[Cath Annabel @replies]

Hello folks.  I have been negligent regarding my Whovian interests of late, though I have dropped in from time to time to see what you’re all up to.  I guess we’re all somewhat holding our breath for the new series/new Doctor…

Meanwhile, I’ve got my big charity event, the 24 hour lecture marathon, coming up on 19-20 April, which at least partly explains my absence – if anyone is interested, the full details are here:

24 Hour Inspire 2018

I’ll be having a bit of a ramble about women on screen at 2.00 am, as part of which I may mention Who once or twice.  Possibly.

If any of you are in the vicinity of Sheffield Uni do pop in for one or more lectures, or you can listen in on the day to our pop-up radio station .

It’s all in aid of Rotherham Hospice (they run a hospice at home scheme which allowed my good friend Tim to spend his last days and hours in his own home,  as he’d wanted), and Impact Living, who support vulnerable young people with cancer.  I hope it’s not inordinately cheeky to post the link to our new fundraising page here:

https://mydonate.bt.com/events/24hourinspire2018/459043

Cheers all

 

 

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Overall, I loved Twice upon a Time.  I was more tense than usual beforehand – there seemed so much riding on it, Twelve’s valedictory appearance, and Thirteen’s inauguration, swansongs for Moffatt, Gold, and Mackie.  But it gripped and moved me.  It not being an evil plot, the Captain being the Brig’s ancestor (OK I was saying under my breath for well ahead of the reveal, please be a Lethbridge Stewart, please be a Lethbridge Stewart…), Gatiss’s beautiful performance, the restoration of Twelve’s memories of Clara, and the Xmas Truce – no wonder I was in floods of tears for most of the programme.  Thanks to all of you who have commented here – @pedant‘s remarks struck me particularly forcefully.

Am still processing and pondering some aspects – this may turn into a blog, not sure yet. Will post here if it does materialise.

And JW will be, oh, brilliant.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@ichabod Very moved by your comments relating the whole theme of memory and identity to experience of dementia.  It’s something I think about a lot these days, as we spend time with mother-in-law with Alzheimers.  It’s obviously often very distressing but when one can distance oneself sufficiently, it’s fascinating. Someone on Twitter was protesting that a person with dementia is still absolutely themselves, not diminished, but we have this sense of MiL as being an echo of herself.  There are fragments of memories which randomly or arbitrarily surface, but can’t be retrieved at will, and barely any new memories have been formed for several years now.  When we try to encourage reminiscence she will often dismiss it as ‘all too long ago’, or just refuse to engage.   If her identity is ‘a bunch of memories’ that bunch is smaller than it was, and is fading…

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@jimthefish  I’m inclined to agree with you re the sexism of the First Doc.  I suspect Moffat was taking the piss out of the explosion of idiocy when JW was announced, and all of the comments about nurse/doctor, domestic roles and dodgy driving.  Certainly, apart from the smacked bottom comment to Susan (which is obv super cringy from our perspective) no one has cited examples of the first Doc expecting female companions to do the housework (tho I haven’t trawled through all available transcripts – life is simply too short).  It may be, as you suggest, slightly over-egged, and I’m not totally sure it works, but it was funny, nonetheless.  It could perhaps also be a bit meta, acknowledging that the Doctor is a creation of the time the series was written, and thus not immune to the prejudices and stereotypical assumptions of the day.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Wishing everyone on this lovely Forum a splendid Xmas.  We will be taking Christmas to mother-in-law who has dementia and mobility problems – which means I’ll be cooking in her kitchen rather than my own, which is somewhat stressful.  I seem to recall last year saying to the kids ‘I’m never doing this again, you are my witnesses’ but of course I am doing it again!  We will be watching Who on the day but there will be disruptions, distractions and interruptions so may need to re-watch after Boxing Day (which is my Dad’s 90th birthday, so we will be with my family all day celebrating that event). Will look forward to sharing thoughts with you all once everyone has had the chance to watch.  It will, as @mudlark says, be happy/sad, and I anticipate that I will be a blubbering mess! Merry Xmas and all good wishes for 2018.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Over on Twitter, there’s a virtual book group happening, as people all over the globe read or re-read Susan Cooper’s The Dark is Rising, which is set at Midwinter/Xmas, and comment, ask questions, share favourite bits, and even share their own artwork/music inspired by the book (and the series it’s actually book 2 of).  I love the book, and the series, and it’s truly a lovely thing to be part of.  If you’re on Twitter and want to join us, the hashtag is #TheDarkIsReading…

