#people are trying to simplify something that is so vastly nuanced and complex with a billion factors to consider

[beedreamscape]

I'm pretty much the worst person to even weigh in on this topic because I've been partial to Suvi since day one, but in my opinion there wasn't ever a need to explain or justify Suvi's choices/reactions.

Not because she's perfect, never wrong (though in my heart I know...) but because I'm very certain that the people that keep on hammering on her mistakes/shortcomings/tendencies are people that already dislike Suvi (or don't like Aabria very much, I wish this wasn't a topic of consideration but even 30+ eps in there's still people like that around) for whatever reason and gather excuses to justify their bias against her and no amount of explanation will turn their hearts in her favour.

It really feels like a parallel to the way Suvi herself tries to be understood by her friends and yet she fails time and time again.

And people insist on forgetting that Suvi is not the Citadel, she's just one young wizard of the Citadel.

And it's gut-wrenching how much I relate to that feeling of alienation before every corner she tries to fit in: amongst her citadel peers she's othered by her position and privilege, and now by her friendship to a witch and a spirit; between her friends she's the odd-one-out because of her Citadel connections and the nature of her power; and now amongst the witches she stands out by being the face of the "enemy".

I don't blame her for clinging to the little corner of the world that has not made her feel foreign despite the very nature of her presence: in Steel's family whom she's not related to by blood, yet completely by heart.

And it'll never be a fair game. The girls especially are very young and with new-found independence, they're given colossal decisions to make, and that before beings older than three generations of them combined and incomprehensively more powerful and less empathic.

As much as Mirara wants there to be a good witch and bad witch, there's no such thing as black and white, there are decisions and consequences, what one does with the power they're given. There is no right or wrong in a fight filled with so much heart, there was never a world where a fight between Ame and Suvi would be clean.

[lordeasriel]

I really care about your opinion, how do you feel about the bbc show and the way it's going?

I feel like before I give my take, I need to say that I understand the show is its own thing, and while I do wish they did a better job adapting certain things, I understand that sometimes there is a need for radical change or cut, especially when your budget is not super high (which HDM does have a lot of money into it, still is not a super big budget production, so they have to worry about these things). And I do enjoy many things about the show, but my overall vibe is mixed, to be honest. I’m stating this now because people often question whether I like the show or not, becaus I do criticise it a lot, and I simply have a critic view of the things I like, which is why I discuss them a lot and it can be overwhelming.

My main issues with the show are these 3 things: (which I’ll put under the cut because this got a bit longer than I wanted to lmao sorry)

Lack of worldbuilding and loose lore: I’ve been talking about this since day one, and this mostly applies to season 1 because I can’t judge season 2 yet because it’s not fully aired yet, but the show suffers from lack of worldbuilding, especially in Lyra’s world, which is the world that sets everything in motion. I still dislike the fact they introduced Will mid-NL, I don’t think he needed all those episodes to establish something that easily could’ve been done in S2 and because they gave TSK a lot of time, other parts of Lyra’s world suffered considerably, mainly the witches and the Magisterium.

The show doesn’t really expand on those two groups, especially, and I think that’s not good, especially the Magisterium (which they have over simplified by making it one big baddie, or so it seems at least, not to mention that implying a single leader for them practically ruins Marcel Delamare’s arc in TBOD and I’m very mad about that lmao). A lot of the Magisterium plot has that infighting aspect, which creates tension on their side as well as against their enemies, but the show doesn’t really explore that or the nuances of the Church, and they also don’t explore how varied the witches are, and I feel like this is a serious mistake. (The portrayal of the witches is by far my least favourite thing in the show, if I’m being honest).

Dull parallel world (and lack of daemons): this ties a bit with the worldbuilding aspect, but this is mainly about design choices. I think the show doesn’t make Lyra’s world as unique as it should be. On its own the world looks pretty and the outfits of most of the cast are great, but when you realise that Will’s world is intertwined with that, you don’t really feel like these two worlds are vastly different.

There is an odd situation in which Marisa’s fashion feels 30s/40s, but most of the men from her social circle (not fair to compare with the gyptians) just wear plain suits and they look much more modern. And while I get that they went for a timeless vibes, with different eras and styles, Lyra’s world feels like a caricature and it doesn’t feel believable. The colour palette is mostly the same for both worlds (even in s2, it’s hard to tell much of the difference because either the scenes are indoors or at night.) This, paired with the lack of daemons (which has been discussed many times in the fandom) kinda bums me out.

Marisa’s oversimplification: I’m mentioning Marisa, specifically, because she is the one that suffers the most due to this writing issues, but other characters like Lord Asriel, MacPhail, the general collective of the Witches, they all suffer from the writing trying to take away the nuances of them and make them flatter than in the book. Marisa is the worst because without her complexity and her flaws, she simply gets dull and boring and flavourless, and it’s kinda what has been happening in the show in my opinion. All she does is weep and she has no strength that doesn’t rely on a random fit of rage that dies out and she gets upset. There’s some great moments, like when she mimics the Monkey, but most of the time she’s just a shadow of who she is supposed to be.

The show tries really hard to make her a Scorned Mother - right from the get go, they try to makes us see how she wants Lyra, how she struggles with her “bad nature” and how that affects their relationship. There is this lingering implication that Lyra was taken from her against her wishes; they make it seem like being a mother to Lyra is her driving force, the only reason why she seeks power and influence. And that is the opposite of Book! Marisa, who is a force of nature, ruthless and ambitious, with not an ounce of maternal instinct.

She does eventually decide to help Lyra, instead of harming her, but even that action comes from a narcisistic place: Lyra is to her a possession, something that belongs to her, and that she wants to preserve. The show just handles her badly, falling into overused, boring tropes that struck far from the book version.

These are usually my main complaints about the show, and they upset me every episode to the point I’m practically ignoring them now lmao The show does a lot of good things too, making Will less of a prick, restoring Lyra’s personality from the first book into S2 Lyra (so far, please keep it that way), Mary is looking great too. They have mostly a great cast, and they did improve the daemons this season (except uh, there are far less daemons to show because of the other worlds - and the Ruta Skadi daemon change pisses me off tbh).

They do have a lot of interest in the show, but the writing (the main issue to me) feels clunky and childish, with the show toning down most of the themes that make His Dark Materials so special, especially to me (which frankly I expected them to do, but it still stings a bit). They make the Magisterium a single bad entity that feels more Authoritarian-Fascist, than a theocracy (even if they sneak in the religious symbols and rituals and garments, it’s just not a good portrayal, it’s very tame and shy); and they try to justify Marisa’s actions (especially in current interviews, there’s lots of talk about how her background will play in the show to “explain why she is the way she is”). The fact the Magisterium is portrayed as pure evil makes it looks less familiar than it should be, and therefore they don’t look scary, they seem like a caricature, a joke.

A lot of the essence of the characters get lost, and the core message of the story too, like when Iorek and the Gyptians tell Lyra she can be one of them, to support her lack of “proper family”, when that is the opposite of the books message. It doesn’t make sense for them to change that, other than maybe Jack Thorne wanted to because it makes the story feels less hopeless, but it’s why he fails to adapt these character - he doesn’t capture the essence, he tries to write these character with gaps in them.

However, the thing that annoys me the most is how they portray Asriel. It’s just... it’s bad. Really bad, which is a shame cause James is talented as fuck, but he had little time to film for season 1, and then they portrayed him very poorly. That scene when he addresses Roger in episode 7 is ridiculous, Asriel would never behave that way; there was relief in him finding Roger was there too, yes, but not to that extent and not in such a cringe way. Asriel is not deranged or irrational, he is a man on a mission, and Roger was a tool (there is no pleasure in Asriel taking his life and no excuses - it needed to be done and he did it); they just needed him to sound creepy in the show for whatever reason.

I hated how they handled the bridge scene for Asriel, Lyra and Marisa, but that’s long and complicated for me to explain here. In S2, there has been some mentions of him so far, including the implication he might have ruined Cittàgazze himself and I frankly don’t understand where did they get that idea. But the cherry on the top was Thorold telling Marisa that Asriel was gonna kill Lyra and that’s just-- that’s so dumb. That’s genuinely dumb writing, because Thorold knows Lyra followed Asriel to the mountain, and while I do believe Asriel would have killed Lyra if Roger wasn’t there, there is no way Thorold should know or consider that Asriel was gonna hurt Lyra, because Roger was there. In fact, Thorold’s interactions with Asriel in episode 8 already disprove this, so either Thorold was lying in S2 for the sake of, I don’t know, chaos or whatever, or the person who wrote this was a five-star, solid gold, fucking moron.

I’m not gonna mention the lost episode because that was no one’s fault, but the fact that they discarded an episode that all information we have on imply that it was important to set up the backstory of the angels and the city, it’s... concerning. It means they wrote something parallel that should’ve been woven into the season.

The truth is, I still watch the show on Sundays, and I still like some stuff they do (especially Mary’s stuff, so far), and despite me slandering the show per your request anon lol (cause unfortunately my honest opinion is mixed, I just don’t try to overfocus on the negative on Tumblr, I mostly talk about it on discord or private), I do think anyone who has read the books should watch the show.

For me, personally, everything I love about HDM is barely on the show - complex characters, the philosophy, the oppression by religion, the interesting world - and the vibe I get is that they’re adapting a coming-of-age love story, which is the last and - being fully honest - the least important message these books give us, but unfortunately they were set to making a family show from the start, and my expectations were high and unmatched, and a family is what we’re getting: toned down, cute, pretty visuals and soulless (heh, pun intended), philosophically speaking. I expect a certain pattern going into S3, but I always like to hold out hope that they will hire better writers (apparently Jack Thorne already wrote 4 scripts, so there you go lmao), and try to give HDM the adaptation it deserves. The truth is, if you’re a picky, canon reliant person like I am, the show might be a struggle, but if you just like the story for the teen romance, or if you don’t care about overthinking a show/book, then most people can have a good time with it.

[magicofthepen]

Gallifrey Relisten: Spirit

This reaction post is almost 4,000 words long, which, given the episode in question.....is very on brand for me. So here have a whole lot of ramblings, in which I go back and forth between “I love this so much” and “hmm yes I do think Spirit is overhyped by virtue of being The Romana/Leela Episode,” and back and forth between “I will be objective and not get overtly shippy about this” and “I’m definitely getting overtly shippy about this.” 

(Includes discussion of The Apocalypse Element, the rest of Series 2, Intervention Earth and Enemy Lines, also a bit about Time War 3, but only in the last section.) 

Things that are absolutely not overrated and deserve every bit of the hype:

1. The premise

Like, hold on. Hold on. Here we have an entire episode resting on the premise of “Romana wants Leela to stay on Gallifrey so badly that in spite of being y’know, the President of a planet, and specifically a planet currently undergoing major social changes and dealing with evil eldritch beings, the #1 most important thing for her to do with her time is take Leela on a private vacation off world to convince Leela why she should stay on Gallifrey.” (Hint: it’s. it’s for Romana.) 

She also then proceeds to be very bad at using her words when it comes to this premise because Romana is all into grand gesture and very little into actually talking about her feelings. Of course. But in an episode that rests on the idea of Romana as the Rational, Logic-Driven One, and Leela as the Instinctive, Emotion-Driven One, it is very good that the premise of the episode is entirely driven by Romana’s emotions. (Wait. Am I going to talk myself out of the idea that Spirit creates these overly simplistic contrasts between Romana and Leela by arguing that it also muddies them at the same time? .....I still think the “overly simplistic” thing is true to an extent. But stay tuned.)

2. The core emotional story

I’m deeply into Gallifrey for the relationships between the main characters, so Spirit is vastly appealing on that front. 

The central question of Spirit is: can Leela trust Romana? Leela’s been deeply betrayed by her husband, she feels lost and adrift and she’s doubting her own ability to judge people. (“He stood before me as Torvald, and I did not know him. I had thought myself to have a keener eye.” / “But is his the only trust I may have given in error?”) Leela’s doubting her own instincts specifically, which is why it’s so important that this episode has Romana move from being more dismissive of Leela’s instinctive, emotional approach to the world, to understanding where Leela’s coming from and appreciating her instincts and worldview. Leela needs to trust not just Romana, but also herself.

And it is 1. important to explore this! Shoutout to Gallifrey for not brushing aside the emotional repercussions of Andred’s betrayal on Leela’s close relationships in general and her own image of herself! and 2. intersects in super fascinating ways with Romana’s trust issues.

Romana gets a hard time for the “valuable asset” thing, which. Fair. But I think it is important to acknowledge the premise here — the whole vacation, everything Romana is actually doing screams “I care about you very much on a personal level,” and just because she isn’t saying that doesn’t mean she isn’t showing that. Because she has her own baggage when it comes to friendship and trust, and a lot of that does loop back around to “being imprisoned for twenty years and having no one come to save you really messes you up. on so many levels.” 

(Also I have to mention the end of The Apocalypse Element because that last scene with the Doctor and Romana really established how I looked at Romana and her close personal relationships moving forward. Because yeahhhh maybe having the one (1) person who is specifically your Friend (and not your colleague, or advisor, or anything related to The Presidency) go “yeah you can clean up this mess right! cool bye!” after you’ve gone through decades of trauma immediately followed by needing to repel an invasion of your planet....maybe that might make you distrust that anyone in the universe is actually going to care about you as a person anymore, and not see you as The President of Gallifrey first and foremost). 

Bottom line: Romana really, really likes Leela (.....we all can decide in what way....), but also has a whole lot of doubt that other people could care about her as a person, doubt that it’s even worth letting herself be that emotionally vulnerable with someone else, because what if they throw her trust and care back in her face? And so this whole episode, there’s this undercurrent of wanting to trust each other and wanting to care about each other simmering under the surface for the both of them, but they’re both having trouble really seeing and believing what each other is feeling and I love it. I love this kind of interesting, complicated relationship struggle so much, and I love how Spirit has a positive ending, where they both manage to convey to each other in one way or another that they really do want to be around each other. ( “I was so alone in the world of dreams when you left. The wildlands were dark and so quiet. I do not wish to be alone.” / “There will be a place for you with me, for always. Whatever face I wear.” ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh) 

(Sure, the later episodes of the season fuck everything up again, but we are Not Talking about Insurgency/Imperiatrix here.) 

(We are also Not Talking about Intervention Earth/Enemy Lines....okay I’ll talk a little about IE/EL, but only because when relistening to Spirit there’s this sort of elephant in the room with “There will be a place for you with me, for always. Whatever face I wear.” And that elephant is the writers deciding that when Romana regenerated, she would abandon Leela, which...hmmm. To be fair, I have lots of more complex, specific thoughts about what might have happened emotionally and literally in that thankfully jettisoned timeline, but the bottom line is that I was and still am very *side eyes* at that writing choice.) 

3. The chair scene

Oh my god. Oh my god. This scene is actually brilliant and delightful on every relisten, I want it framed please?? 

I think it’s probably iconic because it’s just so happy, and it is so so wonderful to have a moment like that, with the two of them making up a silly story to Hallan about what happened to the window and laughing about it. And it is good! It’s so good! (A side note: Romana in particular in this episode has that “audibly smiling” tone of voice so so much more than usual, in addition to her overall tone having very clearly shifted away from “presidential” for the majority of the episode and y’all.....it’s so excellent to hear, that is such a rare thing.)

Also specifically, it’s the fact that Leela is like ugh this room is too stuffy :( and Romana immediately is like “I must fix this, I need to make her happy” and does something so ridiculous and impulsive just to please Leela.......again, this episode is pulling a Romana Has Too Many Feelings and is acting on her emotional instincts thing......yes. 

“You’re a breath of it yourself in the Capital.” “Oh Romana, nice words will not make me stay.” I’m sorry but Romana’s delivery of this line is so flirtatious? (And Leela going ah no, you can’t flirt your way out of this.) 

Things that are......not good:

1. The science vs. spirituality dichotomy (and how it makes the characters look)

The whole evolution vs. creation discussion thing not only feels too simplistic for the characters, but it also feels like it’s deliberately painting Leela in a negative light? To have Leela specifically going I don’t believe in evolution when the audience is going to disagree with her and bounce off of that....yeah. It also feels like the whole exaggerated ~super in tune with nature, doesn’t know or believe things about science~ thing is leaning into the racist indigenous stereotypes her character is too often linked to.

And on top of that, it doesn’t feel in character? Classic Who episodes don’t stick in my brain that well so my memory isn’t super clear on the details, but Leela was banished from her tribe for questioning their beliefs. Plus she learned that her society’s social divisions were based on misinformation and forgotten history (having more information was important, it changed things for her world). And she was the one who wanted to leave and travel, and also has always showed a lot of interest in learning new things. To have Leela so deeply clinging to the beliefs she learned when she was young, without any of that questioning or the nuance of weaving in new things she’s learned with the old......it feels reductive. (There could be so much more nuance here re: how living so long away from the Sevateem and having to defend her background so much on Gallifrey has affected her relationship with the culture and beliefs she grew up in, but Spirit has none of that.) 

2. The mindswap’s lack of nuance 

There’s a similar issue here with the mindswap, where Leela especially comes off as over-simplified. I don’t know if this was an acting choice or a directing choice, but the over-the-topness of Lalla’s performance during the mindswap really feeds that (the way Romana’s voice sounds so different when she’s “acting like Leela”, while Leela still sounds fundamentally like herself when she’s acting more like Romana — why the difference?). Also, Romana is a lot more helpless and distressed when she has part of Leela in her mind, which again, does not make Leela come off as especially competent (even though she is). There are times when this episode feels like it’s trying harder to put Romana and Leela into these boxes than it is at trying to break down those boxes and yeah, all around I wish there was more nuance.

3. The interrupting of the vacation date, damn it, do you think I care about a “plot”?

Alright, alright this one is not in the same category as the other two. It is absolutely not a valid criticism, it is purely the “I want this audio to cater to me, personally” part of my brain getting disappointed every time I relisten when Wynter crashes the vacation. Specifically, when they’re all alone in the woods together having important personal conversations and Leela’s decided that they’re camping out for the night....maybe I just wanted to hear the overnight camping trip, y’know. Maybe I just wanted them to cuddle beneath the stars. (Also this will come back big time next episode, but I very much back away from horror of Wynter’s mutilation, I am a squeamish person and the Wynter thing is not my favorite plot.) 

Misc liveblogging things: 

“I’m sorry I had to have you dragged here to my quarters. I have requested an audience with you several times on a matter of security but have received no answer.” — It’s unclear exactly how much time has passed between Lies and Spirit, but not too long(?) and Leela’s been trying to track down Andred a lot during this time (which means that once again, Romana’s specifically taking Leela away from looking for Andred....).

Leela scathingly calling Romana “Madam President” oof. (I think this moment may have been what I was thinking of re: Leela only uses Romana’s title when she’s annoyed or angry, will have to note if/when it happens again.) 

“It is your world and not mine. Although I have lived here for many years it has never been my home. And I am unhappy.” I know I’ve said this before, but Leela’s concept of home is very much the people she cares about and hhhhh so many feelings about this throughout the series.

Oof Darkel’s got Romana pegged with the “how far will she go” thing.

Is Narvin......being nice re: Romana having a trying time? Or sarcastic? Or is he just like oh thank god she’s off the planet for a hot sec I can take a breath. 

Brax saying it was him that recommended Romana leave and insisting they don’t talk about it — he’s sooo covering for her, but also I want to know how that convo went....how exactly did Romana explain the “I’m going to take Leela on a private vacation off-world for.....personal reasons.....please cover for me slash be my emergency contact” thing? 

“So I can only conclude from your recent behavior that you’re experiencing a considerable amount of pain.” — I mean, Leela did explicitly say earlier that she was unhappy. Still, it is a really good moment here — Romana saying I see that you’re hurting and I want to help. 

.......and that’s right before “valuable asset” line. You were doing so good, Romana. (She does say friend though! I mean, she says it like it’s an ordeal, but she does immediately course correct to admit that Leela’s her friend.) Also....I’m having some kinda thought here about the “asset” line — how she compliments Leela in terms of her usefulness is icky, but I think Romana often judges her own worth based off of how useful she is to Gallifrey? I think there are several moments throughout the series that point to Romana basing her worth as a person off of her work and how successful she is at protecting her world and making it better, which is just an overall unhealthy mindset to be in (and this says something about the toxicity of Gallifreyan culture possibly but also something about the lingering trauma of Etra Prime and living for decades in a place where her life itself (whether she survived) was directly tied to her usefulness...going to mull this over more, but I think there’s something here). 

Hallan is so awful about Leela, and he goes on for a bit about how he should be watching the president at all times — aka there is definitely resentment within the Chancellery Guard towards Leela for taking the role of bodyguard to the president. And this is mixed in with nasty comments about Andred, former member of the Chancellery Guard, for marrying an alien. 

“A marriage is about maintaining the power of the chapters, strengthening alliances between houses” — it is interesting how more than once in the audios they talk about marriage as primarily a political thing in Time Lord culture (at least among the elite), with love being an exception and something disapproved of. 

The “Leela’s been on Gallifrey for twenty-five years” math......does not work. Between The Invasion of Time and the Gallifrey audios, Romana left Gallifrey, ended up traveling with the Doctor for a while, stayed behind in E-space for a while, returned from E-space to Gallifrey, became President, got captured by the Daleks and held prisoner for twenty years, and according to Square One I believe it’s been “years” since The Apocalypse Element.......and apparently only twenty-five years have passed on Gallifrey? Even if we pretend that no time passed on Gallifrey during Romana’s adventures with the Doctor and in E-space, that timeline is still questionable. Leela has to be on Gallifrey for a lot longer than that. 

“I’ve searched for [my purpose] in many places.” — It’s interesting that Romana lists off the places she’s tried to find purpose, but doesn’t say anything at all about Gallifrey — Leela is the one to say that Romana has found her purpose on Gallifrey, Romana never actually says that. (I have...lot of feelings about Romana’s very complicated relationship to Gallifrey.) 

Romana mentions Pandora predicting that she would rule over Gallifrey, and predicting that Romana would let that happen — Romana is worried about Pandora in particular, and also there’s the implication that she wants Leela to stay to help her hold onto herself and prevent that future. 

Just ahhhh the scene by the fire where Leela decides, after avoiding too much discussion about what she’s feeling, to be emotionally honest: “It frightens me to think that I have spent so much of my life with another in a trust that I believed was true and strong, one that could not sicken, and that I was wrong.”; “You are my friend. I know that, for all we disagree on. And yet, if tomorrow you grew sick, you could throw off your form like an old sheet and be a person I would no longer recognize, not with my eyes nor with my heart.” It’s a good scene!!

The whole “who is the broken man?” mystery is good on first listen I suppose, but I’ve never quite bought that they can’t ID him. Can the Time Lords not do a quick DNA test or something? (To be fair, these are the same people who missed that Andred was impersonating someone else for months, but at least here they actively know that they need to be figuring out who he is.)

The herbal remedy — “The outsiders use it when in pain or distress.” Confirmation that Leela does hang out with the outsiders on Gallifrey. 

“I’ve been inside these things I don’t know how many times and I assure you nothing could go wrong.” Post-Etra Prime Romana trying to get some sleep for once tbh (also okay she does have some healthy coping mechanisms apparently). 

“It speaks to your innermost wishes and wonders and indulges them while you dream” “There is a wild woman inside me” I’m so sorry but did they really not intend to making the sensory tanks and mindswap sound incredibly erotic because

“It is winter here.” *eyebrow waggle*

I do not like hearing stabbing sounds! (Also apparently this season has a thing for Romana kinda sorta killing people with knives.) 

Leela wakes up a bit later than Romana (she stays in the dream space longer), and she says she heard Pandora’s voice — Romana dismisses that, but I do wonder what exactly happened in the dreamspace after Romana woke and what additional things Leela might have heard/seen??

Hallan is so shitty, kick his ass Leela.

I do wonder why the subplot with Melyin and Hallan was included? Was it to introduce Hallan as a character and flesh out the side characters so we know them a bit better when they’re around with the Wynter subplot? (Personally, I don’t enjoy how earlier in the episode they keep cutting away from Romana and Leela’s really important and interesting conversation to those two sides characters, so I’m not sure they needed that storyline?) But there is this sort of interesting moment where Melyin talks about freeing herself from this place where she’s isolated and Leela sympathizes — and yet at the same time is choosing to go back to Gallifrey. There is potentially an interesting parallel here, but I’m not exactly sure what the parallel is supposed to be saying about Leela.

“And what about you? Back to Gallifrey and your husband?” “I am returning to Gallifrey, yes. It is not yet time for me to leave.” Leela expertly dodging mentioning Andred in her response or referring to him as her husband. Actually I kinda want to pay more attention to when she does or doesn’t refer to Andred as her husband. I’m pretty sure she calls him her husband after he dies because that is who she’s grieving, but in this episode she talks about wanting to confront him and hurt him or make peace with him, and in A Blind Eye she was all “my husband is dead” (and I think there are some things in Insurgency about this) —there is a question here about whether or not she still considers herself married to Andred at this point.   

How did the knowledge of events get out on Gallifrey? Brax says if people were watching his movements closely it wouldn’t be hard to put things together — but also he probably knows that Romana needs to return for Gallifrey for events to play out, so it seems quite possible that he essentially leaked the info himself (knowing that the events of Pandora are coming....oof). 

Leela talks about returning to Gallifrey avenge the broken man — in series 2 and 3, she frequently turns to vengeance as something to give her motivation and purpose when she’s unhappy and grieving, but I forgot it came up as early as Spirit ahhh yikes. 

The (shippy) elephant in the room:

(Includes vague mentions of Time War 3.) 

As a final thing, I do want to mention that while this episode has a reputation of being really gay (because yep it so so subtextually gay)....I do always remember that it is only subtext. Specifically in a “isn’t it interesting that other ships between main characters get clearly teased as romantic possibility, but when it’s the core relationship of the show that just so happens to be between two characters played by women, they would never explicitly hint that there might be anything romantic going on there” way. (For a long time, I tried to convince myself this didn’t bother me. It does.) 

Like don’t get me wrong, I adore their friendship and I am very cool with their relationship being entirely platonic in the audios. However, my feelings are also very context-dependent, and the context is an audio drama series in which the only explicitly queer characters are side/minor characters who die horribly (and also only exist in the very recent releases). There are no canon f/f relationships or canonically queer women in the entire series (no, Leela/Veega doesn’t count, they were pretty explicit on that being not canon), in contrast with plenty of canon m/f relationships. This is also why I say that I’d be 100% unbothered if Gallifrey really was equal-opportunity devoid of romance (I really genuinely enjoy the friendship-centric narrative of this series, it’s so good) or even had significant canonically queer side characters, but when there’s such a pointed ignoring of any queer subtext and a general ‘would never ever make any main character canonically queer’ vibe throughout the whole series (I am looking at you Unity) it’s.....hmmm. It just doesn’t feel good, you know? 

To end on a lighter (ish) note, going to talk about shippy things for a sec — so I have many headcanon universes that float around in my brain, but generally speaking when I’m writing Romana/Leela fic or thinking about the possibility of their relationship being romantic at some point, I tend to go for things happening between them later in the audios (ideally post-Enemy Lines), with the early series just being endless unresolved tension. But gosh there is a part of me that’s interested in the disaster universe where they do get romantically involved with each other post-Spirit (because as far as the early series go, it does feel like it has to be post-Spirit, when Leela does make the choice to stay with Romana/for Romana on Gallifrey) because oh god that’s so emotionally messy. (It’s only been six months and change since Leela’s husband first disappeared! We’re only two episodes away from Andred’s death! She’s not in a healthy emotional space to be doing this right now, and neither is Romana, frankly! Especially given what’s going to happen in the next several episodes.....but oof wow there’s certainly a story to explore there). 

This was not a lighter note, I’m so sorry. Anyways, friendly reminder that I’m always down to go on and on about Romana/Leela, I have....so many feelings about them. Also if you’ve actually read through this entire post, wow and thank you??

Previous Episode Reaction: Lies

[everydayanth]

Time is Money or... Identity?

This became something of a thought-experiment paper... I don’t expect many reads here, but I’m working on getting more comfortable sharing thoughts, particularly on the internet, rather than keeping them in my head and getting annoyed when no one wants to talk about them, lol, so here goes....

It started with this image popping up three times while scrolling through the dash:

And then I had some thoughts....Sorry it’s so long. I suppose this post in itself is an experiment.

Things like this, collections of ideas concentrated into a few spectacular people (Renaissance artists, Baroque composers, WWII scientists, etc.), make me wonder about philosophy vs. aesthetic, and if what really sets progress in motion is competition and a group of people who feed off each other’s asking of questions and discovery of answers.

Can we fresco and entire ceiling? Sure, but it will be painful and probably kill you. Can we art better by understanding anatomy? Sure, but you’ll have to snatch some bodies, or let someone else do it first. Can I make music do this instead of that other thing? Sure, but then you’ll be copying that one guy, try this even cooler new idea! Instead of repackaging the same idea into new models or melodies, they pushed the boundaries of known into connections that traversed the unknown, adding bubbles to the collective mind-map of human knowledge and intelligence. That’s what makes them special, right?

I’m currently reading The Invention of Nature by Andrea Wulf, and I’m doing it slowly on purpose, reading all the materials referenced (Kant, Hume, Goethe, etc.) as a personal exercise in understanding a period of time/culture rather than simply Alexander Von Humboldt the person (also, it’s a good book, but the author is very biased-in-favor, so I’m trying to read it in tandem of others who were more critical). Anyway, I’m going through the part where a group of young men require each other’s thoughts as stimulation and inspiration to new ideas, how they challenge and change what is and feed off these new connections, even as they are being recorded by scientists and artists who would become ultimately more preserved in historical documents and textbooks.

And that seems to be the key, one brain questions and answers, another questions that answer and answers itself, and so on, agreeing on very little outside of context, but pushing each other into new territory. It only takes one four-minute mile to prove it can be done at all. But if we’re caught up in the ethics of how to question and answer, then aesthetics quickly become more desirable. So the cultural understanding, particularly with Millennials, seems to grow weary of argument and become: if I can’t discuss policy (because the nuances are extreme or not understandable/accessible to me, or most often because my voice is denied and change is unattainable), I can at least look good while it slowly chokes me to death.

And while it’s easy to write it off as narcissism and entitlement, perhaps it’s only because what we deem “looking good” is one of very few things we can generally agree upon, everything else is hopeless, creating a cycle of nihilism where hopeful people are considered naive or dumb. Sure, there are different styles of aesthetic, and we label those subgroups with passionate adamance, but I think even the most minimalist among us can appreciate an aesthetic collection of clutter when done well. We share an ideology of quality that makes art and media that was once appreciated by few an aesthetic that is valued by most - Marvel comics vs. the MCU, SF/F shows like Lost or Game of Thrones becoming cultural phenomenons vs. the elusive Geekdom prior to the Star Wars movies. Aesthetic unites us where every other aspect of nationalism and group identity divide us by philosophy - our perceptions and understanding of geography, history, culture, language, or enemy (traits of nationalism, yeah, I’m citing my own article lol) are all based on complex webs of experience, education, world view, etc.

We focus on aesthetics in literature, visual arts, and technology, business branding, business models, and even the application of science to the public. Aesthetics becomes the focus of energy because it is where we find freedom of identity in a world ready to challenge any semblance of diverse thought. We agree on aesthetics, because they fit a model and communicate efficiently if we are something to consider good or bad.

But that false dichotomy is severely flawed because projections of reality and reality itself are two vastly different things. Dichotomous thinking is a way to simplify the world when it becomes too complex too fast, it is a tool used to make choices, like making a pros-cons list or an if-then projection in order to decide to do or not to do, to be or not to be. It is often supported as a tool of control, and becomes extremely dangerous when it begins to dictate our identities and understandings of the world. When there is no us-vs-them, what idea can we rally around?

To start, we have a lot of inclusion to do, because discussions of philosophy, art, and science all start with time, and you know who doesn’t have time? People who need to make money in it. So when we skew our education systems to favor those who have time (and therefore money), we allow economics to dictate progress in philosophy and art and science, we hand over control to those who profit most from dichotomous thinking. And when we do that... well... money will favor some things over others, like product over research, revenue over investment, aesthetic over thought, etc. until deviating outside of that cycle is nearly impossible if not unsurvivable.

We’re in a loop, where making money is the goal, because there is no other option, research needs support, and research’s only support comes from money, and money wants more money, so research is limited to whatever gives us money.

Has that always been the case?

Renaissance artists were successful if they demonstrated the church’s power, gaining the church support through aesthetics, not challenging its philosophy (well... not directly anyway). That church profited (and still does) greatly from the development of dichotomies and used art and emotion to encourage this thinking, often as a way to control the lower classes.

Baroque composers (or Romantic, Classical, and Modern ones for that matter) were successful if they sold shows and inspired attendees to purchase their music, again, often sponsored by those in financial power and following the requested agenda (and again, not always directly, often including illicit subtext). Stepping too far away from what was popular and appropriate meant they lost sponsorship and public interest. Thus, the freedom of the starving artist vs. the conformation of the sell-out dichotomy.

And WWII/post-WWII scientists were successful if their work was supported by government institutions, particularly military or intelligence branches, and advanced the prospect of victory over a consistent manifestation of physical enemy (Nazis, Russians, soldiers, and spies). 

The money comes when the proof is clear, not when it’s being searched for, and then only after decades of scientists and artists have died in poverty after discoveries of curiosity, not agenda. Progress, then, is controlled by public interest... or else private investment, and must, therefore, conform to the expectations of one or the other, often balancing the greater of two evils, it seems.

This is not a disrespect of those genius giants before us. I’m just noticing a pattern in the system of prosperous aesthetic periods and less progressive philosophical ones. We see the results of the philosophers only when they are applied aesthetically, and those aesthetic focal points divide the world into answers instead of questions, so it can seem that large progress has been made, when perhaps it was in-process for quite some time and was completed when a group of people crowded around the concept with the financial support of a capital agenda and the peers to push the boundaries of answering the questions that had been asked before them.

Most of the giants whose shoulders we stand on are invisible, it seems we only recognize the ones who present the answers aesthetically to our culture of origin. The “discoverers” of America are preserved in record because of their historic access in writing, but also because of their royal and religious backing. 

Many scientific theories were proposed prior to our Western heroes by individuals those heroes had access to reading, particularly those outside of our Western vernacular. Darwin had access to tons of theories, but I’m not just talking Lyell and Linnaeus here, but the likes of  Zhuang Zhou, al-Jāḥiẓ, and Ibn Khaldūn, whose names are ignored even in evolutionary biology/anthropology classes. 

We remember Apple’s ipod, not the saturated market of mp3 players before it; we discuss the unveiling of the iphone, not the industry and inventions that already existed. And while the fun of literature is often disassembling its parts, we don’t discuss the mythology or market predecessors to Harry Potter, because it was the new aesthetic of young adult. That’s a bold claim, and much more subjective than the tech/science ones, but I think it’s important that we recognize this across industries and throughout our culture, not simply within the aesthetic streamlining of technology. Our immediate “successful” heroes make money because they provide and aesthetic that applies to many philosophies.

We don’t diversify our education because we admire the end result of science, rarely considering the entirety of work that went into final discovery or product. We try to explain science in chains of linear progression rather than the mind-map of questions and ideas and artistic or political influence that it is.

Progress then, depends a great deal on affluence and we exist in a culture of “who you know” rather than a balance of who AND what you know. Sure, there are always exception, but is it any surprise that we younger generations are obsessed with image? 

Success, it seems, is directly correlated with it, and while we know genius takes more than money, success seems to exist outside of it - in fact, success rarely seems to involve genius itself at all anymore, but pure aesthetic. I’m thinking of the likes of Steve Jobs, who cultivated a following through his personal branding and rhetoric that helped change an entire industry, but often did so through aesthetics, not invention. 

We have grown to idolize the firsts as people who invented something, however, the reality is that those tech giants and big names rarely invented, rather re-modeled and presented something aesthetically compatible to society. We do not celebrate the inventor of the piano, but rather those composers who presented us with an aesthetic style for it. 

But that makes sense, because science’s value is in application. Who cares about dark matter? Well, no one (except sci-fi authors lol), yet, because it has no application to the public. But projects are still funded by institutions and government because our curiosity drives research and the potential outcome (weapons, control, power, money) justifies investment. How much money our government spends on NASA is directly correlated to the expectation of results, in the 60s, that was a way to defeat our perceived enemies, now, for some, it’s useless and should be privately funded.

I’m getting a little off topic, but my point is that what we deem “progress” is often only the part of the iceberg that we see, and rarely the whole of it. So what we see in the initial photo as a culture is a group of genius scientists (yes, again, respectfully, I am not denouncing the discoveries or large amount of work put in by any individuals here), rather than the prosperity of the Industrial Revolution, whose amount of excess-everything funded work that wasn’t considered necessary, until it was. When we fear a limit of resources, we understandably become more controlling over what we spend money on as a society, but even in limited resources, there are those with excess, who can then more easily control what is considered valuable or not. 

So, to be a successful genius, one must have access to funding, and to do this, one’s work must fulfill an agenda of another who has or is access to funds. This often entails being well connected, which includes a performance of image, false confidence, and the crucial understanding of the mind map of philosophy, art, and science in the intended discipline, which is often only accessible to those who fit the desired cultural template of the controlled upper class (read: wealthy, white, male, and upperclass-educated, for historical America anyway). 

Which means that in idolizing the presenters of knowledge, we value the aesthetic of it, the pretty package wrapped around a completed idea, more than we value the process of it. And this is dangerous because we repeat it everywhere, in politics and government (we might value the cheaters who take a shortcut as a symbol of intelligent application, or those who represent an aesthetic we agree with without looking into their application of policy), justice (social justice often values the aesthetic meaning of an outcome of a problem, rather than deconstructing the process by which that outcome was reached), education (we use standardized testing to represent a student’s ability to memorize outcomes - or the aesthetic of looking intelligent, rather than demonstrating an ability to apply knowledge and understanding), business (we herald in those who present us with a desired aesthetic brand - Apple, Starbucks, Google, etc., rather than investigating the potential corruption of human conditions that leads to that aesthetic; or else using a popularity rating of stars as peer-approval of a brand rather than developing our opinions out of experience).

Even in our personal lives, it is more important to be perceived as positive and confident than to investigate and deconstruct what might be making us unhappy. For me, it was health, I didn’t like how I looked or felt, but was obsessively told that I’m great, I shouldn’t feel that way. My negativity was rewarded, victimization was encouraged, and the conclusion seemed to always be leaving everything as-is.

Eventually I had to say fuck it and stop seeking the support and understanding of friends, utilizing spite to rebuild a healthy life, which isn’t the only option, that was my choice, but our obsession with aesthetics became a lose-lose for me. I didn’t want to look like a photo-brushed-whatever model, which seemed to be everyone’s assumption, I just felt unhappy because I was unhealthy and unproductive in my life. 

But that’s a bad aesthetic, or maybe not one at all and that denial of aesthetic might be the worst part. I didn’t fit into a box, not out of any higher intelligence, but because I could never pick one. This story is much more complex (and for the record, Jake was instrumental in helping me develop and maintain a health plan) and could probably be unpacked into an entire book of an extended metaphor, but put simply, I want to be a minimalist some days and a traditionalist other days and my brain is just a clash of ideas. Even my wardrobe reflects this, lit-nerd some days, world-traveler other days, outgoing-athlete, and even the occasional clash of weird accessories that is dancer-chic, lol. 

I was feeling stuck by a body that was in endless rehabilitation and recovery (long story, broken bones), and I didn’t like it, so I wanted to change it. But that proactive idea was met with passionate defenses of body-positivity (which does have a place in society as a whole) and a focus on aesthetic (”you look fine”) rather than philosophy (well I don’t fucking feel fine). And I can’t help but think it’s because aesthetics are things we can agree on, or because they are safe, and to change aesthetics or to request a focus on philosophy, makes people scared about the burden of change.

So I have a revision to my own idea of what curates success:

Successful genius exists in a place supported financially, often by an agenda that is commonly more afforded to those who already fit a familiar cultural aesthetic of money or power, armed with an understanding of connection and access to un-biased and diverse knowledge and education (again, often most commonly afforded to those already in the upperclass), surrounded by a group of similar individuals who provide competition as well as resources and connections that progress the understanding of concepts in non-linear objectivity, and present finalized ideas to the public in a consumable and digestible aesthetic package of understanding that does not require extensive negative change on behalf of the consumer.

If that is true, I think it answers the cycles of science in ages of philosophy and reason vs. aesthetics and image that creates the popular science vs. art false dichotomy. STEM is more easily objective, and objective is more easily packaged and sold, therefore we create an art vs. science dichotomy and science wins - but only if it’s presenter understands enough about art to package it aesthetically. Social sciences are doomed by their own use of inductive arguments, complex layers of pattern and observation that don’t have a single objective Truth, rather a layered perception of potential truth, which is not easily distributed - it’s not a pamphlet, it’s a book. 

Ain’t nobody got time for books.

It explains the Millennial obsession with image outside of an individual psychology of narcissism, by looking to cultural understandings of success and value. And while deviating from traditional models of progress - looking at thought as a mind map of connection rather than linear funnel of detail (while still applicable and useful), it illustrates the time lapse between discovery and progress. There is a gap between the actual discovery of knowledge and the generalized application of that knowledge, and that gap is filled by whomever presents the information most effectively or efficiently, sometimes accurately, to the public. That presenter is then considered successful, valuable, important. That importance leads to respect, time, and freedom.

So Millennials are emulating what they need to look like to be considered successful (fake it ‘till you make it and all), while science emulates linear thought in the same way. Linear thought can be more easily objective and packaged for public access, taught in schools and accepted by society. We create a dichotomy of linear and non-linear thought and say they have pros and cons or specific uses and applications, but I think in the same way our predecessors argued about Empiricism vs. Rationalism (read: art vs. science) until we understood them in tandem, we are at the point of having to understand linear and non-linear thinking not as opposites, but as extremes on a spectrum, most useful when balanced. 

It’s complex and complex things take time to understand. And time is money. And money is freedom. And freedom is happiness.

Perhaps this explains why dichotomies are so popular - they fit an aesthetic, and they remove the exhausting layers of philosophy that exist inside our own identities. Dichotomies limit the complexity of an idea into two extremes, and  when we define ourselves by an image rather than our modes of thought, much of our decisions can be made by whatever aligns with the image. We can feel free by the illusions of power or choice, while minimizing the effort it takes to get to that freedom, and maybe it makes us feel happy for a minute. 

However, while we spend much of our decision quota in a given day on deciding which aesthetics to consume or conform to, those choices are still influenced by those whose agendas are funding our understanding of the world through science and art. Is it any wonder we’ve created a dichotomy of disconnect in every way. What I mean is that it is easy to make irrational choices based on feelings of aesthetics (easier, not always easy), and when our culture divides aesthetics into categories, they are predictable, marketable, and controllable, so we must separate the world into understandable groups.

If this is true, then maybe it’s not the internet or social media or Millennial entitlement that is separating us. Maybe it’s the control of wealth being recycled into similar agendas to produce work that conforms to or provides evidence supporting already existing biases in science. Keep us too busy making money to have time to understand it and too loyal to brands to investigate the money, and too exhausted of choices to discover ourselves. So the freedom of choice that we find in aesthetic dichotomies - the ease of making decisions and lowered exhaustion of not analyzing those experiences, is actually a sacrifice of identity and agency to those funding our research and creating the requirements of aesthetic conformation . 

