Playpen

Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.

at 01:40 on 09-01-2012, Alasdair Czyrnyj
I'm sorry, your supply of what?

Bile, presumably. It's like regenerating health; you have an infinite supply, but it runs low, so you need to hide behind a wall and wait for it to recharge.

'Course, in my day, we had bile packs, and we had to ration our outrage accordingly. It made arguments more challenging, knowing you had to make your points while never being certain when the next dose of anger would keep you going to the next point. Honestly, the day regenerative bile when mainstream is the day rhetoric went to hell. "Faster and more immersive arguing", my ass. All it does is turn arguments into white-hot jets of rage which eliminates the highs and lows of traditional debate and eliminates all sense of personal risk from the arguer.
permalink
at 19:49 on 08-01-2012, Ash
@valse

I just depleted my supply

I'm sorry, your supply of what?
permalink
at 06:43 on 07-01-2012, valse de la lune
I'm sorry, I just depleted my supply reading this old thing with Brandon Sanderson defending Jordan's sexism and calling him progressive, and that anyone who disagrees with him--Sanderson--clearly doesn't understand feminist theory.

I really like how "he was so progressive for his time!" nicely and conveniently erases the writing of women in specfic. Hey, when did Ursula le Guin start publishing again?
permalink
at 04:36 on 07-01-2012, Dan H

“He’s not; the fact is one of the lovely threads of the original Sherlock Holmes is whatever he says, he cannot abide anyone being cruel to women – he actually becomes incensed and full of rage.”


Can I borrow a cup of facepalm, because I used all mine.
permalink
at 21:38 on 06-01-2012, valse de la lune
I must say, Cumberbatch's is not exactly the face that would launch a thousand lesbians.

Except in the direction of "away," anyway.
permalink
at 20:57 on 06-01-2012, Sister Magpie

“It’s not true and in terms of the character Sherlock Holmes, it is interesting. He has been referred to as being a bit misogynist.

“He’s not; the fact is one of the lovely threads of the original Sherlock Holmes is whatever he says, he cannot abide anyone being cruel to women – he actually becomes incensed and full of rage.”


Yes, that's just lovely, Steven.
permalink
at 19:27 on 06-01-2012, Ash
Steven Moffat has responded to criticism of his/BBC Sherlock's sexism.

It goes about as well as you'd expect.
permalink
at 11:07 on 06-01-2012, valse de la lune
It amuses me that he changed the "It" in the last line to "he" after the wank exploded. Too late, goatfucker.
permalink
at 08:38 on 06-01-2012, Arthur B
That story is terrible on so many levels. I like how he even manages to get in whining about how use of mobiles on planes is a matter of democracy or something idiotic like that. I also like how his defenders keep trying to make out that the story's meant to be a snapshot of a homophobic character's point of view which doesn't condone it when more or less every line of the story is constructed from the assumption we're going to sympathise with the homophobe and his viewpoint is never seriously challenged.
permalink
at 05:53 on 06-01-2012, valse de la lune
I didn't know about this. I do now. Link for anyone interested. This is the story he put up. In which he refers to his "queer tormentor" as "It." A lot. Very much a lot.
permalink
at 05:02 on 05-01-2012, Sister Magpie
Speaking of pros causing wank and being authors, is anyone following the story of the Merlin actor who apparently put up a story online that was considered homophobic and was also called out on Twitter and then defended by fans on Twitter? Apparently he in turn called out slash fiction in defense at some point. The actor is Eoin Macken.
permalink
at 01:42 on 05-01-2012, Michal
Who wants a bit of pro author wank to start the new year with? I know I do.

Some authors really need to take Martha Wells's advice. Then again, it's more entertaining if they don't.

"And if you do bad things online, contrary to popular belief, it does make you a bad person in real/offline life, too."
permalink
at 01:25 on 05-01-2012, Dan H

So if Moffat made her a lesbian, then why... would she... crush on Holmes? Who is not a woman?


Because lesbians aren't "women who are sexually attracted to other women, and not sexually attracted to men" they're "girls who will totally do other girls".

