In honour of an episode that seems consciously about the construction of narratives around fundamentally meaningless aspects of the universe, a Twitter conversation with one of my last remaining mutuals to survive the Muskening, lightly repurposed to serve as a singular, narrativised Tumblr post in a way it was never designed for.
Who says art is dead?
73 Yards was strange and haunting and not entirely comprehensible in a way that Doctor Who seldom manages.
I suspect it's one where personal tolerance for that sort of thing will make or break the episode, but I certainly think that, knowing this was Gibson's first filmed episode, she did a phenomenal job.
It was also, for me at least, a more generally successful invocation of the kind of eldritch horror implied by the Toymaker or the Maestro, largely by virtue of it giving itself room to be ambiguous.
I've seen the complaints about stuff like the PM being a blank slate, but I do rather feel like that might be the point. It's an episode all about perception and projection and narrativisation of a universe that can be cold and hostile and incomprehensible.
(And frankly, I'm starting to suspect that the whole of RTD2 might be about that on some level. "We see something incomprehensible and invent the rules to make it work" and all that. It's audacious and bold in a way that Doctor Who hasn't been in half a decade.)
And as someone for whom those themes really hit home a lot of the time, yeah, I loved it. I know I probably sound like a broken record but I am genuinely just having a blast with this latest series.
The worst thing Doctor Who can ever feel like for me is an obligation that I only keep up with out of a need to stay relatively current in writing about it, and that was what the Chibnall Era often boiled down to for me.
Part of the reason, in hindsight, I poured so much of myself into my book reviews was that the show itself was simply failing to excite me with the level of regularity necessary to keep me engaged.
Knowing that I can put on Doctor Who on a Saturday night and be reasonably well-entertained and intrigued is, frankly, enough for me, but I do think there are enough aspects of genuine quality that I'm not just blindly worshipping at the altar of a false idol or w/e.
I dunno, I think at the end of the day I'm just a big sucker for TV that makes sense to me on an emotional rather than logical level. It's why I'm a big fan of Twin Peaks, or the second season of Millennium, or hell even Masks over on TNG.
The episode had the general feel of one that will be quite important to the overall themes of the season, so I can't imagine it will linger in *complete* ambiguity forever (though honestly if it did I would kind of love that).
Like I wouldn't be surprised if we're building up to a similar time loop reveal wrt Ruby's general existence. The fact that we've now got at least three instances of her timeline being haunted by mysterious old women cannot possibly be coincidence.
(Well, it can be, but that way lies goblins, as we know.)
IDK, there's a strangeness to Davies' acknowledgments of mediality here that goes even beyond Moffat's usual tricks. Casting a recurring actress by the name of Susan Twist while conspicuously mentioning Susan for the first time in forever feels so on the nose that while I initially suspected we might be building to the return of Susan, I now feel like we're instead headed for something much weirder.
There is so much going on and so much to unpack and frankly I don't have any idea how it could possibly tie together but I'm fascinated.
And again, the fact that this episode was almost explicitly about the process of fans theorising as to what the hell is going on with the season makes me further suspect a rebuttal of theory-focused cult fandom is in the offing.
When I first watched Once, Upon Time in 2021, I commented that it felt like Chris Chibnall's attempt to do a big, bold, incomprehensible piece of television, something almost in the vein of Twin Peaks: The Return, Part 8 but for Doctor Who.
But it's revealing that the only thing he could really think to do was dump a bunch of Doctor Who lore and simply edit things out. He's a mystery writer in the most tediously literal sense of the phrase, creating gaps that feel like they were made with a hacksaw rather than feeling like any sort of deliberate lacuna.
And I'm sorry Chibnall fans, there are some Thirteen episodes that I do like, but when I look at an episode like 73 Yards... whatever its faults may be, and I'm pretty confident I don't actually believe it to be perfect, it is bolder and weirder than anything Chibnall ever wrote. This is the kind of television I want to watch, and I make no apologies for that.
It's a rare piece of Doctor Who which comes close to capturing that sheer, terrible splendour I felt watching a slow zoom into an atom bomb explosion while being serenaded by the Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima. And sure, it's still very far out from being quite that strange, but it retains a curious power nevertheless.
Okay Hiii me back!! Time to talk about Book Enzo (Honestly the best iteration of Enzo) and an insight on him because I feel people look at book Enzo so one noted and it's very frustrating to watch so okay.
Context: The Book was where Nicky's friends were mostly introduced (This was during a time when SN wasn't considered part of the lore so no Finch, no Ivan and no Delroy and Leader, Brave and Detective were separate cause like Maritza and Enzo were hinted to be dark skinned mexicans) Enzo in the books was also very different in the two books.
Yes he IS a nerd he HAS nerd qualities but he was also had a very sharp tongue and will opp out of a conversation when Aaron is brought in as a topic. And book 2 is where Enzo stole alot of the show cause of his arc and turnaround and also his argument with Nick in chapter 7 and the iconic:
"Have fun alone." While Jackson 5 is blasting in the bg
He also did something somewhat of a prick move which was: ditching Nick & Maritza to instead hang with kids whom he had zero platonic compatibility with and allowing them to walk all over him (Like them giving him an embarrassing nickname) and though in the end of the book he does have a turn around and make up with Nick. Alot of people by that time see Enzo as a prick/mean girl/idk whatever u wanna call him. Ik 14 year old me did at the time till I reread it and started to be charmed and eventually now I usually tend to defend some of his actions of book 1-2 (3 I'll tab in a bit l8r)
Okay, let's start w the easy one which is Enzo telling Nick off in chapter 7 about staying away from Maritza & Trinny: In book 1 Enzo told Nick "Oh btw your neighbor cornered my sister and told her about her dead friend flying" and to which Nick then met up with Maritza irl by book 2 and the two shared a bond over them losing a close friend while amidst Nick falling out w Enzo. So let's go back to that first sentence in blue: imagine a friend of yours is friends with someone who the adult figure in their life said something pretty horrifying to a family member, to which you tell them about it & instead of that friend backing off that friend with the scummy adult figure they instead put your family member risking their life for investigating on that scummy adult figure behind your back cause they thought you simply just want to hide behind your tail and not confront the situation, and mind you. You and the friend are both 12.
Now let me say this: Yes it was somewhat scummy for Enzo to try and avoid it at all costs especially when Maritza was hurt he did not take into consideration her feelings BUT the situation could've been bad had Maritza been closed off to the topic about her two dear friends & being thrust into foregoing to investigate a man who said creepy shit to you by someone you kinda met through your brother. Yeah, Enzo HAD a reason for what he said about Nick staying away from Trinity and Maritza two people who he not only cares about but HAS HISTORY. I love Nick but it is stupidly dangerous how he set up 2 other kids to investigate with him and doesn't think of how DANGEROUS that is especially since in the books it is HEAVILY IMPLIED THEODORE ABUSES AARON.
This isn't a case of unreliable narration or the author forgot to add it in it's a case where the POV doesn't understand why the character feels like that way, it's Nick POV at the end of the day he doesn't have all the answers but it's hinted.
They're meant to be a parallel to their own fathers' how-to approach to an article on Theodore except switched on its heads. So yeah how do you expect a bunch of 12-year-olds to react to someone being kidnapped?
Aaron & Enzo: Okay in general this is something I always kept in mind about the books especially cause this was intended by the author:
Enzo and (the rest of the kids too not just him.) Are meant to be flawed so it's not a surprise personally he doesn't want to be affiliated with something as macabre as Lucy's death or the Petersons anymore and is again trying to cope (He's 12 his mind is at the end of the day still developing) but it just doesn't work. My only complaint was I wished we could've seen a scene where Enzo realizes Ruben and Seth didn't care for him. But with what we have I much rather have it be implied through Enzo not making it to the basketball team and finally Enzo and Nick making up and going to Miguel for help. Nick & Enzo CARE about the people they love they unfortunately butt heads over how to approach it with Enzo wanting Nick to do nothing while Nick wants Enzo to do something. They don't HATE each other I do not understand where that is coming from especially cause Nick was so quick to forgive Enzo even wanting to hug him like... They care for each other, they just clashed about how to approach a very heavy situation that will likely get police involved.
And as for Enzo falling out with Aaron, obviously, it's the Maritza situation I want to irritate though that yes Aaron isn't at fault Enzo probably with the influence of Miguel shaped his mindset that Aaron and Mya are people he should stay away from in order not to be sucked in by Theodore's toxicity (Cause that book they were all 10 and had brains that soak up like a sponge)
Okay time to talk generally about book 3: It's a very weak book that forces the characters to be written out of a plot for the final scene which was planned out. And though yes Enzo abandoned Nick (with like also Trinity and Maritza)
Oh right I totally forgot HNVR exist despite how book 3 seems to have written them not wanting to do with anything w Nick! let's all actively pretend book 3 never existed:
Okay, I'll try my only defense for him in book 3 is: Everyone was written stupidly for a forced conflict but I think cause as a reader I was desensitized to Enzo being mean it doesn't come off as left field for me as Trinity and Maritza also he was the last one to opp which again says alot. Also HNVR says otherwise let's pretend they realize how stupid they were and then wanted to apologize only for Nick to be missing let's say that (or pretend book 3 never exist)
So yes this is my gushing about the book Enzo and why I believe he's the most well-written character in the books and what I think alot of people tend to miss out... I wish Enzo was more studied on like this on the same levels as Ted tbh lol
I love these four... I will talk about these four... Please let me talk about their book versions of them so bad you have no idea how much I will go the 7 seas to defend them like a soccer mom.
Tbh, everyone keeps saying they found the chemistry between Matt and Milly very hot but personally, I feel very grossed out every time they were together, even on the bridge of Dragonstone. Idk but knowing the dynamic between them as well as the age gap between the actors, it just grosses me out. As for Emma not having a good chemistry with Matt, I think it was intentional. It was supposed to be wooden and mechanical, because Rhaenyra is no longer a child, therefore an object of fascination to Daemon. Now Rhaenyra is older, a mother of 3. She's much grown but still idolizes him. He uses her again, this time mostly to fulfill his thirst for power for the Iron Throne, whereas he previously desired her for both power and pedophilic attraction. A lot of people ship Daemyra are either unaware or being completely aware that it's a relationship between an abuser and his victim. The power dynamic is off kilter and very skewed. I really hope the scene below in season 2 will open their eyes. Better late than never.
And these people think they are intelligent ? Not only do they sound completely ridiculous, but they also disgust me for being happy to follow and adhere to the showrunners' misguided view of adding physical violence to the Daemyra relationship. And once again, the definition of grooming and pedophilia is available in one click on the internet. It amazes me to see so many of our people use such important and serious big words in a situation that absolutely does not lend itself to it. Also, history books and / or historical research to understand what a historical context is and what it implies are not for dogs.
I would really like to understand what they see as grooming in the show ?
Nothing inappropriate is suggested on Daemon's side as long as Rhaenyra is not of age by the standards of Westeros and our modern standards.
He is literally in a relationship with Mysaria.
He is introduced to us as not often at court and has his own affairs to manage between first his work as leader of the goldcloaks and then his quarrels with Viserys.
The fact that he gives Rhaenyra a simple necklace is not proof of grooming. It mostly seems like a nod to the many gifts mentioned that he always gave Rhaenyra upon returning from his travels, as well as emphasizing their deep connection in comparison to their relationship with Viserys.
Rhaenyra seems to have a crush on Daemon, but Daemon doesn't seem to do anything inappropriate about it.
The only moment where Daemon finally seems to have an real ambiguous interest in Rhaenyra before episode 4 is in episode 2, on the bridge, when he sees 15-year-old Rhaenyra (I remind you that at this age, girls in Westeros are considered marriageable) making her flash and she defeats him.
Then, he found her years later when she was 19 and they spent an evening together where he seduced her and she very willingly let herself be seduced, and in the end, Daemon can't even go through with it his objective which yes, certainly, was not very noble.
But to call it grooming ? WTF ?
Not to mention the fact that Rhaenyra's age, from episode 1, disqualifies her from being able to belong to the definition of pedophilia in the case of Daemon.
As you said, we could talk about ephebophile, but there is in fact no tangible proof, especially because we are in a different historical context compared to the vision of the age, but also because Daemon was in couple with adult women both according to Westeros society and our modern society.
He was in a relationship with Mysaria, an adult, married an adult Rhaenyra, did not seem to be put off by Laena when she was an adult, and in the cut scenes, Daemon literally fucked an adult man.
So no. Even ephebophile doesn't work. Daemon is simply a man who lives in a feudal society where age is not perceived as in ours and overall he has relationships with individuals of any type of age as long as these people are legal according to the standards of his society (book or show) which... is not technically shocking.
Again, the people who are offended have probably never opened a history book, done historical research, or even taken basic history classes.
That or they are stupid or deliberately obtuse.
Again, the definitions of grooming and pedophile are freely available on the internet.
There is no excuse for such a lack of logic / common sense in my eyes.
I would also dare to add that all this is probably also due to an increasingly ridiculous hypocritical purity culture in media analysis... Which for some reason is becoming more and more important.
It's not for nothing that most people giving this kind of speech about Daemyra / Daemon are mainly TG (so Aegon II stans, among other disgusting things...), Team Smalfolk and or Alicent stans after all...
The fact is that I'm tired of seeing these stupid people show off their science with big words to give themselves moral superiority, while the definitions are very easily found... And I don't understand that so many people can adhere to this bullshit.
TG stans really don't like it when you accuse them of their lack of logic and knowledge of the definitions of the words they so eagerly use. Just look:
They will use any argument, even the most absurd and strange, just to justify themselves and make themselves look better. All the time, they create themselves and their favorites as victims of the system, and they strive to show that TB are just as bad or even worse.
Aegon is a rapist? Daemon is a pedophile and rapist!
Aemond is a psychopath, a bully and a murderer? Rhaenyra's children are spoiled bastards who are just like Joffrey, they have no feelings and are completely bully!
Alicent is a lying traitor with no real honor? Rhaenyra is a lying whore!
It gets to a point where they have run out of arguments and the fact that "Daemon had an affair with Nettles" is not enough and can be disproved by "Daemon may be Nettles' father" that now they are creating a theory that… Daemon is her father, he knows it and at the same time has an affair with her :P!
They just want to feel like they're the good guys. That's why they slander TB, compare TG to the Stark family from GoT (and TB to the Lannisters), create their strange theories and cast slander, and then react aggressively when you disagree with them. Because they probably know that TG are the "bad guys" and they don't like it.
I block them, but when I see a real absurdity that got into my searches through the filter, sometimes I can't let it go :P They will still be outraged and portray themselves as persecuted victims, so what? Let them live in their imaginary world, the series will end one day and they will be left with nothing.
every once in a while i remember that nobody in season 3, not even annie or MM, ever bothered to bring up the very valid point that maybe the boys shouldn't be hunting and killing supes who haven't actually done anything wrong (at least to their knowledge), and i am filled with rage all over again
”Why does Master Splinter barely ever seem to leave the lair in missions to help the turtles in the 2012 series? He’s an adult!”
Because it’s a kids show so the primary solver of the problems involved is obviously going to be the kids. Having an adult swoop in and solve everything/baby sit all the time would probably be kind of boring for the intended audience. Boring for everyone actually. Next question.
Did that fav pkmn thing on a whim and I'm sorry for all my babies I didn't choose bc I really like too many by some.
Love how it's mostly pretty ones and then there's clodsire. Even tho I got it in my team since the beginning of violet do I continuously forget its name bc I just call it by the nickname blobby (one of the rare times I didn't spend hours googling the perfect nickname but it nonetheless is a perfect one)
And for fun without any legendaries as fav
Reg nicknames I even write all down so I only spend decades once for each pkmn (unless I don't like the prev one anymore). Need to update that someday since it's mostly old revolution ones but hey. Blaze do I use for arcanine nowadays more and ninetails got others. Gardevoir got soteria nowadays which I prefer more. Etc.