Subjective Offense
25 Jun 2012 11:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
promethia_tenkAnd just like that, apparently, I'm thinking about Doctor Who again . . .
Warning: complete and total ramble below. Unforgivably unedited. Sloppily-defined literary terminology. Off the top of my head. But either I give you my thoughts like this, or you're not getting them at all, so. This has been your disclaimer.
Been thinking a bit more about why the case of Amy this season is so troublesome:
To a certain extent my feelings about all this are based on how I feel about ensembles? The older I get the more what I really love is a well-done ensemble. And I think in the best ensembles to learn about any one character is to learn about the others, and this is what Moffat had at the beginning of the season and it was just beautiful. And then things went out of wack and all the weights shifted.
There's a crucial difference between ensembles built around a central character and true multi-polar ensembles. Who is the main character of Moff Who? Is it the Doctor because he's the enduring character, the one with his name in the title? Is it Amy because she is the companion, the one on the big journey? Is it River, since everything ends up being about her? (Though she is probably more object than subject: the lynchpin.) Then there's Rory: in many ways the "in," the relatable one. But you get the idea: I don't think you can make an argument that just one of these characters is the "main" one, and in particular there is that tension between the Doctor as main character and companion as main character.
But about subjects and objects:
The second half of season six is very much the Doctor and/or the story gradually relegating the other characters to object status (and then on to observer) until the Doctor is left the lone subject where we started from many.
The Girl Who Waited begins with Amy as subject and is about her choices and actions and preferences . . . and then by the end of it the Doctor has co-opted it and made her into object (the object of his decision of how to handle her situation). Then by the God Complex she is only object (the issue of her faith in him is front and center, but she is wholly a passive entity in this episode, while Rory has passed on to being observer only--as the Doctor notes, he's checked out and speaking in the past tense). The episode after that doesn't even have them in it, and then for the finale it's River as object and both Amy and Rory are essentially bystanders, and it's up to River to snap the Doctor out of it and say 'hey, I'm standing right here!" and wrest back a certain amount of power as a subject.
But here's the thing: we're used to River as object. That's what she's been for her whole tenure on the show with, I'd say, the exception of TIA/DotM (she's not necessarily object in her own storyline, but from the perspective of the main narrative she is the object, if that makes sense? She is the mystery most of the time, and our perspective is outside of her.) We've also got a lot of experience of Rory as object, so he can be relegated back there relatively easily (sorry Rory fans . . .). What we're not used to is Amy as object. Amy is the other narrative pole, the other subject, so when she gets relegated off, it grates.
This is where 'what is Amy thinking?' is such a crucial question this season. It's not just that we have to guess--we have to guess at what the Doctor's thinking all the time. It's that the story doesn't even seem to care. She's an object now. And it's one thing for her to wrench back some agency by killing Kovarian--the object of the story can still be an active participant. But I can't help feeling that Moffat has killed Amy's subject status and I'm not sure what it would take to restore it.
****** Though it's an interesting feature of Moff Who that who is subject and object in an episode can change with time? When you watch the Library episodes for the first time, Ten is definitely subject and River object. When you watch it now, River is probably subject (Weirdly--did you find this? When I watched those eps most recently, I could watch from River's perspective, or I could watch from Eleven's perspective--from outside the events, in retrospect. But I couldn't regain Ten's p.o.v.). TIA/DotM were a jolt to a lot of people because they made River a subject for the first time (there was a Tumblr graphic I wish I could find again that pointed out the first time River says "spoilers" on the audience's side, in that diner). And if there was an object of the season opener, I would argue that it's the Doctor. I remember consciously trying to watch those episodes from the Doctor's perspective, and I couldn't do it, even though the Doctor is my default perspective, most of the time. Having watched the whole season, now you can watch those eps with Doctor as subject.
Anyway, to go back to this:
The second half of season six is very much the Doctor and/or the story gradually relegating the other characters to object status (and then on to observer) until the Doctor is left the lone subject where we started from many.
I needn't point out that this was a major problem of later RTD Who. And when I say "problem" I'm not sure if I mean that more on the Watsonian or the Doylist level, but both definitely factor in--the Doctor was bent out of shape because he pushed everyone away, and the show was bent out of shape because it was all about the Doctor.
But fixing that isn't (just) a matter of saying "bad Doctor!" or of the Doctor feeling properly contrite about it. To fix that, you need to restore the subject status of the other characters on both levels and especially of the companion, whose story it's supposed to be anyway.
There is an argument that last season was Amy's story and this season was River's. And I think there is some truth to that? But . . . it's not a River-as-subject story to replace our Amy-as-subject story. It's a River-as-object story.
Warning: complete and total ramble below. Unforgivably unedited. Sloppily-defined literary terminology. Off the top of my head. But either I give you my thoughts like this, or you're not getting them at all, so. This has been your disclaimer.
Been thinking a bit more about why the case of Amy this season is so troublesome:
To a certain extent my feelings about all this are based on how I feel about ensembles? The older I get the more what I really love is a well-done ensemble. And I think in the best ensembles to learn about any one character is to learn about the others, and this is what Moffat had at the beginning of the season and it was just beautiful. And then things went out of wack and all the weights shifted.
There's a crucial difference between ensembles built around a central character and true multi-polar ensembles. Who is the main character of Moff Who? Is it the Doctor because he's the enduring character, the one with his name in the title? Is it Amy because she is the companion, the one on the big journey? Is it River, since everything ends up being about her? (Though she is probably more object than subject: the lynchpin.) Then there's Rory: in many ways the "in," the relatable one. But you get the idea: I don't think you can make an argument that just one of these characters is the "main" one, and in particular there is that tension between the Doctor as main character and companion as main character.
But about subjects and objects:
The second half of season six is very much the Doctor and/or the story gradually relegating the other characters to object status (and then on to observer) until the Doctor is left the lone subject where we started from many.
The Girl Who Waited begins with Amy as subject and is about her choices and actions and preferences . . . and then by the end of it the Doctor has co-opted it and made her into object (the object of his decision of how to handle her situation). Then by the God Complex she is only object (the issue of her faith in him is front and center, but she is wholly a passive entity in this episode, while Rory has passed on to being observer only--as the Doctor notes, he's checked out and speaking in the past tense). The episode after that doesn't even have them in it, and then for the finale it's River as object and both Amy and Rory are essentially bystanders, and it's up to River to snap the Doctor out of it and say 'hey, I'm standing right here!" and wrest back a certain amount of power as a subject.
But here's the thing: we're used to River as object. That's what she's been for her whole tenure on the show with, I'd say, the exception of TIA/DotM (she's not necessarily object in her own storyline, but from the perspective of the main narrative she is the object, if that makes sense? She is the mystery most of the time, and our perspective is outside of her.) We've also got a lot of experience of Rory as object, so he can be relegated back there relatively easily (sorry Rory fans . . .). What we're not used to is Amy as object. Amy is the other narrative pole, the other subject, so when she gets relegated off, it grates.
This is where 'what is Amy thinking?' is such a crucial question this season. It's not just that we have to guess--we have to guess at what the Doctor's thinking all the time. It's that the story doesn't even seem to care. She's an object now. And it's one thing for her to wrench back some agency by killing Kovarian--the object of the story can still be an active participant. But I can't help feeling that Moffat has killed Amy's subject status and I'm not sure what it would take to restore it.
****** Though it's an interesting feature of Moff Who that who is subject and object in an episode can change with time? When you watch the Library episodes for the first time, Ten is definitely subject and River object. When you watch it now, River is probably subject (Weirdly--did you find this? When I watched those eps most recently, I could watch from River's perspective, or I could watch from Eleven's perspective--from outside the events, in retrospect. But I couldn't regain Ten's p.o.v.). TIA/DotM were a jolt to a lot of people because they made River a subject for the first time (there was a Tumblr graphic I wish I could find again that pointed out the first time River says "spoilers" on the audience's side, in that diner). And if there was an object of the season opener, I would argue that it's the Doctor. I remember consciously trying to watch those episodes from the Doctor's perspective, and I couldn't do it, even though the Doctor is my default perspective, most of the time. Having watched the whole season, now you can watch those eps with Doctor as subject.
Anyway, to go back to this:
The second half of season six is very much the Doctor and/or the story gradually relegating the other characters to object status (and then on to observer) until the Doctor is left the lone subject where we started from many.
I needn't point out that this was a major problem of later RTD Who. And when I say "problem" I'm not sure if I mean that more on the Watsonian or the Doylist level, but both definitely factor in--the Doctor was bent out of shape because he pushed everyone away, and the show was bent out of shape because it was all about the Doctor.
But fixing that isn't (just) a matter of saying "bad Doctor!" or of the Doctor feeling properly contrite about it. To fix that, you need to restore the subject status of the other characters on both levels and especially of the companion, whose story it's supposed to be anyway.
There is an argument that last season was Amy's story and this season was River's. And I think there is some truth to that? But . . . it's not a River-as-subject story to replace our Amy-as-subject story. It's a River-as-object story.
(no subject)
Date: 26 Jun 2012 06:49 am (UTC)Moffat gave us Amy as subject, and then took that away and relegated her to being an object. Though he first presented River as an object, it made sense narratively, and then as you said, he made her a subject, but then he took that away as well and made her an object again in LKH and TWoRS, and he left the Doctor as the sole subject of the series. And the show just doesn't hold the same allure or power if its sole subject is a really old alien with no other subject characters to counter him.
A huge, huge point of the show is that we have the companion there to counterbalance the Doctor. I think The Beast Below showcases this really well; we have the Doctor, ready to do an unspeakable act to an innocent creature for the greater good, and then we have the companion, who saves the day purely by rights of seeing things with fresh eyes and being the perfect balance to the Doctor's particular brand of cynicism.
Without that companion-as-counter-balancing-subject, the show falls flat. It's just a show about a very old, somewhat mad alien who runs around saving people, and that's entertaining, but so much of the depth and beauty and personal interaction of the show just vanishes.
Uh, that's my two cents anyway. Disclaimer: It is 2am and I have not slept in a very, very long time.
tl;dr: Without the powerful inter-character dynamics that subject-subject interaction brings, Doctor Who kinda bores me.
(no subject)
Date: 26 Jun 2012 01:12 pm (UTC)This is a true thing, & I think that's kind of the point of it all... in order to push the Doctor back into the shadows & make him distant and mysterious again he needed a spotlight shined on him for a while, unfortunately the other character's stories were neglected for it. I hope now that Moffat's got the Doctor where he wants him we can get back to the companion's story.