I've never been a Holmes fan. Not anti-Holmes, or anything, just never enjoyed the books or movies much. Though I did like the recent movie, because it entertained me immensely.
And I don't watch much tv. As in, I go for months without turning it on. So I haven't seen the series.
Um, what was I commenting on?
Oh, yes.
People respond to intelligence. They desire intelligence. They answer the text messages that intelligence sends. They fetch things for intelligence. They are willing to put up with the rudeness that occasionally accompanies intelligence. They ask intelligence out on dates.I have found this to be utterly false. At least, for the majority of people I seem to come in contact with. While it may be true for me and my friends, I have found that it is not true for a (seeming) majority of everyday, working class people. And everyday, working class people are the majority. After all, by definition, half the population is below median intelligence, and I have found that a significant number of those people are
( ... )
I'm a bit astonished at the naive view of intelligence that the creators have taken with this show--in an era of emotional intelligence and wikipedia and crowd-sourcing and pluralist world views, do we really believe one person has all the answers simply on account of a rather vague "intelligence?" It's silly. The only reason why "intelligence" is so important in this show is that it's a fetishized (and largely empty) quality that distinguishes Holmes from the rest of the cast. /my own cynical rant
Funny how certain people's "intelligence" is more valuable than others.
I don't watch much t.v., either. (Don't have a set, actually.) Sadly, I manage to lose all that extra time surfing the internet! M.
Well, Sherlock is a bit of an escapist fantasy, and I really can't quibble with the idea that intelligence is treated like a superpower. Sure, realistically, cleverness doesn't solve everything and a lot of people hold intelligence and cleverness with ambivalance, but it's a lot better than the mid-20th century militaristic ideas of power. (I really cannot read the Lord of the Rings triology that seems to hold courage and military might and right to such a high degree
( ... )
*laughs* We did watch him hail cabs and sit in cabs an awful lot, didn't we?
I actually really liked that restaurant scene in the first episode, where the issue of sexuality seemed to be left open. But after the subsequent episodes...I feel as if you can't make (possible) queerness a running joke without demonstrating that someone will actually be allowed to be queer on the show, which didn't seem to be the case here. It's not funny to joke as if everything's fine if it's not really fine, I guess. Maggie
I agree that the open-ended queerness of Sherlock and John could really be a problem in this show, but there is a little bone thrown to the "it's okay to be queer" side in the form of Harry and Clara's offstage presence. Apart from Sherlock's name-based assumption, no comment is made on their sexuality. Of course, we never meet either of them and Harry's a drunk, but they are there.
*nods* I was talking about the "offstage-ness" of queerness with randomalia here the other day. In short, I was saying that the "real" queerness (as opposed to throwaway characters or throwaway lines) is unseen or unspoken in the series. It's a step forward that it's even hinted at, I suppose. We'll see what happens with the next series! M.
This pins down exactly the vague sense of discomfort I have sometimes watching the episodes. How even though Sherlock uses a cellphone and takes a cab there's something very not "modern" about him at all. There's still something very Victorian - a very privileged and aloof way of looking at things - that shows through in his actions. A sort of unquestioned "I'm the exception to every rule" that grates me a lot.
Also, like someone else mentioned - eccentric characters railing against the system would be more effective if they deviate from the white/male/straight pattern.
How even though Sherlock uses a cellphone and takes a cab there's something very not "modern" about him at all...A sort of unquestioned "I'm the exception to every rule" that grates me a lot.
*nods* So it's important to update the technology, but the racism and misogyny are an indispensable part of the package? And not just part of the package, but qualities that the viewer has to be coerced into acknowledging and accepting, in order to have any involvement in the emotional arc of the show at all?
Thanks for writing this, and I'm glad to hear our conversation helped to spark your thoughts. *hugs* So, I've now watched ep 1 and the first half of ep 2 (and planning to watch the rest soon). Very compelling, slick, disturbing--exactly what I expected from your description
( ... )
To be fair, a lot of the emotion in "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances" comes from the line "Just this once, Rose, everybody lives!" I can't help but feel for the Doctor, knowing his recent past. But maybe that's how Moffat gets away with it. Viewers get so swept up in the feel-good hero-saves-the-day that they don't notice the fail. (I think "Girl in the Fireplace" is Moffat's definitive statement of what he believes Doctor Who is about. How I wish it were "Blink," which is by far his least fail-y.)
This is SUCH a change from episodes by RT Davies and other writers, where Rose has very strong agency, and where Jack's bisexuality/queerness is central to his characterization.
I wish RTD had the guts to polish Moffat's episodes, as he did almost everyone else's. Where Moffat excels in clever plots, RTD is a master of characterization.
(Subliminal message: watch Doctor Who... watch Doctor Who...)
Oh, you're absolutely right about how Moffat makes us feel for the Doctor in the Blitz episodes. I felt it too, but (now that we have so much more evidence of Moffat's "it's all about the white male hero" approach), I'm more skeptical. So I think you're spot on about this: that's how Moffat gets away with it. Viewers get so swept up in the feel-good hero-saves-the-day that they don't notice the fail.(Confession: when I said "all the emotion," I was really exaggerating for rhetorical effect, to express my VAST DESPAIR ABOUT MOFFAT. Which is slightly embarrassing, since this meta and discussion are so full of subtle points about rhetoric
( ... )
"Girl in the Fireplace" is my least favorite of Moffat's eps, and possibly my least favorite of RTD's Who. When I think of it, I don't think of clockwork robots, or the timey-wimey--I see that classic fairytale image of the dashing white knight. Moffat is on record with saying he believes Who is a fairytale, and GitF reads as one to me. So do elements of "Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead." The images that come to mind there are River's hero-worship quotes, and the Doctor-as-Superman pose. These episodes are in complete contrast to my favorite episodes, where companions actively questioned the Doctor's supposed infallibility (e.g. "School Reunion", "Human Nature/Family of Blood" and "Fires of Pompeii"). I wonder whether this is also why Moffat's episodes in RTD's era were so popular with many fans: Moffat played the tropes straight, while RTD tended to dissect them
( ... )
Comments 51
And I don't watch much tv. As in, I go for months without turning it on. So I haven't seen the series.
Um, what was I commenting on?
Oh, yes.
People respond to intelligence. They desire intelligence. They answer the text messages that intelligence sends. They fetch things for intelligence. They are willing to put up with the rudeness that occasionally accompanies intelligence. They ask intelligence out on dates.I have found this to be utterly false. At least, for the majority of people I seem to come in contact with. While it may be true for me and my friends, I have found that it is not true for a (seeming) majority of everyday, working class people. And everyday, working class people are the majority. After all, by definition, half the population is below median intelligence, and I have found that a significant number of those people are ( ... )
Reply
Funny how certain people's "intelligence" is more valuable than others.
I don't watch much t.v., either. (Don't have a set, actually.) Sadly, I manage to lose all that extra time surfing the internet! M.
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
I actually really liked that restaurant scene in the first episode, where the issue of sexuality seemed to be left open. But after the subsequent episodes...I feel as if you can't make (possible) queerness a running joke without demonstrating that someone will actually be allowed to be queer on the show, which didn't seem to be the case here. It's not funny to joke as if everything's fine if it's not really fine, I guess. Maggie
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
This pins down exactly the vague sense of discomfort I have sometimes watching the episodes. How even though Sherlock uses a cellphone and takes a cab there's something very not "modern" about him at all. There's still something very Victorian - a very privileged and aloof way of looking at things - that shows through in his actions. A sort of unquestioned "I'm the exception to every rule" that grates me a lot.
Also, like someone else mentioned - eccentric characters railing against the system would be more effective if they deviate from the white/male/straight pattern.
Reply
*nods* So it's important to update the technology, but the racism and misogyny are an indispensable part of the package? And not just part of the package, but qualities that the viewer has to be coerced into acknowledging and accepting, in order to have any involvement in the emotional arc of the show at all?
Thanks for reading! Maggie
Reply
Reply
This is SUCH a change from episodes by RT Davies and other writers, where Rose has very strong agency, and where Jack's bisexuality/queerness is central to his characterization.
I wish RTD had the guts to polish Moffat's episodes, as he did almost everyone else's. Where Moffat excels in clever plots, RTD is a master of characterization.
(Subliminal message: watch Doctor Who... watch Doctor Who...)
*joins in the subliminal whispering*
Reply
that's how Moffat gets away with it. Viewers get so swept up in the feel-good hero-saves-the-day that they don't notice the fail.(Confession: when I said "all the emotion," I was really exaggerating for rhetorical effect, to express my VAST DESPAIR ABOUT MOFFAT. Which is slightly embarrassing, since this meta and discussion are so full of subtle points about rhetoric ( ... )
Reply
"Girl in the Fireplace" is my least favorite of Moffat's eps, and possibly my least favorite of RTD's Who. When I think of it, I don't think of clockwork robots, or the timey-wimey--I see that classic fairytale image of the dashing white knight. Moffat is on record with saying he believes Who is a fairytale, and GitF reads as one to me. So do elements of "Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead." The images that come to mind there are River's hero-worship quotes, and the Doctor-as-Superman pose. These episodes are in complete contrast to my favorite episodes, where companions actively questioned the Doctor's supposed infallibility (e.g. "School Reunion", "Human Nature/Family of Blood" and "Fires of Pompeii"). I wonder whether this is also why Moffat's episodes in RTD's era were so popular with many fans: Moffat played the tropes straight, while RTD tended to dissect them ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment