elisi | One fan's perspective... (no spoilers)

Current Mood: thoughtful

Entry tags:

whoniversal meta

One fan's perspective... (no spoilers)

So, what with the Amy wank/kerfuffle/thing and the apparent split through fandom into RTD and Moff factions (where all the Old!Who fans are sitting back and going 'Been there, done that, got the T-shirt 30 years ago!'), I've been thinking, and have almost written out the following in the response to a dozen different posts. Instead I thought I'd try to put it here.

First of all, I've always been someone who hangs out at the outskirts of fandom. I don't like arguments. I deeply dislike bashing. I tend to only click on the links to the happy reviews on the newsletters. Basically I like to sit in my own happy little corner and love my shows in peace.

Because that's the thing - I love them. It started with Buffy, then Angel, then Doctor Who and then Torchwood. (There are other shows I like too, but I'm not fannish about them, so they don't figure in this post.) Yes, sometimes they're flawed (hello most of S1 of TW and, oh, Daleks in Manhattan to grab a couple of examples), but just because the episodes are rubbish doesn't mean I dislike the characters. It's not their fault they got stuck with a bad story. And generally, a bad story can be fixed with some judicious fanwanking.

Which brings me to my point - I love my shows, period. I love them, because what I want from them is something they never fail to give me: Continuity, layered storytelling, arcs, themes, character exploration and development, and - of course - great, exciting, surprising, involving and evolving stories. Of course, I also hope that those stories will have as little as possible race/gender/queer etc fail, but I am able to separate this from my enjoyment of what I'm watching. (The Master forcing all of Martha's family to be servants is problematic, yes, and RTD should be made aware of it. However, it is perfectly in character for the Master to do it. Of course, it is not an issue that affects me personally, and if it did I might feel differently.)

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is I don't need anything from the story other than a good story. I don't need it to be a showcase for anything, I don't need for my ship to have a happy ending (although that would be neat, and I'd squee for days!), I don't need for things to turn out how I want them. I sit down to be told a story - at the moment Moffat's story of the Doctor - and I'm not expecting it to line up with the story I'd tell. As long as it doesn't go too far off track, I'm happy. (Can I point out that I loved 'The End of Time' btw.? Because I did, and as far as I can tell, this is not a popular opinion. I think S2 Doctor/Rose a bit cloying, but I still cry when I watch 'Doomsday'. These are the stories we have, maybe they could have been better, but that is a moot point. They could also have been worse. The 'should have been' position I don't understand.)

So, about Amy and feminism and Moffat and RTD and writing strong female characters. Well others have spoken about Amy quite eloquently. Personally I am exceedingly fond of her, since she's a wonderfully complex, flawed and rather damaged character, and I might write some proper meta on her some day. For now, let's just say that her outfits are the least interesting thing about her, imho.

Now before I deal with writing women, and RTD Vs. Moffat, let me talk about Joss Whedon for a moment. Joss, as everyone knows, sees himself as something of a feminist. And Buffy the Vampire Slayer is, for the most part, brilliant in this respect. It has strong women characters to overflowing, a heroine who is flawed and brilliant and strong, and I love her to distraction. However, Joss has created other shows. Let's look at Angel for a moment, since it is Buffy's 'sister'-show/spin-off. Is AtS full of strong women. Hmm. Yes and no. The gender problems on AtS are many, and difficult, and every major female character gets killed off. Some of them in ways that are rather infuriating. I happen to love Angel very, very, very much (it's good I don't have to choose between BtVS and AtS, 'cause I'd never be able to), but I can still see the genderfail quite clearly.

It seems to me, that RTD shares a lot of the same flaws and strengths as Joss. Because whilst there are definitely problems with the way he writes women (especially older women) on Doctor Who (for some good meta on the problematic nature of Rose and Donna's fates can I point you here), it is a fact that on Torchwood his women tend to rock - especially in 'Children of Earth' which has a huge number of strong female characters, all of them as complex and rich and different from each other as the male ones. Why does he fall down in one who and shine in another? I don't know. But I know that I adore Rose, Martha and Donna (as well as Suzie and Tosh and Gwen) to absolute pieces, and that my world would be less without them. (Ditto Amy and River.)

Most important of all (to me) they're all interesting. They're all part of my show, and because I love my show, I love them too, even though I identify more with some than with others. All I ask is that they're well written, and on the whole they are.

I think I was going to say something about Moffat too, wasn't I? Well looked at objectively, Moffat is (so far) better at writing women on DW than RTD. However, he's failing (so far) when it comes to including anything approaching queerness. So... swings and roundabouts?