This is getting a bit conspiracy-theory-esque, but dichotomies are good for reducing choices and controlling groups, however, they do not inherently exist outside of a few basic dualities (like light and the absence of light, or dark), they extend out of a focus on aesthetic and a disapproval of thought, voice, and criticism. Or, to simplify, they are social constructs to organize information.

So if this all related in some way, if science and progress is inhibited by the agendas of the elite, and we are very aware of our elite, how do we trust it? How do we step out of the aesthetic-obsessed cycle and into forgiveness and understanding and patience and... time?

And perhaps more importantly, how do we develop a way to support science AND diversify it? How do we make the next photo like this include races and genders across a spectrum of ideologies? How do we create a collective group of genius that exists outside of a capital agenda, is it even possible? How can we encourage investment over revenue when so many Americans (and people around the world) feel they don’t have enough time to make money to survive, or choices to spend thinking about philosophy, policy, and what they believe in vs. agreeing with something that seems to vaguely align with their desired aesthetic identity? It’s not laziness, I don’t think, but over-work, we’ve reached our daily capacity and the sacrifice of demanding more is...less.

I struggle to pick an aesthetic and it has helped me break that easy black-and-white view of the world, but that is a fight I am exhausted by every day. It would be so simple to pick an aesthetic and run with it, to define myself by a collective idea and make choices based on what matches it, but that swings with my emotions, and maybe that’s closer to the problem? 

We have done some weird shit with emotion, from disregarding it as feminine or “weak,” to writing it out of strength and art and science. We have created a dichotomy between emotion and logic and then mapped it into our brains as hemispheres of thought. We made a taboo-aesthetic of sadness (I mean, look at Inside Out’s character development of Sadness, but they did a good job using balance as the answer) and disregarded most emotions beyond contentment or positive excitement as bad, which is, surprise, starting to look like a mistake. We’ve branded empathy as weakness; we are simultaneously admiring, and for many worshiping, empathetic individuals while funneling our money into heartless heroes who we deem successful. Maybe it’s our emotions that have faded, beaten out of us or encouraged into silence, leaving us lonely and dependent on our chosen aesthetic to find any pieces of identity that might lead to authentic happiness. Maybe emotion is what keeps us in just-enough chaos to challenge the agendas that control our choices by keeping us unpredictable? Or perhaps they are what unite us beyond aesthetic.

Maybe staring at that shelf of shampoos and conditioners, over half of which are produced by the exact same factory and owned by the same company but branded with different versions of you in mind and with how you will feel looking at them taken into account, is extremely overwhelming. And some days you feel lazy and tired and you just grab that same ol’ thing. But occasionally you feel rebellious or responsible, and you investigate and make a completely different choice because maybe you are made of a layer of realities held together by your collective experience of life that creates a unique worldview, that thing that we conform to an aesthetic or maybe an emotion, or philosophy, or a conviction of values, and maybe that thing cannot be predicted. Maybe our models predict an aesthetic, not a person, and maybe that’s a duh, but it’s not a logical concept I consider on a daily basis of rhetoric hailing technology and AI as all-knowing and capable of perfect reason.

Maybe it’s our chaos that is trying to be organized into compartmental identities of aesthetic ideologies: minimal, vintage, grunge, professional, bad-ass, athletic, urban, feminine, boho, whatever it is. And those who challenge it are in for a much more difficult life of choices, each of which must be broken down into action-and-consequence, current emotion vs. future potential, the history and creation of a product, etc. We don’t have time to ask our coffee if children were kidnapped to harvest it, we have an image and this specific coffee or product fits it; we are too busy trying to be successful so that we can eventually have the freedom to fully identify ourselves and be happy, and we see by cultural example that our desired success comes from aesthetic.

Capitalism creates a need for money, and that excess capital is often syphoned into the remnants of pre-constructed systems. I don’t have the expertise to divide that into its logical components yet, but maybe our adoration of monarchy as seen in our popular media, art, and entertainment, has us assuming the elite among us deserve their position, romanticizing the trials of poverty as obstacles to be overcome, and forcing racial stereotypes into equally damaging aesthetics - the white female, incapable damsel in distress, vs. the black female, independent queen who can survive everything on her own. This is not a real dichotomy, it’s a shitty stereotype, but you probably wouldn’t know it from the outside looking in, or perhaps from the inside itself, if you felt the need to align with a specific aesthetic, or even to invert that pressure into the opposite aesthetic. Businesses thrive by utilizing those dichotomies, and sometimes by creating a solution to them. So if they are useful to some, perhaps that’s enough reason to be suspicious of the agendas that tell us how to think or make our lives easier. 

I feel like I’m saying a lot of stupid things while feeling my own brain nodding along and going like oh, here’s a dichotomy and there’s another dichotomy and all dichotomies are false dichotomies, and I know all this in formal educated argument, but when it comes to daily application, I want to just be a cool millennial who has health insurance and can grab takeout without humming about the cost and what I might be able to pull together from the fridge. That doesn’t mean brands or aesthetics, despite the market’s attempts to the contrary, just the means to survive financially with a bit of excess time for myself to think and be bored and contemplate the world with other people so we’re all a bit less lonely and more emotionally adjusted.  

Diversity, money, research, science, art, aesthetic, it all seems to come back to identity and time. Time to make choices, time to reflect and think about identity and emotion, time to deconstruct and criticize reality, time to investigate corruption, time to gather knowledge and resources, time to exist along other humans rather than floating away, isolated and ungrounded from the world. Therefore, successful geniuses also have time to exist outside of a singular aesthetic and enhance our understanding of the world in order to develop positive changes that we often label “progress.”

How do we give people more time so that they don’t have to divide the world into aesthetics and dichotomies in order to keep up or attempt to be successful? Does giving someone time allow them to feel successful? If that perseverance of success was in order to gain the time, would we then use the time to curate individual identities that we feel comfortable and confident in? Is time what it takes to be happy? Is time what separates the classes in America?

How do we un-do “time is money,” particularly in a capitalist economy and remember that time is also thought and connection and values and friendships and more than obligations?

How do we remember that time is identity?

Is time a renewable resource? Or are we.