Saying Goodbye to Chick-Lit

 Goodreads has actually stopped recommending it for me as I have stopped adding chick-lit books to shelves. I did used to enjoy reading a certain amount of it but I have recently realised that it doesn't have to same allure. Since joining Goodreads I have noticed that I am trying to be more discerning about what I read, I think that I get the feeling that life's too short to read too many instantly forgettable books, I am trying not to be too snobby here as I know that there are some authors who are great, I really like Jane Green's books for example, and Sophie Kinsella's. But at the same time I have this feeling that I will never feel the need to re-read the shopaholic series or Bridget Jones for example. I will probably finish off re-reading Jilly Cooper's books at some point (I'm currently on Pandora but I'm finding it hard going and haven't looked at it for a couple of months) and read some of the cheap books I picked up for the Kindle last summer, but I think I might start sorting out my chick-lit bookshelf and get some room for the other books that I have that have no proper bookshelf space. My bookshelves are a dreadful mess and some of the shelves are bending or even breaking under the weight of books!

Alas, I am no longer a twenty-something looking for the love of my life. All that's left is middle-aged lady fic (link)

This isn't a complete ban on the books forever, I've just taken it off my favourites list. I'm sure I'll carry on reading other romance books as well (I'm currently reading Shadow of Night), particularly historical romances, which I love.

Anyway, here's what I have to do on here:

• Finish my writing on the first part of Swann's Way
• Finally finish reviewing and writing about The Bell Jar
• Review State of Wonder by Anne Patchett

I think that's it!

Moffat – What’s with the roofs?

So, it’s been a couple of weeks since the Doctor Who finale and the internet is still buzzing with angry commentators either producing ‘stfu Moffat’ blogs or getting angry with said blogs and denying that there is any problem. I’ve been interested in the feminist analysis and I’ve found myself trying to become more analytical about the portrayal of different groups in the media. After one blog analysis someone asked for people’s opinion on the use of roofs, this is my attempt to analyse why. I have thought about different aspects of the question. 

Before I start I think I should point out that although I had no problem with Reichenbach on Sherlock, I was not a huge fan of Rory and Amy leaping off the roof, nor the way that it was filmed. I thought that while Sherlock made it seem like an awful last resort and showed how it affected other people, I felt that Doctor Who made it far too romantic due to the way that it was filmed with Rory and Amy leaping off in each other’s arms and with all those magic slow motion effects .  Perhaps this could have been because of the relative ages of viewers (and I know it wasn’t really supposed to be “committing suicide” as such), but it grated.  

Inappropriately Romantic? Link

So why roofs?

• First of all, obviously falling is a terrific visual. You can dress your main character up in a big coat that swirls when they are falling against a grey, unforgiving sky or you can have a New York skyline and have your main characters hugging as they are falling with beautiful swirling hair, slow motion and even sparkly effects. The realism of the falling in a horizontal hug should not be questioned here as long as it looks good, that’s the main thing. Anybody know any good locations? Roofs perhaps.
• The Reichenbach problem, aka “there are no waterfalls in London” and Sherlock has to fall to comply with canon. You could move out of London, but it would be a shame to move Sherlock’s death out of the city which is such an important part of his life and such an important setting for the programme. Add to this considerations such as finding locations, getting permission to film, realistic (not too expensive) stunts, realistic (not too expensive) CGI and other considerations, and roofs seems the most suitable medium for jumping off.
• Same with Doctor Who, we’ve established that we’re setting the episode in New York, and seeing as we’ve spent all the budget getting there, we need to make the most of the New York skyline and not go mad getting the Williams to jump off the Statue of Liberty or anything else to expensive/unrealistic (not that realism is a major consideration here). Roofs it is.
•  We need a nice re-set button and dismissing it all with a wave of the hand as being ‘something timey-wimey to complicated for your tiny brains to worry about’ will do. Never mind the plot holes generated or the Doctor’s previous refusals to go messing up the timeline or any other issue. It worked for Sherlock, we’ve had a trial run as it were, we know the logistics, it’s romantic, find me the nearest roof (as long as it’s cheap).  
• Oh, and for the writers, it’s a lovely metaphor for the characters having to be ‘brought back down to earth’.  In Sherlock’s case this was because he was becoming too high-profile. The reason for this? The writers decided to do Reichenbach perhaps because of the great storyline but it also fits in nicely with the predicted hiatus for the Hobbit, Star Trek, Parade’s End and whatever else the cast did/are doing. Which is turn gives them the all important re-set button. JohnLockers everywhere tremble in fear that John could be married to Mary by the time Sherlock returns. It could all change. In Rory and Amy’s case it was so they could settle down an live some sort of normal life where they wouldn’t be stalked by a mad man in a blue box who kept insisting that he accompany them on madcap adventures whenever he felt like it at the most inconvenient times like in the middle of their anniversary party. And everyone has agreed it’s time for Karen and Arthur to move on, preferably without some depressing death.  So the writers make sure that they are stuck in the past in New York (shhh, shut up about the plot holes). Has anyone found a roof yet?
•  It is also linked to the theme of character choice – in Rory and Amy’s case this is Amy finally, once and for all, choosing Rory over the Doctor (and in the process choosing to ‘grow up’ and stop being Amelia Pond, the Girl Who Waited, so let’s throw all the romantic special effects we can afford at it. Sherlock seemingly has no choice, but here I think that there is this tension between Sherlock’s ‘I have no friends’ speech in Hound of the Baskerville’s and his final realisation that his friends (particularly John) are actually vitally important to him to the point where he has to fake his suicide. He has to make a horrible choice to hurt the people closest to him in order to be able to save them and it’s beautifully written and acted without this sense that it’s just one big stunt to try and tug at out heartstrings.  The Doctor will have forgotten about Rory and Amy by Christmas anyway (in all likelihood), he’ll have a new companion. Sherlock, on the other hand, will be in a shit load of trouble when John finds out.  That roof I asked for? Make it two.
• Okay, so we’re going with potential suicide on Saturday tea-time telly. Can’t scar the kiddies for life or get any complaints, this is the BBC after all. So it’s going to have to be something not too horrifying we can write ourselves out of. I know, jump off the roof, re-set everything, back to the graveyard. Sorted. As for Sherlock, he’s going to need something magnificent to do with falling that we can subsequently explain (if we need to, I’m still not sure they ever will explain how he did it). Oh good, you found the roofs I asked for.

That’s it though, I think the man has used up his quota of roofs for a long time. It’s going to get ridiculous if anybody else jumps off them. Time to look for a new re-set button.

Bret and his big mouth

Bret has been spouting off about Matt Bomer being in 50 Shades of Grey and about "crap" sitcoms. Predictably, most of the comments were from people calling him homophobic, but I could see where he was coming from, although he didn't put it in a way that endeared himself to people! Not that that is Bret's bag anyway. 

In the first article, Bret was pointing out that he didn't think that a gay actor is suitable for the part of Christian Grey. Which is fair enough when you think about it. As a woman who has discussed who should play Christian with friends, I know that we are very opinionated about who should play him, because the point of the book is for us to identify with Ana. This is a man who is supposed to make us go weak at the knees; someone who manages to evade Ana's best instincts to avoid him at all costs. 

Brett says no thanks (image). Matt does look a bit gay in some of his pics.

It says something about a director's attitude to women that he is choosing to pick someone straight over someone who is gay, because I'm sure that if Bret was casting the same film but with Alan instead of Ana, he would go looking for the hottest gay actor he could find. Bret pays us a compliment by looking for an actor who is "genuinely into women", as well as applauding our open-mindedness. But dammit, I think he's right. No offense meant to Matt or anyone who wanted him for the part, but we are supposed to be fancying straight guys here. I haven't seen White Collar but if what Bret says is right, Matt came across as "totally gay" and in some of the pics I've seen he doesn't look perfectly straight. Don't know about you, but I'd rather my supposed 'dream hunk' was totally straight thanks.  And this is not about having anything against gay actors. Bret doesn't have a problem with gay actors playing straight roles, just not as 'dream hunks' who are supposed to be every woman's dream.

I think this is part of the point that Bret is making. It would be fantastic if instead of getting gay actors to play straight roles, TV writers would just write more gay roles and get gay actors to play them. I can understand why Bret feels uncomfortable about Neil Patrick-Harris, because in a way, it's as if we are supposed to be laughing about the fact that he's gay but playing an womaniser. Perhaps this does a disservice to both him and us.Why not write him as gay? Because it would be too shocking to have a promiscuous gay character in a fluffy US sitcom. They would probably have to ramp up the camp, or settle him down with a nice camp boyfriend/life partner. 

I get similarly annoyed with the portrayal of disabled characters, who seem to be nearly always played by actors without disabilities (apparently called 'cripface'). I suppose I can see why the producers do it that way, but it is still a great shame. Glee is a big offender. Good for having a disabled character in Artie, but I notice that he never gets the girl. Coincidence?

Very nice, but should not be playing a blind man (image)

 I had a look at a Wiki list of gay characters in TV shows, particularly looking at shows that are on currently in the UK and who made them. There are a few sitcoms like Glee and Modern Family, some dramas like The Borgias, Smash, True Blood and Game of Thrones. Out of these we have the inevitable musicals and straight men playing gay roles. One production company came up a couple of times, HBO's dramas.

