The Teresa Jusino Experience

Create Like An Activist

Tag: television (Page 2 of 6)

SONG OF THE DAY: "Beverly Hills Teens" Theme

Once I let the genie out of the Swans Crossing bottle, all of a sudden I started thinking about all of the other obscure shows I remember from my youth, and I thought of one that I used to watch religiously early mornings when I was a kid. Yet, whenever I tell anyone about it, no one has a clue what I’m talking about.

Please tell me I’m not the only one who remembers this show!

Well, clearly I’m not, because there are episodes on YouTube. 🙂 Still, who amongst my readers remembers the majesty and wonder (and robot girlfriends) of Beverly Hills Teens? Here’s the theme song to refresh your memory…

And BTW – seven-year-old me who marveled at the life of teenagers in Beverly Hills would be PISSING HERSELF over thirty-four-year-old me actually living in L.A.

Of course, she’d also be wondering why I’m so broke, living in North Hollywood, and why I haven’t mastered the fine art of eating an ice cream sundae while riding a surfboard.

You know what, Seven-Year-Old Me? Shut your fucking pie hole!


SONG OF THE DAY: "You Gotta Grow Up Sometime" (Theme to Swans Crossing)

This weekend, I realized a staggering truth. There are certain pop culture items of which most people under 30 are completely unaware. I’m not talking about big things like She-Ra or Thundercats or Diff’rent Strokes…I’m talking about the little things. The shows that only mattered when they were on (if then). The shows that we watched and loved as kids, didn’t stand the test of time, but nonetheless shaped who we are.

For example, most of you out there know that Sarah Michelle Gellar played Buffy on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You might have even been one of the five people who watched her newer show, Ringer. You might remember her in the movie, Cruel Intentions. You might even remember that she won an Emmy at 17 for playing Kendall Hart on All My Children.

Sadly, you might not remember her as Sydney Rutledge on the 1992 teen drama, Swan’s Crossing, and that’s just a damn shame. (PS – Brittany Daniel was also in it) It taught me that I’d be feeling new emotions as a teenager. It taught me what to do when my body was going through a radical change. But most importantly, it let me know that, no matter what, I had to grow up sometime. The time that Swan’s Crossing was on the air was the best thirteen weeks of my life. However, this is what’s brilliant about the internet – people from all over who love the same things you do make sure that important pop culture gems like Swan’s Crossing NEVER DIE. Because, history.

So, check out the oh-so-90s-licious theme song to Swan’s Crossing, “You Gotta Grow Up Sometime.” Then go out there and get yourself a blazer to wear with a midriff-bearing top.



Happy 15th Birthday, Sex and the City!

Yesterday was the 15th Anniversary of the premiere of Sex and the City on HBO. What’s funny is that I’ve been meaning to write a Sex and the City-related post for weeks now.

It all started with a conversation I had with a male friend of mine. I said something to the effect of “I understand if you don’t like Sex in the City. Lots of dudes don’t. Which is a shame, because it’s a good show, and I feel like a lot of guys see the shoes and pink and assume it’s got nothing for them.” He was skeptical of my use of the phrase “good show,” and insisted that he didn’t not like it because he was a dude, but that it was just a bad show. He’s watched a lot of it, because the women in his house watched it, and so he felt comfortable speaking about it with knowledge.

Why did he think it was a bad show?

It was “all about” superficial stuff like shoes, clothes, fashion, etc. (No it wasn’t. Clearly, he and I didn’t watch the same show.)

But here’s the kicker.

It was apparently a bad show, because it taught young women bad things. Like what? Things like it being OK to wait until you’re much older to get married and/or have children. Because that doesn’t take into account the very real fact that having children later increases risk for things like autism in their children, breast cancer in the mothers, and other conditions.

I had a problem with this for a couple of reasons:

1) This assumes that all women want to get married and have children. Indeed, that that’s the Correct Choice.

2) This assumes that women having their own children as opposed to adopting/fostering/etc is inherently better, which really bunches my panties.