*sighs*

I dunno. I just love my show. If it's got strong, well written women (who don't end up dead) fantastic. If it doesn't kill off all the POC (maybe even gives them good stories) - even better. If it also has gay people - better still. But they're... additional bonuses, and I don't necessarily expect them. Which I guess means that either I'm deeply cynical or a complete Pollyanna. Or a bit of both. :)

And that's it. I'm honestly not sure what I was trying to say, but it's there now. Thoughts anyone?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Can I just ask: what the heck is going on? And I mean that in the most respectful and curious way, because I have seen no fewer than...five? six? essays in the last week about fandom hating on female characters. Hating on Amy Pond appears to be just the latest round, but I just can't comprehend it. I mean, I don't watch DW, but there are other shows I do watch where this seems to be true, and while I'll catch rumblings, I seem to miss the wank.

This is Amy. She is very pretty, has legs to die for (and likes to show them off), can be quite difficult (argumentative) and generally very confident. Some women (sadly) think that these are good reasons to hate her, and there were quite a few 'I'm not going to bash Amy...' posts, which of course did exactly that. (Yes there's an interesting discussion to be had about women's clothes and the male gaze and society's notions of beauty etc etc, but that's not the one that's happening. Meh.)

You know, from what I've seen, a lot of female characters get criticized on their looks. If it's not their dress, it's their hair, their demeanor, the way they speak, that they're too forceful, not forceful enough, and so on. It's just like how women get criticized in real life.

It's just like how women get criticized in real life.
*nods* Depressing. Hopefully things will keep changing, slowly, but surely.

I dunno. I just love my show. If it's got strong, well written women (who don't end up dead) fantastic. If it doesn't kill off all the POC (maybe even gives them good stories) - even better. If it also has gay people - better still. But they're... additional bonuses, and I don't necessarily expect them. Which I guess means that either I'm deeply cynical or a complete Pollyanna. Or a bit of both. :)

LOL! That would be me too, which is why I quoted this entire thing. In fact I agree with everything you say. It would be wonderful if everything ticked every box but nothing in life can do that and I don't expect my shows to be perfect. I'm just grateful that people battle through all the problems of TV production, which are huge, to give us stories that we can be so involved in.

LOL! That would be me too, which is why I quoted this entire thing. In fact I agree with everything you say.
Oooh, I knew there was a reason I liked you! ;)

I'm just grateful that people battle through all the problems of TV production, which are huge, to give us stories that we can be so involved in.
*nods* Let's hope that as time goes on, our shows will tick more and more boxes. :)

Ummm! The worse critics of women are other women. We are our own worse enemy. We make the whole dynamic of making strong female characters so difficult.

I prefer the DW and TW females to the Buffy!Verse ones myself. Mainly because they are not supercharged in any way. Ordinary women and girls in extraordinary situations, coping as best they can. They don't have slayer powers, they are not powerful witches or have visions. They just show strength in these situations by being themselves.

To be honest, the only critism I would have with RTD was he was a little too shippy for my tastes. Especially with The Doctor. But that is because I have a childhood brought up with him, and always saw him as asexual. I guess he has to move with the times.

It seems that, women in fandom make writing women in the shows difficult. Maybe we shouldn't be so hyper sensitive and hyper critical, but pleased that there are strong women being protrayed at last, who don't run to the man every time something happens, but can take action into their own hands.

Ummm! The worse critics of women are other women. We are our own worse enemy. We make the whole dynamic of making strong female characters so difficult.
Ooooh yes. Which is what's so depressing.

I prefer the DW and TW females to the Buffy!Verse ones myself. Mainly because they are not supercharged in any way.
That's a good point. And maybe that's why I love S6 so much, because the battles Buffy faces aren't ones she can win using her superpowers, it's about a different kind of strength.

To be honest, the only critism I would have with RTD was he was a little too shippy for my tastes. Especially with The Doctor.
Yeah, I know what you mean. The whole soulmates thing with Rose was... awkward. I mean I like Rose, I'm just not a fan of those kinds of love stories. Also, I see the Doctor as asexual (except for that one time with Elizabeth I because it's hilarious, and he was not quite himself), so UST does very little for me. (Except for the Master, of course! *g*)

Maybe we shouldn't be so hyper sensitive and hyper critical, but pleased that there are strong women being protrayed at last, who don't run to the man every time something happens, but can take action into their own hands.
Absolutely! Here is River, blowing you a kiss! :)

I'm only casually fanning Doctor Who, so I missed all the wank (and am glad for it).

I tend to think that the vast vast majority of tv writing is deeply flawed were women are concerned. Doctor Who is no exception there. That's not to say that I don't like the female characters there, because I adore them both old and new (and I love Amy), but they don't give me a feminist squee the way Mad men does,or BSG/Caprica.

So ultimately I'm glad for every step into progressiveness they're making but Doctor Who is a male show for me and while they and especially Torchwood did great things to incorporate gay folks into genre tv, they are not doing anything special for women, just going with flow. I'm ok with that, but I'll use the word feminism again when we get a female Doctor.

I'm only casually fanning Doctor Who, so I missed all the wank (and am glad for it).
I've only caught snippets, and... be glad you missed it!

I tend to think that the vast vast majority of tv writing is deeply flawed were women are concerned. Doctor Who is no exception there.
We need more women writers!!!

I'm ok with that, but I'll use the word feminism again when we get a female Doctor.
Yeah, that'll never happen. But if we're lucky they'll bring back Romana one day. And until then I'm going to fangirl River. *g*

I was with you up to this point: I just love my show. If it's got strong, well written women (who don't end up dead) fantastic. If it doesn't kill off all the POC (maybe even gives them good stories) - even better. If it also has gay people - better still. But they're... additional bonuses, and I don't necessarily expect them.

I don't think these things should be optional extras. Yes, I have loved shows that don't have them. But saying that if shows mainly focus on straight white cis males, that's OK, it's just the way things are, and I'm not going to press for anything more - then shows with good female or POC or queer character will remain the exception to the rule.

And that rule sucks. It is an issue that applies to me personally, but I hope to heck that even if it didn't, I'd work towards making things better anyway, for the sake of the people whom it did apply to.

I don't think these things should be optional extras.
I don't think so either. I think TV is way to white and male and that we should definitely do everything we can to change that. But Doctor Who is sadly not a show about female empowerment, so I'm not surprised that the (male) producers don't think of it in those terms.

There's also sad cases like the new UK show Luther, which features a black detective in the lead role. It's also extremely violent and misogynistic. So... I don't watch it. It's like their brains can only cope with one issue at a time, and if they get one right, all the others get thrown overboard.

And I didn't mean to come across as somehow accepting of the status quo (although, looking at it, that's a very obvious reading, and I should have phrased that better). It's like... the fact that I hate Fred's death (for a million and one reasons), and yet adore Illyria.

I'm pretty much with you on this one. I love my shiny shows (I'd add the Sarah Jane Adventures to DW & TW) to distraction, and find all the hatred a little weird.

Of course I came to DW in the first season of the new show, and never having watched the old school I didn't have 40+ years of baggage that the Old Skool fans seem to delight in carrying.

I get the River Song hatred even less than I get the Amy hatred. I liked River in season 4, but she rocks in season 5. But she interacts with the Doctor as an equal, and I wonder if that's not what bugs some of fandom. I've watched (and enjoyed) some classic DW, and I don't remember that even happening!

I try and avoid hanging out in the DW forums. SCary fanboys are scary! And seem to have a problem with Strong Women unless they're conventional sex objects. So Leyla is just fine, but Donna is a harridan.

I'm pretty much with you on this one. I love my shiny shows (I'd add the Sarah Jane Adventures to DW & TW) to distraction, and find all the hatred a little weird.
If they don't like it, why do they watch?

Of course I came to DW in the first season of the new show, and never having watched the old school I didn't have 40+ years of baggage that the Old Skool fans seem to delight in carrying.
Heeee! Back in the days when you had to walk 12 miles uphill in a snowstorm to watch it...

I get the River Song hatred even less than I get the Amy hatred. I liked River in season 4, but she rocks in season 5. But she interacts with the Doctor as an equal, and I wonder if that's not what bugs some of fandom.
Oh it is. How *dare* she out-awesome the Doctor? And not feel bad about it? I love her to pieces and can't wait to see her again! Esp because she has the best chemistry with the Doctor like, ever. :)

I try and avoid hanging out in the DW forums.
Oh yes. I never go there.

And seem to have a problem with Strong Women unless they're conventional sex objects. So Leyla is just fine, but Donna is a harridan.
It's all about that fur bikini...

It's not their fault they got stuck with a bad story. And generally, a bad story can be fixed with some judicious fanwanking.

What a wonderful way to put this. Yes, so many of us hold on to the characters even when the show really hits the skids. And given my love of Buffy it's sad that so rarely am I given female characters who are also allowed to be meaningful. (I know nothing of the Who issue, but the general problem does not seem unique).

What's worse is when I look back at older shows and films, although they seem dated now in some respects regarding the treatment of women, I also think that they were actually allowed to be more human than they are today.

What a wonderful way to put this. Yes, so many of us hold on to the characters even when the show really hits the skids.
Indeed. And with Doctor Who, it's usually just the odd episode (since every episode is generally self-contained), so it doesn't affect things too much.

And given my love of Buffy it's sad that so rarely am I given female characters who are also allowed to be meaningful. (I know nothing of the Who issue, but the general problem does not seem unique).
Sadly it isn't. The current wank is all about the main female character being too sexy (miniskirts etc), and it's making me very sad, since she's generally awsome, and seeing other women judging her entirely on her looks is depressing.

What's worse is when I look back at older shows and films, although they seem dated now in some respects regarding the treatment of women, I also think that they were actually allowed to be more human than they are today.
I've been thinking about this, and it might have something to do with the fact that gender roles were clearly defined back then. A strong woman meant a strong woman, whereas these days the emphasis is on strong woman, and we get these characters who are essentially men with breasts, and that's just useless. (The lady in my icon is River Song, another on-off Companion, who's also generally disliked in Who fandom, because she's smart, capable, fun, attractive, and totally awesome, and doesn't mind who knows it. Also, she has some of the greatest heels ever!)

Edited 2010-06-04 19:56 (UTC)

First off, I have to admit that I'm not a fan of Amy - but that apart, I agree with practically everything else you've said!

I don't care that she wears short skirts, or that she's a kissogram - or perhaps I should say rather that I don't see those as important issues. KG has great legs, and any young woman is entitled to show off her assets. (Although I think her manner of dress is a bit impractical what with all the running and clambering over stuff that's involved!) Being a kissogram? What's surprised me is how many people have equated that with being a stripper, when it's nothing of the sort.

My problems with the character are do do with the fact that - IMO - she's whiny and needs to get over herself, and that I don't think she's been particularly well written or acted. And as far as S5 overall goes - again personally - the story arc is intriguing, but I'm missing the depth of characterisation that RTD was good at giving us.

At the end of the day a writer is a human being. Should that writer try to avoid "isms" in their work? Yes, absoutely, of course. Is that writer a robot? No - or at least I hope not.

(Oh, I wandered over from lj user="who_daily"> btw!)

First off, I have to admit that I'm not a fan of Amy - but that apart, I agree with practically everything else you've said!
Well liking or disliking characters is a very individual thing, but if you agree with the other stuff, that makes me very happy. :)

Although I think her manner of dress is a bit impractical what with all the running and clambering over stuff that's involved!
True, but then I think she likes being awkward. *g* And at least she'd got practical shoes...

Being a kissogram? What's surprised me is how many people have equated that with being a stripper, when it's nothing of the sort.
Same here. The kissogram job strikes me as a sort of not-job, something she can do with very little effort or investment, whilst hoping that the Doctor comes back.

My problems with the character are do do with the fact that - IMO - she's whiny and needs to get over herself, and that I don't think she's been particularly well written or acted.
I've seen this a fair bit, and find it very odd. Guess I ought to write that Amy-meta I've got percolating. (But then I love characters who aren't easy to get a grip on.)

And as far as S5 overall goes - again personally - the story arc is intriguing, but I'm missing the depth of characterisation that RTD was good at giving us.
RTD has an incredible gift for creating rich characters, both long term ones and one offs, and it was IMHO his greatest strength. :)

At the end of the day a writer is a human being. Should that writer try to avoid "isms" in their work? Yes, absoutely, of course. Is that writer a robot? No - or at least I hope not.
That's it. And of course we only see the end product, without all the problems and difficulties encountered along the way.

Thank you lots for commenting - it's nice to find areas where we can all agree. :)

Amy-meta is good :-) I really WANT to like her, but I really can't, and she's not growing on me either, which makes me sad. I've tried to put my problems with her into words, and really it boils down to what I said in my other comment. I get that she's got "issues" arising (probably) from the fact that she "hasn't got" any paremts and the Doctor's five minutes being twelve years, but for me anyway, that's still no excuse for what I see as her selfishness and self-centredness.

I freely admit though, that my view could well be coloured by my job - I'm a tescher (not sure if you're in the UK or not?) at a secondary school, so I deal with kids aged 11-16+ all week, and sadly, I see similar traits in many of them - a lack of concern for anything that doesn't directly affect them advantageously (Amy's head on the table in Cold Earth really rubbed me up the wrong way!), an overblown sense of self-importance and entitlement, and other things I won't bore you with. I've yet to see any sense of a real connection between her and the Doctor - IMO, she's treating him like a Taxi service as well!

I do think that some of the problem is down to the writing - there appears to be a mistaken belief that 'curt' and 'unsympathetic' equals "snappy (funny) one-liner" - the obvious example being last weeks' "clingy" remark, but there have been others.

Anyway, sorry for monopolising your LJ and I'll shut up. Thanks for letting me join in - even if we don't agree on everything, I like to find people I can argue with in a civilised manner, because sometimes, fandom is batshit and some of us need to maintain the voices of sanity!

Amy-meta is good :-)
I'll get there. Life is just... busy. And part of me wants to wait until the end of S5, so I've have as much information available as possible. :)

I freely admit though, that my view could well be coloured by my job - I'm a tescher (not sure if you're in the UK or not?) at a secondary school
Ah. Yes I'm in the UK, and my husband works in a secondary school, so I can definitely see your problem. And it's not one that would occur to the writers at all, I don't think...

