Because some people shouldn't be allowed to have their shit left unquestioned.
Before we get any questions like "If you hate Doctor Who so much you can just stop watching!":
We don't hate DW or Sherlock, in fact we really really like those shows. That is why we're being critical. If we didn't like them, we wouldn't be nearly as annoyed, we'd simply change channels.
Have you got any idea of what the gender ratios are within Doctor Who critique? Most of the people who I’ve been talking to about the issues raised by Moffat (and who agree that there are indeed issues) have either been non-binary/genderqueer or female, and I was just wondering what this said about both our critique, and Moffat?
I don’t have any statistics, but I do know the only people involved with the blog are either genderqueer or women so we have to agree with you on that. There are a good number of men who critique Moffat as well, from what I’ve seen.
I think this says a lot about our critiques! Moffat mansplained before about how a feminist woman was wrong about the victory of Irene Adler in SCAN and how HIS Irene was waaay more feminist because she didn’t get married! Nothing like a dude telling the ladies what is and isn’t feminist, am I right? He praises himself as being a good writer of women when lots of his women fans tell him he’s wrong.
However, I think it’s also relevant to point out a lot of his supporters are also women. These women are extremely loud feminists (like Louise Brealey and Caitlin Moran), but it’s also important to note that a lot of these women don’t think intersectionally and include a lot of discussions such as class, race, ableism, cissexism, etc.
When we critique Moffat for turning a lot of his women into mothers (which he says is super feminist), we try to think about how a lot of women do not want to be mothers! A lot of women do not have the mentality to be mothers nor the ability to be mothers. A lot of women do not have uteruses. A lot of women cannot afford that life. A lot of women are vilified for having children out of wedlock. A lot of women adopt or have in vitro fertilisation. When you talk about women, you have to talk about ALL women, not just one type and that’s what a lot of feminists think about - that one certain woman who is just like them. And that’s the type of woman Moffat writes about and that’s when we start to have issues with him.
I’m not sure if this answered your question, but I do hope it helps?
Is Amanda Abbington getting twitter hate now because she stuck up for Moffat?
If so, then SERIOUSLY?
DOCTOR WHO AND SHERLOCK FANDOM. YOU ARE BETTER THAN THIS. STOP.
I feel the need to comment on this as it was my friend who got partially into this tangled web on Twitter yesterday. As far as I’ve seen, my friend - let’s call her Tanya because that’s a cool name and I don’t know if she’s comfortable with having her real one all over this - responded to some tweet Amanda Abbington made (since deleted) which said something along the lines of “if you’re criticising Steven Moffat you’re not allowed to like Sherlock anymore”.
Tanya said back to Amanda “SERIOUSLY?! I can like Kill Bill and hate Tarantino?! People rightly have a problem with the way he writes women.” After spectacularly missing the point (that one cannot like a show and simultaneously be able to cast a critical eye over it) Amanda seemed to have decided that Tanya was one of these vitriolic hate machines bent on smearing Moffat as much as possible, as did a couple of other Twitter users. They used straw-man arguments, insinuating that Tanya was, because of her criticism of Moffat’s writing, simply out to get him because she could, because she was on the internet, because she was jealous of his success, etc. etc. Instead of addressing what it was Tanya was saying - a pretty banal and obvious statement, that you don’t have to like everything a writer does but that that doesn’t stop you being a fan of their work - Amanda et al got themselves worked up into some sort of frenzy and began making rather nasty remarks.
“No, you can question him by all means but vitriolic hate is pathetic and serves no purpose. I’ve read some shit/on here and been thoroughly appalled if I’m honest. It is so easy to hid behind a computer and be hateful but I/would bet my life if anyone of those people came face to face with Steven Moffat they’d be all over him like a/fucking rash. Criticise by all means but at least have a cogent fucking argument.”
By using the straw man (or straw feminist) argument Amanda Abbington effectively made anyone criticising Steven Moffat or his writing seem some sort of irrational, hysterical troll, instead of what they (myself included) are: fans - or former fans - who have become increasingly disenchanted by his storywriting and character development, or lack thereof. Tanya actually agreed with the above statement - because, duh, trolling Moffat for the sake of it is pointless and doesn’t help at all - but Amanda seemed not to hear it and instead chose to attack “those people” while addressing Tanya’s Twitter handle in her tweets.
It’s a sad but depressingly unsurprinsg state of affairs where criticism is silenced if it is led by hysterical wimmen who know what the fuck they’re talking about. I imagine that if such arguments were being made with men leading the charge, the fandoms’ reactions wouldn’t be quite so outraged. In the past couple of weeks I have read some absolutely stellar criticism of Moffat’s lack of REAL strong female characters (someone actually made the argument that Irene Adler was a strong female because she was a dom. I just can’t with these people) and inability to make a storyline flow from paper to screen, and NONE of it has included attacks in a personal capacity or unbridled trolling or whatever. People are angry or disappointed in Moffat for a reason, and the sooner people realise that and accept it, the better.
I suppose it was too much to hope Moffat’s twitter days (where he responded to critical fans) were over so he could prevent conversations like this from happening, but nope. I guess he was just too busy instead:
None of us were the ones who sent this. We wish Moffat would take criticism, but it’s obvious from these responses he never will. Let’s look at his behaviour real quick, shall we?
1) Ok, so I wouldn’t like looking at a link that told me to STFU either, I suppose. Granted, I probably would take a look simply out of curiosity, especially when the person sharing the link with me is acting pretty civil and merely pointing it out. I wouldn’t make baseless assumptions going off of one acronym; it IS the internet after all.
2) I wouldn’t immediately attack the messenger! Telling them to STFU themselves when they’re sharing a criticism, wow, that goes a bit beyond the pale. He doesn’t even bother to apologise, as usual. (To anyone who may say ‘but he’s joking!!’, tone doesn’t transfer through the internet well. The rest of his tweet makes him sound completely serious.)
3) Just because our title is 'STFU Moffat’ does not mean we spew hatred left and right. We do not abuse him. We never contacted him since this blog started and we only initially contacted him to see if he could clarify where River was ever portrayed as bisexual in the show. Even then, we said our pleases and thank yous and he cried out against perceived slights and insulted spelling. We are not interested in bashing Moffat (this is in our FAQ), we’re interested in pointing out why we’re disappointed in his writing and get other people to see our logic. Our URL is simply the best and easiest way to state our mission and we’re following popular blog naming convention for calling out people in power (stfuconservatives, stfuhomophobes, stfusexists, etc).
4) No one is telling him how to do his job. We’re merely explaining how what he’s doing can be harmful and hurtful and criticising that. Criticisms are not abuse and they work to making you better at what you already do. He would know if he ever bothered to look rather than immediately start his self-defence stance (Not telling him he should’ve looked! It just would’ve been advised, obviously). Alas, he refuses to take criticism unless it’s positive.
Nevertheless, it’s unfortunate that Moffat refuses to even read a single article that tries to explain what is wrong with his writing and how he can grow as a writer and show runner.
Where the anti-crit gifset came from. It’s around 59:00 and it appears he’s joking. However, afterwards, everyone at the session agreed that opinions aren’t that important and can be ignored - especially if they’re ‘negative’.
Again, there is absolutely no reason to not take constructive criticism. It makes you a better writer and sometimes even a better person. Moffat says he only listened to criticism when people complained there weren’t enough gay people in Doctor Who and even then he called homosexuality 'cheeky’ and 'fun’. Why didn’t he listen when others said he keeps turning them into a punchline or not representing them well?
If you keep doing the same thing you always did, nothing will change. There will be no growth and the criticisms will remain the same and that’s not an indication of a good writer.
because criticism never helped anyone improve on their writing
because criticism didn’t make a writer reconsider their stories and strive to be a better storyteller than what they started out as
because writers who don’t listen to criticism but shoot it down (be it constructive or not) clearly care more about the quality of their writing than they do about getting their ego stroked
==> sarcasm aside, because you are AN ASSHOLE: most people who are creative (writers, artists, musicians, etc.) have egos but guess what, if you live in a bubble without any criticism ever reaching you, you are not going to have it that easy questioning your own work and you will find improvement is a slow and harrowing process
or what’s worse, you will lose perspective and start thinking that improvement isn’t necessary and believe me
there is always room for improvement
always
in everything (especially when it comes to your writing, Steven Moffat)
and criticism is there because people are capable of rational, analytical thought and just as you express your thoughts by writing, painting or making music, other people express theirs by criticising your work
who THE FUCK are you to tell people what not to think
a book belongs to its reader, a movie to its audience, a work of art to its viewer
I would just like to say, thank God for this blog. Throwing in my two-cents about Moffat, it disturbs me greatly that he ignores any kind of criticism. Any writer who ignores critism, I can’t think how they could improve their writing. I also can’t see how Moffat managed to get so far without acknowledging criticism in the first place. His writing could not have been that fantastic in the beginning to land him such a prominent job as head writer of DW without some constructive criticism in the beginning.
