![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dweomeroflightOMFG I AM IN A PERMANENT STATE OF FLAILING IN CAPS LOCK AT THE WIN THAT WAS LAST NIGHT'S SEASON FINALE. LIKE WOW. THAT'S HOW A SEASON FINALE IS DONE. ALSO, IF THERE IS ANYONE LEFT WHO DOES NOT LOVE RIVER AFTER LAST NIGHT THEY ARE CERTIFIABLY INSANE (SO ARE THOSE WHO DO NOT SHIP HER AND DOCTOR ELEVEN AFTER THAT END SCENE). ALSO, ALSO, RORY. AMY. OMFG IT ALL CAME DOWN TO A LITTLE GIRL WHO WAITED AND REMEMBERED. OMFG I CANNOT FIND THE WORDS TO EXPRESS MY LOVE RIGHT NOW OTHER THAN OH MOFFAT YOU BIG, AWESOME, WONDERFUL, EVIL, TEASE.
I will write a proper Big Bang review when my brain is stitched back together off the floor.
Thoughts on River mixed with literature under the cut:
This is weird and rambly so bear with me. Basically, there is alot of stuff out there on how Moffat is sexist and this point of view is derived from a quote from an interview on Amy Pond's character and the casting of Karen Gillan. These thoughts are not on that Per Se, but rather on the nature of writing and what agenda comes through in writing because I noticed something really strange last night. What I noticed was this. When River is present in the story, the story ceases to be about The Doctor and becomes the story of River through The Doctor's eyes.
Last year in my English class at university we studied a book called Praise by Andrew McGahan. This was not an enjoyable book for me. It was about realism, teen angst, drugs, alcohol and life at the centre of the dirty underbelly of a city. All things which I'd rather not depress myself with in reading. However, one of the very interesting things about Praise was its title. It is never specifically explained in the book, but from the male protagonist's perspective, it is heavily implied by the author that the object of the book's Praise is Gordon's girlfriend Cynthia, a young woman who refuses to fit into either a virgin/whore dichotomy or into traditional feminine stereotypes. It is these attributes that make her the object of the novels "Praise."
Whilst watching the incredibly shippy Doctor/River scene last night, it occurred to me quite suddenly that River has become the object of Moffat's Praise and this is reflected in the storylines she is in. As I stated above, because we see River through The Doctor's eyes, and if we assume that Moffat, unlike RTD (who placed himself I think in terms of companions) is placing himself when writing in the role of The Doctor, it is River, and not The Doctor, who becomes the object of the story's Praise. This has to be really unusual in any television show. I can't think of one other show that has attempted to pull something like this off. Because New Dr Who, for as long as I can remember, has always been about having The Doctor as the centre of the writer's Praise or human beings in general for the essential qualities that make us human but no one but The Doctor could be seen as the individual character of Praise. It has never been about one person. Let alone about one female human person. One could argue that Rose was praised by RTD BUT we are never told what makes her an object of Praise in the actual story, other than in her relationship with The Doctor ie she only is praiseworthy because of her affections for The Doctor. In the same way women on TV are usually praiseworthy because they fit gender norms, not because they break them. Moffat rewards River for breaking them. He absolutely does.
What's really interesting to me about River is the fact that Moffat gives us very good reasons for praising her. Reasons that are written into the story. Reasons that are shown and are explicitly canon, rather than implied or just assumed. Reasons that do not always even rely on The Doctor to place River as an object of Praise. She is praised, not punished by the storylines she is in for being who she is; a confident, mature, sexy, smart, dangerous, yet still loving older woman who refuses to fit into a gender stereotype because Moffat does not allow her to. She is praised for being River the woman, rather than River in terms of her relationship with The Doctor. The Doctor admires her and respects her and perhaps is even already in love with her but he feels these things because of the qualities she has without him, as much as for the qualities she has when she is around him. I don't about what others think, but to me that is a really awesome television developement.
River will always be equal to The Doctor because of the praiseworthy characteristics she already has. We know her stories ending. We know that she is praiseworthy right up to the bitter sweet end. But on top of that, when River enters the storyline, the story ceases to be about The Doctor and actually becomes about The Doctor in terms of River. That is a very interesting development. The male personality as defined by the woman exactly as Gordon was defined in Praise by Cynthia. If Cynthia was McGahan's object of Praise, than River is Moffat's object of Praise. And that makes me so very, very happy. I will watch this development with excitement. Because regardless of whatever issues with sexism Moffat has, River's character is not sexist. Her character is absolutely feminist. And if River is the type of woman that Moffat has as his personal idealised woman of Praise, then gosh darn it, I for one am not complaining.
Women like River should be praised and not punished for the traits that they have (in real life and in popular culture). It is right that River should be praised for who she is. A woman who is herself, and is not punished for being herself. I only wish that there were more River's on my television screen.
I will write a proper Big Bang review when my brain is stitched back together off the floor.
Thoughts on River mixed with literature under the cut:
This is weird and rambly so bear with me. Basically, there is alot of stuff out there on how Moffat is sexist and this point of view is derived from a quote from an interview on Amy Pond's character and the casting of Karen Gillan. These thoughts are not on that Per Se, but rather on the nature of writing and what agenda comes through in writing because I noticed something really strange last night. What I noticed was this. When River is present in the story, the story ceases to be about The Doctor and becomes the story of River through The Doctor's eyes.
Last year in my English class at university we studied a book called Praise by Andrew McGahan. This was not an enjoyable book for me. It was about realism, teen angst, drugs, alcohol and life at the centre of the dirty underbelly of a city. All things which I'd rather not depress myself with in reading. However, one of the very interesting things about Praise was its title. It is never specifically explained in the book, but from the male protagonist's perspective, it is heavily implied by the author that the object of the book's Praise is Gordon's girlfriend Cynthia, a young woman who refuses to fit into either a virgin/whore dichotomy or into traditional feminine stereotypes. It is these attributes that make her the object of the novels "Praise."
Whilst watching the incredibly shippy Doctor/River scene last night, it occurred to me quite suddenly that River has become the object of Moffat's Praise and this is reflected in the storylines she is in. As I stated above, because we see River through The Doctor's eyes, and if we assume that Moffat, unlike RTD (who placed himself I think in terms of companions) is placing himself when writing in the role of The Doctor, it is River, and not The Doctor, who becomes the object of the story's Praise. This has to be really unusual in any television show. I can't think of one other show that has attempted to pull something like this off. Because New Dr Who, for as long as I can remember, has always been about having The Doctor as the centre of the writer's Praise or human beings in general for the essential qualities that make us human but no one but The Doctor could be seen as the individual character of Praise. It has never been about one person. Let alone about one female human person. One could argue that Rose was praised by RTD BUT we are never told what makes her an object of Praise in the actual story, other than in her relationship with The Doctor ie she only is praiseworthy because of her affections for The Doctor. In the same way women on TV are usually praiseworthy because they fit gender norms, not because they break them. Moffat rewards River for breaking them. He absolutely does.
What's really interesting to me about River is the fact that Moffat gives us very good reasons for praising her. Reasons that are written into the story. Reasons that are shown and are explicitly canon, rather than implied or just assumed. Reasons that do not always even rely on The Doctor to place River as an object of Praise. She is praised, not punished by the storylines she is in for being who she is; a confident, mature, sexy, smart, dangerous, yet still loving older woman who refuses to fit into a gender stereotype because Moffat does not allow her to. She is praised for being River the woman, rather than River in terms of her relationship with The Doctor. The Doctor admires her and respects her and perhaps is even already in love with her but he feels these things because of the qualities she has without him, as much as for the qualities she has when she is around him. I don't about what others think, but to me that is a really awesome television developement.
River will always be equal to The Doctor because of the praiseworthy characteristics she already has. We know her stories ending. We know that she is praiseworthy right up to the bitter sweet end. But on top of that, when River enters the storyline, the story ceases to be about The Doctor and actually becomes about The Doctor in terms of River. That is a very interesting development. The male personality as defined by the woman exactly as Gordon was defined in Praise by Cynthia. If Cynthia was McGahan's object of Praise, than River is Moffat's object of Praise. And that makes me so very, very happy. I will watch this development with excitement. Because regardless of whatever issues with sexism Moffat has, River's character is not sexist. Her character is absolutely feminist. And if River is the type of woman that Moffat has as his personal idealised woman of Praise, then gosh darn it, I for one am not complaining.
Women like River should be praised and not punished for the traits that they have (in real life and in popular culture). It is right that River should be praised for who she is. A woman who is herself, and is not punished for being herself. I only wish that there were more River's on my television screen.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 01:21 am (UTC)I wonder how they will write the Dr's conflict when their roles are reversed and he is the experienced one. To my mind the fact River knows so much of their history together is what is allowing hers much power in the relationship. It will be interesting to see her reft of that knowledge and how/if it changes her.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 01:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 02:07 am (UTC)Just had a thought that all this teasing etc may in fact be in part a conscious decision on her part to fascinate the Dr in her so when they do meet for the first time(for her) he will have a reason to go along with her(probably illegal) schemes where there would be no expectation that he would otherwise. I think this will be especially important since if you look at River's appearances so far her younger selves have a lot more rough edges(who else is going to get a dalek beg for mercy) so it is easy to imagine someone quite different when she first meets the Dr. I can imagine someone quite narcissistic perhaps even a trifle pathological.
I think the Dr is someone who lives too much in the moment to play the same games River does but I would like to see what sort of emotional toll he experiences due to their reversed histories. Will he hide her future from her, and suffer from the secrets he must keep?(Perhaps the frantic pace of the scripting will help here as he seldom has time for introspection)
In a way their relationship is a tragedy. They can never be totally honest with each other and while they have moments of happiness they both know it can't last.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 05:00 am (UTC)i also had the random thought that, allowing for the fact that Moffat
a) loves exploring the valuable qualities a child has
b) believes in the power of storytelling and its importance
c) thinks that imagination, the power of dreams and the importance of memory are paramount
d) write The Doctor has someone who cannot stand to see a child cry
e) believes in The Doctor sacrificing himself for those things
Maybe River will tie into all of that somehow. Don't ask me how. But its possible. Especially the story telling (don't forget her TARDIS diary) and importance of memory part. And omg what if he visits her as a child, kind of like Amy Pond, and she sees the TARDIS, The Doctor etc, and then goes out of her way to find him again off that and then when she does uses that to her own advantage for some reason????????? and again my head hurts.
And yes, it is a tragedy. But if there was a happy love story for The Doctor the show would end and thousands of rabit fans would slap the BBC about and pretend it never happened.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 05:44 am (UTC)I don't think the writers will think an episode in which the Dr and River can actually experience a shared history would be any fun.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 03:00 am (UTC)Basically - this is an interesting thesis, and it stands up all right with regard to New Who, but not so much with Classic, where the focus was definitely on different things.
(River Song, though, is still a Big Damn Hero. :D)
no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 04:57 am (UTC)But in terms of New Who I think it def. applies. Oh well, whatever the case, I like what The Moff is doing, even if I don't understand his odd comments.