Ramble on Moffat and characterization and a heap of other things that made it in there somehow
I really am quite stupid sometimes. I've obviously known for quite a while that I'm a dedicated Moffat fangirl, and more-or-less why that is, and I've also known that I prefer minor characters to main ones, and why. Yet it wasn't until I started my reply to this post that I realized it's the same reason: I like being allowed to figure characters out for myself, without someone to butt in and tell me how I should feel about them. Possibly this is also why I keep putting OCs in my longer stories - if I know too much about the main characters, I need a cipher or two to offset it.
I've been growly for a while about the people who claim that Moff fans watch for the plot and don't care about characterization, or that his writing isn't emotional, but now I think maybe I understand. Because with main characters, we're usually told of their backstories and hangups and whether or not they're heroes or villains, and half the time their praises are sung to make sure we get it... and that's where I zone out. But a lot of people don't. A lot of people regularly watch TV for the main characters. I like looking towards the edges, not at the front-and-center, and front-and-center for Moffat is, admittedly, the plot. (But then, my own stories are often quite plotty even though what they're actually about is something else.)
For me, I don't mind a little bit of backstory, or emoting, or praise, but if one of those things are amped up the others have to take back seat, or I'll be going for someone in the background. (And on a sidenote, that's also why my favourite companions tend to be the ones who regularly slag the Doctor off, from Barbara via Tegan to Donna and everything in between.)
You know, Milos Forman claimed in his autobiography that he likes to make the secondary characters self-evident so the viewers won't waste any time figuring them out, while he prefers it if the primary characters are completely different than from what you first think. Which could explain why I like his films so much.
Also, television tends to have a lot of redundant information. They make sure that everyone is on board by repeating the same things every few eps. Which is fine if you watch only once in a while, but can get a bit grating if you watch every ep. Moffat doesn't do that. He'll tell you once, and if you don't catch it then, well, at least there's plenty of sparkle to entertain you. Rusty did it the regular way, where you go, "Oh, for fuck's sake, Martha, he's not that into you" about half a season before she actually figures it out. That's not necessarily a slam against Rusty, btw, because TV does this so much that it's a huge thing when a show like, say, Vampire Diaries, actually has characters figuring things out at about the same pace as the audience does. (And as redundancy goes, Smallville is still a huge black stain for me. I watched maybe ten eps, and then I couldn't stand it anymore. Yes, thank you, I know all of your issues, can you stop repeating them EVERY SINGLE EPISODE?)
Of course, Moff's Who isn't Vampire Diaries. He won't solve an issue and move on to the next. Instead, he'll play it so close to his chest that you may not even be sure that the issues even exist outside of your head. Sometimes that doesn't work - compared to the family lives of Rusty's chars, Moffat's seem to live in a void, and not just Amy, who is supposed to. (In fact, not even just the Who chars. We had long discussions on the Press Gang mailing list about whether or not anyone on the show apart from Colin had any siblings or, for half of them, parents.)
I suppose it could be seen as bad writing, but it's not a bug, it's a feature. We have no idea if River is the Doctor's wife or murderer (or both, or neither), and I love trying to figure that out while enjoying the present BAMF. I don't know if even Alex Kingston knows, though I hope she does; it would certainly help make the resolution credible when it does come.
It occurs to me, even, that the annoyance I felt after the first squee of the every-companion-ever namedropping on SJA stems from the same source. If I'm to be given an answer, I like some story spent on the question first. "Here's what happened to every companion, bye!" is quite spoiling the party, for me. But then, maybe that's the ficcer in me speaking.
As for the emotional content in Moff's writing, it's much the same as the characterization - it's there, but it's not spelled out, and a lot of it depends on the actors. Which is fine, it's the way it should be. I think it was Jane Espenson who said that actors hate italics in scripts; they want to say the lines their own way, not be managed by the script writer. Of course, in order for this to work, the actor has to be well-informed, or you get Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca going, "Hang on, which one of these guys do I love? Oh, I guess I'll just look blank." The grand scope of things should be told to the actors, who then proceed to make decisions about the little things - and the viewer gets to pay attention.
Of course, I think I have a different slant than most when it comes to emotional content, because I'm Swedish, and we're if possible even more repressed than the English. *grin* I mean, there's a reason my favourite West Wing scene of all time is Charlie going "Oh. Okay," upon hearing that the gunmen were aiming for him. That right there is emotion, Swedish-style. There's been a lot of that in the recent Who season. (On another sidenote, I've been quite annoyed over at markreads.net when he claims in his Hunger Games reviews that Katniss Everdeen has "the emotional depth of a teaspoon" while he's all over the Harry Potter series. Must emotion be FREQUENTLY VOCALIZED IN CAPITAL LETTERS to count?)
Don't get me wrong, I love myself some big whopping melodrama from time to time. In fact, I think someone should be hired to do at least one proper tearjerker for next season. :-) Just as long as they keep it more "Parting of the Ways" and not so much "End of Time", where I was all ready and teared up... until the ep lasted about twenty minutes too long.
Also, there are other emotions than angst. Joy, fear, annoyance, exhaustion... that's all there, too.
In summation, it's not the plots. Moff cheats on the plots. Oh, he makes them great fun too, but I wouldn't enjoy it so much if I wasn't trying to untangle the characters.
In fact, it's when the characters are freshly untangled from the start - due to flatness, or TMI, or whatever - that I need all the more plot to keep me going.
This entry was originally posted at http://katta.dreamwidth.org/526244.html and has
comments there.
I've been growly for a while about the people who claim that Moff fans watch for the plot and don't care about characterization, or that his writing isn't emotional, but now I think maybe I understand. Because with main characters, we're usually told of their backstories and hangups and whether or not they're heroes or villains, and half the time their praises are sung to make sure we get it... and that's where I zone out. But a lot of people don't. A lot of people regularly watch TV for the main characters. I like looking towards the edges, not at the front-and-center, and front-and-center for Moffat is, admittedly, the plot. (But then, my own stories are often quite plotty even though what they're actually about is something else.)
For me, I don't mind a little bit of backstory, or emoting, or praise, but if one of those things are amped up the others have to take back seat, or I'll be going for someone in the background. (And on a sidenote, that's also why my favourite companions tend to be the ones who regularly slag the Doctor off, from Barbara via Tegan to Donna and everything in between.)
You know, Milos Forman claimed in his autobiography that he likes to make the secondary characters self-evident so the viewers won't waste any time figuring them out, while he prefers it if the primary characters are completely different than from what you first think. Which could explain why I like his films so much.
Also, television tends to have a lot of redundant information. They make sure that everyone is on board by repeating the same things every few eps. Which is fine if you watch only once in a while, but can get a bit grating if you watch every ep. Moffat doesn't do that. He'll tell you once, and if you don't catch it then, well, at least there's plenty of sparkle to entertain you. Rusty did it the regular way, where you go, "Oh, for fuck's sake, Martha, he's not that into you" about half a season before she actually figures it out. That's not necessarily a slam against Rusty, btw, because TV does this so much that it's a huge thing when a show like, say, Vampire Diaries, actually has characters figuring things out at about the same pace as the audience does. (And as redundancy goes, Smallville is still a huge black stain for me. I watched maybe ten eps, and then I couldn't stand it anymore. Yes, thank you, I know all of your issues, can you stop repeating them EVERY SINGLE EPISODE?)
Of course, Moff's Who isn't Vampire Diaries. He won't solve an issue and move on to the next. Instead, he'll play it so close to his chest that you may not even be sure that the issues even exist outside of your head. Sometimes that doesn't work - compared to the family lives of Rusty's chars, Moffat's seem to live in a void, and not just Amy, who is supposed to. (In fact, not even just the Who chars. We had long discussions on the Press Gang mailing list about whether or not anyone on the show apart from Colin had any siblings or, for half of them, parents.)
I suppose it could be seen as bad writing, but it's not a bug, it's a feature. We have no idea if River is the Doctor's wife or murderer (or both, or neither), and I love trying to figure that out while enjoying the present BAMF. I don't know if even Alex Kingston knows, though I hope she does; it would certainly help make the resolution credible when it does come.
It occurs to me, even, that the annoyance I felt after the first squee of the every-companion-ever namedropping on SJA stems from the same source. If I'm to be given an answer, I like some story spent on the question first. "Here's what happened to every companion, bye!" is quite spoiling the party, for me. But then, maybe that's the ficcer in me speaking.
As for the emotional content in Moff's writing, it's much the same as the characterization - it's there, but it's not spelled out, and a lot of it depends on the actors. Which is fine, it's the way it should be. I think it was Jane Espenson who said that actors hate italics in scripts; they want to say the lines their own way, not be managed by the script writer. Of course, in order for this to work, the actor has to be well-informed, or you get Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca going, "Hang on, which one of these guys do I love? Oh, I guess I'll just look blank." The grand scope of things should be told to the actors, who then proceed to make decisions about the little things - and the viewer gets to pay attention.
Of course, I think I have a different slant than most when it comes to emotional content, because I'm Swedish, and we're if possible even more repressed than the English. *grin* I mean, there's a reason my favourite West Wing scene of all time is Charlie going "Oh. Okay," upon hearing that the gunmen were aiming for him. That right there is emotion, Swedish-style. There's been a lot of that in the recent Who season. (On another sidenote, I've been quite annoyed over at markreads.net when he claims in his Hunger Games reviews that Katniss Everdeen has "the emotional depth of a teaspoon" while he's all over the Harry Potter series. Must emotion be FREQUENTLY VOCALIZED IN CAPITAL LETTERS to count?)
Don't get me wrong, I love myself some big whopping melodrama from time to time. In fact, I think someone should be hired to do at least one proper tearjerker for next season. :-) Just as long as they keep it more "Parting of the Ways" and not so much "End of Time", where I was all ready and teared up... until the ep lasted about twenty minutes too long.
Also, there are other emotions than angst. Joy, fear, annoyance, exhaustion... that's all there, too.
In summation, it's not the plots. Moff cheats on the plots. Oh, he makes them great fun too, but I wouldn't enjoy it so much if I wasn't trying to untangle the characters.
In fact, it's when the characters are freshly untangled from the start - due to flatness, or TMI, or whatever - that I need all the more plot to keep me going.
This entry was originally posted at http://katta.dreamwidth.org/526244.html and has
comments there.