He had obviously accepted this constructive criticism in the first place to become the writer he is today. But now that he is getting called out on issues within his writing which are obviously problematic, he ignores them and pulls them down. I don’t think is a wise move by any writer to simply ignore things like that.
Another problem I see with Moffat is his alleged ‘self insertion’ within the Doctors character. After reading through this blog, I have come to see why I was so uncomfortable with the 11th Doctor as a character. As much I like 11 some of his lines seem very OOC. As a fan who has watched both old and new who, I as a viewer have come to understand that the Doctor is someone who can and will accept anyone (unless you are about to commit a terrible crime, which even then he’s willing to give them a second chance). One of the lines (I can’t remember exactly how it goes) mentions that River is so emotionally changeable because she is a woman. (wanting to kill him but then suddenly wanting to marry him). Personally I think that the Doctor as a character would have left it just as 'brainwashing’, instead of adding that she is woman.
Overall, I enjoy Moffat’s work but only to a certain extent. There are some things I just can’t ignore :/.
I definitely agree with you on all of these points. One thing that especially bothers me about Moffat’s “self insertion” is the way that he acts in interviews - often, if he’s talking about the Doctor, the things he says seem much more like his personal views than those that would be held by the character that he writes for.
I have created this list because, whilst the occasional quote here and there containing problematic statements is easy to write off as ‘words being taken out of context’, seeing all of these quotes, articles, tweets, as well as some meta on major characters written by Moffat together is a little harder to write off.
Three things before we begin. Firstly this is by no means a comprehensive list, as such I will likely be adding to this post anything new said by Steven Moffat which I feel is relevant as well as anything I missed when I initially wrote it. Secondly, if you wish to link to this post, for whatever reason, feel free. Thirdly, if something on this list is unclear or you would like a further explanation feel free to drop me an ask, however I will not be responding to any hate I may receive so please try and be polite.
With that said, here is a list of everything I could find in which Steven Moffat demonstrates his ability to be a complete arse.
In which Moffat spectacularly fails to understand why one-liners and minor characters don’t constitute actual GSM (Gender and Sexuality Minority) representation.
This is the interview in which Moffat said asexuality was boring, Irene Adler of the original “Scandal in Bohemia” was un-feminist, and talks about claims that his writing of Doctor Who is sexist.
Just one choice quote; “I remember when I was reading that story as a kid, Sherlock goes on and on about The Woman, the only one who ever beat him, and you’re thinking, he’s had better villains than this. And then you click: he fancies her, doesn’t he? That’s what it’s about.”.
Quotes
Doctor Who Confidential, All About the Girl. 10-04-10 (at 23:10 and 23:34)
“And I thought, ‘well she’s really good. It’s just a shame she’s so wee and dumpy…When she was about to come through to the auditions I nipped out for a minute and I saw Karen walking on the corridor towards me and I realised she was 5’11, slim and gorgeous and I thought ‘Oh, oh that’ll probably work’.”
Doctor Who Confidential, Blinded by the Light. 01-05-10
“Part of the mission statement when writing a script for Doctor Who is how bad of a time can you give Amy Pond.”
Doctor Who Magazine, first started appearing online 8/9-05-12 (x) (x) (x)
“What is the base group of people who would run away with the Doctor? They’re all going to be a bit mad. A bit dislocated. Not happy with where they are. Are they yearning for outer space? They’re going to be people who feel like they can take on the Doctor, who’s quite an intimidating sort of person. So, they’re going to be feisty—they’re going to be all those things.”
“I think the function of a companion is pretty simple. I don’t think that’s very difficult. It’s just a question of who credibly is going to agree to go in the TARDIS? Who’s going to do it? Is it going to be a mother of 15 children? No. Is it going to be someone in their 60s? No. Is there going to be a particular age range? I mean … who’s going to have a crush on the Doctor? You know, come on! It’s more than a format. It’s evolved from good, dramatic reasons.”
“Your wife turns into a boat, and shortly after that, you never sleep again and you clean shit off someone. It doesn’t seem like a very appealing prospect. Obviously, the moment I saw my child, that was different, but up until that point, I was thinking, ‘how long before she gets back to normal size? Will this damage anything?’”
“I AM sexist. Women are cleverer, nicer, kinder and better at stuff. Don’t let on or they’ll keep us in fields. FIELDS!!!”
3:00am, 31-03-12. In response to someone asking if we were likely to see any openly gay characters in Doctor Who. (x)
“Canton is nice. Vastra and Jenny are nice. Captain Jack is nice in both directions.”
6:11am and 6:16am, 10-05-12. Regarding what The Doctor would say about gay rights. (x) (x)
“You’d have to explain gay to him first. Then straight! Then why you were still talking when there’s ALL THESE SPACESHIPS!!” and “Then he’d be very cross it was ever in doubt, add a gay marriage setting to his screwdriver and accidentally marry a Krynoid. Again.”
7:46am, 11-05-12. In response to someone inquiring how The Doctor could be unaware of sexual orientations when he traveled with both Captain Jack and River. (x)
“Both of whom are happily bi. He comes from a world where such narrow views seem so ridiculous they’re hard to remember”.
5:07am, 11-05-12. Regarding the lack of bisexual representation in television. (x)
“We don’t acknowledge you on television cos you’re having FAR TOO MUCH FUN. You probably don’t even watch cos you’re so BUSY!!”
2:43pm, 18-05-12. Responding to polite comments regarding the fact that River doesn’t really contribute to bi-visibility if the majority of Doctor Who’s viewers are unaware of her bisexuality. (x)
“When did I say I thought I was contributing to bisexual visibility?? Please stop being rude to me, you have no reason to be.”.
Characters
River Song
When we are first introduced to River Song she seemed, to many, to be a very promising character. However, as more of her backstory has been revealed it has become apparent that she is far from brilliant.
Most of the problems with River Song can be summed up in a single sentence. Her entire existence revolves around The Doctor. Almost immediately after her birth she is kidnapped and brainwashed by The Silence in the hopes of defeating The Doctor. She doesn’t end up killing him, but still she is forced to serve a life sentence because everyone thinks she killed The Doctor. After she completes her sentence she becomes Professor River Song, finally living a life of her own she goes on an expedition to The Library where she dies to save The Doctor.
River really sums it up herself; “When I first met the Doctor—a long long time ago—he knew all about me. Think about that. Impressionable young girl and suddenly this man just drops out of the sky. He’s clever and mad and wonderful and, knows every last thing about her. Imagine what that does to a girl…I live for the days when I see him.”
Amy Pond
There are many problematic elements to Amy Pond. Though she initially appeared to be a fairly progressive character, aside from a fair amount of appealing to the male gaze, by the end of series five she had been reduced to an incredibly passive role. This passivity is perpetuated in her companion title “The Girl Who Waited” which also infantilizes her.
In series six we saw the mystical pregnancy storyline, which basically reduced Amy to her reproductive system, as well as making her a damsel in distress. After this incredibly traumatic experience she has her baby stolen from her and is given no time to deal with the experience. She also seems to regress from the character, independent and looking for adventure, we see in series five. More and more she begins to fulfill the dutiful wife role.
In fact, the only time we get to see any substantial character growth, in The Girl Who Waited, it is snatched from her and she reverts back to the Amy we see at the beginning of the episode.
Irene Adler
Yet again we have a character who initially seems very promising. Irene Adler began as a really strong character, though she is somewhat sexualized to appeal to the male gaze. The major problems, however, appear later in the program.
Whilst Irene tells John she is gay, soon a love story begins to develop between her and Sherlock. The de-gaying of queer characters is a long standing, and incredibly problematic and erasing, trope in the mainstream media.
Furthermore, unlike Arthur Conan Doyle’s original Adler, BBC!Irene does not triumph over Sherlock. Rather her silly, womanly feelings towards Sherlock prove to be her downfall which reinforces stereotypical and sexist ideas about emotions being a weakness.
Irene’s tale finishes with her on her knees, completely helpless, about to be executed, when all of a sudden knight in shining armour Sherlock swoops in and saves her.
I wonder when Moffat will realise that we’re not ‘stretching a point’ to see what’s in front of our faces. I mean, come on, 'More than female, she’s Mum!’ and 'Us parents are WAY cooler than non-parents.’? I can’t tell if he’s actually serious with that last bit, especially since he certainly shows that in his writing.
Moffat is a tweet and a hissy fit away from saying “F**K THIS NOISE!! A GODDAMN WIZARD DID IT!! SUCK ON THAT FANDOM!!!”
“All stories have plot holes but they’re only visible to the bored” Well, by your weird troll logic, it means that you’re story has become so nonsensical that my suspension of disbelief imploded, I can no longer take your writing seriously, ended up shutting down out of sheer self-preservation, and am just waiting for the episode to end.
Either way, its still shitty writing. And still your fault.
I believe his actual response to someone finding a rather glaring plot hole was:
