Do you want to hear MORE THOUGHTS ON MOFFAT? I BET YOU DO
I think a lot of my issues with Moffat's writing boil down to the fact that I don't ever get a clear reading of what he wants me to think. I know authorial intent is a huge source of wank in fandom (lol especially Harry Potter fandom) and I know there are lots of people who will claim backwards and forwards that what the author was attempting doesn't matter; I know there are lots of people who actually like being able to read whatever they want into the text. But for me, it makes it harder for me to connect to or analyze. I like having some sense of what I think the author was aiming for, because that's what allows me to determine whether or not they failed in that regard
( ... )
I find that I really like authors who have a very strong personal vision. It's those same authors who tend to be very divisive, for that exact reason, becuase it does make it harder to ignore or handwave their intent as it's dripping off the page/out of the screen in giant gobs, but... I like that. I like a really strong, unique voice with a clear theme or message that is being presented. I can make up my own mind about whether I agree with that message or am interested in that theme, but I feel that that's what art should strive to be. Otherwise, it's just entertainment and not worth putting any thought into.
Edited because I think "message" is a poor choice of words because I can do without preachy or didactic stuff. I think a better term for what I'm trying to express is "central idea."
Yeah I think I agree with this. I like knowing what a narrative is trying to say, whether or not I agree with it. When I feel like I can read basically anything I want into most of the content, it's harder for me to care that much. I don't (think that I) project much, so characters that appeal to others because they're "easier to relate to" tend to come across to me as dull or boring or flat. I don't really want to think there are five different interpretations of each scene that are equally valid because the text never delves any deeper. I want to feel like the author had some idea what they were going for when they wrote it.
But then I've seen people say that they love Moffat's stuff because you "have to work for it", or whatever, whereas I guess they find RTD's stuff too sledgehammery. So it's just a matter of persona taste. But large chunks of Moffat's style are not my personal taste.
I would love to read someone's meta about what Moffat feels about the nature of the human condition based on his Who workbecause I could go on forever about that topic wrt RTD but I'm pretty much at a loss with that topic and Moffat. Maybe someone who does feel that if you work for them that those ideas are in there Could lead me inthe right direction.
This all may be the reason why when it comes down to it, in fanfiction, the stuff I enjoy writing and reading is all RTD stuff and NOT Moffat. I enjoy watching Moffat's stuff at the time, but it doesn't make me want to run out and write more about it.
When it comes down to it, although I loved EC/TDD, the "quintessential" Moffat/Ten episodes are the ones I tend to gloss over in fanfic. In Symbolon I just absolutely was not going to deal with River Song, period, and TGitF was just... no. And don't get me started on weeping angels.
I think a lot of my issues with Moffat's writing boil down to the fact that I don't ever get a clear reading of what he wants me to think. I know authorial intent is a huge source of wank in fandom (lol especially Harry Potter fandom) and I know there are lots of people who will claim backwards and forwards that what the author was attempting doesn't matter; I know there are lots of people who actually like being able to read whatever they want into the text. But for me, it makes it harder for me to connect to or analyze. I like having some sense of what I think the author was aiming for, because that's what allows me to determine whether or not they failed in that regard ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I find that I really like authors who have a very strong personal vision. It's those same authors who tend to be very divisive, for that exact reason, becuase it does make it harder to ignore or handwave their intent as it's dripping off the page/out of the screen in giant gobs, but... I like that. I like a really strong, unique voice with a clear theme or message that is being presented. I can make up my own mind about whether I agree with that message or am interested in that theme, but I feel that that's what art should strive to be. Otherwise, it's just entertainment and not worth putting any thought into.
Edited because I think "message" is a poor choice of words because I can do without preachy or didactic stuff. I think a better term for what I'm trying to express is "central idea."
Reply
But then I've seen people say that they love Moffat's stuff because you "have to work for it", or whatever, whereas I guess they find RTD's stuff too sledgehammery. So it's just a matter of persona taste. But large chunks of Moffat's style are not my personal taste.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
-Abbi
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment