J.R.R. Tolkien en el Reino Peligroso

Pilar Tarma and me at the Madrid première of Rings of Power S2, posing with the book on J.R.R. Tolkien where our essays were published 😄

 (English version, Spanish below) Back in September 2023, I participated in a Tolkien studies academic seminar, held at the Facultad de Filología (Faculty of Philology) of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) and organized by one of Madrid's local delegations (or 'smials') of the Spanish Tolkien Society (STE), the smial of Bolsón Cerrado. Entitled ‘Tolkien 50 años después: Nuevas perspectivas desde la Sociedad Tolkien Española’ ('Tolkien 50 years later: New Perspectives from the Spanish Tolkien Society') (web), this two-day seminar included various 20-minute talks across five sessions with the aim of visibilizing the figure of J.R.R Tolkien and his works, in honour of the 50th anniversary of the Professor's death. The topics of the talks spanned multiple topics, from languages and translation, to Anglosaxon and Nordic culture and mythology (for example, Pilar Erika's talk about Tolkien's translation of the Anglosaxon epic poem Beowulf), gender studies (as was my case), philosophy, analysis of politics, comparative literature, and music.

    En septiembre de 2023 participé con una charla en unas jornadas académicas de estudios tolkienianos que tuvieron lugar en la Facultad de Filología de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM). Estas jornadas fueron organizadas por una de las delegaciones (smiales) de la Sociedad Tolkien Española (STE) en Madrid, el smial de Bolsón Cerrado.   Con el título de ‘Tolkien 50 años después: Nuevas perspectivas desde la Sociedad Tolkien Española’ (web), estos dos días de jornadas incluyeron varias charlas de 20 minutos a lo largo de cinco sesiones, con el objetivo de visibilizar la figura de J.R.R. Tolkien y su obra, en conmemoración del 50 aniversario del fallecimiento del Profesor. La temática de las charlas abarcaron múltiples temas, desde filología y traducción, a las culturas y mitologías anglosajona y nórdica (como, por ejemplo, la charla de Pilar Erika sobre la traducción de Tolkien del poema épico Beowulf), los estudios de género (mi caso), filosofía, análisis político, literatura comparada o música.

My talk on Elven women and gender roles at the 2023 Tolkien seminar

 In a previous blog post, I talked in more detail about the seminar and my  own talk, including both the PDF of my Power Point slides and the YouTube playlist with the complete set of talks and Q&A sessions. Also, if you want to watch my talk from the seminar without going to other post, the video below features my talk beginning at 22:20 and ending at 45:00, and I'm also answering some questions at 1:05:00:  

 En un post anterior, estuve hablando con algo más de detalle sobre las jornadas y mi charla, e incluí tanto el PDF con la presentación de Power Point que usé para la charla, como también una lista de reproducción de YouTube con las sesiones completas de charlas y rondas de preguntas. Por si preferís verlo aquí, incluyo aquí abajo también el vídeo con la sesión donde aparece mi charla, comenzando en el minuto 22:20 hasta el minuto 45:00, y también aparezco respondiendo preguntas en 1:05:00:  

  So, what happened after this tolkienite seminar was over? A few months later, the organizers confirmed that a book of essays including a handful of the talks featured at the seminar (not all authors were available to write for it) was underway 😃✨📚! So I spent the good part of a month summarizing my talk into a 6000-to-8000-word essay and succeeded in submitting it before the deadline 😅💪. A brief-ish session of galleys and revisions later, my contribution was done and all that remained was to wait till the book's publication, which finally happened in August 2024  - The book, entitled J.R.R. en el Reino Peligroso. Nuevas perspectivas desde la SOCIEDAD TOLKIEN ESPAÑOLA, con ocasión del 50 aniversario de la muerte del autor (J.R.R Tolkien in the Perilous Realm. New Perspectives from the Spanish Tolkien Society, in honour of the 50th anniversary of the author's death), was published by Legendaria Ediciones and edited by Paula de Andrés, Ester Cuenca, María Fernández and Ignacio Saavedra. You can buy the book on the publisher's website, and also find it listed on Goodreads. 

 

 Unos meses después de que terminaran estas jornadas, la organización se puso en contacto para confirmarnos que habían acordado con la editorial Legendaria ediciones el poder publicar un libro de ensayos que incluyera varias de las charlas y temas que pudimos ver y dar en las jornadas 😃✨📚 (no todas las personas que participaron estuvieron disponibles para poder colaborar en el libro, pero sí una buena parte). Así que dediqué buena parte del mes de febrero de 2024 a reestructurar mi charla para convertirla en un ensayo de 6000 a 8000 palabras (casi 8000 palabras en mi caso), y entregarlo antes de la fecha límite establecida 😅💪. Después de una sesión relativamente corta de galeradas y correcciones, mi aportación para el libro estaba completada, y ya sólo quedaba esperar unos pocos meses más hasta que se publicara, cosa que sucedió finalmente en agosto de 2024, con el título de J.R.R. en el Reino Peligroso. Nuevas perspectivas desde la SOCIEDAD TOLKIEN ESPAÑOLA, con ocasión del 50 aniversario de la muerte del autor, editado por Paula de Andrés, Ester Cuenca, María Fernández e Ignacio Saavedra. Podéis comprar el libro en la web de la editorial, y también lo podéis encontrar aquí Goodreads. 

