Maybe the problem with Christian fiction is that it's non-denominational. People are just "Christian", with no effort put into showing what practicing that religion looks like for them specifically. No indication that there are other Christians who could have different beliefs. No wrestling with differing ideas and the struggle of how one should live out their Christian faith. And that makes it unrealistic and unrelatable.

I like period shows okay!? I was originally going to do a list on my favorite period dramas but that would be too long so I figured I'd only do 2 for now

Endeavour (2012-)

Set in Oxford city England in the midst of the swinging 60s. Endeavour opened in 1965, the last season which is currently being filmed will be set in 1971. It is a prequel to the Inspector Morse series that ran from the 1980s to the year 2000 and details the experience of the titular character before he became an inspector. (Yes, the character’s name is Endeavour Morse, his parents are Quakers) While there are some funny scenes in Endeavour, the show is noticeably a lot more grittier than other period dramas dealing with organized crime, sexual assault and racism, prejudice as well as drug use as the series progresses into the latter half of the 1960s. Endeavour listens to a lot of classical music and this factors into many of the episodes besides just being there for setting's sake like in the episode “Nocturne” (which has a young Anya Taylor Joy) where Chopin’s Nocturne in B flat minor features heavily in the plot. There are a few bumps in the feeling some of the episodes evoke but they aren’t too bad. You can tell from the dialogues the writers have done their research. Each episode is chock full of references, easter eggs, trivia and more and it is great! 

(Side note: In the episode “Deguello” there’s a librarian named Lucy Paroo obviously a reference to Marian Paroo, the strict librarian in the 1957 musical “The Music Man” one of my all time favourite shows, also the episode “Canticle” has 2 certified bops written for the show, “Make Believe You Love Me” and “Jennifer Sometimes”)

My favourite episodes from the show: “Nocturne” S2 ep2 “Raga” S7 ep2 “Canticle” S4 ep2 

Call The Midwife (2012-)

I absolutely love this show. I’d go much more into it but I cannot for fear of spoiling it for you all. Call The Midwife’s first few seasons were based on the memoirs of Jennifer Worth. A midwife who worked with the Community of St. John the Divine (an Anglican religious order that operated a convent in London from the mid 19th century until the 1970s) The show’s episodes deal with the midwives and nuns assisting in the delivery of babies in London’s East End specifically in the working class neighborhood/slums of Poplar. Worth (who is the basis of the character Jenny Lee played by Jessica Raine) stayed in Poplar until 1963 when she married. Jessica Raines left the show but the series is still continuing, the new material that is coming in is coming from many people who were delivered by midwives in London in the 1960s. Also the births are extremely realistic with the usage of special effects, props, and babies that are a couple of weeks old. The first season was set in 1957 and the show carries on from there. The latest season is set in 1965 and filming has been completed for season 10 set in 1966. The show not only deals with just pregnancy but also deals with a lot of issues that aren’t shown on TV today from teen pregnancy, adoption, miscarriage, abortion to other things like the importance of community, free healthcare for all, sex work, poverty, religon and faith, racism, same sex attraction and love (family, friends and romance) While the show is heavy, there are a lot of light moments. British humor and really witty dialogues. “Call The Midwife�� is an excellent show and I highly recommend you watch it. 

My favorite episodes: too many to count

Content warnings on the shows (varies from episode to episode)

Endeavour:

Murder, sexual assault, violence, dead bodies, child abuse, sex, occasional profanity, alcohol, smoking and drugs

Call The Midwife:

Labour and delivery, cases where both the mother and baby are in danger, some blood, occasional profanity, smoking and drinking (reflects social attitudes in the 1950s and 60s)

On June 19th  1566 King James VI was born  at Edinburgh Castle.

The only child of Mary Queen of Scots, it was a difficult birth for her, and her son was born frail.  Rumour soon spread which would haunt James for the rest of his life. The first of these rumours was that James was not Lord Darnley's child but Bothwell's. This can be dismissed by the fact that at the time of his conception, Mary was still infatuated with Darnley, and by the child's resemblance to his father. Secondly, there is a theory that James actually died at birth and was replaced by one of Erskine, Lord of Mar's child. This is substantiated by the remains of a baby skeleton found within the walls of Edinburgh Castle in the 18th century. This again is highly unlikely.

James was baptized Charles James in a Catholic ceremony at Stirling Castle. It is not unusual for monarchs to take another name when they ascend to the throne, the last case being King Robert III who was baptized John but  thought it was an unlucky name as evidenced by John Balliol, King of Scots. 

At the baptism were representatives of the French king and the Duke of Savoy who were the Godfathers and the Countess of Argyle, who attended in lieu of Queen Elizabeth, acknowledging she accepted being godmother to the Prince. 

The next year in June the Protestant lords rebelled.  They had become increasingly unhappy with Mary (James’ mother) after her marriage to Bothwell. They arrested and imprisoned Mary in Lochleven Castle where she was forced to abdicate the throne of Scotland.  James, was only a year old when he became James VI, King of Scotland.

Because of his young age a regent was appointed to act as head of state.  In fact, during his minority a succession of regents were chosen to rule in his stead.  The first regent was Mary’s half brother, James Stuart, Earl of Moray,  Upon the Earl’s death in  1570, Matthew Stewart, Earl of Lennox, who was James grandfather, became the second regent.  His regency didn’t last very long, as he died in 1571.  The third regent was James’s guardian, John Erskine, the first Earl of Mar whose regency also didn’t last long, he died in 1572.  The fourth and last of the regents was the very powerful James Douglas, Earl of Morton. Douglas survived long enough to see James reach an age to which to ruled himself, however he was later executed in 1581 for his part in the murder of the King’s father Lord Darnley. 

In spite of the catholic baptism James was brought up in the Protestant religion. He was educated by men who had empathy for the Presbyterian church. His marriage to Anne of Denmark, a protestant country, no doubt pleased his Protestant subjects.

James was considered to be an intellectual and did write several books. The most famous, or infamous was on witchcraft. He also foreso that smoking was an unhealthy practice writing it was a “A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black, stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the the pit that is bottomless.”   Without a doubt, James did not like smoking and made it quite plain what he thought about the “loathsome” habit!

Another interesting writing was The True Law of Free Monarchies in which he states that “the sovereign succeeds to his kingdom by right from God.”  He believed that subjects owe absolute obedience, and that his rights as sovereign could not be attacked nor limited. Though he believed in the divine right of kings his Parliament most definitely did not.

He authorized a translation of the bible which is now known as the King James Version.

James married Anne Oldenburg of Denmark on 23 November, 1589. Anne was the daughter of Frederick II, King of Denmark and Sophia von Mecklenburg-Gustrow. It is said that Anne and James were at first quite close but after several years of marriage they drifted apart.  They had quite a large family, eight children in all, of which only three survived.  In fact, after the death of their daugher Sophia, Anne and James lived apart.  Anne, eventually converted to Catholicism.

On 25 July, 1603, in Westminster Abbey, James and Anne were crowned as monarchs of England.  The two kingdoms were now united under one crown. However, they were in fact, two separate kingdoms each with their own legislatures and own administrative bodies.  Being under one crown, they could not go to war with each other, they could not take opposing sides in foreign wars.  Nor could they make any hostile agreements.

