I feel like I've really replied to this comment over in bendingwind's post because I definitely had it in mind when I was writing that. I'll just say that I'm sorry you're struggling with this episode so much, but I totally get why. I hope you find some resolution for yourself somehow, and if I can help with that, then I shall be very happy. Also that watching a lot of Joss Whedon proved far more helpful than I thought it would be ; )
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(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.