Re: Sherlock - BBC [4]

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:48 pm

the only reason Moffat writing works to the degree it does is that he writes television-Blue

Or to put it another way he is the most skilled writer of popular serial drama working in the UK, writing the countries two largest, most watched, and most profitable dramas.
I don't get where the snobbery comes from that its 'just TV'- its one of the hardest formats to write for over a long period of time because it eats material at an exceptional rate. You need 13 new and good ideas every single year. Its a ravenous monster to feed that eats ideas.

'which is a signature of his work can hide the lack of emotional, thematic and narrative depth in his writing. '

I don't think you can claim something so objective is a signature- I would utterly disagree with your premise for the reason I gave in the post above.

'as such he could pick fault with him to a much larger degree'

Doyle does this over the course less than Moffat and Gatiss have.

' but we are shown that he is a genius by his solving of complex cases.'- Figg

Honestly go back and read some of the original stories- Doyles primary way of showing what a genius Sherlock is is others reaction to him and his deductions- frankly in a lot of the lesser know cases the 'mystery' is pretty poor or secondary.

i'n Moffat's version we are told he is 'the great man' everyone '

As he is in the original stories- by Scotland Yard officers, by Watson continuously, by clients every single story. You really need to reread the originals if you think its otherwise.

'The clues are just conceits, the themes are all in your imagination.'

The themes are clearly not in my imagination- I don't know how anyone could watch Face the Raven and then Heavens Sent and not see the obvious metaphors for grief- its even in the dialogue for goodness sake. And the themes of death and the relentlessness of time are clearly evident just from the opening monologue-

'As you come into this world, something else is also born. You begin your life, and it begins a journey towards you. It moves slowly, but it never stops. Wherever you go, whatever path you take, it will follow. Never faster, never slower, always coming. You will run. It will walk. You will rest. It will not. One day, you will linger in the same place too long. You will sit too still or sleep too deep, and when, too late, you rise to go, you will notice a second shadow next to yours. Your life will then be over.'

If that isn't about death, the relentlessness of time and the futility of trying to avoid your mortality and fate I don't know what is (especially in a story about a character who is trying to alter someone's death and fate).

'They have no depth of imagination so they go ransacking other versions instead of creating something new. '

You seriously believe Moffat and Gatiss have no imaginations? really?
And they do create something new, every single time, that they use inspirations from the original material and other related material is neither here nor there, all writing draws on other writing, its what you do with it counts- and what they have done with it is produced a hugely entertaining television show enjoyed by millions. Which is what they set out to do.

'his stuff about drugs is just a lame attempt to make the whole thing current and fashionable.'

How can it be current and fashionable when its source is in the works published in the 1890's? The entire conversation between Watson and Sherlock about his drug use is all but lifted directly from the page.

'Mycrofts obesity is not an obsession, its a mind game, he isn't addicted to food. '

Watch that scene again- particularly at the end when Sherlock and Watson have left- that leaving no one to play a mind game with thus eliminating that option- and he reaches for the plum pudding with a face of pure greed and lust before stuffing it into his face.
You really think that its coincidental that the exact same theme about obsession comes up in three separate storylines within this tale, including the main story?

'Doyles Irene Adler is not the sexualised damsel in distress that Moffat turns her into. '

What has Irene Adler got to do with the xmas episode and them subverting the sexism in the original stories by making it about the women? And she is a pretty sexual character by the norms of the time in the original- being someone who has kept as protection private sexual information about a royal. Not a woman of sound moral values.