Info on (some of) the authors (low res)

 The book includes eight essays (one of them mine 🤩📖), based on several of the talks featured throughout the September 2023 seminar, with topics ranging from the life of J.R.R Tolkien to the female characters in his works (aka, my essay, see below!), Nordic and Anglosaxon literature (featuring Pilar Erika's essay on Tolkien's translation of Beowulf), politics and social issues, and calligraphy and languages:

  Este libro contiene ocho ensayos (¡uno de ellos el mío! 🤩📖), que, como decía, están basados en varias de las charlas que se dieron en las jornadas de septiembre de 2023 en la UCM, con temáticas bastante diversas, desde la vida de J.R.R Tolkien a los personajes femeninos en su obra (mi ensayo, seguid leyendo para más detalles), la literatura nórdica y anglosajona (con, por ejemplo, el ensayo de Pilar Erika sobre la traducción de Tolkien de Beowulf), política y temas sociales, y caligrafía y lenguas: 

The eight essays in the book as listed in the index. Mine starts on page 175 (low res)

  At the Madrid première of season 2 of The Rings of Power series back in August 2024 (here cosplaying as an Eregion Noldorin Elf original character (OC), alongside Pilar Erika's Númenórean OC), we finally got our authors copies of the newly published book 😊📚✨📜:

Pilar Tarma, Pau 'Erendis' (one of the editors and authors), and me at the Madrid première of Rings of Power S2, posing with the book on J.R.R. Tolkien where our essays were published 😄

  En la première de Madrid de la temporada 2 de la serie de Los Anillos de Poder , que tuvo lugar en agosto de 2024, nos dieron por fin nuestras copias de autoras del libro que había salido publicado ese mismo mes 😊📚✨📜 (salimos en las fotos haciendo cosplay de una elfa Noldorin de Eregion (en mi caso), junto con la númenóreana de Pilar Erika):

 

  So what was my essay about? As I also discuss in the blog post about the seminar, for my talk, and then my essay for this book, I decided to delve into an analysis of gender roles and the dichotomy of societal enforcing and biological determinism in Tolkien's works, focusing on the Noldorin Elven society during the First Age in Valinor, and especifically on the five main wives and mothers of the Finwëan family - Míriel Therindë, Indis, Nerdanel, Anairë and Eärwen. I especially wanted to analyse how these women's stories showcase the limitations of their supposedly utopian (but heavily gendered) society, as well as highlight the remarkable nature of all of these women beyond their societally enforced role as wives and mothers, and how their personalities, abilities and stories end up subverting gender norms in more ways than one, putting into question whether these gendered rules in Elven society (and, by analogy, in our own society) are really so inherent and 'natural' as Tolkien believed them to be in real life   📝📚💪♀.

 In the conclusion of my essay, I also wanted to focus on the important topic of how we should use a nuanced discourse in order to approach and analyse Tolkien's work from a feminist point of view, adequately differentating between the author's personal mindset and intentions, and how his works can be interpreted from a gender perspective to a higher or lesser extent.  

 Y, ¿de qué va mi ensayo? Pues tiene la misma temática que la charla que di en las jornadas: indagar en el tema de los roles de género y la dicotomía entre la imposición social y el determinismo biológico presentes en la obra de Tolkien, centrándome en la sociedad élfica Noldorin durante la Primera Edad en Valinor, y específicamente en las cinco principales esposas y madres de la familia de Finwë - Míriel Therindë, Indis, Nerdanel, Anairë y Eärwen. De estas cinco mujeres, quise sobre todo explorar cómo sus historias reflejan las limitaciones de su sociedad - una sociedad mostrada como 'utópica' a pesar de su sesgo imperante de género en más de aspecto -, además de enfatizar todas las formas en que sobresalen más allá de sus roles normativos como esposas y madres, y cómo su personalidad, habilidades y tramas terminan también subvirtiendo el statu quo social de más de una forma, cuestionando el peso que realmente tiene la 'naturaleza' en el refuerzo de las normas de género de la sociedad élfica (y, por analogía, también de la nuestra), y si dichas normas resultan ser tan 'inherentes' como el propio Tolkien creía que eran en la vida real 📝📚💪♀ . 

En la conclusión de mi ensayo, quise también centrarme en el tema a mí vista importante de cómo deberíamos usar un discurso matizado a la hora de analizar y contextualizar la obra de Tolkien desde un prisma feminista, diferenciando adecuadamente entre el ideario e intenciones del autor, y cómo su obra puede interpretarse, en mayor o menor medida, desde una perspectiva de género.

  You can of course find my full essay in the book alongside the rest, but I would like to end this post sharing the PDF of my essay here below (in Spanish), as well as some pictures featuring some excerpts of it. Hope you enjoy! 

Y para terminar este post, adjunto aquí abajo el PDF de mi ensayo completo tal y como aparece en el libro. ¡Espero que lo disfrutéis! 

The whole book is in Spanish only, but ideally I'd like to find time to translate all of my Tolkien talks and essays into English sometime. If anyone's interested in reading this essay in English, please let me know in the comments and I'll get to this one before others!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Por último, podéis también leer algunos fragmentos del ensayo en las siguientes fotos:

 

  

-On the use of my essays, studies and translations: Please, do not use this work without my permission without any credit. If you're interested and want to share it or expand on this idea, you're of course allowed to reference it if you credit me and link to this post. It would also be nice if you contacted me beforehand. DO NOT publish as if it were your own work, always quote and link.

