Fannish 5: Five Happy Endings You Don't Like
I had to think about this for a bit. It surprised me how many books and TV shows I watch that have sad endings. Also, because I cannot answer these questions without going into depth about what I don't like, the answers tend to be long. You have been warned.
1) ( Doomsday. )
1) ( Doomsday. )
It is. And the most frustrating thing is that I think that Moffat genuinely intended River to be a strong and independent character. However, ALL the alleged heroines who have shown up on Doctor Who during Moffat's tenure, or who have been written by Moffat--ALL, without exception--have been focused on men. Reinette Poisson is the mistress of the King of France and the only person who can read the Doctor's mind and sense his loneliness, thus setting up a tragic romance for the two of them. After one abortive wedding in her intro, Donna gets the same fate twice--happiness with a man and two perfect children in virtual reality in the Library, and marriage to Shaun Temple after the Doctor wipes her memory. Amy gets Rory (who is, admittedly, THE BEST BOYFRIEND EVER) and a daughter so fantastic that the Doctor marries her. Abigail from the Christmas Carol episode loves the Scrooge character so much that she doesn't mind using up the few days of life that she has left to make him happy. Madge from this year's Christmas special gets to save an entire race purely because she's borne offspring, because apparently pregnancy and childbearing convey special physical and moral strength no one else can possibly possess. This is not unlike Nancy from "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances," who not only mothers a flock of orphaned and abandoned children during the Blitz but who also manages to save the world from the gas mask zombies when she hugs her son Jamie and tells him, "I am your Mummy."
Over and over again, the women are supposed to be standalone characters...and over and over, Moffat gives them the same "reward": marriage and motherhood.
While there's nothing wrong with either one, I'd like to know why Moffat keeps insisting that both are the summa bona of a woman's life.
I actually don't mind the Epilogue for what it is, and I like the freedom to explore the time between or twist the Epilogue as you please, but I agree that so much was left out and no sense of any change or improvement completely robs the story of its power.
I think that describes it well. It's not that the epilogue itself is bad. It's that we skip from the end of the battle to the epilogue without learning how anything has changed in the meantime. It omits the conclusions of half the plot threads. That's not right.
DH lost me when they started using Unforgiveables, which she had indicated were morally horrible from the start, and then suddenly, it's okay for the good guys to use them?
Half-Blood Prince lost me when Harry started casting Avada Kedavra at Snape with no adverse consequences. I could have tolerated Harry doing so if something bad had happened as a result. Like, his magic became corrupted by his attempt to use such a spell, and now it was harder for him to control the impulse to use dark magic. Or perhaps he couldn't use certain key spells any longer--even though he'd need to use them against Voldemort. Or if the Ministry of Magic had arrested Harry for using such spells and tossed him in Azkaban. Or if the Ministry had tried to arrest Harry, forcing him to flee from Aurors as well as Voldemort. Or if using such spells and made the link between Voldemort and himself stronger, tipping the balance of power in Voldemort's favor.
Harry's actions could have caused him and his world so many problems, and it would have made for a better and more honest story. But Rowling fell into the trap of so many authors, deciding that if the good guys do something, it HAS to be good.
Oh, and Katniss's offspring aside--you're going to LOVE The Hunger Games.
Reply
Leave a comment