"I like Sean because he looked, well, slutty...A boy who couldn't remember if he was Catholic or not"
    follow me on Twitter

    Sunday, February 27, 2011

    "Because I believe life is for the living! I believe in taking risks and biting off more than you can chew! And also, people were yelling and I got confused about the rules."

    Våren 2008 bestämde jag mig för att dricka bort min depression. Jag bestämde att om alla andra dricker tills de knappt verkar komma ihåg vilka de är längre, så kan väl jag också göra det. Jag hungrade efter glömska. Det jag glömde att ta med i beräkningen var naturligtvis att jag till skillnad från "alla andra" var deprimerad, även om jag höll depressionen i schack med mina antidepressiva. Jag glömde också bort hur trött jag var. Hur fullständigt utmattad jag hade känt mig under en lång tid. Needless to say så blev det snabbt ett problem, min starka längtan efter glömska, mycket snabbt. Att använda alkohol för att försöka bota sin ångest kan nämligen aldrig bli något annat än ett problem. För hur mycket är för mycket att dricka när man försöker att inte förlora förståndet?

    Ingen äter antidepressiva för att det är "inne". Folk förstår det, va? Alltså förutom alla okunniga besserwissrar som skriver krönikor av typen "unga idag äter antidepressiva som om de tror att det är onormalt att känna sig stressad och orolig, att vara nedstämd är faktiskt en del av livet - faktiskt!" Men generellt sett förstår människor att man inte äter antidepressiva för att det är trendigt, eller hur? Däremot märker jag att det finns många andra myter om varför man tar s.k. lyckopiller. Den absolut vanligaste typen av kommentar angående antidepressiva som jag hör är att det är en "enkel lösning" på ett mycket mer komplicerat problem, att människor helt enkelt väljer den enklaste utvägen genom att ta piller "istället för att ta itu med sig själva".

    Här är de vanligaste biverkningarna man får av antidepressiva läkemedel: Illamående. Huvudvärk. Yrsel. Svettningar. Hjärtklappningar. Kräkningar. Minskad sexlust. Minskad orgasmförmåga. Viktuppgång. Handskakningar. Muntorrhet. Sömnstörning. Förhöjd suicidalrisk (!). En känsla av "avskärmning". Efter tio år har jag fortfarande kvar följande: handskakningar, svettningar, sömnstörning, viktförändring, minskad sexlust.

    Vad antidepressiva rent konkret gör är att de får en att orka med de små sakerna. Att ta sig upp ur sängen på morgonen. Att välja ut vad man ska ta på sig den dagen. Att koka en kopp te. Att bestämma vad man ska köpa till middagsmat, istället för att bli stående som fastvuxen i mataffären i en halvtimme innan man går därifrån utan att ha handlat något. Att stoppa det konstanta flödet av tårar.

    Att det totalt skrivs ut för mycket antidepressiva läkemedel idag är en annan vanlig kommentar. Sanningen är att det antagligen skrivs ut för lite antidepressiva läkemedel idag. Folk som skulle behöva hjälp får eller söker den fortfarande inte.

    Nu är jag ju inte helt verklighetsfrånvänd. Jag vet att vi lever i en tid då folk får Zoloft utskrivna efter ett enda läkarbesök när de egentligen inte behöver det. Jag vet att människor som går till vårdcentralen med diffusa symptom blir tillfrågade vad de själva tror det är för fel på dem. Så ska det naturligtvis inte vara. Man ska alltid få en riktig diagnos samt uttömma alla andra behandlingsmöjligheter innan man börjar med medicinsk behandling mot depression. Men nu lever vi i den verkliga verkligheten och en allmänläkare är ingen expert på psykiska sjukdomar. Däremot vet de att deprimerade människor som inte får behandling är i rikszonen att ta livet av sig. De vet att djup depression är en farlig sjukdom med ibland dödlig utgång.

    Jag vet en person. Hon skär sig när ångesten blir för svår att hantera. Hon vaknar ibland med så kraftig ångest på mornarna att hon alltid har ett rakblad liggande på nattduksbordet för att slippa de tre plågsamma minuterna det annars skulle ta henne att stappla in i badrummet.