3) Something I learned well after this argument, but am glad I know now. With relation to autism, while advanced maternal age is a factor, advanced paternal age is more of a factor, because it is more likely that older sperm has more wrong with it. From that Wikipedia link (which links to the sources):

The risk is greater for advanced paternal age. One hypothesis is that this is caused by older sperm that have greater mutation burden, and another is that men who carry more genetic liability have some features of autism and therefore marry and have children later. These two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.[10] In the largest study of this kind as of 2012, a whole genome sequencing of 78 families in Iceland showed that the number of mutations in children increased with the age of the father. Not only the fathers passed on nearly four times as many new mutations as the mothers, the number of new mutations being passed on rose exponentially with paternal age. Increased mutations will increase the risk of the children developing autism, schizophrenia and other diseases often linked to destructive mutations.

Yet, no one makes “tick-tock, tick-tock” noises at men. History is rife with examples of men divorcing, or even killing, wives who “couldn’t give them a child” or “couldn’t give them a boy” or any number of things that were likely not her fault (or not only her fault), no matter how old she was. Dude Tip #1: Sperm determines gender. No woman can “give you” a boy, a girl, or anything else. That’s on you. You want a boy? Make your sperm deliver up Y chromosomes. Can’t control that? Yeah, thought so. Dude Tip #2: Just because your body keeps making sperm, doesn’t mean it’s any good. At least female bodies are well-designed enough to stop shooting out eggs after a certain point. Why continue putting out something that’s increasingly useless? Yet the continued production of increasingly weak-ass sperm is something that adds to many men’s sense of entitlement to get married whenever they damn well feel like it, have younger wives, cheat, and engage in general chest-puffery. Stop it. It’s not cute.

Also, yay science!

But back to Sex and the City.

The other thing that put the show on my mind lately was that last week, the Style Channel was running a marathon of the first Sex and the City movie (which was better than I thought it would be, and WAY better than Sex and the City 2). I couldn’t pull my eyes away from the screen, and I ended up leaving the marathon running all day as I did other stuff around the house. The more I watched the movie, the more I realized what I loved about the show, and why I will defend the show to the death.

It didn’t teach young women a Right Way To Live, it taught them that there wasn’t one.

Despite what my male friend seemed to think, it wasn’t about prescribing a “right way” for women to live. Sex and the City was all about these four women in their 30s and 40s exploring different options. And they were all presented as OK, depending on what the characters wanted and needed.

  • Charlotte always leaned more toward the traditional side of things, desiring love, marriage, and children above all else. After waiting for The Perfect Guy, she married someone she thought was The One, but rapidly realized he wasn’t. After Trey, she married Harry – a guy who couldn’t be further from who she imagined as The Perfect Guy. But, once she realized that there was no such thing as The Perfect Guy, she realized that Harry was perfect for her. In the child-having department, they had trouble conceiving, so they adopted a daughter. After a couple of years, they ended up getting pregnant anyway. A “fairy tale” ending? Maybe. But it’s not impossible. My mom had me in her early 40s after 15 years of nothin’. Shit happens. 🙂 The point is: there’s no such thing as a perfect path. Even if you choose a traditional one, you’ll face your own bumps in the road. There’s no such thing as the Right Way or a Perfect Outcome.
  • Miranda was the Career Woman (and saying that is weird, considering that all the ladies on SATC had careers that were important to them). She was a cynical lawyer who didn’t have time for silly things like relationships. Then, she met this bartender named Steve who, again, didn’t measure up to The Perfect Guy she had in her head. But after a long on-again, off-again relationship, she ends up with Steve. They get pregnant before they get married, but it all works out in the end, right? Well, not necessarily. Once married, Miranda thinks she’s done nurturing the relationship, and goes back to her career-focused thinking, which is compounded by being a mother. After a sexual dry spell, Steve cheats on Miranda by having a one-night stand. His actions were wrong, but it’s also evident that Miranda’s own disregard for their relationship was also wrong, showing that relationships take cultivation and care and that the work doesn’t stop once you go down the aisle.

Incidentally, in Sex and the City 2, both Charlotte and Miranda deal with the pressures of being the “Perfect Mother” and how insane an expectation that even is. It’s heartbreaking to watch them both struggle with “not being good enough.” And it was important that the movie, while flawed, dealt with that aspect of modern womanhood. The fact that women stretch themselves thin in a ridiculous attempt at perfection.

