Agents of SHIELD and Reactions to Change

(Spoilers up to Love in the Time of HYDRA, 2.14, of Agents of SHIELD)

What Agents of SHIELD has done so beautifully since returning from it’s midseason finale is show how different people react to change, whether that be with acceptance, fear or something in between. While Fitz is accepting of Skye’s powers, going so far in the latest episode as to encourage her, saying that she could have Avengers level powers, others seem to have more fear and hesitation. Most notably Agent Jemma Simmons. Everyone, primarily Coulson and May, else’s apprehension has been somewhat muddled with confusion, because of their love for Skye. They’re not sure how to proceed with her. Not Simmons.

Simmons knows exactly what she wants, to get rid of Skye’s (and the other Inhumans) powers. She doesn’t want Skye to die, because she is her friend, but Simmons had no problem with suggesting that Raina should be put down; and it isn’t much of a jump to suggest that she would wish the same on other Inhumans who she isn’t close to. What makes this such an interesting development for the character is that she was the more adventurous of the Fitzsimmons pair at the beginning of last season. As Fitz recounts, she’s the reason they took the job on Coulson’s team. She was the one who was eager for field work. The likely assumption from this would be that she’d be the more open-minded of the two.

However, another of the show’s core themes is change. Since it’s crossover with Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Agents of SHIELD has taken place in a world of upheaval, and because of that change has been forced upon all of the characters. The epitome of this, other than Skye, is Fitz, who was clearly forced to change because of his brain damage. That experience has been monumental in shaping his character. It’s the reason he has been such a strong supporter of Skye. He knows what it feels like for your friends to suddenly see you differently,  for them to argue about “your best interest” and even see you as a problem. With the exception of Mack, and occasionally Coulson, Fitz has had none of his team, his supposed friends, put much confidence in him since season 2 began. Even now, when he has proven himself to be running at near, if not, full capacity, there is a distinct change in how they view him. The irony is that the reason for Fitz’s change was because he wanted to save Simmons, who is the person that now accepts him least.

And that’s very much the reason that Fitzsimmons has turned to Fitzskye. Simmons basically turned her back on Fitz. At the first chance she got, she left him. At first, I was inclined to believe that she was telling the truth when she said that she left thinking it would help him heal, but now it ‘s clear she couldn’t deal with his change. Under the guise of having to go undercover, she had a perfect excuse, but now there is no excuse to hide behind . Because Fitz’s brain damage was within the bounds of her knowledge , she knew that he would never be the same. But Skye’s powers are something new to her, so while she’s all but completely dumped Fitz, Simmons still believes she can fix Skye.

In this way Simmons plays the role of the conversion therapist (these “therapists” are hired to turn LGBT individuals straight, which is, of course, impossible); the metaphor is complete when we learn that Simmons has developed gloves for Skye that will shock her in order to contain her powers (electroshock therapy is commonly used by these therapists to “treat” their patien ts). And even if we don’t take Simmons reaction so dramatically, there is a lot of realism to her reactions to her friends’ changes. I was astounded when one woman at my creative writing class told of how an old friend refused to allow her to see the friend’s sick husband, because the woman had recently been diagnosed as bipolar. She went on to recount additional tales of friends who gave up associating with her after that diagnosis. It’s the sort of thing we don’t expect people to do, but it happens far more often than we’d like to think.

This is what’s made Agents of SHIELD so remarkable as it portrays this side of humanity. It’s shown a diverse array of reactions to change, which has in turn explored how fear and love inform our decisions. These reactions are something that are, and will always be, important in our lives, whether it be how we react to a friend coming out or to moving out of our parents’ house; we constantly experience change. As much as it defines and shapes us, our reactions to it become central to the path we take.

And by portraying such a wide scope of reactions, ranging from Fitz’s complete acceptance to May and Coulson’s confusion to Simmons complete opposition, we in some way gain an understanding of our fellow human beings. By all logic, I should hate Simmons; in many ways, she stands for all I detest in people, but I can’t. I see where she’s coming from, I don’t agree with it, but I understand that she’s afraid, that the unknown is a black hole that instead of sucking in light, can suck out our own complex reasoning and leave us with our base instinct of fear.

So while I’d be perfectly happy if Simmons made a 180 eventually, I think it’s important that we are able to look at what fear can make people become, how it can twist an otherwise kind and caring individual into something terrifying. Fitz hit the nail on the head when he said that the scariest thing that had happened was the change in Simmons. It’s important that we are able to look with some distance at people who are reacting to change badly, so that we might better understand humanity and ourselves.

