![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
promethia_tenkI've worked out the thing about LKH that's been bothering me and that I was trying to get at in my fic:
It's still all about the little girl in the astronaut suit, and what we've seen in AGMGTW/LKH has to be the beginning of fixing that, not the end. Melody/River breaking her programming is a wonderful thing (and I do, actually, love how that was done), but that does nothing to address the fact that that programming should never have happened in the first place and that everything about how River/Melody's character is constructed is part of a deconstruction/analysis/response/resolution to who the Doctor is that we've barely even begun to tap into yet. Likewise, it does still matter that Amy and Rory don't have their baby back, and there's still the little matter of the Doctor apparently dying permanently at the hands of that astronaut by the lake (and we're told time is screwed up somehow). And all these things are connected in the form of the girl in the suit, which suggests to me that they all have to be resolved together.
Basically, Time Can Be Rewritten, and I think River is going to end up with dual lives/timelines, in the same way that Amy grew up without and with parents and that Rory was a Roman for 2000 years in a universe that never happened but can still remember it.
[ETA: idea from Elisi, that I now want very badly to be true: Moffat has talked in interviews about how the Doctor's reputation has become too big and that this season is in many ways about resolving that and returning him to the bumbling, low-profile space wanderer he once was. If the Doctor somehow succeeded in undoing his reputation throughout time, that would undo Kovarian and Co. and all their actions as well: stealing Melody, her brainwashing, the astronaut killing the Doctor . . .]
In other news: Silence will fall when the correct question is asked! Anyone familiar with the story of the Fisher King? Basically, the Fisher King is the legendary guardian of the Holy Grail, the cup of life (everybody lives!). But the Fisher King is wounded/ill in such a mythological/symbolic way that all his land is likewise stricken and dying (often this wound is a thigh wound, which is taken symbolically as a sexual wound, and the fertility of the land is tied to the fertility of its king). Some versions of the legend explicitly link the damage to the King and his land to a war (like, say, the Time War). A knight searching for the Grail must make his way to the Chapel Perilous and there ask a correct series of questions (which are a mystery) and which will heal the King and restore life to the land. I've been suspecting that Moff has been positioning the Doctor as the Fisher King since the Christmas special:
It's still all about the little girl in the astronaut suit, and what we've seen in AGMGTW/LKH has to be the beginning of fixing that, not the end. Melody/River breaking her programming is a wonderful thing (and I do, actually, love how that was done), but that does nothing to address the fact that that programming should never have happened in the first place and that everything about how River/Melody's character is constructed is part of a deconstruction/analysis/response/resolution to who the Doctor is that we've barely even begun to tap into yet. Likewise, it does still matter that Amy and Rory don't have their baby back, and there's still the little matter of the Doctor apparently dying permanently at the hands of that astronaut by the lake (and we're told time is screwed up somehow). And all these things are connected in the form of the girl in the suit, which suggests to me that they all have to be resolved together.
Basically, Time Can Be Rewritten, and I think River is going to end up with dual lives/timelines, in the same way that Amy grew up without and with parents and that Rory was a Roman for 2000 years in a universe that never happened but can still remember it.
[ETA: idea from Elisi, that I now want very badly to be true: Moffat has talked in interviews about how the Doctor's reputation has become too big and that this season is in many ways about resolving that and returning him to the bumbling, low-profile space wanderer he once was. If the Doctor somehow succeeded in undoing his reputation throughout time, that would undo Kovarian and Co. and all their actions as well: stealing Melody, her brainwashing, the astronaut killing the Doctor . . .]
In other news: Silence will fall when the correct question is asked! Anyone familiar with the story of the Fisher King? Basically, the Fisher King is the legendary guardian of the Holy Grail, the cup of life (everybody lives!). But the Fisher King is wounded/ill in such a mythological/symbolic way that all his land is likewise stricken and dying (often this wound is a thigh wound, which is taken symbolically as a sexual wound, and the fertility of the land is tied to the fertility of its king). Some versions of the legend explicitly link the damage to the King and his land to a war (like, say, the Time War). A knight searching for the Grail must make his way to the Chapel Perilous and there ask a correct series of questions (which are a mystery) and which will heal the King and restore life to the land. I've been suspecting that Moff has been positioning the Doctor as the Fisher King since the Christmas special:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 30 Aug 2011 01:29 am (UTC)And I think you're right on with the idea that River is going to end up with dual timelines. We're not anywhere close to the end of this story yet.
(no subject)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 12:53 am (UTC)Yeah, this episode may *seem* to be a resolution, but I keep reminding myself that this time last year Rory was dead and eaten by a crack--there's so much more that can happen.
(no subject)
Date: 29 Aug 2011 11:07 pm (UTC)The Fisher King is an interesting theory, too! The only thing I had heard in reference to the "question" was people seeing it as being vaguely similar to the "Life, the universe, and everything" question in the Hitchhiker's Guide.
(no subject)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 12:57 am (UTC)<3 your icon!
(no subject)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 01:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29 Aug 2011 11:31 pm (UTC)It's a little bit funny. After AGMGTW, I wasn't thrilled but I was quickly able to deal with the reveals because of my hope for future developments and intellectually working through it with fandom/fanfic, and you had to walk away from it for a little while in order to come back. To some extent, I think we might be switching spots now with LKH. You seem to be in fandom writing fic/talking about the possibilities and meta and working through it. And I just want to walk away from it. Hopefully, like you returned to it with a new understanding/appreciation, the same will occur with me.
Your meta as always is very well-thought out and is compelling, Promethia. And I agree with you, I believe that River will have multiple possible timelines, like Amy and Rory. And I believe the Doctor will too. I've rather thought this since The Impossible Astronaut for several different reasons (along with many other people too, I know). However, for the first time, I have to say, I'm really not interested in what Moffat has to say about River Song. No matter how many timelines. Because of the one he has presented. And how many times can a person die without dying and how many times can a person live without living before all the losses and decisions and events don't matter? There has to be teeth and claws. Yes, there are interesting elements to it from the POV of choice and destiny and infinite possibility. However, that's something for a movie, two hours out of my life. That's not something for all the characters in a TV show, where we devote all these hours to trying to make sense of where these characters are coming from. And then the amount of time fandom has devoted to trying to figure out River Song and who she is and what that means. We didn't want a multiple choice answer. Moffat might be having fun with that, but it seems to me that he wants to have his cake and his cookies and his chocolates and his donuts and... fishfingers AND custard. That might sound like a great idea when you're hungry (or high), but it only really leads to a belly-ache. That's why I do not hold out great hope for added timelines. More does not always make better.
Still, perhaps your meta will be true and Matt and Alex's performance of it will be alluring enough to change my mind. I look forward to reading your interpretations and opinions of the upcoming episodes and developments. Maybe it'll help me reflect on them differently. After all, sometimes I need that, I need to hear your meta (or Owlsie's or Cassiopeia's or Elisi's etc...) and then I need to think on it and then think on it some more and then maybe start to distance myself even while approaching the material again. I value your point of view on this kind of thing highly.
(no subject)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 02:19 am (UTC)Just another thought I had about Moffat's approach to characterization and why LKH isn't bothering me nearly as much as it could: I think in some ways to get the most out of how he writes characters, you have to be ready to think of them symbolically as an integral part of their characterization, rather than as just an extra. And I know that this is just a thoroughly unappealing approach to some people. River, to me, though, has always been at least 50% symbolism, and I bring this to how I interpret her character *constantly* (and often it's how I lead into thinking about her, and I ping pong back and forth between thinking of her as a symbol and thinking of her as a *person*). So things like multiple, overlapping personal timelines, symbolic deaths and rebirths, River being shown in this or that "role" that people find uncharacteristic of her, the relationship she has to all of her boxes (the TARDIS, Stormcage, the Library computer) . . . basically a whole lot of things that many viewers find frustrating or dehumanizing or objectifying or limiting . . . to me at least that's all vital, integral characterization and enriching of the character and empowering just in its sheer weight: this character has so much substance on so many levels. And then Moffat comes through sometimes and drops in a new pieces of information and EVERYTHING ends up having to shift around to accomodate it and it's a shock to the system and I get very grumpy and I have to rearrange everything, but so far, I find, that all that substance is remarkably durable. I'm starting to feel that she's actually a difficult character to damage. And I don't want to tell you how to interpret the character yourself, and I can readily see how all of this might never carry as much weight for a lot of people as more conventional characterization, but I think for me, that's where so much of my thinking about the character comes out of, and it's a HUUUUUUGE part in how I adjust to new revelations.
Final thought, and I don't even know if this is meant for you anymore, but it's something that just occurred to me and I wanna remember. Moffat's not a plot writer. He really isn't. I'll tell you the plot right now: it's gonna be a happy ending, and probably a pretty stereotypical happy ending. And it isn't really about the journey or the action, either, which is why so many things seem not to have consequences. All the "plot" that happens in between is really one thing: breaking the characters up into all their component pieces, untangling the kinks, and then putting them back together. But I think the disassembly and reassembly process can be pretty disconcerting, even if you are used to it and know what you're looking at and like that sort of approach.
Ooff, sorry for the ramble, but you said you were interested in knowing how I think on this, so hopefully that helps you sorting through your own thoughts somehow.
(no subject)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 03:37 am (UTC)"I think in some ways to get the most out of how he writes characters, you have to be ready to think of them symbolically as an integral part of their characterization, rather than as just an extra."
I had to read that sentence about four or five times. Not because you didn't express yourself very well or that I didn't understand the meaning of it, but because I was making myself truly think about that. I admit, my first reaction to that statement was... well, reactive. Characterization is such a BFD to me. I prize believability and even consistancy to such an extent that it really is how I judge a story. And it's really hard for me to not make a value judgment when writers write differently from that. And perhaps that is not a good thing. There really is not a right or wrong way to tell a story, but it's still hard to not make value judgments and I know that is a weakness in me. So I was rereading that sentence over and over trying to wrap my head around whether or not I could break this cardinal rule/habit of seeing people in my mind over characterization. Because there is no reason that his use of characterization as symbolism first and person second should be any less valid than my perception of characterization as person first and symbolism second. So. I think I was able to get some movement there inside my own head. I don't know if it'll work but I am interested in looking at Moffat's story with this new POV and seeing whether or not it has new appeal to me. I have a feeling that might help me with accepting canon material for fandom, but I'm not so sure I can watch the show and actively do that in my head. I'm afraid it won't bring me back to that feeling of exhilaration watching the show. However, that still offers me the most sincere bit of hope since watching LKH.
"And I don't want to tell you how to interpret the character yourself"
Don't worry. I don't feel that you are. :)
"Moffat's not a plot writer. "
Holy shit-
"He really isn't. I'll tell you the plot right now: it's gonna be a happy ending, and probably a pretty stereotypical happy ending.... really one thing: breaking the characters up into all their component pieces, untangling the kinks, and then putting them back together."
You're right!
Which is rather interesting because I've always felt my greatest weakness as a writer is my plot, too. (I really hope this doesn't come out sounding haughty comparing myself to Moffat, but really how I perceive any story is through my writing and I think my style of writing reflects my style of thinking) And maybe that's why I have such a visceral reaction to this. Both he and I focus on characters, but where he focuses on them as symbols to concepts beyond the personal that attempt to capture greater themes of the human condition, I focus on them on a personal level to symbolize and try to capture greater themes of the human condition. Meaning, he takes a character and he makes that character Life/Death so that we can look and touch it; I take a character and I touch them with Life/Death so we can feel it. That could explain the violence of my reaction to his experimentation this series/season. Hmm... IDK if I can help that. But I can try. And seeing that as the source of my vexation might help, because to some extent, having this unvoiced frustration with the piece where I can't even quite put my finger on why I hate it so much is half the reason for my vehemence.
"Ooff, sorry for the ramble, but you said you were interested in knowing how I think on this, so hopefully that helps you sorting through your own thoughts somehow."
No need to apologize. In fact, thank you! That was very helpful. I'm not sure whether or not this will help me enjoy the episode/characterizations/overarching themes, but it has really helped me make sense of where Moffat is coming from and with that, I think I have more of a chance of meeting him half-way. Thank you very, very much.
(no subject)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 04:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1 Sep 2011 07:45 pm (UTC)And all the RTD fans say he is! Supposedly Moffat ignores character in favor of plot, and RTD ignores plot in favor of character. I have never been able to work out how this is so, as Moffat's characters feel very real to me, and the plot is quite often "strange things happen and it looks impressive, but really there's no good explanation for them and you don't care because of the emotional resonance."
(no subject)
Date: 30 Aug 2011 12:42 am (UTC)The episode is copping some flak for not really addressing Melody's kidnapping properly, and I hate to agree with the angry people...
And River's timeline totally isn't complicated enough already. We need TWO of them!
I like the parallels to the Fisher King...<3
(no subject)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 01:04 am (UTC)I'd be a bit epically shocked.
The episode is copping some flak for not really addressing Melody's kidnapping properly, and I hate to agree with the angry people...
There are a whole lot of things about this episode where I could readily agree with the angry people, and I've managed to get my zen and Moff trust back and have even started loving this ep a bit, but a part of me could write huge criticisms about so many things going on here. It's the weirdest divided feeling, much like watching the episode with half of my brain going "wheee, isn't this just FUN?!??!" and the other half going "I. Hate. EVERYTHING." This is the first Moff thing I've ever watched where I suddenly really *understood* why some people hate his work, because all the usual criticisms you hear about him, I felt about this episode (at first).
