Dear Steven Moffat,
Mr. Moffat, I would like to know, has any one ever called you boring? Having seen your Doctor Who and Sherlock episodes, I would doubt that. You don’t seem to like boring very much Mr. Moffat. You do everything in your power to make sure that your shows aren’t “boring” You fill them with explosions, action, and even dinosaurs. And you make sure that none of your characters are asexual. Because, as far as you’re concerned, Sherlock Holmes cannot possibly be asexual. Because that would make him boring.
You see, Mr Moffat, it is not very fun to be called boring. To be called too boring to be on TV. Many people have called me many things. They have joked that I am a plant, they have told me that I cannot call myself queer, they have told me that my orientation is not real, that I just want attention, they have said many awful things to me. And so have you.
Perhaps to you it may seem inconsequential, but it matters to me. And it matters to a lot of asexuals too. Because where TV is concerned, we do not exist. So many people have never even learned that my sexuality even exists. The Doctor cannot be asexual because he has to be in love with Rose and River and Clara. And that love has to be sexual. Sherlock cannot be asexual because…because it would be boring. Boring.
Well, Mr. Moffat, I am not boring. I live the same kind of exciting life as anyone else. And if it’s ~relationship tension~ you want, I have that in spades. I have relationship troubles. I spend hours worrying about the dissonance in my romantic and sexual orientation. I waste my nights worrying about whether the person I love, loves me back. I fret about my family and friends. I have just as much relationship tension as any detective.
There are many things about you, Mr. Moffat, that annoy me. Your sexism, your poor writing, your queerbaiting, your homophobia. But what finally made me stop watching your shows was when you told me I was boring. Doctor Who has meant a lot to me, but I cannot enjoy the show until I know the Doctor is no longer in your hands.
Mr. Moffat, you are a well known man. Your words carry weight and you can hurt people. You have hurt me Mr. Moffat. And you have hurt many other people with many of your words.
I am sorry that you are as ignorant as you are. And I eagerly await your departure from Doctor Who.
With much animosity,
i really, really dislike the trope in fiction that only the assholes, the bullies, and the “villains” can be homophobic. (this goes for any hateful -ism, really, but given that it was prompted by homophobia i’m going to run with that.)
homophobia would be much easier to dismiss if it only came from the douchebags of the population; if everyone ~good~ looked down on it, defended against it; if the line was clear between good person (accepting) and bad person (hateful). that’s not to say it wouldn’t still be hurtful, but there would be that support there of it’s only the assholes, it’s only the assholes.
unfortunately, what makes those comments hurt is that they more often come from people you love, people you’re friends with, people whose opinions you generally respect - your mom, your friend, your coworker, your teacher… hearing a kid in the hallway call someone a dyke might make me flinch, but it was hearing my grandma say it that made me cry.
it’s that discordance - that people who are otherwise very nice, caring, and intelligent can still have ignorant, hateful opinions - that is lost in a lot of fiction. it’s lazy writing, and - it feels to me - defensive. by designating prejudice only to the villains of the piece, the writers both distance themselves (only assholes! not us!) and erase actual experience. you’re not doing a service to us by creating a world where homophobia is only ever wielded by villains; all you’re doing is reducing an experience you’ve likely never had to flat, simplified flaw.
In response and elaboration to this post which critiqued Moffat and his handling of Doctor Who - for all of you who disagree with it, and continue to idolise Moffat, here is a much more general overview of why you really shouldn’t, with illustrative evidence from Doctor Who and Sherlock.
grrr what really pisses me off is that people think that just because we criticise Moffat’s writing, we must idolise RTD. No. NO. There was lots wrong with RTD! I found certain things he has said/written repulsive. But he is not the showrunner any more. Yes, we have to still be aware of the things he did that were problematic, but it makes far more sense to put effort into critiquing the guy in charge currently, in the hopes that things can change. And for all the shitty things RTD did or said, Moffat is actually far worse, ok. He is. And the problems in his writing have been around since the beginning, not just recently, so people who say that he was such a good writer s1-5 and that it’s only recently that he’s been crap can stfu.
man I know I’m preaching to the choir here but it just really bugs me
OK so I like math. Although I’m not a statistician, I am pretty good with math (which is lucky for anyone in the USA haha bc in a few short months I will be using said math to prepare intravenous drug compounds for hospitalized patients… tl;dr if I sucked at this, it would suck WAAAY worse to be you bwahahah XD)
ANYWAY! It should not have escaped anyone’s attention that Doctor Who ratings appear to be teetering a bit. Some people think “eh, it’s not a big deal” while some think that this is dangerous. I’m one of the latter group. And because I have a huge-ass assignment due tomorrow that I don’t feel like doing right now, I thought I’d explain why. (For simplicity’s sake, there are no Xmas specials or 2009 specials included in this data - just final BARB ratings from 2005-present).
OK first off, if you compare the OVERALL numbers from s1-s7, although s7 (in red) looks like it’s a bit low, there doesn’t seem to be much difference … right? Right???? And, truth be told, the only ~statistically significant~ differences (eg, where s7 really comparatively sucks balls) are when it’s directly compared to s1. But … this chart is a colorful mess. A colorful MEANINGLESS mess, because all I’m showing you is a bunch of lines without analysis. Six would probably proudly wear this chart as a coat it’s so fugly. Anyway, this is usually the data people are looking at when they glance at the ratings and shrug it off as being “not all that different.” This is not accurate.
