helen rivers

Doom Coalition 1-4: useless summaries

Doom Coalition was awesome and you should purchase and listen to them immediately if you haven’t already. 

Here are some slightly useless one-sentence summaries instead of proper reviews. Possibly some of these will be spoilerish. Also I’m not going to do every episode, so feel free to add your own (including ones I’ve already done).

The Eleven: A Time Lord who is amazingly even worse at regenerating than the Doctor is escapes from prison and manages to be rather more successful at it than Sherlock’s sister was.

The Red Lady: The Doctor makes a new friend and defeats a deadly meme by drawing it badly.

The Gift: The Doctor gets a case of tinnitus and tries to cure himself by getting a bad haircut from a homeless guy; surprisingly, he’s not entirely unsuccessful.

The Sonomancer: River’s plans for a hot date are frustrated when the wrong husband shows up with a bad haircut; she makes do, but the planet doesn’t.

The Doomsday Chronometer: River finds a new BFF in Helen; they do archaeology together while the Doctor is distracted by a broken clock.

Ship in a Bottle: The Doctor is rubbish until Liv tells him off; Helen is extremely clever and then they are all extremely reckless, because of course they are.


Visual Journal Entries + Photos from my recent road trip to Eastern Oregon and Washington.

If you want to see more photos from my trip, click here.

(Please excuse any of my grammatical and spelling errors. It happens)

astynomi  asked:

*curtsies* Hello Duke! I have a question I think you’ll enjoy. I was wondering what your opinion of Jane Eyre is as a feminist novel. I find the composition profoundly misogynistic. Why does Jane have no female support? The other female characters are EITHER obstacles to Jane’s happiness- two-dimensionally bad (Mrs Reed, headmistress), petty by virtue of class (Mrs Fairfax, Reed sisters) or in order to be a foil for Jane (Blanche)- OR entirely non-sexualised (the Rivers, Helen). (continued)

(pt2) Helen in particular: I don’t think it’s a coincidence that she’s, essentially, fridged. I think Bronte’s hatred for Constantin Heger’s wife made her feel that women could be men’s equal, but not all women were up to the challenge. It’s sad, because I don’t think Jane Eyre IS a case of awkward friendless young woman overawed into flinging herself at brooding older male (HE’S the head-over-heels dork who pours his heart out), it’s so much more; but it almost begs to inspire that stereotype.

(not really part of question) I’ve been musing over this a while; I saw a gifset of Helen Burns which reminded me of it to the point of wanting to discuss it with someone who knows their shit, and as I gather you share my love of Jane Eyre (I have read it in English and French, and watched at least 5 adaptations) I thought you might enjoy thinking about it XD. I love Jane & Rochester so much (I LOVE that she tells him where to shove that ‘birdcage’ shit) but I do think they transcend the novel.

*Curtsies* Ooh, yes. Okay (tagging you @astynomi because I know it took me forever to answer this and I’m SO SORRY) I will first and foremost admit that I love Jane Eyre so I am a little biased. But I think it’s difficult to say it’s feminist or it’s not. Sometimes I think we forget that the overwhelmingly misogynistic worldview that existed in the centuries prior to ours affected the women as much as the men: women were taught that they were mentally inferior, and I’m sure a great number of them believed it, because it’s extremely difficult to unlearn what you grow up thinking is simply the natural, actual way of the world. (Lookin’ at you, Catholic school.) 

Now, Charlotte Brontë obviously wasn’t under this illusion, but I think her book acknowledges that a lot of women were, and Jane is the contrast to that. Jane is the one saying, “Girls, wake up, put down the knitting and let’s go.” I think she sets a very jarring example for the Rivers girls–who are for the most part good people, despite their being a little too submissive to their brother–but I also think they’re kind of meant to be a positive female influence to balance the earlier, negative female presences in Jane’s life. They’re going to provide the adult friendship she didn’t get to have with Helen. 

And I think her relationships with both St. John and Rochester reflect her independence. (Spoiler alerts ahead.) She consciously turns down a very good offer of marriage from a young, handsome guy because she’d rather marry this fucking weird and sort of ugly older man because he loves her and he challenges her intellectually. But the key thing is she has no problem telling Rochester to step the fuck off when he’s being overbearing, and he does eventually get it. The wife locked up in the attic who finally breaks loose and burns his big house down? If that’s not a metaphor for learning not be controlling and manipulative towards women I don’t know what is. It’s framed in a way that we’re still able to like him–because said wife in the attic was a fucking witch before he shut her up in there–but I think the moral is still present. At the end of the story, Jane is 100% the one in control of their relationship. She chooses to come find him and be with him and I think he will spend the rest of his life thinking about how lucky he is. He has already figured out how remarkable she is. (Can we talk about this line? “I was for a while troubled with a haunting fear that if I handled the flower freely its bloom would fade—the sweet charm of freshness would leave it. I did not then know that it was no transitory blossom, but rather the radiant resemblance of one, cut in an indestructible gem.” Fucking hell. I’ll take that over ‘You’re too good to be true’ any day.) But now this man is not only desperately in love with her but he is literally never going to take her for granted. He learned that lesson the hard way.

So, last thing: Rochester’s wife and the other negative portrayals of women. I think this is partly a case of unlikable male characters being ‘interesting’ and unlikable female characters just being bitches. Early in Jane’s life, everyone sucks and gender is kind of incidental. I didn’t read that as Charlotte saying, “All women are petty and vapid except Jane.” I read that as her saying, “Everyone in Jane’s life is petty and vapid and she needs to GFTO.” Because the men that surround her early on are just as bad as the women. So for the sake of playing devil’s advocate, I think you could actually make the opposite argument: that Bronte is actually all the more feminist because she shows a variety of female characters, and a lot of them are not the likable simpering bimbos that a lot of other people were (and still are) writing. Her women are real. Unpleasant, maybe, sometimes, but certainly three-dimensional. 

Anyway that’s my two dollars cents. Sorry this took me so long to get to! I wanted to do it justice when I wasn’t buried in schoolwork.