![[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:
(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."