Queer: Reclaiming the Spirit of a Word.

One thing about me is that I can’t go on twitter, click on a link (especially ones re-tweeted by @evanrachelwood) without going to the site (usually advocate.com or huffingtonpost.com) and reading comments on whatever article the before mentioned link sent me to.

Now your probably thinking, “Okay, so what?” Well, how to say this…….. Stupid folks get my “Irish UP”, which is usually followed by my posting a reply comment and then next thing I know it’s 4 hours later and my quickie 20 min on Twitter is anything but.

Luckily, I have my readers to express my half asleep, unwashed hair, insomnia again, undone laundry and dishes self to knowing that you lovely folks (who never rarely comment) will in your steadfast silence reinforce that “it’s okay/I’m okay simply because no one complained”.

So what had me all riled up?

Well, over @ the advocate.com Faith Cheltenham wrote an article entitled, “Why I Celebrate Bisexual Pride”. (Which by the way is September 23 annually since the early 90’s according to Faith) Ms Cheltenham’s article was good and basically a commentary/editorial piece about why she embraces the celebration of identifying as bisexual.

Of course, since I MUST read the all comments or suffer some sort of “aneurysm from low blood pressure and a productive lifestyle offline” I came across a comment from “Me@yahoo” (such an original username – nothing like owning up to your opinion, eh?) who wrote:

 “Anyone who proclaims Bisexual Pride while referring to herself and other LGBT folk as “queers” is talking out of both sides of her damn mouth”. Reply · Like · Follow Post · Sunday at 3:35pm

So basically in my quick tempered and bad English intolerant way I replied:

“@me from yahoo — I’m not sure what your equivalency in regards to the English language is but the word ”Queer’ (as well as  the word ‘Fag’) wasn’t originally used in regards to the to the LGBT community. Fag was a cigarette and Queer was used to describe something different. So to intimate that the Gay community has some type of exclusive ownership of the word Queer is ridiculous. In the last decade many folks who don’t want to be pigeon-holed, gender, sexual or otherwise have gotten back to the original spirit of the meaning of the word ‘Queer’, using it to describe that they are indeed ‘different’….. In fact, I think Gilbert and Sullivan said it best in Mikado: “If you want to know who we are”, “We figure in lively paint: Our attitude’s queer and quaint—You’re wrong if you think it ain’t!” . Heh. Fits, don’t it? 

So maybe an advance course on words and their origins would help you from voicing your opinion at the same time as having your foot in your mouth.”

Then just when I thought it was safe to log off a Mr Anthony Berardo commented:

Anthony Berardo·  Top Commenter · Rutgers–Newark

“Shouldn’t it be called “bench-sitter pride”? What’s an article like this doing in this gay magazine? What a bunch of crap. I remember when this magazine had standards related ONLY to the gay/Lesbian community”.

Reply · Like · Follow Post · September 22 at 11:30am

I have to admit that in my reply comment I noticed that my patience was dropping as rapidly as my IQ was. So my reply was:

@AnthonyBerardo How sad for you that you have become an oppressor no different than those who have been trying to run us gay and lesbians off since way before Stonewall. We gays and lesbians aren’t some exclusive team, love is love and injustice is injustice so maybe rather than discounting those on ‘our side’ embrace the spirit of the word Queer as different. How can I trust you to protect my rights as part of the LG if you scorn the BTQ part of the whole. Grow up and get with the times!

At this point I pretty much called it a night!

Discuss? Comments?



The Imprisonment of Sherlock Holmes.

Imagine the most dank, creepy, dark cell in the deepest dungeon in England. Now, imagine a man admired worldwide being chained, as to be unable to leave the small confinement, where even his impeccable skills in deduction cannot save him. Yes, you guessed it. The prisoner is none other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous character, Sherlock Holmes.

See, they have to lock up Sherlock because (as several people put it in writing below) the BBC has worked too hard to have the US ruin the character!! Below are a few comments from the jailers  er some posts/comments in response to the Anglophenia article:

“I think Benedict has every right to say what he said – Sherlock was a labour of love for everyone on set, and to have an American company siphon off its success has to be upsetting.”


