Commenter Archive

AvatarComments by atomickristin in reply to Vikram Bath*

On “Confessions of a Manic Pixie Dream Girl

I just feel bad for the type of women who are more reticent about sticking it out there and then get their feelings hurt a couple times by a-holes, and draw a perpetual conclusion from that, when they actually should probably just regroup and try again.


all I'm saying is, they never taught us any of this in Seventeen Magazine


Interesting point, I need to think on that more. Thanks.


Yes exactly, it's curious how just like with the Mary Sue notion what was a criticism on bad writing ends up being a brickbat to limit the types of female characters we encounter on the screen.

Thanks for reading, I value your opinion.


I really need to write about the Adam Sandler/Seth Rogan type of character vs. the Everyman because I think that's a lot more like "creator wish fulfillment guy" than any kind of an actual viable character archetype.

I only ever watched SLP once but that makes sense. That was an interesting movie in that both of the characters were screwed up so it wasn't as much of a one way street as it often is.

Thanks for reading!


I like to think that the MPDG friends can sometimes pay back in other ways, even though we're huge dysfunctional flakes but I'm sure it's super irritating for those around us. But there are absolutely people who use others up and take advantage and the Venn Diagrams likely intersect.

As you probably recall I am a big proponent of the "men who help" storyline because I think so many of us out there, even when we're strong, reserved, etc just could use a shoulder to lean on and if it came in the package of a romantic interest, even better.

I love your insights as always, thanks for reading and commenting! :)


It was actually Pillsy I was thinking of at the time, but you and I have had similar conversations!!

Question - a lot of guys find it a huge turnoff when a girl chases them. So how do women know which guy to pursue and which one not to?


Weirdly, I was just thinking along these lines but didn't have a word for it, thank you!


I get the practical considerations and yes when it comes to bodice rippers and rom coms, they're not exactly ripe for a sequel. But a LOT of shows, and I mean a LOT, have a romantic element without being "ROMANCE" the genre in big neon lights flashing, you know?? and it's that I have a problem with. It's these shows where they go to ridiculous lengths to keep the characters apart even to such extent that they ruin the damn show like they did with VM.

And you're right in that maybe it hasn't been done yet. But not so long ago, there were no gritty superhero shows. There were no shows with ongoing plots like Lost had. Vince Gilligan gave us 5 years of the best TV ever that was in essence one protracted character study. We're living in the Golden Age of TV here and I am of the opinion that doing an ongoing romance is not only possible, but somebody's gonna come along and do it in a way that will shatter the WTOWT conventions totally and when it happens, it's going to be awesomesauce. Just because no one HAS done it, well heck, Hollywood is nothing if not incredibly, horrifically conservative and figures if it worked 1 time it will work 1000 times. But it is possible and someone will do it eventually.


Stay tuned, next piece is about Manic Pixie Dream Girl.

(and thank you for getting the point I was making)


I'm not sure I totally agree with all this but I know there's meat on this bone. I feel like we used to see more entertainment where the everyman and everygirl won the day and that's gone away now.


Yep I read a comment to that effect recently - the two most loyal fanbases, Star Wars and Veronica Mars, who have invested a LOT both timewise and financially speaking in merch, and yet the people who have created the stuff seem to take a kind of sick glee in undoing the universe, screwing over the fans for...what exactly? Hollywood cred?


I would never say otherwise. Thanks for commenting!


Funnily enough I'm not into the Hallmark romance movies, you'd think I would like them but they're too cookie cutter. Thanks for reading!


"If others didn't receive it as he would wish, it tells us that he isn't as good at this as he thinks he is" GREAT point!

And yes, it's also the Matchbox 20 guy but I don't think it's the same person.

Thanks so much for reading.


Well, the truth is, Ozzzy, I'd prefer not to ever do stuff like that but in the past when I haven't people have chimed in to tell me I was making a straw man argument, that no one was actually saying the stuff I said they were saying, so I kind of felt like I had no choice but to go that route.

Thank you so much for reading and commenting!


No, it's you who have read my piece as an attack, where if you look at what I actually posted I said "I responded along these lines to comments I received". I was highlighting MY response as a concise example of how I responded to many people (including several people who are not even on this site who interacted with me elsewhere). If you want to take me quoting my response personally, Jaybird has far more to complain about BTW - what he said had nothing to do with his own personal attitude at all, he was reporting on the comments of another person entirely! I was highlighting MY RESPONSE, not either of yours, to save myself having to go through and do a super huge recap of an article most of you already read.

But since you want to seem to go to the mat over this, let's go.

In your comments on the Veronica Mars article I'm referencing, you told me point blank that I was misremembering the show. Your take was, in your words, "rather obvious" and I was in the wrong because I took something different away from the show, something you didn't feel was self-evident. This was despite the fact that other (mostly female) commenters agreed with my take. You also implied in your remarks that I didn't understand the detective genre or something along those lines, I'm paraphrasing here, cut me slack.

And, just to shed a bit more light onto the context of all this, it's something you have done again and again since my earliest days on the site - repeatedly telling me that my takes were bad because I was too stupid or misinformed to understand some fundamental element of a thing I'm writing about. Always your interpretation is unquestionably correct and inarguable and my interpretation is silly or uninformed. You've done this to such extent that even Maribou, who is quite fairminded, I think we can all agree on that, took you to task for mansplaining to me.

This is not a new dynamic between you and me, yet here we are again, with you implying I somehow lack the ability to read basic English and as a result, grossly misinterpreted your comment. Maybe, just maybe, by virtue of my personal life experience which just so happens to be different than yours, I am seeing things differently than you are. Maybe, just so maybe, you're sending off vibes and energy that while you are not aware of it (I'll happily give you the benefit of the doubt there), I am certainly picking up on in spades, and that is an energy of condescension and superiority that feels to me to be gendered. Further, it's something that I have really not gotten much from many other people on this site, even those I bonk heads with the most, and never ever as consistently as I've gotten it from you.

And now, when this is called to your attention, in no way personally mind you but simply for me to use as a jumping off point to talk about something that is interesting to me (because somebody gotta write the essays around here or it wouldn't be much of a site) you double and triple down telling me all the reasons why I'm wrong, why I am too dumb to understand genres and movies and programs and all the things you've said to me on numerous other occasions, and BTW I'm also too stupid (or possibly manipulative) be able to accurately read a comment.

Personally, I think I read the comment precisely as it was intended. But I don't care if you agree with me or not on this or any other topic. What I do wish is that you could stop assuming that every time we don't see things the same way, that it's because I don't know as much as you or I didn't watch the movie close enough or I forgot what it was all about or I don't understand the genre. It's irritating and the pretense after the fact that I've got no reason to be irritated by it is even more irritating.

You're putting yourself in an (unearned) position of gatekeeper for "the way things are" and I, by questioning that, am obviously a person who is your intellectual inferior, and your every response comes off that way. And you may think "well I'd do that to a man too" and maybe you would, but the problem is, I'm writing about women stuff here. Your reply to me is inherently gendered because what I'm writing about is inherently gendered - do you see that?? If I was writing about IDK the history of paperclips and it was just a dry set of facts and you told me Leonardo de Cliprio invented them in the year 1563 rather than 1653, well hey, no harm no foul. But I'm saying stuff that is wide open for interpretation under the umbrella of my life experience. I'm like "hey, here's some stuff about my experience as a woman reading/watching/experiencing this stuff" and then you chime in and say, no, that's completely wrong, you obviously don't know what you're talking about, here's how it actually works" - you just cannot DO that without coming off to the recipient of your lecture as sexist. Even if you're totally innocent of the charge, it's how it comes off because of what you're lecturing me about.

Make any sense or nah?

On “Wonder Women

Swinging back around here quite some time later to point out that in fact, as Trump possibly enters into war in Iran, thinkpieces are indeed appearing that are saying exactly this same sentiment - peace is a feminist issue, if women ran the world there would be no wars, etc.

This is and always was a part of feminist theory, just that it got subjugated to other narratives and now that it's convenient (ie something to hold against Trump) the mindset is back again.

It's almost like some people don't actually believe any of what they say and it's all just a ploy for political expediency or something.

On “Romance Before Bros

They should have said that then (and I would have entirely respected that) rather than patronizingly explaining how mysteries are more important/deeper/better than romance, or as DavidTC and even Rob Thomas himself have done, telling women they missed the whole point of the show if they liked the romance.

The first commenter did absolutely couch it as "for me" but then he put the sort of condescending shruggie in there which made me think he was actually implying something beyond his personal sense of aesthetics.

On “A Cultural History of Anemia

When I was told I had Sjogren's Syndrome I went back to my car and cried out of sheer relief that I had SOMETHING tangible I could finally point to and say say "see, I'm not making this up!"

I'm so glad they figured it out for you Mikkhi. Pernicious anemia is nothing to mess around with (as I know you know) since it can cause neurological damage and even be fatal when untreated.


That's a really intriguing idea! Thanks for reading and commenting!


That would be an amazing project! There are confounders of course (like high intake of foods that block iron from being absorbed) but a clever researcher could take those things into consideration.

Thanks for reading!


Yikes, I changed this from 2019 to 2020 assuming that it would be published in a few days!! You clever folks can figure out what year I'm talking about of course.

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.