And then I fell in love with a madman in a blue box.

När jag vaknade i morse pirrade det i kroppen på ett sätt som jag inte upplevt sedan början av nittiotalet. Den där känslan av att vara sex år och vakna på julafton i kolmörkret tusen miljoner timmar innan det är dags att gå upp - i ett sinnestillstånd bestående av lika delar panik och vild förväntan smyger man ut i vardagsrummet. Granen är tänd. Man betraktar paketen. Försiktigt, försiktigt för att inte väcka någon sätter man sig ned i sin pyjamas och skakar på varenda låda. Ens lilla kropp skälver och man håller på att explodera av förväntan och förstår inte hur det ska gå att vänta en enda liten millisekund till innan man får rycka bort det där glansiga pappret och titta på det förmodat fantastiska som gömmer sig där under.

Doctor Who fyller femtio år idag. Och jag förstår inte hur jag ska kunna bärga mig till kvällen kommer.

Det här är min hämningslösa hyllning till något så fånigt, meningslöst och alldeles, alldeles underbart som en tv-serie. Min kärlekshistoria med Doktorn började en sommar när det mesta var skit. Jag hade ett jobb jag inte klarade av och därmed avskydde och ägnade en stor del av arbetstiden till att, via telefonen, mentalt befinna mig i andra universum. Allteftersom veckorna gick och jag betade av fler säsonger blev sakernas tillstånd värre: det hela kulminerade en augustikväll när jag, spik nykter, stod på en parkeringsplats mitt i natten och hoppades, hoppades och kanske också lite grann trodde på att the TARDIS skulle materialiseras framför mig.

Förutom att jag blev en smula oroad över min mentala hälsa förstod jag att en ny era inletts. 

Doctor Who är en snart femtio år gammal brittisk tv-serie som tidigare mest varit känd för sina risiga specialeffekter. Huvudpersonen, the Doctor (Doktorn på svenska) är en humanoid alien, en tidsfurste, som reser i sin tidsmaskin, the TARDIS, i tid och rum. Doktorn är smart, snabb och påhittig och när han drabbas av något extra farligt dör han inte utan regenererar - han uppstår helt enkelt i en ny kropp. Tillsammans med sina medresenärer (som han förvånansvärt ofta plockar upp på den samtida jorden…) åker han omkring för att se över sakernas tillstånd i universum.

Trots att upplägget kan tyckas pajigt lyfter programmet ofta filosofiska och/eller moraliska frågor. Har vi har ett personligt ansvar att agera mot förtryck eller inte? Måste individen offra sig för kollektivet? Hur vi behandlar individer (och/eller raser) som är svagare än oss själva? Serien diskuterar ofta detta, och presenterar olika “svar” beroende på vem som skrivit avsnittet.

Programmet pratar också, i subtext eller text, om vårt gemensamma samhällsansvar. Russell T Davies (showrunner s 1-4) lyfter inte bara frågorna i sina manus, utan tar dessutom ställning till dem. I säsongsavslutningen av säsong 3 har Doktorn i en strid med sin värsta fiende blivit oförmögen att röra sig vilket leder till att hans dåvarande medresenär Martha beger sig ensam ut i världen och predikar Doktorns budskap, vilket leder till att han sedan “återuppväcks” av de som nåtts av budskapet. När han återuppstått räddar han som vanligt världen.

I avsnittet finns klara paralleller till en missionsresa och det ligger nära till hand att tolka Doktorn som en frälsande jesusfigur, men vi ser också tydliga inslag av kollektivism: det var vi, vi alla tillsammans, som räddade honom. Om någon hade avvikit hade det inte gått.

Jag älskar också hur Russell T Davies aktivt arbetar mot stereotyper när han skriver sina rollfigurer - kvinnor, icke-vita och icke-heterosexuella behandlas alltid som individer i hans manus. Captain Jack Harkness, den omnisexuelle världsmedborgaren från år 5100, ligger ogenerat med allt och alla och gnäller på att vi från 2000-talet är så jävla stelbenta med parbildningar och “walls between sexualities”. Martha Jones är svart och har, till skillnad från alla andra medresenärer, en överklassbakgrund - hon är den enda av Davies medresenärer som har en eftergymnasial utbildning. Donna Noble är medelålders, barnlös och relativt fattig, men den absolut modigaste av Doktorns medresenärer. Rose Tyler är en total nobody från ett slumområde i London, en klassisk kickers som får chansen att resa ut i universum och rädda världen hundra gånger om.

Under detta löper också seriens rent existentiella tema. Det handlar ju för fan om döden - att vilja besegra den. Människan tycks besatt av tanken på evigt liv, och tidsfurstarna, som dels kan kontrollera och styra tiden samt, när de dör, återuppstå i ny skepnad förkroppsligar vår önskan om detta. I många sagor som behandlar evigt liv omnämns detta eviga i ett första skede som en välsignelse, men allt som oftast slutar det i att vara en förbannelse. Dessa kvarvarande ensamma själar som vandrar över eviga jordar, med bara skuggan av ett minne av sina kära.

På samma tema tassar programmet också alltid kring alltings förgänglighet: hur människor runt omkring oss bryts ner och dör eller försvinner och hur allt har ett slut, alla relationer och liv men att något nytt alltid börjar och hur jävla ensamt det är att vara den som är kvar, och det finaste vi har är ändå varandra.

Jag älskar verkligen att Doktorn är den siste av tidsfurstarna (hans folk förintades i det sista stora tidskriget), den ensamhet det innebär för honom och vilket ansvar och vilken ödmjukhet han, troligtvis pga detta, känner inför andra former av liv. Att ständigt se liv uppstå och brytas ned gör en troligtvis till en mycket godhjärtad varelse. Eller en otroligt ondskefull. Doktorn är båda. Ungefär som vi.

En kväll, när Doktorn tror att han slutgiltligen ska dö, resen han tillbaka till en av sina medresenärer som barn. Han stryker henne över håret och ber henne minnas honom:

“You’ll remember me a little. I’ll be a story in your head. But that’s okay: we’re all stories in the end. Just make it a good one, eh? Because it was, you know, it was the best: a daft old man, who stole a magic box and ran away.”

Vi lever nu en kort liten stund, och när vi försvinner så bleknar vi till en saga. En berättelse, sann eller inte, om oss själva för efterlevande att ta del av när vårt fysiska jag är borta förevigt. En saga, helt fantastisk, precis som den om Doctor Who.

Steven Moffat and the Paradox Problem

gallifreyan-gallimaufry:

par·a·dox, n.

1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true.

2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects.

3. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.

4. A statement contrary to received opinion.

 

An infinity of universes, ergo an infinite number of choices. So free will is not an illusion after all. The pattern can be changed.

- Third Doctor, Inferno.

 

Doctor Who is a sci-fi show about time travel. The TARDIS, the home and spacecraft belonging to the protagonist, a member of a species known as Time Lords, is a time machine. Time travel is written into the very fabric of the show, the same way magic is in Harry Potter. And well, why shouldn’t it be? Time travel is awesome, right? It presents absolutely unique narrative possibilities, wonderful sets, characters with completely foreign backgrounds and perspectives, just to mention a few things.

I love historical episodes! I LOVE TIME TRAVEL!

Time travel as a plot device, I’m less fond of.  And time travel as a plot device just so happens to be one of Steven Moffat’s favourite tropes.  

Read More

kaynibbler16:

Eleven, I love and adore you, but I swear that if you awkwardly cock-block Ten and Rose during the 50th I will strangle you with your bow-tie until regenerate an episode early.

elinj:

whovianfeminism:


Image text: Hi I just wanted to stop by and say that I appreciate that you have a well rounded approach to the show. I have a lot of problems with some of the things Moffat has done (continued) but I still tend to enjoy his writing for the most part. I guess I’m just trying to say that I appreciate that you take the time to acknowledge the (albeit less) good things he’s done for the show instead of just blowing a fuse that he’s the worst writer in history ever like a lot of people seem to. It allows me to respect and learn from your opinion much more easily

Honestly, it’s one of the most frustrating things. Moffat is legitimately a great writer, and it frustrates me so much that he continues to do such sexist things.
I always introduce new people to Doctor Who using Moffat episodes, usually “Blink,” followed by “The Doctor Dances.” I like to give them Doctor Who at it’s sci-fi/time-travel best, and I like to give them a episode that shows Doctor Who's true heart. It's how I was introduced to the show. Moffat has created episodes with amazing pacing, stellar wit, incredible heart, and fantastic character development. And then he goes and gives us an episode where the Doctor makes a joke about how River's so irrational because she's a woman, and then lets another writer slip in a “woman can't drive” joke.
Just…what?!

MOFFAT YOU ARE A TALENTED AND CREATIVE WRITER. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?! STOP IT!
I mean seriously, the man is not an idiot, and it takes incredible writing talent to be a showrunner of Doctor Who. But how can a smart and creative writer like him be lazy enough to use a “women are irrational” joke, and dumb enough to think that is okay?
Every writer on Doctor Who has their flaws. While I don’t excuse the times where the show slips into sexist tropes, it’s not exactly unusual that this happens. “TV Show Uses Common Sexist Trope Found In Every TV Show” is not a new headline. My hope is that within a few generations some of the more obvious and sexist tropes in use right now will go away, but right now, it’s usually only the most perceptive and talented writers who manage to spot the trope and avoid/undermine it.
For example, I’m frustrated but not necessarily surprised that Moffat slipped into the “Femme Fatale" Trope when writing River Song. He needed a woman to be a villain, and too often a villainous woman relies on her sexuality to befuddle and defeat her male opponent. So he slipped into the easy trope. On the other hand, you have writers like Joss Whedon, who when presented with the possibility of slipping into the "Femme Fatale" trope with the character of Black Widow, decided to completely undermine it. If you watch closely, Natasha never uses her sexuality against the men she’s up against. Instead, she manipulates their desire to be dominant and controlling over women. She lets them think they have her under their control, lets them brag until she has all the information she needs, and then pulls the rug out from under them. She manipulates a male power fantasy, she doesn’t feed it.
Still, not many writers deliberately take pains to identify, avoid, or undermine these sexist tropes. This doesn’t excuse them, and we should still call them out for it, but Moffat isn’t the only one to do this so I used to not care too much about when he would tend to slip into common sexist tropes. (How’s that for depressing?) But I get really, exceptionally angry when he does things that are so obviously sexist and misogynistic. Because he should be smarter than that, and he should know better than that.
Whoops that was a long rant.

I got into an argument over Black Widow once, and the guy I was arguing with surmised that Romanov’s portrayal was clichéed and sad and that this made Avengers worse for it. My counterargument was pretty much this (albeit no where near as well put.)

elinj:

whovianfeminism:

Image text: Hi I just wanted to stop by and say that I appreciate that you have a well rounded approach to the show. I have a lot of problems with some of the things Moffat has done (continued) but I still tend to enjoy his writing for the most part. I guess I’m just trying to say that I appreciate that you take the time to acknowledge the (albeit less) good things he’s done for the show instead of just blowing a fuse that he’s the worst writer in history ever like a lot of people seem to. It allows me to respect and learn from your opinion much more easily

Honestly, it’s one of the most frustrating things. Moffat is legitimately a great writer, and it frustrates me so much that he continues to do such sexist things.

I always introduce new people to Doctor Who using Moffat episodes, usually “Blink,” followed by “The Doctor Dances.” I like to give them Doctor Who at it’s sci-fi/time-travel best, and I like to give them a episode that shows Doctor Who's true heart. It's how I was introduced to the show. Moffat has created episodes with amazing pacing, stellar wit, incredible heart, and fantastic character development. And then he goes and gives us an episode where the Doctor makes a joke about how River's so irrational because she's a woman, and then lets another writer slip in a “woman can't drive” joke.

Just…what?!

MOFFAT YOU ARE A TALENTED AND CREATIVE WRITER. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?! STOP IT!

I mean seriously, the man is not an idiot, and it takes incredible writing talent to be a showrunner of Doctor Who. But how can a smart and creative writer like him be lazy enough to use a “women are irrational” joke, and dumb enough to think that is okay?

Every writer on Doctor Who has their flaws. While I don’t excuse the times where the show slips into sexist tropes, it’s not exactly unusual that this happens. “TV Show Uses Common Sexist Trope Found In Every TV Show” is not a new headline. My hope is that within a few generations some of the more obvious and sexist tropes in use right now will go away, but right now, it’s usually only the most perceptive and talented writers who manage to spot the trope and avoid/undermine it.

For example, I’m frustrated but not necessarily surprised that Moffat slipped into the “Femme Fatale" Trope when writing River Song. He needed a woman to be a villain, and too often a villainous woman relies on her sexuality to befuddle and defeat her male opponent. So he slipped into the easy trope. On the other hand, you have writers like Joss Whedon, who when presented with the possibility of slipping into the "Femme Fatale" trope with the character of Black Widow, decided to completely undermine it. If you watch closely, Natasha never uses her sexuality against the men she’s up against. Instead, she manipulates their desire to be dominant and controlling over women. She lets them think they have her under their control, lets them brag until she has all the information she needs, and then pulls the rug out from under them. She manipulates a male power fantasy, she doesn’t feed it.

Still, not many writers deliberately take pains to identify, avoid, or undermine these sexist tropes. This doesn’t excuse them, and we should still call them out for it, but Moffat isn’t the only one to do this so I used to not care too much about when he would tend to slip into common sexist tropes. (How’s that for depressing?) But I get really, exceptionally angry when he does things that are so obviously sexist and misogynistic. Because he should be smarter than that, and he should know better than that.

Whoops that was a long rant.

I got into an argument over Black Widow once, and the guy I was arguing with surmised that Romanov’s portrayal was clichéed and sad and that this made Avengers worse for it. My counterargument was pretty much this (albeit no where near as well put.)

 

 

(Source: waywardism)

On the dynamics of Johnlock: why John is always portrayed as “the woman of the relationship”.

So, I’ve been hanging around the internet lately – as you do – and I’ve come across loads and loads of Sherlock gifs, one more absurd than the other. On a whim, I decided to put the strangest of them in a blog and all of a sudden Sherlock fandom, are you okay? was born. The Sherlockians found this hilarious and in a couple of days, I had a few hundred followers. I got flattered and started to dig deep into the dark est corners of Tumblr to find more weird Sherlock gifs and pics, and after shoveling through layers of things such as Octo!John, Demon!lock and Otter!lock I started to notice something.

For almost every crack gif or pic, John was almost always portrayed as the woman of the pair. For instance, like this:

Beach pic

Wedding pic

Apart from the whole disgusting “one guy in a gay couple has to be the woman” thing, this was somehow disturbing me. Why is it that I haven’t found a single picture or gif with Sherlock’s faced shopped onto the woman of the pair?

I came to think of what used to be my favourite sci-fi series (before Doctor Who announced its existence and is now forever the heir of my mental iron throne). Being a huge fan of The X-files, I noticed early on that the dynamics between Sherlock and John are pretty much exactly the same as those between Mulder and Scully.

Mulder and Sherlock are very similar as characters. They’re both loners, misunderstood outlaw geniuses, who have crazy ideas that nobody believes but always turns out to be correct in the end. They believe in themselves, to them they are more capable than anyone else. They’re detectives in a broader sense, and they work the way they like, both operate outside the given framework, but still benefit from having access to the tools of the police (Sherlock via Lestrade). By family, they are linked to the higher authorities: Mulder’s dad has a very prominent position within the CIA/government (although sort of unclear what he actually does), and Mycroft “pretty much is the British Government” (thinking of it, it’s kind of unclear what he does, too). This is really handy because it often gets our heroes out of/into tricky situations.

At first, none of them are shown to hone any kind of feelings against other humans (although Sherlock leans slightly more to the asperger side, and Mulder more to the arrogant). During the course of the series, though, we come to understand that Sherlock and Mulder clearly have very warm feelings against John and Scully.

John and Scully are also very similar as the side kick character. Apart from both being doctors, which in Johns case is part of the ACD canon, and in Scully’s is something done to ‘empower the female lead’ (my guess, at least) it’s also a really handy storytelling tool for the writers, thinking of the character of the series. Since both The X-files and Sherlock deal with a lot of forensics, and neither Mulder nor Sherlock have an eduction in that field, it’d be very tricky for the writers if the protagonists didn’t have a supporting doctor by their side – how would they tell the viewers what’s going on if the (knowing) doctor didn’t have to explain it to the (unknowing) protagonist?

They are both also “assigned” to their heroes because of them being doctors: since Anderson won’t work with Sherlock, John gets to come along instead. Scully is actually formally assigned to Mulder – she’s supposed to, from a doctors pov, report to the authorities if Mulder’s really doing something valuable at all at the FBI.

Apart from that, John and Scully are very alike as persons: loyal, courageous, questioning and a bit stubborn. They “ground” Sherlock and Mulder perfectly, being their sanity check when the lunatics get too looney. They also function as the person that the viewer is supposed to identify with – they ask the questions you yourself would have posed if confronted with a Mulder or a Sherlock. John and Scully also form a link to the somewhat eccentric protagonist: an isolated Mulder/Sherlock would just be a cuckoo, but a cuckoo with a sane person vowing for them, is a genius.

Another interesting thing is what John and Scully get out of their relationships with Sherlock and Mulder. When Sherlock s1 starts off John is hurt, both physically and mentally; a flawed person who doesn’t have much choice but to move in with Sherlock. He starts at nothing, but when he meets Sherlock, he gets an apartment, a “job” and gets rid of his limp. It’s almost like Sherlock is healing him, John gains a lot from being with Sherlock. Scully, on the other hand, only seem to loose things when Mulder enters her life. Although her starting point is almost the opposite of Johns - she herself has actively made a strategic choice to go into the FBI to pursue her career - she rather becomes hurt during the course of the series. Everything seems to be taken from her, parts of her family, her love life, her ability to bear children.