'This is pandering to his critics.'

slap laugh

(sorry but thats all I got for that one!)

by Mrs Figg Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:36 pm

''What has Irene Adler got to do with the xmas episode and them subverting the sexism in the original stories by making it about the women? And she is a pretty sexual character by the norms of the time in the original- being someone who has kept as protection private sexual information about a royal. Not a woman of sound moral values''. Petty

first off you have no business calling into question the 'so called sexism' of the originals, you cant judge Doyle for writing in his age, that's as ridiculous as the people calling Tolkien a sexist or Agatha Christie racist for having a book title with the word N****** in it. It was a hundred years ago attitudes were not ours they dramatically change and evolve, therefore Moffat subverting the supposed sexism of gentlemen having servants, or the way a woman acts is just plain good old fashioned pc pandering to silence the thousands of critics who do call him sexist.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:43 pm

No it was to solve a writing problem when setting their version in the original time period- as Moffat says it wasn't until they went back to the originals they released how much they had changed in regard to the women- not just giving Mrs Hudson and Mary personalities and characters and dialogue and stuff to do, but creating new characters like molly as well.
The problem to solve then was how to do you set it in the 1890's, stay true to the male characters of the original stories, but also find a way to include all the female writing they normally do in an episode.

The solution they come up was the one in the episode- but as they have talked about the thinking behind this in interviews I don't see how it can be doubt what the intentions were and why they felt they had to do it. And it had nothing to do with critics or being pc- its simply a writing issue based on their version having more female characters and how to include them all.

by Mrs Figg Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:14 pm

But why is it a problem if Mrs Hudson doesn't have a lot to say in the original? that's not sexism, its just she wasn't needed for the plot. Why does a modern Mrs Hudson suddenly have to have more if she isn't part of the story, does she solve crimes, add anything useful? Why does Mary suddenly have to become a spy, why cant she just be in the background? its absurd , bit like quotas of women in parliament, or thinking it needs female energy. Its a story about two men solving crimes and when Mary is involved its always weaker for it.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:25 pm

Because Moffat at least likes writing women. He likes having female characters in his programs and he likes to give them proper roles not background ones.
I know that goes against everything you seem to think of him but its evident from his body of work- Press Gang- female lead, stronger female characters than male. Even his version of Jekyll gave himn a wife and family as central roles in the narrative. Coupling the males were largely feckless or idiots the females dominated. Doctor Who, most Moffat penned episodes have more female character sin them than male, and the women are usually, if not always, the stronger characters. Sherlock, he ups the parts of the existing females and invents new ones.

Also whilst the original stories of Sherlock Holmes are very much a two character act, that has never been true of the Gatiss/Moffat version which from inception was much more an ensemble piece with not just Mrs Hudson and Molly either upped in significance, or added new, but also Lestrade as a regular, Mycroft, Anderson, and eventually Mary- the best scene conveying this is form last xmas- where everyone gathers in Baker St for New Year- something inconceivable of Doyles version because there are simply not that number of regular supporting cast.
You have to judge it on its own merits, and its always been more a troupe than a two man show.

by **Amarië** Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:46 pm

I think I let G&M get away with the fanfic-feel in this one, because it mostly takes place inside Sherlock's head. That is not an objective place to be, even if you ARE Sherlock. The plots work better because it is a short story and not spread thin over months and years.

"And of course more on the surface in this episode we have the criticisms of Doyles portrayal of the women in his novels- (...)"

It was very obvious that criticism of G&M's portrayal of the women was the issue here. They have the women point the accusing finger at Doyle (aka John in this tale) for not letting the women speak, and they fill the story with women's rights and our heroes are Feminists and supportive of secret female Victorian agents and very against violence against women. And yeah, that's all well and good of course, but to me they aren't subtle or layered about it. It's a clever move to make. They add things people like. Even Irene gets a mention as someone important which Sherlock has feelings for. It is very clever, yes, but there's this sense of an agenda behind it.

Late now, loosing my thread... Brain power.... fading.... *shakes self*

I feel obese Mycroft was more about Sherlock making his brother being the one to choose a dangerous method just to win a few games. Is it really worth doing? Sherlock plays the brother he thinks he wants Mycroft to be - leaving him alone rather than trying to stop him. Sherlock ignores the questions about the list because it's not one he wants to face. It stands out like the 'virus in the data'.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:03 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Because Moffat at least likes writing women. He likes having female characters in his programs and he likes to give them proper roles not background ones.
I know that goes against everything you seem to think of him but its evident from his body of work- Press Gang- female lead, stronger female characters than male. Even his version of Jekyll gave himn a wife and family as central roles in the narrative. Coupling the males were largely feckless or idiots the females dominated. Doctor Who, most Moffat penned episodes have more female character sin them than male, and the women are usually, if not always, the stronger characters. Sherlock, he ups the parts of the existing females and invents new ones.

Also whilst the original stories of Sherlock Holmes are very much a two character act, that has never been true of the Gatiss/Moffat version which from inception was much more an ensemble piece with not just Mrs Hudson and Molly either upped in significance, or added new, but also Lestrade as a regular, Mycroft, Anderson, and eventually Mary- the best scene conveying this is form last xmas- where everyone gathers in Baker St for New Year- something inconceivable of Doyles version because there are simply not that number of regular supporting cast.
You have to judge it on its own merits, and its always been more a troupe than a two man show.

Strong is not a good thing when associated with Moffat. it usually means stereotypical dominatrix with a oversexed fangirl tendency.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:05 am

Amarië wrote:I think I let G&M get away with the fanfic-feel in this one, because it mostly takes place inside Sherlock's head. That is not an objective place to be, even if you ARE Sherlock. The plots work better because it is a short story and not spread thin over months and years.

"And of course more on the surface in this episode we have the criticisms of Doyles portrayal of the women in his novels- (...)"

It was very obvious that criticism of G&M's portrayal of the women was the issue here. They have the women point the accusing finger at Doyle (aka John in this tale) for not letting the women speak, and they fill the story with women's rights and our heroes are Feminists and supportive of secret female Victorian agents and very against violence against women. And yeah, that's all well and good of course, but to me they aren't subtle or layered about it. It's a clever move to make. They add things people like. Even Irene gets a mention as someone important which Sherlock has feelings for. It is very clever, yes, but there's this sense of an agenda behind it.

I agree, it wasn't very subtle.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:28 am

it usually means stereotypical dominatrix with a oversexed fangirl tendency.- Figg

No, it really doesn't.

Here's a list of the major female characters from last series of Who-

Cass, Lunn, O'Donnell, Missy, Ishildr, Osgood, Kate Stewart, Colonel Walsh, Jac, Bonnie, Nagata, 474, Jen, Ohilia, River

Here's the series before that-

Shona, Ashley, Fiona, Madame Vastra, Jenny, Elsia, Courtney, Journey Blue, Gretchen, Ms Delphox, Saibra, Lundvik, Maisie, Maebh, Ruby.

Clearly (not that I agree with your wording in the first place) these characters are not all 'stereotypical dominatrix with a oversexed fangirl tendency' or even close to all, or even half, or even a third of them. At most and stretching the definition I count 3 that could potentially be in that category out of 30 characters.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:25 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:it usually means stereotypical dominatrix with a oversexed fangirl tendency.- Figg

No, it really doesn't.

Here's a list of the major female characters from last series of Who-

Cass, Lunn, O'Donnell, Missy, Ishildr, Osgood, Kate Stewart, Colonel Walsh, Jac, Bonnie, Nagata, 474, Jen, Ohilia, River

Here's the series before that-

Shona, Ashley, Fiona, Madame Vastra, Jenny, Elsia, Courtney, Journey Blue, Gretchen, Ms Delphox, Saibra, Lundvik, Maisie, Maebh, Ruby.

Clearly (not that I agree with your wording in the first place) these characters are not all 'stereotypical dominatrix with a oversexed fangirl tendency' or even close to all, or even half, or even a third of them. At most and stretching the definition I count 3 that could potentially be in that category out of 30 characters.

Most of those are secondary characters and you are just trying to be disingenuous. River was the classic dominatrix type as was Delphox, Missy and madame Vastra. almost laughably stereotypical. When Moffat makes women strong its not a positive thing, take Kate from UNIT, she is pretty pathetic for a military leader, totally ineffectual under the veneer of authority. Because Moffat cant write a woman with real power, there has to be something not quite right with her or have a total dependence on the Doctor like River has. madame Vastra is a green lizard lesbian with a little cutesy sexually available 'wifey'. The other characters you mention are not supposed to be 'strong' such as Courtney and Osgood, or are you telling me that ALL Moffats female characters are supposed to be strong?

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:23 pm

Most of those are secondary characters and you are just trying to be disingenuous.- Figg

No they are not. I quite deliberately did not include the is of secondary female characters- these are characters with defined personalties, lines of dialogue and an effect on the plot.
And interestingly a similar list of the male characters covering the same period is notably shorter.

'madame Vastra is a green lizard lesbian with a little cutesy sexually available 'wifey'.'

If a lizard women from the dawn of time in a gay marriage with a Victorian runaway is stereotypical then I've been living in a different world all this time! (also I find the derogatory way you word such sentiments far more sexist and offensive than the characters could ever be- you use reductionism to make them seem weak- normally a male trick applied to women to bring them down)

'Kate from UNIT, she is pretty pathetic for a military leader'

Other than being the head of the UK's top military organisation- restructuring it entirety towards a more scientific aspect. She successfully opposed the investigated the zygons, took out the Zygon sent to replace her, then took its place and bluffed her way through the zygon high command in order to rescue the Doctor- yup totally incompetent there! And she is notably less dependant on the Doctor than the Brigadier was. And I dont hear you crying his character was sexist because of that.

'there has to be something not quite right with her or have a total dependence on the Doctor like River has'

What is not quite right about Kate?
And River does not have a dependency on the Doctor, she loves him but she believes he does not love her and so she lives her own life most of the time- the xmas episode is a good example, nothing she does in that is in regard to the Doctor, who she doesn't recognize- here we get to see how Moffat envisions her when she is on her own- and there is nothing about her normal life that is Doctor dependent save the need to occasionally steal the TARDIS for her dealings.

'The other characters you mention are not supposed to be 'strong' such as Courtney and Osgood, or are you telling me that ALL Moffats female characters are supposed to be strong?'

I would argue both those examples are strong characters and women- Courtney overcomes her sense of self deprecation and worthlessness- when it comes to making the big decision at the end of Kill the Moon its Courtney who insists she come back and take that responsibility on- she argues her corner and correctly too. Osgood loses her partner, overcomes her grief and uses her abilities to help defeat the Zygons and re-establish the peace treaty, as well as providing comfort to eh Doctor when he fears Clara is already dead- seems pretty strong to me.

And of course there is still three series of Sherlock worth of female characters to take into consideration- and all Moffats previous TV work- Coupling, Press Gang ect

But I should think its already become rather clear that your blanket statement claim -'usually means stereotypical dominatrix with a oversexed fangirl tendency.' is clearly false and does not stand up to the scrutiny of looking at the evidence.

by Norc Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:12 pm

aah..i feel so bad for not contributing here.. but stuff is going on in real life.

i just wanna say i think Mary is the real Moriarty Wink

also.. it was so gay. i dunno about John, but Sherlock is soooooo gay and in love with John. i could write everything up, buuut.. not now..

i would however suggest a quick browsing through some of the main fan-theories so i am therefore referring you to my tumblr where i have collected my favorites Smile

www.221bbagshot-row.tumblr.com

there you go.

Norc out.
(i will be back however.. and i will try to write a nice summary of my thoughts around the special)

by Norc Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:25 pm

and again. it is not a detectiveshow, it is a show about a detective. and i think this special set the tone for the rest of the series, how they got rid of their victorian restrictions and gonna be gay in the future together (which was basically how the special ended. .. " i can't wait for a future where we can be gay together" *looks wistfully out of the window*)

also... kinda at page 7 and back are the best reblogs.. hheeh.. gotta clean up my tumblr and tag stuff and change the design whoops..

“Sometimes to solve a case one must first solve another…I’ll have to go deep, deep into myself.“
Sherlock is telling himself and the audience that this isn’t about Moriarty, or even Mary, it’s about him. He’s solving the case of his own inhibitions, his own self destructive tendencies, his own loneliness. And who is there at the resolution of the Case of Sherlock Holmes? Who helps him put that case to rest? John. Always John.
John keeps him right.

