Geeky, nerd, feminist, bookworm, opinionated, enthusiast, prose-reader/writer, computers nerd, cultural studies and media student, british humor fan, pop culture analyst, writer, photographer, blogger, in progress...
I liked quite a lot the show. The setting is in Australia, in the 20ies of the 20th century after the First World War. Our main protagonist is Miss Phryne Fisher who is a lady detective. She is stylish, smart, awesome and kickass and quite a lot of fun. The supporting characters and interesting and the mysteries are quite enjoyable as well. The music, the costumes, the scenery… cute and nice and quite amusing. How NOT to like the show?
Then I read the books and quite a lot of things changed about how I view the show and the characters.
See, there are going to be lots of SPOILERS! so be warned.
In the books Phryne is smart, self-possessed, an excellent shot, a reckless driver, an aviator and knows very well how to take care of herself. She is not interested in marriage or children and frequently takes lovers of her choosing. Something very important… she is NEVER a damsel in distress. Even in the situations she is in peril, she manages to free herself and solve the case.
Given the time frame, she is sticking odd and I like that I am reading a time-piece in which sexism, racism, homophobia and etc. are NOT casually used under the guise of “realistic” (I am looking at you… almost all other shows).
She has quite a lot of female friends who are as extraordinary as she is, they are surgeons, writers, lawyers and etc. I am in awe with this, because it is a trope to have the main female protagonist be this uber special flower and a snowflake and constantly being reminded how different than all other women she is (May Anita Blake please stand up?)
From her relatives we meet her sister and in latter books she moves to Australia as well (her sister is gay and a socialist as well and is happily in a relationship with another lady).
Later in the books she adopts three children (all from different cases) and has a companion Dorothy, who is her maid and a good friend as well (again from a case).
Her main love interest, though there are guest stars, is Lin Chung and it is stated clearly that she has no intentions of marrying him, he later even marries himself, but they keep their relationship as they deeply care for each other.
She is a formidable force and nobody dares to poke his/her nose in her life and if they did, she makes them sorry that did that.
It is fun and entertaining and though all of the cases tie themselves a little too perfectly, I can live with that because… let’s face it… how often do we see such a character anywhere? (no, really… if you can recommend some other good books with kickass female heroines, please write to me!)
___________________________
The show is something else.
Little to no of her background is explained further than the fact that she is in Australia because the murderer of her sister should be released soon.
That is odd but… ok, let’s see further?
The biggest difference is that she is a damsel. In almost EVERY episode she is in peril of some sorts and she is rescued by the timely arrival of the intended love interest, detective Jack Robinson (in the books he is happily married and no interest between the two of them further than Phryne regularly helping in cases and solving them without taking the credit). This get tiring quite quickly, especially when she is turned from highly efficient detective in little more than enthusiastic amateur. Yes, she is a good detective, yes, she is observent… but she is quite… unthreatening. Compared with the books, she is a watered down version of herself.
I wonder why these changes were made with the change of the media. If I have to be honst… i’d love the show a lot more if they have kept the original construct of her character, because the fact that she was so good at what she does is what made her awesome and unique and so entertaining.
Still, the TV show is enjoyable and not bad but compared to the books is a bit disappointing. And bear in mind that I though it is quite awesome before I have read the books. So ;)
I think I missed out on the “neat and cute handwriting” gene that every girl seems to have and this is unfair
Intelligent people have messier handwriting because they think fast. When you think and process things faster, you can also write quicker, but it’s going to be sloppy. People with neat writing are usually (no offense) not as smart. I embrace my shit writing.
^Bless this
Yes, everyone in the handwritten times before the internet were complete and utter morons and their thoughts were slow. It is not like good and neat hand writing was valued quite a lot and was prestigious to have a beautiful handwriting. Good call, it has nothing to do with changing times, styles of writing and even gendering handwritings and how important it is deemed. No… it is about the flow of the thought.
My handwriting is horrible and I am very quick thinker but I also realise that I have never EVER tried or even attempted to try to develop my handwriting, because I never cared about it and counter to popular belief, you can write quickly and neatly and be at the same speed as the people with more messy handwritings, because it is about practice. The same way as it is with any developed skill.
Even more importantly, it is widely assumed that girls have better and more pretty handwriting than boys, so they get a lot more scrutiny in school about that as well.
What grinds me the most is that we’re sending kids out into the world who don’t know how to balance a checkbook, who don’t know how to apply for a loan, don’t even know how to properly fill out a job application, but because they know the quadratic formula we consider them prepared for the world?
With that said, I’ll admit even I can see how looking at the equation x – 3 = 19 and knowing x = 22 can be useful. I’ll even say knowing x = 7 and y = 8 in a problem like 9x – 6y = 15 can be helpful. But seriously, do we all need to know how to simplify (x – 3)(x – 3i)??
And the joke is, no one can continue their education unless they do. A student living in California cannot get into a four-year college unless they pass Algebra 2 in high school. A future psychologist can’t become a psychologist, a future lawyer can’t become a lawyer, and I can’t become a journalist unless each of us has a basic understanding of engineering.
Of course, engineers and scientists use this shit all the time, and I applaud them! But they don’t take years of theater arts appreciation courses, because a scientist or an engineer doesn’t need to know that The Phantom of the Opera was the longest-running Broadway musical of all time. Get my point?
The board of education should sit down with universities and high schools alike and create options for students. Let us take business classes that substitute all the same credits as algebra. I guarantee a semester of learning how to start a small business would benefit people much more than knowing: ax^2 + bx + c = 0
”Chris Colfer, Struck by Lightning: The Carson Phillips Journal (x)
Nobody’s ever going to give me back the time I spent desperately struggling to get a barely adequate grate in Maths in high school. Nobody’s ever going to give me back the money I spent on additional tutoring for something that I have now, two years after my graduation, almost completely forgotten.
Don’t fucking dare call it laziness. I wanted to do heaps of additional work in subjects that interested me; instead I spent hours and hours doing Trigonometry problems. I’m a writer. I study Philosophy. I’m never going to need this shit in all my life.
Basically, millions of talented students spends enormous amounts of time, money, and nerves, trying to learn highly complicated things they’re never going to need, just so they can get through the system and, you know, do things they are actually interested in and that they’re actually going to use in their professional lives.
The next time someone says how students are just lazy, I’m punching them in the face.
(via moranion)
Yes, clearly the solution is to educate people even less, because people right now are leaving the educational system knowing and understanding so much and clearly the solution of the described issue is to cut from education and not include an intelligent way to add it. Yes… indeed… brilliant idea. *sarcasm*
Someone just offered to buy me a very expensive thing that I would like to have but it’s EXPENSIVE and GIFT and EXPENSIVE GIFT NO and I was really not okay with it and said so and they were fine with that answer and the person in question is very trustworthy and a good friend but I’m still??? kind of freaked out???
what is wrong with my braaaaaiiiiiiin…
Nothing is wrong with you, it is about not wanting to be in debt to someone. When someone does you a favor, you feel obliged to return it. And while the favors are small, it is ok, because you can return it. But when it is a huge favor or a gesture, which you do not have the option to return, you will feel obliged toward that person. Also, that is a classic way to manipulate someone to do your bidding. If they feel obliged to you, you can persuade people because they feel uncomfortable. Especially people who are not used to be lavished.
Very neat example. Many people hold the belief that if they take you out on dinner and a movie and pay the price even if you didn’t ask them to, you owe them, either friendship/sex or something else.
So… nothing wrong, just normal reluctance to feel in debt even for someone making a gesture.
If I DON’T survive… please somebody delete my browsing history. ;)
