Return of the Bullet Point List

[regndoft]

- National Poetry Writing Month is apparently a thing that exists. Watch me succumb to temptation before monday. At least it'll be less time-consuming than NaNo (see, it doesn't say it has to be good poetry...). Speaking of poetry...

- Thirteen Ways of Looking at Space/Time by Catherynne M. Valente (is actually prose, but rather lovely prose, so there's that).

- The Guardian posted an article about Why Doctor Who needs more female writers that completely failed to answer the question "why does Doctor Who need more female writers?". So I made my own list on Tumblr.

- Have discovered I'm not as bad at multi-tasking while listening to audio plays as I thought (though I still think I can't focus quite as well on what's going on when I'm doing Other Stuff). So this week I've got a fair bit of drawing done while finishing season 3 of Gallifrey, which has been... interesting WHAT IS WRONG WITH EVERYONE ON THIS PLANET sdfjgllgökjvskhc no.

- Finally applied for Religious Studies at Uppsala university come autumn, with the second part of my current course as back-up. Next stage of this course begins on tuesday, and this time I honestly think it will be less intense; at least if you can measure a course by the amount of pages we have to read. So hopefully the amount of stuff I have to read won't feel too heavy, despite the exam still looming.

Comments

[aralias]

man, that guardian article... why did they even bother to show up? is it because stephen moffat made a comment recently about it? i'm not sure if that was recent, but it popped up on my f-list. if so... that's just embarrassing bandwagon jumping.

and you're right - the article should have been called 'btw, have you noticed there are no women writing doctor who?' rather than trying to be a useful thing in any way. your list is much better. i do vaguely resent the attempt to get diversity rather than the best people for the job - but ia lso think that since doctor who isn't currently getting the best people for the job and a lot of the wimmins who have written for doctor who in the past (a clear qualfiication for writing doctor who now) have been very good - we might as well give them a chance...

anyway.


and i don't even want to read the comments on the guardian article... guardian comments are so surprisingly bad :(

[regndoft]

I guess it's a good time, seeing as the new episodes begin to air tomorrow? Kind of obvious grab at attention in that case (god knows this kind of criticism is abundant at all times of the year if you care to look online), but I guess it attracts readers...

Yeah, and it's frustrating because not answering the question the article poses in the headline means that a bunch of shitheads will inevitably go "YOU'RE JUST BEING WHINY AND WHO CARES AS LONG AS THE WRITING IS GOOD" (which is isn't, but a lot of people seem to disagree with me on that) - as if not being given a reason means that there is none.

Ideally affirmative action shouldn't be necessary, and there are situations where I wouldn't condone it - but situations like this are the reason affirmative action even exists. As it is we have all these commenters talking about how the quality of the writing is all that matters, and that's why women don't write for Doctor Who. Because women... are bad writers? Because tried and true concepts are the best way to maintain a fifty-year-old show? Because Mark Gatiss is Just That Good? Somehow I'm not convinced.

(I will never not be resentful about Gatiss being the one to bring back the Ice Warriors. I can be petty like that.)

[aralias]

i think gatiss is... ok. i've never been offended by any of his episodes - just mildly bored...

[regndoft]

Yeah, that's kind of the thing. Each and every one of his stories I've seen/heard have been mediocre, at this point I just don't understand why they keep bringing him back. :/