Linkblogging For 06/01/12

Sorry for the non-appearance of the last part of Doctor Watson. I’ve been having stress-related brain freezes the last few days, and have basically been unable to get anything done either at work or at home. I’ve also been trying to recover data from a 2TB hard drive which developed, almost overnight, several thousand bad sectors (I didn’t have a backup because until last month I couldn’t afford the luxury of a spare 2TB drive. I will have a backup from now on).

Tomorrow, though, I plan to do both the last part of the Watson story and the next Mindless Ones Doctor Who post, my first on Patrick Troughton.

But for now, some links.

I haven’t yet seen the Doctor Who Christmas special (it’s sat on the aforementioned hard drive) but Millennium Elephant thinks it was an improvement on recent Moffat efforts, though still flawed. Andrew Rilstone is rather less charitable.

Meanwhile Dispositio, a blog which I haven’t linked before but you should all read if you’re interested in Elizabethan literature, goes away from its normal areas to target the sexism in last week’s episode of Sherlock

Moving not all that far from Doctor Who to theology, we have Rilstone again, writing about Christmas carols, folk song, fanfic and the paradox of the incarnation while Lance Parkin thinks the ontological proof is cobblers.

An interesting look at different ideas of aesthetics, referencing Roger Ebert’s distaste for video games and the critical reaction to Greg Egan’s latest book

Caron Lindsay on the need for Lib Dems to lobby Lords to ensure that ESA claimants don’t lose their benefits after a year

And Cory Doctorow on the coming war on general computation.

This entry was posted in linkblogging and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Linkblogging For 06/01/12

  1. prankster36 says:

    While I sympathize with where the complaints about Sherlock are coming from, I don’t think people are being quite fair to Stephen Moffat. As I wrote in the comments at Disputio, this episode made me realize just how much Moffat loves ambiguity in his scripts, and I think “A Scandal in Belgravia” performs a rather excellent high-wire act in providing a narrative that can be read a number of different ways. In particular, I believe it’s always been central to Moffat’s take on Sherlock that he may be gay (without providing confirmation one way or another), and nothing in this episode actively contradicts this, so to me the argument that Adler’s been reduced to someone who seduces him seems reductive. But then, as I say, I assumed the whole scenario at the end was staged for Sherlock’s benefit–farfetched, perhaps, but again, nothing contradicts that reading, and there are a few elements that suggest it’s correct…and it was honestly my original interpretation of the scene when I watched it.

Comments are closed.