So I had a chance to see the first two episodes of HBO’s new show Girls early, because Lena Dunham went to my school. She actually graduated with the same major as the one I will later this year - Cinema Studies.
Oberlin’s been pretty vocal about their support for and excitement about Dunham and her show. I was apprehensive about it, given that the poster featured four white girls who look exactly the same, but I decided to give her a fair shot. It’s always nice to see a young woman have success, especially in the film and tv industries, where women are few and far between.
Look, I don’t have a problem with Dunham personally, I only resent her success at such a young age a little bit, I actually don’t believe working with your friends or using connections is a bad thing, and I do believe there’s still hope for Girls as a show.
But the bottom line is, right now, Girls is a bad show.
Watched the first episode of this with C. Hated it so much for so so many reasons. This helps explain many of them.
cybercarnet: How to Be a Fan of Problematic Things -
I like things, and some of those things are problematic. I like Lord of the Rings even though it’s pretty fucked up with regard to women and race (any narrative that says “this whole race is evil” is fucked up, okay). I like A Song of Ice and Fire even though its portrayal of people of colour is…
An overall good read and something I really am trying to help my students understand. This sort of thing is really important to me because I do believe that popular culture can have great influence on how people see the world and because I am writer who is invested in good storytelling. While I won’t support some shows because of the problematic elements, on the other hand I know I love plenty of shows that yes, I admit, do have problematic elements. And I’ve resolved I can still love them, while acknowledging the problems within. I think much better than blindly loving things is being able to talk about them, think critically, and encourage progress in the way certain things are being represented in the media.
(Source: invertsugar)
Reblog: My fellow white people on Tumblr, I am here to... -
My fellow white people on Tumblr,
I am here to get you, because you need to be got.
We MUST stop responding to POCs posts about Trayvon Martin and racism in general with your feelings on how “we are all connected!!” and “omg but POC are being racist to me!!”*.
Stop…
[video]
Written by Ali
Source: Aliventures
Secret #1: Writing is Hard
Writing is easy: All you do is sit staring at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead. (Gene Fowler)
There’s a myth – not just in the writing world – that if you’re good at something, it’ll be easy. And established writers, me included, do have writing sessions where the words flow smoothly.
I take very slight issue with bits of this, but most of it feels absolutely true.
(via thesavagesalad)
[video]
Oh.
(via gingerhaze)
THIS IS MY NEW OBSESSION. This show kills me. Dead. 2 seasons down, with, god-willing, many more to go.
(Source: lari-elassea)
aka “Why Won’t You Let Irene Adler Be Great?”
[Spoilers for Sherlock]
Palaceoffunk articulated all of this better than I think I could! And while I too really did enjoy this episode and thought lots was cool and clever, well…. these thoughts, they are mine, too. Why couldn’t she end with the upper hand? Why have her vulnerability be emotionally based? Also, why imply that the lesbian is interested in more than his mind?
And… asexual visibility in media aside (not that I think the writers have given us that much from Sherlock this episode, but I know he’s often thought of that way) why are so many Sherlock interpretations afraid of making Holmes/Watson subtext into text? I mean, the books are pretty clear that Holmes doesn’t like women. Even Irene in the story is respected for her mind, for besting him, only. And hey, before I was into the idea of Holmes/Watson I loved the idea of Irene and Sherlock together. But when my gay goggles came in the mail I noticed that Watson seemed to be his true bond and the one he loved (in whatever way) most. I’m totally open to Sherlock/Irene interpretations, mind you but his connection with John is obvious. And that can be friendship, that’s cool, but where’s the harm in REALLY going there? That is assuming you aren’t reading Sherlock as asexual which I know many people like to, and that’s fine too, but where’s the harm in cannonizing Holmes/Watson, especially in modern interpretations? I know, I know, Watson had a wife in the novels— novels that did represent the times. Lots of gay men had wives back then, there weren’t a lot of gay options. To say NOTHING of the possibility of making one or both of these men bisexual which is an option that people love to stick their fingers in their ears and say LALALALA about. Yes I know, gay jokes about Holmes and Watson abound, and I will eat up every subtexty joke they give me, whether it is in Moffat’s Sherlock, or Sherlock Holmes with Law and Downey Jr, or whether its the subtext that had been given once upon a time between House and Wilson (haven’t actually watched that show in ages). But someday, someone, please give me a cannon Holmes/Watson pairing? Please? For all the liberties we take with these stories, that’s one place that writers still refuse to go. Yay 2012.
Ok, that got off topic. Um. So glad to have Sherlock back, is good show?