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@thane *waves hello to Puro*  Hmmm.  As regards the suspenders (or braces as we call them here – suspenders are to hold your stockings up!), the issue is, when one has breasts, whether they go straight down the front of the bosom area, which only works if you are of reasonably modest proportions, otherwise they tend to go one side or the other, which could look slightly odd.  Looks like JW can carry this off, but some cosplayers may find it trickier!  It’s def an androgynous look, which is fine, and largely practical.  @bluesqueakpip Yay, arse-kicking boots!

[Cath Annabel @replies]

I love it.  And I bet you anything it features useful pockets unlike so many lady-garments.   The colours in her stripes are close to 4’s scarf (and OK, yes, to Mork from Ork, a little tribute to RW perhaps).

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@missy @thane15  We will agree about some things and disagree about others, and we’re all going to have to wait and see how it all pans out!  I guess one of the biggest differences is that if I really don’t enjoy JW’s interpretation of the role (or the way it’s written), that wouldn’t confirm for me that it was wrong to have a woman doc, just that this particular woman doc didn’t work too well.  But the main thing is, we all love Who or we wouldn’t spend any of our precious time here, and we can all hope that there are things to love about the new Doc and the new showrunner, and the new series when it finally arrives!

[Cath Annabel @replies]

As mentioned on other threads I recently celebrated my 60th birthday – my sister in law mentioned to me that she’d heard of someone who on this auspicious occasion had decided to try to read 60 books in 60 days.  Since my default response to challenges that don’t involve physical activity is ‘challenge accepted’, I’m doing just that.  I’m now on day 25 and have completed 25 books (or 24.5 if one’s being picky and counting one rather short book I read as 0.5).  I’m doing fortnightly blogs about what I’ve read – hopefully spoiler free – the first of which you can find here:

https://cathannabel.blog/2017/08/13/60-books-in-60-days-reading-challenge-days-1-14/

Anyone looking for new authors to explore or generally things to read might find something they like the look of!

v best to all

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@blenkinsopthebrave @jimthefish I agree.  There’s little more any of us can add, pro or anti, until we can actually see JW in the role and see CC running the show.  I am sure there will be plenty to discuss then, but for now, we’re going round in circles somewhat I think.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Nice one @craig.  We played Wichita Lineman last night when I saw the news.   A gorgeous song, gorgeously sung.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@missy In referring to Social Justice Warriors I was merely using @antaus term – not one I use myself, and one that’s intended as far as I can tell to disparage those of a leftist tendency who go on about issues of equality, sexism, racism etc.  In so far as that is what it means, I have to acknowledge that I am myself of a leftist tendency and tend (as those who read my blog will know) to go on about issues of equality, sexism, racism etc.  Guilty as charged, m’lud. The term ‘warrior’ is I am sure intended in a mocking way rather than in any literal sense to suggest that SJWs actually take up arms in support of their cause.

I’m a bit puzzled about the ‘organisations’ that @antaus mentions (as per your quote) – any examples as to which organisations are being referred to?  As for the ‘sisterhood’, I’m not sure what you mean by that either.  In my experience those who call themselves feminists (both female and male) vary enormously in their views on specific issues, and in their politics generally.  There’s no specific creed to which we pledge allegiance, and what unites us is really very simple, the belief that no one should be treated detrimentally because of their gender and that society (ours and most others) historically (and in many places and situations currently) does just that.

