I am sure I am not alone in anticipating this particular episode of Doctor Who and thinking, "AT LAST! FINALLY!" Dear heavens, we have waited so long for this, the new incarnation not only of our Doctor, but of the entire Doctor Who dynasty. I have made no bones about the fact that ever since the
prolonged sadistic torture that was
Children of
(
Read more... )
Yes, this so much. Personally, I don't believe that childhood ever really leaves us, we just put new layers on top of it. I also don't think that childhood is a sweet innocent place where all your dreams come true, etc -- children can experience fear and darkness and all that stuff just as deeply as adults can, and I think that too many writers of fiction for both children and adults forget that, so we end up with this false dichotomy where dark and horrible endings (CoE) are somehow constructed as more "adult" and more "significant" than happy endings; it's like some people (*cough*RTD*cough*) forget that happy endings can be just as significant for adults as they can be for children, and that happy endings do not necessarily lack depth or poignance (and, conversely, they make the mistake that sad endings are necessarily poignant, which is also not true as CoE demonstrates IMO).
I think with Doctor Who -- and with this episode particularly -- it's about pointing out that adulthood is NOT actually all about loss and sadness. And at the same time, it also points out that childhood is not always about having all your wishes fulfilled; it's not the BRIGHT SHINY HAPPY PLACE that so many people think it should be.
Reply
Reply
a kid's imagination can be full of darkness and monsters. Kids need to learn to negotiate that tricky landscape in order to become functional adults
Do you read Pratchett, and/or have you seen The Hogfather? That story has a specific moment where the main character (who has just beaten a monster to death with a poker) outright says that children shouldn't be taught not to believe in monsters. They know the monsters are real. They need to be taught to believe in the poker.
RTD didn't believe in the poker. Not really. In Torchwood there was no such concept as being able to win, just get a Pyrrhic victory. In Who, the Doctor alternated between being the poker and smashing everyone around him.
Moffat believes in the poker. Just as there are monsters, there ARE ways to defeat them.
Reply
I'm not a big Discworld fan, but I saw the television version of The Hogfather, and I agree 100% with Susan. I've believed in both the monsters and the poker all my life.
Reply
Reply
OMG OMG OMG. I am so happy to be back in the TARDIS.
Reply
There's also a fashion for depression at the moment - look at Smallville as compared to the original origin of Superman.
Add the idea that dark=adult and dark=modern, and you get people like Joss and RTD acting as though tragedy is the only real form of drama, forgetting that their "modern, edgy" story interpretation was invented in Ancient Greece.
Reply
Reply
Yeah, like "do not slowly torture small children to death on stage." (No, I'm not still pissed off AT ALL, am I?)
There's an internal logic to classical Greek tragedy that Whedon and RTD (DIE IN A FIRE!) simply don't give a hoot about.
Well... there are a few Greek rules that I think were just as well to toss by the wayside - the ones about having only one set and having all the action take place in a day (wow, the Greeks invented 24!) I don't mind "I'm just one person taking up arms against a big, impartial world." I do mind - and resent - stories about people taking up arms against a big impartial world and everyone they love and trust getting in their way because Everyone Is Either Dumb Or Evil Or Both.*
And that's before I start getting pissy about RTD's on-record attitude about internal logic. Don't get in my grill because I don't worship whatever gets slapped on the script!
*Many worldcons ago, I heard a teacher in a boy's school talking about his lit classes. He had to teach Lord of the Flies, but he had leeway, so he had the boys reading Lord of the Flies and Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky back to back and discuss not just the plots, but how the characters reacted to the plots, and which they felt was more likely to how they'd behave. As you can imagine, none of them went with Flies.
Reply
Yeah, I get that. There are times when that kind of constraint creates great art; it's like the stage version of haiku, right? But other times you really need the whole epic and all that entails.
RTD's on-record attitude about internal logic
Which would be what exactly? I probably heard it some time in the past, but I may have scrubbed that out of my mind; these days the only thing I can think of when I think of RTD is DIE IN A FIRE! ;D
I've never read 'Tunnel in the Sky'. I'll check it out!
Reply
I don't remember the exact quote, but it boiled down to the thing where when you say something in one episode and you expect it to be true in the next episode is for losers people who are too reliant on classical writing. He likes the thrill of having it be new every time without those constraints.
I personally like writers who can construct plots and stick to them. It's a skill. And it leads to actual tension, not "wait until the next commercial break and it's over."
these days the only thing I can think of when I think of RTD is DIE IN A FIRE!
Really? I hadn't noticed.
Tunnel in the Sky is a novel written for Boy Scouts (really) in the 50s, so it's more than a little dated about women. But the plot is much the same as Flies - kids are stranded and must build their own society. No spoiler to say that it's much different than Flies.
Reply
Oh dear. That's appalling! He wasn't like that when he did Queer as Folk, was he? I've heard great things about that show, though I've only seen a few eps.
Yeah, I know I'm really fond of ripping him every chance I get, but he's so fuckin' smug and arrogant about what he does. Your example above is typical. People like that make me get hot under the collar in a way I really can't control very well. I also know that in a way I'm playing right into his hand, but that doesn't matter. I'm sure that if I ever encountered him in person I'd be hard pressed not to spit on him (literally), but in a perverse way he'd be proud of that as an example of how deeply he's affected me. The "best" thing, I'm sure, would be not to let it "get to me", but that just means he'd feel free to do this kind of crap again with impunity. I simply can not be having with that. *shrug*
Reply
Not that I know of - that did sound like it had more than a little "you have dissed my beautiful Doctor Who! How dare you challenge the Doctor me?" - but from what I hear, QaF also had plenty of race!fail and the idea that the only good love story was a doomed one.
I also know that in a way I'm playing right into his hand, but that doesn't matter... in a perverse way he'd be proud of that as an example of how deeply he's affected me
Yes, and he'd be right. The problem is, "fucking furiously pissed off" may be an affect, but it's an affect with a backlash. I'm just as angry as you are, and I'd be just as likely to go off in his or Moran's faces only to get the same reaction...
BUT.
There's also one other thing I can do to express my rage, and it's effective, and I'm doing it. *They sell a product.* And now none of that product with the Davies or the Moran name gets a single penny of my money or a minute of my time. I doubt they'll even notice a one-woman boycott, but it remains... I was their PAYING audience, they took my money and my emotion and spit on it, and therefore, I will *never* be their audience again. Enough people do THAT and it's gonna sink in.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment