maybe for him, that is what art is for.
That being said, it’s not a bad coping mechanism or a bad idea. Someone else, not Richard Armitage, might have suggested going out for an exhausting run, shooting hoops, going to a batting cage, getting on the treadmill. But he is an artist, and his provenance as ambassador is as an artist.
Concerning non-Richard Armitage related substance of what he was saying, he seems to be saying, not that directly, to each his own, but he advocates that senders try to make sure that they have the best idea possible of how their words will be taken and whether their intent will be clear, and recipients should consider that in some cases, the message perceived was not the message intended.
He also seems to be saying that the web is a great resource for learning and finding like-minded people. ( Yes, Mr Armitage – for learning about you, for example).
And, there will always be assholes. Block and Mute. It doesn’t seem like he’s reaching out to the assholes.
I can’t argue with this. It’s similar to what he’s said before about self-editing.
I concede, some of his metaphors, some of what he wrote, I don’t have an opinion about because I don’t think I understand every instance of what he was trying to say.
But it gave a little more insight into things about him that interest me, and aside from the anonymous thing, overall, there’s nothing wrong with the pot roast.
THIS
BECAME THIS
(hey – he stole Armitage Global’s Pic! – and there another Armitage Nation on Twitter – a gaming site that promotes a You Tube channel about gaming. )
MANAGED BY HIM
WHOSE BIO AND BLOG ARE HERE
I can’t say I know exactly what it is or is meant to be. The manager of the account, Iain Alexander, has an active website, with blog, video, news and advice for the entertainment industry, and who has followed Richard Armitage on Twitter since today. He’s tweeted numerous entertainment news sources about tomorrow’s exclusive interview on behalf of #RCAxCybersmile – though it is unclear to me whether he, himself, has conducted the interview, whether the interview is a live tweet, a publication or a video, or what time this is all to happen, aside from “dawn.” ( dawn, where?).
I can’t figure out what the birth of nation stands for, aside from “positivity” also a word associated with Cybersmile.
Armitage Army supporters are already embracing a new identity, preferring Armitage Nation
@iain_alexander I like#ArmitageNation much better than Armitage Army. But can a nation be global? We are, you see.
or not:
I LIKE this
#ArmitageNation idea.@iain_alexander, thanks for creating it! May it and the Armitage Army live 4evR!
The Armitage Nation doesn’t follow #RCArmitage on Twitter, but rather follows mostly news sites.
The Armitage Nation has beautiful scenery
And, coincidentally (?), Cybersmile spruced up their poster announcing Richard Armitage as Ambassador
That’s all I know, which isn’t much.
Glad they spruced up their poster with a better image, and a better photoshop job.
Armitage Agonistes 