Re the use of ‘actors’ – this is not in my view sexism.  The word originally means someone who undertakes the profession of actor.  Actors (eg on the Shakespearian stage) were all male, and so the word was assumed to mean only men who undertake that profession, but it’s doesn’t have to, and many female actors prefer to just use the term for the profession (see also author, sculptor, and many others) rather than one that defines them by their gender.  Guys – well, that’s just a slang term which may have started off meaning men but is now used to mean people generally.  Where’s the problem with that?  After all, feminists have been told for generations that we should not feel excluded by the use of the term ‘men’, ‘mankind’ etc to mean human beings as the term includes women (except of course when it doesn’t….)

It’s disappointing to read that you don’t want the show to do well with a female doctor.  That seems harsh on JW (whatever you think of her abilities), on CC who’s launching his term as showrunner with her in the role – and on the rest of us, some of whom welcome JW, others of whom at least are willing to keep open minds and see how it goes, but all of whom (I assume) want the show to go on.  I can’t understand why anyone who cares about Who would want it to fail.  Perhaps I misunderstood you, I hope so.

 

 

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@antaus Fair enough, I don’t know to which organisations you refer, and I don’t feel it’s particularly pertinent to the Who conversation.  But if not all feminists/SJWs are bad, perhaps we can agree to work on the assumption that Forum members who identify as either are likely to be amongst the good guys, and focus on the programme?  I, for one, am very much hoping that JW gives us a proper Yorkshire Doctor.   Shame we’ve got so long to wait to see how any of this pans out!

Be reight, pal.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@antaus  I’m with @jimthefish on the use of SJW as a pejorative.   I’ve only started seeing this relatively recently, and I would suggest it is not really reasonable to take for granted (a) that people will know what it stands for and (b) that people will accept that it is a Bad Thing.  Political Correctness I guess most people will have come across, but it is a highly disputed term, so many news stories about things being banned because somebody thought somebody might be offended, which turned out on fairly perfunctory investigation to be entirely untrue.  And as with SJW, if there is a core of meaning to it, when we strip away the myth, isn’t it about not using language, not reinforcing and perpetuating stereotypes and myths about people that insult and diminish them, giving a damn about other people’s values and feelings, just being kind?  As a feminist I’m used to ‘feminist’ being assumed to be a bad thing.  It’s tiresome and depressing but hey.  I don’t agree with every single one of the women and men who identify as feminist, but the core of it is of course about equality and fairness and not about reverse sexism, or silencing men.

We’re on this Forum because we care about Doctor Who.  Some of us are feminists, SJWs even, some aren’t.  Surely all of us want  the show to be successful, to continue to capture the imaginations of children and adults, to retain the loyalties of long-standing fans (I’m one of those, I go back to the Troughton era) and to attract new fans.  If the change makes some fearful about the future success of the show, I genuinely sympathise even if I don’t share that view, but surely all we can do is to wait and see.

 

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@juniperfish I’m just in the process of writing a blog piece about the new Doctor and wondered if you would be ok with me quoting you:

A plethora of girls and women have regarded the Doctor as a role model, and identified with him, over Doctor Who’s 50 year span, whilst he’s regenerated, repeatedly, as a man. The Doctor is still, no doubt, going to be the Doctor as portrayed by Jodie Whittaker – alien, two hearts, both of gold, funny, witty, snarky, capricious, kind, adventurous.

Happy to send you the full draft so you can be sure I’m not doing you any injustice in terms of context etc.  Also if you are OK with me quoting you (and do feel free to say no if you’d rather I didn’t), shall I credit you with your Forum avatar?

Thanks!

[Cath Annabel @replies]

I am delighted with the news.  And there were no dissenting voices when it was announced at our party yesterday – plenty of comments along the lines of ‘at last’, and ‘about time’.  I wish I could say I understand why it makes people so unhappy but truly I don’t.  The doctor is not human.  There’s no reason why gender should work in the same way for a Time Lord as it does for a human, no reason why that should  not change in the same way that any aspect of physical appearance – as well as aspects of personality – change with regeneration.

There is also no Holy Writ established in 1963 that sets out how it all works.  The many writers and showrunners have been making it up as they go along, paying all due respect to the original concept but developing it and building on it – if they had not done so, I doubt we would still be watching and talking about the show today.  So they are perfectly entitled to give the Doctor a crack at further regenerations, or to establish that Time Lords can change gender on regeneration, and whilst we can obviously judge them on the quality of the narrative in which they do so, no one can really say that it is fundamentally wrong.