James misunderstood the differing powers of the two parliaments and conflicts arose especially in the areas of taxation and religion.  There were also diametrically opposite opinions on Spain. England adamantly believed Spain to be its enemy and, therefore, a country to be defeated.  On the other hand, James believed in resolving differences with Spain, he preferred to talk of peace rather than going to war. 

He had enough troubles at home without picking fights abroad, these included,  the anger of Roman Catholics, resulting in plots to remove the King.  One such plot was the Gunpowder Plot another was the Bye Plot.

A Catholic uprising in 1588, and a conspiracy in 1600 led by John Ruthven, Earl of Gowrie.

He wanted  free trade between Scotland and England but it was denied. His selling of honors and titles to shore up the debt-ridden treasury. His dissolution of the second Parliament called the Addled Parliament whose purpose was to obtain new taxes.  Ultimately, this Parliament failed to pass any legislation and failed to impose taxes.  After the dissolution he ruled for seven years without a parliament.

Arranging the marriage of his eldest son to the daughter of the King of Spain hoping for an alliance with Spain didn’t go down well  greatly angering the populace.  

His execution of the well-liked, and admired Sir Walter Raleigh further hurt his popularity. And of course interference in Kirk matters didn’t help, the Five Articles of Perth were interpreted as being too Catholic and Anglican-like therefore a threat to Scottish Presbyterians. (The Five Articles of Perth:  (1) kneeling during communion, (2) private baptism, (3) private communion for the sick or infirm, (4) confirmation by a Bishop and (5) the observance of Holy Days.)

It was written that... 

“The reign of James the First of England and Sixth of Scotland, ‘the wisest fool in Christendom’…, was a complete failure, and a time of gathering storm which burst upon the country in the reign of his son.  His ideas of kingship and prerogative turned Parliament against him, and began the long duel between king and people which resulted in the execution of Charles the First.  Parliament defended its privileges; secured the right to discuss all affairs of state; overthrew monopolies; and by the impeachment of Bacon and others made good the principle that ministers of the king ought to be held responsible for their acts.  James’ hatred of extreme parties caused him to persecute the Puritans and Roman Catholics, and set them against him.  His foreign policy was also a failure.  In his desire for peace and a Spanish alliance he sacrificed Raleigh, and refused to help his Protestant son-in-law in Germany, greatly to the indignation of the English people.  Finally, however, he declared war with Spain, and married his son to a French Roman Catholic princess.  He left his people angry and defiant, and only a very tactful conciliatory successor could have avoided conflict.”

It is said that his wife Anne was the one who brought art and culture to the court of King James.

James had his court favorites, and considering he was an intelligent person, he strangely relied on these people for advice on government issues even though their qualifications were questionable.  These favorites apparently had lots of personal charm but not much in the way of talent or intelligence. In 1584, James was visited by Fontenay, his mother Mary’s french emissary who had the following to say regarding the young James’ character and traits:

“I have been well received by the king, who has treated me better in reality than in appearance.  He give me much credit, but does not show me much kindness.  Since the day of my arrival he has ordered me to live in his house along with the earls and lords, and that I shall have access to him in his cabinet just as the others have… . To tell you truly what I think of him – I consider him the first prince in the world for his age. … . He apprehends and conceives quickly, he judges ripely and with reason, and he retains much and for a long time.  In questioning he is quick and piercing, and solid in his answers. … He is learned in many languages, sciences, and affairs of state. more so than probably anyone in his realm. In a word he has a miraculous wit, and moreover is full of noble glory and a good opinion of himself. Having been brought up in the midst of constant fears, he is timid and will not venture to contradict the great lords; yet he wishes to be thought brave. He hates dancing and music in general and especially all the mincing affectations of the court … . From want of proper instruction his manners are boorish and very rough, as well in his way of speaking, eating. dress, amusements and conversation, even in the company of women. He is never at rest in one place but takes a singular pleasure in walking; but his gait is very ungainly and his step is wandering and unsteady, even in a room.  His voice is thick and very deep as he speaks. … He is weak of body … But to sum up, he is an old young man. … He misunderstands the real extent of his poverty and weakness; he boasts too much of himself and he despises other princes.  In the second place, he disregards the wishes of his subjects; and lastly, he is too idle and careless in business and too much addicted to his own pleasures, chiefly hunting. … He told me that he really gave greater attention to business than he seemed to do for he could get through more work in one hour than others could in a day. …  

James ruled Scotland as James VI from  24th July 1567;  James ruled in England and Ireland as James 1st from 24th March, 1603. He died 27th March, 1625 at Theobalds House, and his remains lie in the Henry VII Lady Chapel in Westminster Abbey.

CHARACTER DETAILS.

Full Name. MaryJane Autumn LeSauvage D/O/B|P/O/B: April 20th|Manitou Springs, Colorado Current residence(s): Main residency is in Manitou Springs, Colorado. Travels most of the time. Height: 5'" [Five foot.]. In high heels she can range 5'1"-5'4". Distinguishing marks: Two little moles just above the right corner of her lips & a healed knife wound on the side of her neck. Scent: Natural scent: She smells of fresh baked cookies & light musk. She has various perfumes & body mists. Most are light, fresh, & sweet. Fashion/Clothing: Hippie, Bohemian, & classy. Western hats, tunic tops, ruffle tops, off the shoulder tops, flannel shirts, t-shirts, harem pants, Turkish pants, leggings, jeans, ripped jeans, kaftan dresses, tunic dresses, spring & summer dresses, corsets, & underneath it all she wears lingerie. Loves to be barefoot most of the time, but when she has to she loves to wears sandals (Or “Jesus sandals” as she calls them.), tennis shoes for working out, hiking boots whenever she’s doing anything strenuous or outdoors, flats & sandals when shopping, & heels during special events. Often wears vintage, authentic jewelry; various earrings on each ear, various rings on each finger (One of which is gold with an ichthus carved into it & is an ancient piece from a Christian monk ancestor.), necklaces (Most of the time a wooden cross necklace & an angel winged locket that contains rare diamonds & a picture frame with a picture of her mother. Once opened, it plays a sweet song while the diamonds shine brightly. Depending on the story-line/plot, her deceased husband’s dog tags.), several bracelets on both her wrists & ankles, & toe rings. Gender: Cis female, feminine with a tomboy touch. Sexuality: Heterosexual. Although she believes women are beautiful, she hasn’t found another woman to fulfill her physical, emotional, mental, & spiritual needs & has only been able to find it in men. Marital status: Single, widowed. She’s a hopeless romantic, waiting for a new love to set her heart aflame. Family: Jack Alberto LeSauvage (father;alive), Anastasia Vera Volkov-LeSauvage (mother;deceased.). Occupation(s): Missionary, musician, & entertainer. Past occupations include waitressing & bartending. Religion: Christian - Protestant - Pentecostal: Protestant, Western Christian, who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church. Believes in a singular God, the life of Jesus Christ, & follows the Bible; Old & New Testament. Pentecostalism, or Classical Pentecostalism, include Protestant Christians who believe that the "manifestations of the Holy Spirit" are alive, available, & experienced by modern-day Christians. She is very spiritual. MBTI: ENFJ-A. Protagonist. Intuitive, feeling, extraverted, assertive, judging approach when it comes to decision-making, tolerant, reliable, charismatic, altruistic, & sensitive. Enneagram: Type ONE. Basic Fear: Of being corrupt/evil, defective. Basic Desire: To be good, to have integrity, to be balanced. Also known as The Reformer, they have a “sense of mission” that leads them to want to improve the world in various ways, using whatever degree of influence they have. They strive to overcome adversity- particularly moral adversity -so that the human spirit can shine through & make a difference. They strive after higher values. They are extraordinarily wise & discerning. By accepting what is, they become transcendentally realistic, knowing the best action to take in each moment. Humane, inspiring, & hopeful: the truth will be heard. They are conscientious with strong personal convictions: they have an intense sense of right & wrong, personal religious & moral values. They wish to be rational, reasonable, self-disciplined, mature, moderate in all things. They are also extremely principled, always want to be fair, objective, & ethical: truth & justice are their primary values. They have a sense of responsibility, personal integrity, & of having a higher purpose often make them teachers & witnesses to the truth. Traits: Sweet, kind, motherly, loving, supportive, giving, optimistic, open-minded, honest, affable, creative, cautious, protective, organized, adventurous, curious, stubborn, & a little anxious. Hobbies: Music, writing, cooking, photography, & sketching. Loves gardening when she’s home & dabbling in other forms of art. Drugs|Alcohol: Occasionally; Ecstasy, Acid, Shrooms, & Marijuana. She doesn't believe that Marijuana is a drug.|Occasionally drinks. Loves vodka on the rocks or a glass of red wine. Inspiration: Winona LaDuke, Camille Saint-Saëns, Maria Tallchief, Pocahontas, Michelle Obama, Barak Obama, Marie Mancini, & Mary Shelley. Colors: Pearl white, sky blue, forest green, sunshine yellow, soft pink, & sandy brown. Element: Earth. Loves & connects with mother nature. (DO NOT REBLOG!)

Rhaegar Targaryen was a Dick

Using real life, historical evidence, and based on what we know for sure (and also some speculation on what we don’t) (and also some things that I’ve seen most fans of the series agree as canon ex. KotLT was Lyanna). Oh, and by the way, SPOILERS.

DISCLAIMER: I love Jon Snow. He’s arguably my favorite character, both in the show and in the books. He’s intelligent, kind, honorable, and good (and far smarter in the books by the way) and I do agree that after the life he has had, Jon deserves everything he’s ever wanted. Jon, Sansa, Gilly, Davos, Grey Worm, and Missandei- they all deserve the Iron Throne. They deserve that after having such absolutely SHITTY lives. I am also pretty much a member of the Lyanna Stark Protection Squad. She’s blameless in all of the events in my eyes. She’s a teenager, for fuck’s sake, she goes with Rhaegar when she’s FIFTEEN years old, for Christ’s sake, and she gets WAY in over her head. Cut her some slack- in America, she wouldn’t have been able to vote, smoke cigarettes, or get drunk. She was not in any way responsible for the events that unfolded in her life. This is my stance on BOTH of these characters until there is sufficient evidence disproving my claims. MOVING ON. 

This past Sunday’s episode included a crucial scene where Gilly is reading from a book of an old maester, who wrote down everything because y’know, that’s the job of maesters. Fact. She asks Sam what an “annulment” means. He tells her, and it’s clear that he’s not really listening because he interrupts her sharing crucial information for the future of the show: this maester gave Rhaegar Targaryen an annulment on his marriage to Elia Martell, then in a secret ceremony in Dorne remarried him to “someone else.” Gilly never explicitly states the name of the other woman, but we can infer that the “someone else” is Lyanna Stark, who was revealed to be the mother of Jon Snow in the season six finale. Ergo, we can safely conclude that Lyanna Stark found out that she was pregant, told Rhaegar, they got married, and eventually Jon was born. (Actually she might have gotten pregant after the ceremony, but regardless. Something like that.)

While many fans (including myself) were screaming with joy at the thought that Jon is the rightful ruler of the Seven Kingdoms (moreso than Dany, actually, because of the male primogeniture rule that most monarchies work with) others expressed rage at the thought of Elia Martell, Rhaegar’s wife, with whom he had two children, being set aside.  And rightfully so. 

YES, it is pretty widely understood that Princess Elia of Sunspear and Crown Prince Rhaegar were not in love. It was an arranged marriage, devised by the mad king. They were married at twenty and twenty-three, when all other options (in the eyes of Aerys) were either unacceptable or non-existent. Under ordinary circumstances (hell even in our universe) the annulment would’ve been perfectly acceptable. Their marriage was amicable, but divorce is always an acceptable alternative. I’m not saying that the divorce was bad. Hell no, it was probably a good thing. But the consequences of Rhaegar’s actions mean that the many people see that Rhaegar was a dick who screwed over his wife and kids. 

Through out Robert’s Rebellion, the Dornish fought with the Targaryen forces, knowing that if they did not, their beloved princess and her children (three years old and an infant) could easily be disposed of. Yes, the war basically started when Rhaegar kidnapped (we now know actually ran away with) Lyanna, “Shaming Elia” in the eyes of many, but that didn’t matter. Elia was in King’s Landing. Elia, beloved by her people, could not be risked. 

And oh, yeah, sure, Elia might have known that she and Rhaegar were divorced, but it is doubtful, but there is very little reason to believe that she was okay with it. Since, you know. She was still a hostage, and you might as well be destined to be queen if you’re gonna be a hostage. (Note that Targaryens were cool with polygamy so actually Rhaegar didn’t have to divorce Elia at all but whatever showrunners, we’ll ignore that for now.)

Remember that whole “Tyrion’s on trial for Joffrey’s murder” thing? And how Tyrion demanded a trial by combat in that awesome scene? And how Oberyn Martell volunteered as tribute to be Tyrion’s champion so he could avenge his sister Elia Martell and her children? And how that got Oberyn killed? And the insuing Dorne plot, which we all hated? Yeah. You do. 

Oberyn Martell needed to avenge the deaths of Elia Martell and her children due to Rhaegar’s actions; he and his father started the war, Elia and her children paid the price alongside them. 

So, after abandoning Lyanna in the Tower of Joy, Rhaegar proceeded to be murdered by Robert Baratheon. The Lannisters, figuring that “Yeah, the Targs are screwed” decided to march to King’s Landing and clear the way for the Baratheon forces. This was called the Sack of King’s Landing. 

Tywin Lannister, hoping to curry favor with Robert, sent on a couple of his goons (including the Mountain, Ser Gregor Clegane) to go kill Elia and her kids. Cause y’know. Tywin was a Bad Dude. 

Rhaenys Targaryen, age 3, was stabbed multiple times. Aegon Targaryen, who was even younger, was thrown against a stone wall. Elia Martell, at this point not even the wife of Rhaegar, was raped with the blood of her son still on her rapist’s hands, and had her skull crushed in. 

But here’s the thing: Sunday’s episode says that these deaths were pointless. Those weren’t Targaryen deaths. 

We can infer this using real life history. 

Back up a second, to King Henry VIII of England. The dude who had six wives. Yeah, him. 

King Henry’s first wife was Catherine of Aragon. Catherine was the Princess of Spain, and it was an arranged, political marriage. She was beloved by the people, and was certainly the longest marriage Henry had. They were married for nearly twenty years, but she only gave him one living child: a daughter, Mary. Henry couldn’t have that. He needed a legitimate heir. A son. 

Henry looked around his court, and lo and behold, his eyes fell upon Anne Boleyn, the daughter of an important emissary. She was feisty, tempramental, and extremely intelligent. She was unwed, and younger than Catherine, and soon Henry came to the conclusion that shit would need to go down so they could be married. 

So, Henry split off from the Roman Catholic Church and created the Anglican Church, which at the time was basically the same thing as Catholicism, but whatever, that’s not relevant. Henry could divorce his wife, and so he did. Meanwhile, he and Anne ran off to get married in a secret wedding (NOTE THAT CATHERINE PROBABLY HAD NO IDEA OF ALL OF THIS BEING A THING THAT WAS GOING ON), and she got IMMEDIATELY PREGNANT, so they had another  secret wedding, and then finally he and Catherine were officially divorced, so Henry and Anne had NOT secret wedding, blah blah corronation blah blah blah, out pops the baby. 

Oh, and while all the secret weddings and pregnancies were going on, Henry made his legitimate daughter, Mary, sign a contract that essentially said “My dad is a certified dick, but he believes in the power of true love to grant him the kid he needs, so I, after being a princess for all thirteen years of my life, do rescind my princess-hood and declare that I am a bastard. I have no (ZERO) claim to the throne, etc etc etc wow my dad was a dick.” 

When Henry got bored with Anne’s feisty, intellectual, quick-tempered-ness, he had her beheaded and made their daughter Elizabeth sign the same contract so that he could marry Jane Seymour, the only one of his wives to actually give him a son (though she, like Lyanna died from birthing fever). 

So, to sum up: THE PARALLELS BETWEEN RHAEGAR AND KING HENRY, ELIA AND CATHERINE, AND LYANNA AND ANNE ARE UNDENIABLE. 

Both Henry and Rhaegar were obsessed with having children (Henry a son and Rhaegar a second daughter) and both, upon receiving the information that their current wives were incapable of giving them more children, turned to the young women who were available. Henry chose the feisty, temperamental, quick-witted ANNE, a daughter of an important emissary, younger than his current wife, and Rhaegar chose the feisty, temperamental, sword-wielding LYANNA (c’mon, you get what I’m getting at with Anne and Lyanna being kinda the same, right?) the daughter of an important lord, younger than his current wife. Both married their respective second wives in secret ceremonies, either immediately before or after said wife becomes pregnant. Catherine and Elia, two “foreign” princesses (many people have noted the vaguely Spanish tinge to Dorne, in the show at the very least) who were beloved by their people, who gave their slightly unhinged husbands legitimate children, and who were set aside due to an inability to give said husband the child he needed. Both were divorced from their husbands, likely largely against their wills and without knowledge of it, and after each had been set aside, it was all for naught: Lyanna couldn’t give Rhaegar his Visenya, just as Anne couldn’t give Henry a son. Considering these parallels, it is not beyond the scope of the imagination that Rhaegar could also have had Rhaenys and Aegon made bastards, especially since we know from the books that Lyanna didn’t like the idea of Robert having children with women other than her! This means that the death of Elia, already being pointless, is now complemented by the pointless deaths of her two innocent children. 

That’s my two cents on why Rhaegar is a dick. 

In Defense of Sam Carne

I originally posted this analysis on Facebook since it’s not Poldark Costuming Project related, but I think it’s something people on Tumblr could like, so here it is. There’s some vague Spoilers but moreso for the books: 

A lot of the people who criticize Sam Carne as a "annoying evangelist" are missing the point in ALL versions of the story. Our modern ideas about religion and atheism really need to be set aside to understand what Winston Graham was doing here. The new season’s changes so far have kept Sam’s character as a man of deep faith. Graham was setting up another one of his parallel plot with Sam Carne. He is to church corruption and inequality is what Ross is to political/economic corruption.

The Anglican Church at this time in history was a dumping ground for the second and third sons of the gentry who couldn't inherit the estate. You had to have education in order to even be CONSIDERED for a position in the Church. And church vacancies were purchased from politicians. A devout man without the means for paying for training was already out of contention. Remember, there's no such thing as free education or scholarships for poor students with merit. The result of this system was that it echoed political corruption. These men didn't have true religious devotion. For every Canon Sidney Chambers (yes this is a Grantchester reference) and Reverend Odgers who took their faith and their jobs at least somewhat seriously, there were 25 Reverend Whitworth's. The Church gave them prestige, paycheck and free rent. Although Whitworth is an extreme, there were very many hypocrites like him. And the church pews were filled with people like George Warleggan, who is clearly too greedy as hell to be a good "Christian". These Church leaders treated the poor with contempt and didn't attempt to build community and faith. Many were committing a wide varsity of sins undercover and yet going to the pulpit every Sunday. 

The Methodist movement rejected Anglican hierarchy and focused on one's relationship with God. Preachers consisted of ordinary people like Sam Carne who truly tried to live life according to the Bible. The Methodist message of equality of faith regardless of income level was highly appealing to the miners. Yes there was an emphasis on evangelism, but the bigger point is that the Methodists weren't treating the poor one way and the rich another. No one was getting rich off having a Methodist leadership position. The people in charge were working for their fellow man and not out for worldly profit. The movement had a huge impact on the history of Cornwall, which Sam Carne represents. 

Although the new series has switched the timeline of events, Ross' transition from being a rebel against the system to to a political figure who wants reform is quite similar to Sam's situation. The magistrate position he turned down in the last episode was used to abuse the poor. Magistrates often gave the poor very harsh sentences for minor offenses or sentences of transportation of the colonies. Jim Carter all the way back in Season 1 is a great example of this. He was essentially jailed because he stole a food item for people who were going hungry. The justice system essentially blamed the poor for poverty or the results of poverty. Ross on the other hand most likely got off on his charges because he was a man of importance. There were also cases of rich people bribing judges for favorable outcomes. The members of Parliament at the time only represented the rich landlords since the common people couldn't vote. Many people brought their seats or rigged elections. Think back to Unwin Trevaunance’s election in Season 2. For the book readers, you can also think about what George does to pursue more political power. The French Revolution and the growing abolitionist movement highlighted the massive gap between the haves and the have nots in England. Just as how the Anglican Church treated people unequally based on how much cash they had, the government did the same. 

There will be more developments this season with Sam Carne, but I do expect that we will see him as more than a “bible thumper��. He’s staging a rebellion against classism in religion and hypocrisy. 

On the Companions, and How to Define Them

In my psychology class last year, we learned about an experiment that examined individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures, and I think it works as an apt analogy for how Davies and Moffat approach companions.

This experiment compared American and Japanese students. It asked them to describe themselves, first objectively and then how they saw themselves around different people. The Japanese students were puzzled by the first task, while Americans had a harder time with the second, the implication being that those from societies that prize individuality see themselves separate from the people around them, while those from cultures that value working together and harmony will view themselves in relation to the people around them. To reiterate: this is exactly what is happening in Moffat and Davies Who.

I rewatched “The Beast Below” recently, and was struck by the sheer awkwardness involved in a lot of Eleven and Amy’s interactions. He’s a little cruel, she’s a little standoffish, and they don’t seem to have that lovely click Donna and Ten, for example, had from the beginning. But that is purposeful on Moffat’s part; where Davies makes the companions old friends from the beginning, Moffat builds relationships from the ground up.

Look at, for example, Rose. No matter where in her run we see her, we know immediately who she is. She’s gutsy, she’s working-class, she has an obnoxious mother, she was in gymnastics as a kid, her favorite color is pink, she’s kind, she acts fast in a crisis, she doesn’t like school, she works at a department school, she has lots of friends, and she’s unsatisfied with her life. I can reel those off, twelve years after it first aired, with very little trouble, because that’s who Rose is. She changes and she grows, she stops being unsatisfied with life, but we as the audience know pretty well how she’ll react to any given scenario. You may like her, you may not, but you know her.

The same is true for Martha and Donna. Martha is a doctor, smart, ambitious, selfless, perfectionistic, patient, practical, middle-class. Donna is a temp, adores her grandfather, insecure, loud, bossy, enraged by injustice, protective of children, blunt, short-tempered.

But then we get to Amy. She’s a kissogram, she’s an orphan, and she has a boyfriend. Other than that? Amy is brave, except when confronted by Weeping Angels—then she devolves into an incapable mess. She is terrible at relationships—then she talks down a suicidal man. She’s hot-tempered and fiery, until the Doctor scolds her, upon which she shows admirable restraint and says…nothing. “Misogyny!” shout the haters. “Eye candy! Sexy Lamp!”

But what the haters don’t see is that Moffat’s companions, while nebulous when looked at without context, come into sharp relief against the backdrop of their relationships. They are completely different with different people because Moffat Who is very collectivistic; where Davies creates memorable characters within five minutes and makes us fall in love with them immediately, Moffat introduces us to relationships, defining the people we meet by how they interact with others. "We’re the Thin Fat Gay Married Anglican Marines. Why would we need names as well?” the Fat One says in “A Good Man Goes to War.” Indeed.

To take a representative example, in series 5 (Moffat's first series), only "Time of Angels" and "The Beast Below" don't have a big plot point surrounding a relationship. The rest do: Amy/Rory, Eleven/River, Amy's crush on the Doctor, Craig/Sophie, Amy/Vincent, Amy and Bracewell, Guido and Isabella, and the Mack family. By contrast, in series 1, Davies' first, only "Father's Day," "Boom Town," and "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances" involve relationships that aren't Nine/Rose—and TEC/TDD were written by Moffat. In addition, every Moffat companion to date has had a serious romantic relationship that lasts at least one season and is treated as an important part of their arc. In the Davies era, on the other hand, only Rose has one that lasts for more than two episodes. Martha suddenly starts dating Tom and equally suddenly marries Mickey, and Donna is engaged to an arachnophile and then marries a computer simulation. Neither has much screen time dedicated to romance.

Looking at Amy again, this relationship theme holds true. Amy has a set of basic traits that are displayed differently to different people. For instance, she is recklessly brave in the presence of others—particularly, in the presence of Eleven and Rory. She lost her entire family for a season and then lost her child, so when she’s isolated it takes all that bravery for her to keep from breaking. Amy Pond can waltz right into vampire school, sass a bunch of Daleks, and shoot a tranquilizer gun at a bunch of dinosaurs. But lock her away from the Doctor and Rory, or put one of them in danger, and she loses the ability to cope. Hence her sobbing during “Day of the Moon,” her instant capitulation to the Angels once Rory’s gone, the shaken response to the Dream Lord: Amelia Pond cannot take being alone. Who is Amelia Pond? That question becomes a lot easier when you frame it as: who is Amelia Pond with her friends? Who is she when alone?

This system works well for other traits too. Amy is flirty, except with her husband. With him she is serious. This is because her sexuality is her defense mechanism against those who ridicule her mind: she will be noticed for something. Call her crazy and she’ll be sexy to make up for it. Rory always takes her seriously and she does him the courtesy of doing likewise. With the Doctor, it’s not until mid-series 6 that she is truly done being afraid that he’ll abandon her, upon which she stops flirting with him as well. Thus the sudden drop in innuendo and general sexiness in the last half of her run: it’s not because she’s married, it’s because she interacts with Rory more.

The system holds true with Clara as well. Part of the problem with her introduction in series 7 was that time jumped too fast. Moffat’s characters depend on relationships, but we didn’t see enough of Clara’s relationship with the Doctor to be able to truly define her. Where Amy and the Doctor grew slowly more comfortable with each other and we saw some inconsistencies disappear while others grew stronger, with Clara we didn’t see enough of the beginning awkwardness to know what is “normal” for Clara and what is her being bros/romantic/sexually ambiguous partner-for-life with somebody. That changed in series 8 because Danny Pink made an appearance.

See, with Danny, Clara takes the lead in the relationship. She asks him out, she leaves when he annoys her, she comes back confidently, she flirts and flirts again when he fails to pick it up the first time. With the Doctor, on the other hand, she’s physically brave but a total coward when it comes to actually discussing anything important. Inconsistency? No. It’s just the same trait expressed differently around different people. Clara lies to Danny—about what she’s doing. She lies to the Doctor—about who she’s with. Again, same basic characteristic, different relationship. This is where having that extra connection for Clara is extremely helpful in ascertaining her true nature: when all we see is the Clara around the Doctor, we can’t be sure if that’s the Clara in her natural habitat. Once we see her with somebody else, we realize—or have our suspicions confirmed—that Clara, more than most, wants control over people’s perceptions of her and changes her behavior based on that.

We see this same sort of thing with Bill. Moffat improved on Clara’s introduction by a) letting us see the evolution of the Doctor and Bill’s relationship over a few months, and b) giving her another relationship right away. Bill is a dynamic character but again there are inconsistencies: Bill is sharp and asks questions nobody else would think to ask, except when her crush tells her to look into a scary puddle. Where was the skepticism then? The answer: she’s skeptical with her professor, but naive with her gf. I’ll expect to see more of that as Bill’s arc continues: she’ll be an idiot around romantic interests, sharp as a tack around the Doctor, and we’ll get to know her better as the Doctor and Nardole do.

Moffat and Davies aren’t any better or worse than each other; they merely define their characters using different parameters. Davies sees his characters as individuals, consistent both externally and internally. Moffat defines his characters by those around them, consistent with internal logic but varying depending on external circumstances. All the companions are beautiful, dynamic people with fascinating and complex relationships, and we as a fandom should recognize the fundamental difference between Moffat and Davies and acknowledge that their differences do not mean that one or the other is lesser.

On the 24th of March 1603, Queen Elizabeth I of England and Ireland died at Richmond Palace. With her, the Tudor Dynasty died, but not its descendants. Its descendants to the first Tudor monarch, Henry VII, still rule England. They descend from his eldest daughter, Margaret Tudor’s offspring.

When Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots and Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley’s only son, James VI of Scotland became King of England, he decided to honor his predecessor’s memory by building a great monument to her. He also ordered that she and her half-sister, Queen Mary I of England and Ireland, would be re-interred and placed together.

While it was only Elizabeth’s effigy that was built for them, Mary was given a small mention in a plaque where it says the following: “Consorts in realm and tomb, here we sleep, Elizabeth and Mary, sisters, in hope of resurrection.”

Queen Elizabeth acceded the throne when she was only twenty-five years old. She wasn’t the youngest monarch ever, but she was the youngest female monarch up until Queen Victoria. She was crowned two months after her half-sister died, on January of 1559. Her coronation pageants depicted her as Deborah, the biblical warrior who fought for the Hebrews, and Esther, who was not only a Queen, but also another biblical warrior and a figure that Elizabeth I probably saw herself more as than Deborah.

Elizabeth wasn’t the only one to be likened to these female biblical figures. Her mother, Anne Boleyn, did it too. When she was crowned Queen of England -the first Queen Consort of England to be crowned with the crown of the Confessor, a crown that was used only for Kings- she was compared to all these classical and biblical figures, among them Esther. Anne used her confessor to bring Esther again when he indirectly attacked Cromwell by comparing him to Haman (Esther’s enemy).

As she got older, Elizabeth fashions became more elaborate. They were a mixture of Italian, Spanish, French and English. She used heavier make up to cover up her age. Last year an article talked about Elizabeth’s last years and the writer compared her to the fictional character of Melisandre from Game of Thrones. The first episode of season six ends with this attractive enchantress taking off her ruby necklace. As she is about to do it, she hesitates. Why doesn’t she want to do it? What is she hiding? She is drop-dead-gorgeous. She should be proud she has that figure. But seconds later we find out why. Her drop-dead gorgeous figure is just an illusion. Without it, she feels naked and powerless. The writer of this article points out that for Elizabeth, dressing outrageously and wearing heavy make-up was her way of still looking relevant. * Elizabeth was a woman who understood the power of symbols and like her father and grandfather before her, she wanted to use her public image to change public opinion, and control whatever narrative she was pushing unto them. There were some in her court who cruelly dismissed her tactics as ridiculous and laughed behind her back, but the commons thought differently. When they saw her, they were in awe of her. Several portraits made her appear as larger-than-life, and it is this version that has endured. Regardless of your feelings about this monarch or her dynasty, no one can deny the power of her propaganda, whether it is by what was said about her, her writings, her triumphs over her enemies, her legislature, or her portraits in which she holds her hand over the globe while the Spanish Armada is severely beaten by the English navy, or she is next to a group of Goddesses who see her as their chosen one, or she is next to her father, behind her peace and prosperity while her half-sister and her husband standing on the opposite, are shown bringing calamity. Elizabeth is a figure that remains highly popular, and will likely remain so for years to come.

While she was Queen, she took a pragmatic stance on religion. She agreed with a revision to the book of common prayer and with some Protestant reforms, and she gave her support to Protestant groups in Western Europe, primarily the Huguenots in France and those in the Netherlands. But she didn’t agree with their ideology. Some of her ministers did and tried to protect the more radical Protestant reformers in England. This upset Elizabeth. These radical Protestants thought the Anglican church was too pagan, and Elizabeth not a genuine reformer, and sought to make England into a ‘true’ Protestant country. Elizabeth saw this as an attack against her and the institution of monarch which she held as sacred. In her view, anything else other than monarchy was an abomination. Like her father, Henry VIII, she believed the monarch was above the law and accountable only to God. Nevertheless, Elizabeth I managed to have her way on many issues.

She instituted the Poor Laws, which were a revision of those implemented by Cromwell during his time serving her father. The Poor Laws did a lot to help the commons but they faced harsh criticism in the 1590s with the over-population crisis. Continuing with her half-sister’s reforms to the Navy, Elizabeth sought other places to trade and besides continuing England’s alliance with Russia, she also looked to the Islamic empires in the East. She and Murad III of the Ottoman Empire didn’t have the best of alliances, with Elizabeth I reminding him that while the two were polar opposites, they had the same enemy, and as a result, they had to stand by each other, otherwise, the Catholic powers would crush them. Whenever Murad III didn’t want to comply, Queen Elizabeth would simply write to his mother, a remarkable woman in her own right, Safiye Sultan. Like Elizabeth, Safiye was both pragmatic and ruthless. The English envoys knew that she held considerable influence and would often seek her favor first before the Sultan. A lot of Elizabeth’s exchanges with Safiye still survive. When you get a chance to read both, you can see the admiration each had for one another.

Despite the difficult relationship with France, Elizabeth I spoke highly of Catherine de Medici. The two women approached each other (through their envoys) with caution, knowing that regardless of how they felt for one another, if one had the opportunity to take her country down to benefit hers, she’d take it.

It’s important to note that while James VI of Scotland succeeded her, Queen Elizabeth I never named a successor. A myth was circulated that she did. At the time of her death, the tale went that she could not speak so she was asked to point to the piece of paper that held James’ names or to the other side that held another one. Elizabeth pointed to James so her councilors decided to acknowledge James her successor.

The reason for this is simple. Elizabeth had known about Wyatt’s rebellion, and she had heard about her sister’s uprising against the usurper Jane Grey. In all these instances, she said and did nothing, preferred a wait-and-see approach. If she named a successor, that person, could be just as observant and conniving as Elizabeth I was, and conspire with her enemies or (like she did during Mary I’s reign) know about their plots but not inform the Queen about it. And Elizabeth, in the eyes of many Catholics, was a bastard who didn’t deserve to be Queen (despite her father’s will made it perfectly legal for her) and as such, she approached the issue with extreme caution throughout her reign.

When she died, people mourned for her but also celebrated the coming of their new monarch and his dynasty. As the years went by however, historians have pointed out, how quickly the people became disappointed in James and looked nostalgically to the past. In short time, Elizabeth became a legend.

Images: Elizabeth I’s burial place along with her half-sister’s Mary I, in the Lady Chapel, Westminster Abbey in London, England. *Unfortunately I can't find the article, but when I do, I will post the link here so you guys can see it. In the meantime, here is a good one by Huffington Post (they do some good pieces from time to time) on the Sansa and young Elizabeth's comparisons. I have gone into a lot of those, but they also point out other good factors such as what I mentioned above: her wait-and-see approach (which is something Bess definitely had) not to mention how everyone underestimated them and took advantage of them until they came to regret it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/game-of-thrones-season-6-_b…

Sources: Elizabeth: The Forgotten Years by John Guy The Private Life of the Tudors by Tracy Borman Elizabeth: The Struggle for the Throne by David Starkey Tudor by Leanda de Lisle I also recommend you visit Westminster Abbey's website. The following is their mini-bio on Elizabeth I: http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/royals/elizabeth-i

Any thoughts on Venus de Milo(tmnt)?

BOY DO I

I wonder if this is related at all to MovieBob’s recent video about her being the worst female character ever because the moment I watched it I wondered if anyone would be asking me about her. 

So. Ninja Turtles: The Next Mutation is... a thing that in itself is almost too difficult to explain outside of “you had to be there”, but I’m going to do my best. Because I was there. Oh, man. Was I there. 

While I had VHS tapes of the original ‘80s TMNT cartoon I grew up with and watched religiously, the show stopped airing new episodes before I was born, and stopped resyndication by the time I was four. So while I definitely grew up with them and loved them and read the Archie comics religiously as a kid and watched the original live action movies pretty much every weekend we rented movies from the down the road movie rental store (anyone remember those?), my actual first memories of watching any TMNT show as it aired was the 1998 flop show, Ninja Turtles: The Next Mutation. 

In fact, I distinctly remember getting the chicken pox that year and part of the only good thing that came from it was I got to watch episodes of NT:TNM without impediment from my then-one year old sister because they kept her away from me as if I had the plague. 

Which I kinda did, but regardless. 

It was actually just 4 years later, in 2001, that I’d come to build an online presence with TERRIBLE Pokemon, Inuyasha, and Star Fox fanfics that I first started looking up geocities communities for various fandoms and one of those was TMNT. 

If anyone remembers geocities or pre-ff.net fandom lore in the Ninja Turtles circle, here’s how old I am: I, personally, used to talk to the likes of Kali Gargoyle, Azure the Turtle, Kat, Sakan (FREAKfreak), Ame Musashi, Buslady, and Machias -- a statement that I can almost guarantee means absolutely NOTHING to 99.9999% of you.

Now, an interesting thing about the fandom culture just before the 2003 cartoon aired was that there was actually a large contingent of the fandom that were defensive of Ninja Turtles: The Next Mutation and thought of it as being only as bad as the current Power Rangers season of the time (which was the one right before Dino Thunder, so I can’t remember which one it was). In fact, people were so on the bandwagon for it, that the geocities community started an online petition -- which at the time was a difficult thing to do because it meant everyone sending a single email chain around and around so everyone can sign it with their online names and then email it to Saban, who owned the rights. The petition was to allow the show to have another season and tie up its loose ends with the (most likely misinformed) opinion that Next Mutation had had better viewership than the Power Rangers season it ran side-by-side with. 

Did it deserve it? With my nostalgia goggles off, having bought the DVDs of the series and watched it within the last four years, can I say Next Mutation and Venus de Milo deserved that type of fandom swelling in support?

...

Um. Noooooo?

Okay, my extensive fandom history aside, I cannot defend The Next Mutation because... it was really bad. Like, made the Shredder a good guy in the pilot and got rid of the most iconic villains for the rest of the series bad. Instead we had the Dragon Lord (eh) and Wick (his servant, again eh), Silver the Gorilla... gangster whose gang came straight out of the (also flop) Dick Tracey movie, and... 

Vam Mi. Who was probably the first indication my parents had that I was into girls. Because. Well shit. I mean. 

A Chinese vampire obsessed with the female of the show and wore tight leather and heeellllooooooooo

Vam Mi is actually the thing I remember the best about the show and I could probably write an essay on defending the storyline “Unchain My Heart” which goddamn if we’d had episodes like that throughout the show and a villain like Vam Mi throughout the show, well it probably would’ve gotten that mythical second sense that would have made sense of the other garbage. 

But I’ve obviously gotten away from your question. Which is about Venus herself. Or, as I prefer to call her (for reason we’ll get into) Mei Peih Chi. 

The reason I’ve had all this build up and quandering about the show itself is because Mei herself is such a product of this series that removing them from each other leaves out how things went so wrong with an idea that came from such an obviously positive place. “Hey, little girls deserve to want to be Ninja Turtles, too!”

Best intentions. Worst executions. 

If you read a lot of my meta, you know that I actually despise the concept of “Mary Sues” and how female characters are carelessly cast aside by people for basically having attributes of any main character. But. Well. Let’s just look at Mei’s character in its context: 

Mei is a fifth turtle who was in the same bowl that fell into the sewers and was mutated along with the turtles (aka, does not have her own unique origin story and was there from the beginning but WE’RE JUST LEARNING ABOUT IT), she was found by a Chinese monk (Chinese, not Japanese which is the ethnicity of the Hamato family of the turtles and Yoshi, sort of glazing over the cultures as being interchangeable), was raised as his daughter in the monastery back in China even though... he seemed to somehow know about the others Turtles and Splinter and inform her where to go after his death in the pilot?, and she -- in a series called Ninja Turtles, was not a ninja but a Shinobi priestess with psychic abilities. 

Oh, and throughout the show they keep bringing up the fact that none of them are blood-related, despite the turtles being brothers being a cornerstone to the franchise since the 80s comics, for the sole purpose of having a love triangle between Raph, Venus, and Leo without it being incest. 

(This hilariously backfired and became the justification for the ever growing T-Cest fandom that shipped the boys together for years afterward by the by)

She is a fish out of water, has zero fun throughout the series, is not as physically strong in a fight as the boys, and is basically the plot equivalent of Deus Ex Machina in the end because Magic > Ninjitsu in a franchise that is completely dependent on the physicality and Ninja-ness of the characters. 

Also. Despite Mei growing up in China, still learning English and Western culture, and having an obvious struggle with mourning the loss of her home in China and her Chinese father, in the goddamn pilot the main guys rename her “Venus de Milo” because she knocked the arms off a statue and they thought it was funny. Because while the guys are named after Renaissance artists, Mei is renamed and for all purposes “Anglicanized” for an art object. Like. It’s difficult to understand who okayed any of this. 

Like. Were they thinking?

Mei, from the start, was kind of a broken character with a gross costume design (turtle boobs turtle boobs what’re you gonna do there’s a turtle with fucking boobs) that still forces girls to see themselves as thin and demure even if they’re bulky, shell having turtles. BECAUSE WE GOTTA HAVE THEM HIPS AND CURVES i guess. 

She’s so loathed by Peter Laird (co-creator of the TMNT) that he made the overly drastic declaration that he’ll never allow there to be female turtles in the franchise again, period. Which I kinda... find extreme. 

Because....

As bad as she is. As problematic as she was. 

.... When I was six, I loved her. 

How could I not love her? She and Vam Mi were the only girls on the whole damn show! (April and Casey didn’t even get cameos). The face value of representation for a long time made me defensive of Mei and of the show because of how it made me feel as a kid.

It’s that Maya Angelou quote personified: “People may not remember exactly what you did, or what you said, but they will always remember how you made them feel.“

I didn’t remember how bad the props and puppetry was until I rewatched the show. I didn’t remember how annoying Venus’ “spot” in the team was as immediate den mother and object to be fought over (like Raph and Leo needed more to fight over really). I didn’t even remember that the show kept pushing for the Turtles to not be a family. 

I remembered having a lot of affection for seeing a female ninja turtle along with the characters I had grown up loving. I mean, seriously, do I have to post that picture again of me as a baby in the scariest Ninja Turtle themed grocery store ride in the history of ever?

So she’s bad. And there needs to be more effort in being progressive and being more inclusive, especially for old properties trying to adapt to the changing times. 

And I’m someone who believes wholeheartedly that any idea can be done well. 

.... Venus was not done well.

But she had her part in making me a lifetime Ninja Turtle fan. A complicated, twisted, only could happen in the late part of the Clinton administration way. 

So I will criticize the hell out of Mei, out of the series, but I’ll always be mindful of how it made a six-year-old Rena excited every Saturday. 

I’ll remember that and the hot vampire in leather. 

Companions: Explained

In my psychology class last year, we learned about an experiment that examined individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures, and I think it works as an apt analogy for how Davies and Moffat approach companions. This experiment compared American and Japanese students. It asked them to describe themselves, first objectively and then how they saw themselves around different people. The Japanese students were puzzled by the first task, while Americans had a harder time with the second, the implication being that those from societies that prize individuality see themselves separate from the people around them, while those from cultures that value working together and harmony will view themselves in relation to the people around them. To reiterate: this is exactly what is happening in Moffat and Davies Who. I rewatched “The Beast Below” recently, and was struck by the sheer awkwardness involved in a lot of Eleven and Amy’s interactions. He’s a little cruel, she’s a little standoffish, and they don’t seem to have that lovely click Donna and Ten, for example, had from the beginning. But that is purposeful on Moffat’s part; where Davies makes the companions old friends from the beginning, Moffat builds relationships from the ground up. Look at, for example, Rose. No matter where in her run we see her, we know immediately who she is. She’s gutsy, she’s working-class, she has an obnoxious mother, she was in gymnastics as a kid, her favorite color is pink, she’s kind, she acts fast in a crisis, she doesn’t like school, she works at a department school, she has lots of friends, and she’s unsatisfied with her life. I can reel those off, twelve years after it first aired, with very little trouble, because that’s who Rose is. She changes and she grows, she stops being unsatisfied with life, but we as the audience know pretty well how she’ll react to any given scenario. You may like her, you may not, but you know her. The same is true for Martha and Donna. Martha is a doctor, smart, ambitious, selfless, perfectionistic, patient, practical, middle-class. Donna is a temp, adores her grandfather, insecure, loud, bossy, enraged by injustice, protective of children, blunt, short-tempered. But then we get to Amy. She’s a kissogram, she’s an orphan, and she has a boyfriend. Other than that? Amy is brave, except when confronted by Weeping Angels—then she devolves into an incapable mess. She is terrible at relationships—then she talks down a suicidal man. She’s hot-tempered and fiery, until the Doctor scolds her, upon which she shows admirable restraint and says…nothing. “Misogyny!” shout the haters. “Eye candy! Sexy Lamp!” But what the haters don’t see is that Moffat’s companions, while nebulous when looked at without context, come into sharp relief against the backdrop of their relationships. They are completely different with different people because Moffat Who is very collectivistic; where Davies creates memorable characters within five minutes and makes us fall in love with them immediately, Moffat introduces us to relationships, defining the people we meet by how they interact with others. “We’re the Thin Fat Gay Married Anglican Marines. Why would we need names as well?” the Fat One says in “A Good Man Goes to War.” Indeed. To take a representative example, in series 5 (Moffat’s first series), only "Time of Angels” and “The Beast Below” don’t have a big plot point surrounding a relationship. The rest do: Amy/Rory, Eleven/River, Amy’s crush on the Doctor, Craig/Sophie, Amy/Vincent, Amy and Bracewell, Guido and Isabella, and the Mack family. By contrast, in series 1, Davies’ first, only “Father’s Day,” “Boom Town,” and “The Empty Child”/“The Doctor Dances” involve relationships that aren’t Nine/Rose—and TEC/TDD were written by Moffat. In addition, every Moffat companion to date has had a serious romantic relationship that lasts at least one season and is treated as an important part of their arc. In the Davies era, on the other hand, only Rose has one that lasts for more than two episodes. Martha suddenly starts dating Tom and equally suddenly marries Mickey, and Donna is engaged to an arachnophile and then marries a computer simulation. Neither has much screen time dedicated to romance. Looking at Amy again, this relationship theme holds true. Amy has a set of basic traits that are displayed differently to different people. For instance, she is recklessly brave in the presence of others—particularly, in the presence of Eleven and Rory. She lost her entire family for a season and then lost her child, so when she’s isolated it takes all that bravery for her to keep from breaking. Amy Pond can waltz right into vampire school, sass a bunch of Daleks, and shoot a tranquilizer gun at a bunch of dinosaurs. But lock her away from the Doctor and Rory, or put one of them in danger, and she loses the ability to cope. Hence her sobbing during “Day of the Moon,” her instant capitulation to the Angels once Rory’s gone, the shaken response to the Dream Lord: Amelia Pond cannot take being alone. Who is Amelia Pond? That question becomes a lot easier when you frame it as: who is Amelia Pond with her friends? Who is she when alone? This system works well for other traits too. Amy is flirty, except with her husband. With him she is serious. This is because her sexuality is her defense mechanism against those who ridicule her mind: she will be noticed for something. Call her crazy and she’ll be sexy to make up for it. Rory always takes her seriously and she does him the courtesy of doing likewise. With the Doctor, it’s not until mid-series 6 that she is truly done being afraid that he’ll abandon her, upon which she stops flirting with him as well. Thus the sudden drop in innuendo and general sexiness in the last half of her run: it’s not because she’s married, it’s because she interacts with Rory more. The system holds true with Clara as well. Part of the problem with her introduction in series 7 was that time jumped too fast. Moffat’s characters depend on relationships, but we didn’t see enough of Clara’s relationship with the Doctor to be able to truly define her. Where Amy and the Doctor grew slowly more comfortable with each other and we saw some inconsistencies disappear while others grew stronger, with Clara we didn’t see enough of the beginning awkwardness to know what is “normal” for Clara and what is her being bros/romantic/sexually ambiguous partner-for-life with somebody. That changed in series 8 because Danny Pink made an appearance. See, with Danny, Clara takes the lead in the relationship. She asks him out, she leaves when he annoys her, she comes back confidently, she flirts and flirts again when he fails to pick it up the first time. With the Doctor, on the other hand, she’s physically brave but a total coward when it comes to actually discussing anything important. Inconsistency? No. It’s just the same trait expressed differently around different people. Clara lies to Danny—about what she’s doing. She lies to the Doctor—about who she’s with. Again, same basic characteristic, different relationship. This is where having that extra connection for Clara is extremely helpful in ascertaining her true nature: when all we see is the Clara around the Doctor, we can’t be sure if that’s the Clara in her natural habitat. Once we see her with somebody else, we realize—or have our suspicions confirmed—that Clara, more than most, wants control over people’s perceptions of her and changes her behavior based on that. We see this same sort of thing with Bill. Moffat improved on Clara’s introduction by a) letting us see the evolution of the Doctor and Bill’s relationship over a few months, and b) giving her another relationship right away. Bill is a dynamic character but again there are inconsistencies: Bill is sharp and asks questions nobody else would think to ask, except when her crush tells her to look into a scary puddle. Where was the skepticism then? The answer: she’s skeptical with her professor, but naive with her gf. I’ll expect to see more of that as Bill’s arc continues: she’ll be an idiot around romantic interests, sharp as a tack around the Doctor, and we’ll get to know her better as the Doctor and Nardole do. Moffat and Davies aren’t any better or worse than each other; they merely define their characters using different parameters. Davies sees his characters as individuals, consistent both externally and internally. Moffat defines his characters by those around them, consistent with internal logic but varying depending on external circumstances. All the companions are beautiful, dynamic people with fascinating and complex relationships, and we as a fandom should recognize the fundamental difference between Moffat and Davies and acknowledge that their differences do not mean that one or the other is lesser.