devolution, anyone?

Every other day there is a long feature, of the kind that you would have loved to read ten years ago, would have marveled at it and pushed for more such in-depth reporting in all sorts of news media. Today you have no time for it.

Every other day an important person makes a sensational confession, that would have caused banner headlines back in the day. Today it creates a storm in a teacup, and nothing more.

And those cute little  articles or listicles that don't make much sense but make you laugh really hard or brightens your day, and you wish the magazines carried more of this stuff rather than stuffy old news all the time, they now bombard you in the thousands everyday, until you don't know where to hide... and you don't even find them so funny any more, you get so dazed and desentisized as you continue to scroll down...

I ask, what is the use of all this information overload, anyway? It seems to have devalued the nature of media itself ....

In fact, media has become an equal reflection of life itself, rather than just a map which needs to be scaled up. Full of all the fillers and white noise that life is made up of.

Back in the days, media actually used to mean something, when something being published in a newspaper meant that something was highlighted, and it was discussed, and a certain section of people were more informed about the world.

But the world of traditional media was a very unhealthy world in its own way, there was vicious competition to get in the newspapers, nothing ensured that it was fair or that the deserving things or people got on the papers or radio or TV, and money and power ruled, like everywhere else

Yes, the world of traditional media was just as artificial as the new media. The vicious competition and the artificial semblence of the world it created was just a ruse. it was a facade. it ruined so many. But can we go back further to a world without media? Can we go back to talking and singing and inscribing on stone pillars?

**

Bright, peppy colours for the young
Daring, revealing cuts
hasn't it all been done before?
isn't this what every generation does?

and how far can you
recycle it in different styles? 
bell bottoms versus tapered
fitted versus flared
simple, no frills versus
gracefully looped

we have done them all
and all in living memory,
moresoever

what else is left for us to do?
after we have seen anything?
was constant innovation ever the goal?
if it was, it is clear now
that we will not achieve it...

**
(the use of tools was a sin)

On the sexism of Irene Adler episode - a belated review of Sherlock

Warning: Many spoilers of BBC series Sherlock

I admit I am rather late into this game. BBC's Sherlock series has come and gone several years ago, and left a trail of cumberpeople in its wake. I was not one of them, and was not hyped when Cumberbatch came to Nepal to shoot an episode of Dr. Who.

But that was all set to change a few months ago, when my friends told me that not one but several adaptations of Sherlock Holmes exist, and that they all vary considerably from the book. In one of them, he has a love interest (Molly) and a sister, in another, Watson and Moriarty are women, and in another, Sherlock himself is a woman. I was intrigued, but even more resentful. Do they really think they can do better than Conan Doyle? I set out to watch Sherlock with a contemptuous attitude.

I was not disappointed, and in a good way. The first episode, set in modern times, varies so widely from the original, and Mr. Cumberbatch was so unbelievably charming as Sherlock, that I decided to treat this Sherlock as an entirely separate entity, forgot all my resentment, and enjoy the brilliant show.

One of the best things about the show is Mark Gatiss, both in the way he write and the way he portrays Mycroft. The complicated sibling dynamic he brings to the show is utterly brilliant - where Mycroft and Sherlock use every opportunity to vex each other, but also love each other more deeply than they ever admit. The tenderness in Mycroft's eyes when he says - do not fire at Sherlock Holmes. The show is worth it for just that. And many people may not agree but Mycroft is my favourite character from the show.

All is well, until we come to the episode of Irene Adler, where the writers mess it up really badly by creating a much more sexist version of the story than what Conan Doyle wrote. First of all, why make her a dominatrix, of all things? Conan Doyle describes her as an adventuress - a very old fashioned term for a woman who may have had sexual adventures. Today, the term could have translated into a daring woman of any kind who possessed compromising photographs - not necessarily a sex worker, even though Irene is a cut above the ordinary prostitute. Wouldn't we have loved a super smart scientist or a daring alpinist / sportswoman or a nerdy writer in that role? The hyper sexualizing of the character is just another instance of the hyper sexualisation of women in media in general - while men have their arts and crafts and professions, women just have a sexuality - and that is enough.

But while we may even forgive this depiction, I personally cannot forgive the twists and turns it takes. Irene is the only woman who beats Sherlock, therefore he takes to calling her "the" woman, out of respect. He does not necessarily want to have sex with her, as the modern show implies, with constant references to Sherlock's virginity and the fact that he is often dumbstruck in her (nude or scantily clothed) presence. He respects her wit, and keeps her photo as a keepsake, according to Conan Doyle. But here we have an Irene who dumbfounds Sherlock with her nudity (was that really necessary, guys? I mean, nudity on screen has its uses and recently with Game of Thrones we have seen how effective it can be in storytelling, but was it really necessary to unclothe Irene? Did it add anything to her character or the story that's good for the plot?), and then beats him up with a hockey stick. What the hell was that? Irene is supposed to beat Sherlock with her mind, not with a hockey stick. I am tired of saying this many times, but IRENE IS THE ONLY WOMAN WHO BEAT SHERLOCK. But here we have Sherlock beating her, by cracking that ridiculous code "Sherlocked." Just to remind you of Conan Doyle's intention, Irene has no interest in Mr. Holmes. She cleverly escapes the trap he has devised for her, and runs way with her lover. Here, we have an Irene who is so obsessed with Sherlock she has him as her phone password (she has no other love interest either), and when she is beaten by him, begs and pleads with him to get her freedom and protection. Good lord, guys, Irene outsmarted Sherlock and got her own freedom and protection, and was smart enough to keep the photograph as insurance. Could you not stand the one woman who got away ? And not satisfied with beating, belittling and humiliating Irene once, Sherlock rescues her AGAIN, in the end, from the Taliban, no less. IRENE REQUIRES NO RESCUING SHE GOT AWAY FROM SHERLOCK! STOP MAKING THE MAN THE HERO WHEN EVEN THE VICTORIAN WRITER LET HIM BE BEAT!


And it was not as if the Holmes tales were full of strong women. It was a very masculine world, where the good guys and the bad guys were all men. Well, thank you modern Sherlock for making Mary,  a woman with much more of a detailed history and complicated character than available in the books. But, that does not make up for the demolition of Irene.

And by the way, that scene where Sherlock is unable to deduce anything about Irene because she is naked, is so laughable it is ridiculous. That is why you need women writers, Mr. Gatiss, no matter how good you are. A woman would have deduced a LOT from the color of Irene's lipstick (and her foundation too, if the detective was astute), the way she did her hair, the eye makeup (mascara or eyeliner?), her body hair - or lack of it (what is her waxing routine?) the size and shape of her belly (when was the last time she ate, what did she eat, what kind of diet is she on?), her posture - volumes are written about the way women place their arms and legs, etc etc.

And last but not the least, the fact that Sherlock keeps Irene's phone (early days of the smartphone, everyone was calling it a 'camera phone' with a straight face) is just not equal to the old Sherlock keeping Irene's photograph as a keepsake. Minor point, but it rankles, as with a mobile phone you don't instantly get that he is keeping it for sentimental attachment, you suspect other, technical motives.

And what is that about Irene messaging him all the time and him not replying? For the last time, it is Sherlock who is crazy about Irene, Sherlock who pursues her and keeps her portrait, Sherlock who thinks she was a class above her former lover the king of Bohemia, and Sherlock who never names her but always calls her - the woman. Irene doesn't care two hoots about him and is happily settled with her lover, thank you. Why does it have to be all about the man? Why can't you let the woman take the center stage for once? Do you realise you are being more regressive than the Victorian man who wrote it?

Yes, I realise that it is rather strange that a woman in Nepal should have such strong feelings about a work of 19th century English literature. Sir Conan Doyle must be turning in his grave. But sorry Brits, English is no longer just yours, and not just me, but the love for Sherlock Holmes has been passed down generations already, here in Nepal.

P.S. Wikipedia tells me that Holmes is the most portrayed character in films, television, radio, etc. Why, oh lord, why? I don't have the time to go through them and analyse all of them for their sexist content..... (wringing hands)