I feel oncoming meta
11 Oct 2010 12:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
promethia_tenkProbably interrelated thoughts that need writing down before I can get to sleep:
1) Moffat pays an extraordinary level of attention to information processing and problem solving in his writing, both in showing how characters take in and process information and in leading the audience to process similarly.
2) The key to the resolution of any Moffat episode lies in surviving long enough to build a complete understanding of the situation and then finding the key point in the system at which to intervene in order to shift the entire situation into a more desirable configuration. In a Moffat episode, a character applies pressure at just the right place, and the whole system shifts itself around that point to accommodate the change--doing so, however, is impossible without a true and accurate understanding of the situation, and thus the real “work” that earns the ending is the work of comprehension. The actual "solution," in comparison, is usually elegant in its minimalism.
3) Action hero River does not plow through situations, guns blazing. Instead her firearm (or airlock, or what have you) really just serves as punctuation to the mental bitch slap she delivers when she shows her adversary the holes in his understanding of the situation--she controls others through a superior knowledge of underlying systems.
4) "The Pandorica Opens" was, at its heart, a struggle over definitions--specifically defining the Doctor. None of the visible actors in the situation were shown to possess a complete and accurate definition of the Doctor and the end of the universe came about, really, as a result of mistaken and incomplete definitions. What then, can we say about the Silence, this unknown force apparently standing outside events and controlling them to its own ends? Does the Silence itself simply possess a superior control of the definitions and the systems built upon them, enabling its control of the players in the episode or, more intriguingly, does the Silence stand outside of the definitions themselves? "Silence" would seem to be in natural opposition to words, definitions, systems, stories and all the other mental devices through which characters in Moffat's Who build understanding, create meaning, shape situations, and even write reality.
5) Thoughts in Moffat's Who have the power to become real--they actively shape not only our conceptions of situations but reality itself. The Angels, for example, we found out this season, are "ideas that could think for themselves" and dreams that "no longer needed us." Amy is able to rewrite reality from her memory. Words like "something old, something new, something borrow, something blue" can become that key point in the system at which we apply pressure in order to create larger change. If words such as these do not simply reflect reality but actually create it, then the threat of Silence is a threat to the very fabric of the universe--as Rosanna warned: "through some we saw Silence and the end of all things."
6) More speculative even than the rest of this: if the Silence, which for some reason would seem to want the void space/end of the universe, is able to unwrite the universe, will Amy's ability to rewrite it, though her connection to the same void space from the crack, continue to be relevant next season? Perhaps pitting her control of this realm again the Silence's control?
7) Names are a kind of definition. The subject of the Doctor's name and why he tells it to River will, presumably, be relevant in the near future as a part of the "story" of River Song which we have been promised. I don't think it's coincidence that one of the "definitions" of the Doctor that we received in "The Pandorica Opens" is that of "a nameless, terrible being" and that the Doctor's failure to see himself in this definition is part of what leads to his downfall in the same episode. We also know that the Doctor's name, more even than other words, holds power over reality and, presumably, also over him.
ETA: Just read this blog post, which I think must be related as well. Can't say I agree with the judgments this guy comes to about the narrative worth of RTD and Moffat's versions of the show, but I do think he's right in the basic distinction he makes between them and particularly in his assertion that Moffat is not interested in evil. RTD may have been a very outspoken atheist, but he also seemed deeply interested in moral struggles. Moffat not so much. Moffat is about harnessing our understanding to solve problems and to create meaning in a truly impersonal universe.
In all honesty, I find evil a pretty boring basis for a story.
ETA2: Article examining "The Girl in the Fireplace" as a "jigsaw mystery", which is basically my point 2: What's Pre-Revolutionary France Doing on a Spaceship?
1) Moffat pays an extraordinary level of attention to information processing and problem solving in his writing, both in showing how characters take in and process information and in leading the audience to process similarly.
2) The key to the resolution of any Moffat episode lies in surviving long enough to build a complete understanding of the situation and then finding the key point in the system at which to intervene in order to shift the entire situation into a more desirable configuration. In a Moffat episode, a character applies pressure at just the right place, and the whole system shifts itself around that point to accommodate the change--doing so, however, is impossible without a true and accurate understanding of the situation, and thus the real “work” that earns the ending is the work of comprehension. The actual "solution," in comparison, is usually elegant in its minimalism.
3) Action hero River does not plow through situations, guns blazing. Instead her firearm (or airlock, or what have you) really just serves as punctuation to the mental bitch slap she delivers when she shows her adversary the holes in his understanding of the situation--she controls others through a superior knowledge of underlying systems.
4) "The Pandorica Opens" was, at its heart, a struggle over definitions--specifically defining the Doctor. None of the visible actors in the situation were shown to possess a complete and accurate definition of the Doctor and the end of the universe came about, really, as a result of mistaken and incomplete definitions. What then, can we say about the Silence, this unknown force apparently standing outside events and controlling them to its own ends? Does the Silence itself simply possess a superior control of the definitions and the systems built upon them, enabling its control of the players in the episode or, more intriguingly, does the Silence stand outside of the definitions themselves? "Silence" would seem to be in natural opposition to words, definitions, systems, stories and all the other mental devices through which characters in Moffat's Who build understanding, create meaning, shape situations, and even write reality.
5) Thoughts in Moffat's Who have the power to become real--they actively shape not only our conceptions of situations but reality itself. The Angels, for example, we found out this season, are "ideas that could think for themselves" and dreams that "no longer needed us." Amy is able to rewrite reality from her memory. Words like "something old, something new, something borrow, something blue" can become that key point in the system at which we apply pressure in order to create larger change. If words such as these do not simply reflect reality but actually create it, then the threat of Silence is a threat to the very fabric of the universe--as Rosanna warned: "through some we saw Silence and the end of all things."
6) More speculative even than the rest of this: if the Silence, which for some reason would seem to want the void space/end of the universe, is able to unwrite the universe, will Amy's ability to rewrite it, though her connection to the same void space from the crack, continue to be relevant next season? Perhaps pitting her control of this realm again the Silence's control?
7) Names are a kind of definition. The subject of the Doctor's name and why he tells it to River will, presumably, be relevant in the near future as a part of the "story" of River Song which we have been promised. I don't think it's coincidence that one of the "definitions" of the Doctor that we received in "The Pandorica Opens" is that of "a nameless, terrible being" and that the Doctor's failure to see himself in this definition is part of what leads to his downfall in the same episode. We also know that the Doctor's name, more even than other words, holds power over reality and, presumably, also over him.
ETA: Just read this blog post, which I think must be related as well. Can't say I agree with the judgments this guy comes to about the narrative worth of RTD and Moffat's versions of the show, but I do think he's right in the basic distinction he makes between them and particularly in his assertion that Moffat is not interested in evil. RTD may have been a very outspoken atheist, but he also seemed deeply interested in moral struggles. Moffat not so much. Moffat is about harnessing our understanding to solve problems and to create meaning in a truly impersonal universe.
In all honesty, I find evil a pretty boring basis for a story.
ETA2: Article examining "The Girl in the Fireplace" as a "jigsaw mystery", which is basically my point 2: What's Pre-Revolutionary France Doing on a Spaceship?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 11 Oct 2010 07:10 am (UTC)I agree with you in most cases, though the first two episodes of Series 5 strike me as unusually incoherent for his style. He's sloppy with plotting, and the stories evolve more by chance than deduction. They certainly don't deliver the the edge of his previous work.
Though I think pre-Series 5 Moffat episodes are a different animal than what he's delivered as Head Writer. Huh. . . I guess my interest is in themes, rather than structure.
The Pandorica Opens" was, at its heart, a struggle over definitions. . .
Heh. Literally!
And at the end you are left with no answers at all. Why did this happen? What happened? Who did it? A finale without a final point. . .
(no subject)
Date: 11 Oct 2010 10:19 pm (UTC)I agree with you in most cases, though the first two episodes of Series 5 strike me as unusually incoherent for his style.
I think he's had to loosen up his style in order to tell the season-long stories and to play the building thematic chords he's been working with this year. I can see why a lot of people would find that disappointing. Personally I'm not too bothered (and particularly, I find "The Beast Below" much more coherent than most people seem to); not everything can be "Blink"-level puzzle box tight.
Though I think pre-Series 5 Moffat episodes are a different animal than what he's delivered as Head Writer. Huh. . . I guess my interest is in themes, rather than structure.
I rather agree with this, and actually I think Moffat's interests have shifted too. I think he's now applying the intricacy of his plotting structures to the thematic structure of his stories instead. Yes, plot has fallen apart a bit as a result, but the thematic intricacy and complexity and the ways they build across stories have become much more compelling.
(no subject)
Date: 14 Oct 2010 07:04 am (UTC)Mm. I think on the hold it's worked very well, insofar as we've seen. The structure of the The Silence plot is vastly differently then anything presented before on Doctor Who. In the end, it will stretch across two series and have three premiers and three finales. From a structural standpoint, it is incredibly fascinating and ambitious. I hesitate to say anything. . . so much is still unknown. It's like we've only seen the beginning.
At the end of The Big Bang, Moffat talked about the one of overarching themes within Series 5:
"It's the story of how Amy is changed by the Doctor. She's the little girl who believes that men can fall from the sky, eat fish custard, and fix everything. . . and she grows up to be the girl who believes that you should never believe that kind of thing. 'Cus they're liars, and they don't turn up when they say they will. The rest of the story is the Doctor trying to make her the girl he first met again. The girl who is capable of believing in a mad man from the sky, who likes fish fingers and custard. And that's what he does! By the end, she's capable of standing up at that wedding and actually believing all of that was real. "Raggedy Man, I remember you", that's what it's all about."
I didn't get that at all. That whole character-arch was utterly lost for me. I understood the naming of The Doctor, and keeping him alive through belief (end of series 3 plot), but Amy's journey seemed muddled by the rest of the writers.
I never had the impression that Amy ever stopped believing in the Doctor.
I'm not sure, I think it's difficult to pass judgement half-way through a story. Some themes seemed to have slipped through the cracks, but perhaps they'll resurface next series?
It's all too. . . half-done.
*is tired*
*brain melt*
(no subject)
Date: 13 Oct 2010 10:20 pm (UTC)Anyway, um, hi again. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 14 Oct 2010 07:02 am (UTC)The young/older Amy plot was taken from "Girl in the Fireplace", The countdown to earth's destruction + post-regenerative debility from "The Christmas Invasion", and the escaped shape-shifting prisoner and searching jailers were from "Smith and Jones".
I had just re-watched "Smith and Jones" prior to watching "The Eleventh Hour", so the similarities struck me quite soundly.
Perhaps Moffat had thought of it as a transition piece, but he also loves recycling. Looking back at my old review of the ep, I seemed to have disliked the unoriginal plot and poor CG. Moff's later episodes for Series 5 were so much stronger, so much more interesting. . .
(no subject)
Date: 16 Oct 2010 12:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16 Oct 2010 12:00 am (UTC)I think it might actually be my favorite episode he's written, and not because of any sort of dissatisfaction with his usual style or his other episodes.
(no subject)
Date: 11 Oct 2010 09:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11 Oct 2010 10:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11 Oct 2010 12:16 pm (UTC)I wish I had something more interesting to say, but the pieces are still coming together and it might be a while yet.
I love that Moffat has complicated plots with little bits of minimalist genius scattered throughout, like the mop and the fez in TBB helping the audience to keep track of the plot.
The apples, the diary of River Song don't serve the same purpose as the mop and fez, but they're another example of his iconic imagery. I think RTD was trying to approach that with "Bad Wolf" but Moffat succeeds much better because they actually connect to and advance the plot.
I thought this ramble had something to do with your post but now I'm not sure, oh well.
(no subject)
Date: 11 Oct 2010 10:30 pm (UTC)That's just about the best thing you could say to me <3
I love that Moffat has complicated plots with little bits of minimalist genius scattered throughout, like the mop and the fez in TBB helping the audience to keep track of the plot.
I love how he talked about that in the Confidential. I believe he was a teacher at one point? It shows. You can see him at times teaching the audience how to think their way through his plots, scaffolding the action for them so they can better follow. I love his writing so much. There was a lot of complaining earlier in the season that Moffat had made the Doctor "stupider," but it was really Moffat putting in the mechanisms to train us to follow more complicated writing. *hugs Moffat*
The apples, the diary of River Song don't serve the same purpose as the mop and fez, but they're another example of his iconic imagery. I think RTD was trying to approach that with "Bad Wolf" but Moffat succeeds much better because they actually connect to and advance the plot.
Yup, yup, yup. I will say that I had faaarrr better luck anticipating where the season was going by interpreting it on that allegorical level than did the people who approached things more literally. I'll be interested to see what kinds of things viewers choose to concentrate on and how they interpret them next season, now that we know Moffat's game.
I thought this ramble had something to do with your post but now I'm not sure, oh well.
It's tangentially related at least, and you never know where the next insight's going to come from, so you might as well explore all avenues :-)
(no subject)
Date: 11 Oct 2010 11:10 pm (UTC)oh, right, he WAS a teacher! That was the inspiration for Press Gang [which I ADORED as a child] ....explains SO much about him and his work - references to literature, knowledge of history, love of kids, etc. aaaaahhh.
>>I will say that I had faaarrr better luck anticipating where the season was going by interpreting it on that allegorical level than did the people who approached things more literally
yesssssss. This is why I am SO EXCITED/obsessing maybe unhealthily over the ancient history references he's worked into it, because if he keeps using those metaphorically for the Doctor/River... oh my gooood.
I just. I adore him. <3 I don't understand the haters!
(no subject)
Date: 15 Oct 2010 11:46 pm (UTC)I've gotta check that out sometime. That and I've gotta finally read the stories you posted. He's so consistent in returning to his ideas, I feel like it's all useful.
yesssssss. This is why I am SO EXCITED/obsessing maybe unhealthily over the ancient history references he's worked into it, because if he keeps using those metaphorically for the Doctor/River... oh my gooood.
I love when you know attention to those kinds of things will be rewarded.
I just. I adore him. <3 I don't understand the haters!
More for me =D
(no subject)
Date: 13 Oct 2010 12:07 pm (UTC)Wordy McWord. Like the wedding: Ending with a wedding made every kind of sense from a story POV (the last shot of ep 1 was the wedding dress, the engagement ring that wasn't erased, the theme of growing up, running away/making commitments, etc etc.) It was like a red thread running through the season, and although I was fearful of wishing for a happy ending, I knew it was the ending that would fit. (This is all part of what I was trying to express in my new header. *g*) I think that when I say I 'trust Moffat' I mean that I trust his narratives to make sense/be logical on a meta/storytelling level. (I am expressing this TERRIBLY, sorry!) I trusted RTD to tell a good story that made sense for the characters, but Moffat goes deeper - there's a rhythm to his stories, an internal logic and acknowledgment of how stories *work*.
And look at me, commenting all over your threads, but not having any thoughts on the post. Sorry.
(no subject)
Date: 15 Oct 2010 11:41 pm (UTC)I'm still kicking myself for not seeing that coming. Knew the Doctor would heal/renew the Universe and Amy by sacrificing himself to the cracks and that Amy and River would somehow bring him back, but didn't make the jump to a wedding being the obvious symbolic resolution to a plot about the renewal of life. Doh. It just really, really seemed like Rory was going to be a goner. Next time I'll know to trust the story logic.
I think that when I say I 'trust Moffat' I mean that I trust his narratives to make sense/be logical on a meta/storytelling level. (I am expressing this TERRIBLY, sorry!) I trusted RTD to tell a good story that made sense for the characters, but Moffat goes deeper - there's a rhythm to his stories, an internal logic and acknowledgment of how stories *work*.
No, you're expressing it perfectly. Moffat's stories hold up under their own internal consistency. They have integrity in that way. As you say, everything fits.
And look at me, commenting all over your threads, but not having any thoughts on the post. Sorry.
Bah. It's all interrelated.
(no subject)
Date: 11 Oct 2010 01:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11 Oct 2010 10:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11 Oct 2010 07:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11 Oct 2010 10:34 pm (UTC)I noticed the information processing thing.
It's a big change, I think, from RTD. It definitely stands out.
I told my husband that (BBC) Sherlock is very much the Doctor, but he claimed that the Doctor is very much Sherlock Holmes. Hmm...
I think they find themselves in similar kinds of situations (complicated problems they must come to understand and then solve) for very different reasons. Sherlock is all about the puzzle, and the fact that he helps anyone is incidental to him. The Doctor is there to help people, and he solves the puzzle as a way to do that.
(no subject)
Date: 13 Oct 2010 10:57 am (UTC)Moffat was asked about this, actually, because the similarities are rather pronounced. His answer [about how they were different] was twofold:
1) Sherlock tells you how he works things out - unlike the Doctor, who will never explain how the TARDIS is bigger on the inside. ;)
2) The Doctor is an angel who wants to be human. Sherlock is a human who wants to be a god.
(no subject)
Date: 12 Oct 2010 11:26 pm (UTC)Reminds me a lot of The Never-Ending Story and how Fantastica is threatened by the Nothing, that is, the end of all stories, all imaginationa. The Silence threatens the Eleventh Doctor, who is all about the power of words - "I found you with words, like you knew I would!"
(no subject)
Date: 13 Oct 2010 11:54 am (UTC)This is a fantastic observation, and I ::heart:: it liek whoa!
(no subject)
Date: 16 Oct 2010 08:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15 Oct 2010 11:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15 Oct 2010 11:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13 Oct 2010 10:28 pm (UTC)shipspieces of meta. <3Also - given that
http://penumbra.livejournal.com/360593.html
(no subject)
Date: 15 Oct 2010 11:27 pm (UTC)I'm going to be interested to see if more people aren't trying this kind of analysis next year, now that we know how Moffat is operating.
(no subject)
Date: 14 Oct 2010 04:04 am (UTC)Thanks for bringing up the thing about the 'ideas that no longer needed us'. Honestly, I was hoping for more of this from the actual show, but I think that time constraints may have stood in the way of that, because I would have liked to see some more examples of the Angels being those 'ideas'.
Great meta!
(no subject)
Date: 15 Oct 2010 10:12 pm (UTC)Well, it's pretty much a blank slate so far, isn't it? Hard to be properly scared of a threat when you have know idea what it's doing.
Thanks for bringing up the thing about the 'ideas that no longer needed us'. Honestly, I was hoping for more of this from the actual show
Me too! When the first part of that aired I was like "oooo . . . we're gonna get cool, trippy Angels origins story stuff" and then the next episode went somewhere else entirely. I think all Moffat's most scary moments are really about what the mind is capable of--ideas coming alive, children sustained only by the power of belief, phantom emotions that rise up, unexplained, and make us do things we don't understand . . . *shiver*
(no subject)
Date: 14 Oct 2010 08:47 am (UTC)(You read
(no subject)
Date: 15 Oct 2010 10:06 pm (UTC)I think what caught my attention was the scene in "Time of Angels" where they realize the statues are all angels, and you could see that Moffat had very carefully set up the whole thing to make the audience come to the conclusion right before the Doctor did. And then I realized that Moffat is always doing clever things to make sure the audience is processing things right.
And I swear the sonic screwdriver is more of a tricorder any more than anything else. Love it.
(You read [info]owlsie, don't you? Very illuminating.)
The short stories? I've got them sitting open waiting to be read. I'm so scattered right now: browser tabs open all over the place, following so many things at once. I'm really looking forward to reading them, though.
