"You work from home? You're so lucky!"

I work from home full-time. For editors and writers, it's not uncommon – it seems to have become more common over the last few years, possibly because I am more conscious of this as a way that people can work, but perhaps because the way people work is evolving. Skype, email, web conferencing services, smart phones, tablets and alike all make working more flexible than it's ever been – you don't need to be in the office to be working.

Whenever I meet new people or people I haven't seen for awhile, and I explain that I work from home, people are either interested in how it works, or assume that this means I do barely any work. Most often, people describe me as being 'really lucky'.

From a certain point of view, working from home is great. It can be a very flexible way of working; you can shout at your computer when you're frustrated without it coming up in the 'things you need to work on' section during your appraisal, you can listen to whatever music, podcasts or audiobooks you like without having to consider if your taste is socially acceptable to everyone in the office. (Sometimes when I'm stressed, I put on a Britney playlist and sing along. Loudly. I have no shame or regrets about this, but it's not great office etiquette. Same for my habit of talking to myself; I did this when I was working in an office too, but now it's probably a bit out of control. Probably because I'm the only person I can talk to now, but it's just as likely that it's because I like the sound of my own voice.) If you've had a glass of wine too many on a school night and are feeling a bit delicate, you can make the office quiet and dark, wear your PJs, bring your duvet to your desk . . . and no one knows. (Obviously, I've never been in this position, I just imagine this could be a benefit . . . )

But for all the amusing benefits, I think there are many more disadvantages to working from home.

I like my job; sometimes to the point that being an editor seems to define a large portion of my self (that's a thought for another time), and I can either do my current job working from home or I move to Newton Abbot . . . the English Riviera is just not for me. The idea of the Torquay palm trees really grinds my gears. There seems to be such an effort to display the 'microclimate' there that the council wrap the palm trees in fleecing so they can survive the winter – it's just not natural. Anyway, I am procrastinating, but it means that I have gracefully arrived at a big problem I have with working from home – procrastination.

I don't mean procrastination in the way you might be assuming because I work from home (see meme above). I am a highly-motivated and focussed person, some might say to a fault, and I've been told by many people close to me that I'm a workaholic (not least by equally workaholic Nick without a sense of irony). So I don't mean that I procrastinate from work by watching Game of Thrones theory videos on YouTube, but rather because I am essentially constantly at physically in the place I work, I often use work to procrastinate from doing anything else.

Some scenario examples:
"OK, I'll just finish this one last thing before I go and make a cup of tea. Oh, and this other thing quickly . . . [hours pass] why do I suddenly have a raging caffeine headache?"
First thing in the morning, I'll sit at my desk in my dressing gown to have a quick read through my emails and then suddenly it's half-past five and I'm still in my dressing gown.
I can't remember the last time I had a lunch break. I don't even walk the few hundred yards to Kilburn High Road to a cafe, or a shop to get lunch. I'll make whatever I can from the food we have in (if we don't have any food, often I won't eat). I'll eat it at my desk as I answer emails . . . my computer is just there, I can almost feel the emails piling in my inbox, cluttering up my clean email filing system.
Everyone knows I am always near my computer, I think, they'll expect an answer. I can just answer that one quickly, and another one, and I also need to do this urgently as well . . .

I'm not sure where this next particular attitude comes from, but I'm very hyper-conscious about the fact that I'm being paid to do a job, and I consciously strive to be the kind of employee from which the company feels they're getting 'value for money' . . . or that's what I hope they'll think. I have twisted this over the years to mean that I have lost the value of my own time as I've strived to be better and more efficient at my job. So I will answer an email instead of taking 10 minutes to unwind and have a cup of tea; I'll take a call in the evening rather than going out for a stroll; I'll take on more work and pack more into my day or week than I should be doing not only because I want to be seen as a hard worker, but also because I get excited about the projects we're doing, and I want to do them all myself. (This feeds into my need to control and do things myself too.)