Thank You, Terry Pratchett

I’ve only read one book by Terry Pratchett (Good Omens, which he co-wrote with Neil Gaiman), so it might come as a surprise that I was so affected by the news of his death. Although, I haven’t read much of his literature, Terry Pratchett always seemed to be an inspiring figure to me. He had a wit and wisdom to him that I believe few people possess, and certainly not to the extent that Mr. Pratchett did. I respected him as an icon of science-fiction and fantasy, someone who’s imagination knew no bounds, and because of his understanding of what sci-fi and fantasy are.

In a New York Times interview from late last year, he was asked. “What makes for a good fantasy novel?” His response. “The kind that isn’t fantastic. It’s just creating a new reality. Really, a good fantasy is just a mirror of our own world, but one whose reflection is subtly distorted.” This quote changed how I saw the genre; yes, I understood that many a fantasy/ sci-fi world was an extension of our own, but this was the perfect summation of that notion. And as a quote, it stuck in my head. Every time I sat down to write in either genre, this quote was on constant re-play. I was not creating a new world, I was creating one that reflected our own; and that made not only the whole experience, but the work itself, more meaningful.

In just a few sentences, Terry Pratchett impressed more into me than most do in whole novels. The universe(s) have lost a brilliant mind and great man.

“So much universe, and so little time.”

The Imitation Game- A Movie Review

I never intended to write a review of this movie, or of any movie, for this blog. In fact, I don’t want it to just be a place where I review media, whether it be television, film, books, etc. I’d much rather be analyzing not only this, but other elements of society as well. However, I feel that this movie demands to be reviewed, because it tells a story that too many people outside of the world of computer-science, or science/mathematics in general, do not know. And that is the story of Alan Turing and the Engima Code.

Prior to knowing of this movie’s production, I didn’t know who Alan Turing was, nor what the Enigma Code was. I have a relatively good knowledge of World War 2 and the time period, thanks to school, my historically-minded father and my own interest, but I knew nothing of these topics. As a result, I knew nothing of Turing’s sexuality (he was gay) and his post-war treatment by the British government. This in particular strikes a cord with me due to my own sexuality, and while you may think this biases me in the film’s favor, let me tell you that I am not inclined to like a film simply because it has an LGBTQIA person in it. If anything, I am more critical for fear of a complex man being reduced to  a stereotype or of him losing all other characteristics besides being gay.

I am happy to report that this was not the case in the slightest with The Imitation Game. Benedict Cumberbatch’s portrayal of Turing is nuanced and humanizing. The film could have gone the way of making Turing seem the cold, uncaring genius, instead it shows us a man who was not only brilliant and eccentric, but also deeply caring and emotional. There is a stereotype of scientists and mathematicians that they are sexless, and are often portrayed in an asexual light, but Turing was anything but and The Imitation Game fully embraces his sexuality and thankfully gives the other code breakers shown the same complexity.

In particular, Joan Clarke (played by Keira Knightley) is given an especially large role and is the only female face given any depth, though many women are seen working at Bletchley Park (doing important work I might add, though they weren’t given the same credit or important positions as the men). Clarke is depicted as an exceptionally intelligent woman and she and Turing become good friends after Turing recognizes her brilliance while others only see a woman. I am pleased to say that Ms. Clarke is not an amalgamation of many women, but actually existed and in much the capacity shown in the film. The Imitation Game unflinchingly portrays sexism just as it does homophobia, a welcome detail in creating a fuller and more realistic picture of the time.

Despite being a film about Turing’s life, breaking the Enigma code is definitely shown as a team effort. Turing’s brilliance is highlighted, as are his personal struggles, but other key members of the team, such as Hugh Alexander, are given importance too and are given human depictions, so that they come off as much more than side characters.

The plot could not be more exciting or interesting and even those who aren’t as familiar with World War 2 history will be enthralled by the code breaking, as well as immediately understand it’s importance. But Alan Turing is the real star of the show here. He is the heart of the film. It is him you are there to see and you will not be disappointed.

He is why the film is so good and it is a shame that not more people knew his story before this movie, but hopefully The Imitation Game will rectify this, as well as do the same for a number of other forgotten scientists and mathematicians. Because if there was one thing I wanted to do after leaving the theatre, it was learn more about Alan Turing and the other unsung heroes of Bletchley Park and code-breaking in general.