(no subject)
Date: 16 Oct 2010 03:35 pm (UTC)That's exactly how I've been reading it. I've twice written it (though neither has emerged yet) being used as a 'scan you, what's up with you' thing.
(no subject)
Date: 14 Oct 2010 11:20 am (UTC)the real “work” that earns the ending is the work of comprehension. The actual "solution," in comparison, is usually elegant in its minimalism. YES. Beautifully put, too.
"Silence" would seem to be in natural opposition to words, definitions, systems, stories and all the other mental devices through which characters in Moffat's Who build understanding, create meaning, shape situations, and even write reality.
This is all kinds of interesting! In suppose, in a broad sense, reality =/= fairytales =/= words, except in Moffat’s Who.
If words such as these do not simply reflect reality but actually create it, then the threat of Silence is a threat to the very fabric of the universe Let me correct myself: your meta, I love it. I would not be at all surprised if it turned out this is how Moffat thinks.
I wish I could discuss this further, but I can’t come up with anything that hasn’t been said already. I shall remember this post come series 6!
(no subject)
Date: 15 Oct 2010 09:57 pm (UTC)In suppose, in a broad sense, reality =/= fairytales =/= words, except in Moffat’s Who.
I will be very interested to see how far he pushes it. I mean, he did some awfully interesting things with the computer world in the library episodes, and he's showing signs of letting the same sort of logic creep into reality as well *eyebrow wiggle*
Let me correct myself: your meta, I love it. I would not be at all surprised if it turned out this is how Moffat thinks.
Thank you. I think I'm staking my claim in the wild speculation sweepstakes for next year. Because if Moffat isn't afraid of/concerned with evil as a concept, than what is he afraid of? What can possibly be his big bad? It's gotta be a threat to the mind and the power it holds.
(no subject)
Date: 17 Oct 2010 09:34 pm (UTC)Yes, please.
I think I'm staking my claim in the wild speculation sweepstakes for next year.
Yours is on the less wild side, though. I mean, you're using arguments and logic and stuff. I doubt Moff will joss (Moff?) the entirety of S5 in the upcoming series, so your speculation may be very valid. (I wouldn't put it totally past him, though.)
It's gotta be a threat to the mind and the power it holds.
See, I find this so very logical and just right. Amy's infectious (mind's) eye!angel is an obvious threat, but the Silence-Whatever-it-is could/should/will be on a whole other level.
[/feels like she's rambling, stops now.]
(no subject)
Date: 18 Oct 2010 03:01 am (UTC)LOL--I feel like such a radical. Actually, I feel fairly confident, after last season, in predicting along broad, thematic lines. I think Moffat shows a lot of consistency and predictability when it comes to that sort of story logic. When it comes to specific plot points, though? Not gonna touch it.
I doubt Moff will joss (Moff?) the entirety of S5 in the upcoming series, so your speculation may be very valid. (I wouldn't put it totally past him, though.)
I think if he was going to do that, he would have to pull a genre switch. Which he could do. He certainly likes to play with genres. But if he did that, I think it would also be pretty obvious pretty fast that he'd jumped tracks in that way.
[/feels like she's rambling, stops now.]
Haha, not at all. I appreciate the thoughts!
(no subject)
Date: 14 Nov 2010 06:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14 Nov 2010 06:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14 Nov 2010 06:42 pm (UTC)Do you want me to link this post or just your username?
(no subject)
Date: 14 Nov 2010 06:52 pm (UTC)This post would be great, thanks.
(no subject)
Date: 14 Nov 2010 06:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18 Nov 2010 11:58 pm (UTC)(came over from a link at
(no subject)
Date: 19 Nov 2010 04:00 pm (UTC)love the possible symbolism of the Silence, when so much of the Doctor is tied up in what he says and does not say
*nods vigorously*
(came over from a link at [info]eleven_romana btw)
I sawwww! I'm waiting til I have a decent chunk of time to read :-\