Whilst I personally don’t have a problem with gender swaps for iconic roles such as Bond and Holmes (if only because that inevitably shakes up and makes one look afresh at aspects of the role and context), I do kind of understand why people aren’t keen on it, or see it as arbitrary.  The Doctor is different, I would argue.

Some of those upset by the change talk, I’m afraid, arrant, sexist nonsense.  [Perhaps my favourite from Twitter was a man saying – and I paraphrase slightly to avoid offence – that the Doctor should never be a figure for sexual fantasy, to which the response from a woman was ‘Mate, I’ve got terrible news for you…’.]   Talk of how the Tardis will now be full of bras or whatever is just silly  and doesn’t deserve debate.

But where there are longstanding and valued members of this forum/family who are unhappy about it, all I would say to them is, give Jodie a chance, see what she can do with the role, and Who knows, you may end up loving this new incarnation.

 

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@thane15 @missy thanks both for your congrats and good wishes.  The party is this afternoon so will coincide with the announcement of the new Doctor!  We will be briefing the DJs (who are good friends and one of them is a real Whovian) to play the theme tune and then make the announcement as soon as it’s known.

 

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Thanks for good wishes, @jimthefish and @wolfweed.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@blenkinsopthebrave Thank you!

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Oh blimey. I was kind of hoping the secret would remain a secret till the Xmas special but I guess that was naive.  On Sunday we will be celebrating my 60th birthday and our ruby wedding anniversary but I guess one or two of us [50% approx of the guests] will be checking our mobiles for news during the proceedings… Just hope it turns out to be another reason to be cheerful!

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Bill Potts. You’re a cyberman. You’re part of a neural net. Can you find her.

@mudlark – I’ve just realised how ambiguous that is.  I heard it at the time as addressing an anonymous cyberman, giving Bill’s name and asking it to find her.  But it’s also possible to hear it as knowingly addressing Bill herself, who is a cyberman and thus part of the neural net – and asking her to find herself, to find the humanity that is still intact.  And the response, either way is the tear, which links us to Heather and to hope.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Yay, we have a first sighting of DEM (Heather) on the Grauniad comments.  Don’t know why I look on there, really, when all the insightful, thoughtful comments are right here.

I loved that finale.  I am so glad Bill got a kind of afterlife as Bill – and we’ve all been anticipating Heather reappearing, ever since The Pilot, what with the tears and all.  Delighted that we were right about that at least!  It was slightly messy – so much to resolve in such a short time – but intense and emotionally powerful, and each of the leads had a fitting resolution (if not necessarily a final one – who would want to put big money on that being the last we’ve seen of Missy/Master or Nardole or Bill…).

Re Doc’s resistance to the regen – I am with @bluesqueakpip.  Losing who you are – which is what Bill was so afraid of – and the pain and stress of the change, which seemed particularly hard on this doctor, are enough reason to resist it.  Maybe we are being set up for an It’s a Wonderful Life Xmas special (I’m sure someone else has suggested that on here, but it came up in family convos too)…

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Re all the science stuff. I managed to work in a Physics & Astronomy department for ten years without absorbing even the slightest understanding of what they were all on about.  I did once grasp the idea of dark matter for about 5 minutes but then it slipped through my fingers again (like long division and the offside rule).

[Cath Annabel @replies]

I miss some of the original contributors too – but I don’t think it’s down to a problem with the site or its current contributors.  I’d guess it’s just, well, events.  Life ‘n’ all that.  I post less than I used to, despite having more free time – partly at first it was the novelty of having a haven from the toxicity of the other place, somewhere I could say what I thought not without encountering disagreement (that would be soooo boring) but without being sneered at or ridiculed or told to go away and read Freud or whatever.   It’s also often that by the time I watch the episode, you lovely lot have been all over it and there’s nothing new for me to say!    But even if I drop back to the sidelines I’m still part of this place, I feel at home here.  My idea of home is not a place without argument.  (This year I celebrate 40 years of marriage to the most argumentative man in the universe  and as they say, it takes two…) But it’s a place where you can argue without treating the other person with disrespect, without disparaging their views or suggesting that they’re not qualified to express them.  By & large, that’s what it’s like here.  Anyone can be tetchy once in a while, and some of us are more inclined to tetchiness than others but hey, that’s like home too.

So anyone thinking of dropping out, please don’t sever links, we don’t want to lose your input here (that means you @thane15 and Puro).  It all feels very unsettling at present in the Whoverse, with what we know (losing PC and SM), what we think we know (losing PM and MG) and what we don’t know (Who will be Who).  We might need this place even more!  Long may it be a place where we can bicker amicably, exchange bonkers theories, and generally share our passion for this silly old tv programme with others.

 

[Cath Annabel @replies]

OK, that’s why I LOVE this place.  Marvell, Powell & Pressburger and all (and a film to add to my must-see list, Snowpiercer).  And the episode was stunning.  The suddenness of Bill’s ‘demise’ was brutal – at least Clara got to be brave, and face the raven on her own terms (kinda). I wasn’t expecting it – not like that, not so soon, not so arbitrarily.

@thane15 I was thinking of Buffy too (when am I not), that quote in particular, but also Anya’s death.  Obviously Bill isn’t gone, not entirely, but is she – the core humanity of Bill – lost?  That tear might suggest not, not quite yet. In which case she, like Danny Pink, may get a chance to make her death mean something.

Also @thane15 I thought Fagin when the Master was doing his Razor thing.

I knew the tears were important – back to The Pilot and Bill’s tears – ‘I don’t think they’re mine’ – and of course Missy’s tears.  But had forgotten the link with A Matter of Life & Death.

The hospital reminded me strongly of the wartime hospital in Empty Child, with the ambiguity of whether the shadowed figures in the beds are threatening or tragic (or both) – and the moment when Bill realised that the nurse had dealt with the cries of pain by turning the volume down really punched me in the gut.

As for what the resolution(s) will be, I really don’t know.  The finale has a lot of work to do, and as others have noted, given that this is part of the handover to Chibnall, it would be reasonable to suppose they will not want to leave him with too many conundrums (conundra?) to wrangle in his first season, give him a reasonably clear run at defining his own tenure for the show.

Oh, crikey, I will miss PC, MG, SM and – if she’s really gone – PM.  Soooo much.  Terribly anxious about Who will be Who next – as I always am at this stage.  Reminding self how I felt when CE left, and then when DT and then MS left and how each time it worked beautifully.  Just – it does matter hugely that they get it right.

 

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@pedant Thank you – it means a lot to me that you like it.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

I wrote something last night about Grenfell Towers, in sorrow and anger.  You may spot an unattributed quote from the Doctor in there…

https://cathannabel.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/dark-tower/

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@thane15 @pedant  I did indeed write something about I Daniel Blake immediately after seeing at the cinema.  It’s not a perfect film  but immensely powerful in its depiction of people trapped within a system that cannot and will not acknowledge them.  The Job Centre staff too are trapped – if they do try to step outside the system to offer help that isn’t prescribed, they are punished.  Most of the criticism of the film came from people who questioned (without any evidential basis for doing so) the plausibility of what happened to Daniel, and, most tellingly, of that happening to someone who was decent, hard working and honest.  It’s here if anyone’s interested – written in a white heat of anger…

https://cathannabel.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/i-daniel-blake/

