"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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(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.