Personally I see Amy as damaged/scarred by her childhood - parents died(?), an aunt who is clearly neglectful and then the Doctor lets her down massively, so she's built herself a protective shell that she's only slowly coming out of. Because life taught her that if you trust someone, they let you down. So the Doctor is (in my eyes) a father figure, helping her to grow up and deal with all her issues. She is more child-like than any of the other companions I think, but also more argumentative and 'stroppy' because of her deep distrust.

And hey, you got a bit of Amy-meta after all!

ETA: This post, although mostly dealing with the Doctor, also delves into Amy a bit - truly excellent meta. I think the problem with Amy is that (unlike Rose, Martha and Donna), she's not 'normal'. So far in NuWho we've had companions who've looked after, and helped, the Doctor. Here, the roles are - of not reversed entirely - then much more equal, with the Doctor doing his best to help Amy (of course, he is responsible for some of her problems, so that's only fair, really). But it's late and I'm half asleep. Hope I've not waffled too badly.

Thanks for letting me join in - even if we don't agree on everything, I like to find people I can argue with in a civilised manner, because sometimes, fandom is batshit and some of us need to maintain the voices of sanity!
Well you are *most* welcome, and although the voices of reason will probably never drown out the crazies, hopefully we'll last longer. :)

(Also, icon snap! *g*)

Edited 2010-06-06 22:32 (UTC)

Also here from who_daily, and I agree with most of what you said. I try to avoid the arguments/wank/bashing as much as possible, simply because I don't like that kind of thing, even if I dislike the character.

With regards to Amy, I could care less with how she looks or dresses. I'm more concerned with who she is as a person. So far, I see her as being rather flat, but I'm hoping that (as with Martha) she'll have more development in the final few episodes that will really make her shine.

I'm curious to see if she'll change now that the events in Cold Blood have occurred.

I try to avoid the arguments/wank/bashing as much as possible, simply because I don't like that kind of thing, even if I dislike the character.
Same here.

I'm more concerned with who she is as a person. So far, I see her as being rather flat, but I'm hoping that (as with Martha) she'll have more development in the final few episodes that will really make her shine.
I'm very curious about the finale - partly just because I'm wondering what *kind* of finale it'll be. RTD had a wonderful habit of letting the companion being the one to save the day (except in S2, and EoT), but the way this story is being set up I honestly have no idea what'll happen. As for Amy, then I'm sure she'll shine. (And she shines for me already! *pets her*)

I'm curious to see if she'll change now that the events in Cold Blood have occurred.
Yeah, I'm wondering too. Although the bigger change might be in the Doctor, which might confuse her? Hmmm. Just a few hours left... :)

Oh, and thank you for your comment! :)

Also here from Who_Daily. Thanks for this post. I especially like that you didn't bash either scriptwriter in the process. Oh and River is awesome!

Also here from Who_Daily. Thanks for this post.
Hello and you're welcome. It's been brewing for a while. :)

I especially like that you didn't bash either scriptwriter in the process.
I dislike bashing, because it accomplishes nothing. And it makes people default to the barricades, refusing to acknowledge that there might be problems on both sides.

Oh and River is awesome!
She sure is! (Can't wait to see here again!)

Well looked at objectively, Moffat is (so far) better at writing women on DW than RTD

I agree with much of what you're saying here, but this I have problem with. And not because I hate Amy (since I don't) or think that River is a Sue (because she isn't). It's just that I don't see that Moffat's female characters have objectively better stories or that they are more complex or more interesting.

Getting to how Rose and Donna's stories ended, I see it as a symptom of RTD's belief that no one would ever willingly stop traveling with the Doctor - therefore it must be unwilling. Martha sidesteps this because she got the unrequited love story and he could see why someone would want to leave that, especially after walking through an apocalypse for a year. In both Rose and Donna's cases, they want forever and can't have it so they must be forced out. He goes for maximum pain but pulls back so that they have the trappings of a happy ending if you don't think about it too closely. They have love and money and family but didn't get to make a positive choice to leave.

It's just that I don't see that Moffat's female characters have objectively better stories or that they are more complex or more interesting.
Ah. Now this is my own fault for writing meta in the middle of the half term with children disturbing me every other moment, and then posting immediately. I didn't mean that Moffat's women are better or more interesting (and given the number of people who can't get a handle on Amy, RTD is quite probably the better character-creator), but that from a feminist perspective Moffat's women (so far at least) are subjected to less writerly fail. (I hope that makes sense. Again, see BtVS and AtS. The only woman left standing at the end of the latter was Harmony, and she was already dead.)

Getting to how Rose and Donna's stories ended, I see it as a symptom of RTD's belief that no one would ever willingly stop traveling with the Doctor - therefore it must be unwilling. In both Rose and Donna's cases, they want forever and can't have it so they must be forced out.
This is very, very true. (As soon as Donna said 'forever' I thought 'Oh great, now something HORRIBLE is going to happen to her!' and assumed the crash position. Joss scarred me FOR LIFE!)

He goes for maximum pain but pulls back so that they have the trappings of a happy ending if you don't think about it too closely. They have love and money and family but didn't get to make a positive choice to leave.
Which is where it is problematic from a feminist point of view. From a story point of view though, I don't mind. :)

Anyway, thanks for commenting. You have several pic spams that I've yet to check out. Will get there though, don't worry...

Okay, now I agree with you completely! *g* RTD has significant problems with ending his female character's stories. (Also - mothers! Big mother issues.) Which may be why he doesn't have the same issues in CoE. He is not trying to do a long term story with them - it's a discrete few hours of show. Think Harriet Jones. If we just look at season one, she's a great character and there is very little fail. It's when we look at the rest of her story that there are issues.

I don't know yet if Moffat is better or worse at endings or at long term characterization of women. Right now if I compare both of their first 9-10 episodes, they are about the same. It will be interesting to look back in a couple of years when we can compare a few seasons of each showrunner.

Okay, now I agree with you completely! *g*
\o/ (Thank you btw, for pulling out that bit, 'cause it wasn't as clear as it should have been.)

RTD has significant problems with ending his female character's stories. (Also - mothers! Big mother issues.)
Ooooh yes. :)

Which may be why he doesn't have the same issues in CoE. He is not trying to do a long term story with them - it's a discrete few hours of show. Think Harriet Jones. If we just look at season one, she's a great character and there is very little fail. It's when we look at the rest of her story that there are issues.
*nods* (You're making me think. Might have to get back to you.)

I don't know yet if Moffat is better or worse at endings or at long term characterization of women. Right now if I compare both of their first 9-10 episodes, they are about the same. It will be interesting to look back in a couple of years when we can compare a few seasons of each showrunner.
Very true. People keep making big sweeping generelisations, and those always irk me (take RTD and women, and forgetting all about CoE f.ex.), especially when there's not much to compare.

Response to Elisi

Thank you for posting this! I completely agree and feel exactly the same way. For Doctor Who it is an even more unquestioning love but for all the shows you name except for Torchwood (which I haven't watched) and others which you haven't, I feel the same.

It's a story. A good show, a show worthy of fandom, is a show that makes you forget it is a show, even if you don't always like where the story takes it. The thing is, it is a story, and so where it goes is where it goes. I do think it's important to think critically about media and since it's actively being created we can actually influence it to some degree (or act as if we could) but the great shows, like the great books, take you up and make the characters and the stories real. No, they may not portray women or minorities well, and if it's a bad story, bad characters, and generally bad media we can condemn it, but it's portraying a particular woman and a particular minority member, and what right do we have to question who they are? If the show isn't a story of that kind for someone, I understand. I don't have a problem with anyone questioning the characters and what they represent. Things don't resonate the same way with everyone, but I probably won't seek out discussions with someone about what they dislike or would change.

I'm really not saying this about all media or stories, but rather trying (rather unsuccessfully probably) to say how I/we treat stories differently to most media. Good stories exist in reality, the characters and worlds take life, and I think this is a beautiful and wonderful thing that I cherish wherever I find it- which is why I try so desperately not to hear technical commentary on them and dissect them into media. Doctor Who, Buffy, Angel, The Lord of the Rings, and others fit into this category for me. These are the characters I can fall in love with, feel like I could talk to, want to hear more about in fan fiction or meta, who I like to examine for who they are, and not what they could or could have represented.

Healthy portrayal of strong women and feminism and race and orientation are important, and I would talk about it endlessly in a show like American Idol, if I watched it, but that's not what I'm looking for when I talk to my female coworker, and it's not what I'm concerned with when I find real stories. I care about these things, but they will not keep me from loving a good story with good characters. As Elisi put so well, they are icing on the cake.

Also, Amy is Awesome.

Thank you for posting this! I completely agree and feel exactly the same way.
Yay! (And I sorta had to write it, because I had all these thoughts going in circles in my head, and I needed to get some sort of grip on them.)

It's a story. A good show, a show worthy of fandom, is a show that makes you forget it is a show, even if you don't always like where the story takes it.
This. This exactly! Some thing make me upset, but at the same time I'm grateful that the show has the power to move me so profoundly.

I do think it's important to think critically about media and since it's actively being created we can actually influence it to some degree (or act as if we could) but the great shows, like the great books, take you up and make the characters and the stories real.
*nods* It's a difficult balance. On the one hand to appreciate what you have, and on the other to be able to see the flaws - but without letting it ruin the experience. (The Lord of the Rings, f.ex. does not pass the Bechdel test. It is still a great, great movie.)

I don't have a problem with anyone questioning the characters and what they represent. Things don't resonate the same way with everyone, but I probably won't seek out discussions with someone about what they dislike or would change.
Same here.

Good stories exist in reality, the characters and worlds take life, and I think this is a beautiful and wonderful thing that I cherish wherever I find it- which is why I try so desperately not to hear technical commentary on them and dissect them into media.
Oooooh me too. I love meta (and meta-rich fic), I love delving into the characters and the world they inhabit, but dissecting it from without bring me no joy at all.

I care about these things, but they will not keep me from loving a good story with good characters. As Elisi put so well, they are icing on the cake.
Well I think it also depends on what kind of show it is - Buffy, f.ex., should have plenty of strong female characters, since that's the point of it, as it were. Angel never had that mission statement, hence me not being horrendously upset at the genderfail.

Also, Amy is Awesome.
Yes she is! :)

Thank you lots for your comment!

(over from

who_daily)

I like your outlook, because at the end of the day it's just about watching good television - I have a lot of problems with Ten/Rose but I still love watching their episodes. It's what fandom does, though, stretching things far from what the writer intended - which is neither an exclusive nor a bad thing (it's how I get through most of my English classes, really) and I like to read what fandom has to say about how they saw a particular thing, because it helps me get perspective as well (as long as they're nice about it).

But I like what you've written about how there are so many problems which can be interpreted from every show, and a lot of the time it's just that the writer doesn't realise it because they're just trying to write a good story, and people are overly critical at times (which, once again, isn't necessarily a bad thing). Though yes, they should be made aware of this.

As far as having an agenda - well, if you look at Merlin, there was a lot of kerfuffle about the character Gwen, because she was played by a black actress and she was a servant who got trodden over by the higher-status white characters, yet she was also the future queen of Camelot and strong and moral even though she was shy. And I'm not sure whether the character has been a servant right from the start, but they certainly set out on giving her character a lot more heart and depth in the second series, as far as I've seen at least. :) Not where I was going with that, but yeah. /tangent, sorry!

It's not their fault they got stuck with a bad story.

So much truth in that. It's my main thing about Martha - she was awesome, but it sucked that she had to go all unrequited love on the Doctor just after he lost Rose. But I'll love the show as long as the actors and characters are great and the writing is relatively okay :D

I like your outlook, because at the end of the day it's just about watching good television - I have a lot of problems with Ten/Rose but I still love watching their episodes.
Yes, that's exactly how I feel too!

It's what fandom does, though, stretching things far from what the writer intended - which is neither an exclusive nor a bad thing (it's how I get through most of my English classes, really) and I like to read what fandom has to say about how they saw a particular thing, because it helps me get perspective as well (as long as they're nice about it).
*nods* I've been turning this subject upside down and inside out in my head, and I think that often people dislike something, and then go looking for reasons to back up their feelings. And what results may be perfectly valid critique, but unfortunately coloured by their subjective response. (Good Lord I hope that makes sense.)

Though yes, they should be made aware of this.
Oh yes. And this ties in with what I said above - so often it's those who are disenchanted who speak up, and then get dismissed when the point they're trying to make gets overshadowed by emotions. (I think I'm veering off from your points rather wildly. Sorry. But you made me think!)

As far as having an agenda - well, if you look at Merlin, there was a lot of kerfuffle about the character Gwen
I don't watch Merlin, but I've heard of the kerfuffle, and yes, that is certainly a very tricky situation where almost anything you do can me misconstrued in some way. Tangents are good!

So much truth in that. It's my main thing about Martha - she was awesome, but it sucked that she had to go all unrequited love on the Doctor just after he lost Rose.
Oooh yes. And i sort of <3 her even more than I otherwise would because she got stuck with such a thankless storyline, you know?

But I'll love the show as long as the actors and characters are great and the writing is relatively okay :D
Me too! (I generally stop watching shows when I get bored. No chance of that with Doctor Who so far!)

Thank you lots for your comment btw. - you managed to put lots of things into words that I was struggling with!

I think that often people dislike something, and then go looking for reasons to back up their feelings.

*nods vigorously* This, this. Though the problem sometimes is that it people sometimes just don't like things on instinct, whether for irrational or prejudiced reasons, and however objectively they try to judge things and like things, it will never really align with how anyone else would see it. And people get frustrated, especially when their opinion seems like such a minority and they feel left out, when they're trying to enjoy themselves but just can't, and everyone else doesn't really get it (run-on sentence there, oops). Though it's a totally different story when people are just plain old aggressive.

And i sort of <3 her even more than I otherwise would because she got stuck with such a thankless storyline, you know?