    Jag vet en person. Han visste inte varför han inte kunde sova, varför han inte kunde sluta spendera dagarna med att gå runt, runt, runt i staden där han bodde i ett studentrum, ibland i timmar utan uppehåll. En dag var han hemma hos en kompis föräldrar när hans blick föll på en burk med lugnande tabletter som stod gömd i ett skåp inne på toaletten. Han berättade att han aldrig känt sig så lugn som när han öppnade burken och räknade hur många piller det fanns i den. Minst tre gånger räknade han tabletterna. Först när han såg sig själv i spegeln svälja ned dem - allihop - förstod han att det måste vara något som var fel.

    Därför att alkoholen lindrar. Därför att alkoholen, till skillnad från folks uppmaningar att "försök att inte tänka så negativt" i alla fall gör något.

    Därför att smärtan efter rakbladet gör att du kan andas igen.

    Därför att tabletterna ger dig tillbaka kontrollen.

    Vi självmedicinerar allihop, alla vi som lever med kronisk depression och ångest. Det är inget konstigt, utan snarare vad vi förväntas göra. Det mest mänskliga som finns är att göra allt man kan för att försöka hålla sin ångest borta. Jag har under åren lärt mig en miljon sätt att distrahera mig själv från de farliga, giftiga tankarna. En miljon sätt och ändå kommer jag ibland till en punkt där inga av dem fungerar.

    Det tog några månader, sedan gav jag upp försöket att dricka bort min livströtthet. Från och med dess räknar jag: Varje glas vin jag dricker, varje dag, varje vecka. Allt starkare än vin är off the table. Jag dricker aldrig mer än exakt så mycket som man kan dricka varje vecka utan att det anses vara beroendeframkallande. Jag gör detta trots att jag inte har, och aldrig har haft, något fysiskt begär efter alkohol någon gång i mitt liv. Men det är inte så man mäter beroende. Det är inte mängden som räknas. För en deprimerad person mäts problem alltid i anledningen till att man gör något, inte i hur mycket. Alla sätt man har för att hålla den tunga, gråa melankolin borta riskerar alltid att bli ett problem i sig. Varje lösning riskerar alltid att bli en form av beroende. För hur mycket är för mycket när man försöker hitta en anledning att fortsätta leva?

    Det finns ingen anledning för mig att sluta använda alkoholen så som även en majoritet av svenska folket gör: för ett ögonblicks sinnesro. För att skingra de jobbiga tankarna för en kort stund. Man ska vara snäll mot sig själv, och deprimerade personer är experter på att vara hårda mot sig själva, att ställa fullständigt orimliga krav. Det är en del av sjukdomsbilden. Men eftersom jag en period i livet drack för att slippa känna min ångest så kommer jag aldrig kunna ha ett helt avslappnat förhållande till alkohol. Eftersom jag en gång i livet använde alkoholen för att hålla min depression i schack, kommer jag alltid vara i riskzonen att göra det igen. Därför måste jag räkna varje glas. Därför måste jag alltid ha strikta regler för mitt drickande. Om inte jag kan ha kontroll, vem skulle då ha det?

    Självmedicinering kan aldrig göra det som riktig, professionell, medicinsk behandling gör. Jag skulle kunna ge upp mina former av självmedicinering och ändå hitta ett sätt att hantera livet, men jag är inte så säker på att jag skulle kunna hantera livet utan antidepressiva. För även om det är de stora frågorna, liv och död, mening och meningslöshet, som depression kretsar kring och som inga antidepressiva i världen kan ge en svar på, så är det de små sakerna som är vad som till slut knäcker en. Det är oförmågan att bestämma sig för vad man ska köpa till middagsmat som är det som gör att man inte orkar längre. Det är tårarna av utmattning efter en dag av att bara ha sovit. Det är den alldeles fysiska smärtan i varje steg. Det är därför vi tar piller istället för att "ta itu med oss själva". För att tårarna aldrig verkar ta slut.

    Alkoholen har alltid varit och är fortfarande ett av mina sätt att skingra tankarna. Fördelen är att det är lätt att få tag i och att vi lever i ett land där det snarare är mer misstänksamt att inte dricka så fort det erbjuds möjlighet. Nackdelen är att det är beroendeframkallande och att alkohol, vilket alla som någon gång druckit vet, gör en ännu mer nedstämd efter att den inledande euforin avtagit. Att dricka alkohol samtidigt som man äter antidepressiva är litegrann som att ta först ett piller i ett syfte och sedan ett annat piller i ett helt motverkande syfte.

    Men ibland måste man ha något som inte bara hjälper en att gå upp på mornarna. Ibland måste man ha ut mer än att bara hålla sig ovanför ytan. Ibland måste man få blunda och känna ens blod långsamt värmas upp, känna bara mjuka känslor och tänka bara suddiga, skimrande tankar.