In adopting all these work practices, I do myself harm, mentally and physically, and it has taken me awhile to connect that this also means that I'm probably not working properly or efficiently either. Perhaps the worst thing about all of this, is that I do this to myself – I have a personal choice in how I approach my work, more free than most people who have the office environment around them. Yet, this is how I choose to work.

We are about to embark on a big life change, from a 20s lifestyle living in central London with no responsibilities, to a more adult 30s lifestyle, moving to the commuter-belt life with responsibilities (mortgage!) – we're growing up! But it's got me thinking about the life I want to lead, especially with regards to work-life balance, and I've had to address some things about my attitude to work. Partly, my work ethic stems from my successful parents – Lowes work hard, "15% harder than everyone else" – and I see a similar work ethic in both my siblings as well. I also think that my work ethic is an environmental factor as well – I left university after my Masters degree into a job market that was deep in a recession. There were hardly any graduate jobs, and if one did crop up, they had hundreds of applicants. So when I did eventually get a start in my chosen career, I felt so grateful for the opportunity that I gladly worked myself into the ground because I was desperate to impress. The sense that I'd been chosen over others equally as qualified, eager and capable as me was an ever-present sword of Damocles. It was as if those same others were just waiting ice-javelin in hand, ready to shoot down one of my opportunity dragons, so they could blast through the wall and get my job for themselves . . .

So that lays bare some of my thoughts, feelings and struggles I've had over the last three years while working from home. I am concerned that I could very easily fall back into prioritising work over everything else in my life, and I worry that if I don't consciously take steps to avoid this, I will. I want to make sure I am putting things in place to avoid this. So, part of my idea (or 'therapy') is that I'll share the steps that I'm going to implement on this blog, so please bear with me. I hope this act of sharing 'publicly' (so to speak) will help me think things through and make sure I'm putting these things into place.

I wrote to my local MP . . .

. . . about my concerns about the pending 'supply and demand' agreement between the Conservatives and DUP.
I'm not trying to force my political views onto anyone, everyone has their right to their own views, as well as being free to express them. I just didn't realise until the recent social media exposure that you could email your local MP with your concerns – and I wanted to help raise the awareness that this is a channel that's open to everyone.

Engagement with politics isn't something that should be limited to election day (although this is becoming a pretty frequent occurrence in this country at the moment!).

Here is my letter to Tulip Saddiq, I am posting my letter below, as it's an issue I feel strongly about,

Hello Ms Siddiq,

I hope this email finds you well. Congratulations on your re-election to office.

My name is Gemma Lowe, and I have lived in Kilburn for the past 4 years, I am a children’s book editor and writer. I voted for you in the recent election, and it was the first time I had voted Labour. There was a number of reasons that informed the swing of my vote away from the Conservatives, but the main reason was that I had read quite a bit about you, your work as the MP for Hampstead and Kilburn since 2015, and the occasions you have spoken out and stood up for your belief in contrary to your party – I was grateful to have the opportunity to vote for a politician who stands up for their beliefs and convictions, so I thought I’d take the opportunity when it presented itself.

I have been inspired to write to you following the recent letter template that has been shared on social media about contacting your MP with an objection to the Conservatives ‘supply and demand’ agreement with the DUP. I believe this letter template was mainly aimed for people to send to their Tory MPs, but I didn’t think this should stop me from voicing my concerns to my elected representative. I am unsure what exactly you’ll be able to do about this situation as a Labour MP, but this seemed to me to be the sort of concern that someone should express to their local MP. So, here I am, writing to you to express my horror and concern about the pending agreement with DUP. 

The manifesto and values of the DUP is so contrary to the values I believe this country should be proud of putting into place, and ones that we should continue to actively pursue and strengthen – I am referring mainly to reproductive rights and pro-LGBTQ+ legislation, but also to their stances on the death penalty and education.

