anyways what ever you do don’t picture Jake resigning and leaving to ~stand in the sun~ and then a couple years later he come back to D.C. because it’s Baby Charliequinn’s birthday and Uncle Jake is not gonna miss another one and in the morning he goes to get coffee and deciding on a pastry and he’s standing in line when suddenly he hears “You should get a donut, the donuts here are amazing. I hear they are the unsung heroes of the pastry case” and turns around and there! she! is! (maybe with a donut of her own)!!!!
ARRANGED MARRIAGE AU where Harry Hart is a high-profile person—some
hotshot politician, a member of the nobility, Justice of the High Court, take
your pick—who is perfectly aware of the fact that there are many people out for
his blood. Have been for years. So he shouldn’t be surprised, really, when it
turns out that the beautiful boy he’s been screwing turns out to have been a
plant, a pawn, someone sent in to collect blackmail material on him.
He isn’t. Surprised, that is.
Eggsy looks convincingly torn up about it, brow furrowed into that
little frown Harry’d once smoothed away with the pad of his thumb after sex.
“What’s wrong?” he’d asked, and Eggsy had shrugged and said, “Nothing,” and
Harry hadn’t pressed for an answer. Now Eggsy is standing there with his hands
balled to fists by his sides and his eyes big and wet and earnest, and Harry’s
picking up on fragments of phrases like my
stepdad and no choice and never meant to hurt but none of it
matters. What matters is that there are photos; photos of Harry Hart bending a
boy half his age over his office desk, of him pinning that same boy against a
hotel room wall, of him kneeling on his own bloody kitchen floor with his eyes half-closed
and the boy’s cock down his throat. Those photos exist, and they will soon be out
there because Harry Hart does not bend to extortion, thank you very much.
So he calls Merlin, his spokesperson and legal counsel, who summons
their media team, and it is determined that the best way to deal with this crisis
is marriage (OBVIOUSLY).
Secret Russia meeting? So what. Collusion? Nah. Media outrage? Fake news. Anyone who thinks the Republican base will abandon President Donald Trump over the latest Russia revelations is sorely mistaken.
According to a POLITICO survey of more than two dozen local Republican Party leaders in counties where 2018’s most competitive races are shaping up, the GOP grassroots aren’t fazed by news of Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting last year with a Kremlin-linked lawyer or the daily drip of stories about Trump and Russia. They aren’t even paying close attention.
There’s been some current drama over a gag in the upcoming paper Mario game. Zoe Quinn and Twitter believes this is a pot shot during her gamer gate scandal. However the bottom two photos reveal it was a gag based on the watergate scandal based on the in game screen shots and Nintendo even sent a message themselves to clear up this misunderstanding.
I was rewatching HLV in preparation for The Reckoning (aka Series 4), and I noticed something off about the Janine scene at Baker Street. As we know, Sherlock was acting weird, but then, he was *acting*. People have various explanations of how/why Janine was acting weird. Most people point to her willingness to forgo sex with Sherlock as the odd thing, or alternatively her willingness to believe he was really proposing. The usual point is, how could a savvy, smart woman go for that?
Well, that’s what I’d call an example of an ‘argument from real life’, which is almost always a dead end when analyzing genre fiction. I realize it’s really, really popular for a reason, and that is that it comes really naturally and is part of how most people process and relate to stories. That being said, I’m inclined to dismiss it. If you think these points suggest Janine isn’t believable or coherent as a character, fine. That simply means you’re not satisfied with the show, but that’s not offering a useful critique for further analysis. Nor is it a good reason to go against explicit canon and insist she did have oral sex with Sherlock at least. Anyway, the oddness in Janine that I’m speaking of is the stuff John canonically found weird himself, based on his scandalized, weirded out look: coming out without her bottoms, calling Mycroft 'Mike’ and blatantly helping herself (staking a claim) in the kitchen. In other words, she was both forward and rude, in context: not acting very British. Then she was super-demonstrative, sitting in Sherlock’s lap later; people have theorized that this is because she knows about Sherlock’s plans, but there’s a simpler explanation. One that doesn’t require breaking a plot point in HLV (always important).
Janine’s inappropriate behavior fits if she was actually *trying* to make John uncomfortable, hoping to rub it in with her new relationship to Sherlock. Not to help Sherlock for whatever reason, but because *she* was jealous. Remember, she knows how important John is to Sherlock because of their conversation at the wedding. Sherlock made his fixation on John clear by his behavior there, and in fact Sherlock rejected her at the time (both sexually and as a candidate for the position John’s marriage represented an end to). The walking around half-dressed makes sense if you essentially want your lover’s ex to suffer. It really is that simple sometimes, and it also makes sense as a mirror with Mary’s dynamic with Sherlock and John in HLV, as well. Mary was starting to resent Sherlock’s role in John’s life as well, sniping at him earlier in the episode about some people not having heard of Sherlock.
The whole performance being directed at discomfiting John becomes truly obvious when she tells Sherlock right in front of John, “I’m the only one who really knows what you’re like, remember?”
That’s just *blatantly* a reference to John as well as John’s (presumably former) role in Sherlock’s life. It’s the sort of thing you don’t say in front of someone’s questionably-ex 'partner’ if you don’t have to, or you’re being friendly. If you’re not trying to score emotional points, you don’t say that sort of thing even to 'play along’ (assuming she’s doing that, rather than Sherlock, which I think is the actual reality of the situation). We know that Janine is canonically nasty and vengeful (from her going to the newspapers about her sex life with Sherlock), so this behavior is totally understandable. Further, if she was taunting John right then, it makes sense she’d been in that mode the entire time.
Not to say that this is somehow an anti-Janine post, but I’m guessing that one reason fandom hasn’t really talked about this before is that it’s not particularly flattering to Janine. We tend to be a bit protective about female characters in the show. In Series 3, however, every female character– Molly, Janine, Mary, even Mrs Hudson– repeatedly acted somewhat insensitively, and everyone except maybe Mrs Hudson was also manipulative and even emotionally abusive to various degrees. With Molly, I’m referring to the contentious yelling episode at the lab, and with Mrs Hudson, I’m mainly referring to the multiple times in TSoT where she mysteriously stomped over Sherlock’s apparent anxiety about John’s impending nuptials. Mary, on the other hand, exemplified every single aspect of this sort of insensitive, manipulative behavior throughout the Series, of course.
The other reason I haven’t seen anyone mention this interpretation before in the Johnlocker circles I travel in is probably because it treats Janine’s canonical heterosexual/heteroromantic feelings seriously. There’s not much I can say about that except that it’s my best judgment that they were indeed real. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
WARNING: Angry, Black Woman Rant ensuing in 3, 2,...
I gave you the warning up front because on this here today, that is how I feel. I will not pretend otherwise, nor do I want anyone to mistake me as trying to “get away with” it. At its core, the source of my anger is very simple: a profound disappointment in the intense stupidity of people who are deemed to be so smart. Specifically, the many failings of the NY Times piece on Shonda Rhimes (and the neglect in some of the responses), and the current debate in white feminist spaces ostensibly spawned by Emma Watson’s UN speech, but perplexedly centered around Beyonce.
Both of these debates have black femaleness in the eye of the storm. In the case about Rhimes and her characters (the latest of whom, Analise, is actually not her character at all) it’s explicit. In the feminist debates about Beyonce, it’s tries to be more covert by pointing to Beyonce as a ‘pop star’. Both have the same problem: parochial views about blackness and femaleness, and literally zero attention to the intersections of both.
In Alessandra Stanley’s article, it’s a white woman whitesplaining to us about how refreshing it is to see Rhimes flouting the “angry black woman” stereotype…that white people created. Stanley misses the fact that she is actually giving us a 101 class on how to white people’s persistent ways of seeing blackness conjures this image from scraps even when there is plenty of evidence pointing to more persistent ranges of emotion. Let me not leave out the part where Stanley points out that Rhimes’ characters have “potent”, even “menacing” libidos. Jezebel, much? Again, persistent ways of seeing. Why? Because white femininity is predicated on the false notion that black women’s bodies and sexuality stand in inferior contrast to those of white women. Because white femaleness is the arbiter of beauty (don’t miss where Stanley lines up Halle Berry, Kerry Washington and Viola Davis for “classical” beauty contest), of feminine sexuality, of feminism. The latter is why Mellie Grant—a character who is literally enraged at some point in every. single. episode. of. Scandal—can be hailed as a feminist hero by another NY Times white woman, Emily Nussbaum, yet the black female lead of a show can get fed up once that season and demand respect from her married lover (who had behaved badly) and this is seen as a “histrionic” rant. Interesting. Again, this is not about what’s actually in the text, but about persistent ways of seeing by some people.