And of course this is not unconnected to the horror at Grenfell Tower.  It’s ‘social housing’, i.e. housing for people who don’t have real choice in where they live, for people whose voices are often ignored when they protest.  There’s too little of it (too much was sold off under Thatcher and the concept became stigmatised – I was in a seminar a while back with some younger folk, very well educated, in their 20s, and one of them asked what council housing was… ) and it’s in poor condition, and when council budgets are cut so are corners.  It’s not that anyone thinks, ‘they’re just povvos, so no worries if they get incinerated’, they just think they can get away with it and cross their fingers that nothing awful happens.  Well, it has, and something has to change.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Here in the depths of rural Norfolk internet connection is a bit wibbly.  So will seize the moment just to say that on reflection I don’t read Bill’s invocation of her mother as a ‘love saves the day’ thing.  Those memories were created by the Doctor, they’re real because he was there when the photo was taken, but they aren’t part of ‘history’, part of Bill’s official story even.  They’re therefore safe from Monkish interference, unlike everything else.   It’s that rather than the love thing that enables her to win and survive intact.   Having said that, I was sobbing like a babby during the whole thing (and mum-in-law doesnt grasp the whole Nobody Speaks During Who thing so was burbling about cups of tea so I may have missed a nuance or two)…

 

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@thane15 I saw a transcript which rendered Penny’s last words in that scene as ‘is it ok if I get an Uber?’!

[Cath Annabel @replies]

The more I read your comments and ponder the more I think the events of TPatEotW (oh, that’s too cumbersome, let’s just call it Pyramid, OK?) are another simulation.  The monks playing with ideas – multiple scenarios, from WWIII to plague to terrorism, perhaps seeing how the leaders react and then changing accordingly, so they abandon the WWIII scenario when it’s clear the three world powers are prepared to work together, and so on.  If that’s so, then what are the constants?  That’s what I can’t quite get a hold of at the moment.  Are the Monks a constant, i.e. is that their real form or are they a front for something else?   Something else that will become apparent once they’ve had their consent …. (BTW we don’t watch the Next Time… on Who so there are probably clues we haven’t picked up)

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@wolfweed OK that sounds entirely plausible!

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@wolfweed Well I did big it up to about 300%…. But no way is Bill 11-12 stone – the numbers must be off one way or another.  I would not want to speculate about her weight either, but she’s only a wee lassie.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@wolfweed Doesn’t that say ‘Male’?  So not Bill’s stats.   I can’t read the numbers anyway…

@blenkinsopthebrave  Yes, I was unsettled by the way the whole sim thing was dropped.  Am reserving judgement till we see the next ep, because overall I did love Veritas and if I loved this slightly less there was plenty to enjoy and at least like a great deal.

Anyone identified any Bowie refs in this one?  I haven’t yet but am still pondering.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@pedant @craig @thane15.  Nice article re Mozzer in the New Statesman:

The records still sound marvellous, of course. Art does not wither. The man sounds less and less marvellous with each passing day. The old pun on a Smiths song title now seems closer to home and closer to the bone than ever: that bloke isn’t funny anymore.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2017/05/years-have-proved-only-thing-morrissey-understood-was-himself

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Interesting to see this update on the notion of a book that cannot be read.  It immediately connected for me with current Agents of Shield (no spoilers, so no more info), but both reminded me of Poe’s The Man of the Crowd which starts off:

It was well said of a certain German book that “er lasst sich nicht lesen”- it does not permit itself to be read. There are some secrets which do not permit themselves to be told. Men die nightly in their beds, wringing the hands of ghostly confessors, and looking them piteously in the eyes- die with despair of heart and convulsion of throat, on account of the hideousness of mysteries which will not suffer themselves to be revealed. Now and then, alas, the conscience of man takes up a burden so heavy in horror that it can be thrown down only into the grave. And thus the essence of all crime is undivulged.

Which is perhaps where we think we’re going, initially, from the account of the Vatican.  Of course it takes a different turn but that opening:

<span style=”font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;”>The Veritas is a short document. A few pages only. And yet, it contains a secret that drives all who know it to destroy themselves. </span>

surely is a reference to Poe? Intriguingly, Poe’s unreadable text is not what it purports to be either.  It’s a real book, “Hortulus Animae cum Oratiunculis Aliquibus Superadditis” of Grunninger, which was a prayer book from the 16th century, which would only be unreadable for someone who did not want to be ‘seduced into licentiousness’, more to do with the illustrations than the words, apparently.  So it’s not really, as Poe suggests, some kind of occult text.  Any more than the Veritas is really the equivalent of the items in Hogwarts library’s Restricted Section…  <i>
</i>

Not sure where this is going, but it’s a nice bit of intertextuality if you like that sort of thing…

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@miapatrick I literally just poured a glass of whiskey after getting back from a night at the theatre, so cheers & congratulations to you!