NOS4A2 by Joe Hill- A Book Review

Now that Christmas is over, it seems appropriate to review Joe Hill’s novel, published in 2013. The tagline on the cover reads “Christmasland is waiting for you…” and all I can say is that is not a good thing. Hill takes the merriment and joy of the Christmas season and turns it on it’s head in a wonderfully horrific fashion that you could only expect from the son of famed horror novelist Stephen King.

Although nearly 700 pages long, NOS4A2 zips along like a motorcycle down a highway. Hill changes locations frequently from chapter to chapter and while some of these locales seem to have little to do with the main plot, rest assured that all roads lead to Christmasland. One of the highlights of this novel, as much as the plot, which I’ll get to in a moment, is Hill’s delicious text. Truly this man is a master of words. One of the reasons this book is never boring in those 700 or so pages is because Joe Hill describes everything so lavishly, so vividly that you can’t possibly put the book down; he just makes words so beautiful. I’d honestly read his description of anything, he is that good a writer.

But the other part of this novel is the plot, which has all the originality and characterizations to match the heavenly text. The stories main protagonist is Victoria “Vic” McQueen, who we meet as a little girl and watch grow up. She’s a fantastically interesting character, partially because of her ability to find anything. I’d give you more details as to how she does this, but I think part of the joy of NOS4A2 is getting surprised and drawn in by Hill’s many clever ideas. Vic’s ability is only a small part of her persona, and it is the changes in Vic as she grows up that are what makes her such a compelling character.

A successful fantasy novel has realistic characters living in a world that reflects ours, but is twisted in some way. And this is what makes NOS4A2 such a magnificent book. Every character, from main characters like Vic to side characters like Maggie Leigh and Tabitha Hutter, are each given time to have their personalities shine through. The realism brought to all the characters is imperative in a world that we are unfamiliar with.

As is essential in a horror novel (though NOS4A2 is hardly the stereotypical horror novel), the villains and monsters are realized in such a way to make our skin crawl. The villain comes in the form of Charles Talent Manx, a man who kidnaps children and takes them to Christmasland. And as terrible as that sounds, it is far worse. Manx  is like Vic, in that when he takes kids in his Rolls-Royce Wraith and drives them to Christmasland, he transforms them into something gruesome and twisted. Another feather in Hill’s cap is that you can truly hate Manx without any sense of remorse. There is a tendency these days to make a villain likeable in some way or to give them a tragic backstory, but Manx has none; this doesn’t give him a lack of complexity, but rather makes him a good old-fashioned villain.

I can not recommend this novel enough. From characters to plot and every little detail in between it is fantastically complex and enjoyable.

The Boxtrolls- A Movie Review and a Look at Stop Motion Animation

I wanted to see The Boxtrolls for two reasons. One, it’s initial trailer (which came out more than a year ago) brought me to tears it was so visually beautiful. I’m a big animation fan and was astounded by what I saw in this few minute peak. The second reason was that stop motion animation needs support. It is a dying medium as it is slowly replaced by computer animation (2D animation is also suffering from this). Fewer and fewer stop motion films come out each year and more and more companies specializing in this form of animation are shutting down. Stop motion animation is incredibly beautiful (one only needs to see The Boxtrolls trailer to be reminded of this), but also incredibly time consuming. It can take a day just to film a character blinking. The result is amazing, but many companies don’t want to put in the time when they can get lovely results by working on computer. Similar reasoning is why there is so few 2D animation done these days.

Stop motion films tend to be as quirky as their visual style, but also tend to have more substance than the usual kiddie fair. This might be because they are rather artsy, but in the end it doesn’t matter because they tell unique stories. Some might remember 2012’s Paranorman and The Pirates: Band of Misfits! or 2000s Chicken Run or Coraline or the numerous Wallace and Gromit films. All were kooky stories with a style not seen in any other animated film. All are also acquired tastes, which is why stop motion animation has such a hard time making money. But I implore you to give all these movies a chance. They abound with wittiness and quirkiness and at the least you walk away saying “The special effects were decent.”

So as I begin my actual review of The Boxtrolls, let me say that if you go to see The Boxtrolls for no other reason, go so a visually stunning medium does not die out. The wonderful thing is, though, that shouldn’t be the only reason you see The Boxtrolls. This is actually a lovely little movie. It begins with the Boxtrolls taking a baby and Mr. Archibald Snatcher raising to Lord Portly Rind’s (this is only the first of a number of cheese jokes in the film that while quite odd are also quite amusing) house. The lord wears a white hat and is presumably a member of a city council of sorts. He promises Snatcher a white hat if he can catch and exterminate all the Boxtrolls. Snatcher then tells everyone how the Boxtrolls eat children, simultaneously winning the town over that he is a good guy and creating an air of fear.