“This episode will be derided as Steven Moffat trying too hard to outwit the viewer and twisting what should be a perfectly simple whodunit into a plot device of labyrinth complexity. But the secret is that it isn’t that clever and it doesn’t completely make sense, because it’s not supposed to. Moffat and Gatiss just filmed 90 minutes of the internal monologue of a tortured queer genius drug addict off his tits on coke, wrapped it up in a gothic mystery, and then gave it to us as a late Christmas present.”

source: Katie Welsh, Indiewire; a reviewer who hit the nail on the head

but seriously though.. page 7 and at least back to 13 is word a skimming through of my blog.

http://221bbagshot-row.tumblr.com/page/13

by Norc Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:31 pm

i seriously expected them to snog after the "why don't you two just elope!" and watson was like "actually would you mind" and sherlock said "not at all"

also. Moriarty basically represents all of the things Sherlock fears about himself. craziness, heartlessness all that, even his own sexuallyty? why do you els think andrew scott played him that sexually? and everything ending with watson and sherlock throwing sherlocks worst fears of a cliff. also watching the episode again with the fact that everything is in sherlocks mind, in mind (lol) it all falls to place. i.e the curtain is rising-bit seems bit misplaced, but on a second viewing it is just sherlock telling himself that now that it is established whats what, he's gonna figure shit out, can moriarty blow his brains out and be alive? (and the answer is in the end no). plus the fact that the whole special is filled with bleeds, the real world trickling through, the list-scene for example, or the miss-me note.

also. the fat suite-mycroft is obvously a metaphor for Sherlocks drug abuse, one more pie, but there is three. it's never just one more.

now norc is truly out. (but please look through the blog, other people are way smarter than me Smile

)

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:43 pm

Ive been reading some of it Norc- I do like those who back their ideas up with the text and screenshots from the episode. Don't always agree with the analysis but I like the methodology.

Also I do think there is a lot of likelihood in the

Spoiler:

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:11 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Most of those are secondary characters and you are just trying to be disingenuous.- Figg

*rolls up sleeves*

No they are not. I quite deliberately did not include the is of secondary female characters- these are characters with defined personalties, lines of dialogue and an effect on the plot.
And interestingly a similar list of the male characters covering the same period is notably shorter.

They are secondary characters with thinly defined characters mostly there for either pc multi-racial-disabled-etc purposes or thinly drawn plot props.

'madame Vastra is a green lizard lesbian with a little cutesy sexually available 'wifey'.'

If a lizard women from the dawn of time in a gay marriage with a Victorian runaway is stereotypical then I've been living in a different world all this time! (also I find the derogatory way you word such sentiments far more sexist and offensive than the characters could ever be- you use reductionism to make them seem weak- normally a male trick applied to women to bring them down)

The facts are that Vastra and Jenny are in what most people would define as a husband and wife relationship where the 'male' or husband is the dominant partner, and the female or 'wife' is more submissive. Jenny is the wife, Jenny gets to prance around in a corset being ordered around, Jenny is NOT the dominant partner, Vastra the 'husband' is. therefore for all the pc obfuscation they are in traditional paternalistic roles. Fact!

'Kate from UNIT, she is pretty pathetic for a military leader'

Other than being the head of the UK's top military organisation- restructuring it entirety towards a more scientific aspect. She successfully opposed the investigated the zygons, took out the Zygon sent to replace her, then took its place and bluffed her way through the zygon high command in order to rescue the Doctor- yup totally incompetent there! And she is notably less dependant on the Doctor than the Brigadier was. And I dont hear you crying his character was sexist because of that.

Sucessfully? she is completely out of her depth, meandering about without a clue.

'there has to be something not quite right with her or have a total dependence on the Doctor like River has'

What is not quite right about Kate?

she is useless and ineffectual. We are told she is a quasi-military head but she acts like a numpty most of the time.