  • Samantha was the one who Loved Sex. She was a high-powered publicist, but unlike Miranda she made time for the pleasures of the flesh. Despite my friend’s view of this particular character, Samantha didn’t get off entirely scott free. She got STDs, as is increasingly likely the more careless sex you have. (and of all the characters, her sex was definitely the most careless as far as stuff like condoms go) However, despite the consequences she sometimes faced, it was never presented as a punishment for her “bad life choices.” It was never like “See! This is what happens when you’re a ho-bag!” It was more like, “If you’re gonna have lots of sex, just be careful about it, because this shit CAN happen to you, no matter how fun and vivacious you are.” Despite her love of sexual variety, she did have a couple of serious, long-term relationships – the most serious with an actor named Smith, with whom she moves to Los Angeles to be his publicist and manager. They date for five years, he sees her through breast cancer, and she loves him deeply. But through it all, she feels uncomfortable with their life together. She realizes that relationships are not for her. As she says in the Sex and the City movie, “I’m gonna say the one thing you aren’t supposed to say. I love you…but I love me more. I’ve been in a relationship with myself for 49 years and that’s the one I need to work on.” This wasn’t a matter of her being “afraid of commitment” and not settling down. This was a matter of her settling down…and deciding she didn’t want it for her life. I thought that break-up scene was one of the most powerful parts of that movie. That it was being presented as OK for a woman to design her own life, and have it be her own.
  • And then there’s Carrie – the star of the show. The one who wrote the column that gave us all these stories. She was the most Everywoman of the four. She dated, had sex, had long-term relationships and one-night stands…she was a bit of all of her friends – the way most of us are. But through it all, there was this one guy she couldn’t get away from. Mr. Big. Or as we finally got to know him, John James Preston. 🙂 Their long, tumultuous, on-again, off-again courtship was sort of a metaphor for what the theme of the show seemed to be.

There’s no such thing as perfect, only perfect for you.

As we follow Carrie and Big into the films, we see that traditional marriage (or rather, what society trumpets as important – the Wedding) is a sticking point. In a heartbreaking turn, Big leaves Carrie at the altar because, being thrice-divorced, he can’t bring himself to do the big pageant of a wedding with her. After being away from him for a while, Carrie decides she still wants to marry him, and realizes that she shouldn’t have put The Wedding ahead of the person she was marrying. They get married at City Hall. In Sex and the City 2, everyone immediately starts asking them when they’re going to have kids, and the movie presents the fact that it’s OK to be “just” a couple. Kids don’t have to be a part of the picture at all. A couple IS a family, and they’re not necessarily lacking because they aren’t parents. Especially if neither one wants children!

Sex and the City showed us women staying single, getting married, getting divorced, being mothers, choosing to not be mothers, having careers, being housewives…and they were all presented as valid choices.

When I was watching the show, I was ten years younger than the protagonists. Now, I’m their age. Yet, even in my twenties, I loved the message the show gave me. That a woman can have a happy, fulfilling life no matter what her marital or parental status, as long as she can choose it. The most important thing to any human being is the ability to design one’s  life however one wants it. Men generally grow up with that notion instilled into them. Even toy commercials tell them that THEY can build! THEY can create! and THEY can discover! Girls, on the other hand, get the message that the most important thing they can do is live their lives for other people, sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

I think it’s high time that all genders get to have the power of choice in their own lives, don’t you? I also think it’s high time that we stop gendering personality traits. Compassion isn’t a female thing. Ambition isn’t a male thing. They are personality traits, and a person of any gender can have both, or neither.

Another great thing about SATC was that most of the men the women dated weren’t threatened by their careers, their pasts, or their relationship with each other. Those men that did have a problem with any of those things? They got kicked to the curb. Love me, love the life I chose for myself. And also – respect my friendships. Which leads me to the other thing I love about the show.

Female Relationships Are Important.

Despite all the sex these four women were having in The City, the most important relationship they had was the one with each other. And all the guys in their lives knew it. In every episode, what got these characters through whatever problems they were facing was each other. They always ended up around a brunch table, or a round of cosmopolitans, and hashed things out.

More importantly, despite them sometimes having drastically different worldviews, they were never catty or competitive with each other. You know, that thing that women are taught they always are around each other? That thing that manifests itself because we learn that Women Always Hate Other Women, so we’re constantly on the defensive and attack other women before they have a chance to attack us? Yeah, the women on SATC didn’t act like that with each other.

This isn’t to say that they didn’t act like that with other women. After all, this wasn’t a fantasy show, and as I state above, that cattiness is a learned behavior that actually exists, mostly because we’re taught it does, and we’re taught to defend against it. To see other women as competition, usually over men. But at the end of the day, the show was about women finding strength in each other, and the importance of female friendships.

It’s interesting, then, that many of my female friends “don’t have a lot of girl friends.” So many of them grew up being friends with mostly guys, because the girls were too catty and/or they didn’t have anything in common with them. This is strange to me, because all of my close friends growing up were girls, and it wasn’t until college and shortly thereafter that I was even comfortable having guy friends. I always saw them as Those Attractive People I Like That Never Like Me Back, and so generally stayed away from them. 🙂 So this whole Being Friends With Guys business, while it has many of its own rewards (and I have several close guy friends now that I deeply cherish), wasn’t part of my early repertoire. So the message of SATC rang very true for me. I saw in those four women me and any number of my friends. And I hoped that we – like Carrie, Miranda, Samantha, and Charlotte – would withstand the test of time.

By the way, here's me and some of my besties - circa 2009

By the way, here’s me and some of my besties – circa 2009

So, Happy 15th Anniversary, Sex and the City! Thank you for reaffirming that my life choices are my own, that my female friendships are important, and that I never need worry about looking ridiculous, because if Carrie can leave her house in half the stupid shit she wore, I can leave mine wearing whatever I want! 🙂


Talking Doctor Who at Slate!

Doctor Who - The Bells of St. John

Hey there, kids!

As I mentioned a couple of posts ago, I did a chat with my friend, Mac Rogers, as part of a series of Doctor Who reviews he’ll be doing with prominent Whovians for Slate. Well, our chat about “The Bells of Saint John” has posted!


Mac: Fortunately the revelation of the identity of Miss Kizlet’s mysterious “client” was well within the episode proper. And how cool was it that the client was unveiled as the Great Intelligence, now having permanently assumed the always welcome appearance of Richard E. Grant? When it comes to recurring villains from the classic series, it’s hard to think of a deeper cut than the Great Intelligence, which menaced the Doctor in 1967’s “The Abominable Snowmen” and 1968’s “The Web of Fear” and made a surprise return in the this past December’s Christmas special, “The Snowmen.” It’s interesting, between Doctor Simeon in “The Snowmen” and now Miss Kizlet in “Saint John,” we’re seeing the Great Intelligence as an evil mirror of the Doctor, first visiting people in childhood and profoundly influencing the rest of their lives. What do you make of the often nostalgia-averse Moffat bringing back such an obscure villain? And do you think we’ll get to see some Yeti?

Teresa: I have to admit I rolled my eyes. Sorry! You say Moffat’s nostalgia-averse, and I’m like, “What?” All current Doctor Who seems to do (not just the Moffat era, but Davies, too) is rehash old villains from Classic Who: Daleks, Silurians, Sontarans, Cybermen. Moffat’s definitely been better about creating new threats: the Weeping Angels, the Vashta Nerada, the Silence, all genius and horribly frightening. But then he insists on going back to old stuff. For what? To appease the fans of Classic Who? It’s a huge universe. The Doctor could swing 50 cats and never hit another Cyberman again if he really didn’t want to. I long for one, just one season of Doctor Who with completely new aliens and monsters.

For the entire post, and to leave a comment, CLICK HERE.

And thanks, Mac, for a great chat! It was fun! (And if only people could read the stuff that was cut out! Hmmm….) 😉



BREAKING NEWS! Doctor Who has been awarded an Institutional Peabody Award this year!

For those who don’t know, the Peabody is the world’s first and most prestigious award for broadcasting and electronic media. From the website:

The George Foster Peabody Awards recognize distinguished achievement and meritorious service by broadcasters, cable and Webcasters, producing organizations, and individuals. The awards program is administered by the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia. Selection is made each spring by the Peabody Board, a 16-member panel of distinguished academics, television critics, industry practitioners and experts in culture and the arts.

