atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#2933: This must be what it's like.

On my way to Og's place this morning--before I stopped at Wendy's--it hit me that all I'd had to eat today was a bagel with some cream cheese, and that I'd been up since 8 AM.

I was hungry and I had a bit of a headache from lack of food--but what I wasn't was hypoglycemic: no shakes, no sweats, no dizziness. Just an awareness that I was hungry and needed more fuel in the tank.

And I thought, This must be what it's like to have a normal metabolism.

People who don't suffer from chronic hypoglycemia probably don't understand. I mean, you don't eat, you get hungry. What's the big deal? Stop at the gas station and buy a bag of chips or something, you know? That'll tide you over until lunch. Why do you need a big breakfast like that? I just had a roll and a cup of coffee, and I'm fine! You eat too much.

Most of the people I hang around with are intelligent enough to understand; and for those who don't without an explanation it's usually enough for me to say, "If I don't eat something, you'll be picking me up off the floor." But I know there are people who simply don't--won't--get it.

If I eat "just a roll", even if I have it with milk, my blood glucose will rise normally like anyone else's. But then the pancreas switches on, and it produces far too much insulin. My blood glucose--instead of dropping to normal levels--craters. 70 mg/dl is about the normal bottom level; at that point a normal person feels like he's starving...and mine drops below that even though I've just eaten something. I don't get hungry, though; I begin shaking and sweating and feeling dizzy, and if it's really bad I start seeing spots. Much farther along that curve lies a hypoglycemic coma.

I can usually get out of bed and run for an hour or two before I must have something to eat, as long as it's nothing too strenuous. Going to church without eating meant I'd be hungry, but I've done that before with no ill effects; and since all I was doing at church was smiling, saying "Good morning!" and shaking hands--and then sitting for an hour--I wasn't worried about having an episode.

My plans had originally been to have a bagel first and then eat something else for breakfast; but I got involved in my surfing, and anyway my stomach was happy and I felt fine. So when I left the house and was on my way to Og's place and I realized, "I've only had one stinkin' bagel to eat today!" I was really f-ing amazed that my metabolism had let me get away with it.

You people don't know how lucky you are.

* * *

Avoid "The Dealer Showroom" because they're pricks.

* * *

Graumagus discusses what's wrong with Doctor Who.

...I think Matt Smith started out in "Colin Baker" territory. Sailor V and I have discussed DW a bit; he's still watching it faithfully while I've stopped bothering.

Tom Baker is regarded as the epitome of the Doctor. Most people think he's the best, that no one ever did it as well as he did. David Tennant--if he didn't reach that mark--came damned close, and I'd be prepared to argue that he was as good a Doctor as Tom Baker was. Like Tom Baker, Tennant didn't just put on a costume; he was the Doctor.

The problem comes when the people making the thing start to think that a costume with goofy elements is enough to carry the role. It's not. Peter Davison's costume was based on a cricket uniform with a few silly or quirky touches (such as the question marks embroidered on his collar and the never-wilting stalk of celery on his lapel) and Colin Baker's costume was worse. Davison at least played it decently; the Doctor's supposed to be affable and pleasant most of the time. Colin Baker just played "arrogant and rude".

Sylvester McCoy was the first good Doctor after Tom Baker; and he was pretty much the last Doctor of any quality until the new BBC production started with what's-his-face. (There was that one guy who played the Doctor in the made-for-American-TV movie. I don't think he ought to count.) McCoy's portrayal was very, very good.

The series would not have lasted had the first three Doctors--Hartnell, Troughton, and Pertwee--played the role at the "Colin Baker" level, or even the "Peter Davison" level...but they were eclipsed by Tom Baker. They were good, even so. Pertwee had a speech impediment, for crying out loud, and still he carried the role better than Matt Smith does.

I'm not sitting here saying that Matt Smith is a terrible actor. I am saying that he's probably not a good choice to play the Doctor.

* * *

I think Craig Fergusen's silly vocal version of the DW OP did hit the mark: the series is, at its core, about the triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism.

In some ways I don't like what the new production has done with the canon of the universe. Getting rid of the Time Lords, destroying Gallifrey--I don't like it, if only because the Doctor was always running away from them, for reasons only he understood. We were periodically given tantalizing glimpses of his life on Gallifrey and why he left it, but were never told the whole story.

I mean, we were originally told that he was a fugitive, that the Time Lords were persecuting him because he got involved, because he'd broken the Time Lords' laws. He lived in exile, flying a clapped-out time machine that he'd stolen from the repair shop--rather than go back to Gallifrey and face the music. (The thing never seemed to work right until well into Tom Baker's run.)

...but then we saw that the issue was considerably more complex than that. One episode begins with Tom Baker returning to Gallifrey, announcing that he will now serve his term as Lord President of the High Council of Time Lords...and that he's working for some guys who are invading Gallifrey. (The story mushrooms from there, and sadly it's the last ep with Leela, who I loved.)

If he's a fugitive, why is he able to run the whole freakin' show (even as a ploy to nail some bad guys)? Just what did he run away from, if not the law? The Time Lords treat him as persona non grata half the time, and the other time they're electing him to the highest office on the planet--and it's been demonstrated that the Doctor's visits to Gallifrey are all sequential, so that his visit to the planet in that ep happened before Peter Davison's trip there in "The Five Doctors". Whatever time-travel a Time Lord does, when he goes home, it's to "now", not the future or the past...which is why the Doctor never came face-to-face with Rassilon. (Except possibly for the David Tennant episode with Timothy Dalton as Rassilon...which was good casting, IMHO.)

Sure, it makes the Doctor more of a tragic figure, now that the Time Lords are gone...but there's so much story that could have been told that it's a crying shame they did it.

Oh well.

* * *

Being an SF nerd I could go on for days about DW alone. But that would interfere with WoW, which I want to play right now, so I'm knocking off the bloggeratin' for the night.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.