Today, like most days, I woke up and started by reading the London Free Press online. Typically this takes only a few moments as there generally isn’t anything newsworthy (in my personal opinion) that can captivate my attention, but today was different.
I stumbled upon Ian Gillespie‘s column titled “This is where fun goes to die” and I just about lost it.
Regardless of whether Ian was trying to be funny, satirical or just trying to drum up some readership, this type of article should have struck a cord with anyone in London, regardless of if you agree with Ian or not. Being the person I am and how I feel about My City, Ian’s article bothered me but rather than adding to the lowbrow comments that the London Free Press articles tend to attract, I decided to step away from it and go about my normal day.
I just about got through the entire day having forgotten about the rant that Ian decided was newsworthy (an ill-informed rant at that) but decided to go back and read it (and its ill-informed comments) once again to see if there was something valid that I had missed, and that’s when I decided something needed to be said.
Looking at my notes that I made regarding the column and comments I could ramble on all day with educated arguments against all that was said, but rather than waste everyone’s time I will just get to the point.
The opinions expressed in the comments and the column itself were obviously made by one of two types of people:
- Those who have not been in London long enough to experience what the city has to offer
Or
- Those who have been in London long enough to experience what the city has to offer but haven’t bothered to put forth the effort to enjoy, explore, embrace and experience what fun there is
(I would also throw a guess in there that the majority of the people who make “anti-fun” comments live in, or near the suburbs and tend to not be the "life of the party" at social functions, but thats just a hunch).
To the claims made that “the arts community here is just as stuffy as the rest of the oh-so-proper founding families of London.” I challenge you to actually get out into the community and understand what the arts community in London is all about. Once you actually experience what the arts community here in the Forest City has to offer you will begin to understand that your comments are the farthest things from the truth.
The comments made about the art gallery (Museum London), public art, parks and entertainment help to illustrate precisely the two types of people I listed above, as those who have actually experienced these things understand the real value and real fun associated with them and would not have made such comments in the beginning.
Now I am not denying that London has lost some good festivals over the years along with other artistic and fun elements, I’ve written and commented thoroughly on this issues before, but with these losses have come gains who’s values increase the wealth of community and arts in the city ten-fold.
If you don’t know what I am talking about check out LOLAfest, any one of the festivals held at the Covent Garden Market, OhFest, film nights at Museum London, the Hyland Theatre, Museum Underground, the London Poetry Slam, music at Nite Owl, I could make this list a mile long and still not be done, but I hope you get the point.
I could touch on the issues of by-laws, chickens, I could even get into the topic of university/college students (but I’ve tackled that one before), but these are all issues that should be given proper attention, so for now I’m leaving it at that.
Coming from someone who has lived both in the ‘burbs’ and in the downtown core (or close enough to it), I find it hard to understand for a place that is “no fun”, how I find myself busy 7 nights out of the week in all things “fun”. From movies, music, festivals, performances, to art and entertainment (many things which are free) I find myself with more than enough things to keep me entertained and to bring out the kid in me.
But who am I to talk, I’m only someone who’s been here for 27 years, has had ample opportunity to leave but has chosen to stay. Once I experienced, explored, enjoyed and embraced what the city had to offer, in terms of all things fun, I was hooked. But being able to be this type of person requires an open mind and the willingness to get off your ass and out into the city, two things that I believe many people who are critical of the city and it’s ability to offer a ‘fun’ experience are incapable of.
Writing this I’ve tried very hard not to get into a roaring rant but it has been hard as London, Ontario is something I am very passionate about. With that said, if someone would like to have a conversation about the topic of fun, arts, entertainment or London in general, please do not hesitate to CONTACT me as I am always willing to have an open AND respectful conversation.
This is a well articulated critique. I couldn't agree with you more, Kevin. This year has already begun with a bang and there are still so many cool things in store for London.
While I enjoyed your response and largely agree, I have to admit I was surprised by the vitriolic reaction to Gillespie's column. It was funny, and spoke a lot of truth. Either people missed his point, or I read something very different into the article.
The point I took away from the column (and completely agree with) in not that London has nothing fun going on, it's that "the powers that be" do little recognize, support, or promote what actually is cool and fun in the city.
Fair enough observation and I can understand and see that (in places). I guess what bothered me the most about the column was the types of comments it caused people to make, the majority (in my opinion) that are ill-informed. As was pointed out on Twitter in regards to the people making the comments, "you should be used to those morons by now.", and although that might be true I have a large problem when people like that (yes I know the world is full of them).
As for "the powers that be", I think that they do recognize, support, and promote what actually is cool and fun in the city, HOWEVER, I think the issue is this: what you and I define as cool is dramatically different than what those in power define as cool and fun and I think the only way to change this is to change the demographic of our leadership. Until this happens I think it will be hard to change the perception that many people have of London and it being fun.
If we want to get down to the "nitty-gritty" of things, I don't believe that the powers that be are actually required by law to do anything related to fun and cool things in the city. The Municipal Act (although I admit I have not read it front to back) outlines the duties and responsibilities of cities in Ontario and there is little to no mention of fun, cool (or anything of the sort). So although I don't agree with it I think the argument could be made that the City of London is already doing far more than they are required to.
Ha! Well said.
I didn't follow the tweetstorm or comments too closely yesterday but I can see that being annoying.
I guess I just see the Gillespie column falling into a long-standing tradition of so many Londoners being unaware of or taking advantage of what I see as being some of the city's best elements/events, and of the city as a whole allowing itself to be poorly portrayed to the rest of the world.
Although I think he was doing it tongue-in-cheek, the column did extend that unfortunate trend.
Kevin,
While I definitely appreciate your vehement response in defense of London and its recent foray into cultural relavency, I think that Ian's line of rhetoric was implicit in taking aim at those whose interest in the arts and culture is negligable at best.
His mentioning of our municipalities perspective on as to what it is that London has to offer and how we should offer it, is a primary example of this. I can appreciate his approach, in that he's basically thrown the pie of indifference into the unwitting face of perspective and whomever walks away with the meringue of misinterpretation on the chin, is guilty as charged (I'm referring to those who agree with him without understanding what he's really getting at).
As one who's invovled in one of the aforementioned cultural attractions, I didn't take offence. Instead I read it as both a nod to those responsible for these attractions and those who choose not to engage with them. I think Gillespie nailed it.
As I mentioned before, I was more angry with the comments and responses than Ian's actual column.