Goodreads reviews - Doctor Who: Only Human (New Series Adventures, #4)

Book: Doctor Who: Only Human, by Gareth Roberts.

2.5/5 Goodreads review also here.  

 This is the fourth book in the Doctor Who New Series Adventures series, featuring the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler. A lengthy review (as usual xD) below, including spoilers:

   My main qualm with this book is its author, Gareth Roberts, whose icky and problematic ideology (he has an unsavoury penchant for sexism and transphobia 😑) tends to end up reflected to a greater or lesser extent in his work (as is the usual thing with the majority of authors). So that was a qualm about rereading this book, which I did because of my recent project of (re)reading and reviewing all six Nine&Rose New Series Adventures novels (perfectionism ahoy xD). And yeah, in this book we can definitely see some sexist choices and stereotypes which I didn't love (as I will detail below).

   As to the more positive, the story and narration wasn't the most engaging of the six novels, in my personal opinion, but it was reasonably well written and the plot did hold my interest overall. The book tackles both history and science fiction, with a human colony from the far future who built a faulty ‘time engine’ and got stuck during the time of the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. The plot explores interesting themes such as genetic engineering and the ethics of science, as well as the strife between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, with the latter here portrayed as more violent, territorial and with genocidal intent against all 'lesser' human species, whom they other and regard and 'Them'.  Time travel shenanigans aside, the themes of competitive replacement and the dangers of dehumanization, seen through a fully Whovian ethics lens, are the central points of the story, and in that sense I did enjoy the book, even though it has its flaws, and some of them are pretty jarring.

Replacement of Neanderthals (yellow) by early modern humans (blue). Source.

➡️A quick aside on the Neanderthal extinction: There are many hypotheses for the extinction of the Neanderthals, among which we can name inbreeding and a small population size, violent conflict with Homo sapiens and competitive replacement - which is the hypothesis that is most explored in this book -, a change of climate, disease, natural catastrophes, and/or interbreeding and ultimate assimilation with early modern humans. Most likely, it was a combination of several of these factors which caused the extinction of the already low Neanderthal population.  In spite of the speculative nature of the dynamics of Neanderthals and early modern humans depicted in this book (violent replacement by Homo sapiens was first proposed in 1912-20 by Marcellin Boule, but other hypotheses as to the demise of the Neanderthals have since appeared), in my reading experience it's not often that Neanderthals are given the spotlight in this way, with the Homo sapiens as the more antagonistic people, so I found that to be a compelling part of the plot. 

  As to the main characters, Nine and Rose were well characterized overall, and while Jack Harkness did reflect some of the author's sexist ideas at times, his trademark (and creepy) approach to 'harassing everyone on first meeting them is such a good rep of pan(omni)sexuality' 😬 was toned down in this book with respect to the series and other media, which I appreciated. Other characters were more or less compelling regarding their characterization, with Neanderthal Das turning up to be an unexpected favourite with rather wholesome and endearing traits (I did enjoy the portrayal of the Neanderthal people in general), while I found others to be markedly more problematic in their characterization - Especially 'boss lady' Chantal Osterberg ticking off all of the stereotypical traits of the mad and amoral scientist who is also kind of a drop-dead beautiful femme fatale 🙄, and whose characterization I found to be not only rather lazy and two-dimensional, but also leaning on the more overtly sexist side.

More details below, so here be spoilers!

✨Female representation:

  Rose Tyler is one again the main female protagonist with her role as Nine's companion (see more about her below), with Chantal Osterberg, the leading scientist of the research colony of humans from the future (also see below), being the leading secondary character. Some other women in the colony appear in the story as well with more minimal roles, with scientist Lene having the most importance (even though her plot is pretty much reduced to being a wife and having to process her terminal illness 😕), and others just appearing very briefly (like the unfortunate Tina with her redshirt role). In late 20th century, a nurse called Weronika makes a brief appearance as a wannabe companion figure (not much more to her), Jackie Tyler in her youth also has a cameo (not in an excellent light), and Neanderthal Das finds her mate in Anna Marie, a 20th century woman who is described as fitting the Neanderthal beauty canon to a T, but who Harkness 'charmingly' describes as ugly, hairy, short and fat (nothing wrong at all with not conforming to limited societal beauty canons, I'm referring to the sexist way Roberts describes her through Harkness 😑). 

A Neanderthal woman (artist's impression, source).

  Finally, there's the women from the Neanderthal tribe (featuring Ka, who is in a relationship with one of the future human colonists, and Sakka) and the Homo sapiens tribes, featuring the matriarch-like figure of the wise-woman Nan (thus named because she has a grandson xD). Wise-women are mentioned to exist in both types of tribes, and Nan seems to be the leading voice of the tribe.  But in spite of this, and her statement that "Wise man! Man! Men in charge, we all know how that ends up!" (that's not what's always exactly portrayed in the book, either, with Rose also being forced to marry some man she doesn't know, see below, and Chantal being demonized in the book as the evil boss lady that wrecks stuff, but OK), well, in spite of that she ends up paired with a creepy middle-aged dude from the future (who harasses Rose continually, see below), and suddenly Nan seems to need a man in her life so much that she defers to him automatically, so it looks like she won't be the leading voice of the tribe for much longer. Sigh. But I guess that Roberts needed to have his performative phrase to assure us that he's not sexist at all 🤦!

