#but criticism of sexist characterisation is valid

[ramblingsupernatural]

some dean fans need to accept that dean winchester isn't perfect, he's done bad things, just like the majority of supernatural characters

[boiled-dennis]

i am enjoying seeing people speak critically about the show.. discussion of this sort should be more welcome. (this is a long post)

one thing i really don't like is how rcg use words like "psychopath" or "sociopath" to explain the characters' bigoted behaviour. aside from the obvious sanism (which i'll get to), it just oversimplifies everything. it implies that bigotry isn't learned/taught, or that you have to be a Certain Way in order to be capable of bigoted thoughts and actions. anyone can have dehumanising beliefs about other kinds of people. "nice" or "polite" people can be pieces of shit too. bigotry is often not loud or physically violent.

for them to continuously use the terms psychopath and sociopath, it just furthers the incredibly dangerous idea that people who get those labels attributed to us (those of us with ASPD) have some kind of inherent "evil". to use it as an explanation for bigoted beliefs also means you're calling a whole group of extremely misunderstood and demonised mentally ill people Racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, sexist, violent people.

with this logic, you are basically removing any accountability. if you're saying "they're psychopaths, they're bound to be shitty about that because they don't care about anyone", then you are actively erasing the responsibility any person has to recognising their own damaging, bigoted behaviour and making changes.

something i'd like to make clear is that a lack of caring (apathy) is neutral.. it is also a symptom that cannot be controlled and can often cause distress to the person experiencing it. you cannot, in good faith, apply some moral status to that. however.... actively hating people for who they are, and saying or doing bigoted things is a conscious choice, no matter how familiar a person is with behaving that way.

if people want to try to be The Most Socially Aware Person about this topic, then they need to recognise that the concepts of psychopathy and sociopathy have no validity and exist only for racist and sanist reasons. people love being conscious of other forms of bigotry in the name of "progressivism", but still cling so strongly to the idea of psychiatry being reliable and untainted by oppressive systems.

all of this also applies to when rcg or other people describe the characters as narcissists. all that does is demonise highly stigmatised and misunderstood mentally ill people, and attribute bigotry to mental illness. people with narcissistic personality disorder are not more likely to be abusive. i'm sure you've heard by now, but mentally ill people are way more likely to be abused, than be abusers. this is even truer for people with personality disorders.

people often claim that it won't hurt "real" psychopaths or sociopaths if those labels/collections of traits are used as an insult, because we "don't feel anything anyway", but believe me it actively puts us in danger when you continuously make these false connections between us and everything wrong with the world. (also it is literally impossible for any human to not feel emotions at all. those of us with ASPD may feel muted emotions, and this symptom often causes distress- we certainly do not enjoy it)

people might say "it's not that deep", but i'd say it only seems that way to them because they're not the one who gets affected by it. generally this issue just reeks of liberalism, ironically they tend to be the ones who are "apathetic" to other peoples problems, just because it doesn't affect them.

if we're going to pretend that the show and rcg's intentions are motivated purely by #activism then you gotta be even more critical of it. i actually love the show (and in many ways it is one of my favourite pieces of media), but i also hate or disagree with a lot of what is in it and intentions that were put into it.. i don't think i could ever Not critically view a piece of media that i love. personally i think it also cheapens any complex commentary or characterisation they're trying to make, if they keep summarising it as "the show about narcissistic psychopaths".

at the end of the day, rcg are generally not in positions where they have to really think about how marginalised people live and what affects us. to quote mac, they are straight, white, cis males. privilege is a genuine barrier.

this article talks about the subject in a simple, straightforward way (just a warning, it covers heavy topics and has mentions of uncensored ableist slurs)

[threewaysdivided]

I saw your conversation about Sam Manson. I was talking to Imekitty about this, but I’ve noticed a few things that (sort of) make Sam’s relationship with her parents seem more like teen-drama than actual hardship. If you look closely, she’s got a lot in common with them: outspoken political-activism, possible shared-interest in vintage clothes, and no shame in saying they don’t like certain people. Also, after the Fentons, they were the first to volunteer to use the Ecto-Skeleton, risks and all.

(In reference to this post.)

It’s been a little while since I rewatched DP so I’m not well-placed to do a detail-analysis implication-breakdown right now, but yeah - that fits with the overall impression I remember getting.  To me they came across as being sort of old fashioned set-in-their-ways conservative and snooty, and maybe a bit too Pleasantville -  but more often in the way of parents who do genuinely want good things for her and to be able to be proud of her despite not really understanding her interests, choices or friends and being very bad at expressing it.  Plus she seems to have her grandmother fully in her corner a lot of the time.

I really wish that the writers had committed to one or the other; either making it clear that Sam’s martyr/ persecution complex is mostly just regular self-inflicted teen-drama BS and giving her an arc addressing it, OR fleshing out the idea that she faces a lot of judgement/ pressure/ control/ nonacceptance in her home life and that her negative traits are a bi-product of defensive/ coping mechanisms resulting from that strained dynamic, rather treating things with Roger Rabbit Rules.  

(Which isn’t to say that a person can’t have similar interests/ personality traits to, and positive interactions with, their parents while still having a strained, broken or even abusive relationship with them on a deeper level, but the show never really goes hard enough in either direction to make it work.)

As mentioned the last post, this is kind of a consistent pattern across DP - the writers tend go with the low-effort first answer for whatever is Funny or Awesome or Convenient in the moment rather than putting in the work to find a solution that’s consistent with the characterisation, themes and world-lore overall.  There’s enough internal contradiction in the show that I don’t think it’s actually possible to take every canon detail as canon without fundamentally breaking things.  And in some ways that’s kind of cool; it makes the series more open to interpretation, and trying to distinguish authorial intent from authorial incompetence and come up with theories that account for as many pieces of canon as possible is really satisfying.  But, you know, it’s also kind of bad writing in general.

I think the thing that bothers me about Sam’s characterisation in particular is that - where it tends to be more obviously out-of-character when it shows up in other places - there’s a pattern to the inconsistency with how the writers handle Sam:

Throughout the series there’s a double standard in how Sam sees herself/ seems to expects others to act, compared to her own behaviour:

Despite being pro-pacifism she’s okay with smacking Tucker and encouraging Danny to destroy the trucks she doesn’t like

Sam values self-expression and is a feminist, but derides other girls for wanting to express themselves in a conventionally feminine way

Sam doesn’t like being forced to conform to others’ values but is okay with forcing others to conform to hers

Despite being anti-consumerist she shows very little discomfort at, or awareness of, her lavish home life and material belongings

She encourages Danny to take the moral high ground towards his bullies but has no problem antagonising and getting into petty verbal spats with Paulina herself

Sam stalks Danny and his love interest out of jealousy/ protectiveness but threatens to end their friendship when he does the same

In Mystery Meat, when Danny tries to express his discomfort/ anxiety, Sam hijacks the conversation to complain about her own parents instead of listening.

In One of a Kind Sam photographs Danny and Tucker hugging in their sleep, without their knowledge, with the stated intent of putting it in the yearbook, then uses it to blackmail them into silence. 

Side note: this joke is also tacky on a meta-level because it boils down to “male intimacy ha ha toxic masculinity no homo amiright?“ Would have been nice if show didn’t use low-key sexist humour as much as it did.

Instead of expressing that she’s hurt by Danny’s “pretty girls” comment in Parental Bonding, Sam retaliates by pushing him to ask Paulina out - a move she knows will most likely result in him getting publicly shut down and humiliated.

Then, after getting the result she wanted, she comes over to gloat and insults Paulina, rather than dropping it now that her point’s been made, which is what ultimately sets off the episode’s subplot.

In Memory Blank Sam permanently physically alters Phantom’s appearance to better suit her tastes while he’s not in a position to understand or give informed consent, then lies when Danny notices and asks about it later.

To be clear this definitely isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of her character and it’s not there 100% of the time - there are plenty of moments when she is loyal and generous and helpful and sincerely kind and where her stubbornness comes in handy.  But it’s the aggregate pattern of all these small instances that drives a crack through the foundation of her character integrity; producing this insidious undercurrent alternate-reading of Sam as someone who, at a deep level, just doesn’t respect or recognise that the emotional needs, pains, opinions, autonomy and boundaries of others are as real and valid as her own, and who responds to criticism with passive-aggressive hostility.

Again, I think that’s why people are so quick to point out that line from Phantom Planet, even though we all know the episode was a complete mess.  None of the examples above are particularly bad in isolation - you can’t really point at any one of them and say “oh no, bad girl” without sounding like you’re making a mountain out of molehill and irrationally hating on her just to hate on her.  It’s an uncomfortable slowburn pattern of subtle micro-transgressions that accumulates across the series - a “you might not notice it but your brain did”.  And it makes sense that it would be the worst-written episode that amplifies and brings that regular bad-writing undercurrent close enough to the surface for people to consciously recognise and use it to articulate those frustrations.

To wit: Not because it’s most telling of her character but because it’s most telling of the specific bad writing that regularly hurts her character. 

And again, from a storytelling point of view, it’s okay for Sam to have flaws.  She’s a teenager!  She’s learning.  She’s allowed to be egocentric and self-important and do things that aren’t the best at times.  It’s okay if these are her character weaknesses and a source of conflict with the rest of the cast.  But again, for that to be satisfying something really should have come of it.  It would have been nice if the writers were willing to have any self-awareness about these flaws being flaws that a person should recognise and grow past in order to have healthy relationships with others.  But they didn’t - because it’s easier to keep her as she is - to the point that they’ll actively bend the narrative to roll back or skip over moments that would have necessitated that growth.  So, even though they call attention to her flaws, the writers end up rewarding and enabling them instead of letting her learn.

And again, this isn’t meant to hate on Sam.  Hanlon’s Razor in full effect: it’s clearly a result of authorial/editorial incompetence rather than deliberate malice.  I know this isn’t the intended interpretation.

My preferred reading of Sam Manson is that she’s a Rosa Hubermann/ Hermione Granger/ YJS1 Artemis Crock-type character.  Someone who’s passionate and forceful and maybe a bit abrasive and hard to love at a glance, but whose core nature is compassionate and sincerely kind and loyal-to-the-death for the people they value.  I wish I could 100% like her without caveats; to be able to say that even if I don’t agree with her flaws I can at least understand that they’re a valid product of the life she lives, that they make her who she is and that she’s trying her best to be a good person who will get better despite them.  

But I can’t because the writers don’t give her that.  They’re always prioritising other things over the integrity of her character.  They don’t give her background enough time and context to make her negative traits feel resonant with it (because that would take time away from the Wicked Cool Radical Ghost-Fighting Superhero Action™) and the framing and plotting doesn’t give her chances to recognise or grow past them (because that would mean character development and those negative traits are an easy source of cheap conflict).  The writers just don’t seem to care all that much about Sam - her actual character, who she is, how she came to be that way, what she wants or how her negative traits would actually play against Danny and the others.

And that sucks.  Because she has a lot of potential to be a well-rounded and great character.  I’ve seen plenty of fics that seize that potential and roll with those gaps and the result is very good.  I wish I could like her canon depiction without feeling like I have to actively ignore a bunch of latent behavioural red flags as the price of entry.

She deserved better.

[the-desolated-quill]

Quill’s Swill - The Worst Of 2018

Congratulations dear reader. You survived 2018. And you know what that means. It’s time for another best of/worst of list. Welcome to Quill’s Swill 2018. A giant septic tank for the various shit the entertainment industry produced over the course of the year. The films, games, TV shows and various other media that got on my bad side. As always please bear in mind that this is only my subjective opinion (if you happen to like any of the things on this list, good for you. I’m glad someone did) and that obviously I haven’t seen everything 2018 has to offer for one reason or another. In other words, sorry that Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald isn’t on here. I’m sure it is as terrible as some have been suggesting. I just never got around to watching it.

Okay everyone. Grab your breathing masks and put on your rubber gloves. Let’s dive into this shit pile.

Hold The Sunset

The news that John Cleese would be returning to the world of BBC sitcoms was incredibly exciting, being a massive Fawlty Towers fan and all. Unfortunately Hold The Sunset was not quite what I had in mind. It’s one of those rare breed of situation comedies that chooses to offer no actual comedy. It’s not a sitcom. It’s a sit. Like Scrubs or The Big Bang Theory.

An elderly couple plan to elope abroad only for Alison Steadman’s son to barge in, having left his wife, and forcing them to put their plans on hold. Hence the title ‘Hold The Sunset.’ It’s like a cross between As Time Goes By and Sorry, but if all the humour and relatability were surgically removed by a deadpan mortician. The characters are weak, the plots are thin on the ground and the humour (hat little of it there is) feel incredibly dated. The middle aged mummy’s boy is something that hasn’t been funny since the 90s. It’s an utter waste of great talent and what hurts even more is that this tripe is actually getting a second series. I can only assume the people watching this are comatose. Either that or there’s an epidemic of people in Britain who have lost the remote.

Avengers: Infinity War

Yes this is one of the worst movies of 2018 and no I don’t regret saying that one little bit. Avengers: Infinity War was fucking terrible. Period. There were too many plots and characters going on, which made the film hard to follow (and what staggers me is that the so called ‘professional’ critics have condemned movies for having too many characters and plots before. Spider-Man 3, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Batman vs Superman: Dawn Of Justice and even Deadpool 2. But because this is an MCU movie, it gets a free pass. Fuck off). The characterisation was weak due to sheer number of characters they try to juggle, resulting in characters coming off as one dimensional caricatures of themselves and scenes where characters such as Iron Man, Doctor Strange and Star-Lord sound completely interchangeable. The villain, Thanos, is a stupidly and poorly written villain, but that’s hardly surprising considering what a shit job Marvel have done building him up over the course of these 20+ movies. And let’s not forget that pisstake ending. A bunch of prominent Marvel characters die and it’s all very, very sad... except all these characters just so happen to have sequels planned, which makes this ending fucking pointless and have less impact than a feather on a bouncy castle.

I don’t know which is more shocking. That Marvel and Disney think their audience are that stupid and gullible, or that their audience are actually validating their view. Fuck you Disney.

Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery

I’ve always wanted a Harry Potter RPG, where you could customise your character, choose your house and actually live a full school life at Hogwarts. This year, Warner Bros and Jam City gave us just that.

That was a mistake.

Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery is the epitome of everything that’s wrong with the mobile gaming market right now. The gameplay is boring and involving where you just tap images on a screen until a progress bar fills up. Wizard duels are little more than rock-paper-scissors challenges that require no kind of skill. Bonding with friends and caring for magical creatures just consist of pathetically simple pop quizzes and yet more boring tapping. Oh and of course you only get a certain amount of energy to complete these tedious tasks. If you run out of energy, you wait for it to fill up... or pay up for the privilege. So determined are they to extract your hard earned cash from your wallet, there’s actually a bit where Devil’s Snare strangles your eleven year old avatar and the game effectively tries to guilt trip you into paying micro-transactions to save them. It’s sleazy, gross and manipulative. Honestly, you’re better off just playing Candy Crush.

Agony

When the developers of this game said they wanted to give the player a trip through Hell, they had no idea how true that statement really was. Agony is dreadful on a number of levels. The design for Hell itself, while visually interesting at times, is often not very practical and gets quite dull and repetitive after a while. The stealth mechanics are a joke and the AI of your demonic enemies are pitiful. All of this alone would have been enough to put this game on the list, but then we also have the casual misogyny. Agony is a gorefest trying desperately to shock the player. We see men and woman get tortured, but it’s the women that often get the extreme end. The violence inflicted on them is often sexual in nature and the game seems to go out of its way to degrade and dehumanise women at every turn. The orgasmic cries of ‘pull it out’ quickly become a staple of the game’s experience as we see naked women raped, tortured and murdered, all for the purposes of ‘entertainment.’

I would call Agony sexist, but honestly that would be giving it too much credit. Agony is like a little child trying desperately to be all dark and edgy in a pathetic attempt to impress everyone around him, and we should treat it as such. Go to your room Agony. No ice cream for you.

Peter Rabbit

If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of Beatrix Potter rotating in her grave.

Yes we have yet another live action/CGI hybrid, but instead of something innocuous like the Smurfs or Alvin and the Chipmunks, Sony instead decides to adapt Peter Rabbit, with James Corden in the title role.

It’s about as bad as you’d expect.

Their attempts to modernise the story are painful to say the least with pop culture references, inappropriate adult humour and twerking rabbits. Plus rather than the gentle, but slightly mischievous character we got in the source material, here Peter is a sociopathic delinquent who seems to revel in making the farmer’s life a living hell. He’s unlikable and unwatchable as far as I’m concerned and the film doesn’t in anyway earn the emotional moments it tries so desperately to sell to the audience. And the worst part is it’s getting a sequel.

Wait. Do you hear that sound? That’s the sound of Beatrix Potter tearing out of the ground, ready to kill whatever idiot came up with this shit.

Fallout 76

I was excited for Fallout 76. A MMORPG where players band together to rebuild society after a nuclear apocalypse. Could have been great. Pity it wasn’t.

Fallout 76 is a dreadful game. Not only is it a buggy, glitchy mess that requires a constant online connection to play, which could result in you losing hours of progress if your WiFi went down, it’s also unbelievably tedious, and that’s because there’s nothing to do in the game. There’s no other characters to interact with, the various robots and computers you come across are really little more than quest givers, there’s no actual plot so to speak, and because of the sheer size of the world and the number of players allowed on a server, the chances of you actually meeting any actual players is remote. And let’s not forget all the behind the scenes drama. Bethesda falsely advertising Fallout themed canvas bags and players getting shitty nylon ones. Bethesda accidentally releasing the account information of various players trying to get a refund for said bag. Bethesda failing to program the year 2019 into the game code, meaning that the game’s nukes don’t work.

Maybe there’s a chance that Bethesda could pull a No Man’s Sky and fix everything over the coming years with various patches and DLCs, but the damage has already been done. It’s incredibly disappointing. The Elder Scrolls 6 is going to have be fucking incredible to win everyone back.

Mama Mia!: Here We Go Again

I can’t stand jukebox musicals anyway, but Mamma Mia was always one of the worst. Its boring, meandering story with its one note, obnoxious cast of characters screeching out ABBA songs like they’re at some drunken karaoke session at some poor sod’s hen party has always grated on my nerves. So imagine my delight when they announced we were getting a sequel. Ever wondered how Meryl Streep met her three lovers and founded her hotel? No? Well tough shit, we’re going to tell you anyway.

Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again is basically just Mamma Mia again. The actors still can’t sing, the characters are still annoying and story is still boring and meandering, completely at the mercy of the chosen songs rather than the filmmakers using the songs to compliment the story (you know? Like proper musicals do?).

How can I resist you? Very easily as it turns out. Gimme, gimme, gimme a fucking gun so I can end my misery.

The Cloverfield Paradox

A lot of people were unhappy about the direction Cloverfield was going. They wanted a continuation of the found footage, kaiju movie from 2008, not an anthology series. I was personally all in favour. Partially because I thought the first Cloverfield was a tad overrated, but mostly because I thought it would be a great opportunity for more experimental film projects and could be a great launchpad for new writers and filmmakers. 10 Cloverfield Lane was a great start. Then The Cloverfield Paradox happened.

The Cloverfield Paradox is basically JJ Abrams trying to have his cake and eat it too. Maintaining the anthology format whilst connecting everything together in a ‘shared universe’ (yes, yet another shared universe). The result was a cliched, poorly edited and idiotic mess of a film that actually took away from the previous two films rather than added to them. Everyone hated it and, as a result, 2018′s Overlord, which was totes going to be part of the Cloververse, was made its own standalone film and Abrams double pinky promised to make a true sequel to the original Cloverfield. A complete and total disaster. No wonder it was a straight-to-Netflix film.

The Handmaid’s Tale - Season 2

This is probably going to be the most controversial entry on the list, but please hear me out because I’m not the only one who has a problem with this season.

I was reluctant to watch The Handmaid’s Tale simply because of how gruesome the original book was, but I forced myself to watch the first season and I thought it was pretty good. It remained faithful to the source material for the most part and included some nice additions that helped to expand the story and mythos. If it was just a one off mini-series, everything would have been fine. But then they made the same mistake as The Man In The High Castle and Under The Dome did where they commissioned another season and attempted to tell a story that goes beyond the book.

There’s a reason why the original story ended where it did. The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t meant to be an empowering story about women sticking it to the patriarchy. It’s a cautionary tale about how fragile our civil rights truly are and how easily they can be taken away from us. It’s designed to shock, not to satisfy. So seeing a handmaid blow herself up in a suicide bombing feels very incongruous and just a little bit silly. It would be like doing a TV adaptation of George Orwell’s 1984 where the first season followed the source material and then the second season turned Winston Smith into this heroic freedom fighter trying to overthrow Big Brother. It would represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what the book was about in the first place.

And then of course there’s the increased level of violence in Season 2, which many have complained about. In Season 1 and the original source material, the violence was justified. In Season 2, the motivation behind the violence has gone from ‘how can we effectively demonstrate how easily a fascist patriarchy can happen in the West?’ to ‘what brutal act can we inflict upon Ofglen to shock the audience this week?’ It’s purely for shock and nothing more. And with the showrunner (who I feel I should mention is a man) announcing that he has planned ten seasons of this, it seems that The Handmaid’s Tale is going to go even further with this depravity until it effectively becomes the equivalent of a Saw film.

The Handmaid’s Tale exists as a way of shining light on and critiquing misogyny in its most extreme form. Season 2 however demonstrates that there is a serious risk of it becoming the very thing it’s criticising in the first place.

The Predator

I love the Predator franchise, but The Predator is the worst.

People thought that this would be good because director Shane Black had actually starred in the first Predator movie back in 1987. Instead we got this bloated, confusing, obnoxious and insulting mess of a film that seems to go out of its way to ruin everything that makes Predator so good. There’s no tension. No suspense. No intrigue. Just a bunch of gore, explosions and shitty one liners from annoying and lifeless characters. They essentially took this big alien game hunter from outer space and turned him into a generic monster from a bad summer blockbuster. It no longer hunts for sport. It wants to take over the world and splice our DNA with theirs. But don’t worry, a rogue Predator doesn’t want to kill humans (even though he himself kills a bunch of humans), so he gives us a Predator Iron Man suit to set up a sequel that will probably never happen because this movie was a box office bomb and it fucking SUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKKKEEEEEDDDD!!!

This film also has a very nasty streak towards those with disabilities. There’s a lot of jokes at the expense of a character with Tourette’s and it has an extremely ignorant and patronising view of autism, portraying the main character’s kid as being a super genius who can decipher the Predator language and even going so far as to say that he represents ‘the next stage of human evolution.’ Presumably the Predators want social communication difficulties because apparently it helps them hunt somehow.

What with Disney acquiring 20th Century Fox, the future of both the Alien and Predator franchises were very much in question. This film needed to be a success in order to make a case for Disney to keep making more of them. It wasn’t. Congratulations Shane Black. You might have just killed off this franchise for good. Thanks arsehole! :D

So those were my least favourite stories from 2018. Join me on Wednesday where we shall discuss something more positive. Yes, it’s awards season. Who shall win the coveted Quill Seal Of Approval? Watch this space...

Or don’t. It’s up to you. I don’t want to force you or anything. It’s a free country.

[wasneeplus]

Responding to the Alt-Right playbook, part 1

Disclaimer: I wrote this after seeing the first four minutes of the video. While watching the rest I noticed a few things I bring up are addressed later, though in such a way as to lead to even more questions. Still, I think most of it stands, and it’s still useful as a kind of stream of consciousness response, so I’ll leave it untouched.

Sometimes, in the wee hours of the morning when I just finished reading my newspaper, I will enjoy myself with a few infuriating youtube videos. Lately I’ve been quite disillusioned by the part of youtube calling itself liberal spouting nationalist propaganda at my beloved European project, so I’ve switched to some corners of the website which are friendlier to my blood pressure. That’s how I came across a video called "The Alt-Right Playbook: The Card Says Moops” by Innuendo Studios. Apparently he is somewhat of a big deal with his 150k plus subscribers, though I never heard of him. Just two minutes into the video though I knew I was going to write this response. While it didn’t make me angry the way I might have been in the past, there’s just so much wrong here, I cant bottle this up any longer.

Say, for the sake of argument, you’re online blogging about a black journalists’ commentary on marketing trends in video games, movies and comic books and you’re saying how the vitriol in response to her fairly benign opinions reveals the deep seated racism and misogyny in a number of fan communities, most especially those that lean right,...

Quite an unlikely scenario since I’m not in the business of assuming ones leanings on race, gender or politics based on their opinions on movies, games or comic books, but let’s roll with it I guess.

...When a right leaning commenter pops in to say: “Or maybe they just actually disagree with her about marketing trends! For Christs sake, there’s no mystery here. People aren’t speaking in coded language. They are telling you wat they believe. She had a bad opinion. Why do you have to make it bigger than that? Why can’t you ever take people at their word?”

Here’s where I feel validated in making this response, because while I don’t consider myself right leaning, as hard as that might be to believe for some, this is exactly the kind of response I might have given. So props to Innuendo Studios for accurately portraying an argument of one of his opponents. Unfortunately he then continues:

You pause and ponder this for a moment. Hmmm. Uh heck with it! You’re in a discoursing mood. Let’s do this! Mister conservative, in order for me to take you at your word your words would have to show some consistency. Let me just lightning-round a few questions about the reactionary web’s positions on marketing trends.

The first major problem should be obvious to anyone right about now. How is anyone supposed to answer for the “reactionary web”? Hell, I don’t even know what that’s supposed to be. The caricature in the video wears a 4chan logo on its chest, so maybe he’s referring to the /pol/ imageboard. Well, I don’t hang out there, and I’m pretty sure most of the people who would have been critical of that opinion piece don’t either. Therefore I feel justified in ignoring that particular remark and just give my own answers to these questions. After all:  the people on /pol/ are clearly not the only ones he’s talking to at this point.

Do you believe that having the option to romance same sex characters in an rpg turns the game into queer propaganda...

No. On a side note though: the video at this point shows an image of the game Mass Effect. I remember when that game came out there was some controversy over the game showing sex scenes between the characters. Remember that this was but a few years sine the GTA hot coffee mod upheaval, so people where a bit more sensitive about such things. But never have I heard anyone complain about the same sex romance options. I can imagine there were a few disapproving voices but I never came across them, even though I followed the launch very closely at the time.

...or do you believe that killing strippers in an action game can’t be sexist because no one’s making you do it?

I believe it can be sexist, but I never seen an example of it actually being sexist. Not because no one makes you do it, though. It’s because the amount of strippers killed in video games pales in comparison to the amount of other people killed. I’m willing to bet that video games depict more men being killed by women than the other way around, with the vast majority being male on male killings. The fact that there’s one or two games where a man has the option to kill some female sex workers hardly seems significant in that light.

Do you believe that the pervasiveness of sexualised young women in pop culture is just there because it sells and that’s capitalism and we all need to deal with it...

Yes, for the most part. I guess one can add a few nuances here and there, but that about covers the gist of it.

...or do yo believe that a franchise has an obligation to cater to its core audience even if diversifying beyond that audience is more profitable?

Ooh boy, where do I start? Okay, first of all: those two are not mutually exclusive. I know there is this pervasive idea in some parts of western culture that people can only identify with others of the same sex, race and/or cultural background, but that’s just not true. As such it’s perfectly possible to be both diverse and give your core audience what they want. Criticism of a failure to do the second does not automatically translate to criticism of succeeding at the first. Where the two usually meet is when creators use the first as an excuse to take away from the second, either because of their own incompetence or their disinterest in the franchise they are working on. 

Which brings us to our second point: while diversity does not have to hurt a franchise, too often creators are too lazy to put effort in making sure it doesn’t because they haven’t got their priorities straight. They think that covering their bases in terms of diversity is the most important thing and everything else is an afterthought. The movie Star Wars: The Last Jedi, who’s cast is partly depicted in the video at this point, is actually a perfect example of this. No one thought Finn and Rose were such interesting characters that audiences wanted to see an entire subplot devoted exclusively to them. They were clearly there just to tick some boxes, not because of a creative spark that led an artist to lovingly craft these characters. The result was perhaps the most universally despised part of the movie, at least among hardcore fans. And yeah, they do deserve a bit more consideration than any other demographic, don’t you think? They are the ones who made this into a franchise to begin with. Without them this movie wouldn’t even have been made.

Lastly: there is a reason the saying “get woke, go broke” exists. If Rose was just there to appeal to Asian markets that would be one thing. I do think there’s something to the idea that putting characters of the same race as the target audience in your movie makes them easier to market. The thing is though: it didn’t work! The movie bombed in China, and I think that’s also because of the messages the creators were trying to send. To take a timeless hero’s journey narrative like Star Wars and try to insert current events and political messages in it just can’t end well. Yet, the creators persisted, and this is reflective of a lot of the culture behind those narratives. When a political message becomes the driving force behind the creative process it’s almost certain to produce sub par results. A creator has to be extremely talented to pull this off, and lets face it: most aren’t up to the task. Instead the art devolves into soulless political propaganda, and this is what stings people who love the franchise so much. Me personally, I am a big fan of making the political personal when you want to convey a political message. We can identify with personal struggles much more than with abstract political ideas. So characters should always be the focus, even if you want to make a statement.

Do you think words are inherently harmless and only oversensitive snowflakes would care about racialised language...

Words? Yes. The ideas expressed by those words? No. That’s why intention is so important to me, and the “oversensitive snowflakes” who focus on just the words are so not helping the debate in my opinion.

...or do you think it’s racist if someone calls you mayonaise boy?

Probably, yes. Though I can’t think of any reason why someone would call me that, other than to insult me by way of my race. On the other hand, I do really like mayonaise...

And as long as I’ve got your ear: are you the party that believes in the right to keep and bear arms because you’re distrustful of all authority and what if we need to overthrow the government some day...

No, no and no. I am not a party, nor am I affiliated with any party that espouses those kinds of opinions on the possession of arms. I personally do not believe in the right to bear arms, though I’m not especially passionate about it one way or the other. I guess being Dutch means I'm not really caught up in any debate surrounding arms, since it’s a bit of a non-issue here. Also: while I think authority should always be scrutinised, I wouldn’t characterise this as distrust.

...or do you believe that cops are civil servants and we should trust their account of events whenever they shoot a black man for looking like he might have a gun.

Well, aren’t cops civil servants? I seem to remember so. Anyway, I don’t think “looking like they might have a gun” is ever a good excuse to shoot anyone, so there you have it. Do keep in mind that we send cops out on the street partly to use force in neutralising dangerous individuals, so we shouldn’t be surprised when that gets out of hand sometimes. But honestly, I am not well informed enough on this topic to know how much trust to put in any side of this issue. I think looking at this on a case by case basis is the only thing we can do.

Does optional content reveal a game’s ideology, or doesn’t it?

Not necessarily, no

Is capitalism a defence for decisions you don’t agree with, or isn’t it?

That’s a rather broad statement. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. It depends on what you are trying to defend.

Is language harmful, or not?

If you use it to promote harmful ideas, then yes.

Do you hate authority, or love cops and the troops?

Neither, really. I don’t hate authority just for being authority, and if anything soldiers and cops invoke pity in me. I guess that comes from growing up with  a PTSD ridden veteran for a father.

Well, that’s the end of the questions. One might think I wasted a lot of time going through that, because shortly afterwards he goes on to say:

Now, I know the right is not a monolith and maybe these arguments are contradictory because they’re coming from different people.

Gee, you think? However, what then follows is an excuse to lump al these people together anyway.

We’ll call them Engelbert and Charlemagne. Maybe Engelbert’s the one who thinks any institution funded by tax money is socialist and therefore bad, and Charlemagne’s the one who says we should dump even more tax money into the military and thinking otherwise is unamerican.

I happen to hold neither of those opinions. Yes, it is actually possible to completely stand behind the hypothetical statement you made in the beginning of the video, and not subscribe to typical right wing convictions like that. But I know that there are people who do, so let’s see where his is going.

But here’s the thing: y’all have have very fundamentally different beliefs and you’re so passionate bout them that you’re entering search terms into twitter to find people you don’t even follow and aggressively disagree with them...

That’s quite a lot of assumptions there mate. I don’t think this is even a remotely fair representation of your opposition. Certainly not true for me. I don’t even have a twitter account (no, I wasn’t kicked off. I never had an account there to begin with), let alone do I ever browse that website. Putting that aside though, how do you know if there’s anyone who actually does this? People can retweet things after all; maybe that’s how they find the contentious twitter users. I found your video because youtube recommended it, and I clicked on it because the title intrigued me. I didn’t set out to look for things to disagree with, despite my quips at the beginning of this piece.

...and yet you’re always yelling at me, and never yelling at each other.

Certainly not true either. I've had quite a few online arguments with alt-righters, who in my opinion differ from actual Nazi’s in only slight and insignificant ways, and fervent nationalists. Of course that’s never going to garner the kind of attention as when Sargon of Akkad sends a mean tweet to a female politician. Speaking of Carl, his vicious disagreement with the alt-right is well documented, and their hatred for him caused quite a few equally vicious attacks against him and his family. But I don’t blame you for not knowing that. The majority of both of their vitriol is still directed at the extreme left, and why shouldn’t it? I don’t think there is an extremist position so pervasive in the western media these days. Again: there is no alt-right equivalent of Star Wars: the Last Jedi, because none of those people work in Hollywood, or anywhere else of note (with the possible and unfortunate exception of the white house).

...and I can’t say how often it happens, but I know if I let Engelbert go on long enough he sometimes makes a Charlemagne argument and vise versa.

Either you’re saying that both of them contradict themselves while framing it in quite an unnecessarily suggestive way, or you’re displaying a rather tribalist mindset in which worldviews can never overlap. Either way, I don’t think the following statement is justified...

See, I don’t take you at your word because I cannot form a coherent worldview out of the things you say.

The fault might lie with you in this case I’m afraid. The reason I went over those questions in the beginning is to show that it is perfectly possible to have consistent views on all of those issues and still be counted among those who would oppose you on this one. I don’t think you really know who it is that you’re projecting all this on. You think my worldview has to have inconsistencies if I disagree with you on the nature of the discourse surrounding popular media, but you’ve yet to correctly identify any. I think the saying “truth resists simplicity” is one you should tale to heart a lot more. Case in point:

Why are you so capable of respecting disagreement between each other yet so incapable of respecting me, or, for that matter, a black woman.

While that may seem like a coherent statement at a first glance, it actually betrays an incredibly simplistic way of looking at things. You see, you’re comparing three entirely different things one can respect: the fact of genuine disagreement between two parties, you, an individual person, and any given black woman, that is: a demographic. The first has to be respected, otherwise discourse is impossible. Though it must be said that me and the alt-right probably have very little respect for each others motivations, but unlike you the alt-right doesn’t ever really ask for my respect. The second deserves respect only when earned, and the third deserves neither respect nor disparagement, because it’s an incredibly varied group of people, some of whom deserve respect and some of whom don’t.

It kinda seems like you’re playing games and I’m the opposing team, and anyone who’s against me is your ally...

That entirely depends on what we’re talking about, doesn’t it? If we’re talking about diversity in media and the issues surrounding it, I will find myself on one side of the board surrounded by people I would usually disagree with, and you would find yourself on the other side, presumably only surrounded by people who agree with you one hundred percent of the time. It seems you think it a bad thing that people can temporarily overcome their differences when faced with a common problem. That’s why some call you radical: you cannot ally with anyone who isn’t in complete lockstep with you, because they are not pure enough in their conviction. But that’s what fracturing societies are made of, so if you don’t mind I’ll stick to my methods. If that leaves you outnumbered on your side of the board it’s because you chose to champion a very unpopular opinion, and I can’t help that.

...and you’re not really taking a position, but claiming to believe in whatever would need to be true in order to score points against me.

If I did that then why even bother engaging with me? Clearly I don’t actually believe anything I say, so there’s no need to convince me otherwise. Are you sure it’s me who is supposed to have contradictory opinions? But in all seriousness, I don’t see why I would ever adopt such a strategy unless I’m either just a troll or addicted to arguments, and hey: there are people like that, but they don’t represent your entire political opposition. Get a grip.

After that we get the title drop, which, I have to admit, was really clever and amusing. I never watched Seinfeld, but maybe I should. Anyway, my free Saturday is passing me by like a speeding train, so I will continue this later.... maybe.

[rockinjoeco]

#WhitePrivelage - A trend or a concern?

Following up on Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s decision to quit the royal family, the subject of racism has come into the equation in relation to the media’s treatment of Meghan Markle. A buzzfeed article emerged comparing the media’s treatment of Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle, prompting a debate as to whether there’s a subconscious racial bias at work from the UK press. Many Twitter users will have noticed the hashtag #whiteprivilege trending following up on an ITV interview featuring Dr. Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, where she discussed the press treatment of Meghan Markle and whether there was a racist agenda against her. She also brought up the concept of white privilege, where white people are considered to be more privileged in the sense that they won’t be judged by the colour of their skin as much as those from another racial background. In my blog post, I stated that the media’s treatment of Meghan Markle and members of the royal family has been appalling and I can’t blame Meghan Markle for deciding to move to Canada. Looking at the buzzfeed article, it is certainly valid to debate whether there is a racist agenda against Meghan Markle, but the debate of whether racism is still rife amongst British society is one that has been in the making for a long time.

Racism is a topic that prompts many heated arguments from many people, because it is a very sensitive, serious issue. Unfortunately, it has been present in many different aspects of our society and racism has occurred whether it’s blatant sluts or vulgar subtlety to disguise any racist agenda with apparent insight. I am absolutely disgusted by racism as much as any other member of a civilised society, but as a white person myself, it’s hard for me to speak up against it as many would argue that I am unqualified to do so because, being white, I’ve never experienced racism firsthand. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have empathy for those who do suffer from it, and I am not blind to see that it still exists in society today. The topic of white privilege seemed to be interpreted as some kind in contest on Twitter to see who is more or less privileged than who, when actually it was made just to spread awareness. In fact, some have argued that the concept of white privilege is actually racist towards white people, as brought up by actor Laurence Fox on Question Time last night. He accused an audience member of racism for calling him a ‘white privileged male’ during a discussion of the media treatment of Meghan Markle, and Fox then responded by saying ‘I can't help what I am, I was born like this, it's an immutable characteristic. So to call me a white privileged male is to be racist. You're being racist.’ This sparked a large amount of backlash on social media. Whatever you make of Fox’s comments, it does beggar the question; how does a white person approach a discussion about racism? Nobody could ever do the discourtesy of downplaying the trauma that a victim of racist abuse goes through, and I most certainly wouldn’t. I first learnt about racism in year 7 history when I learnt about slavery and how black people were slaves in the 18th and 19th century. It was sickening to learn that people were treated this way because of the colour of their skin. It also sickens me that racism still exists today.

After the general election result where the conservatives won by such a wide majority, many argued that the result was driven by an increase of racism in our society, particularly as Brexit was a factor in the election. Since the first referendum back in 2016, incidents involving racism has increased and now there are more reports of racism than there had been before. Brexit has arguably brought out the worst of human society and while it’s easy to say that those who voted for Brexit are racist, I’ve learnt in life that there are people who have different needs and things that are important to them. We live in a free country where people can vote for whoever they choose, and to condemn them for voting for a certain party would be killing democracy. However, I haven’t heard a significant reason as to why leaving the EU would be a good idea. It seemed to me that the arguments in favour of Brexit were in the form of slogans rather than actually being informative. Having seen the billions of pounds being spent on trying to make Brexit happen for over three years, you can’t help but feel that money would’ve been better spent on an underfunded NHS and helping reduce homelessness and poverty in the UK. As many will know, Boris Johnson has been accused of racism many times, and he also once write a racist novel back in 2004 called seventy two virgins, which featured Arabs who had been described as having a hooked nose and slanted eyes and Jews that controlled the media, sparking outrage over its racist stereotypes.

Racism has also been prominent in the English football this season, as racist chanting has been heard during games such as Man City v Man United and Tottenham v Chelsea. Raheem Sterling was a victim of racist abuse last season, and he said that sections of the media were responsible for fuelling racism, comparing Daily Mail headlines about young Man City players Phil Foden and Tosin Adarabioyo when they bought a new house. When Phil Foden bought a house, the headline read ‘Foden buys new £2m home for his mum’, but as for Adarabioyo, the headline read ‘Young Manchester City footballer, 20, on £25,000 a week splashes out on market for £2.25million despite having never started a Premier League match’. Just like with the comparisons of Daily Mail headlines regarding Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle, this has aroused suspicion of uncscious racist bias from the Daily Mail. Sterling posted it up on Instagram and has called for the media to give all players an equal chance, and then went on to receive praise and admiration for speaking out against racism. Earlier this season, an FA Cup game between Haringey and Yeovil was abandoned because of racism from fans, bottle throwing and spitting and the players marched off the pitch as a result. This happened not long after the Bulgaria vs England game when England players were subjected to horrific racist abuse from the Bulgaria fans. Prior to the game, England players had threatened to walk off the pitch if they received any racist abuse from the Bulgaria fans. During the game however, despite the match being temporarily stopped because of the abuse, the players bravely decided to continue the game and England went on to win 6-0. There is a three-step protocol from UEFA when there is abhorrent racist abuse at football matches. It’s first step is ‘Stop the match and instruct the stadium authorities to read out an announcement, calling upon the spectators to stop the discriminatory behaviour.’ The second step is ‘If this announcement does not have the desired effect, make another announcement, suspend the match and send the players to their dressing rooms for a specific period.’ The final step is ‘After consultation, abandon the match if the discriminatory behaviour still does not cease or breaks out again.’

There has also been a diversity row in the entertainment industry too, with the BAFTA and Oscar nominations listing prominently white and male nominees. There was a similar row when the Oscar nominations were announced back in 2016. This brings out the argument that whether the awards committee made the nominations out of genuine merit or from an unconscious bias. Stephen King said on twitter that he would ‘never consider diversity in matters of art’. This caused huge controversy with his followers and seemed to undermine the struggle that minorities go through when trying to get into the arts. I cannot say for sure the list of nominations this year had a racist or sexist agenda or not, but I can understand the debate about it. There was a documentary called ‘The Problem with Apu’, which explores the controversy of the Indian character Apu from The Simpsons. The documentary writer Hari Kondabolu talks about how he first idolised Apu on The Simpson’s because he was a main Indian character on a popular worldwide TV show, but then as he got older he started seeing problems with the way the character was represented and perceived the characterisation of Apu to be racist. This then brings up whether stereotyping in comedy is considered racist, particularly noting that Apu is voiced by American actor Hank Azaria. In the sense that white privilege can blind white people from seeing potential racism, our enjoyment of seeing Apu in the Simpsons has arguably blinded fans like myself from seeing that actually Apu is a racist representation of Asian people, particularly as this controversy was brought up 25 years after the character first appeared in The Simpsons. Amidst the criticism of Apu and the fact he is voiced by a white actor, nobody had mentioned the fact that the character of Cleveland Brown, a black character on Family Guy, is voiced by a white actor. Another example of stereotyping in comedy is in the characterisation of Manuel from Fawlty Towers, who is portrayed by the late English actor Andrew Sachs. Manuel is portrayed as a hapless Spanish waiter who is often abused by main character Basil Fawlty for his incompetence. Having found Manuel hilarious in Fawlty Towers, am I now guilty of laughing at racism? Has my apparent white privilege blinded me from seeing that this use of stereotyping could be considered offensive?

Racism is not the only form of discrimination existing in our society. There have been recent cases of antisemitism in Britain, such as a Jewish father and son being abused on the London Underground back in November and antisemitic graffiti being smeared onto a synagogue in London. The Labour Party were investigated for racism due to allegations of antisemitism. That is only the second time a political party in the UK had been investigated for racism, and the other time that happened was for a party of actual nazis. Departing labour leader Jeremy corbyn had been accused of antisemitism after endorsing an antisemitic book and his association with hate preacher Sheikh Raed Salah, who once claimed that Israelis bake bread out of their children’s blood. Although Jeremy Corbyn had been victim of a smear campaign by the media before, being Jewish myself, I do take these allegations seriously, as have many members of the Jewish community. Even though Corbyn has been smeared before and even though he has a noble background of campaigning against racism and volunteering at homeless shelters, but that shouldn’t clear him of any kind of wrongdoing. Those who speak of right-wing propaganda and how powerful the media establishment is forget that departing Lib Dem’s leader Jo Swinson was equally smeared and ridiculed by the media too, and was also excluded from the first leaders debate on ITV, prompting me to believe there was a hidden misogynist agenda from the broadcaster. Yes, I know that Swinson’s voting record wasn’t perfect during the coalition, especially when she voted If they had argued that another party leader was a victim of right-wing propaganda too, then maybe I would have believed in that concept. Even though some media outlets seemed to be more biased towards Boris Johnson, I didn’t believe that there was a conspiracy against Corbyn within the media, as I thought some people seemed to confuse criticism for propaganda and smears. Had they mentioned the bad coverage Jo Swinson received from the media, then they might have had a case.

Homophobia is also sadly an issue in our society, as demonstrated with attack victim Charlie Graham showing images of the injuries she sustained from an attack due to her sexuality. She told Sky News about how she was assaulted and the injuries that she sustained. Last summer, a horrific attack on a lesbian couple happened on a London bus which saw four teenagers sentenced last month. The image of the injuries sustained by the couple was one of the most devastating images of 2019, showing how this type of discrimination exists and the horrific effects of it. Sexism is another issue, with the prominence of the #MeToo movement becoming a trend back in 2017 following the sexual harassment case against Harvey Weinstein. The movement actually began in 2006 by Tarana Burke, who was a victim of sexual harassment herself, but it was in 2017 when it became a hashtag to promote feminism and hopefully end sexual harassment. Pay gaps in the workplace have also underlined the problems with discrimination. 78% of major companies in Britain have male employees being paid more than their female colleagues working at a similar level, despite the Equal Pay Act 1970. There is a similar issue with disabled employees too, with Tory MP Sally-Ann Hart stating during her election campaign last month that disabled people should be paid less than the minimum wage as they wouldn’t understand money. As a disabled person myself, it is extremely degrading to hear that people like myself apparently don’t have the right to be paid the fair amount like other employees.

There are many forms of discrimination, so along with white privilege, there are many different types of privileges. While I personally don’t believe that the criticism of Meghan Markle is racist, I can understand the debate. I would also say that while I understand the concept of white privilege, an awareness campaign which has unfortunately been confused for an attack on white people, I think Dr. Shola Mos-Shogbamimu missed an opportunity to really cement her point by showing the comparisons in headlines of Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle from the Daily Mail and also the comparisons in headlines of those two young Man City footballers too, which shows that the Daily Mail have been guilty of unconscious racial bias before. Brexit has brought on more hate than before and claims that UK is a tolerant country seems to be completely laughable now, and events like the Notting Hull carnival which celebrate diversity seems to be rendered redundant and don’t really make much sense knowing what Brexit has made the UK become. Whether or not the criticism of Meghan Markle is racist, it is completely pointless and tabloid journalism (and also Piers Morgan) only speaks to the ignorant, uneducated population of Great Britain. The sooner this brand of journalism is killed off, the better. It is of no surprise that the majority of those who are against Meghan Markle and claim that criticism of her isn’t racist have voted for Boris Johnson and Brexit, which clearly states their stance on racism. I’m not going to compare which form of discrimination is worse, because ALL forms of discrimination are completely wrong and I, along with other good human beings, hope to see the end of discrimination once and for all.

[the-desolated-quill]

Listen - Doctor Who blog

(SPOILER WARNING: The following is an in-depth critical analysis. If you haven’t seen this episode yet, you may want to before reading this review)

Something I’ve been crying out for as we’ve been going through these episodes is something new. Something different. Something that isn’t just the bog standard, monster of the week format that has become boringly commonplace in New Who. Listen provides just that.

Compared to previous episodes, Listen is much more slower paced, atmospheric and contemplative, which makes a nice change of pace. I also like that the Doctor isn’t just randomly landing somewhere and happening upon an evil plot to take over the world this time. Instead we get to explore the more methodical and science-y side to the Doctor’s thought process. He’s developed a theory about creatures that have evolved to be perfect at hiding, and is travelling to different times and places to test that theory. There are really so many different kinds of stories you could tell in a setting as flexible as Doctor Who’s, and Listen proves that in spades.

It seems Moffat is going back to basics with this episode. No complicated plots or wibbly wobbly, timey wimey bollocks. Just a nice, simple story like Blink that draws tension and fear from everyday things. Blink had statues. Listen has the unknown. It plays on the childlike fear of a monster under the bed or hiding from view waiting to get you, and on a first viewing it’s really effective. By far the best scene in the episode is in the children’s home with Rupert Pink and the ‘monster’ on the bed hiding under the blanket. It’s been a very long time since I’ve been properly scared by Doctor Who, but this absolutely terrified me. When I first watched it in 2014, I was cowering behind a cushion, and I think the reason it works is because of the subtlety that’s involved. It’s not in your face like other Who monsters have been. Its fear factor comes from what you imagine is going to happen rather than what is actually happening. The scene at the end of the universe is very effective too because of this reason. Using nothing but some creaking pipes, Moffat is able to create something intensely frightening by letting our imaginations do the rest. Who are these creatures? What do they want? What do they even look like?

And a big, shiny gold star has to go to Peter Capaldi, who after the disaster that was Robot Of Sherwood has been given darker material to work with again, and he knocks it out of the park. I loved his scene with Rupert and his speech about how fear is like a superpower, and what I find very interesting is how this Doctor isn’t very reassuring. We’ve had moments where Matt Smith and Christopher Eccleston’s Doctors were very blunt about the level of danger, but Capaldi is not only blunt about it, he actually adds to the tension and makes these scenes even scarier. He’s not there to protect you anymore and that’s something I’m really not used to seeing, but I like it.

Listen is a very different episode. One that’s refreshingly subtle and smaller in scope and scale, thus giving it a greater impact. But different doesn’t necessarily equal good, and sadly Listen doesn’t work on a number of levels.

Like I said, the episode is really scary on a first viewing. In fact I’d go as far to say it’s just as scary as Blink. But the thing is Blink still holds up on multiple viewings and the Weeping Angels are still just as scary the first time around (obviously we’re not including the sequels here where Moffat started to bastardise his own creations). In Listen on the other hand, once you’ve seen all the twists and turns and had a peek behind the curtain as it were, it loses its fear factor dramatically. And it’s much easier to spot all the numerous flaws in the narrative when you’re not having the living shit frightened out of you.

Was there ever a monster under the bed? The episode kind of leaves it open to interpretation, but I think it’s safe to say the answer is a definitive no. There’s a rational explanation for everything that happens (the thing under the blanket could be another kid playing a prank. The creaking pipes could just be creaking pipes. The Doctor could legitimately have forgotten he wrote something down, etc.). In fact the episode foreshadows this with the disappearing coffee cup that turns out to have been stolen by the Doctor. Also there’s the Where’s Wally joke:

The Doctor: “Where’s Wally? He’s not in this book.”

Rupert: “It’s not a Where’s Wally one.”

The Doctor: “How do you know? You may not have found him yet.”

Rupert: “He’s not in every book.”

It all builds up to the final twist, which is that there is no twist. Fair enough, i guess. Moffat asks some questions and provides some adequate answers. But it’s not exactly satisfying, is it? And it has an adverse affect on future rewatches. When you watch Listen again a second time, you’re no longer wondering what’s under the blanket or fearful at the prospect of what’s behind the locked door. You’re just watching a lump on a bed and listening to some creaky pipes.

There are other things I’m not fond of neither. The whole subplot with Clara and Danny just bored me senseless. Like in Into The Dalek, it’s just the same cliched romcom shit you’ve seen dozens of times before. And Moffat clearly expects you to be invested in their romance despite the fact this first date clearly demonstrates the two have no chemistry whatsoever. No, really! Look at them! Clara is callous and bossy, Danny is overly sensitive and a bit gormless, they’re constantly arguing over every little thing and they don’t really have anything in common outside of being teachers. What possible reason do I have to want to see them together when they’re clearly not suited for each other at all?

Also Moffat seems more concerned with developing the mystery surrounding Danny Pink rather than actually exploring his character. You know? Because big, convoluted mysteries dragged out over the course of an entire series is pretty much the only way Moffat knows how to get us interested in his characters. So who is Orson Pink? Is he related to Clara? I don’t know and I don’t care. The astronaut at the end of the universe could have been anyone really, and it wouldn’t have made a difference.

But the thing that pisses me off most about Listen is Clara. More specifically, how Moffat uses Clara in this episode. I’ve always hated Clara (I may have mentioned it one or several times over the course of these blogs) and Listen really highlights the flaws in her characterisation. Moffat has always had a predilection for female characters that fall into either the mother or dominatrix roles. Clara ends up playing both this time around. She mothers Rupert and then at the end of the episode she takes care of Doctor Jr (oh we’ll get to that. Don’t you worry). Like I’ve said in the past, Clara has no character. She exists solely to prop up the Doctor or whatever male character is important at the time. Hell, in The Name Of The Doctor, she outright says she was born to save the Doctor. That’s her sole purpose in life. Realising the distinct lack of character and independence she possesses, Moffat tries to compensate by throwing all this dominatrix type stuff in in an attempt to make her seem confident and authoritative. She slaps the Doctor again, she tells him to shut up and bosses him around. Except that doesn’t make her a compelling or unique character because all of Moffat’s women behave like this. River Song. Amy Pond. Irene Adler in Sherlock. Their dialogue is pretty much interchangeable. Forcing all of his female characters into these mother/dominatrix roles is not only sexist as shit, it also displays a sheer lack of imagination on Moffat’s part. It’s just boring by this point.

And it only gets worse when you factor Moffat’s humungous ego into the equation. He wants to put his own stamp on the franchise, and fair enough. Except that’s not what he wants to do, is it? He wants to carve his bloody name into the thing and leave a permanent mark on it. That’s why his characters often seem to out-Doctor the Doctor and are the most important people in the fucking universe. That’s why River Song went from being just a future companion that the Doctor hadn’t met yet to being his bloody wife that the Doctor’s entire life revolves around. That’s why Clara was born to save the Doctor and why she seems to have taken charge of the whole show. Not only is she not travelling in the TARDIS on a permanent basis, thus forcing the Doctor to come and pick her up because she’s that special and important she has to have the Doctor permanently on a leash and at her beck and call 24/7, she’s also now able to drive the damn thing. And the Doctor is constantly asking her for validation. For advice and consultation. Let’s not forget Moffat has in the past gone as far as to imply that the Doctor is completely ineffectual without Clara. He’s just thrown the entire dymamic out of whack just so his precious Mary Sue can be the star. And look, I’m all in favour of proactive companions, but at the end of day, it’s not her name in the fucking title. And if the only way you can make your companion interesting is by diminishing the Doctor’s character, you’ve fucked up.

But then Moffat takes it one more, borderline unforgivable step further. Yes, we’re talking about that scene.

Moffat isn’t the first to want to explore the Doctor’s history and add to the mythology. Other writers have done it in the past. From Robert Holmes and the 12 regeneration limit to Andrew Cartmel and the Cartmel masterplan. But one thing you must never do is mess the basics, and one of those basics is the Doctor’s mystery. It’s interesting wondering where the Doctor came from, which is precisely why we shouldn’t know. Finding out the origins of the Doctor wouldn’t make him more interesting. It would diminish him as a character. Which is why I HATE the ending to Listen with a fucking vengeance. Not only should we not be in that barn with Doctor Jr, end of (and on a side note, how the fuck did the TARDIS land on Gallifrey when the planet is supposed to be lost and still in a time lock because of the Time War?), the way Moffat does it is just beyond insulting. The Doctor is motivated by fear?

And the only reason he was able to turn it around and draw from it was because of Clara?

I’m sorry Moffat, but you can fuck right off with that idea. In fact you can take that idea and shove it firmly back up your arse from whence it came.

What’s worse is that it’s his fear the episode revolves around, forcing the Doctor to behave out of character and allowing Clara to step up and take his role in the first place.

Listen is different. I’ll give Moffat that. And it’s bloody terrifying on a first viewing. But it’s also a very shallow and paper thin story that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny and it demonstrates that Moffat’s ego is so massive and so uncontrollable that he’s prepared to piss around with the most vital components of the show he claims to be a fan of in order to leave his mark. Well congratulations Moffat. You have indeed left your mark. And now it’s going to take a very skilled mechanic to repair the damage you’ve done.