tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post3462247618506505832..comments2023-10-10T06:48:40.299-03:00Comments on the feminist librarian: monday morning madness (a few random things)annajcookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17573723390785613915noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post-12312800609623511682010-11-03T11:18:41.222-03:002010-11-03T11:18:41.222-03:00Thanks for the link; it's great stuff.Thanks for the link; it's great stuff.Soirorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014553291927744000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post-51270583557258610302010-11-02T14:29:17.649-03:002010-11-02T14:29:17.649-03:00@soirore
Thanks for the reply, despite the time-l...@soirore<br /><br />Thanks for the reply, despite the time-lapse! I've only seen episodes 1 & 2 so far; the two people I watched episode two with (and myself) were disappointed with episode #2 because of the orientalist themes and because of Sarah's appearance, which is obviously that of demonstrating the centrality of the Holmes-Watson relationship above all other relational ties. I appreciated that she wasn't just a flake ... but as you say, she ends up being another victim to save.<br /><br />The question of Holmes' misanthropy is an interesting one because it "allows" him to get away with being a total shit to other characters in the show and we're expected, as sympathetic viewers, to let him get away with it -- whether it's misogyny or just plain cruelty to fellow human beings. He's coasting on the idea that being "brilliant" somehow exempts you from being compassionate, empathetic, etc. <br /><br />The show could (and may still -- although I'm not holding my breath) raise some really interesting questions about the ethics of that, and whether Holmes' skill as a detective somehow makes up for his lack of nurturing and care. So far, I haven't seen it do that: Watson apologizes for him, but doesn't call him out on that -- or if he does, he ultimately caves to Holmes' demands. I'd be really interested to see what would happen with a Watson who refused to back down. (Which is part of what I've enjoyed so much with some of the Mary Russell / Holmes fiction: she actually stands her ground sometimes and forces Holmes to reconsider.)<br /><br />Must get back to work -- am enjoying the conversation and look forward to analyzing episode #3 next weekend!<br /><br />In the meantime, check out <a href="http://allhypomnemata.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/glassteat-sherlock/" rel="nofollow">this post written by my friend Ashley</a> on Holmes, asexuality, and the fandom :).<br /><br />~Annaannajcookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573723390785613915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post-48122112575821538112010-11-02T11:20:13.176-03:002010-11-02T11:20:13.176-03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Soirorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014553291927744000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post-45988440290156903462010-11-02T11:19:12.075-03:002010-11-02T11:19:12.075-03:00Sorry for the late reply.
Yes I agree that the o...Sorry for the late reply. <br /><br />Yes I agree that the offense is quite a lot to do with the homosociability. As a woman I feel left out of the story. I'm a long-time Holmes fan/ obsessive and have fantasised about the perfect (feminist) updating for a years. For me personally there's no reason that Watson shouldn't be female for example; women GPs outnumber men in the UK after all. Plus the asexuality of Holmes allows for any combination of sidekick without romantic tensions being an issue.<br /><br />But back to the episode. I think what grated most was the humiliation of the female characters. First is the pathologist who's clearly smitten with Holmes (women are unprofessional, led by hormones/ desire and stupid because she doesn't realise he's not interested) then the DI who describes Holmes as a freak. Holmes comments that she smells the same as the SOCO but she may have spent the night cleaning for him as her knees were red. The image of a woman on her knees angered me and I found it an especially degrading way for Holmes' character to assert his intellectual/ perceptive superiority.<br /><br />There was also the Psychiatrist who failed to see that Watson's leg pain was psychosomatic (silly, unprofessinal women). Plus I felt that Watson's sister was only female in order to give Watson information that Holmes failed to obtain (I thought the clues and mystery throughout were particularly amateur though so this isn't unusual for the episode).<br /><br />I liked the femme fatale because she was so...like a character. I don't mind my characters being cartoons if it's clearly marked. But she doesn't return; she was just filler. Just like the potentially awesome Doctor colleague of Watsons in Ep2. She seems amazing and then she's just a victim to be saved. Booh!<br /><br />The woman in pink who was killed was intelligent to be sure (which was refreshing after so many dim women) but she was dead, and conducting a series of affairs (women are sluts) and apart from sex she is only defined by her love of pink and the loss of her child. There were so many ways that she could have been less cliched; Rachel could have been a sister or colleague or lover or friend who'd died but the writers only came up with a daughter.<br /><br />Anyhow, I felt personally offended by this all which is inappropriate for a TV series so I'll stop.<br /> <br />Have you seen the rest yet? I'd like to know what you thought especially Moriarty... (something that may be a spoiler so I'll omit).Soirorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014553291927744000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post-63829132950295803912010-10-25T14:29:29.284-03:002010-10-25T14:29:29.284-03:00@soirore
I'd be interested to hear a little b...@soirore<br /><br />I'd be interested to hear a little bit more about the ways in which you say the episode as misogynist. I mean, Stephen Moffet has an uneven history writing women characters (for sure!) so on that level certainly it's not a "Firefly" ... but as I sit here and think about it (briefly!) the episode actually strikes me as being pretty damn *homosocial*, with virtually no reference to women, even in absentia. <br /><br />There is the passing mention of Watson's sister and her ex-girlfriend, Mrs. Hudson who hardly merits an appearance, the DI working with Lestrade who I think comes off somewhere between Lestrade and Anderson in the sympathy-toward-Holmes-o-meter, and the women who were killed, who seemed to be random victims of a crime (i.e. the only reason they were killed was that they had hailed a cab).<br /><br />There's Mycroft's femme fatale assistant, whom Hanna and I agreed on the walk to work this morning was this truly strange blend of sex object, airhead, and efficient valet ... I'm befuddled as to whether she'll turn up as a recurring character or not ... <br /><br />Anyway, I'm rambling ... as I say, I'd be interested in hearing your take in more detail!<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by, <br />Annaannajcookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573723390785613915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post-39123552040471784872010-10-25T13:05:39.077-03:002010-10-25T13:05:39.077-03:00I am completed divided about Holmes. I thought the...I am completed divided about Holmes. I thought the acting was terrific as was the dialogue and much of the writing. But the actual crime was rubbish; predictable with a boring villain.<br /><br />Plus I thought the whole episode was a bit misogynistic.<br /><br />I loved it and hated it. Wait for next episode's racism and the dreadful assassin and fight sequence in episode 3.soirorenoreply@blogger.com