➡️A quick aside on Prehistoric gender roles: 

  The societal structure of both Homo sapiens and Neanderthals would probably still be far from a feminist utopia with a harmonious and egalitarian goddess religion (paternity was probably ignored for a while and Prehistoric fertility goddess art is beautiful and fascinating and I love it, but fertility cults tend to also be more sinister than the 20th century New Age feminism portrayed them as, as I covered on these two posts: 1, 2). But even so, the hunter-gatherer tribes of the Paleolithic and Neolithic (mostly up to the Upper Paleolithic) also did not seem to uphold a gendered division of labour that was as rigid as it has been assumed for a long time, and mainly by male academics, who also consistently fail to identify all the cave paintings depicting huntresses as women (among other things) because of course "all men hunt and all women gather", thus quoth the 1960s academics, and that's it, survival of the tribe be damned 🙃 (more on archaeological sexist biases on my blog here and here). Yes, women did indeed hunt in early human societies 🏹 (and paint, and probably invent technology, and do stuff in general, because they have brains too, what a notion). I love this topic, so I will be making a separate post about it at some time, but here are some more interesting articles on Prehistoric huntresses: 1, 2, 3, 4. These include some pretty recent studies with fascinating updated information on women's active participation in hunting during Prehistoric times, and how we should be reenvisioning how gender roles and the division of labour could actually have been in Prehistoric societies. 

Artist's rendition of a Prehistoric huntress (Photo: Matthew Verdolivo, Source).

  However, the patriarchal bias remains in academic studies, with this (older) 2006 article stating that Neanderthal tribes had a less rigid gendered division of labour compared to Homo sapiens, with both men and women routinely participating in the hunting of big game (however, we do know with pretty good certainty that Homo sapiens women routinely hunted both big and small game, too), but then concluding that this 'relative lack of labour division' could have been a factor for the Neanderthal extinction (!), claiming that it resulted in 'a less efficient extraction of resources'. To me, and to other academic studies as well (many of them quite recent, like I said), it is rather more logical than better survival be instead achieved when the female part of the (small) population in each group, who is also fully capable of hunting - and even allegedly even having certain advantages for it, such as higher levels of estrogen providing Prehistoric huntresses with more stamina for longer runs - not be relegated to just gathering berries. But hey, academics, you do you 🤷‍♀️.

A depiction of a Paleolithic huntress. Source.

🌹 More on Rose:

+1 Rose is characterized fairly well, and, as per usual, shows the positive traits of agency, resourcefulness, curiosity, assertiveness, open-mindeness and intelligence she usually displays in the TV series, and also in this New Series Adventures book series.

-1 However, she also gets the short end of the stick, often in a very gendered way, in this plot. For one, Rose is continually sexually harassed by icky (but adorkably excentric!) lecherous colonist Quilley. This includes him ogling her constantly (there is a sentence that quite literally reads "he looked her fur-bikinied body up and down and made an indescribable lustful noise" ewwwww 😫), and also grabbing her at some point. Roberts already showing us he thinks sexism and harassment are funny, or something. Rose keeps being assertive and vocalizing how uncomfortable and angry he keeps making her, warning him to keep his hands off her, not to ogle her and to step out of her personal space (and then the sentence of "she was used to dealing with older men" while thinking about her discomfort as something that she has completely normalized is also just 😫). But this 'gag' drags on whenever this dude appears in the book, which is fucking exhausting and infuriating, and the Doctor generally doesn't seem to take this seriously, either, when he's present, which is also, well, promoting that Quilley's behaviour is more excentric than just plain wrong. Even when the Doctor deigns to comment negatively on his behaviour, it's centered more on 'relearn basic manners' (which OK, that too), rather than 'hello, can you please not harass my companion and women in general, thank you'.

Me reading Quilley's relentless creepy af characterization

  But this isn't the end for Rose having a (not) great time in this adventure. She then ends up in the Homo sapiens colony forcefully clad in a painfully stereotypical and anachronistic (and uncomfortable) fur bikini and having to marry the grandson of the tribe's wise-woman. A companion stuck in a sexualized outfit and an arranged marriage conundrum, what an incredibly forward and interesting thing for Roberts to write 🙃! The only way I would have found this interesting in some way would have involved a clear social criticism lens of women's societal roles and arranged marriages and so on, but that is clearly so not the intention here, it's done mostly for hilarious shenanigans once more. Rose does use her wits and agency to try to get out of this pickle, but she also ends up having to actually marry the guy because plot reasons, and said guy is so fit Rose does actually feel attracted to him and at the end is not that against him kissing her, so everything is all right, I guess 🙃! The Doctor also seems to think so, (jealously 😑) rolling his eyes at the 'terrible ordeal' Rose must be going through, and then relishing having a go at Rose's 'husband' during their escape (the Doctor a good ally is not in this book). While he is not the most toxic male character in the book as that is reserved for Quilley (low bar, though), said husband (name of Tillun) also not the brightest tool in the box and upholds more than one systemic patriarchal idea about gender roles and what a wife should be, too.

Rose is so NOT having a great time in this book

 

  So that's it for Rose having to go through shit, right? Wrong! She then loses her head - quite literally - thanks to the technological advances and the amoral inclinations of unhinged scientist Chantal, but what's more, this sizeable trauma is not addressed at all at the end of the book. To Rose's credit, who seems like she has to make use of extreme levels of agency, wits and a level-headed mind to go through Roberts' questionable plot choices in the story 😬, she still finds the way to be proactive by shallowing said trauma and kicking the baddie's ass and criticizing her twisted amoral discourse...with her head literally under her arm. Lol, I guess. The Doctor was also subjected to invasive probing by Chantal in this book (who is gorier and more disturbing than one might initially think), but it's still the female character who gets the short stick of the (heavily gendered) traumafest in this story, which is not fun. 

  And, important note, even if a female character manages to brave through all of the gendered clusterfuck of violence and oppression (that her author wishes her to go through) by displaying all her positive traits, it still says a lot about said author that she's subjected to all of it in the first place, and through a humorous lens more times than not, which is even worse, because the way in which patriarchal violence and oppression is approached in a story makes all the difference in the world (for example, Handmaid's Tale has a very clear aim of denouncing said violence and oppression, and so it is read and viewed very differently). So, male authors, and I'm not even saying 'please': Stop👏 writing👏 unnecessary👏 and👏 unwarranted👏 traumafests👏 for👏 your👏 female👏 characters👏 already!

🌹 More on the female villain 👩‍🔬: 

-1 While Missy is in my view an excellent example of how an amoral and ruthless female antagonist can totally work, the character of Chantal Osterberg is not doing it for me at all. She is much more two-dimensional than Missy and, like I mentioned before, seems to be constructed out of fairly stereotypical traits that are seen through a more sexist view (this is even lampshaded in the book, through the sentence "It was hard to threaten somebody who didn't posses a full personality" Lol 😅). Chantal is a brilliant scientist and the leading researcher and boss of her colony. She is also amoral, ruthless, unhinged and femme fatale-sexy, and that combo with Roberts' way of writing her ticked me off. Missy seem to conform to but at the same time fully subverts all of these gendered stereotypes for a female villain, and that is what makes her so complex and compelling, in my opinion, but I feel that Chantal is just another example of the stereotypical female villain written by a questionable male author.

Missy just does it right

 

+-1 Chantal's plan of using the energy of the time engine to breed a new species - Hy-Bractors - that would be superior to humans and replace them (she totally intends for the colony to be slaughtered by her creations, except for her), and then rationalizing her actions with elevated philosophical dialogue on how this is supposedly good for evolution and the future and sustainability of the Earth, is on par with the standard 'mad scientist' discourse, I guess, but also a bit meh and confusing overall. I also still don't quite get how the bloodthirsty, animalistic, barely intelligent Hy-Bractors, who are engineered to be brutally efficient in their "dispatch of inferior human competitors", are supposedly an upgrade on the "naturally violent, competitive, hunting brain" of the humans? The explanation didn't quite make sense to me, but anyway xD In any case, their scenes were much gorier than I usually like to go for, too, so that part of the story didn't thrill me. 

 ✨Other problematic issues, from a feminist and queer pov:

 +-1 Jack Harkness: John Barrowman problematic real life personhood aside, I'm not the biggest fan of Captain Jack as a character, although I'm at least relieved this book toned down his boisterous persona a bit, especially regarding RTD's questionable choice of portraying a pan/omnisexual character as flirting with (which is often more like harassing) everyone who he passes on his way 😬. He does get the chance to brag about his tight trousers, throw a couple of innuendos around (not so many, small mercies), and provide the Doctor and Rose with a naked diversion (sigh xD).

-1 One thing that really bugged me about Jack in this book is his treatment of Das's girlfriend/fianceé Anna Marie. It's fascinating how Jack is canonically supposed to literally want to jump everything sentient that moves (that is a queerphobic stereotype in itself, too, because pan/omnisexuality does *not* mean wanting to literally sleep with everyone on the face of the Earth), but yet he takes his time to wonder and get scandalized about how anyone can be attracted to Neanderthal Das, who has a 'feminine' high-pitched voice and is short and stocky without a waist, and how any man can be attracted to Anna Marie, who is, in his words, plain and fat and has facial hair and "a face only a mother or a Neanderthal could love" 😐. Aren't you supposed to be canonically attracted to everyone, dude?? I guess that means only canonically attractive people, or? 🙄 Jack Harkness definitely serves as a conduct for Roberts misogyny here. Also, Jack mainly mentions attraction to women in this book (except for a couple of mentions about the Doctor), which is an additional point of weirdness considering that the book was written by a gay author.

Definitely choose Bill Potts for Whovian queer rep done *right*

-1 Another eyebrow-raising thing is that the book is supposedly revolving around the racially-motivated strife between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, with the story sympathizing with the Neanderthals, portrayed, perhaps in a more idealized way than what have been in real life (I tend to believe that utopia is hard to come by anywhere), as the more pacifist, friendly and harmonious society of the two, while the Homo sapiens tribes are depicted as way more violent and territorial, accepting only new people if they are human and married to someone in their tribe. And yet, Roberts also makes use of 'man/woman' descriptors only for Homo sapiens tribe members, and constantly uses 'male/female' to describe the Neanderthals - a distinction which markedly dehumanizes them and makes them more comparable to animals than actual humans 😬.

