Yay. So I’ve corrected earlier blunders, and it looks like macbean and folklores are doing a good job at discussing several points re: Sarah without my butting in…
Also, I’m on a smoke break and therefore this is totally legal tumbling. Now back to the archives. (Don’t smoke kids, its a…
Oooh okay yes I see what you meant now. Believe me, I understand about points getting away from you when you’re having a good rant. I’m far too used to seeing fandom jump on any weakness in a woman as instantly making her a Bella Swan type or the opposite where a woman isn’t a good character unless she has flamethrowers for arms or something. Being ridiculous but you get what I meant, I think.
But we definitely do agree on that! If I didn’t think Sarah had potential or wasn’t her own person, I wouldn’t be so confused/irritated. I do hope either way if she’s going to stay, they give her some good screentime.
It’s almost 8:45 in the morning, I haven’t slept yet tonight, I’ve been writing this since about 6, and now I’m too effin’ tired to proofread it. I hope it makes some kind of sense.
Iiiiinteresting… There’s a discussion going on at findingsherlock about … well, lots of things,…
I just want to address something that bothers me in the tone of this post. I don’t think saying Sarah is the “Bella Swan” type is at all fair. Yes, it’s true, people handle danger and recovery in different ways but to say someone that can’t is somehow lesser bothers me immensely. I’d rather not pull danger cards in this discussion and compare experiences, because my own would have me putting John and Sherlock under restraining orders after all. There’s nothing wrong, at all, with being the sort of person who thinks they’re idiots or a danger. It doesn’t make her a lesser character if she does. (I dunno I get annoyed at fandom’s need to have women characters be ACTION BADASS so forgive me for being sore on this point. And I hate Bella Swan but really, there’s a middleground.)
And the thing is, maybe it is a different strokes thing. I read all this and I disagree with every single point still. I didn’t see John as the hero in all that. I saw John go from someone amazing, who in stress and when someone is in danger - that’s a key thing here and something Sherlock pointed out - manages to keep perfect ease suddenly flail. We don’t have a basis for John suddenly failing to be that way around women and so far he has yet to treat them as though they’re foreign animals of great beauty like he sometimes did in original canon. It’s also worth noting Watson was a notoriously unreliable narrator and his going on about women and how good he is does not actually equal success. ANYWAY. Not the main point here.
The thing is, John hasn’t been sexist or anything except in The Blind Banker, which Gatiss openly admitted that due to time issues, he and Moffat didn’t play around with it much. Another writer came in and did a lot of work on it. He’s been a sort of cute flirt but not the sort of level in TBB that I find out of character for him. Just because he’s a flirt doesn’t mean he has to be a jerk.
What I’m getting at I guess is that it’s fine if Sarah is cool and neat. She did settle fine against Sherlock and didn’t let John into her bed just because he was being whiny. That’s good! But to me, it still doesn’t add up and I don’t like that we have to speculate in the first place about all this. Again I see a huge difference in the tone of the various scenes, with most of it being playful and Sarah being more amused by the antics, nothing serious, which changes when it does become serious. The laugh seemed more terrified than anything.
I’m not saying why isn’t she sobbing all over the place or something. I’m wondering what happened after because the disconnect, to me, is huge. It isn’t the speed. it’s her being with John still. I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this subject, unfortunately. I do like Sarah well enough in theory. I don’t think she’s badass or incredible. I think she’s pretty normal. And that’s fine. If they do more with her and develop her, then we’ll see.
And honestly, I’m inclined to completely disregard The Blind Banker as canon. Nobody in it really acts like they ought to: the most egregious example is near the end, when John’s…
Yes! Ugh, even without the racefail of Blind Banker, I can’t stand how John acts in it. Not to mention when the gun is pulled on him when he opens the door, he acts baffled and a little, I don’t know, nothing like John in that situation. And yes John does flirt a bit but I really can’t imagine him shouting how he wants to get off with his date so much.
But thank you for adding a lot of good points on Sarah. I don’t know many people who would be happy with the treatment she put up with in BB. Their relationship starting as John being that cute guy who can’t be bothered to do his job doesn’t win any points, either.
Sarah in The Great Game is definitely better in her very very limited scene but still worrisome from what she’s coming off of? As much as I’d like to disregard The Blind Banker, it did happen. If they do keep her around and develop the relationship, I really want that addressed. It isn’t okay to act like nothing happened. There’s nothing wrong with being ‘average’ and finding the whole situation horrifying. It reminds me that Sally can bother some fans because she ‘doesn’t get’ John’s attachment to Sherlock but from her perspective, there’s a lot to worry about. John and Sherlock are fun to watch but it’s okay to be the average person on the show and not condone them.
I have a hard time being optimistic about Moffat but I do have some faith in Gatiss. It’s a hard balance for me. Though the fact that everyone seems silent on the Sarah front, in interviews and commentary, concerns me.
Actually it’s the opposite. I don’t think Sarah is unworthy of John but rather I don’t see why on earth she should stay with him, in that I don’t think he’s worth her time. She hardly knew him at the time when her life was put in danger. The circus scene was played as a more fun thing and Sarah did obviously enjoy it but it wasn’t shown as having a real level of danger. It was theatrical like the performance itself. When she’s in the flat with John and Sherlock, it’s still fun and not really ‘real.’ It’s playing detective and laughing over it in the kitchen.
The kidnapping was much, much more serious and I’m rather concerned for how she recovered from it. Suffice to say, though, I’m not sure why she would want to stay with John after that. She can be cool or badass without having to take that. That’s my concern. Maybe if she’d known John a while, then I could understand. But I don’t like that apparently everything is fine and dandy after what she went through because of John and Sherlock.
I don’t know what to think of her because she’s barely shown and I don’t like how it’s portrayed. I don’t think throwaway lines are too much to ask for. Lestrade, for being a side character, has gotten enough development and shown to have a consistent personality. Sarah, if she’s going to be a reoccurring character that actually means something to John, should get proper treatment as well. If she’s going to be just someone for John to run to when he wants to relax or when Sherlock is driving him mad, then I suppose they don’t have to bother with her. But it would be a real shame.
(I also don’t like that John seemed more concerned with ‘getting off’ with her but there’s a lot in The Blind Banker that I don’t like.)
If it doesn’t smell like a book, it’s not a damn book.
All of this.
lol so the premise here is that e-books are bad! Kindles are awful! They are fake…
I am an avid book reader. Voraciously so. My parents recall me teaching myself how to read and never stopping. I used to read my mother’s women’s mags and my dad’s management books just because they were there. I have so many books here in Brisbane and in Malaysia, some waiting to be read, and every time I go to the library I check out a few more.
I got a Kindle for my birthday last year and it is awesome. The main reason I got it was because so many of the books I was after - especially ones on sex positivity, sexuality, gender, feminism, creativity, etc - were nigh impossible to find in print form, let alone print form locally. Sometimes I’d be lucky and score on Better World Books (like I did with Real Live Nude Girl) but sometimes it can be quite the effort. A lot of my sought-after books are American and the libraries here tend to focus on Australian stock, especially for things older than 10 years. Often the books are so much cheaper on Kindle form than any second-hand bookstore, and I can get it in seconds, rather than having to wait a couple of weeks for shipping.
Does Amazon have everything in eBook form? No, which is a shame. I especially don’t understand eBooks that are more than $10 since you’re cutting down on all that paper. I’ve had to set my Kindle country to “USA” just so I could download more books (damn you publishers).
But I read books for the content, the ideas and politics and inspiration and information and knowledge and stories. I don’t care if it comes in a zine or an eBook or a paperback or a CD or whatever (well, I don’t really do well with audio files, but that’s a separate story). However I can get it, I want to read it.
There’s no need to be elitist about the method of reading - it’s not like there are papyrus or slate purists out there still. Books were invented to disseminate knowledge; getting stuck about whether it’s paper or screen is rather missing the point.
Oh lord, this argument again. Bolding Tiara’s last statement again because, well, fucking THIS.