Snatcher is actually a very good villain, because while we hate him, we can totally see why he’s doing what he’s doing. It boils down to the poor vs the rich and Snatcher is definitely the poor, complete with a cockney accent. He’s also visually arresting and while not pretty to look at, you certainly won’t be looking away.

The other half of the opening sets up the Boxtrolls themselves and their relationship with the baby, named Eggs. Eggs grows up believing he’s a Boxtroll, which leads to some lovely fish out of water and self discovery moments. I felt an odd lack of caring for the character in the beginning of the film, but Eggs proves to be a likeable enough main character and Issac Hempstead Wright (yes, Bran Stark from Game of Thrones) does a very good job voice acting.

The movie explores prejudice, fear and has some dark overtones about genocide. Still, the movie balances these with some humorous and truly witty moments. And, yes, the entire film is gorgeous.

The Boxtrolls themselves don’t really make much of an impression but the other human characters do. Aside from Eggs, there is Winnie Portly Rind, a foil to Fish and his introduction to the human world. Snatcher’s three henchmen are also very good and the voice work done by Nick Frost, Richard Ayoede and Tracy Morgan is so very good and none of them sound like themselves!

Overall, The Boxtrolls is a quirky little film that fits nicely into the Laika panthanon, which includes Paranorman and Coraline. It excels at being witty and is, as you may expect, beautiful. It stays away from many familiar kid movie tropes and instead twists them. Not only that,but it isn’t afraid to get dark and it treats it’s viewers with the intelligence and respect they deserve, which so many kids movies don’t.

Doctor Who: Clara Oswald: Time Travel Addict?

(Spoilers for Doctor Who  Series 7 and 8 including Mummy on the Orient Express)

This Saturday’s Doctor Who episode presented us with a rather interesting idea. And that is that Clara Oswald has become addicted to traveling with the Doctor. As anyone watching this series will know, Clara has been taking center stage this series, possibly becoming more prominent than the titular character (much to many viewers, though not this one’s, annoyance). However, I’m not here today to talk about the pros and cons of ‘Clara Who’ (or if it even exists), but rather to talk about Clara’s character as a whole.

Whether you like her or not, it is indisputable that Clara’s gone through some major character growth since series 7. I am of the opinion that Clara was not bland in that series at all, but rather that her character traits were far less prominent, due to the fact that she was also series 7’s mystery and story arc. For instance, we had hints that she was a “control freak”, as this series has outright dubbed her, from Nightmare in Silver when she took control of the punishment squad and to her motherly nature from The Rings of Akhatan and her care for the Maitland children. Also, on a re-watch of that series it becomes very clear that the Doctor is putty in her hands. He does anything she asks him to do and is just generally very easygoing. She is definitely manipulating him, but it was done far more subtly than in the end of Mummy on the Orient Express.

She outright lies to the Doctor at the end of this episode. Telling the Doctor that Danny didn’t want her traveling with him, a blatant lie. At this moment there is a clear change in their relationship, now the Doctor is just a medium to get her fix, the needle holding the drugs so to speak. We’ve seen their relationship deteriorate over the last two episodes, though it was clear that they were still quite friendly with each other. Especially on the Doctor’s part; his treatment of Clara appears to be as close to caring as this incarnation can get to a single person. But Clara too seemed friendly with the Doctor. She was happy when she thought he approved of her boyfriend, showing she cared about what he thought of her. She also put up with any insults he, albeit unassumingly, spewed at her. I had thought she was doing this, because she was looking past the Doctor’s new rocky exterior and into the kind heart that still existed underneath. I thought she was still trying to be friends with him. But is it possible that she was just doing this so she could keep traveling in the TARDIS? I’m inclined to think not given that a main point of Deep Breath (this series’ opener) was to re-establish the Doctor and Clara’s relationship. Yes, this series has been making a point that the two now have a rockier relationship, but it hasn’t been an uncaring one.

Instead, I think the show is going to a far more interesting place and that place is addiction. The idea that someone could become addicted to life with the Doctor isn’t new. We’ve seen this happen with past companions, most recently Rose Tyler and Amy Pond, to an extent. The difference this time around is that the show is playing up this addiction and portraying it with symptoms we’d recognize from real life. Doctor Who is considered a family show (with a considerable amount of child viewers), which makes it unlikely that we’d ever actually see an actual drug addict on the show and that makes this likely the closest we’ll ever get to seeing it tackle addiction.