I realise that the recent election has thrown our country and its political system into a loop, and there doesn’t seem to be an easy solution, but I am absolutely dumbfounded and appalled that the Conservatives would put this country into disarray for the third time in as many years just to cling to power by partnering with a party with such extreme and damaging views. It is a move that seems to be for the good of the party only and not for the good of our country. What kind of message does a partnership like this send to the EU as we’re about the begin Brexit negotiations? 

The quote ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing’ springs to my mind frequently at the moment, as it seems that intolerance is growing everywhere. I don’t want to be the sort of person who gets angry and frustrated whilst ‘putting the world to rights’ at family dinners or at the pub with friends, but doesn’t take the time and energy to do something positive about it. I want to do something so that I can contribute in my own small part to stand against this – I hope this email forms a part of that action. I’m sure this is a concern for many other people in your constituency, as well as across the country. If the recent election has taught us anything positive, I believe it is the invigoration of the belief that the single vote and the voice of the individual does make a difference. 

The community of West Hampstead has recently seen the resignation of Andrew Foreshew-Cain for reasons of intolerance within the Church of England. Although I am an atheist, I always considered that the local area was lucky to have such a positive influence of love and tolerance. I read about the times that the rainbow flag that was put up outside the church was torn down and found this heart-breaking. 

People’s individual politics are their own concerns and their democratic right to express, but I strongly believe that everyone, regardless of gender, age, religion, lifestyle choice or culture, just wants to live in an inclusive and loving society. I have concerns that the ‘agreement’ the Conservatives may get into with the DUP might send us into an intolerance downward spiral, and set our society back hundreds of years – and I want to speak out against this. I imagine you might have received similar points of view and letters from your other constituents, and I am optimistic that this letter is just an addition to the many.

Thank you for taking the time to read my email,

Gemma Lowe

How I became a digital reader

Or how I discovered that I'd actually been a digital reader for some time.

Being an editor who works in publishing as well as being a life-long bookworm, I am often asked about whether I read ebooks. I would often haughtily reply with a long, impassioned and well-rehearsed speech: that I work hard every day to create gorgeous print books; that I love the feeling of holding the book, turning the page and then putting the books I've read on my ever-expanding bookshelves. That I love the smell, the cover designs, the feeling of cracking a paperback spine, the weight of a book in my hand. That I love how I carry a book I'm reading around with me like a portable world and then that read book is a silent monument to a very personal point in time that is shared between only me and those pages. I love sharing a book I've read with someone else, so the pages are imbued not with just the memory of one but two people who read the same pages.

These and many other reasons are why I love books and reading, and why I did not have an ereader or read books digitally.

This isn't to say I didn't consider over and over again whether I should buy a digital ereader. And I did so – it nagged at me that I wasn't embracing the latest technology in this one area, where I had with everything else; technology is a wonderful thing after all. I would ask Nick at regular intervals, "Do you think I should get an ereader?" I asked him so many times, that his answer became rehearsed too: that if I got an ereader, it would solve another of our problems . . . that my bookshelves are ever-expanding to the point that we really don't have enough room. As ever, he had a logical and practical approach verus my emotional one.

In my professional life, I am fascinated by ebooks and I try to work on them as much as the opportunity is granted to me. I love learning more about how they work, how they are read and by whom, which audiences they reach, which genres are read most as ebooks, but my personal reading preferences didn't match up with that fascination – which was strange, since my hobbies and my job are so entangled.

This Christmas, one of my presents was an iPad – an exciting present in itself, but one which I did not imagine would have such a profound effect on my reading habits. A few days later, Nick and his brother were having what turned out to be a 3-day 'bro-down' on Star Wars Battlefront. I hadn't bought any books with me, and with it being the odd transitional period between Christmas and New Year where the shops would be filled with crazed sales shoppers, I decided to download an ebook to read. That's where it began.

All the reservations I had about reading digitally; that reading backlit for a sustained amount of time would hurt my eyes, that digital reading would not give me any of the points of satisfaction that reading a print book every did, were forgotten. And while this is still true, what I didn't expect was that I'd love different things about digital reading. A person can hold contrary opinions simultaneously – it's what makes people so deliciously interesting, fascinating and unique.

The convenience of being able to download a book within seconds, depending on which mood I was in, the convenience of being able to read without hands, so I could prop up my iPad still being able to read it, leaving my hands free for holding a cup of tea or a glass of wine was an amazing eye-opener. Plus, I could choose different fonts to read in, different line spacing and text size and due to the beauty of dynamic text. Digital reading is an amazing convenience, that still brings to me the things I truly adore most about reading – the story and the language.

I realised that I had actually been a digital reader for a very long time – I have always read articles, Twitter feeds and blogs onscreen. All that I needed to do was to align my book reading habits with this – and considering from this viewpoint, I don't feel so contrary. My embrace of digital reading seems to have been a surprise to everyone who knows me, but mostly it's something I never expected from myself and it's good to keep everyone guessing, especially yourself! So from now on, from 2016 onwards, my reading habits have completely changed – I read digital books plus I can still fill my shelves with beautiful, ornamental hardbacks. The next step is to look at my own reading habits, exploring the types of books I will read onscreen and which I will still read in print. Technology really is a beautiful thing.

Thoughts I had when watching Star Wars: The Force Awakens (spoilers)

There really isn't enough stuff on the internet about Star Wars episode VII, so I thought I'd contribute.  NB – there are plot spoilers below, so if you haven't watched the film yet, sort out your priorities but also please do not continue to read.

For many years, it was my dream to find a boyfriend who would be willing to accompany me to events such as a midnight showing of a Star Wars film. Dream achieved. (I don't want to brag too much about how awesome he is, but he's also currently a Rank 22 on Star Wars Battlefield and on Wednesday he aced the 'Science' round at a pub quiz.)

One of the reasons I love Star Wars so much is because it's one of those franchises with lots of holes and knots that you can pick at and argue about with your friends in pubs. It's a fertile ground for theories and annoyance – I love it. (These are also the reasons I love Doctor Who, but I don't have as many Whovian friends...)

A year or so ago, I wrote the Star Wars annual and as I rewatched the first six films, I found myself switching from the jedi/rebellion/Light Side to the Dark Side/Empire for the simple reason that the Empire gets stuff done. All the jedi seem to do is sit around whining about things while shaking their heads in a passive and condescending way. Apart from Anakin; he whines, but you've got to admire anyone who can pull themselves up the bank of a lava river after someone has cut off three of their limbs. That's tenacity for you. Plus, I wish I could get away with wearing a badass black helmet around town – but the reason I don't has more to do with me not being able to pull off that look than any possible social derision about an eccentric dress-sense choices. I also doubt that Darth Vader's helmet would look good with flowery dresses.

My allegiance to the Dark Side however changed when I watched ep. VII.
For two reasons: Finn/John Boyega – Finn is an awesome character, plus John Boyega is my new favourite celebrity. It's so delightful to watch him be so ecstatic that he's in Star Wars. I imagine that he looks in the mirror each morning and squeals with excitement as he dawns on him yet again that his life is real and he is best friends with Harrison Ford. I want to be his BFF. Also, Rey – another strong, female role model for the franchise, but now with a lightsaber and fight scenes – hooray!
Also who can forget how amazing Po Dameron and BB-8 are . . . so much fandom squealing.