And River does not have a dependency on the Doctor, she loves him but she believes he does not love her and so she lives her own life most of the time- the xmas episode is a good example, nothing she does in that is in regard to the Doctor, who she doesn't recognize- here we get to see how Moffat envisions her when she is on her own- and there is nothing about her normal life that is Doctor dependent save the need to occasionally steal the TARDIS for her dealings.

She is totally obsessed, she lives for him, her whole purpose in life is The Doctor, she becomes an archaeologist just to meet him. pathetic.

'The other characters you mention are not supposed to be 'strong' such as Courtney and Osgood, or are you telling me that ALL Moffats female characters are supposed to be strong?'

I would argue both those examples are strong characters and women- Courtney overcomes her sense of self deprecation and worthlessness- when it comes to making the big decision at the end of Kill the Moon its Courtney who insists she come back and take that responsibility on- she argues her corner and correctly too. Osgood loses her partner, overcomes her grief and uses her abilities to help defeat the Zygons and re-establish the peace treaty, as well as providing comfort to eh Doctor when he fears Clara is already dead- seems pretty strong to me.

So ALL Moffats female characters have to be strong then. How boring

And of course there is still three series of Sherlock worth of female characters to take into consideration- and all Moffats previous TV work- Coupling, Press Gang ect

But I should think its already become rather clear that your blanket statement claim -'usually means stereotypical dominatrix with a oversexed fangirl tendency.' is clearly false and does not stand up to the scrutiny of looking at the evidence.

by Norc Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:18 pm

i don't always agree either, but i love reading the theories, and some of them are really good and plausible Smile

list of why i think that scenario is plausible:

Spoiler:

by Norc Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:29 pm

'madame Vastra is a green lizard lesbian with a little cutesy sexually available 'wifey'.'

If a lizard women from the dawn of time in a gay marriage with a Victorian runaway is stereotypical then I've been living in a different world all this time! (also I find the derogatory way you word such sentiments far more sexist and offensive than the characters could ever be- you use reductionism to make them seem weak- normally a male trick applied to women to bring them down)

The facts are that Vastra and Jenny are in what most people would define as a husband and wife relationship where the 'male' or husband is the dominant partner, and the female or 'wife' is more submissive. Jenny is the wife, Jenny gets to prance around in a corset being ordered around, Jenny is NOT the dominant partner, Vastra the 'husband' is. therefore for all the pc obfuscation they are in traditional paternalistic roles. Fact!

also. madam vastra and jenny are two females. why is the "dominant" role exclusively for the man? lesbians don't have a male role and a female role. same for gays. stop shoving these heterosexual stereotypes over gay and lesbian relationships. it's stupid how black and white that view is. who's the "dominant" one in a relationship actually comes down to what situation one is in, and i say this as a twin which one of us who's extrovert or introvert depends on the situation. a romantic relationship isn't much different from a friendship or a sibling-relationship when it comes to dynamics, the only difference is sex and sexual attraction and the romance bit. so please stop it. just saying one of the is the husband and one of them is the wife is actually insanly provocative

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:31 pm

mostly there for either pc multi-racial-disabled-etc purposes or thinly drawn plot props.- Figg

Um two of them are disabled- one is in a wheelchair (but only for the closing shots as the episode takes place in a collective mind) and the deaf commander of the underwater base. And calling them a thinly veiled plot points is merely your opinion, it does not invalidate that there are female characters, in positions of authority and of importance to, and involved in, the plot. On that list we have astronauts, commanders, generals, the Head of UNIT, Time Lords, the Leader of the Sisterhood of Pyrthia, and a soldier (as well as at the other end of the scale, a grandmother, a shop assistant, a checkout girl, and two school kids). Which is quite abroad range of female characters- not to mention giving what is essentially a snappy talking action hero role to a mature actress like Alex Kingston.

'would define as a husband and wife relationship where the 'male' or husband is the dominant partner, and the female or 'wife' is more submissive.'

And this doesn't happen in gay relationships?- because the one lesbian relationship I actually know there is a clearly a 'male' and 'female' in terms of one being more masculine in actions, words, appearance, dress sense than the other who is very 'girly' for want of a better word (but a lovely person!). Maybe Silurians are always dominant by nature, male or female- the rest of their species seem pretty keen on being the dominant ones.