The question is, has there been enough leading up to this moment of admission to make it seem realistic that Clara would have such an addiction? I think yes. We know that Clara can be quite manipulative and that she’s been lying (up until this point really to Danny only) to continue traveling with the Doctor. In The Caretaker’s pre-title sequence, we even see Clara admit that she can’t do this jumping back and forth between lives anymore, but then she reassures herself that yes she can. Later on, she admits to Danny that the reason she travels with the Doctor is because she wants to see all the amazing places in the universe. This suggests that when she reassured herself earlier in the episode it was because she didn’t want to give up traveling, despite the fact that it was causing her pain and hardship. And, of course, Clara wasn’t going to start traveling full time to avoid this, because she likes having that control in her life. On the one hand, she needs that normal life, but, on the other hand, she also needs those adventures with the Doctor. It’s also worth noting that Clara’s never had to really deal with the idea of giving up her second life until she acted impulsively at the end of Kill the Moon. This was the first time she actually had to think about  whether she could give up traveling and clearly the answer was no.

With only four episodes left this series and still no word on how long Clara will remain on the show, it doesn’t seem likely that we’ll see this idea developed too deeply. However, this series already has shown a number of symptoms of addiction and, due to Danny’s ultimatum that he and Clara would be done if she lied to him, it seems we’ll also be shown the destruction that addiction can cause.

All I know is  that the idea of a companion being addicted to their travels with the Doctor is extraordinarily interesting and I can’t wait to see where  the show takes it. Bring on Flatline!

New York Comic Con-

And so end another New York Comic Con. And what a fantastic con it was. I spent Saturday and Sunday creeping around the Javits Center in NYC surrounded by Captain Americas, Supermen, Spidermen, Black Widows, Doctors, anime characters and geeky shirts. Basically, I was in heaven.

I’ve found the geek community to be very accepting as a whole, but, like any community, it has some unfortunate tendencies. I was happy to see that a large number of panels and groups were trying to combat these during NYCC. The Mary Sue hosted two panels, one on female representation and the other on minority representation, MoviePilot hosted one on female representation, Geeks Out hosted a panel talking about queer representation and the large queer geek community and Marvel continued its annual Women of Marvel panel, to name just a few. What made me even more happy was that diversity and it’s importance was mentioned in panels that weren’t specifically about diversity.

I attended the Axel In-Charge panel, moderated by Axel Alonso who is the editor-in-chief of Marvel comics and he made it very clear that Marvel is thinking about diversity. He mentioned that an important part of the Marvel Now comics was to showcase the world outside our window and that means including all the people who make up that world. Mr. Alonso made a good point in saying that the reason comics like Ms. Marvel sell is because they appeal to everyone. Diversity doesn’t get in the way of telling a good story. Many complain that adding in all these minority characters distracts from the story and they’d rather have a good story than a diverse one, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Ms. Marvel is a shining example of why this is simply not true.

Speaking of which, the Women of Marvel panel was my favorite panel from last year and is, once again, my favorite panel from this year. The stage was filled to capacity with some eighteen or so women and, as one member of the audience commented, it was a wonder the stage didn’t “buckle under so much awesomeness.” It was also a joy to see how many different parts of production these women worked in; there were artists, writers, editors, photographers and social media specialists. As always happens at this panel, there were unveilings of new female lead comics coming out. This included Gamora (of the Guardians of the Galaxy), a new Black Widow YA novel and a surprise that we had to go to the Spider-verse panel to find out about. Well, you can guess what was the next panel I went to.

But before that, I’d like to talk about something I heard someone say on my way out of Artist’s Alley later that day. He said, and I quote, “I knew that once the questions started in the Women of Marvel panel it was going to go all feminist.” First, duh! It’s the Women of Marvel panel, a panel specifically about female representation at Marvel and about the treatment of women working there and the characters. Of course, things were “going to go all feminist.” Second, you say it like it’s a bad thing! Oh no, they want equality for all genders. What a terrible thing! Not only that, but none of the questions broke any of the points of real feminism. By which I mean, no one insinuated that women are stronger than men, no one said anything that transgender women weren’t really women. Everything was about women (all women) getting equal treatment to men. This guy didn’t sound like a bad person, nor did he sound misogynistic, but I do think he’s misguided about what feminism actually is. That seems to be a really big problem today. It is our job, as feminists and as humans, to let people know what feminism really is.