Doctor Who (and BBC/Cymru Wales) has apparently won the award because:

Seemingly immortal, 50-years-old and still running, this engaging, imaginative sci-fi/fantasy series is awarded an Institutional Peabody for evolving with technology and the times like nothing else in the known television universe.

Or, you know the WHOLE Universe! 😉 Yeah, that sounds about right.

CONGRATULATIONS to Doctor Who, as well as to all the other Peabody winners this year! (especially Girls!)

Al Día REDUX: La-la-la-laaaaaa Llorona

Heh. It just occurred to me to think of the title “La Llorona” to the melody of the Knack song. 🙂

Anyway, here is the English version of my original Grimm piece over at Al Día. Enjoy!

Bitsie Tulloch as Juliette Silverton in "La Llorona"

Bitsie Tulloch as Juliette Silverton in “La Llorona”

Grimm Broadens Its Horizons to Latin America and Beyond

If you’re a fan of fairy tales, or police procedurals, you should be watching NBC’s Grimm, a police procedural that incorporates myths and fairy tales. David Giuntoli stars as Portland police detective Nick Burckhardt, a cop who is also a Grimm. In this world, a “Grimm” is someone with the power to see fairy tale creatures when they don’t want to be seen, and he uses this gift to solve some of the more strange cases that come to the precinct. The show seamlessly blends the fairy tale elements with the elements of cop drama, and in its second season is an even stronger show. The ensemble cast is uniformly talented, the stories – generally modern takes on fairy tales – are well-executed, and in its second season Grimm is finally embracing the global feel it hinted at in Season One, in part, because of the diversity of its cast and crew, and the producers wanting to bring those diverse experiences into the show more fully.

Grimm has always layered in elements and fairy tales that go beyond the Germanic stories we’re all used to, incorporating tales from Japanese, Native American, and Greek traditions, among others. In Season Two, not only are the stories being pulled from global sources, but the world of the show is expanding as we learn that the world of Grimms and Wesen (the fairy tale creatures) extends well beyond Portland, Oregon.

Halloween provided a treat for Latino audiences this year when Grimm presented their episode, “La Llorona,” based on the famous Latin American tale of the same name. Nick and Hank investigate the mysterious disappearance of a Mexican boy after his father insists to the police that the boy was led away by a mysterious woman in white. The woman is then responsible for the disappearance of a little girl, and the detectives race to track her down before she takes another child. Nick and Hank are joined by a detective from New Mexico named Valentina Espinosa, played by Mexican actress, Kate del Castillo, who helps them track down the woman, and helps reveal her true nature and the supernatural reason behind the children’s disappearances.

The episode is a welcome respite from the usual both in tone and content. It’s refreshing, for example, that the episode begins with a father and son speaking to each other entirely in Spanish, and there are no subtitles used, forcing the audience (whether Spanish-speaking or not) to immerse themselves, not only in the supernatural world, but in a world (and culture) in which they might not immerse themselves otherwise.

The writers got to immerse themselves as well. Akela Cooper, the writer of “La Llorona,” while she’d vaguely heard of the story, she didn’t really know the legend’s darker details. “I was assigned the Halloween episode which turned out to be the ‘La Llorona’ episode,” she says. “I was vaguely familiar with it. I knew it by the “Woman in White” ghost story, but I didn’t know the backstory of the weeping woman or the part about her drowning children.  It was actually fun to research because it gave me a lot to take from the various versions of the story, but still keep the emotional core intact.”

A scene from "La Llorona"

A scene from “La Llorona”

“La Llorona” was actually created in partnership with Telemundo, and Cooper praises NBC’s efforts toward diversity saying, “NBC is very big on bringing diversity into television both on-screen and behind the cameras, and they’ve worked with various coalitions on how to do that with respect to cultures.  Though I don’t know specifics, I know NBC wanted to do a Latino-themed Grimm episode in Season Two that would be simulcast with Telemundo, and “La Llorona” provided a great Halloween episode so it worked out perfectly.”

“La Llorona” also prominently features Bitsie Tulloch, who plays Nick’s girlfriend, Juliette, and is experiencing a very interesting storyline this season involving magical, selective amnesia and having inexplicable feelings of love for Nick’s boss while not being able to remember Nick at all. Tulloch was able to exercise her fluent Spanish as Juliette assists Nick in his investigation by translating for the family of the missing boy. Juliette’s childhood mirrors Tulloch’s own in that they both grew up in Spain and Latin America.

