I aggressively do not want John Hurt to be the Doctor during the Time War.

Read More

One reason I think the Annie/Abed ship is really lovely is in terms of Abed’s journey through the entire series. He starts off without having previously been able to connect with people. In his mind, he would have likely seen himself as either a minor character or a guest star. But with the group, Abed finally finds a place he fits in and with time, they don’t try to fix him, they accept him and love him as he is. 

However, we still see him struggle with the anxiety of being left behind in Visual Systems Analysis. He pulls himself out of the storyline, since he’s been abandoned so many times in real life. He lets Jeff and Annie fill the starring roles, with the rest of the group as supporting characters.

But it’s Annie who finally convinces him that he’s not alone and never will be. She’s the person who, I think, really makes Abed realize that he doesn’t have to be a minor character, a guest star, or even a director; he can be a leading man. 

Reasons why I don’t believe Guinevere is truly working with Morgana (5x06 spoilers) AKA if Gwen is really evil I will personally swim the Atlantic and wrestle the writers for creative control:

Now, keep in mind, these are all very early thoughts. I’m totally open to any discussion on the topic. 

Besides my immediate feeling that Guinevere would never do anything to hurt anyone she loves and considering how fiercely loyal she is, how self-sacrificing, and how guilt-ridden she can become when she believes she has put loved ones in danger, here are some more tangible reasons why I believe Gwen may be working as a double agent, enchanted, or in some way not working on behalf of her own will:

Read More

You know why Arthur’s line “I haven’t seen you smile these past three days” hurts so much?

Because that’s who Merlin is to Arthur. We, the audience, know Merlin isn’t the happy-go-lucky kid he was in season one anymore— we’ve known for a long time. But Arthur doesn’t. Merlin, through the almost decade he’s been at Camelot, serving Arthur, has always kept up that facade of the simple servant. But this season, it’s getting to be too much. His mask is finally cracking; it’s becoming too much to hold up that guise anymore. 

I think it’s safe to say on Arthur Pendragon’s list of least favorite things, Merlin not being happy is pretty high up. Because that’s what endeared Arthur to Merlin in the first place: his attitude. Merlin was the silly, insolent, bit ridiculous boy whose general love of life and unfailing optimism helped push Arthur into becoming the man and king he needed to be. 

And now all that’s crumbling. Merlin’s burden is weighing him down and even Arthur has taken notice. With the vision of Arthur’s death coupled with Merlin’s guilt (and all those people he’s lost and mistakes he’s made) it’s finally too much. 

What makes the line so heart-breaking isn’t that Merlin hasn’t been smiling, it’s not that we’ve noticed, it’s that Arthur has noticed. Because, above all, Merlin has always hidden his pain from Arthur and when Merlin can no longer pretend to be the happy, simple servant Arthur knows him as, that’s when we realize that things are really going downhill.

After all, there’s only so much a person can take before he breaks. 

On Arthur/Gwen:

So, lately I’ve been seeing a fair amount of hate on Arthur/Gwen. Not because it interferes with Merthur and not even because a lot of people don’t like Gwen (which I will never understand tbh) but because Arthur is a bad husband. 

I think this was largely due to 5x04 where Arthur blatantly lies to Gwen about his motives, but it can apply to other episodes as well, I’m sure, even this season. 

But here’s my opinion: Yes, Arthur is not the best of husbands, but he certainly isn’t the worst. He knows Guinevere has the most sway over his actions, which is why he lies to her. Obviously, he shouldn’t, because Gwen usually knows whats for the best, but that’s why Arthur hides his “motives” so to speak, because if he tells Gwen the truth, she’ll likely be able to talk him out of whatever big-headed adventure he’s going on. 

All things considered, Gwen still chose Arthur. 

• Gwen loves Arthur.
• Gwen knows he has many flaws.
• Gwen accepts him for them, and makes him better.
• Arthur still isn’t all he could be, but he’s certainly made progress, thanks to both Merlin and Guinevere. 
• But most importantly: Gwen chose Arthur. 

Remember when ~Gwen/Lancelot was still going on? They were cute, definitely, but what I really took out of that was that Lancelot never let Gwen make a choice. He left her, so Arthur could have her. He exerted control over their “relationship” without consulting Guinevere or asking what she wanted; he just left. 

I’m not saying Lancelot is a bad man. No, he’s far from that. But he did make a mistake, a mistake that cost him the woman he loved.

Gwen is a big girl, she can make choices for herself and I don’t doubt for a second that if she loved Lancelot more than she loved Arthur, she would’ve married Lancelot. But instead, I believe she realized that Lancelot wasn’t right for her and even Arthur with all his faults would make her happier. 

Bradley James said it himself, in some audio commentary (and I’m sorry I don’t have the direct quote) that Lancelot was a better man for Gwen. And maybe that’s true. Maybe Gwen’s life would have been easier if she married Lancelot. She went through hell to be with Arthur. Their relationship may not be the healthiest, but relationships are seldom perfect. 

And the fact remains that she loves Arthur and she chose him. 

Gwen helps Arthur become a better man, she gives him advice and makes him humble and shows him how the people see things. Arthur makes Gwen more confident; with Arthur, Gwen realizes though she once was a servant, her opinions and her advice are no less important. 

They still have a ways to go to make their relationship what it truly needs to be, but they love each other and they’re making each other better, which is a good start. I honestly don’t think the same could be said if, say, Gwen ended up with Lancelot or Arthur with Mithian. 

I think I’m just coming to terms with the fact that there are huge issues in shows I love (queer-baiting, sexism, racism, lack of representation).

But that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop loving it. It does mean, however, I’m going to be aware. And I think that’s important. As long as one is aware that something they love isn’t perfect, that it is has problems, and not blindly defend it, I think that’s acceptable. 

It’s good to read and write critique on media, but not everyone is super interested in being involved with that. I am, somewhat, but sometimes I just prefer to watch things. 

I think, as long as I’m aware shows I love have issues, and that I don’t buy into or support them, I can keep liking the stuff I like. Unless it goes too far, obviously. 

I just—ugh—sometimes I feel guilty because I know writers fuck up bad. And it’s hard to come to terms, to balance your love of something with knowing how fucked up it can be. And fandom can make you feel guilty as well. It’s hard being a part of a fandom, sometimes I think, because you get grouped in with ships fandoms, character fandoms, with people who can often be negative or ignorant or what have you. And it’s hard to set yourself apart from that. 

But you also can’t hate everything that is problematic because then you’d be left with next to nothing to enjoy. 

I guess you just have to take things with a grain of salt. 

And maybe part of the reason I want to create my own characters is to give women, in particular, strong roles they’ve often been denied in the past. 

I don’t know, man. I’m not overly-educated in these things; I’m still learning a lot. Liking stuff and being aware is just very complicated stuff. 

Uther Pendragon meta

So, on the topic of Uther Pendragon: 

I’m actually really glad we had a return of his character. Anthony Head is a fantastic actor, and it really is a treat to see him. But besides that, the reappearance of his character allowed for several pushes the show needed. 

Read More

On “Girly” and “Girl Books”:

I’m sure you’ve already got a picture in mind of what these kinds of books are, if you want to or not. What comes to mind? Romance novels, Nicholas Sparks perhaps? Or, even some classics like Pride and Prejudice (or, say, the whole expanse of Austen’s novels) and Wuthering Heights?

Yeah, me too. Because whether we want to or not, books that are emotional, romantic, or written by women (etc, etc) are commonly known as “girly” or “girl books.” That is, books for girls. These books are almost always about women, girls, what have you and/or are also often written by women.

Let me step out of the picture here for a moment and talk about myself. I am a woman, female, 20 years old, and an aspiring writer. I am proud and happy to be a woman. I am aware of my limitations because of my gender/sex, even in an artistic occupation such as writing. As a writer, I admit I strive for greatness. It’s hard not to look at shelves at libraries or book stores and imagine my name on the spine. And more than that, it’s impossible for me to say that my greatest wish isn’t to go down with the greats.

But who are the greats? Several names might come to mind. Fitzgerald, Dickens, Shakespeare, and so on. Mostly men. Yes, Jane Austen and even the Bronte sisters are tossed into that group, but when one looks at the whole of “great literature” (and poetry) the role of women is minimal.

But this is getting a little besides the point. Back to “girl books.” The books I listed towards the top may, for this post’s sake, be split into two categories: pulp and literature. In this case, pulp means a work that isn’t meant to be high art. That is not knocking pulp; pulp can be good and healthy and nice (ask a Mr. Hiddleston) but it is not created to be a work of high art. Of course, people’s opinions vary as well as taste, so it may be hard to define what is high art and what is not.

Still, a lot of paperback romance novels fall into that category. Twilight falls into that category. P&P and Wuthering Heights do not. Yet, what do these books have in common? Romance, a high emphasis on emotion and love, AKA things that society have deemed feminine. We are conditioned to accept certain attributes and characteristics as “girly” and romance and emotions definitely fall into that stereotype. So what I’m getting at here, is that despite what type of work a book may be, pulp or high art literature, the term “girly” or “girl books” will inevitably be bestowed on it.

Even incredibly modern books, such as The Hunger Games have been termed “girly” by some people for the mere fact that it features a female protagonist and has a relative amount of romance in it (as well as being written by a woman). However, for anyone who has read THG trilogy, it is clear the novels are not about romance but revolution, self-sacrifice, etc etc.

Books with the slightest hint of feminity are so quickly reduced to “girly.”

Why am I offended by that term, you might ask, especially if I am glad to be a woman? Several reasons. 1. These books were not written by “girls.” They were written by women. They do not always feature girls, but often women. Grown adults, capable of taking situations into their own hands, and displaying agency and autonomy. Yes, there are many books about young girls, but the term is still dismissive because, reason 2, the characteristics by which books are called “girly” embraces stereotypes of women and girls. That is easy enough to see and understand, I think. Finally, 3. As I said, these books are dismissed as “girl books.” Great novels, life changing literature of tremendous beauty and talent, like Wuthering Heights (my favorite) are dismissed as “girly.” A book that is called “girly” is often phrased in a way that means that it’s silly or not of high value.

It’s as if people would not read “girly” books because they are embarrassing or some shit. Of course, there are exceptions. JK Rowling has done wonders for women writers, but there are still issues within her success. For instance, it was suggested to Rowling to use initials rather than Joanne for fear that boys would not want to read a book written by a woman. Hopefully, with her talent she has reduced such prejudices but we can’t pretend they’ve disappeared.

I recently spoke with a fellow English major on this subject. I discovered his point of view on the subject was that “girl books” include situations that men/males would find unrelatable and thus unenjoyable. He gave the example of miscarriage. He said that men could not identify with the anguish of failed pregnancies. But let’s think about that. I do not plan on having children, and it is the same with many women. Many women have not had a miscarriage. And there are indeed men who have anguished over the loss of a child. I do strongly believe all people can understand loss, anguish, grief and can apply those emotions to what a character may feel.

I really believe people can understand and relate to others despite their sex or sexuality. I read a book, “Waiting for the Barbarians,” in which the male protagonist has erections and I was not put off by it by any means. In fact, in the narrative, I could understand his desire for human contact despite what an asshole he was. Even more so, I am a demisexual but that does not prohibit me from understanding or enjoying sex of any kind in literature. Let’s stop pretending that sex and bodies are weird and foreign.

Let’s remember that women as well as men must deal with their bodies, but that their experiences can be intertwined and that, if a writer is good, no matter what a character is going through that you’ve not experienced—whether it is fighting a dragon or giving birth—there is something about what that character is going through that you can understand or, at least, enjoy.

But I digress.