'she is completely out of her depth, meandering about without a clue.'

Which is in complete contradiction to what you were replying to, which was simply a descrioption of what she actually does- all of which is successful, off her own back, and she has a plan which she then acts successfully and succeeds with meeting up with the the Doctor and taking out the Zygons holding him.

'We are told she is a quasi-military head but she acts like a numpty most of the time.'

Clearly thats not the case, and she is a hell of a lot smarter and quicker on the uptake than her old man ever was.

'her whole purpose in life is The Doctor, she becomes an archaeologist just to meet him. pathetic.'

She becomes an archaeologist as a means of finding him, as he is a time traveller it makes sense- she stays an archaeologist and becomes a Professor at it eventually out of her own choice of career- she chooses to pursue it academically and in the field. And as the xmas episode clearly demonstrated she is off doing her own thing quite happily, hoping yews to meet him, but it is not clearly not defining her.
As I said before and its made explicit in the episode, she believes he does not love her, is not capable of doing so, and she acknowledges she loves him. Loving someone is not some sort of weakness you know. Nor is longing or desiring to be with someone. But it's clear from this episode and many other bits of others that she is off doing her own thing, having her own adventures most of the time (as we are about to hear when Big Finish and Alex Kingston release the Diaries of River Song audio dramas).

'So ALL Moffats female characters have to be strong then. How boring'

He does tend to write stronger female characters than male in those terms, yes. But Clara is a stand out example of a main character who is both strong, yet has grave weaknesses in her character which can lead to negative outcomes.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:37 pm

Fair point Norc- I would say Vastra exhibits a dominant streak in the dynamic, and Jenny, at least publicly takes a more submissive role, in that she lets Vastra grandstand. But she also reigns Vastra in on several occasions with an admonishment- or a reminder that they are just playing roles for one another- such as when Jenny is pouring the teas as the maid when they are in private, a function she is supposed to perform in public only as a disguise to conceal their relationship from Victorian gossip.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:37 pm

Good selection of GIFS Norc! I am more convinced than ever!

Spoiler:

by Norc Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:38 pm

also. can we stay on topic and stop dragging doctor who into this? i am all for discussing homosexuality in tv-shows and etc. happily do so, but you guys are norcing it away from the sherlock-gay-subtext .

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:39 pm

I am not convinced there is one yet- I see huge platonic friendship- Frodo and Sam in Mordor levels, but not homosexuality.

And its not a complete Norcing, its half on topic- we are discussing a gay relationship from the same writer (or one of them in Sherlocks case) so look on it as a comparative study!

by Norc Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:45 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I am not convinced there is one yet- I see huge platonic friendship- Frodo and Sam in Mordor levels, but not homosexuality.

well. as i said before. i don't know about John. but sherlock is gay. No effing doubt about that. He has never denied gayness, only denied feelings towards the "fair" sex. I even would like to say he kinda crushed on Jim (because brilliant mind) but then realized what a dangerous bat-shit-crazy dude he was. But Sherlock definitely tried to woo John into moving in with him (actually quoting mr. Cumberbatch here!!) and the Mind Palance bits which was his version of John, he talks of a future where they can be together, john basically "so are you a virgin then?" and omg. the fucking last scene where they talk about the future and also the Reichenbach scene THE FUCKING GAY SUBTEXT! Sherlock is madly in love with John, he was high all season 3, and during the wedding and basically going downhill because John chose Mary. During the wedding you can see a nicotine patch at his wrists aka his whole arm is covered in them. i dunno about you guys but cum on!

by Norc Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:46 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I am not convinced there is one yet- I see huge platonic friendship- Frodo and Sam in Mordor levels, but not homosexuality.

And its not a complete Norcing, its half on topic- we are discussing a gay relationship from the same writer (or one of them in Sherlocks case) so look on it as a comparative study!

hah.. comparative... Evil or Very Mad

but let's talk gay relationships Very Happy

because i know of one!!! one-sided perhaps!... buuuut Shrugging