(no subject)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 01:56 am (UTC)Oh well, there's a couple of Press Gang episodes I always skip because of their shittiness, and at least AGMGTW and LKH are re-watchable and fun, I suppose. I'm pretty patient when it comes to TV [hell, I watched House until the end of season 6] so hopefully things will start picking up in the finale and series 7.
(no subject)
Date: 2 Sep 2011 03:16 am (UTC)O_O You deserve a medal. Or perhaps some counseling.
(no subject)
Date: 2 Sep 2011 03:25 am (UTC)It was the horror of House/Cuddy that finally broke me ;_;
(no subject)
Date: 2 Sep 2011 03:40 am (UTC)I am a member of the House/Cameron comm expressly for the purpose of listening to them snark on Huddy--I figure it is all the enjoyment I could wring out of the late seasons without the horror of actually, you know, watching.
(no subject)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 12:31 pm (UTC)This right here does rather seal it for me.
(no subject)
Date: 30 Aug 2011 06:21 am (UTC)Anyways, the only thing I've got is the swastika. It's a sun symbol and represents everything that goes with that: life, fertility, regeneration (!!!), good luck, etc...
And, this may or may not be related to the post, but why is Doctor Who obsessed with red and blue nowadays. Red/blue bowties, red/blue plaid shirts, little Amelia's blue coat over red nightgown and boots, etc...
It seemed to be on overdrive this week. The Doctor starts out with a blue tie and ends with a red tie. Mels parks her stolen RED car next to the stolen BLUE TARDIS. :P When The Doctor first shows up in his tails, he is situated perfectly between the TARDIS (which was the sun at one point) and the big, red swastika (sun symbol) on the wall.
Sorry for the verbal diarrhea...
(no subject)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 01:20 am (UTC)That's really interesting about the swastika. I mean, I've heard that before but hadn't connected it with the episode. River tends to frequently be surrounded with symbols of both death and life, so the swastikas (with their original symbolic and then newer Nazi connotations) would make a very good addition to that, especially in this episode where her connection to both death and life comes to a head.
The red and blue was far more prevalent last season--they've toned it down a bit. I did read a very good analysis of it at some point that I forget where it is now, but basically red is representative of earth (and humanity, solid, dependable things, the body/muscle, Rory's name means "red", etc.) and blue is representative of the heavens (and imagination, intellect, spirit, water and time, etc., which is why it's appropriate the TARDIS is blue). So the juxtaposition of the two basically showed the struggle in Amy's life between these two ideas. Now that that struggle is (or or less) resolved, we get a lot less of those bold, primary colors and have shifted to a more muted palate, although as you note, it's hardly disappeared.
Sorry for the verbal diarrhea...
Oh, not at all--we're all here to discuss!
(no subject)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 03:23 am (UTC)Here's an odd question for you. Do you know a lot about Tarot? Me and a friend I made at Gallifrey Base started comparing Amy's journey to The Fool's Journey. I made a post on tumblr, http://geekmystic.tumblr.com/post/6958291574/doctor-who-and-tarot
And it's update: http://geekmystic.tumblr.com/post/9614233752/small-update-on-my-tarot-post
(no subject)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 12:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2 Sep 2011 03:13 am (UTC)(I have, on several occasions in my life, managed to COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT of a story by failing to take a very straight-forward line literally, once quite embarrassingly in front of a whole class. Go me.)
(no subject)
Date: 1 Sep 2011 07:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2 Sep 2011 03:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2 Sep 2011 09:32 pm (UTC)YES AND I MAY HAVE FLAILED JUST A LITTLE BIT WHEN AMY-BOT SAID THOSE THINGS.
(no subject)
Date: 3 Sep 2011 05:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4 Sep 2011 01:30 am (UTC)I'd never heard of the Fisher King, and I used to be really majorly into Arthurian legend. I wonder how I missed out on that?
(no subject)
Date: 6 Sep 2011 12:08 am (UTC)I'd never heard of the Fisher King, and I used to be really majorly into Arthurian legend. I wonder how I missed out on that?
It is the strangest thing because I took a whole class on Arthurian lit, and he seems to show up very tangentially and yet there's a whole body of legends about him. I guess he's more one of those areas where Arthurian legend intersects with other areas of mythology?
(no subject)
Date: 6 Sep 2011 12:10 am (UTC)