Tulloch is thrilled that Grimm’s producers bring the actors’ own cultures, languages, and experiences into the stories they tell. “David Greenwalt and Jim Kouf have been remarkably, amazingly generous with the cast,” she explains. “Sasha [Roiz, Grimm’s Captain Renard] for example, speaks Russian, because his parents are Russian, and a little bit of French having grown up in Montreal, and they wrote that into it. It’s one of the things I’m really proud of – that the cast is very ethnically diverse and multilingual. Reggie Lee [Grimm’s Sargent Wu] speaks fluent Tagalog. He’s Filipino. I speak Spanish because I grew up overseas in Spain, Uruguay and Argentina. And so when they decided to do “La Llorona” they thought What a wonderful way to sort of have this episode that’s incorporating the fact that Bitsie can actually speak Spanish and we’re doing what is basically a South American/Central American and Southwestern United States fairytale.”

And yes, Tulloch was familiar with “La Llorona” before tackling it on Grimm, having been told the story by her Spanish mother.

The plan for Grimm is for it to continue to tell stories from all over the world since that is one of the reasons it does so well internationally. In fact, Tulloch reports that Grimm’s producers “mentioned saying to Reggie [Lee], like, can you think of any Filipino or Chinese or other Asian fairytales that you were told as a child? So that might happen down the road.” Meanwhile, Cooper confirms that “we love expanding beyond just the German fairy tales so most definitely in the future we’ll do more fairy tales from other countries.”

And as for a return to Latino characters and stories, there’s the mysterious figure of Pilar, the missing boy’s grandmother, who seems to have insight into magic and Juliette’s condition. Will she return? Cooper says, “Though I cannot make promises, the return of Pilar has come up in discussions. If we can make it work story-wise we’d love to.”

Insightful Latinas solving problems? Stories with an international scope? Hot actors and frightening monsters? Grimm is a show I can get behind. The show is currently on mid-season hiatus, but will return in 2013, giving you some time to catch up. You’ll be glad you did.

Al Día Post: “Llorona, llévame al río”

I realized that I hadn’t posted my second Al Día post, and since we’re going to be suffering a Grimm drought until MARCH (*sigh*), I figured now would be as good a time as any to do that!

Kate del Castillo, Russell Hornsby, and David Giuntoli in the "La Llorona" episode of Grimm

Kate del Castillo, Russell Hornsby, and David Giuntoli in the “La Llorona” episode of Grimm

The piece was about the Halloween episode of Grimm called “La Llorona,” based on the Latin American legend of the same name. I not only discuss the episode, but also the multicultural aspects of Grimm in general, and how the show has increased its global scope between Season 1 and Season 2. It incorporates interviews I did with Bitsie Tulloch, who plays Juliette, and Akela Cooper, the writer of the “La Llorona” episode.


[“Grimm”] combina a perfección elementos de fábula con elementos del drama policial, y en su segunda temporada se ha convertido en un espectáculo poderoso. El elenco es uniformemente talentoso, las historias —en general, relatos modernos basados en cuentos de hadas— están bien realizadas, y en su segunda temporada, “Grimm” está, por fin, abarcando la sensibilidad global que se insinuaba en la primera temporada. Esto es en parte debido a la diversidad del reparto y del equipo de producción, pero también porque los productores quieren resaltar diversas experiencias culturales.

“Grimm” siempre ha usado elementos que no se encuentran en los cuentos de hadas de origen alemán que se acostumbran oir y ver en EE.UU., y el programa ha incorporado el folclor japonés, indígena estadounidense, y griego en sus guiones. En la segunda temporada, no simplemente son las historias que se extienden a fuentes mundiales, sino la trama del relato en sí: Aprendemos que los “Grimms” y “Wesen” (así se llaman las criaturas de leyenda que conviven con los protagonistas del programa) se encuentran en todos lados, no sólo en la ciudad de Portland.

En Halloween de este año el episodio de “Grimm” fue un regalo para el público latino porque se basó en el famoso cuento latinoamericano de “La Llorona”. Nick y su compañero de detectives, Hank, investigan la misteriosa desaparición de un niño mexicano después de que su padre le insiste a la policía que al niño se lo llevó de la orilla del río una misteriosa mujer vestida de blanco. La misma mujer es responsable por la desaparición de una niña, y los detectives se apresuran para seguir su rastro antes de que ella rapte a un tercer menor. Una detective de Nuevo México, Valentina Espinosa, protagonizada por la actriz mexicana Kate del Castillo, se une a la investigación de Nick y Hank y les ayuda a localizar a la mujer, a revelar su verdadera naturaleza mítica y la razón detrás de las desapariciones.

Para leer el examen completo, o a dejar un comentario, haga CLIC AQUÍ.

Also, the piece didn’t only post on the web. It was also included in the La Cultura section of the print edition of Al Día dated Nov 25-Dec 1st, where it looks rather more awesome! 🙂 Check it out below! And keep your eyes peeled for the English version of the article coming up as an Al Día REDUX post!

Grimm La Llorona article – Nov 25-Dec 1

Grimm La Llorona article pg 2 – Nov 25-Dec 1

Tor Post: “Doctor Who – The Angels Take Manhattan”

Well, here it is, folks! My last Doctor Who review at until the Christmas special!

Goodbye, Amy and Rory. I will miss you.


I cried. Buckets. Not stoic, noble, dignified tears, either. I’m talking snot-drippage and heaving. I’m talking the kind of crying kids do, because they’re, like, four and they don’t know what else to do with themselves. It was worse because I was alone, watching “The Angels Take Manhattan” at 3am on, because I couldn’t watch the broadcast earlier in the day. So, I was heave-sobbing all alone in my room as I watched the Doctor heave-sob over the departure of Amy and Rory.

Damn you, Moffat.

For the complete review, or to post a comment, CLICK HERE!

ANNOUNCEMENT: Representing New-School Whovians in Classic Who Fandom!

So, I finally get to announce two really awesome Doctor Who-related projects with which I’m involved! YAY! For both, I delve into Classic Who, bringing what my editors/publishers have called a fresh, unique perspective to writing about the classic series.

That’s right, mo-fos. If Classic Who fandom is like a duffel bag full of sweaty gym socks, I’m the fucking Febreze.

From the publishers that brought you the Hugo Award-winning Chicks Dig Time Lords and the fabulous Whedonistas (in which I also have an essay), comes the sister anthology to Chicks Dig Time Lords called Chicks Unravel Time: Women Journey Through Every Season of Doctor Who,edited by Deborah Stanish and LM Myles. This is a more ambitious book than Chicks Dig Time Lords in that it’s a season-by-season analysis of the entire series from Hartnell to Smith. Check out the fabulous contributor list HERE. (can you believe I’m in the same book as these people?!)

When I was approached to contribute to the book, I was asked to choose the top three seasons of the show that I’d like to write about. So, I chose one Pertwee season (he’s my favorite classic Doctor), and two New Who seasons. Surely, I’d get one of my choices! Right?


By the time I got my picks in, they’d already been taken, and all that were left were Doctors I haven’t gotten to yet (I’ve only gotten through Tom Baker in classic episodes, so I’ve not seen anything from Davison through McGann) and…*gulp*…the First Doctor. “NOOOOOOOO!” I thought. “I hate that guy! He’s such a toooooooool! Any essay I write will be some variation of Blah-blah-blah-douchebag. Blah-blah-douchebag. Blah-blah-what a douchebag!” But in the spirit of challenging myself, I agreed to write about the second season of Doctor Who, which features stories like “Planet of the Giants,” “The Romans,” and “The Space Museum.”

And I’m so glad I did, because as I re-watched those episodes, I started seeing the First Doctor in an entirely new context. The divide between Classic and New went away, and I started seeing him as the younger version of the 900+ year old Gallifreyan we know today. That changed everything, including how I feel about him. You can read my essay, “All of Gallifrey’s a Stage: The Doctor in Adolescence,” when Chicks Unravel Time is released NOVEMBER 13TH!

And then, once you’ve read my essay in Chicks Unravel Time and have gotten good and sad about the fact that you’ll have no new Classic Who writing from me to look forward to…dry those eyes! Because there’s another anthology coming out in November that will feature my unique take on Classic Who: ATB Publishing’s first book, Outside In: 160 New Perspectives on 160 Classic Doctor Who Stories by 160 Writers, edited by Robert Smith?. (Yes, the question mark belongs there. Robert Smith is a common name. Robert Smith? is not.) This book goes a step further than even Chicks Unravel Time in that it not only examines the show season-by-season, but story-by-story, each contributor writing a review of one Doctor Who story.

Robert approached me about contributing at Gallifrey One earlier this year on the recommendation of my Whedonistas editor, Deborah Stanish (thanks, Deb!), and said that he needed someone to review the Third Doctor’s (squee!) final story, “Planet of the Spiders.” Of course I would! I love the Third Doctor, and would be happy to revisit him. Then Robert stressed that he wanted the reviews in this book to tread new ground. As he says in a blurb on the ATB website:

It’s the biggest, wildest idea I ever had: as many reviews are there are classic series stories. That alone was a huge undertaking. But what really makes this shine is that I put in an additional requirement: say something different. In short, these aren’t your father’s reviews. What I wanted for OUTSIDE IN was takes on the classic series that make you go, ‘Wow, I never thought of that.’ Fortunately, that struck a chord with everyone and I mostly got to sit back and watch everybody bring their A-game to the table.

Some reviews are thoughtful, some are funny, and some are utterly gonzo. I’ve had mock-angry letters to the BBC, transcripts of council meetings, even a recipe. There are flow charts, maps, TV scripts, timelines, Shakespearean plays… and, of course, intensely passionate and vocal opinions about the entirety of Doctor Who. You may not agree with everything that’s said in this book – indeed, I hope you don’t! – but the end result is something intensely personal that every Doctor Who fan will find resonates with them in some way.

*gulp* NO PRESSURE. Just, you know, WRITE ABOUT DOCTOR WHO IN A WAY NO ONE ELSE EVER HAS BEFORE. WHATEVS. I hit upon something, though, and wrote about it in a way that’s pretty damn funny. 🙂 You can check out my take on “Planet of the Spiders” when Outside In comes out NOVEMBER 23rd!

So, November’s a big month if you enjoy me and/or Doctor Who! (Ideally, you love both!) Get ready, because going into the new year there just might be some events happening where I’ll be celebrating these two fabulous books and interacting with you IN PERSON. 🙂 Stay tuned! And get thee to your favorite booksellers in November for Chicks Unravel Time and Outside In!

Tor Post: “Doctor Who: Asylum of the Daleks”

DOCTOR WHO IS BACK! HUZZAH! Which means I’m back to reviewing it at Reviews will appear every Monday, unless I get hit by a bus or something on a Sunday night. (Dear Universe: don’t let me get hit by a bus.) The Season 7 opener, “Asylum of the Daleks,” was AMAZING! Go on over to to find out why and get in on the discussion!


Rory deserved getting slapped for holding up his 2,000 year stint as a security guard as a sign that he loved Amy “more,” because it cheapened what he did. You don’t do something out of love for someone only to hold it over their head later as proof that you’re an awesome person. That stops being love and starts being about ego. Rory has been blinded by his own insecurity for so long, and since viewers love him, so have many of them, and this often manifests itself as an irrational dislike of Amy. “Look at how she treats him! She’s so mean, and he’s so good!”

So many times, Rory’s insecurity told him that she wanted the Doctor, when really, whenever she talked about the hero that would save her, she was talking about him. She trusted and believed in Rory utterly. Amy has saved him as often as he’s saved her, and she has consistently chosen Rory over and over again even when, as in “Amy’s Choice” or “The Girl Who Waited,” choosing Rory meant sacrificing a version of her own existence. How do you measure which is more meaningful: waiting for someone for 2,000 years, or choosing the reality with Rory in it even if it means you’d be killing yourself in the process? You can’t. Amy and Rory’s relationship was never as black and white as “Rory Good, Amy Harpy,” and “Asylum of the Daleks” took a mature step forward in the handling of their relationship by examining these complexities.

To read the full review, or to leave a comment at the post, CLICK HERE!

Page 2 of 6

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén