Re: Sherlock - BBC [4]

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:56 pm

I think it is something that they will honour Doyle in- there has always been speculation about the nature of their relationship, I reckon thy will hint at it further but it will never be resolved- Mary will go out the picture somehow if they honour the originals, and Watson may well move back into Baker St, but I dont expect them to end up happily married. Or even openly acknowledging it between themselves.

by David H Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:01 pm

[quote="Mrs Figg"]

Pettytyrant101 wrote: take Kate from UNIT, she is pretty pathetic for a military leader, totally ineffectual under the veneer of authority.

I've just been watching 3rd and 4th Doctor stuff, and while it's got nothing to do one way of the other with the current discussion, I thought your description fitted the original Brigadier Lethbridge Stewart amazingly well! Smile

by Norc Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:09 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think it is something that they will honour Doyle in- there has always been speculation about the nature of their relationship, I reckon thy will hint at it further but it will never be resolved- Mary will go out the picture somehow if they honour the originals, and Watson may well move back into Baker St, but I dont expect them to end up happily married. Or even openly acknowledging it between themselves.

i don't know about that. but we're getting to know the great detective more and more and i wouldn't put it past them. but anyway it is a slow burning romance. you know when you're a kid and you don't want a kissy-story, but then after a while you want it to be a kissy-story in the end. all i can say is that i (finally actually) wholeheartedly believe in Johnlock!

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:58 pm

Norc wrote:

'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

er yes they do. Some Lesbians do have the husband and wife relationship where one is the husband and the other is the man. its not my idea, its a fact. You can have 'fem' lesbians with more butch partners. This is nothing to do with shoving hetro stereotypes on people.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:01 pm

You can have 'fem' lesbians with more butch partners. This is nothing to do with shoving hetro stereotypes on people. - Figg

So whats your problem with Vastra and Jenny then? Mad

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:07 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote: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.

They are secondary characters. end of story.

'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.

yes it does happen in lesbian relationships, as I mentioned to Norc. But that does not excuse Moffat from using lesbians as titillation. using it as an excuse to get half naked 'wifey' in a corset, and general snogging before the watershed. Why couldn't he just have two fem lesbians or two butch lesbians, why have the ones with the 'dominant' partner getting the feminine one to strip?

'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.

nah

'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).

She lives for him, all she thinks is him, all she does is for him, she is a one woman Doctor seeking missile.

'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.

The so called strength of these people is wafer thin.

by Bluebottle Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:23 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:
Norc wrote:

'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

er yes they do. Some Lesbians do have the husband and wife relationship where one is the husband and the other is the man. its not my idea, its a fact. You can have 'fem' lesbians with more butch partners. This is nothing to do with shoving hetro stereotypes on people.

More to the point, the problem with Vastra and Jenny isn't the viewer pushing their relationship into some conceived heterosexual stereotype, but that Moffat wrote it as one. Moffat was the one who took a lesbian relationship and wrote it into heterosexual stereotypical gender roles.

That's my problem with it anyway. (Other than that I'd agree the whole gender role business isn't very helpful.)

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:29 pm

but that Moffat wrote it as one.- Blue

Given I only know 1 lesbian couple, if I were to write a story about a lesbian couple I would most likely draw on what I know from real life. In which case I would also have written a relationship where one is more dominant than the other- would it make me sexist?
Not only that its a perfectly viable and real relationship dynamic- I know plenty of heterosexual couples who fit the dominate submissive roles in their marriage and its not always male- dominant, female -submissive, with Scottish women its usually the other way round.
The point is, its perfectly common in heterosexual relationships- why cant it be so in gay relationships?- surely taking a norm of heterosexual relationships then presenting a lesbian couple exactly the same way is equality?

by Bluebottle Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:31 pm

I'd not give him that much of the benefit of the doubt. But then, people are different. Shrugging

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:35 pm

You wouldnt give the benefit of the doubt to a writer who commonly writes more female characters than male, in positions of authority, and who has done more than any other single writer in Who history to promote and set the ground work for the main character to be able to change gender? And who has already changed the gender of a major established character? Really?- that's very grudging of you I must say. What do you base it on?

by **Amarië** Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:41 pm

It's the air of the old idea that lesbian either wish they were a man (penis envy) ie being dominant, or secretly truly wishing they were with a man (submissive to the manly woman).

"Lesbian huh? Hurr, hurr, all she needs is have a real man and she'll change her mind."

Not saying that is what Moffat is trying to say, but what he chooses to do leads the thoughts in that direction.

by Bluebottle Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:44 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You wouldnt give the benefit of the doubt to a writer who commonly writes more female characters than male, in positions of authority, and who has done more than any other single writer in Who history to promote and set the ground work for the main character to be able to change gender? And who has already changed the gender of a major established character? Really?- that's very grudging of you I must say. What do you base it on?

*snort*

You know I find it funny whenever people laud Moffat as this paragon of writing good female characters. It reminds me so much of how Robert Jordan fans would laud him for his writing of female characters and gender dynamics, which to put it mildly is problematic at best. I don't see either claim as having any merit. You see, as Figg has demonstrated ad absurdum, including female characters is in no way the same thing as portraying them well. And, sorry, I do not think Moffat portrays them well. Quite the contrary, I find his writing of female characters and gender dynamics rather problematic.

I no way begrudge people liking either Moffats or Robert Jordans writing, but to claim their writing of female characters is unproblematic simply because they include them is.. to put it kindly naive. There seems to be this blind spot with fans of certain popularwriters, where they have major issues with seeing, or worse, admitting, their faults.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:45 pm

But one of them is a lizard! Its not even two humans- and we dont know a lot about Silurian personality, make up, or much else- save that they to tend to be very grumpy when woken early and it makes them want to reclaim the planet. So a bit dominant does seem somewhat the norm for Silurians. Event their military tries to dominate the science branch, and then the science branch has to resolve the situation by re-affirming its dominance over the military branch. So maybe we should not be too surprised in a relationship with a human she tends to play the dominant one.

by Bluebottle Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:47 pm

"Because she's Silurian it's ok!" :facepalm:

by halfwise Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:48 pm

Wai...you folks have been passionately arguing whether Moffat should be allowed to write lesbian couples, when one of those involved happens to be a lizard?!

This discussion has gone completely off the deep end. Laughing

by Bluebottle Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:50 pm

Of course. Very Happy

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:54 pm

There seems to be this blind spot with fans of writers, where they have major issues with seeing, or worse, admitting, their faults.- Blue

Or others seem to have an inexplicable axe to grind. Inexplicable in that they never seem able to back it up with evidence from the writing itself.

And if you had read more carefully you would see the list of female characters I presented was not to show how many he had written, but to show that they did not all, or even majority fall into the single defining characteristics Figg had stated. And that it demonstrated he has always written more female characters than male in his work as a matter of preference, which is an odd thing to do for someone who is sexist and hates women, it is demonstrative of his inclinations.
The merits of those characters is a subjective matter, but the rest is not and do not tally with someone with an agenda to do women down. Quite the opposite.

And if the posts on Norcs blog are any measure of reaction to his gender politics in Sherlock, then its giving intrigue, joy and pleasure to a lot of folks who are finding both the possibilities and the mysteries delicious.

'when one of those involved happens to be a lizard?!'- Halfy

Yep its a lesbian cross species relationship- and they are also properly married (I guess the Doctor helped out there with a trip in the TARDIS)

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:09 pm

Bluebottle wrote:
Mrs Figg wrote:
Norc wrote:

'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

er yes they do. Some Lesbians do have the husband and wife relationship where one is the husband and the other is the woman. its not my idea, its a fact. You can have 'fem' lesbians with more butch partners. This is nothing to do with shoving hetro stereotypes on people.

More to the point, the problem with Vastra and Jenny isn't the viewer pushing their relationship into some conceived heterosexual stereotype, but that Moffat wrote it as one. Moffat was the one who took a lesbian relationship and wrote it into heterosexual stereotypical gender roles.

That's my problem with it anyway. (Other than that I'd agree the whole gender role business isn't very helpful.)

that's exactly was I was trying to explain, but you said it better. Very Happy

by Bluebottle Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:10 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:There seems to be this blind spot with fans of writers, where they have major issues with seeing, or worse, admitting, their faults.- Blue

Or others seem to have an inexplicable axe to grind. Inexplicable in that they never seem able to back it up with evidence from the writing itself.

And if you had read more carefully you would see the list of female characters I presented was not to show how many he had written, but to show that they did not all, or even majority fall into the single defining characteristics Figg had stated. And that it demonstrated he has always written more female characters than male in his work as a matter of preference, which is an odd thing to do for someone who is sexist and hates women, it is demonstrative of his inclinations.
The merits of those characters is a subjective matter, but the rest is not and do not tally with someone with an agenda to do women down. Quite the opposite.

And if the posts on Norcs blog are any measure of reaction to his gender politics in Sherlock, then its giving intrigue, joy and pleasure to a lot of folks who are finding both the possibilities and the mysteries delicious.

No, it's the exact opposite. As I can see the writers with both their good and bad qualities. Admitting their strong points while not being closed off to criticism. To be honest this discussion reminds me of this quote..

“But you know as well as I, patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile.”

So, what is it? Moffat, right or wrong? Or Moffat is always right?

I don't begrudge you liking Moffat or his writing, but for the love of God, at least be open to the fact that what a large group of people perceive to be problematic about his writing might have some merit.

Your outright dismissal of any criticism troubles me. (As does Moffats.) You liking Moffat and his writing does not.

And as you're quoting tumblr to your support, I am glad to inform you that you have mastered the quintessential tumblr dismissal of criticism by labelling the critic as a "hater" with an "axe to grind

".

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:17 pm

halfwise wrote:Wai...you folks have been passionately arguing whether Moffat should be allowed to write lesbian couples, when one of those involved happens to be a lizard?!

This discussion has gone completely off the deep end.

bonkers with lizards

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:25 pm

Blue- I said your axe grinding was inexplicable- or at least unexplained as you or Figg never source it in the writing only in opinion of the writing. Which is not the same thing. (Look at Figg's response the Kate thing above- when faced with the evidence from the
show of what her actions actually are her reply is just to say 'nah' in denial- the debate equivalent of just closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears because the evidence contradicts the belief Moffat cant write competent women- and a lot of the arguments made against Moffat seem to have this level of sophistication to them)

Nor have I ever claimed Moffat was always right- and I have been critical of episodes he has written in the past, of this and of Sherlock. He has his tropes, some I enjoy more than others, he has his idiosyncrasies of writing, I like some of those more than others.

But overall I think the hostility levelled at him by a noisy minority comes from an odd place- as it seem not only not evident in his writing but the guy has done way more than most writers of commercial mainstream television to put women in prominent roles throughout his writing career.

And as I said above liking his characters is subjective- but the accusations thrown at him (on this thread alone in the past it has been claimed he actively tries to prevent women from working on Doctor Who!) are so far out of kilter with the evidence of his writing that it must be called into question.
And I have so far seen no evidence brought forward directly from his writing which supports any career spanning hatred of women, or sexist direction to his writing.

by Bluebottle Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:25 pm

This quote from the writer of one of my favorite shows I think sums up how you should face and deal with the kind of criticism that has been leveled against Moffat. With humility.

“I have held plenty of stupid notions throughout my life that were planted there in any number of ways, or even grown out of my own ignorance and flawed personality. Yet through getting to know people from all walks of life, listening to the stories of their experiences, and employing some empathy to try to imagine what it might be like to walk in their shoes, I have been able to shed many hurtful mindsets. I still have a long way to go, and I still have a lot to learn. It is a humbling process and hard work, but nothing on the scale of what anyone who has been marginalized has experienced. It is a worthwhile, lifelong endeavor to try to understand where people are coming from.” –Bryan Konietzko

Because even if your critics are wrong. As a writer of major television dramas you don't have the privilege of turning a blind eye. Because you may be wrong. The lack of self awareness a complete and utter faith in your own infallibility required to dismiss any criticism in the way Moffat does, well, it's well described by the quote in my last post. It's either imbecile or infamous.

by Bluebottle Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:27 pm

And I'm sorry Petty. The amount of writing there is about this online, you not seing any merit to the criticism to my mind can only mean you're either blind or refusing to face them. The points have been made. Ad absurdum.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:33 pm

You still presume from a completely false assumption Blue- that I cannot see flaws or problems in some of Moffats work- of course there are, not every episode is going to be his best work, not every character a triumph- no artists produces only pure gold. Many are remembered in fact most for works they themselves hated.

My problem is with the poor or most times complete inability of those making the accusations to actually pull out consistent material from his work which demonstrates the argument.

Talking of a lack of self awareness is just insulting. I can analysis Moffats writing as well as I can analysis any other- and do so by the same criteria- I happen to enjoy his work in the round, and to think there is very good reason he is the cream of the serial tv writing crop in the UK. That has not happen by accident- he is not only capable of some clever inventive ideas and memorable characters, but he is able to craft some very memorable and often beautiful dialogue as well. Of course its not flawless, but its well above the pack average.

by Bluebottle Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:47 pm

No, I'm not having that. That's a broad assumption bordering on the rancorous. And whoever you would discuss this with on merit I'm sure would disagree. Because you do not sit in final judgement on whether their criticism holds any merit. They would obviously disagree with you, as I'm sure Figg for instance does.

I'm not going to discuss this on merit with you, because I don't care. I know my opinion of Moffat. And while I can see qualities in his writing I find his handling of the issues were discussing problematic. I'm fine with people liking his writing, and I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. What rancors me is this out of hand dismissal of criticism by Moffat and by his fans. Noone has the privilege to decide that peoples complaints are without merit like that. Particularily not someone in Moffats position. A privileged white middle aged male fiction writer for British national public television can not allow himself the privilege of dismissing what might be valid criticism of his writing in the way he does. Is the criticism valid. Well, you must always ask yourself that question. Because even if almost all the criticism against him should be unfounded, no one is perfect. And Moffat might still make mistakes in his portrayal in these areas. Even if they are simply mistakes. One must therefore approach these questions with a sense of humility. With a sense that one can make mistakes, get things wrong. Write things that in the end one can't stand for in hindsight. And the lack of that is telling. It is for me the primary telling sign that Moffats writing is problematic, because he doesn't have the wherewithal to question himself. And in this view he is backed up by rabid fans who label critics "haters" with an "axe to grind™".

When Moffat shows humility and actually is open to questioning himself, I will certainly be much more open to granting him the benefit of the doubt.

At this point? Not going to happen.

It's a sad. It's a sad sad situation.