Getting stuck in the screen vs. paper battle really is the old CD/MP3 vs. vinyl battle retreaded. Both sides have their advantages over the other, but clinging to the latter as somehow superior because it’s more “real” and tangible is honestly ridiculous. Tangibility is great, but it’s not the be-all and end-all selling point. I like the smell and feel of books too, but that is negligible to an increasing number of people. So the fuck what?
I’ve mentioned the next few points before (via a reblog from findingsherlock but I can’t be arsed to find the post right now) but there’s also:
* Affordability - Borders and Angus & Robertson ignoring the elephant in the room that is expensive physical book prices (especially in Australia as compared to online retailers) and the rise of the more affordable ebook is the reason why they’re going out of business. That, and in all honesty, I don’t own a lot of off-the-shelf physical books (that aren’t new and not second hand from rummage sales) simply because for the most part, I couldn’t afford them. The whole ‘well if you were a true reader you’d buy books’ totally smacks of privilege. My primary source of books ever since I was a child has always been the library - and I was the kind of kid who always got into trouble for reading books underneath the desk in class. As the market for ereaders explodes and there are vastly more affordable alternatives to the Kindle and iPad, just think of the possibility of a whole range of reading material suddenly being made more affordable and accessible to people who wouldn’t have normally thought to (or have been able to) have purchased a copy in the first place.
* Accessibility and Convenience - Believe it or not (!), some people have trouble reading physical books. Whether that be the size of the print, not being able to turn the pages, or just not being able to carry around a shitload of books or wanting to (I tend to be a ‘five-in-progress’ book reader). Is someone really going to care so much about the tangibility of a physical book over the prospect of being able to enlarge the text, turn pages with a tap of a finger/button, and carry thousands of books in one reader? (I mentioned it in the last reblog I had on here, but dear god, if there had been ebook versions of my 600-700+page law textbooks, I would have been on the e-reader bandwagon a LONG time ago).
I think the comparison could be easily drawn whereby the rise of digital formats for books is as critical a moment as the rise of the MP3 for music. Yes it could possibly result in loss of money to the traditional beneficiaries (publishers, bookstores), but it’ll also force a long overdue restructuring in the industry in general. Think about it - how much do you have to pay to make a .pdf or .epub version of a document? And copies of it? $0. It clearly has the potential for more authors to go ‘indie’ in the actual publication process if they so desire without a ton of middlemen and thus reap more profits for themselves. How is any of that a bad thing?
The polarity on this issue is starting to get to me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m really glad for ebooks because they’re helping a lot of people gain access to books. But affordability is definitely still a major issue with the devices and the books themselves depending on the book and publisher when, considering the format, it shouldn’t be. DRM is also an issue and I’m not liking the way things seem to be progressing to make ebooks just as profitable as their sisters. I know, I know, everything is a business but there’s so much potential in this and I see it being restricted, not freed.
Being surrounded by people singing the praises of both paper books and ebooks just makes this frustrating, I guess. I’d love to discuss the practical issues without things turning into a competition of which has better features. Then again, DRM and copyright issues are a big thing of mine and the amazon deletion scare is enough to make me hope people look into the issue more seriously. Ebooks should be a safe, freer method of spreading information, not more limited.
Bizarre Friction-Free 'Superfluid' Found in Neutron Star's Core
NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory has discovered the first direct evidence for a superfluid, a bizarre, friction-free state of matter, at the core of a neutron star. Superfluids created in laboratories on Earth exhibit remarkable properties, such as the ability to climb upward and escape airtight containers. The finding has important implications for understanding nuclear interactions in matter at the highest known densities.
Superfluids containing charged particles are also superconductors, meaning they act as perfect electrical conductors and never lose energy. The new results strongly suggest that the remaining protons in the star’s core are in a superfluid state and, because they carry a charge, also form a superconductor.
"The rapid cooling in Cas A’s neutron star, seen with Chandra, is the first direct evidence that the cores of these neutron stars are, in fact, made of superfluid and superconducting material," said Peter Shternin of the Ioffe Institute in St Petersburg, Russia, leader of a team with a paper accepted in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
- Tell you the name I use off-line at my workplace, because if my workplace confirms that I have a mental health diagnosis I’m going to be viewed differently. I know this because I told one place I worked about my diagnoses and within three weeks they’d…