Onto that Spider-verse panel, then. There were two big reveals that the women of Marvel had hyped us up for. One, Silk is going to get her own ongoing series. What you’ve never heard of Silk? Well, that’s because she’s a new character first appearing in Amazing Spider-man. The bigger reveal was something I have been waiting for since I read Edge of Spider-verse #2 and that’s a series for Gwen Stacy as Spider Woman. The series is titled Spider-Gwen (not my favorite title, but what are you going to do) and it starts in February. If you haven’t read Edge of Spider-verse #2, you need to. It was a superbly written story that introduced this alternate universe Gwen so well. There will be a reprint and I suggest you run to your comic shop and pick it up. It’s also great to hear that Marvel was getting so many people asking for Spider-Gwen and that they listened. That alone says a lot about the publisher.

All in all, it was a really good comic con and I’m proud of where comics are heading.

Sexism in DC Comics shirts?

Recently, there have been articles surfacing around the internet about sexist DC Comics t-shirts. I found out about this through Yahoo, I know this is not the most reliable news source, but I already knew that this had caused a controversy and figured that if they showed pictures of the shirts I could come to conclusions myself. And so, I dove in and read the article, but what grabbed my attention more than the article was the comments section. I didn’t see one comment that said, yes, these (or some of these shirts) are, or even might be to some women, offensive. Many comments said that if you don’t like the shirts, then don’t buy them. And they do have a certain point there.

However, there were more comments, basically all of them, that blamed feminists for going crazy over these shirts and that political correctness (or PC) was out of control. All these comments told feminists and people who apparently have nothing better to do than “whine” and “make trouble” with posts like that article that they need to lighten up.

There were a few comments that mentioned that feminists often forget about reverse-sexism (i.e. sexism towards men) and that the feminist movement has often not been inclusive to transgender women; both points are true, but these points were buried in mountains of hateful comments.

And so, I am going to give my views on the T-Shirts:

This shirt reads: Training To Be Batman’s Wife-

My take: I’d say this is an offensive shirt to both men and women, but before you attack me, let me explain. I think this is more obviously offensive to women, because it does imply that she’s training just to meet a man’s expectations. The people in the comments argued that she is trying to meet Batman’s expectations and he’s definitely not your average joe. He’s the caped crusader, the dark knight. He’s a hero and a pretty darn good one at that. But even so, should I really be training just to meet his expectations? Shouldn’t a woman be training to better herself, because she wants to be better?

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to get married; I think we can all agree with that, but if that ‘s the case then why isn’t there a shirt out there that says “Training To Be Wonder Woman’s Husband” or, if we want to keep this in the bat family, “Training To Be Batgirl’s Husband”. And this is where I think the shirt is actually offensive to men. Honestly, what’s wrong with being a woman’s husband? I’ve never seen a shirt that says anything along the lines of I want to be (insert strong female character’s name here)’s husband or anything that advocates marriage to boys. However, I’ve seen plenty of those shirts for girls. Let’s not forget about all the husband’s out there and let’s not forget to remind boys that it’s fine to get married, great even. It’s also okay to marry a powerful woman, it doesn’t mean that you are weak. For all the people in the comments talk about reverse-sexism and how it’s okay to be the muscly guy, they never mention that it’s also okay to not be and that the powerful guy can easily marry a powerful girl.

The T-Shirt: (from dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com)

My view: Okay, you can totally defend this saying that Superman’s scoring, because of how much of a catch Wonder Woman is and I totally agree, that she’s a catch and that this shirt can come off as saying that. But there’s also the “Superman Does It Again” bubble and that feels, at least to me, that they’re trying to take the spotlight off of Wonder Woman and more onto how great Superman is that all the women just want to be with him. It has also come to my attention, through a comment on a video that I’m going to post the link to at the end of this article, that this is an actual image from DC comics. I don’t keep up on the New 52 and didn’t realize that there was a romance going on between Superman and Wonder Woman. But apparently this image has been photoshopped. Originally, Wonder Woman had lassoed Superman and pulled him in for the kiss, which I think makes the image a bit more egalitarian. This shirt isn’t too bad, though I wish they’d kept the original image and taken out the “Superman Does It Again.”

The T-Shirt: One, made for girls, reads: I Only Date Heroes. The second, made for boys, reads: Future Man of Steel-

I think the real problem here is that there’s no boys shirt that reads “I Only Date Heroines” and there’s no girl shirt that reads “Future Wonder Woman (Bat Woman, Bat Girl, Rogue, Storm, Shadowcat or any other female hero). I’ve got no problem advocating girls have high standards for their men, and superheroes are about as high standards as you can get, but guys can also worry about dating heroines. It really doesn’t make guys look weaker if they date (or marry) strong women and I feel that our society never really emphasizes that.

This last shirt isn’t a superhero shirt, but it was mentioned in the article and it’s been something that really gets under my skin. The T- Shirt: says something akin to Things I’m good at, then has check of boxes that are all hobbies and then the one not checked off box is math.

My issue with these shirts is twofold. While the Yahoo article tried to make these shirts out as only being made for girls, this is simply not true. There are both male and female versions of this t-shirt. My issue with the two versions is that those hobbies that are checked off are pretty sexist. The girls shirts have shopping, dancing and other traditionally “girly” activities checked off and the boys shirts have sports, video games and other traditionally “masculine” activities checked off. These hobbies aren’t gender specific and they shouldn’t be publicized as so.

My second problem with this shirt has nothing to do with gender, but with how the math box isn’t checked off. Why are we teaching kids that they shouldn’t like math? Why are we telling them to come in with preconceived notions that they will hate this subject? And this isn’t just portrayed on clothing, but also in nearly every kids TV show that deals with school. We shouldn’t teach kids to hate math. One, it’s important and extraordinarily relevant to life. Two, what about the kids who like math? Now, they feel like there’s something wrong with them.

The following is a link to another take on the t-shirts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atAUmEs_y2I&list=PLbJLdNevuk5hr5pyRDohPwrivNfXCDdt8

And the yahoo article: https://www.yahoo.com/style/sexist-superhero-t-shirts-cause-controvery-98910258588.html

Happy Banned Books Week!

It’s one of my favorite weeks of the year, Banned Books Week! This is the week where people bring attention to the fact that people are still trying to ban books due to something they think is inappropriate. In doing so, they attempt to censor ideas and knowledge, something that should never be taken away. It doesn’t matter how explicit or  how “inappropriate” something is, no one has the right to censor ideas. The same goes for if a book is bad; for instance, Twilight is a misogynistic and poorly written book, but I have absolutely no wish to ban it. It can still be learned from and I have ABSOUTELY no right to tell others what they can read.

So, in honor of this week, I thought I’d point out some books that have been frequently attacked and/or banned, and I’ll share my views on them.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn By Mark Twain- Kind of the classic example of a banned book, but for good reason, because people still try to ban it today! Today, people don’t try to ban it because of how it talks about slavery, but because of it’s many uses of a certain word, I think you all know what I’m talking about. Yes, people still don’t understand satire or that the word is used to further the novel’s point.

Frankly, I think Huck Finn is a overrated. It meanders along and the last third could easily be taken out with the message of the book still realized as it is with that part left in. However, what the book tries to do is admirable and it is certainly worth the read.

The Great Gatsby By F. Scott Fitzgerald- This is one of those books where I’m not sure why people try to ban it. Could it be for drinking or smoking, things that happened all the time in the 20s and still happen all the time today, or for the implied suicide, which isn’t even explicitly stated and is an important topic that needs to be discussed?

Again, I’d say Gatsby’s overrated. It’s a nice read, enjoyable, and I appreciate Fitzgerald’s writing style and the idea’s about America that he suggests, but where Fitzgerald fails is in creating realistic characters. Each character is stripped of any personality that doesn’t conform to their specific symbol and thus becomes flat. As far as presenting an idea, Gatsby’s a winner, but as for creating a compelling narrative, well, it falls flat.

American Psycho By Brett Easton Ellis- This is a gruesome, horrific, overly violent book. But that’s the point. This is a case of people once again not understanding satire. No, I would not give this book to a four year old or even a twelve year old, but that doesn’t mean no one should be able to read it. This book talks about consumerism, social hierarchies and mental disorders. It is thoughtful in it’s violence, using it to make a larger point about the world we live in.

This book is amazing for all the reasons listed above. I’d call it a modern classic, commenting on the darkness in modern society. I’d recommend this to anyone, but my warnings of how incredibly graphic this book is should not be taken lightly. I had to skip some scenes due to how gruesome they got. If you do this, you won’t miss much of the plot or the message of the book, so even if you’re a little squeamish you should definitely pick this book up.

The Sun Also Rises By Ernest Hemingway- I can only assume that people want to ban this book because of all the drinking and sex that’s in it, but those people are completely missing the point of the book. This is a “lost generation” book, of course it’s going to include sex and drinking. It’s making a point about the society of that time! Those ideas are still incredibly relevant to today and to suggest that we shouldn’t read this because it involves two things that are highly prevalent in our own society, probably more so than they were at the time this book was written thanks to television, movies and advertising, is ludicrous.

Hemingway’s style is so succinct and yet he captures such emotion; it’s truly incredible. This book is, for me, what Gatsby could have been. Hemingway gets his point across very well, but doesn’t sacrifice characterization for the sake of symbolism. This is a great introduction to a classic writer.

If you want to know more about Banned Books Week, check out http://www.bannedbooksweek.org/. You’ll be incredibly surprised at what people try to ban.

Doctor Who- Listen (8.04): Was There A Monster? And Is The Rational Explanation Always Right?

(Spoilers for Listen)

After a lighthearted romp in Sherwood Forest, Doctor Who returned Saturday with a dark, psychological and all together different tale. Mr. Moffat gave us a ‘Blink’-like tale in that this episode worked outside the usual Doctor Who format and explored how very normal things can be terrifying. But ‘Listen’ is far from a ‘Blink’ rehash; in fact, I think it goes a step beyond it’s predecessor in it’s analyses of fear and use of a monster.

Actually, the “monster” of this episode is half the fun, because it’s really quite debatable as to whether there actually was one. We’re given a number of seemingly supernatural occurrences, a word mysteriously written on a chalkboard, a nightmare that everyone has, a TV that turns on and off all on it’s own and most interestingly a blanket covered monster sitting on a child’s bed, and each one is given a rational explanation. The point of the episode seems to be that the fear is all in our heads, but does that mean there was no creature? Was everything the Doctor said wrong? Are we simply rationalizing?

On one hand, yes, everything eerie that happened in ‘Listen’ could be explained. Some easily, like the pipes of the ship creating a howling kind of sound, and some not so easily, like that shape sitting on Rupert Pink’s bed. The latter is what’s causing doubt in my mind that there wasn’t a monster. The only answer the show gives us, and the only answer with any logic behind it, is that one of Rupert’s friends had covered himself in a sheet and set out to scare Rupert. But even this answer is far fetched. Would a child really have not given himself away, especially when he noticed there were two adults in the room? Could he have entered the room so quietly and without being noticed? Could he have exited as quickly as he did? And what of that blurry figure we saw when the sheet came off? That most certainly didn’t look like a child, at least not a human one.

So I must ask myself, am I merely rationalizing? Do I just not want to believe in a monster so badly that I am ignoring the plain and obvious facts? As Sherlock Holmes said, “…when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”, but eliminating the impossible is not as easy as Holmes made it seem. There are parts of us that just want to believe in the impossible, that want to indulge our fantasies and this clouds our minds from being the rational machines that Holmes was. This is especially true when concerning a show like Doctor Who, which is quite literally made up of our wildest fantasies.

In the world of the show, a monster hiding under our bed is a real possibility, but in the real world, not so much. Or is it? I’m not suggesting that our world is filled with supernatural creatures, but what I am suggesting is that we rationalize far too much. As the Eighth Doctor said, we humans are always “…seeing patterns in things that aren’t there.”, which made me start to think, just how much do we disregard in our daily lives just to keep up a masquerade of normalcy, just so things don’t get out of our comfort zone.

If you say that the monster in ‘Listen’ doesn’t exist are you living in more of a fantasy world than the show? After all, when the facts are all laid out for us, the probability is that a child wouldn’t be able to keep up that charade nor move that quickly or quietly. Could the monster really be the logical answer?

But, on the other hand, it’s so easy to believe in the unknown, that is why we are scared of the dark. It’s easy to not look for logical answers and to just accept what we’re either told or what pours out of our imaginations. The key in the situation of ‘Listen” and in real life is to find a balance between our imaginations and logic. Sinking in too deeply into either side has terrible consequences; too much imagination and you’re trapped in a delusion, but too much logic and you’re stale as an old piece of bread and, in a way, trapped in delusion as well, since your need to have a rational explanation can prevent you from actually seeing the truth.

I fear the latter may be my problem concerning this episode. I so badly don’t want it to be a monster, or at least I didn’t, that my perceptions have likely been so knocked off balance that I’ll never be able to come to a definitive conclusion. But this is a TV show we’re talking about and that’s okay; what isn’t okay is deluding yourself in real life when the answer is actually right in front of you.