Plus I'm not sure Moffatt can imagine *anybody* not crushing on Holmes.
permalink
at 18:03 on 04-01-2012, Fin
wow, that dan krokos guy seems like such a wonderful human being.

it never ceases to blow my mind that there are published authors out there who think "it's just a book" is a valid argument.
permalink
at 17:33 on 04-01-2012, valse de la lune
Who wants a bit of pro author wank to start the new year with? I know I do.

(Synopsis: reader criticizes a book by Julie Cross harshly for the presence of "man-hating feminazi" stereotype, a male writer who's represented by the same agent as Cross appears and whines, the agent turns up and whines, and a bunch of stuff was said on twitter by other writers, like "goodreads? Just like 4chan!")
permalink
at 16:38 on 04-01-2012, Arthur B
Because Holmes has a penis, and penis trumps characterisation?

It's like rock-paper-scissors only there's a lot more screaming and crying when someone picks rock or scissors.
permalink
at 15:46 on 04-01-2012, valse de la lune
More troubling still, Moffat's Adler blatantly fails to outwit Holmes. Despite identifying as a lesbian, her scheme is ultimately undone by her great big girly crush on Sherlock, an irresistible brain-rot that leads her to trash the security she has fought for from the start of the show with a gesture about as sophisticated – or purposeful – as scrawling love hearts on an exercise book.


So if Moffat made her a lesbian, then why... would she... crush on Holmes? Who is not a woman?
permalink
at 13:40 on 04-01-2012, Isabel
Plus -
did anyone else think that Sherlock turning into Jack Bauer and actually being able to infiltrate and then take out a terrorist cell without any help slightly ridiculous?
permalink
at 13:38 on 04-01-2012, Isabel permalink
at 06:13 on 04-01-2012, Ibmiller
So, anyone see "A Scandal in Belgravia?" For the last half hour I was fuming, thinking "This sheries keeps getting more and more misogynistic," but I'm not as firmly in that feeling anymore...
permalink
at 03:15 on 04-01-2012, Robinson L
Shimmin: I didn't even get on to why Madge had a pistol or why "my husband is a pilot" translates into "I can drive a mech from 2000 years in the future"...

Yeah, in an episode stuffed with "just go with it" material, that one still stuck out for me.

And yes, the police box we see them break into is a genuine police box. When the Doctor goes in we get a glimpse inside and there's just a bare wall, and the Doctor says something to the effect of "wrong police box," and the implication is they have to find another one.
permalink
at 20:52 on 03-01-2012, Shimmin
Just to be clear, I don't always object to dodgy science in sci-fi, because of the fi. The problems there were that not even a token effort was made to mask any of the technobabble, the wrongness wasn't particularly necessary to the plot (a different favour and plausible harvesting methods could be substituted) and it was one more broken element in a string of incoherence. Basically, story collapse set in and I ended up picking up on every little problem, even non-plot ones and givens of the series/format.

In summary: the foresters' commercial plan makes no sense; the preposterously convoluted magic-forest-plan makes no sense; the behaviour of the humans rarely makes sense; and the Doctor's behaviour makes no sense. I got a very slight sense at the end that just maybe this was meant to be the Doctor's way of solving the whole problem, except he already said he had no idea what was going on and it would be a dangerous and cruel way of doing that, so that also makes no sense. So all I can conclude is that every character in the episode is a complete moron, except possibly the children. As the authors don't seem to be supporting this reading, I'm forced to extrapolate that they, too, are morons.

I didn't even get on to why Madge had a pistol or why "my husband is a pilot" translates into "I can drive a mech from 2000 years in the future"...

@Robinson: there was another police box? I must've missed it, but I'll cheerfully withdraw that criticism if so.
permalink
at 12:26 on 03-01-2012, Andy G
@Shimmin

I think a lot of your concerns (hokey pseudoscience, the Doctor's attachment specifically to Earth) would apply to more than just this one episode of Who! I think what went wrong in this particular episode was that everything was just put together badly: it had a beginning, a middle, and an end, but the middle was compressed and had little to do with the meandering, pointless beginning. And the less said about the end the better!
permalink
at 22:57 on 02-01-2012, Michal permalink