Elementary Does It Correctly

 

First of all, it’s May 4th. Star Wars Day. May The Fourth Be With You.

Guys, do you watch Elementary? I know that some of the people who watch BBC’s Sherlock (of which there have been only six episodes because you can get away with that in the UK, apparently) are diehard loyalists. Personally, I’m kind of tired of looking at Bennysnoot Cummerbund* and I don’t even watch the show (his face is just unavoidable on Tumblr), so Sherlock will probably never catch my interest. That said, I am a huge supporter of liking both—do not think of different Sherlock shows as mutually exclusive.

Anyway, I love Elementary. Jonny Lee Miller plays Sherlock Holmes. The beautiful, talented, and flawless Lucy Liu plays Joan Watson. I absolutely love the show—most of the first season has aired. It’s not as good as NBC’s brand new show Hannibal, but then, Hannibal is the best live-action show on the air right now (and definitely my favorite new show of 2013).

Right, so. Elementary. It’s fun. Some people find Jonny Lee Miller very attractive—I don’t. I appreciate his character’s competence, though. I love genderbending of Dr. Watson’s character into a woman (a former surgeon). And, seriously, Lucy Liu is amazing and perfect and if you do not believe me then you have obviously not seen Kill Bill and/or anything else that features Lucy Liu.

The character of “Mrs. Hudson” is not as much of a staple of the Sherlock Holmes universe as the titular character or Professor Moriarty (whom we have yet to see directly), but she is a character in the original stories and in many subsequent adaptations. She is often Sherlock’s landlord and something of a fussbudget about tidiness.

Elementary only introduced their Mrs. Hudson recently. She is an associate (what Sherlock calls his friends) of Sherlock’s. She is a self-taught intellectual who finds herself acting as a “muse” (a mistress) to various men who may be married (in her first episode, she comes to Sherlock for a place to sleep during a break-up with her lover, who is clearly besotted with her and is promising to leave his wife but we all know that story, right?). She is a tall, beautiful woman. She likes things tidy—at one point, she cleans the front room of Sherlock’s brownstone (which Watson is always wanting for him to clean). Mrs. Hudson also rearranges Sherlocks books. He asks how she arranged them. Mrs. Hudson replies:

“By subject matter, then by author. You start with hard sciences on the north wall, then you move clockwise around the room in descending order of academic rigor. That way, Physics by Aristotle is as far away from You Can Learn Telepathy by Morton Zuckerman as possible.”

That was the line with which I really fell in love with her.

And oh, by the way, she’s transgender. Played by a transgender actress.

I think that sometimes people include members of various minorities for the wrong reasons, or in the wrong way. Not every gay character should be a fashion expert (like in real life—I might have perfect hair and always be clean and smell good, but I dress in a t-shirt and shorts as often as possible because I value my comfort). A lot of what happens nowadays with gay characters or certain religious minorities is a step in the right direction but still missing the we’re-all-people point (and kind of reminds me of blackspoitation).

Elementary does it correctly. No one fumbles, accidentally calling Mrs. Hudson a “he” or “it.” Her story is not about the fact that she’s transgender. Her boyfriend isn’t breaking up with her because she’s transgender. She is not being discriminated against or targeted and coming to Sherlock for help because she’s transgender. She’s just a woman in a rocky relationship and she needs a place to stay for a couple of nights. While she’s there, she does some tidying, and ends up being hired by Sherlock to come in periodically to clean.

I want to see more television like this. Transgender characters are not a punchline, and they’re also not all about being transgender. Being born with an anatomical sex that does not match your gender is not the be-all and end-all of a person, and that should be reflected in fictional characters.

Well done, Elementary. I love it. And I love Mrs. Hudson.

 

*Okay, so his name is Benedict Cumberbatch, but that is ridiculous and changing his name every time that you say or write it helps lift you back from the fatigue of constantly seeing his face on Tumblr (because the Sherlock fandom is one of the “big three” of Tumblr, along with Supernatural and Doctor Who. I only watch one of those but I see plenty of the other two anyway). Blanderwort Cumberland will also be the primary antagonist in the new Star Trek film, Into Darkness. So you can expect that I will see the film but also spend much of the time glowering for various reasons.



You Might Also Like ...

Nerd Problems: Sexism At The Selection Screen

First of all, this is my one-hundredth post for Zelda Lily. I have really enjoyed writing for a blog that I had been reading for years. Thank you for reading my posts—I hope that you have enjoyed them.

I want to address something with which you may or may not be familiar. It’s a problem—it is, specifically, a nerd problem. But since it impacts tens of millions of people all around the world (people who play video games), it is worth mentioning.

So, anyway, sexism at the selection screen. The above piece of art really highlights this idea, and it comes from here (and is the central element of this post). There are a lot of talented artists on the internet, and a lot of people use comics to beautifully illustrate the problems that they encounter in everyday life. This is a great example of that.

I’ve taken several opportunities to discuss strong female characters in graphic novels, video games, and television. Nerd culture is becoming more and more balanced between the sexes, but there is a ways to go, and the selection screen in video games is frequently a problem area.

In some games, the protagonist is already chosen for you. You start a game and you know that you will be playing as Lara Croft or Solid Snake. In most of the games that I prefer to play, you can create your own character. You choose from many many details of the character’s appearance, but, more broadly, you select the character’s sex and race (in terms of species or ethnicity) and hair and what class (for example, a wizard or warrior would be a type of class) your character will be. Different role-playing games do this in different ways, but whether you’re playing Dragon Age, Star Wars: The Old Republic, or World of Warcraft, you typically have a large amount of free will, and may even be able to select your character’s backstory (which will influence how your character interacts with the game itself—how other, in-game characters regard your character).

And this is awesome. You can be a badass warrior-woman or a handsome mage (honestly, I always make beautiful characters, because I do not understand the desire to be unattractive in a video game setting. You can be badass and beautiful at the same time—just look at Buffy or Captain America). But, if you want to be old or scarred or have terrible hair or play as a dwarf, those are also options.

There are all examples of middle-of-the-road games, in which you do not have a protagonist chosen for you but you also do not have total freedom in creating your main character. Less customization can mean a more personalized gameplay experience (that is, the fewer choices that you have as you start the game, the more that a video game can be made to make you feel like the in-game characters are talking to you, specifically). It is also probably less work for the game-designers.

These games give you some choices. Diablo III, for example, has five character classes (types of characters): the Monk, the Demon-Hunter, the Wizard, the Witch Doctor, and the Barbarian. Diablo II had a similar set-up, but Diablo III added the option of choosing the sex of your character (instead of having some classes preset with a certain sex). I was excited about this when I first read about it. True, you can’t customize your character’s face or hair, but choosing to play a male or female character should not mean that you cannot play a barbarian, for example. This is also mildly progressive, as men can have a non-physical, magical role and women can have a close-quarters physical combat role.

But then there’s the problem: the two sexes are not the same. The wizard and the demon-hunter are beautiful whether they are male or female (arguably, they are the best-looking classes). But while the female barbarian is a bit broad and muscular for the “conventionally attractive” sort, she’s just a tall, muscular woman. The male barbarian looks like Santa on steroids and there’s just no comparison. You might think that a male barbarian might have a Jason Momoa look, but instead you’re just thinking: “Wow, it’s amazing that he’s able to fight the demons of hell without that bushy white beard catching on fire. And his arthritis must be killing him.” I get it—there’s a certain type of person for whom male protagonists need to be hypermasculine to the point of absurdity. This is the God of War demographic, basically. The people who are huge fans of Frank Miller’s work.

There’s also the witch doctor. The female witch doctor is a beautiful, mysterious black woman (and yes, the racism in some fantasy stories and video games is unnerving but also an entirely different discussion). The male witch doctor looks and sounds like he is about twice the female option’s age, and he appears to have at least one type of vitamin deficiency.

It’s maddening. I know, it sounds incredibly shallow. But imagine that you are a female gamer. You want to play some sort of rogue (a thief/assassin/spy/ninja sort of character). You open the selection screen, and instead of customization, you can simply choose between male and female. “Okay,” you think. “Let’s see.” The male is wearing leather armor, but it’s no catsuit. He is also wearing a cloak—sensible, given his profession. His hair is short and you see that he is missing an ear and looks grizzled and experienced. There is, you imagine, story potential behind his appearance, but you don’t want to play someone quite that old (maybe you pictured a male rogue as more like Nightwing. Understandable). You then look at the female option, and see that she appears to be about twenty years old and is dressed in a midriff-baring leather catsuit that highlights her breasts and buttocks but seems highly impractical.

Now, I’m not saying that neither of these should be an option. Anyone might want to be a grizzled old man (not me—ever. That’s why I’ve been 19 since first turning 19 in 2006) or a beautiful young woman in an impractical outfit. But while restricted options might be annoying for a gamer, clearly sexist restricted options are actually troubling. A selection like that says that men are rugged, armored experts who act like Harrison Ford characters, and that women are sex objects whose clothes do not have to make sense because they’re pretty.

Those kinds of messages get passed around enough in society. Let’s keep it out of video games.

Male or female, gay or straight, no matter your race, ethnic background, transgender status, or nationality, you’re going to run into video game selection screens that won’t give you exactly what you want (assuming that you care at all, and honestly the people who don’t care at all about what their video game characters look like in contemporary video games in which they see themselves on screen kind of horrify me—it implies that they play the games purely for the mechanics and not for the story).

Video game makers need to, well, remain conscious of the difference between providing options for their players and making clearly sexist distinctions between men and women. It would make me happier, and I’m not the only one.

If you don’t play video games and you’ve read this, thank you. You, sir or ma’am, are a trooper. . . . And if you play a Republic Trooper in Star Wars: The Old Republic, you can be a male or female and just as petite or massive as you like, and whichever sex you choose, your armor will look more or less the same. That is the way to do things. Even though playing a Sith is obviously a better choice.



You Might Also Like ...

I Need Masculism Because . . . Oh, Wait. I Don’t.

Did anyone see the #INeedMasculismBecause tag on Twitter a little while ago (February 9th)? It was (wonderfully) trolled by feminists from every walk of life—sarcastic tweets about the underrepresentation and oppression that men face on a daily basis by far outnumbered the genuine tweets. The image above represents my own contribution.

You can read about how it all started here. Like most ridiculous things on the internet that test the fine line between humor and irritation, it started with 4Chan.

Masculism is the: “Belief that equality between the sexes requires the recognition and redress of prejudice and discrimination against men as well as women.” Though there are elements within the movement of masculism that are specifically anti-feminist, not everyone who talks about masculism is anti-feminist. And don’t get me wrong: I am totally against prejudice (including those prejudices which I have).

But I do not “need masculism.” No one does.

And, well, the world is laughing at you, Men’s Rights Activists.

I totally get it. Gay or straight, men should not be forced into specific roles simply because they have Y-chromosomes. Not in terms of what jobs they have or how they should dress or how they should behave. Male rape should not be one of the few crimes less reported than female rape.

But what Men’s Rights Activists do not seem to understand is that the social element commonly referred to as “the patriarchy” is responsible for these ridiculous expectations of what men have to be in society. Patriarchy already defines how many people see males. Men’s Rights Activists also do not seem to realize that there is already a movement that advocates for them. A social movement that is opposed to rape and inequality and forcing men or women into or out of specific niches because of their sex, gender, or orientation (among other things).

That movement is called feminism.

I could continue ranting about how Men’s Rights Advocates who promote masculism are basically people who either do not understand what feminism is or who want a version of feminism that exclusively talks about their problems.

But I will not, because the delightful and humorous artist Gingerhaze (Noelle Stevenson) already penned this perfect piece.

 

PS: I am aware that there are darker elements of masculism. Men who believe that women are awarded sole custody the vast majority of the time (incorrect—it’s about even). Men who believe that there is an epidemic of false allegations of rape (false allegations are even rarer than convictions of rape, and considering that only a small minority of rapes are reported, a minority of those prosecuted, and a much smaller minority of those prosecutions lead to convictions, that is a very small proportion). Men who are genuinely opposed to feminism because women owning property, running for office, serving in combat, and doing other things that men have been doing for millennia are incredibly threatening to the fragile egos of some men. But that is really another conversation.



You Might Also Like ...

I Implicitly Trust The B In Apartment 23


I put off watching Don’t Trust The B In Apartment 23 for the longest time. Why? Because I tend to put off things that I know that I will enjoy. Especially comedies—I did not start watching Parks and Recreation until this past summer (so I had four seasons to watch at once, which was neat). I waited for a lull in my television viewing schedule and then I watched everything from the pilot episode through season two, episode ten, which is as many episodes as had aired up to that point.

You guys, everything that the gifsets that I saw on Tumblr promised was true. Don’t Trust The B In Apartment 23 is fantastic. Primarily, it follows two young women as they share an apartment in New York City.

One character is June, an ambitious, organized young woman from . . . honestly one of those land-locked states that terrify me (no offense). She is new to New York City, but the new job that she was offered goes down the drain when she arrives and so she has to seek a new living situation (and a new job). Thanks to this situation and her roommate, her life is no longer on its original track—but it is clear as you watch the show that this is a good thing.

The other main character is Chloe, June’s fantastic roommate. Chloe is . . . well, an outlandish character, to say the least. Her role and personality is along similar lines as comedic characters Maryann Thorpe from Cybill or Karen Walker from Will And Grace. In other words, she’s basically perfect. She’s a delightful harlot with a wonderful sense of fun (one which June lacks, at least initially). She is wise to the ways of the world (in contrast to June, who is really, really naïve). She is also completely out of her mind. It’s fantastic. (And yes, her bangs are stupid. No one hates bad haircuts more than I do, but even I got past it)

Also James Van Der Beek is the third main character (portraying himself), and you kind of don’t know that from commercials (at least from the commercials that I have seen). In the heyday of Dawson’s Creek I kind of thought that he had a weird face and was old (you guys, in the heyday of Dawson’s Creek, I was, like, eleven). He is so funny on this show and I’m oddly attracted to him on it. Kind of like how I couldn’t have cared less about Friends when it was on, but when I see Matt LeBlanc on the BBC comedy series, Episodes, I find him …

Continue reading



You Might Also Like ...