But I digress . . . These are ten questions I have after watching, digesting and ruminating about Star Wars episode VII:
1) Why are jedis so shit at training other jedis successfully?
2) Why hasn't an authority in the Star Wars universe figured out that there's something in the Skywalkers' DNA that makes them terrible parents? Is that why they keep planet hopping, to escape child protection agencies?
3) Why doesn't anyone learn from the past?
Examples:
The First Order did not learn from the Empire that building gutters in a battleship that an X-wing can fly down is not a good idea. All it would take would be to decrease those gutters by a metre and perhaps the base you've been building won't be so easy to destroy.
It's not a good idea to have an angst-riddled father-son reunion near where one of you can fall or be pushed off from a height.
4) Why do all jedis piss off and exile themselves on a remote planet every time they lose a battle? It's so passive aggressive – I'm looking at you Obi-Wan, Yoda and Luke.
5) If Luke was hiding and didn't want anyone to find him (apparently not even his twin sister) then why leave any sort of map? He's just asking for someone to find him. Also, if he knows he's likely to be hunted down by his Sith nephew, why not take your lightsaber to arm yourself, just in case?
6) Why haven't the rebellion found a better method for passing secret messages between themselves than by droid? This method has proved to be fraught with danger and has a high probability of interception.
7) What about the prophecy of bringing balance to the Force? Neither Anakin or Luke have brought balance now – so is this just a load of rubbish?
8) If Rey is a Skywalker (Luke's daughter maybe?) then a disturbing pattern emerges with the Skywalker kids – they seem to get abandoned on desert planets, or in Anakin's case grow up as a slave on a desert planet. Is sand crucial to being strong with the Force? Is sand an excellent source of 'midi-chlorians'?!
9) This is clearly a universe of Daddy issues. Anakin – didn't have a father, and his substitute father, Obi-Wan, chopped off three of his legs and left him to die by a river of lava. Luke – his father chopped off his hand (bit of a theme?) and tried to kill him. Kylo Ren – we're not sure exactly what his Daddy issues are, but since he killed his dad, he's almost certainly got them. He also seems to have Grandfather issues too. Rey – whoever her father is or isn't, she was abandoned on a desert planet. She also watched a 'substitute' father be killed by his son. Finn – was stolen from his family and brain-washed into being a Storm Trooper.
It's not a universe where family values seem to be very important.
10) Supreme leader Snoke – his hologram is huge. Is this because he is so little in real life and he has small man issues?


Ah, I bloody love Star Wars! A second viewing might raise even more questions - can't wait!

NB – this is my favourite fan theory so far: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/seriously-dont-click-this-if-you-havent-seen-tfa-yet?bftw&utm_term=.bnllxv7ae#.ouzRnaoe3 

Which reminds me, I am very sad that the theory that JarJar Binks is a Sith Emperor appears to have been crushed. That would have been both ridiculous and cool.

'When are you getting married?'

It is a truth universally acknowledged that if a couple in their late twenties have been in a relationship for a few years, that everyone will ask them on a very regular basis when they are getting married.

I'm well aware that people are either just making small talk and are (most likely) being very well intentioned in their questions on this topic but why does everyone feel the need to ask me this? And, come to that, why does it make me feel paranoid that the subtext of this question is that you aren't viewed as a being part of a successful couple until you decide to get married? In fact, it seems that the longer the relationship continues without an engagement or marriage, the more alarmed people seem to be about the fact that you're not engaged or married already. No matter how happy and stable your relationship may in fact be in reality, it seems the fact that you're not legally bound together by a ceremony must mean that something must be wrong.

Perhaps the crux of my issue with this (and my motivation for this blog post) are two-fold: one is that I get asked this question much more frequently than Nick does; in fact, Nick only gets asked this question when he and I are both asked together. Which apparently means that people think that as I am a woman, I must naturally want to get married more than Nick – as if marriage is the happy 'be-all-and-end-all' ending and sole purpose and achievement of a woman's life. Being a successful marriage is an achievement, but no more of an achievement than being in a successful relationship. IT seems to me that marriage isn't the end of a story, but a new chapter in the middle of an already existing one.

The fact that this question appears to be inextricably linked to my gender, also comes with the connotations that people seem to perceive that Nick, as a man, is successful in his relationship, perhaps by virtue of being in one; yet as a woman, despite this relationship being the very same one, I am less successful as I have not yet convinced Nick to ask me to marry him. I have more than once been offer 'tips' on how to get Nick to propose, as if to correct all the things I must be doing wrong. Maybe, if I was better woman, say if I met him at the door every night with a martini, wearing lingerie after having cleaned the house and cooked him a meal, he might have proposed already...

The second crux of this issue for me is that I am conscious how easily this question turns me into one of those stereotypical girlfriends who perhaps nags her boyfriend about this topic (usually after a drink, I must admit). To the extent that now, if this question is asked to the both of us it immediately becomes awkward. An innocent question posed during the polite dance of small talk, to my own horror and through what feels like my own doing, morphs into this horrible self-perceived monster of proof – that everyone thinks we're not married because there's a problem. Whether people actually believe this or not, it's something I find myself feeling for a split second before I remind myself that it doesn't matter what others think, only what we know to be true.

When we do decide to get married, it will be on our own terms. Also, yes I'm well aware that it's a leap year in 2016, but, as Nick replied to someone who mentioned this recently (he knows me!) I'll be damned if I'm conforming to a cliché of female stereotypes.

Women always find their way to the sink...

How to be a woman in 2015: this statement has increasingly become something my brain debates with itself about, especially during the last two and a half years  – for life stage reference, these years are when I've been in a 'domestic partnership' (new Facebook status label...!) with my co-pilot of life, Nick.

The crux of my feminist considerations are domestic-centric; even writing that sentence immediately puts me on the defensive, against the literary image that a woman's sphere was limited to the home . . . but in reality, I begin here only due to the simple human fact that 'home' is where I live; it is the forge of my life and relationship, and it's as good a place as any, from a personal perspective, to spark my internal negotiations.

A few years ago, when I was living in a flat alone in Bristol, it was very easy to be an independent woman. Things were clear cut, simple, almost black and white: I lived alone, I had a career I loved and then at weekends, I saw my boyfriend who lived in London and we each alternated travelling to see each other.

After three years of doing this, our relationship had progressed so we wanted to spend more time together, plus we were fed-up of the travelling back and forth late on a Sunday evening! Even though love and cutting down travelling-time are strong foundations for any move, I was determined that if I was going to move away from a city and a job I adored, I was going to move for a self-centric reason, namely a new career opportunity, which happened to bring me closer to my boyfriend but only by happy geographic coincidence. This was a condition I placed upon myself not because I was worried that our relationship would not survive close proximity (I didn't consider this as a possibility once), but because I did not want to be one of those women who uprooted themselves from everything they knew just for 'a man', albeit one I love immeasurably. I had spent two and a half years writing Disney Princess books and I was determined not to become one (unless it's Merida. Or Elsa.).

Moving in together is one thing, but learning to live together is quite another thing. Beyond the amusing arguments and situations which arose when we first moved in (how to time how we both get ready for work in the morning without sleepily bumping into each other whilst brushing our teeth, what time do we set the alarm in the morning, that the kitchen 'jar' shelf absolutely can't have peanut butter next to curry sauce or the rationale of keeping vases next to the teabags), we eventually got down to the nitty-gritty of life: when both of us were working long hours each day, who does what?

Actually, it ended being very easy, we split everything between us (and still do).  My Dad told me that as time progressed, the 'little Utopia' we'd built would slowly subside without us realising, until the point came that I would find that, because sans a 'y' chromosome, I'd discover that the inevitably equilibrium would be settle with me doing all the housework. How is that fair, I snapped in repost, when Nick and I work equally hard, each at our careers, that for him at the moment he crosses the threshold, he can expect only to relax and unwind, but the moment I do the same action, I can only expect to clean and cook – all based upon traditional roles from years ago, when women also didn't work full-time. The change in society which has given the freedom for a woman to have a career should also be followed by a domestic change. Aren't Nick and I both adults, with equally responsibility within the place we both live? A wry smile crept across the faces of my audience, as if my views were naive and unachievable, they knew that now and it would be something I'd learn in time.

