Torchwood, John Barrowman and general gay-osity

New interview with John Barrowman in Gay Times. I was trepidatious of picking this up, since Gay Times? BORING. Always BORING. Their writers have no... how do I put this... pizzazz. Or possibly it's the editors, editing it down until there's no style left. Because The Economist articles are more interesting to read. Anyway, it was once again unbelievably boring. The article on the Archers' gay couple? Boring. Flat. Yes, there's a reason I'm more likely to pick up Attitude to browse in WHSmiths before my train comes. And yes, I know theoretically they're aimed at different demographics. News for you, Gay Times : the Economist is aimed at a much broader demographic and still manages to be interesting to read.

:deep breath: Anyway. Article didn't tell us much about Torchwood or John we didn't already know, apart from a bit about Dr Who, aside from there will be bisexuality and sex everywhere. Everyone remember Jake, the incredibly cute resistance fighter from the parallel earth of Cybermen, who we all looked at and went 'GAY! MICKEY'S BOYFRIEND! *SO* MICKEY'S BOYFRIEND!' He was supposed to be. :g: Or at least in love with Mickey. They cut it out because, according to Russell : "I hate all these shows which have rubbish gay relationships, and I took another look at the script and realised it was cheap, soapy nonsense. I won't have cheap gay references." My word. Russell, if you cut something out because it was ridiculously soapy, considering what the rest of your episodes were like this season, it must've been *really* soapy.

Off to bank to deposit cheque.

reasons not to eat hob-nobs, #1-5,678

One bit always gets stuck in your gums. *Always*. Seriously. It gets stuck at 10am, and you can't get the little fucker until you attack with floss about three times when you get home. Grrr. And yet you always forget, when faced with their oaty goodness.

Have Wintersmith in mitts. Almost afraid to start it.

dear lord. elephant much?

Amazon just sent me an 'as you have shown interest in books by this author' email for this, which is about Shakespeare on film in the early 21st century. Book of essays, as far as I can tell. I previously bought the 'Shakespeare, Film and Fin de Siecle' essays book when desperately grabbing for anything on Shakespeare and film when writing dissertation for degree. In *2000*. Hello, Amazon, six years down the line mean owt to you? I seriously think I read/bought everything on Shakespeare and film available in book form at the time. (our library wasn't all that great at the searching for articles thing, since it was an art school, not a lit one) Me and dad scoured all of Hay on Wye and Amazon for anything you could get with a tenuous link. Most of my citations were still online essays and articles, though. (if you want to see my essay - which is so cut down due to word limit it skims everything and does nothing in depth - go to my site or Google Scholar and type in Henry V and film. Should've just focussed on one film rather than two.) I even own a copy of Michael MacLiammoir's Put Money in thy Purse on the money pit and clusterfuck that was Orson Welles' Othello. Don't think I did more than open the first few pages, though, as it didn't cover Olivier or Branagh.

Mind you, most of the books of essays? Reinforced my general opinion that books of essays in the artworld on theory or any suchlike are completely up their own arse. Seriously, you could hear the noises of disgust a mile away. And yes, I was stupid enough to describe one of the course books as 'complete bollocks' in front of my art theory tutor when asked for my opinion. (lovely man, great teacher, most of us would've done anything for him when he hesitantly broached the subject. See the Midsummer's Day six photography students tramped across Bodmin Moor in the driving wind and rain to photograph some drama students because he asked.) Being the incisive man he was, he then set me the task of writing a paper explaining myself on one of the essays in the book. So I proceeded to deconstruct one of the essays, tackle all the points and waffly language, and prove that it was complete bollocks. Handed it over and pointed out the two-word answer was still better.

I'll say this for them, their memory whatsit is *thorough*.