 

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Like so many, I’ve been on the edge of tears since I woke up to the news from Manchester.  It says everything about these people that for them, pre-teen and teenage girls (& boys), giddy with excitement at a pop concert, are ‘shameless’ and ‘Crusaders’.  But it says everything about the great majority of people that the response was overwhelmingly to help, to go towards the horror rather than to run from it, to offer what they can .  I wrote something on my blog – it feels so inadequate but it helped me to put some of what I feel into more or less coherent words, and I hope it means something to others as well.

https://cathannabel.wordpress.com/2017/05/23/containing-the-blast/

 

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Well, I loved this.  A real change of mood, and lots to ponder on.  Trouble with not having watched till Tuesday night is that you’ve all been bonkerising like mad and I can’t keep up with all your brilliant ideas, so forgive me if I fail to credit anyone with their particular contribution…  The other difficulty is that we are currently engrossed in Agents of Shield, and I can’t really explain why that coincidence is doing my head in without spoilers for those who aren’t caught up with it (it’s far and away the best series yet, btw, so go to it…).

I think what I’ve been pondering mostly is why those who realise they are not ‘real’ take their own lives, if indeed that is what has happened.  If they realise what’s actually going on – that this is part of a plan to conquer Earth – then how do they get to that understanding?  But that’s the only way I think to understand the CERN response, as @arbutus says.

Oh crikey.  But yes, full on Moffat here, and for the next few episodes.  Hold on to your hats…

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@thane15 @frobisher @whisht et al, loving the more, shall we say, tangential Bowie refs!  I had the lyrics of Space Oddity bouncing around in my head whilst watching Oxygen – floating round the tin can, and then ‘Helmets on’ which is actually in the script although whether that qualifies as a quote being so brief and functional I don’t know.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@phaseshift @Thane15 plus any other Bowie spotters – apart from the visual references to Space Oddity (floating round the tin can, etc) I didn’t pick up anything in the script, but maybe another watch will reveal something.  I haven’t spotted anything in Thin Ice either, so unless I’ve missed that too, we have the eye thing in The Pilot, ‘we’re happy, hope you’re happy too’ in Smile, and the quick glimpse of Heroes in the 1977 housemates’ crate in Knock Knock.  Too many to be random, certainly, but probably better to have them sprinkled subtly through the series rather than shoe-horned in to every episode?

Liked the twist on the space zombies and the further development of the theme about capitalism – people as fodder for the corporate machine (literal in the case of the fertiliser, and the food for the captive sea beast, more metaphorical in the space station).

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Oh @phaseshift, I do hope you’re right. I would love to think that Bowie is there in Who, past and present.  I did think momentarily of Bowie’s eye when I saw Heather’s, but I didn’t follow the thought through.  Will be on Bowie alert from now on.

[Cath Annabel @replies]

@littlehouse First, welcome!  You’ll feel right at home here.  I really like your comment on the teardrop – I hadn’t connected those two moments, but I feel sure you’re right that they are significant.

I don’t know about your other theory – there is something of a consensus that the photos with Bill’s mum were done by the doctor dashing back in time to take some photos to give Bill something by which to recall her mother, since neither Bill nor her foster-mum had any recollection of that box of photos being there previously.  But, as we say so often here, Who knows?

 

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Well, I (we) loved this to bits.  Bill is brilliant – funny and gorgeous in a non-bland way, something of a Rose vibe, but not just a re-working of any previous companion.  OK, she’s an orphan/semi-orphan which is a recurrent theme, but I think of that a bit like the convention in children’s fiction going back to Victorian writers whereby being over-encumbered with loving family gets in the way of bobbying off on adventures on a whim.  The companion has to be able to leap into the Tardis, even if they do have some ties and commitments.  But I think its more than that – to have experienced loss at a young age makes them more open to making new connections perhaps.   Anyway, she is terrific.

@mudlark @kharis I definitely go with the interpretation that Bill’s response to not understanding something isn’t fear or anxiety, it’s a kind of joy that there are things to be learned, understanding to be reached for, and that’s something that marks her out in the Doctor’s eyes.

I *love* the whole physics and poetry thing.  And a lot of physicist friends of mine are loving it too.

Watery Heather was genuinely chilling, but with real ambiguity about her/its intentions – I suspect we will learn more.

Oh, how we have missed Who… I still wish PC wasn’t leaving and feel anxious about who will take over the role (as I always do), and unsure about CC but as of now, every reason to feel positive and delighted.

Grauniad has already yielded one ‘Worst Episode Ever’ but overall there’s some love for The Pilot even there.

Allons-y!

[Cath Annabel @replies]

https://mydonate.bt.com/events/24hourinspire2017

That link came out a bit scrambled – see if this is better…

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Morning (or whatever it is where you are) Whopeople.  One last shameless plug from me for the 24 hour lecture marathon which kicks off at 17.00 today and goes on till 17.00 on Friday 31st.  Full programme, including details of how you can tune in to our pop-up radio station, if you so wish, from 15.00 today:

https://inspirationforlifeblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/24-hour-inspire-30-31-march-2017-17-00-17-00/

All in aid of Weston Park Hospital Cancer Charity and Teenage Cancer Trust.  If anyone felt moved/able to donate, we’d be incredibly grateful.

<span class=”im”>https://mydonate.bt.com/<wbr />events/24hourinspire2017</span>

No more sleep for me till Friday night, but I’ll be able to turn my thoughts to Who once this is done!

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Yes, Happy Buffy Day everyone!  I was browsing @jimthefish‘s superb blogs earlier.  Nicked some of my own Buffy comments on this forum for a hasty blog – https://cathannabel.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/a-slight-apocalypse/

Really really want to rewatch from the beginning but might settle for a few highlights…

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Unbelievably, it is twenty years since Buffy was first broadcast.   Who and Buffy – if that was all there was, spooling endlessly on all tv channels, I’d be content.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/mar/10/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-at-20-the-thrilling-brilliant-birth-of-tv-as-art

[Cath Annabel @replies]

Gosh, when one dips in and out on this Forum sometimes one finds oneself unexpectedly immersed – in profound thoughts about the nature of the universe and the meaning of life, and in narratives of personal love and loss.  This one has floored me somewhat.

I can’t remember whether I have talked on this or other threads about the charity I chair, Inspiration for Life. It was founded by a good friend, a colleague at the University of Sheffield, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer and who wanted to make something positive come out of  what was happening to him.  He died in Feb 2013 and we’ve been raising funds for cancer charities (clinical research, treatment, hospice care, and support for young people with cancer) ever since.  I’m very busy just now organising our annual fundraiser, the 24 Hour Inspire which is a 24 hour lecture marathon, with talks on everything under the sun, a pop-up radio station, live music, stand up comedy, an art show and more.  It will be our fifth, and although it’s exhausting (the organising, and then the staying awake for 36+ hours whilst it’s all going on) it’s absolutely joyous, and Tim, in whose memory we do it, would love every minute of it.  If anyone’s interested in finding out more there are some links here:
<div>https://<wbr />inspirationforlifeblog.<wbr />wordpress.com/</div>
<div>http://www.inspirationforlife.co.uk
https://www.facebook.com/<wbr />Inspire4L/
@inspire4L</div>
<div></div>
<div>Anyone in the vicinity, do come along, it’s open to all.  Or you can tune into Radio Inspire on the night.</div>
<div>Because we get very generous sponsorship from the Uni whatever we raise will go to the local cancer hospital (Weston Park) and to Teenage Cancer Trust.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Cancer is so arbitrary and cruel.  Tim was only 48, and had so much more to do, and so much to give.  My mum was only 65, and ditto.  But both were people of immense warmth and generosity who inspired when they were with us, and continue to do so after their departure, and when I am working for the charity I am always at some level conscious that I’m doing it for them.   And this year for Craig’s wife, and for Steve Hewlett, and for so many more.</div>

[Author]

Posts