Traditionally, how a home was 'set-up', was based on the home of your parents, who teach you how to act in all things. I take much advice and many life lessons from my family, but when it comes to this, I can not – me being an independent woman is a running family joke (or rather loving tease). It has meant though (perhaps a consequence of the fact that I have stubbornly protested too much), that when I once mentioned that I ironed Nick's shirts, I doomed myself to never live this down. It is seen as a sign that I am 'softening' in my feminist views, as everyone predicted. Now every time I perform the necessary domestic chore of ironing, my brain imbues this action with a guilt; ironing has become a symbol that actually, I'm a traditional housewife, who has grown out of her youthful feminist follies and accepted who her she really is, whom her chromosomes and traditions dictate she must be .... Women always find their way to the sink, after all.

What it means to be a woman in 2015 is in flux for me, and from what I read on social media and in the press, it is the case for many different women. I suppose I'll have to forge my own unique role to fit with my own life, even if it feels against the tide at times. Fortunately, I have a co-pilot in life who is accepting and finding his way too, so I consider myself very lucky that we can do this together. Hopefully then, my answer to 'How to be a woman in 2015' is simply to be myself and do what works for me. The freedom of this choice to be yourself is what I believe to be the foundation of all types of equality – so for now, I'll run with this and see where it leads.

TMNT Movie: Teenage Mutant Ninja TRAVESTY

*Contains spoilers and ranting*

Last night, Nick and I went to see the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie.

A short background to my fandom of this franchise: a few years ago, I worked on the series of books for the new TMNT TV show which is on Nickelodeon. I remember watching and liking Teenage Mutant HERO Turtles when I was little (ah, the censorship of the early 90s), but I can't remember this series in detail, particularly any detail relating to the mythology.

When I started writing the books for the new series however, I fell in love – it's such a great TV show. Testament to its greatness lies with the simple fact that Nick agreed to watch this with me as I immersed myself in the brand for the books, something he has not done when I needed to watch the new series of Power Rangers Megaforce or Woolly and Tig for the same reason. In fact, we've been watching the second series over the last week or so, a move entirely driven by him. If you look at my twitter feed, you'll see that I've been quoting my favourite lines from the show, entirely from Mikey who is my favourite turtle.

I was nervous about seeing the movie; the other movies were terrible, I've never seen a film Michael bay has been involved with that I've enjoyed, and also Megan Fox has such a perfect sense of smouldering and seemingly dangerous sexuality that it puts me on edge. My worse fear for this film: what if I didn't like Mikey?

Off we went, with Nick wearing a red t-shirt, because his favourite turtle is Raph; his favourite turtle was chosen during childhood based on the fact that his favourite colour is red.

I encapsulated my reaction to this film in a tweet:

I'll start with the only positive from the film, which seems obvious when written in black and the white. The turtles were the only good part of this film, the CGI is cool, their action sequences are awesome and, in the rare occasions its glimpsed, they are funny and the brotherly argumentative dynamic is really great. So, if the best part of the film is the turtles, then this should have been a fantastic film, right?

Wrong. Despite being the eponymous heroes of a beloved franchise, I think the turtles get the least screen time. The screen time is given instead to April O'Neil, to an extent that I feel they should retitle the film 'April O'Neil and a few Mutant Turtles', because calling it 'TMNT' is a flagrant misrepresentation of the film.

The film is dedicated to April O'Neil, but it might be more accurate to say it's dedicated to Megan Fox. The plot entirely centres around her, her emotions, her struggles, her actions in a way that is infuriating and bizarre for a film meant to be about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I think there are two possible explanations for why this might be:

1) Someone thought 'Megan Fox is hot. How can we give her more screen time?' 'Perhaps we write out the turtles part of the film?' 'Excellent. Cinematic genius.'

2) The budget for the CGI was low (unlikely), so they had to concentrate that budget on the action scenes, rather than building a plot or storyline for the turtles. Shooting live action scene with an actress must be cheaper than expensive CGI rendering and hey, it means Megan Fox gets more screen time. Awesome.

I mentioned this theory to Nick after the film, who pointed out that unlike in Transformers where Megan Fox 'bends over a lot wearing tight clothes', she actually doesn't do this during TMNT (score one for feminism...) but it does highlight just how awful an actress she is in this film. In the parts where her explanations of how she'd seen ninja turtles were meant to be comic, they just weren't. When she was meant to be afraid or scared or determined, it was just unconvincing. 

The story centred around her saving the turtles and Splinter from a fire at her dad's lab. They were her pets, apparently. A fact in her life that she's forgotten, despite probably being about 10 or so according to the film (but then again her Dad died in the fire so it could be attributed to trauma), she is reminded of this story by Splinter in the layer and all of a sudden, appears the brother/sister bond between her and the turtles. Immediately.

Oh, and that's another thing. Instead of being a well trained ninja of years of experience who steps into the mutagen with rat DNA on him to become a rat/human hybrid, the Splinter of the film is a mutated super rat, who decides to teach himself ninjutsu after finding a book in the sewer, so his sons could defend themselves in the outside world. Which means that in the short space of 16 years, a mutated rat taught himself the complex, lifelong discipline of ninjutsu and then was good enough to teach it to the turtles . . . outrageous.

The explanation of why Splinter raised the turtles as his sons, was not because his DNA was spliced with theirs in the mutagen, but because of the care and love April O'Neil showed them in the lab, he knew he had to love these turtles. *eye roll*

When Splinter and Shredder meet for their battle in the film, their set up as an exchange between two mortal enemies, which they aren't because they've never met previously. This is yet another flaw with the plot of the film, it assumes that the audience are bringing along a wealth of knowledge of the franchise with them. Which, of course they do, but if you expect this of your audience, you shouldn't them try to offer a 'different story' and create a slightly altered world mythology from what is known from the canon. 

When the plot of this film was first announced, the turtles weren't going to be mutants, they were going to be aliens from outer space. I'm not sure if the fan backlash to this was why the film was rewritten, but suppose it was, the end result is a TMNT film which has nothing to do with aliens, as the mutagen in this film is made in a lab. This change would of course be fine, if you weren't expecting fans to bring with them the knowledge of the franchise with them, but the fact that the plot spent so little time developing the characters of the turtles and the relationship between them seems as though they expected the fans to already know this.

This was highlighted in three moments in the film. 

1) When the turtles are begin drained of their blood for the mutagen it contains, April asks Donnie 'What should I do?' to free them and he tells her to press the adrenaline button. At this late point in the film, apart from the hi-tech glasses Donnie wears, it's not really been established that he's the genius of the turtles. Or if you argue it has been (albeit loosely), it's not been established the April knows this with enough certainty to know he is the turtle to ask.

2) The classic tension between Leo and Raph over who is the leader is alluded to; Leo's leadership is briefly confirmed in an exchange early on in the film. (Paraphrasing) Raph: Who made you the boss? Leo: You know who did. So when the big moment when Raph says, "Let's do what Leo says." that should have been a defining moment in the relationship between the two brothers, but it just isn't in the context of the film plot (where Raph is the turtle who gets the most screen time and who goes the other turtle's rescue) and only is with a knowledge of Raph and Leo's relationship in the wider franchise.

3) Raph's big speech at the end as the Turtles are falling from the tower, when he tells the other turtles he's sorry that he's pushed them, that he only did so because he believed in them so much and that he only threatened to walk away because he was afraid he wasn't good enough to be alongside them, surely is the speech of a leader. It also comes out of nowhere, as these internal struggles and the group dynamic is not explored enough in the plot for this to make any sense. It only makes sense when you know Raph as a wider character from the franchise.

All in all, as you might have gathered from my rant, I did not enjoy this film in the slightest, just as I feared. But at least, I still liked Mikey.