Neanderthal women. Source.

 ✨Ethical issues: 

 +-1 "'And what about them? They die, and it's history, and no one cares. Just a little bit of genocide along the way to building a mighty space empire? And that's just "the way it is here"?'" The book, via the voices of Rose and the Doctor, generally tackles moral dilemmas with the usual Whovian ethical messages, such as its anti-war stance and the belief that the ends don't justify the means. A central ethical theme is the persecution of the Neanderthals by the Homo sapiens for deeming them 'inferior', and the Doctor and Rose share a few important conversations about genocide and the problematic nature of humans in this respect. The Hy-Bractor 'monster' antagonists are annihilated in their majority in the end, though, which might have been the only way in the story to avoid the slaughter of both the Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, but it's still tackled by the Doctor with more nonchalance that should be expected.

+1 Another interesting topic discussed in the story is the exploration of the human colony, where people are not only genetically engineered to live longer and be canonically beautiful, but also supress their emotions with a constant use of chemicals to avoid any 'wrong-feeling', stripping them not only of empathy and meaningful inter-dynamics, but also of the capacity for agency and individual judgment, as they blindly conform to anything their boss and leader demands.

An Homo sapiens woman (artist's impression, source).

+1 Finally, Neanderthal Das initially faces persecution for being different among modern humans, which is linked to their original persecution and ultimate demise as a cause of the Homo sapiens, according to the book. Das, however, manages to get a happy ending where he not only doesn't miss his original home, but relishes in modern technology and society and thinks that nothing is better than a life where you can buy junk food and watch TV in your sofa after work instead of a life dedicated to hunting to survive 😂. This character is an interesting take, as it strongtly defies the common stereotype of Neanderthals as savage and stupid compared to the way more intelligent Homo sapiens (this is also contested by research on their culture), with Das very quickly acclimating to modern human life with hardly any problems. Fortunately, this character also does not display a stereotypical 'Neanderthal sexist attitude' for humorous kicks (which is a relief, because we do have sexism for humorous kicks in this book otherwise). For example, he manages to understand the concept of consent and healthy relationships much better than Jack Harkness from the 51st Century, for one, which is ironic to say the least.

✨If you want to read more reviews of the Doctor Who New Series Adventures:

 -The Clockwise Man (New Series Adventures, #1)

-The Monsters Inside (New Series Adventures, #2) 

 -Winner Takes All (New Series Adventures, #3) 

Goodreads reviews - Doctor Who: Winner Takes All (New Series Adventures, #3)

Book: Doctor Who: Winner Takes All, by Jacqueline Rayner.

3.5/5 Goodreads review also here.  

 This is the third book in the Doctor Who New Series Adventures series, featuring the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler. Some thoughts below, including spoilers:

This book has, in my opinion, an engaging plot, pretty good characterization, a proactive Rose, and features some interesting ethical themes, such as criticizing the violence of video games, anti-war mindsets as per usual, denouncing the behaviour of bullies, and tackling the ethical issue of controlling a person. The story also features a handful of problematic elements I didn't like, though, so full discussion of those will follow as well. Spoilers below!

Female representation:

  Rose Tyler is the main female protagonist as Nine's companion, and her mother Jackie Tyler makes a limited appearance as a secondary character (would have liked to see more of her, although the dynamic between her and Rose was lovely). Most female characters in this book, though, are extras, neighbours from the Powell Estate plus some random humans abducted for the game, plus a female Quevvil alien. All of these characters hardly talk or only have a very minimal part in the plot. The one who appears a bit more is incel-teenage Robert's mother Daisy, whom Rose befriends at very nearly the end of the book. Apart from Rose, most of the action and dialogue in this book goes to male characters, from the Doctor to Mickey Smith and his male friends, Robert, local bully Darren Pye, and male Quevvil characters.

+1 Rose is proactive and shows a lot of agency, wits and resourcefulness. She confronts a bully head on, rescues Mickey and the Doctor in a very resourceful way, engages actively in the adventure at hand (which involves saving human beings from aliens who are making them play as part of a video games against their enemies), and, even though she apparently seems to think that in the Doctor's mind she always plays the role of the one who 'needs to be rescued'  ('He gets to be the superhero. I get to be rescued'), the truth is that she always tries to find a solution on her own, instead of waiting to be rescued, and is a very proactive companion overall.

I quite enjoy how proactive and assertive Rose always is, both in the series and the extended universe.

+-1 In the last third of the book Rose becomes a playable character inside the video game they're trying to put a stop to and all her movements and actions are being controlled by the Doctor, who's very much not happy about it, but it's also worth mentioning that it's the main female character, who has been very proactive so far, who ends up in this more passive position involving a dodgy non-consent issue. At least the plot does explore at length how this loss of control and the feeling of someone else controlling her every move (even if it's her best friend) affects Rose, who describes the feeling as terrifying, uncomfortable and vexing. Even when the videogame effectively transforms her into 'Super Rose', with superhuman strength, speed, agility and stamina, something that she wishes she could be in real life, she still feels massively uncomfortable about the situation as she is unable to make any single choice or movement of her own. For his part, the Doctor continuously rages at the fact that he is forced to control Rose in this way and is very upset about the fact that the Quevvils are making him dehumanize Rose (and the other humans), and the issue of the indignity of treating human beings as puppets and toys is frequently brought up in the book, which I appreciated.

+1 Jackie Tyler also shows her usual upfront side and confronts neighbourhood bully Darren Pye when he has a go at Rose.

We stan badass Jackie Tyler

 +1 Female bonding and Bechdel: We see several instances of bonding between female characters throughout the book, featuring several women from Rose's neighbourhood, and also the scenes between Rose and Daisy, teenage Robert's mother. I particularly enjoyed the mother/daughter relationship between Rose and Jackie, here portrayed as healthier and more mature than is shown in other books and episodes, and they worry and care about each other in a very lovely way. 

Some problematic issues, from a feminist pov:

-1 True to his characterization in the series, Mickey Smith is portrayed with so much male entitlement going on his character is very jarring, even if he also has some better scenes in this book. He neglects the housework in his flat 100%, never seeming to clean anything and, in a grating scene, also expecting his (ex)girlfriend Rose to bring him the groceries his kitchen has been lacking for a good while ('[There won't be any biscuits] since I stopped doing the shopping for you'). In this grating scene, the Doctor goes all 'yay bros' with Mickey and sits down for a videogame session, casually and 'jokingly' telling Rose to 'Go and get us some milk and biscuits, will you Rose?'. Ugh. Just ugh.

Male entitlement and gender roles are so funny, aren't they.

 -1 Although Rose is labelled as Mickey's 'ex-girlfriend' in one instance, Rose also feels like they haven't properly split up, and, similarly to what happens in the series, the ambiguous triangle between Rose, the Doctor and Mickey frustrates me to no end and doesn't promote anything that's remotely healthy when it comes to relationship dynamics. Mickey is overtly jealous of the Doctor all the time, the Doctor bashes Mickey and has a go at his capabilities at any time he can (even though, to be fair to a character I don't particularly like - with Noel Clarke's real life beahviour also being an important factor why -, Mickey does play an important part in the story when it comes to saving the day with his computer and videogame skills). All in all, the Nine/Rose/Mickey scenario it's a very cringe-worthy situation that I don't particularly enjoy (more about that in my review of New Who's 'Rose').

Can we stop doing the triangle cliché, especially when it just promotes people being really ambiguous about their relationship status and not communicating? Crowley would never to the first one. He and Aziraphale are also not so great at communicating, though, in their own wholesome-r way, but they are also rather more justified because trauma baggage (sobs xD).

-1 There are a couple of mentions of domestic violence and feminicides which I feel are treated a bit more 'humorously' than they should: Mickey's (male) friends also think that he has more value among his peers for having dated the 'most beautiful girl of the neighbourhood', and what is worse, he is also seen as more virile and badass for potentially having murdered her (and maybe other blonde women), as was suspected of him during the disappearance in the TARDIS in S1 of New Who. What the actual f. Later on, we also briefly encounter a man who has wilfully sent his wife/girlfriend to die because he couldn't stand her, but lately comes to mildly regret it (poor him, I guess). If one is not going to full on denounce gender violence, I think that it is better not to mention it in the first place, and even more so seeing as this book was written by Jacqueline Rayner, the only female writer out of the six Nine&Rose novels, and one of the very few female writers in the Doctor Who book series :S.

+-1 Several male characters, especially Mickey and Robert (we'll talk about this incel below) are afraid to show fear and pain, and turn to bragging and creating Gary Stu stories where they're the hero to hide their insecurities. The book does add conscious criticism to these issues, though, with Rose innerly eye-rolling at how Mickey feels embarrassed for expressing vulnerability, and the Doctor at one point claiming that it's OK [for men, and everyone] to cry and be afraid ('It's OK to cry. I cry all the time').

-1 The whole depiction of teenage Robert's character is that of the ultimate incel and he got on my nerves constantly. He feels oppressed because all the pretty girls don't fawn at his feet in adoration, and wallows in self-pity at his lack of social skills to be suave and charming. He ends up being super creepy about Rose and at some point in his incel daydreams he actually wishes he could control and own her (similarly to other girls in his fantasies), something which, especially considering Rose's arc in the last third of the story, is not great. He dislikes his mother with a teenage passion because he feels that she coddles and embarrasses him and spoils his chances to be charming with the girls. All of these traits are combined in his daydream fantasies, Gary Stu fanfics where he's the hero and the Chosen One (ripping off Star Wars, Harry Potter and more) and goes on adventures without his mother, and gets all the girls, of course. There's nothing wrong about fanfics and daydreaming and self-inserts, but Robert fits the incel archetype to a T, and his entitlement and toxic masculinity shows in all of his self-insert adventures in a very obnoxious way. There is also a huge difference between having a crush and wanting said crush to fawn at your feet because you're theoretically entitled to that - that is young boys displaying all the misogyny and entitlement that they have been learning and not deconstructing in the slightest. It isn't adorkable teenage hormones, it's a string of abusive relationships in its making.

Me reading Robert's character

Not sure if the author was going for parody/criticism when it comes to this character, it kind of looks like that sometimes, but it can feel ambiguous at times, and in some respects, it actually looks like the character is meant to be kind of flawed but adorkable, with a hero-ish journey and ultimate character development as his intended arc. But because none of his incel traits are really challenged by any of the characters, and he never actually changes in that respect, this character started and ended being supremely cringeworthy to me, intended criticism or not.

-1 Finally there are two rather cringy and gratuitous mentions of 'alien bondage' (wtf) - featuring Mickey browsing the Internet looking for exactly that after a cringe-worthy first scene with the Doctor (and Rose) mentioning the topic.

Ethical issues:

+1 The whole premise of the book revolves around several interesting topics, from the inherent violence of video games and the dangerous effects they can have on people's ethical mindsets, to how human beings will readily turn to violence and bullying in real life more often than we'd like to think. It also tackles the very Whovian topic of a war between alien races which the Doctor will try to stop, and a very Hunger Games-esque plot where one of these alien races uses human beings as 'playable characters' in a videogame that is designed to kill and conquer their enemies.

And I love me some Hunger Games-flavoured dystopia as a social criticism vehicle

-1 However, the Doctor seems to think that 'I hate guns (...) which isn't to say that a bit of fantasy violence can't be therapeutic' (as opposed to the story's 'videogame', where the players turn out to be real living beings being killed in real time), and thus is initially happy to engage in killing 'alien baddies' with Mickey. While this statement may be sometimes true, in this particular case, it is also rather throwing under the bus the fact that more than one kind of 'normal' videogames (the kind where you're not actually killing real sentient beings) do normalize real violence in a very problematic way. 

'Never-fired-a-gun' Crowley would definitely have some thoughts on this matter

+1 Anti-war themes all round, with the Doctor and Rose criticizing the unnecessary conflict between the Quevvils and Mantodeans ('Technology like this, and they use it to further a war').

-1 However, the Doctor actually kind of commits genocide in order to save the human captives (atomizing most of the Quevvils when they're still teleporting) and also ignores the attacked Mantodeans at the end (which seem to have everything in control but even so, he doesn't think about them), going away in his TARDIS as soon as the humans were freed. That is a problematic issue, imo, and not very Doctor-y, especially for the Ninth Doctor, who is fresh out of the Time War and is viscerally opposed to the concept of genocide, to the point of choosing not to destroy the Daleks in 'Bad Wolf'/'Parting of the Ways' in S1. So this would definitely not be his first choice, and the nonchalance with which he did it is also massively out of character.

I mean, this is definitely one of Nine's best and most defining moments.

 +1 The Doctor's approach to Rose being happy (but also guilty about that happiness) when she thinks the bully who attacked her mother is dead was a very nice, nuanced scene: '(...) it's all right. You're still allowed to hate them. As long as you don't gloat at their downfall, that's all.'

 
+1 Mickey thinks about how the Doctor just expects him to put himself in danger and/or help him with his plans without asking for his opinion, and it's a very valid point (I hate to agree with Mickey as a rule, but here we are xD). Rose also wonders at some point whether the Doctor sees her as more than the validation he needs to be a hero in the eyes of someone else, and also feels angry at the lack of consideration that Nine sometimes has towards her, her mother or Mickey.

+1 As discussed above as well, this book fully tackles the issue of non-consent and dehumanization when it comes to controlling a person's movements and actions (the people in the videogame are real people controlled by others). The Doctor is forced to control both Rose and a Quevvil and he rages about the fact that he's controlling another being as if they were a 'toy' or a 'puppet' ('You don't treat someone like that. You don't treat a person like that. And they're making me do it, making me degrade her like that. (...) Making me sink to their level (...) Making people dance around like puppets, making me take away every scrap of dignity of my best friend...(...) We'll get out of this (...) But, back of our minds, it'll always be there'). He also gets angry when the Quevvils refer to the human victims as 'carriers' instead of seeing them as individuals. The narrator also shows Rose's point of view about how problematic that situation is and how helpless and annoyed she feels while being controlled.

Nine's disgust and anger at the Quevvils' tactics was very much in character, thankfully.

 -1 Even though this issue is amply discussed, the Doctor and Rose never actually discuss it in person when all is finished, which is not a very healthy decision (and it is their MO, because Nine actually says how they will never discuss it in person because they never do, even though it has left them both traumatized). Also, the Doctor makes a joke that is in very poor taste at the end of the ordeal, when Rose is not present, and to incel Robert of all people, saying that he wouldn't mind from time to time if he were able to control Rose in the way that he formerly raged about being forced to do just before (¿?), because it would lead to a lot less trouble :S. Not-so-great humour as a result of even more repressed, uncommunicated trauma? In any case, such an unnecessary thing to say. 

And see what I mean when I said that pretty much none of Robert's incel traits are challenged? The Doctor does teach him about how crying is healthy and several ethical dilemmas in their time together, which is all good, but if anything he is being enabled in this particular scene (ew), and he leaves the TARDIS at the end none the wiser that Rose is not head over heels over him (sigh), because he has fantasized about it from the very first time he saw her, so that's how it is, but from her point of view, Rose has just greeted him politely and met him for all of five minutes, and that's all there is to it. Ah well xD.

The Robert 'character development' arc? Needs some work. He basically needs to start viewing women as people, for a start. Same as he got the crash course on ethics regarding intergalactic alien wars. Can't be harder than that, right? (welp).

✨If you want to read more reviews of the Doctor Who New Series Adventures:

 -The Clockwise Man (New Series Adventures, #1)

-The Monsters Inside (New Series Adventures, #2)