Izayoi13
The First Pancake
Ah, the River Song romance, don't even get me started!
I have so many issues with Moffat it really is difficult to know where to start. I also consider myself a feminist (after what style I'm not sure, maybe Judith Butler, but I've got a lot of teachers) and queer so there is an element of personal affront that I take to certain decisions he's made. Not all of his writing is bad; some of it is legitimately good. He's created some of my favourite episodes and monsters.
Instead of me writing a huge essay on things that have already been thoroughly looked through, I have some links for few collections/articles that I found pretty much spot on to my reactions/musings about Moffat. I'm sorry to hit you with a bunch of text, but I haven't got time to write my own two-cents in an essay.
http://stfu-moffat.tumblr.com/post/25598791367/steven-moffat-is-a-douchebag-the-masterlist
http://feministing.com/2011/12/22/the-temp-from-chiswick-why-i-love-donna-noble/
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/08/04/the-girl-who-waited-why-i-hate-amy-pond/
Okay, I've seen what you mean but I don't agree with any of it except some of the critiques of River Song concerning the direction her story had taken. I still think Donna Noble is an uncouth, brusque character with less marbles than any other woman on the show (except, maybe, Rose Tyler's mom), the only good thing I can say about her would be 'yes, good, she didn't have the hots for the doctor'. Personally, I don't care about Moffat's comments but to be honest he's the reason I started watching Doctor Who in the first place. I've seen 'The Empty Child' and I simply had to watch 'The Doctor Dances' afterwards (the fantastic acting of Christopher Eccleston didn't hurt, though I've never heard of the actor before). A couple other episodes flew by without really catching my interest until I saw 'The Girl in the Fireplace'. Only then I went back, watched the older episodes of the new series and started following the show regularly.
I think Amy Pond is the only long-time companion I love unconditionally (another would be Jack Harkness but he wasn't around much) and seeing how her story began it's no wonder she had a huge crush for the Doctor. She tried to deal with it when he was absent, made her move and gave her best when he was by her side, moved on when he wasn't interested. As not-a-long-time-fan I think Moffat's writing may not be agreeing with the classic interpretation of Doctor Who. The Daleks and Cybermen I find archaic and disagreeable were avoided by Moffat until now. That theory would certainly explain the Moffat-lovers and Moffat-haters (and not a lot of shades inbetween)... ^^'
It's not Daleks and Cybermen that I find archaic and disagreeable, it's the use of typical and tired stereotypes that Amy and River got built off of (and Irene Adler in Sherlock). These are the two most important women in the series and the first is presented as kissogram (it's fine to use sexuality but I think it says something when that's the first thing we see of her after being introduced to her as a child, as though sexuality is the only definition of maturity for women) and the second becomes a device only ever defined by her connection to the Doctor.
Despite this, I adore them both, as people, but as pieces of a story they've been done a disservice. Amy in particular, is fantastic; she's not afraid to quip back at the Doctor, is plenty brave when faced with the unreasonable and yes, she did move past her romantic interest in him to something that was much more interesting; her friendship with him. All of this is amazing! And fantastic! But, as the story goes, she's reduced down to her reproductive organs for a story that came off as really stiff and undeveloped; not only does she have a child, but the child is taken and BAM! then the child is actually her childhood best friend who was never mentioned before; I can't imagine how many mixed feeling her and Rory
could have had about that, but instead, it was more just "eh, River's pretty cool, so no loss". But by not exploring the emotional side of that situation or even really giving it a mention, Amy (while still being fantastic and a character I like) really does become just a rented uterus.
If Moffat is a feminist of any denomination he is at best second wave; particularly in reference to fundamental difference. If he is a feminist of any denomination he is not a critical one, again, emblematic of second wave. In fact, he's frequently dismissive and condescending on any occasion that anyone has tried to bring it up for discussion (dialogue, not argument) and waivers his responsibility with what amounts to the claim of "I'm a writer, it's fiction" or with binary logics. Fiction or not, it matters how you represent people.
The reason I like Donna is because she could be anyone but she does have particular skill set that may seem like it's not useful but she finds unexpected ways to find application of these skills. So I'm not sure how she hasn't got any "marbles"? Yeah, she's hot-headed and brusque and can get on your nerves and will shout at the world before she looks at it; some
people are like this. This doesn't make them any more or less of their projected gender or any more or less intelligent.
There were a lot moments of discomfort with Rose's mum. She was stereotype. But she was also incredibly human; her concern was over her family because Rose
was her only family. Trusting outside persons with the only family she has in the world; she'll always be suspicious of 'outsiders'. Maybe she's uneducated and a bit 'dim', but she knows what matters. Her writing was admittedly weak though; I wish so much that there'd been more moments where she could have shined and surprised not just the Doctor (because I’m not interested in the establishment male arbitrators) but to surprise herself.
100
200
100
