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?
(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.