“BBC’s Sherlock Holmes version with Benedict Cumberbatch is the best. Cumberbatch is the quintessential Holmes. I seriously doubt that Johnny Lee Miller can do any justice with the role as Sherlock Holmes. I think in fact it is down right degrading and disrespectful to the world-renowned character of Sherlock Holmes. Hollywood is going to butcher this historic character. I’m a huge fan of Lucy Liu but her as Joan Watson is comical. Martin Freeman close your eyes and hears. My sincere apologies to Mr. Cumberbatch and Mr. Freeman on behalf of all Americans who know that this is a travesty.”

The above two comments are a couple of the dozens written in response to comments made by Benedict Cumberbatch concerning his skepticism of the new show Elementary’s success.

Usually I would be the first one on this bandwagon about the US not being original enough, i.e. Office, Being Human, Top Gear, but this is Sherlock Holmes we’re talking about. No one OWNS the exclusive right to play the character of Sherlock or Watson. There have been many adaptions of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s work. This is just another. This is like saying no one else can play hamlet other than the first actor to ever play it in Shakespeare’s day. Great literature lends to the imagination which in turn is why there are so many adaptions of Shakespeare, Dickens and Doyle’s works especially. I think Benedict was being territorial over something that is truly adored (imitation being the highest form of flattery) universally and something that is not a proprietary work of art.

Fact is according to  Guinness World Records, Sherlock Holmes is the most portrayed movie character; 75 actors have played the part in more than 200 films.

I watched it and I actually liked it very much and believe me, this is coming from someone who has watched more telly from the UK in the past 20 years than from my own country. If this was a case of re-doing or copying an idea, I doubt it would be as good as it is.

Just my 2p…

“There is nothing new under the sun. It has all been done before,” – Sherlock Holmes in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s 1887 ‘A Study in Scarlet’.


Here we go again: The Demonization of an Executive Producer

So the big news thus far this week in Sci-Fi is that Steven Moffat deleted his twitter account. Most the coverage I have read so far point to the reason being crazed fans were driving him nuts, or as more colorfully put, him being attacked by the whovian social militia! However you put it it’s pretty clear that someone was upsetting him since one of his last tweets was:

“Forgive my ignorance – is there a way to limit who can follow you and tweet you?”

I don’t doubt it one bit that he was bullied on twitter by those whovians or should I say “ruintheshowvians” – you know who I mean, that same group that latches on to the predecessor as if he/she were Moses and refuses to accept change in ranks and the new ideas that change brings, be it casting, story-line, or even marketing.

This isn’t the first time that the “ruintheshowvians” have wielded their sword of onewayism against the evil that (in their pov) is the downfall of the program’s future, aka The New Executive Producer (not to be confused with the Former Executive Producer aka…… Mr Perfect).

Case in point, John Nathan-Turner who was also constantly second guessed on his casting choices, story-lines, etc. There are in fact quite a lot of similarities between what’s happening now to Steven Moffat and what occurred back in 1980s to John Nathan-Turner. It’s like a pattern with fans. After the end of Phillip Hinchcliffe’s successful run as executive producer (During the Tom Baker era) those darn “ruintheshowvians” complained about every change that Graham Williams and/or John Nathan-Turner made. JN-T as he was called was actually instrumental in the promoting the show in the states which added to the large growth in the show’s fan base in the US via the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Not to mention he hired my favourite doctor. Sylvester McCoy.

So now we have the Russel T Davies fans (Just like the Hinchcliffe fans from decades before) complaining and questioning every choice Steven Moffatt makes.

I may be stating a point of view in this paragraph that people may not like reading BUT it always astounds me how fans who just started watching the show in 2005 can be so opinionated. In fact the negativity on the flip side of calling oneself a “fan” is a bit ironic. Being a Whovian isn’t a license to back seat writing. I don’t blame Steven for leaving twitter at all. Here he is writing a show he’s loved all his life for fans who complain, compare and confront him @ every turn.


Isn’t Doctor Who about a hero who changes often but keeps the same goal (helping those in need)? Couldn’t that be applied to each and every executive producer, they come in new with ideas, make changes (i.e. shake things up) while also caring a great deal for this iconic television program.

In conclusion, Letts, Hinchcliffe, Graham, JN-T, RTD and Moffat all have contributed something toward the making of the events that shaped almost 50 years of history. My advice, stop bitching and be happy for the shows success. I personally wouldn’t change a thing.

 !!! Support not Demonize !!!

Speaking of Hurricanes.

(Note the first sentence) 😀



%d bloggers like this: