Like everyone else I was !!!!!! about the new trailers. I'm loving the dynamic between characters and the promise of a bit of a darker turn but mostly I'm excited about more River
( Read more... )
I don't necessarily disagree with the theory that this was CAL's reality and her dream of having a mother but...that sort of makes it really horrific. Not only is River forced into an eternal existence, she's forced into an eternal existence being the puppet to a adolescent hard drive.
i have honestly never understood this interpretation of the ending. the doctor saves a part of river, her essence, and uploads it where she gets to be with her friends for the rest of time. i don't think that what we see is supposed to be interpreted literally -- i mean at the very end river is reading out of a book and then looks directly at the camera. she breaks the fourth wall to let us know this is not literal. this is a story about a brave man who never gives up trying to help people. that ending is for the kids who watch doctor who. it's there so they can see that all the kids are safe and sound now, and that there is a hero out there they can always trust.
i don't think it was ever supposed to show us river's ultimate fate as a robotic mom slave. i'm sure moffat assumed we'd think it was the same to CAL's -- access to all the books in all the universe, all the worlds ever written about, and she'll be able to explore them forever. in a way it's another reassurance that the doctor saved CAL -- a child, the target audience's identity figure, who they've just watched go through a lot of very scary things, but now they know she'll be okay forever. and so will river, because their fate is the same. unless we're supposed to find CAL's life to be horrible and disturbing (and i don't think we are, although i can see how some might) i don't see why we should interpret river's any differently.
i'm even more sure of this after watching s5, where the entire solution to the plot ends up being, "tell the right story and you can save the universe." and not in the literal way that martha telling stories saves the world in s3, where she uses the power of stories to persuade people, but in a kind of magical way, where the story itself has the power to remake the world.
ANYWAY - I'd be okay with this interpretation except for the very deliberate imagery. We don't see River telling a story to her friends, or in a setting outside the home (even though she has the whole world to choose from), she is telling a bedtime story to a child before tucking them in. Other than breastfeeding, there is no other more maternal image than that. She is, literally, the Angel in the House, from her wardrobe to her actions.
I can see the metaphor for the power of the "story" and the power of "words" in particular, that's pretty much central to New Who but the imagery...I just can't get beyond that choice. If we had seen River and CAL, being safe and happy together, in ANY OTHER scenario, I'd be much happier.
We don't see River telling a story to her friends, or in a setting outside the home (even though she has the whole world to choose from), she is telling a bedtime story to a child before tucking them in.
but that's because the target audience for this show isn't "hot people in their late twenties/early thirties", it's children. and it's not just CAL that we see, safe and sound, it's the two kids from donna's dream life, and the last time we saw them they had disappeared, followed by donna screaming like they had just died.
She is, literally, the Angel in the House, from her wardrobe to her actions.
i'm not really sure what that means? we don't see her engage in any actions other than "be dressed in white, like all of her other dead but reunited friends" and reading the story. but like i said, the fact that she looks right at the camera seems to discount, to me, that we're supposed to take the scene literally. and where else should a bedtime story be told than in a house?
i am way harsh on moff's sexism (i love girl in the fireplace, but i hate hate HATE "he's worth the monsters", because you know it would never be a character like mickey who'd be saying that), i just honestly don't see how this is supposed to be an example of it.
I too had some concerns about this specific aspect for awhile (always loved the symbolic/storytelling stuff). But then we got to know Eleven better and to see her interactions with him as opposed to the younger Ten, and suddenly I felt like it all fit a whole lot better. Eleven being so very paternal, and with the way River tends to fall into a "mom" role at times (especially in relation to Amy), I really do end up seeing them as something like mom and dad to the universe (and a lot of the symbolism around her in season five supports this interpretation as well).
Also, Moffat is just so highly family-oriented in his storytelling in general. It's not like River in the computer is an aberrant example of a woman being pushed into domesticity. Family or family-like relationships generally take a priority in his writing and don't seem to favor men or women particularly. The bedtime story scene in The Big Bang, I think, really does serve as something of an answer to and a counter-balance to the ending of Forests of the Dead.
(Oh, and can I just say that I really like that you're trying to see a way to reconcile the apparent contradiction? I feel like 90% of the discussions I see about River's ending in the Library start from the point of "this doesn't fit with that therefore it's wrong"--rather than asking if there's something deeper going on we don't understand yet.)
i have honestly never understood this interpretation of the ending. the doctor saves a part of river, her essence, and uploads it where she gets to be with her friends for the rest of time. i don't think that what we see is supposed to be interpreted literally -- i mean at the very end river is reading out of a book and then looks directly at the camera. she breaks the fourth wall to let us know this is not literal. this is a story about a brave man who never gives up trying to help people. that ending is for the kids who watch doctor who. it's there so they can see that all the kids are safe and sound now, and that there is a hero out there they can always trust.
i don't think it was ever supposed to show us river's ultimate fate as a robotic mom slave. i'm sure moffat assumed we'd think it was the same to CAL's -- access to all the books in all the universe, all the worlds ever written about, and she'll be able to explore them forever. in a way it's another reassurance that the doctor saved CAL -- a child, the target audience's identity figure, who they've just watched go through a lot of very scary things, but now they know she'll be okay forever. and so will river, because their fate is the same. unless we're supposed to find CAL's life to be horrible and disturbing (and i don't think we are, although i can see how some might) i don't see why we should interpret river's any differently.
i'm even more sure of this after watching s5, where the entire solution to the plot ends up being, "tell the right story and you can save the universe." and not in the literal way that martha telling stories saves the world in s3, where she uses the power of stories to persuade people, but in a kind of magical way, where the story itself has the power to remake the world.
Reply
Didn't we discuss this at Gally? ;-)
ANYWAY - I'd be okay with this interpretation except for the very deliberate imagery. We don't see River telling a story to her friends, or in a setting outside the home (even though she has the whole world to choose from), she is telling a bedtime story to a child before tucking them in. Other than breastfeeding, there is no other more maternal image than that. She is, literally, the Angel in the House, from her wardrobe to her actions.
I can see the metaphor for the power of the "story" and the power of "words" in particular, that's pretty much central to New Who but the imagery...I just can't get beyond that choice. If we had seen River and CAL, being safe and happy together, in ANY OTHER scenario, I'd be much happier.
Reply
but that's because the target audience for this show isn't "hot people in their late twenties/early thirties", it's children. and it's not just CAL that we see, safe and sound, it's the two kids from donna's dream life, and the last time we saw them they had disappeared, followed by donna screaming like they had just died.
She is, literally, the Angel in the House, from her wardrobe to her actions.
i'm not really sure what that means? we don't see her engage in any actions other than "be dressed in white, like all of her other dead but reunited friends" and reading the story. but like i said, the fact that she looks right at the camera seems to discount, to me, that we're supposed to take the scene literally. and where else should a bedtime story be told than in a house?
i am way harsh on moff's sexism (i love girl in the fireplace, but i hate hate HATE "he's worth the monsters", because you know it would never be a character like mickey who'd be saying that), i just honestly don't see how this is supposed to be an example of it.
Reply
I too had some concerns about this specific aspect for awhile (always loved the symbolic/storytelling stuff). But then we got to know Eleven better and to see her interactions with him as opposed to the younger Ten, and suddenly I felt like it all fit a whole lot better. Eleven being so very paternal, and with the way River tends to fall into a "mom" role at times (especially in relation to Amy), I really do end up seeing them as something like mom and dad to the universe (and a lot of the symbolism around her in season five supports this interpretation as well).
Also, Moffat is just so highly family-oriented in his storytelling in general. It's not like River in the computer is an aberrant example of a woman being pushed into domesticity. Family or family-like relationships generally take a priority in his writing and don't seem to favor men or women particularly. The bedtime story scene in The Big Bang, I think, really does serve as something of an answer to and a counter-balance to the ending of Forests of the Dead.
(Oh, and can I just say that I really like that you're trying to see a way to reconcile the apparent contradiction? I feel like 90% of the discussions I see about River's ending in the Library start from the point of "this doesn't fit with that therefore it's wrong"--rather than asking if there's something deeper going on we don't understand yet.)
Reply
Leave a comment