As a woman writer myself, I am aware my literature—my serious writing—may be dismissed by the public as “girly” because I am a woman, because I have female protagonists, because I may deal with romance or love and god forbid it, emotions. And that infuriates me. It’s ridiculous.

“Girly” and “girl books” should not be treated with such negativity, such dismissive attitudes. We live in such a gender-binary world that even our books—our precious modes of escape—must be classified and structured to society’s pre-established (and often [not always!] inaccurate) conditions.

I’m not saying that “Women’s Lit” must not be a section. It’s grand showcasing women writers—people that have been and continue to be oppressed.

I just don’t want “girly” to be synonymous with worthless, “overly emotional” writing. I don’t want “girl books” to be dismissed because of who they were written by or who they are about. I don’t want people to think they can’t enjoy books written by or about women. I don’t want “girl books” to be clumped together; Twilight and Wuthering Heights do not deserve to be in the same category. And I don’t want books be given a stamp of approval because they are not “girly.”

I don’t want my books to be reduced to something of less value because I am a woman.

And maybe we can take back “girly” and change it into something positive, something not quite so childish.

But still.

Calling a book inherently “girly” because of traditional feminine characteristics portrayed (or for multitude of other reasons that I’ve mentioned) is belittling to both its author and readers. There is nothing wrong with being emotional or romantic, or loving those kinds of novels, but there is something wrong with binding a gender with those traits.

We are not all girls—we are women and we are girls who will be women and I demand our literature to be treated with the same respect that books by men are.

Loki Meta: Thoughts on his anti-villain role.

First off, I want to clearly state that these are simply theories and I’m working through my own thoughts still. Also, that this is not justifying Loki’s actions, but merely attempting to analyze why he did what he did. Here are the points I’d like to make:

• Loki is flawed but his flaws are a result of a culmination of poor (if partially unconscious) treatment by his parents (mostly his father), his brother, and his peers. He is both a victim of circumstance and his own foolish actions.
• Loki’s motivation is desperate desire for self-respect.
• Loki is not a villain. He is not a hero. He is an anti-villain.

And here’s why~

Read More

alone can be good.

This is a post about being alone, solitary, but not lonely because there is a difference.

There’s an ancient Greek myth about how humans supposedly had double the limbs but were subsequently torn apart for fear of the power they would hold, and doomed to wander the earth looking for one’s other half. While my Greek ancestors and I would probably agree that the story is a lovely one, that is only what is, a story.

You are not half of a person because you do not have someone with you at all times. You are already complete and you are already whole. There is nothing wrong with being alone, whether your solitude extends for a few hours that you save for yourself on the weekends, to being single after a breakup, or for your entire life. And to be clear, I do not just mean being single, I do not mean being alone as in lacking in a romantic and/or sexual relationship. I just mean that is okay it is good to not have people constantly around you.

Media is so chock-full of happy endings of the protagonist finding love. There are so many stories that portray the necessity of another person to make the protagonist whole. And while there is nothing wrong with other people changing your life for the better or being in a healthy relationship (in fact, those things are fantastic but not everything), there is a serious lack of stories that end with the protagonist on their own and happy.

Do not think there is something wrong with you because you like to be alone or because you are single or don’t have many friends. There is nothing wrong with that, no matter how many movies may tell you otherwise. There is a certain power in being alone. Honestly. Take a walk outside or sit in your room and listen to music. You will find there are things within you that you didn’t know existed, and among those things you will find that, if you don’t already, you can love yourself. I truly do not believe you can love someone else wholly until you love yourself. You should fear being alone because being alone is beautiful. Take time to learn about yourself. 

I don’t know where this is going anymore, but I do know that I was bullied for years for being quiet and keeping to myself, and for being single even. I was bullied into silence for my silence and for my solitude. But that is not okay.

You do not need someone to build you, to complete you. You can rely on yourself. You are stronger than you think and you do not need another person to define who you are. You are not half a person, you are already whole and what you need to do is first realize it, and then believe it.