But then, of course, Scully’s female. This “everything” is mostly stuff that is always assigned to a female character. We rarely (ok, never…) see a late twenties – early thirties male lead portrayed as (desperately) wanting to marry and have children. John does touch some of that, though my interpretation of him is that he’s rather desperate for a little love, any love, let it be Sherlock’s platonic, than has a concrete wish for a wife, house and children. Scully looses things both from the perspective of the woman trope (having a love life, a family and bear children), and from the perspective of a character (sacrificing her career).

These losses effectively makes Mulder the only thing left in Scully’s life. She needs Mulder because without him, her life is nothing. Although John doesn’t have the (outspoken) need for marrying, having children and a house, he does need Sherlock to maintain the current status of his life – without Sherlock, his life is nothing. Difference though, is that while John is empowered by Sherlock’s presence in his life, Scully is, in different ways, disempowered by Mulder’s.

Ok, so what does this have to do with the gifs? The deal-eo here is probably the need. Clearly, John and Scully are both in need to be fulfilled, for different reasons, but still in need. Since the woman trope is based on need (womanhood can’t exist without manhood to acknowledge its existence), when we see a character in need we interpret that character as the female.

This is probably no news but still = :( 

Technically, there isn’t anything wrong with one character being in need, and another fulfilling it. And if you think of it, Sherlock and Mulder need their Johns and Scullies pretty much, too, although it’s in a different way. The lonely outlaw genious one man show needs somebody domestic to rip them out of their brooding state. What is kind of refreshing with Sherlock is that the supporting/needing character is, as the lead, a man too (although it of course would have been far more radical to cast two non-white non-cis people).

What I’m trying to say is that I’m not against these dynamics between two characters, it’s an archetype in writing that can be used very effectively (and since this is how EPIC FEELS are written I really don’t want to loose it as a concept). What is very tiresome, though, is that the needing traits of the “weaker” character are associated with women. 

On a sidenote, there is also the love between Mulder/Scully and Sherlock/John. Apparently, in both cases, there is a lot of it. Even though the dynamics in both pairings are almost identical, and there is definitely a romantic, or maybe more of a soulmate subtext between them, the MSR is often hinted at on a serious note, while the concept of Johnlock is always ridiculed - John loves to stubbornly point out (at least like three times an episode…) that he and Sherlock are not a couple. That fact is supposed to be a joke. Haha, gay men, laughing my ass off.  

Mulder and Scully eventually got together. The X-Files’ creator Chris Carter (for you kiddos around here, that’s the Steven Moffat of the nineties) has spoken of the event as “inevitable, although actually against my will.”

I strongly doubt that the wedding to be in Sherlock series 3 will be the one of Sherlock and John. Even though their relationship is very similar to that that Mulder and Scully have, between “a man” and “a woman”, I think there’s a long way left to walk before Sherlock has two homosexual leads.

This breaks my heart for several reasons: first, I really can’t see why on Earth John would marry anybody but Sherlock. And second: I really hate the thought of that it’d be considered impossible to up the Johnlock from subtext into text, just because the people in question are both male. Please, Moffat, come on. I might be able to forgive you about… let’s say, half of what you did to Doctor Who, if Johnlock becomes canon. Deal? And if you actually show the marriage on screen, with no humor at all, I might even give that crappy Clara a second chance.

Ps: I’m not really into any of the other huge slash pairings in other fandoms, like Sterek or Destiel, but I’d be very interested in hearing if those carry the same dynamics. Do they?

Ritchandfamous: If I See One More Fucking Person Talking About How "Cute" and "Classy" Betty Page and Old School Burlesque...

thepeacockangel:

I am going to go into full on berserker age.

NO, fuck you. At the time Betty Page was around, the shit she was doing was transgressive, and shocking and dirty, and if you’d been around there you would have hated her fucking guts because you’re a whorephobic, slut shaming,…

Well he loves cats. He loves every kind of cats. 

Well he loves cats. He loves every kind of cats. 

(Source: olivertwistandshout)

doctorwho:

Google Maps Has An Incredible Doctor Who Easter Egg. 

Hey, you know how it is. One minute you’re walking down a London street, minding your own business, when you accidentally step into a police call box and all of a sudden you’re inside the TARDIS and the Doctor has enlisted your help fighting aliens. I hate when that happens.

Click here.

(Source: heisenkitty)

elisadenise:

Nyuufish and me at the MtvSweden Teenwolf preview party. And yes we look fab and yes we made our own Beacon Hills lacross thsirts.

STILINSKI AND GREENBERG REPRESENT!

elisadenise:

Nyuufish and me at the MtvSweden Teenwolf preview party. And yes we look fab and yes we made our own Beacon Hills lacross thsirts.

STILINSKI AND GREENBERG REPRESENT!