These persistent ways of seeing do not accept as valid depictions of black women as small and wreckable one moment, and a force to be reckoned with the next…as well as everything in between. In short, these reductive ways of seeing blackness and black femininity serve an intrenchant belief in white superiority. This view holds white humanity as a default, and therefore blackness is always responsible for teaching us something, resisting against something, triumphing over something or someone (i.e. blackness is intrinsically radical), and so people seek out those aspects of black representation to promote. In that way, black humanity becomes ordinary, uninteresting and therefore not special enough to put on screen. We have white people to show us the full vulnerability of humanity; blackness is for the “spice”. Clearly this is racist, and Ms. Stanley, even in her non-apology, does not see how entrenched her views are. Her eyes are wide shut and therefore she cannot even begin to see the point.
It is for these reasons (and more) that I caution you that no matter how prestigious a publication, no one offers an ‘objective’ view of anything. Yet repeatedly, white people—especially men—hail themselves as the purveyors of objective judgment (isn’t that an oxymoron?), and that somehow bias only and necessarily enter the picture when the subject deviates from that of whiteness (and maleness). Hmph. Don’t let me know get started on how we judge ‘power’ and ‘powerful’ in mainly masculinist terms.
Let me turn my attention to white feminism’s obsession with Beyonce because much of the argument I’ve made above can still apply. First, let me say that all of them should indeed bow down and kiss King Bey’s ring. Really, because what would they have to talk about if Beyonce didn’t matter-of-factly declare herself as a full human being who is a feminist? Which celebrity or politician with gravitas is out there talking about feminist issues in ways that are both subversive and explicitly relatable? And she’s been doing it for albums and albums now, and her feminism has evolved over time. Yet, as is so predictable, feminism only counts when the word is explicitly used, not when a feminist life is lived. Ok. Feminism should be ‘respectable’ like that of prim Emma Watson in front of UN delegates, not kaleidoscopic like that of “pornographic” (actual term used by one of those writers at The New Republic to describe parts of Bey’s VMA performance) Beyonce’.
Again, as stated in my previous paragraph, whiteness becomes the arbiter of what is valid and what is not. If you think this is an overstatement, you have only to look at white feminist praise of Lena Dunham’s unapologetic sexuality and persistently naked body on Girls, Miley Cyrus being heralded for her display of sexuality at the VMAs or any number of trite examples. Contrast that with the ways in which Beyonce and Rihanna are sometimes presented as problematic to feminist principles. They are not just sexy (which is a performative thing), they are sexual beings whose sexuality is self-defined and then shared with the rest of us.
I have to get going because work calls (that PhD is not going to pay for itself). Let me quote Audre Lorde to sum up my point:
“The erotic is a resource within each of us that lies in a deeply female and spiritual plane, firmly rooted in the unexpressed or unrecognized feeling. In order to perpetuate itself, every oppression must corrupt or distort those various sources of power within the culture of the oppressed that can provide energy for change.”—“Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power”, Sister Outsider (1984)
The erotic life is not relegated to sex or sexuality. It is the reflection of a life lead from the inside out (Shonda Rhimes, Beyonce, etc.), not one dictated by the narrow boundaries into which oppression attempts to coral us. Keep living because haters stay hatin’.
I will update this with links on which this “rant” was based:
Title: Behind Enemy Lines Authors:dontfretbaby & somethingdarrenish Rating: R Pairing: Klaine Word Count: 37K+ Summary: Washington, D.C. is the home of some of the most powerful figures in the world, but none are more powerful than President Blaine Anderson. Behind the leader of the free world is Kurt Hummel, White House Communications Director, who is trying to keep Blaine’s image safe from those who threaten to destroy it. How will Kurt handle it when he becomes one of those dangers himself? Notes: This piece is loosely based on the television show Scandal. If you haven’t seen the show, it will not hinder your reading experience. Thanks to our betas: magsforya, christinejaneanderson, broadwaydarren & jinglenewsies!