So let’s clean it up a bit!!! To simplify things, I’m gonna compare apples to apples. All RTD-era episodes are accounted for by the blue line (“You said BLUE!!” … “I said NOT blue!!!”), the beginning of the Moffat era (s5-6) is the green line, and s7 is the red line. NOW things start to look interesting!!
OK this is not a calculus class but I hope this shows why math is kind of cool if you’re a total fandom nerd and you want to prove other fandom nerds wrong XD. Look at the pretty lines and numbers!!! Here’s what they mean: see the dotted lines with the equations? Those are ~trendlines~ for the graph. Basically what that means is it tells you, on average, where the hell your data is going. See the equations? Those tell you how fast viewers are flocking to your show (or, alternatively, turning it off bc it sucks and going to read fanfic or something lol idk). And see the (sorrysorry tiny font I knowww) “R^2” value? That tells you if you can trust your trends or not (lol @ those evil, untrustworthy trend bitches). The closer to “1” the better, and these are all pretty freaking close to one which means the trends are pretty strong. (So anyone who tries to respond and say it’s meaningless - look at the R^2 value and hush lol).
So what does this mean? Again this isn’t a calculus class so I’ll skip the lecture on how to calculate derivatives and try not to make this too boring (BUT CALCULUS IS SUPER COOL AND YOU SHOULD LOVE IT GUYZ), but essentially the first number (x^2) is saying “this is how fast viewers are coming/going”.
And this is where the RTD era is strong, s5-6 are a bit weaker, and s7 is in trouble. For the RTD era, the first number shows that yeah viewers were coming and going - but that there was a general trend back up. For s5-6, there are fewer people coming and going. And for s7, the number is negative —- that means there is a trend of people leaving. How reliable is this? Well back to the R-squared thingy I was telling you about - it’s pretty freaking close to 1, so the trend is pretty tight.
One of the big weaknesses here is that premieres and season finales tend to have more viewers, so in this next graph, I simply removed the premieres and finales (which meant I had to remove mainly s6-7 episodes from the data pool bc of the split season). Taking away those premiere/finale bumps in viewership looks even worse for s7 - the number of viewers leaving is even MORE negative now!!!! And s5-6 has a much flatter line too … viewers were pretty stagnant. Again, the RTD era had some swings, but at the end of the day, viewers were coming home. That’s not happening for the past few years, especially this year.
So what can we make out of all of this? Tl;dr, the numbers aren’t good. And they’re getting not-gooder by the season.
(AND CALCULUS ROCKS AND YOU SHOULD TOTALLY LOVE IT!!)
Why the word “stupid” is considered ableist -
Will someone explain to me why the word “stupid” is considered ableist? Because this seriously baffles me.
“Stupid” has been used by the medical community and the community at large to describe people with developmental disorders. My boyfriend was mocked by teachers and called “stupid” because he’s dyslexic. My doctor told my mother I was “stupid” because of various aspects of my autism. “Stupid” has been used to justify locking people like me in asylums, in basements. “Stupid” has been used to disavow testimony given by people like me. My grandmother is what is still medically classified in some places as “retarded” and as a child, was abused by various people in various ways, and when she spoke about it, nobody believed her because she was “stupid”. The eugenics movement is against us “stupid” people even existing, and I consider anyone who believes in always aborting Down Syndrome fetuses as part of this, by the way.
Intelligence is not a measure of character. Intelligence, in many ways, is also subjective. I cannot remember names or act in the usual social way. I cannot hold a pen My boyfriend cannot spell or pronounce things well. My autistic cousin Joe has been taught most of his life how to tie his shoes and he still cannot. Yet, we are all smart in various ways. My partner has a wide array of knowledge, as do I. And Joe is bloody smart for his age.
Insult someone by calling them ignorant, deliberately ill-informed, pig-headed, stubborn. Do not insult intelligence levels. Ignorance is a choice, intelligence… well, it just isn’t. Your capacity to learn, and your access to learning materials, aren’t always under your control, and have nothing to do with your character.
Your opinions do not exist within a vacuum.
If you say something stupid, misinformed, hurtful, bigoted, problematic, or offensive, you don’t get to cry victim when people take issue with it.
You get to have an opinion.
I get to tell you when your opinion sucks.
Under Moffat’s watch the Doctor has morphed from an alien who loves humans and feels their pain and experiences love and desire and empathy to a stunted, child-like and extremely bloody irritating space-goon who flaps about like an injured moth when other people’s emotions are making him uncomfortable. And makes sexist jokes about how women are scary. And wants his married companions to sleep in bunk beds. And can save human lives but does not seem to understand human feelings. Who would travel with this man? He might be zany and charming and have nice boots, but he is fundamentally cold and unrelatable. — x (via draculemihawks)
With the return of Madame Vastra this week, we really should praise the author who had the brilliant idea to create a lesbian Silurian who’s friendly with the Doctor.
… No, no, I don’t mean Steven Moffat, I mean Paul Cornell, who did the idea 14 years before Moffat. http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Sanki