I literally cannot comprehend how the same person can write such a lovely, nuanced analysis of a pair of episodes like "Aliens" and "WW3," and then go on to write an oblivious, fellatious (sic) snowjob of a review for "The Time of the Doctor."

De gustibus non est disputandum. Personally, I wasn't bothered by Blomkvist, though I enjoyed the books more for Salander; the trilogy as a whole makes for some excellent justice porn.

A? Really? An A for this unbelievable, self-indulgent clusterfuck? On top of the consistently high ratings for the rest of this shitfest of a season?

When someone's sole objection is "It's implausible that anyone has that many people interested in sleeping with them"…

A lot of people commenting on this article could stand to get laid more often.

It's definitely an endemic problem, rather than an epidemic one, even in the particular episode. One of the things that almost always delights me about this show is its handling of women—and not limiting that recognition of humanity to Joan alone. I think that's why the exploitation of the victim characters here as…

You know what is more or less 100% effective? Condoms plus another form of birth control. I am heartily disappointed in Fauxlivia for not backing that shit up with hormonal birth control, an IUD, etc. I honestly find it completely implausible that an educated professional woman, especially one from a universe with…

"Folivia" doesn't make sense as a name. "Fauxlivia" does, as would "Foe-livia."

Generally speaking, I'm a fan of how Elementary handles its female characters. "On the Line" is the first episode to make me uncomfortable with that writing, and hopefully the last.

"Like you said, I felt they really succeeded in conveying the feeling of a big city shutting down because of weather. Also, as an Arctic Circle native and long time scoffer at on-screen fake snow, I think Elementary pulled off their blizzard quite nicely."

I took my high school's Economics course in the spring semester of my sophomore year with a few friends. Many of the other students were seniors, which, because they finished about a week before everyone else, meant that there were two or three classes at the end of the semester where a significant portion of the…

I don't remember if they were ever specifically banned, but my mother definitely didn't approve of anything she considered to be trashy or lowbrow entertainment, which definitely included Saturday morning cartoons. So I would wait until she was in bed on Friday nights, sneak downstairs, and set the VCR up to record…

I haven't watched The Simpsons in a very, very long time, so this article is the only way I found out about the tribute. And it did make me tear up.

Having actually fired .38 rounds, I can say that there is shockingly little recoil.

The title is a reference to what is quite possibly my favorite novel by Milan Kundera. It could have been 25 minutes of fart noises and I'd still have approved.

The title is a reference to what is quite possibly my favorite novel by Milan Kundera. It could have been 25 minutes of fart noises and I'd still have approved.

Can you point to why you feel that Leland is himself a perpetrator and not a victim? Here's why I feel he falls into the latter camp:

I see it as very un-ambiguous, given that it's repeatedly and explicitly spelled out that it's Bob himself engaging in abuse and murder. Leland wasn't possessed because he wasn't vigilant; he was a child. Coop wasn't possessed because he wasn't vigilant; he went into the Black Lodge to rescue Annie.

IIRC, though, it's at least implied that Leland was (molested and?) possessed as a child.

I feel the series itself comes down heavily on the side of the monster being at fault. It's made abundantly clear, especially in FWWM, that Leland has no conscious memory of raping or murdering his daughter. Because it wasn't him: it was Bob, using Leland's body as a vehicle. And if Bob were something that you had to…