Also RTD criticized the Doctor's actions in-text, whereas Moffat tends to let it stand without comment. Which seems to be the case for Sherlock too, if I'm reading your meta right.
*nods* A good distinction, thanks. There's a cop (a woman) who criticizes Sherlock repeatedly as a "freak," which could have been interesting (why's he so fascinated by crime and so unmoved by it, and where will that lead him?) but which turned into a one-note joke pretty quickly. My general sense is that the creators aren't fully aware of what's problematic about this character/these characters and the world they've set up.
My earliest memories of (male) characters who resonated with me, are all about how they love and suffer.
Definitely. I think a lot of us, particularly women, look hard for small signs of love and suffering in our characters--it's what draws us to them, helps us establish an emotional connection. It disturbs me, though, to see the ways in which we withhold that interest from women characters and lavish it on men, particularly with obviously flawed characters. Badly behaving men are in need of affection and fic to address their problems; women characters (and others, including characters of color) often can't behave badly lest they find themselves condemned, ignored, or killed off.
Ah, well, you know what I'm driving at here, topaz. Thanks for chatting, even about a show you're not watching. M.
My general sense is that the creators aren't fully aware of what's problematic about this character/these characters and the world they've set up.
This is exactly what critics of Moffat's Who have said, so you are definitely not alone. It's interesting to watch because his writing is so fiendishly clever, and it does sweep you (general you) away. It's only afterwards when you realize that he works from archetypes and assumptions made entirely from privilege.
*nods* A good distinction, thanks. There's a cop (a woman) who criticizes Sherlock repeatedly as a "freak," which could have been interesting (why's he so fascinated by crime and so unmoved by it, and where will that lead him?) but which turned into a one-note joke pretty quickly. My general sense is that the creators aren't fully aware of what's problematic about this character/these characters and the world they've set up.
My earliest memories of (male) characters who resonated with me, are all about how they love and suffer.
Definitely. I think a lot of us, particularly women, look hard for small signs of love and suffering in our characters--it's what draws us to them, helps us establish an emotional connection. It disturbs me, though, to see the ways in which we withhold that interest from women characters and lavish it on men, particularly with obviously flawed characters. Badly behaving men are in need of affection and fic to address their problems; women characters (and others, including characters of color) often can't behave badly lest they find themselves condemned, ignored, or killed off.
Ah, well, you know what I'm driving at here, topaz. Thanks for chatting, even about a show you're not watching. M.
Reply
This is exactly what critics of Moffat's Who have said, so you are definitely not alone. It's interesting to watch because his writing is so fiendishly clever, and it does sweep you (general you) away. It's only afterwards when you realize that he works from archetypes and assumptions made entirely from privilege.
Reply
Leave a comment