mmoa_writes

Monday evening saw mother dearest getting into a bit of a tizzy concerning the first sermon of Holy Week. The reading was from John's gospel (the best for use of language/perspective on early Christian interpretation. The worst for coherence with the other three) wherein 'Mary' indulges in a mild foot fetis and the sermon was thus based on Mary Magdalene (traditionally the one who washed Jesus' feet) as an example of the perfect disciple.

Mother dearest was annoyed because the preacher seemed to be implying Mary Magdalene was the sister of Lazarus, and thought it a typical demonstration of 'mistaken doctrine', as only the Anglican church can do, apparently. Now, how the identity of whoever (didn't really) wash Jesus' feet is a matter of doctrine^TM, I don't really understand, but as it occurred to me this would be a good opportunity to see if I couldn't get a few chips into her 'bible is teh inerrant' fallacy, I decided to read up for myself.

As far as I can see, one of the gospels doesn't mention the episode at all (Luke), whereas the M brothers report it as an unknown/nameless woman. John's gospel actually does make it out that Mary, the sister of Lazarus, is the one who does the feet washing, but it seems it's just another case of traditional 'interpretation' that has lent us the 'foot washing woman=Mary Magdalene'.

This also made me wonder if the people who claim the Bible has absolutely no 'parallel accounts', (oh alright, flat out contradictions) have actually read it, or if they even tried to remember enough of what they read on the last couple of pages beforehand. Sometimes it's not even a case of proper contradiction: I often find with St Paul, for example, that his 'logic' is just an excuse to waste a couple more inches of papyrus glorify a pre-established conclusion that often seems a bit, well, wrong considering the line of his argument (a little like Plato's Socrates in the Republic on occasion*). I'm not sure what that sort of contradiction is called but it happens often enough that I ought to know so I can wave it about next time I meet a street evangelist (who tries to get me involved in a conversation, I hasten to add).




Guess how clueless I can be!A lot? That's right!

Anyway. The third series of Skins has ended as of last week, which I didn't realise until I tried searching for episode 11. Now, I can take that as an indicator of my general cluelessness or as an indicator for my general thoughts about the show.

So, overall, I liked it much more than the last series, and I do think that's because it is BETTER. On the whole.

When considered by itself, I did have some problems with it that I'm hoping will go away by the fourth (?) series, because they really shouldn't have been problems either for me (*coughs) or for the now experienced writers.

First off, the characters. This happens a lot in the world of YA entertainment - fiction, movies, TV etc etc - where a bunch of interesting people are thrown in together to create 'the gang' and stick like that for no apparent reason. Individually, I thought they were fine (great in some cases) but everytime they were written going to parties together or hanging out, it seemed beyond fake. At least if it was fake, there'd be an implication as to why it was fake (some people are just desperate for companionship, others are loyal, others want something from someone etc etc), but in this case, there was no implication for anything. Why does lefty Naomi hang out with people like Effy and Pandora? What does Thomas see in these spoilt white kids when he has a family living in the Congo to support? Why are Freddie and Cook still friends - they get along like a couple that should have divorced years ago but 'stuck with it for the kids'.

Sometimes it was done really well - I didn't get Effy and Pandora at all and was about to give up until episode three when Effy actually asks the 'why are we friends?' question. Maybe some points should come off for the 'show, don't tell' trespass, but I didn't mind that so much. Especially considering that Effy still seems confused even with Panda's answer (essentially, 'I'm the slow, unappealing friend who can't steal your boyfriends').

Other times... I'm sure it wouldn't have hurt not to see a character at all, rather then see them doing something un-them. But maybe not - maybe I'm just being picky.

The setting was ok, though I swear there are more black people in Bristol than as portrayed. The show made a good go of it in the first series, but it's just gotten worse and worse up to the point where the only 'colour' is an illegal immigrant. Great.

Speaking of... OK, Thomas and Panda (Pandora btw) made no sense whatsoever as a couple, but was downright hillarious, so I'll leave it at that. But guys... what happened to his family? They just vanished! His mother took him 'home' because she saw him having a grand time with his hedonistic white friends (Yes, I know: realistic as hell that you'd waste a journey worth around £2000 and go all the way back to the country you were apparently escaping because your son was dancing funny - it was that attempt at the robot, wasn't it? *sighs*) and he was internal monologuing how tough it was to live in the UK and then... apparently his brains got sucked into Panda's vagina. Along with the rest of his family, presumably...?

And that brings us to the obligatory 'gay' factor, only this time, with lesbians! Monogamous, teenage lesbians (yeah, bizarre right?**). Still, at least Emily and Naomi got to have sex unlike Maxxie, who had to wait until series 2 (and even then it was with an illiterate skinhead**). Furthermore, it proved that hetrosexual characters are boring as hell. It has been scientifically proven, people! Now can we please write TV according to these logically derived principles? Thank you.

As I've mentioned before, although drama is fictional, that doesn't mean it can come out of nowhere. It makes no sense that Freddie would fight to get back to Effy because he 'loved her'. Freddie, as I thought you established, is a quitter - and a teenager. He's the sort who'd quit and write angsty lyrics and sleep with someone else (which he was doing at first, until someone had the bright idea to get Effy to almost kill her). Then there's Effy, who has no idea why she's friends with Panda, so why the hell she'd get annoyed about anyone else sleeping with someone like Cook, yet alone get with him in the first damn place, makes no sense either.

In fact, the only thing that never happened that would have made sense was Effy sleeping with JJ. Yes, I said it: magic trick boy and 'femme-fatale' (I laughed so hard at that one. You're not meant to call a femme fatale a 'femme fatale' you eejits).

It's the stuff that TV is made of.




So all in all, doesn't compare to 'Being Human', but was fun all the same. And yes, jeebus_uc I am capable of having good taste in TV shows, why?

The Grande Day Out was indeed grand. Had chips and the most amazing cappucino ever at the Haagen Dazs place in Leceister square. Mike was very cool and we even bumped into another Nigerian guy (doing charity stuff for NSPCC) and chatted in the worst Igblish this side of the Atlantic. Took him to the National Gallery (he has never been! A horrific thought, no? He just laughed when I told him this, clearly not understanding how devastating that was for a neek like myself) and around Covent Garden area. He seemed intrigued by steampunk, but I thought it would be stupid to ruin a great friendship so soon. Still, I think he'd be awesome as a 'Steam-Eze' - the Igbo science-pirate with a steampunk twist...

For those of you around Central London, you have to check out the free exhibition on Feliks Topolski, just after the Southbank centre square. 'Tis quite amazing.

*

*On occasion, I stress. I have noticed I tend to be quite mean to Plato - my Classics teacher was an Epicurean fanboy, alright: there was nothing I could do...!

**OK, lol, I'm just being a meanie-head.

*

This is why I hate going on the tube, lol: Too many distractions!