I aggressively do not want John Hurt to be the Doctor during the Time War.
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.
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:
Yes, I agree. I wrote that post a while ago, and I’ve definitely expanded my thoughts on Mickey.
Like, I do think he was a decent boyfriend, but by no means boyfriend of the year. He had his own story arc, which tbh is one of the most underrated ones in the whole show. I loved him by the end. Their relationship, I think, stunted both Rose and Mickey’s ability to grow.
And lol I can’t believe people actually get upset about Rose leaving Mickey because every companion leaves loved ones.
Thanks for your comment! I wish there were actually more discussion on Mickey in the fandom.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, I’m confused by that as well. For one thing, I don’t understand how the Doctor’s timeline has been working recently, because we know, given clues like the Henry VIII one, that the Doctor has been going back in the Pond’s lives.
That aside, however, it still doesn’t make sense. Because, say the Doctor does go back to visit Amelia. 1). That Amelia has parents. That Amelia didn’t meet the Doctor when she was young. Because the Amelia who met the Doctor at that age exists in a parallel timeline that no longer exists because of the end of S5 where everything got erased. So S7!Amelia would have had parents, not an aunt, who (I assume) wouldn’t even let a strange man in their home.
And 2). All those adventures that Amy told the Doctor to tell Amelia she was going to have ie fighting pirates, meeting Van Gogh, didn’t happen in the timeline because that timeline was erased (again, bc S5 finale). The only reason Amy and the Doctor remember those adventures was because they were at the heart of the storm, basically. The universe was rebooted at the end of s5, so the end of this last episode is confusing, at least.
If I’m missing some vital piece of information that explains all this, please let me know!
Ooh goodness this is hard question. Well, I suppose I would say the second season was my favorite primarily because Ten and Rose, and their character development.
Personally, what I enjoy the most in any story is character development and that was plentiful in the Doctor/Rose story arc, as well in Rose’s personal character arc.
In terms of just Rose, her journey is extraordinary. Really, that’s the only way I can describe it. In season 1, here we have a 19 year old girl, who has a dead-end job, a boyfriend she’s literally known her entire life, an unfulfilled education, and was raised (albiet well) by a single mother. Rose Tyler is the epitome of ordinary. That is to say, she is just like us. Rose Tyler is the audience.
And what is Doctor Who all about? Of course it’s about spaceships and aliens made out of wood and planets and near-death situations. But what is it about really? The answer is simple: Doctor Who is a show about how the most ordinary person, about how every individual no matter how small or insignificant they may feel is just as important as the Last of the Time Lords.
For me, Rose is the physical personification of that ideal. And throughout season 1 we see her transform into something truly great, to the point where she literally nearly sacrifices her life for the man she not only loves, but who showed her how fantastic she was. By the end of s1, Rose is well on her path to becoming “extraordinary.” She is no longer a shop girl, she is the Bad Wolf, savior of the Doctor and destroyer of the Daleks, the woman who ended the Time War with, above all, love.
And let’s not forget her influence on the Doctor, which he states himself in s4: She made him better. This is evidenced throughout s1 (“Dalek”: “What the hell are you changing into, Doctor?”) and even into s4 (I’m thinking of the ep “The Doctor’s Daughter” and his aversion to weapons).
The Ninth Doctor’s regeneration is another sacrifice. “The Parting of the Ways” is sacrifice for sacrifice, for two people who will love each other through universes and parallel worlds. What is remarkable about Nine’s regeneration, imo, is his willingness, his utter lack of hesitation. He is going to die for this girl and you know what? That’s totally okay with him.
And now we get the brilliant Tenth Doctor, who absorbs not only Rose’s accent but also some of her mannerisms, particularly being rather tongue-happy. Ten was literally made to fit Rose.
Season 2 is probably my favorite season (it’s so hard to pick ugh!) because it further develops the relationship. It’s not all falling in love anymore; they’re past that. What s2 deals with is how they are meant to deal with that. Ten is far more human than any previous Doctor and that means he needs attachment, love, comfort which comes in the form of 1. Romantic love (Rose) 2. Familial love (Martha) and 3. Friendship (Donna). But it also means that his faults are more human and his desire for closeness nearly overrides his ability to see reality; he does eventually believe (or accept, rather) Rose’s commitment to him, “forever.”
S2 is full of comedy, growth for literally every character, obvious love, and drama. The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit really is the turning point on the whole Doctor/Rose relationship for me. Rose is alone after the Doctor descends into the Pit and she single-handedly takes control and saves the crew and fucking kills Satan. Plus, her decision to stay with the Doctor is when Rose is at her most selfless, it is the climax of not only her loyalty but her own change into someone better (Rose’s main flaw is her selfishness and in moments where she can be selfless, that is when she truly shines).
The Doctor, on the other hand all but professes his love for Rose, “Tell Rose… Oh, she knows” and “I believe in her!” Major development for a man who only a year and a half ago was ready to die for anything, who didn’t believe he deserved love.
Onwards to Doomsday, the second most heartbreaking moment in DW (Ten’s regeneration is #1 for me). Rose finally confesses her love and of course the Doctor knows, he knows. But the fade out before he can say it back suggests that their story, though momentarily paused, is not over.
Flash forward to s4. Finally, we see Rose in all her glory. She has become Pete’s World’s version of the Doctor, from her leather jacket to her parallel dialogue to that of the Doctor, to bad assery. Rose, for all intents and purposes, is the closest any companion comes to knowing what is like to be the Doctor (You could also argue Donna, I suppose but Rose has a much longer time acting in for the Doctor). And still, she loves him, still she forgives him for all his sins.
Rose Tyler is now the Defender of the Earth. With her acceptance of TenToo, her journey is complete, she receives a satisfying and deserving conclusion to her story: she gets the Doctor, the one who more than the original Doctor can give her a life she deserves, with both real commitment and travelling.
So basically, the Doctor and Rose are representations of what love can do: it can make the other person better. Love does not make Rose Tyler weak. It empowers her. It makes her go from explicitly ordinary to extraordinary.
I think Rose Tyler is something we all aspire to be, to be ourself but to be more than that too. To love generously but to not lose who we are, to in fact become more ourself. This, and more, Rose achieves.
Now, this is not to say Amy or 11 aren’t fantastic either; they are. But, I do find a lack of development particularly on Amy’s part, being replaced with flashy plots. Under RTD, I think we were given a clearer story arc that was able to astound us but not confuse.
Perhaps it’s just a personal preference, but Rose really is the one, just as much as the Doctor, who pushed New Who into the realm of the modern viewer.
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.
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.
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:
And here’s why~
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.
According to this website…
Theis a villain with heroic goals, personality traits, and virtues. Their desired ends are good, but their means of getting there are evil. Alternatively, their desired ends are evil, but they are far more ethical or moral than most villains and they thus use fairly benign means to achieve it, and can be downright heroic on occassion.
If you read on, you can see the difference between the Anti-Villain and the Anti-Hero. So, I would say Loki is the Anti-Villain, especially in “Thor.” In that film, his intentions are almost totally good. He doesn’t want to be king, even after Odin falls into his sleep; when Frigg tells him he must rule over Asgard until his father awakes, he’s surprised, as though he hadn’t thought of that.
He just wants to prove himself worthy to his father. He tries to destroy Jotunheim not only for reasons that would please Odin (killing the enemy) but so he would belong somewhere. Destroy Jotunheim, and he truly must be from Asgard. His intentions are pure for the most part. I’m sure he would have handed the crown back over to his father had he succeeded. He just went about everything in a really awful, misguided way.
And when Lok is hanging off the bridge and Odin says that disastrous “no” to him, that’s when he cracks. I mean, Loki is mentally unstable at that point and Odin’s like “Hey bro, I know your entire life is a lie and I’ve always favored Thor over you, but let me tell you how disappointed I am in you while you’re hanging off into the abyss.”
We don’t know what happened to Loki after he fell, but he clearly became more desperate and all those feelings hardened into hate (because how could they not?). And I’m sure the word “no” was constantly on his mind.
The reason Loki is the villain is because he’s heartbroken. He doesn’t destroy because he is greedy or bored or power-hungry, although those traits may follow.
Loki is the villain because love was ripped from him. He stands on the very thin line between hero and villain and I truly believe if he is given the chance to heal and grow, he can be fixed.
And yes, he is very very pretty. *swoons*
Sure, she was a child when she was first called that. But she was continued to be named a “girl” into series 6, after she suffered and fought and survived. The issue is that she has become a woman and yet she’s still labeled a girl.
None of the other companions are titled in such a way either. Rose is the Bad Wolf or the Defender of the Earth. Martha may be the labeled in gendered terms as the Woman Who Walked the Earth, but she is still a woman not a girl, and same with Donna as the Most Important Woman in the Whole of Creation. Furthermore, “waiting” is incredibly passive, whereas former companions have active roles. That’s not to say that Amy hasn’t been active—she has. But “waiting” is inaccurate.