    Saturday, February 19, 2011

    "What does it take to turn you on, now he has gone"

    John: That was ridiculous. That was the most ridiculous thing I've ever done.
    Sherlock: And you invaded Afghanistan.

    So here is my third - and last - write-up of BBC's Sherlock. And there's only one episode left to do, which is the unaired pilot.

    (SHERLOCK SPOILERS! SO MANY SPOILERS!)

    The unaired pilot is basically the same as the first episode except everything's different. Although most of the lines are the same, the scenes are not. Actually, it's different enough that I don't think I would have gotten into the show had the pilot been the one to air. For one thing, the pilot is only 60 minutes long and it really, truly brings home what the 3x90-minutes format does for a show like this. Sherlock is a fantastic, fantastic character but watching him do his thing for a full-length series would be kinda tedious. However, in the format of a 90-minutes three-part miniseries, it works like a fucking charm.

    Watching the unaired pilot is like watching the actors do everything a second time (or, more accurately, for the first time) only slightly less sure about each other - in the aired episodes there's a chemistry between the two main actors which is missing in the pilot - and with some poignant scenes and lines cut for length. Comparing the pilot to the first episode there’s no comparison. In the 90-minute version the writers have managed to really do what they meant to do in the pilot, just with the added benefit of having already done it once and on top of that having an extra half hour to flesh out on.

    Notable differences between the pilot and the first episode is that Sherlock’s and John’s flat looks completely different, the cabbie drugs Sherlock instead of daring him into coming with him - with some additional Sherlock-was a-drug-addict references - and there's no Mycroft! Which is a huge loss because we love Mycroft and the brilliant, funny, 38th-most-influential-gay-person-in-the-UK, Sherlock-fanboy who plays him. And who also happens to be one of the show's two writers.

    Lestrade: Because Sherlock Holmes is a great man. And I think one day, if we're very, very lucky, he might even be a good one.

    Here's why the pilot doesn't work: It concentrates on the case and, although important, the show hangs an awful lot on the viewers’ feelings towards the Sherlock character with all his pretty seriously flawed flaws. Which is where the first episode manages to get us, and the pilot doesn't. There are some key moments in the first episode which nicely illustrate how significant those extra 30 minutes are for Sherlock.

    One example of this is the absolutely wonderful scene in the first episode, but missing in the pilot, where Sherlock is using his skills to figure out why the victim scratched the name of her stillborn daughter into the floor and John suggests that the killer somehow used the fact that the victim’s daughter died to get to her, whereupon Sherlock sneers “That was ages ago! Why would she still be upset?”

    This is followed by a pointed silence and a look between Lestrade and John, Lestrade of course being completely aware of this inability of Sherlock to comprehend basic human emotions and obviously trying to suss out if John gets it too, or if he will have to enlighten the man. Because you get why this would be rather important information for John to have if he's gonna assist Sherlock in hunting down killers, that this is the flipside to being a genius and John's hero, this side that can’t understand that someone could still care about a child that died because it was a long time ago.

    The scene also nicely explains why I like Lestrade. Lestrade, unlike his subordinates, obviously sees the tremendous value Sherlock has and the rest of the time seems to have found a way of dealing with his less functional sides. Sherlock: “You treat me as a child”. Lestrade: “I’m dealing with a child”.

    There's a second during the silence after his outburst where Sherlock looks almost embarrassed, or at least like he is perfectly aware of the fact that he – once again – has said or done something that normal people would never ever say or do. And it's sad. You get this glimpse of how growing up as Sherlock Holmes might have been like – being completely aware of his dysfunction but having no way to hide it from people, at least not for too long. I'm just gonna take a shot here and guess that this is the difference between Sherlock and this show's version of Mycroft. Where Mycroft has obviously found a way to not be seen as a freak by everyone around him, Sherlock hasn't. Or won't. Or whatever the reason behind it happens to be.

    Obviously never being able to fit in (one must wonder how much coke he had to do to get through even half of Uni. Or did they eventually just stick him in a class where he had to read and write everything in Hebrew, just to keep his mind somewhat occupied from all the idiots of the world?) and never being able to keep people listening to what he has to say except when they have no other choice, Sherlock has created this life and this job for himself where everything is work and the rest is, well, the rest is "transport." While Mycroft embraces public life and went into politics (which in the Holmes family means “now controls the world”) Sherlock isolates himself in a flat with only his experiments, his boredom-slash-depression and a skull for company. And that's what's so relatable about such an unrelatable character as Sherlock. Which is, of course, how they did it. How they got us. Kudos for that, show.


    So. Yes. That was that. Now there's only 6-7 months until the next episodes. At best. Now there's just one more thing I wanna add, which is to explain why I got into this show in the first place.

    I was a starving woman, and Sherlock delivered.

    One reason I rarely get into TV-shows nowadays is because I'm, well, done. Not to try and sound too melodramatic but I’m so completely done with the boy-meets-girl plotlines where they turn out to be clandestinely attracted to each other and then things get in the way of their Twuv Wuv and keeps the audience on the edge of their seats will they or won’t they end up together and then they do, or don't, and then the show tells us exactly how we're supposed to feel about it and then it's over. It’s not heterophobia. It’s because I have already seen it, I've seen it a hundred million times in a hundred million different versions, and the suggestiveness and the undertones are always the same, and I am done.

    It's not like Sherlock is the greatest show ever. I mean, it's a good show, brilliantly written and acted, but it's not the best thing that's happened to television since it was invented or anything like that. But there’s only so many times you can see the same story and the same kind of characters displayed on screen, no matter how well carried out, until you've had enough. At least Sherlock made me curious. And curious is good. Curious is everything.


    Sunday, February 13, 2011

    "Oh! You meant spectacularly ignorant in a nice way."

    More Sherlock. (First part is here.) WARNING: here there be monsters! and SPOILERS!

    John: “So, you don't do...anything?”
    Sherlock: "Everything else is transport."
    (Scene from the unaired pilot, Sherlock explaining to John why he doesn't seem to sleep with either boys or girls)

    So after the first two episodes I went and did a bit of research on the show and it amused me that they couldn't do a lot of shots in the actual Baker Street since the show is set in a modern world where everything is exactly the same as it is today except, of course, that the Sherlock Holmes books were never published, and that street just had too much Sherlock memoribilia on it. Heh.

    Anyway. The third episode.

    Sherlock: "You read his blog?"
    Lestrade: "'Course I read his blog, we all do! Do you really not know that the earth goes around the sun?"

    For someone like me, who has no knowledge of the original books, this show is not about the cases. It's about the characters. The writers have managed to fill the episodes - apart for the second one, but that one also wasn't written by either Moffat or Gatiss - with enough character fodder that it takes more than one viewing to catch it all (no, seriously. You have to watch it more than once. And you can't watch it with subtitles either - you'll just miss far too much if you're gonna spend your time reading instead of looking at what goes on onscreen.) And that kind of writing in television is sadly not something you can just take for granted. In far too many shows what you have to look for is the subtext, the things that are not shown on screen, in order to make the characters interesting. This is not that kind of show.

    One of the things I like about the show is that while it's a show exclusively about men it's not a very, well, manly show. Even though the character of Sherlock has many stereotypically "masculine" traits, he's not exactly Tom Selleck. Testosteronely speaking, it's not what you might expect from a standard crime show. Instead it focuses on the relationship aspect, and on what is going on inside the characters' heads, which I appreciate, and what we end up with is a soft-spoken, smartly-not-to-mention-expensively dressed antihero who has zero interest in girls, has at least one diagnosis right out of DSM-V and who is, on top of all that, some sort of antisocial super-geek. The show's second main character is a former soldier, but one who suffers from PTSD and has his own therapist. John, unlike Sherlock, is clearly interested in women, but the writers still made a point of leaving the viewers guessing about John by having Sherlock - a man who can tell all your secrets by the way you tie your shoelaces - take one look at John in the first episode and assume he is both gay and interested in him.

    And then we have the arch nemesis of the show, also known as Moriarty, also known as a Vivienne Westwood's biggest fan.

    John: "So why is he doing this then? Playing this game with you? Do you think he wants to be caught?"
    Sherlock: "I think he wants to be distracted."
    John: "Well, I hope you'll be very happy together."

    The third episode has a few main plotlines in it. The first one, as with the two previous episodes, is about the Sherlock/John relationship. In The Great Game the writers keep having the same kind of fun with the assumption people have about Sherlock and John being a couple as they did in the first two episodes, but all in all it's not really an issue to any of the characters or to the show itself if people think they are more than just friends. Why the writers' keep playing up to it is simply a nod to the fact that this version is set in the 21st century London and today when two men move in together, the assumption that they might be a couple is not a very dramatic one for people to make.

    What the show very obviously is trying to explore, is the nature of this very strangely formed bond between two very different people who both, in their own way, really, really need each other. John is going crazy from being too safe and Sherlock is going crazy because no one gets him and nobody is interested in hearing his view of the world except when they can catch a criminal by doing so. When John shows up he immediately starts stroking Sherlock's ego. He finds Sherlock's skills brilliant rather than repulsive, and he openly tells him so. And maybe that really is what starts the whole thing, how he managed the unlikely feat of worming his way into Sherlock's...I'm not gonna say heart but, you know. "Every genius needs an audience."

    Cabbie: "Still the addict. But this... this is what you're really addicted to. You do anything, anything at all, to stop being bored."

    This line, even though being from the first episode, is this episode's second main plotline. Sherlock is a man bored with the world. He's also a dangerous man, which nearly every other character has deemed fit to inform John of at one point, and there's no telling what he'll do if pushed too far. Of course, John knows this, and it bothers him a lot and he tells Sherlock that it bothers him a lot. Because John and Sherlock are very similar in that they both really, really enjoy the cases and the highs from hunting criminals. Where they differ is the fact that John like any normal person cares about the actual human lives involved, whereas Sherlock doesn't.

    That is, he doesn't until we get to the end of this episode. It's the Scene, the Moment, that the episode and the whole show has been moving towards from the very first screenframe. What will happen to Sherlock the first time he has to deal with a threat that is emotional instead of intellectual? And, well, I wasn't disappointed.

    And, like I've said before, it's a good thing John is on this show. If he wasn't there would be nothing really likable about Sherlock except the fact that he solves crime, because the show has made it very clear that were it not for a few small variables our so-called protagonist could just as well have been using his skills the same way Moriarty does. After this episode, we now know that one of those variables is John.


    I also did a recap-as-I-was-watching reactions of this episode:

    Episode 103 The Great Game
    • The episode starts. Sherlock is a callous jerk. We knew this already.
    • Yes, Sherlock, of course you have to delete some things from your mind if you're gonna keep so much other stuff in there. What is the point of knowing about useless things such as world politics and heliocentricism?
    • Mycroft and Sherlock staring at John is disturbing. Somehow you get the feeling that John is the pawn in some sort of childish brother-game of power. Hmm., actually, that's kinda hot.
      • Why are they making Molly’s boyfriend so obviously attracted to Sherlock? I mean, you could see it from space. My dog could see it. It makes Sherlock’s conclusion about him being gay pretty unimpressive.
      • Speaking of, I don't really get Molly's crush on Sherlock. Yes, he's esthetically attractive and all that jazz, but he's also an uncaring sociopath who looks down on everyone around him with the exception of John, and doesn't try to hide it. Molly just doesn't seem dumb enough to like Sherlock.
      • I have to say, this episode is really quite nervewracking. *bites nails*
        • Okay, I spotted the whole Sherlock-is-being-callously-unconcerned-about-all-the-hostages-until-it’s-John-when-we-suddenly-get-to-see-him-care-oh-so-much-nawwww coming from the first moment of the first episode of this show.
        • Oh?
        • Oh!
          • Have to say, did NOT see that coming. The scene with Molly's "gay" boyfriend make more sense now. Someone with more brains than me probably guessed it was Moriarty from the start.
          • Okay, so the last 20 minutes of this episodes were just really Good TV. Seeing how the whole episode was about how uncaring Sherlock is about other people, I was sure it was gonna be a game of spot-the-tiny-but-significant-signs-that-Sherlock-does-feel-distress-when-John-is-in-danger, but no. He just kind of...lost it, didn't he? Huh.
          • CLIFFHANGER!
          • Okay, so the next episodes in the miniseries won’t be aired until late 2011. With my attention span the risk that I won’t be interested by that point is pretty high. I so rarely get into TV shows nowadays so why is BBC doing this to me?

          Monday, February 07, 2011

          "This is how you get your kicks, isn't it? You risk your life to prove you're clever."

          John: "You have a girlfriend?"
          Sherlock: "Girls are not really my area."
          John: "Oh...so do you have a boyfriend? Which is fine."
          Sherlock: "I know it's fine."

          --BBC's Sherlock

          (WARNING! THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR BBC'S SHERLOCK!)

          I decided to watch and recap BBC’s miniseries Sherlock. I will explain why in a minute.

          Oh, but before I start, you should keep in mind that my only knowledge of the original Sherlock Holmes books consist of never having read them, various popcultural references over the years, and what I have deduced from watching the 2009 Robert Downey Jr movie and House. I have, in other words, very little knowledge of the real Sherlock Holmes-verse and so I’ll be mostly oblivious to any references to the books while watching this series.

          Now, my reasons for being interested in BBC’s miniseries Sherlock despite not having read the books are: The Sherlock Holmes character, the fact that it’s set in modern London (I think I can see the twin’s flat at one point!), and last but not least the fact that the actor Mr Benedict Cumbersome? Cumberpatch? happen to be hot as fucking anything.

          And he doesn't photograph well so I advice you just watch the show.

          Sherlock: I'm not a psychopath, I'm a highly functioning sociopath. Do your research.

          So the thing I like about the character of Sherlock is that he’s a very very smart, very very bored, living-inside-his-own-head consultant detective with an antisocial personality disorder who’s in a relationship with his work (which he does for free or more accurately for fun) and the man he shares a flat with.

          I find Sherlock, well, relatable. No, I’m not highly functioning sociopath or super-smart and I can’t manipulate everyone around me as I please and I don’t find hideous crimes exhilarating, but Sherlock’s extreme boredom with a world he is very disconnected from and how he handles that is what drew me to this series in the first place. Boredom with life is a form of depression, even if not in a clinical sense, and Sherlock’s way of dealing with it is interesting, especially considering he doesn’t fuck and that he doesn’t do drugs in this version. He gets off on murders and serial killers and crime investigations because with no sex and no drugs it's what he has to fight the boredom with. Yes, it's sad, but it's also a reason to follow this show.

          Another thing is that as much as Sherlock and John gets mistaken for a couple on the show, Sherlock is most likely asexual. Asexual characters appeal to me. They're intriguing, because everything else on TV is in some form or another about sex. (Asexual characters like Sherlock or, say, Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory, can still be in a relationship. Which they both are, by the way.) And all this together makes for a potentially interesting character development, which already sets Sherlock MILES apart from most other shows about young-ish people on TV, and when a show like that come across you kinda sorta have to at least give it a chance. So I am.

          John: "We can't giggle, it's a crime scene."

          The Sherlock character is the show for me - just like Dean is the show for me when it comes to Supernatural. Like Sam in Supernatural, John’s character is too ordinary to hold any real interest to me, but that’s probably not the plan either. Because just like the pivotal Sam/Dean relationship in Supernatural, in this show the character of John is there to be in a relationship with Sherlock because the show needs for Sherlock to have a relationship. It needs him to care about one other human being, if nothing else just so he can have scenes where he’s threatened or where he's emotional, and also so he’s not completely unlikable. John’s obviously also there to be Sherlock’s moral conscience, his connection to the world, and to be someone the viewers can relate to, but he doesn’t seem extremely important to the show itself. I think in the books Watson’s there to record everything Holmes says and does (isn't he, Sherlock Holmes-people?) and filter it for the reader, but in this version he doesn’t seem to have the same kind of importance. What John does have is loyalty. He's a loyal person in a relationship with a highly functioning dysfunctional. Can't wait to see this one play itself out.

          Okay, so, to the recaps. So far SVT has only shown the first two episodes.

          Anyone who’s read my Supernatural recaps know the drill. Recapping-as-I'm-watching.

          Episode 101 A Study In Pink

          • In almost the first scene of the series we see Martin Freeman in a bathrob with a cup of tea. Yeah. That wasn't on purpose at all.
          • Oh, hello Sherlock. You'll be the main character of this show and I'll be the slightly horny viewer over here, yes? Also, no pipe?
          • I like Molly. I get Molly.
          • That coat is gorgeous, Sherlock.
          • I like the nice landlady who wants to assure them she thinks it's completely fine if Sherlock and John only need the one bedroom. I get the nice landlady who wants to assure them she thinks it's completely fine if Sherlock and John only need the one bedroom.
          • Okay. They've reached the crime scene and here comes the first reference to John being Sherlock's pet. But not the last, I assume.
          • He's clean? Finally kicked that coke habit, did he?
          • Though the writers do imply a pretty serious nicotine addiction being controlled with a row of nicotine patches. Which would explain the lack of pipes.
          • So Sherlock just solved the crime, ensured no one else would be killed, and then he throws all that away and gets into the cab because he was dared to? Okay. Yeah. That's either depression or obsession. One or the other.
          • Considering how Sherlock didn’t give us a long, detailed explanation of exactly how he deducted which pill is the deadly one and which isn’t, he probably doesn't have a clue.
          • Oh. Oh, I just got it! Mycroft "is the Government". And he's Sherlock's brother. His...big brother, perhaps?

          Episode 102 The Blind Banker

          OK. This ep was pretty boring and it bored me so I don't really have that much to say about it.

          Except that despite that I'm still really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really looking forward to the third one.


          Saturday, February 05, 2011

          "And we crawl and we crawl and we crawl"

          Denna veckan har det skrattats.

          1. Vi har skrattat åt en fånig debattartikel om traditionell kvinnlighet och kvinnlig klädsel som är det fånigaste av alla fåniga debattartiklar som nånsin fånat. Tur då för blodtrycket att Agnes Arpi skrev ett svar.
             
          2. Daily Mails kommentarer har skrattat åt en manlig expedit som stämt sin arbetsgivare efter att chefen talat om för honom att han borde vara ”smickrad” över att bli tafsad på av en kvinnlig kollega, eftersom i Daily Mails läsares värld är tafsande det roligaste man kan vara med om och varför skulle någon – särskilt en man – tycka illa om det, öh, ta det som en komplimang, typ, vem skulle inte ääälska att bli sextrakasserad av en kvinnlig kollega, liksom? Fast det ska väl i ärlighetens namn tilläggas att några av kommentarerna inte så mycket ägnade sig åt att skratta åt mannen som att håna oss feminister och gleefully ropa "haha, what does it feel like NOW" av ingen synbar anledning eller rationell orsak som jag kan utröna.

            Vi andra, vi som inte såg det roliga i att människor fortfarande inte förstått att nej, honey, man inte kan göra precis vad man har lust med mot en person som är tvingad att vara i närheten av en eftersom det är hans/hennes fucking jobb att vara det, hade lättare att hålla oss för skratt, även om det var heartwarming att se att en man som blir tafsad på på jobbet möter exakt samma respons som en kvinna gör om att han borde ta det som en komplimang och om hur ZOMG ORÄTTVIST det är att ett beteende som är helt accepterat ute på krogen inte anses vara precis lika okej på en arbetsplats, waah waah! Fast jag saknar argumentet som kvinnor brukar möta om hur det minsann hade varit skillnad om den som blev trakasserad hade varit intresserad av den som trakasserade, då hade de minsann inte anmält OMG SO UNFAIR! *not. enough. headdesk. in. the. world*

            Tur då för blodtrycket att även feministbloggarna skrivit om fallet, där tonfallet i kommentarerna är helt annorlunda.
             
          3. Slutligen har vi även skrattat åt UR denna vecka. Eller snarare åt deras "genustest", först länkad av Pelle Billing, sedan här av SvDs ledarblogg och här av Gustav Almestad, även om skrattet emellanåt fastnade lite i halsen.

            Till exempel får man i UR:s genustest genus-minuspoäng om man väljer Britney Spears som kvinnlig förebild. Usch och fy säger UR då, för tio år sedan sjöng hon ju en låt med titeln "I'm a slave 4 U" och så gör man INTE, menar UR. Nevermind att hon även rakade av sig håret och kysste Madonna och framstår mer som en verklig människa av kött och blod än Christina Aguilera och alla medverkande i High School Musical gör tillsammans.

            Britney-basharna på UR anser även att Arnold Schwarzenegger är en Dålig manlig förebild (och att det fortfarande är 1992) trots att Trinity från Matrix anses vara en Bra kvinnlig förebild, eftersom hon "slåss snyggt". What, and ze Terminator DOESN'T?

            Vidare tycker UR att Johnny Depp är en Bra manlig förebild eftersom han ”kan vara på alla sätt”. HOW IS THIS TEST FOR REALZ?

            Slutligen hackar Britney-och-Terminator-basharna på UR på drottning Marie-Antoinette som de beskriver som "puckad" för att - håll i er - visa för testtagarna att "BÅDE män och kvinnor faktiskt kan vara puckade." Tja. Om man känner ett starkt behov av att påminna om något sådant i slutet av ett genomgånget genustest, så ska man nog fundera på vad man hållit på med innan.

            Allt det här gör mig ledsen för jag gillar verkligen UR och speciellt deras sexsajt.