In the second article, Bret hates CBS sitcoms and call The Big Bang Theory 'gay'. I happen to like the show (and Modern Family), but again, I can see what he's saying here. Raj and Howard continually skirt around their big 'bromance' and the big joke on Raj is that he likes things that the other men consider 'womanly' like manicures. But then the whole show is centered around stereotypes: dumb blond, socially inept scientist, Jewish mama's boy. He's right about Modern Family too, in my opinion. It may be a bit more progressive than other sitcoms (in that it has openly gay characters), but you've still got a straight man running around playing a big ol' camp stereotype. Is that the only thing we can handle?! 

I'm not saying the UK is any better at this either. Other than in soaps and the occasional drama like Downton Abbey, we're pretty short on the gay and disabled characters too. We are not challenging stereotypes, and I think that is why Bret hates the way that homosexuality is presented. It's lazy and predictable, or hiding behind multiple layers of coyness to avoid offending anyone.  

Great quote from an article in the Guardian:

"Good depictions of disability involve characters who happen to be disabled, rather than characters who are consumed and defined by their disabilities alone."

Same for goes for homosexuality.  

Angry to learn I am anti-feminist...

"I swear there can be no greater force against all womankind than Liz Jones. She is inconsistent, bitter, nasty and unhinged." Phillip Schofield. 

Phil was referring here to an article by a Daily Mail Harridan. Yes, that is the official title of all the female journalists from that crappy excuse for a newspaper. As you can probably guess, I am not a reader, although I seem to be in a minority. Women are forever depressing and horrifying themselves with the website at lunchtime. It stands for both things I hate and the things I am simultaneously drawn to and repelled by as a woman: I hate the scare-mongering hate-filled venom of the attitude, I am drawn to and repelled by the nasty rumours and pics of celebrities. I can't trust myself to get drawn into it, who knows where it may lead? I am one of those women the DM hates: Guardian-reading bleeding heart liberal. And today I discover that they are branding me an anti-feminist, rude, arrogant and a playground bully!

Let me get this straight, I am known to wear make-up on occassion and I know I do look better with it. I like to play with it a little when I go out. I have no problem with people who wear it every day, although I do think that people who wear too much look like they are trying to hide something and often look older than they are. I am not going bare-faced because I think I look fab without make-up, it just isn't that important to me. I don't make time for it every morning. I don't go out and buy lots of the stuff as I already own enough and would rather spend the money elsewhere. I simply do not have the cash to buy "Laura Mercier tinted moisturiser and hydrating primer, Chanel Vitalumiere foundation, YSL touché eclat No2, Chantecaille pow-der [sic], Nars blusher, and on and on." Who does? 

Holly makes a living out of looking beautiful. I might feel jealous sometimes of her beauty, but I don't begrudge her having to go through all that faff. It makes Liz Jones look like a jealous bitch going on about her, but then I would like to punch her smug made-up face. Like all Harridans, she is mightily pleased with herself. I have never been so tempted to troll in all my life. Trawling through her previous articles (like wading through sewage, I feel dirty), I see she makes her living criticising clothes, other women and interviewing WAGS. Saving the world there, Liz. 

I don't want my feminist icon to be some WAG or Barbie Doll who competes with others to see who can spend the most, nor would I like someone who was too serious about everything. My icons are the women who are saving the world one day at a time and not judging people based on the way they dress. As women and feminists we should be entitled to dress however we please without being judged, this is a principle I try to live by. I love purple shoes, dresses and eye make-up, but can't live in them all the time. I still want to dress like a nerd tomorrow. People may think I look odd at times, but I'm sure it doesn't bother them that much. I'd rather feel comfortable. 

I suppose we should feel sorry for Liz. Nothing better for her to write about. Obviously so desperetly insecure about her looks she could do with someone weaning her off her products and making her realise there's a life outside of bitching about other people. Liz, you really don't need to wear so much make-up. Get a life, if you don't like Holly don't look at her. I'm sure there's a more appropriately made-up woman you can find to like (or man...).

Mmm, I could actually almost fancy him in guyliner...pity I think he's the most over-rated actor ever 

(Jude Law from the Telegraph.)

Back to my beloved Guardian, with an article saying the complete opposite. I liked a quote from the comments: "The argument for rejecting beauty regimes is really quite simple, I think, and the word "regime" is telling. If you feel you have to do it, then it's oppressive. Whether it's a facelift or eyebrow threading." (Choco, 24th March 2012). Do it because you choose to, not because society or other women think it's normal.

As Mr. OQ sensibly points out, I should stop reading the DM if it makes me angry. I never would've found out about being an anti-feminist if I hadn't found Phil's quote on DS. Good on Phil for lambasting that woman though. 

You, you not only enranged me, you also mucked up my font size! Fab article about her sperm-stealing proclivities