Hee, yeah, I have a love/hate relationship with series 3 (or however you refer to it as ;) because I loved the characters so much but whenever they good moody I got frustrated. But Martha leaving the Doctor to be her own kind of brilliant was just so great on her part because she was so loyal to him but got trodden over so badly. And some people think that that was whiny of her, which is understandable, but while I'm watching I'm just loving it the way I see it.

I think I'm veering off from your points rather wildly. Sorry. But you made me think!

As you said, tangents are good! :D

But having talked about this all over the place, I'll admit that I've never actually taken a peek at one of the discussions that have started all this. I've noticed that people seem to have been 'inspired' by others' posts to voice their own opinion (which perhaps has caused it to escalate the way it has) and people respond very strongly with their own, which has maybe brought out all the antagonism that has kinda put fandom at opposite ends since the beginning of the series? Which is terrible, because Who has always been pretty civil - I saw a debate earlier on which ended with one person saying that it was just one of the things that was preferential and wished that they could enjoy the series as much as the other did. But I digress.

(also, may I friend you? I've read quite a few of your metas since I joined (but until now have been too timid to write anything), and they're very insightful.)

Though the problem sometimes is that it people sometimes just don't like things on instinct, whether for irrational or prejudiced reasons, and however objectively they try to judge things and like things, it will never really align with how anyone else would see it. And people get frustrated, especially when their opinion seems like such a minority and they feel left out, when they're trying to enjoy themselves but just can't, and everyone else doesn't really get it (run-on sentence there, oops).
*nods a lot* I f.ex. disliked the finale of S2 of Being Human, but virtually everyone else was squeeing, so I just... said nothing, because although I think my concerns are valid, clearly the story worked for most people. *shrugs* (Also, run-on sentences are good!)

Hee, yeah, I have a love/hate relationship with series 3 (or however you refer to it as ;) because I loved the characters so much but whenever they good moody I got frustrated.
My main problem was the fact that it took so long to get good - there were a lot of mediocre episodes, and I was getting rather fed up when suddenly everything became awesome. :)

But Martha leaving the Doctor to be her own kind of brilliant was just so great on her part because she was so loyal to him but got trodden over so badly. And some people think that that was whiny of her, which is understandable, but while I'm watching I'm just loving it the way I see it.
I'm just the same! Martha Is Awesome, and that's the show I'm watching!

But having talked about this all over the place, I'll admit that I've never actually taken a peek at one of the discussions that have started all this. I've noticed that people seem to have been 'inspired' by others' posts to voice their own opinion (which perhaps has caused it to escalate the way it has) and people respond very strongly with their own, which has maybe brought out all the antagonism that has kinda put fandom at opposite ends since the beginning of the series?
I have to admit that I've not read any of the original posts either. But from what I can gather it was people disliking Amy (which, you know, is their prerogative), and then using things like her miniskirts to justify their dislike - and then other jumping in to defend her, but often pointing out flaws in RTD's era at the same time and then everything got nasty... :(

Which is terrible, because Who has always been pretty civil
Hmmm. I dunno. But then I tend to stay away from all arguments, so... :)

also, may I friend you? I've read quite a few of your metas since I joined (but until now have been too timid to write anything), and they're very insightful.
Oh absolutely! Welcome to. I like to ramble a lot and sometimes I write fic. Make yourself at home!

I f.ex. disliked the finale of S2 of Being Human, but virtually everyone else was squeeing, so I just... said nothing, because although I think my concerns are valid, clearly the story worked for most people.

Oh, that sucks. That's the thing about these communities, though. Agree and everyone's happy, but sometimes a different opinion can be alienating. But like we've been saying, in the end it's our own show that we're watching when we watch, even if it's not the same one the writer or everyone else is. (I think I just repeated what you replied to there, sorry :S) And at least you're not getting worked up about it, which just leads to people thinking irrationally and things getting out of hand as they do.

And added you! :)

Oh, that sucks. That's the thing about these communities, though. Agree and everyone's happy, but sometimes a different opinion can be alienating.
Oh it was just my flist (I'm very wary of communities, for the reasons you cite), but I didn't want to harsh other people's squee. Also, I like the show, but I'm not obsessed with it the way I am with Doctor Who. (And really, ranting would accomplish nothing, so I just didn't bother.) ETA: Just remembered a much better example: I am one of about three people in total who didn't like 'Midnight'. I can see why it's good, but I just didn't like it, plain and simple, so I generally avoid discussions about it. :)

But like we've been saying, in the end it's our own show that we're watching when we watch, even if it's not the same one the writer or everyone else is. (I think I just repeated what you replied to there, sorry :S)
Don't be sorry, I'm glad that you agree. And actually, it's something I see a lot in posts where people squee about S5 - the fact that clearly all the haters must watch a completely different programme. :) (You've read Your Friends Are Not Watching the Same Show You Are (And That's Okay), right?)

And at least you're not getting worked up about it, which just leads to people thinking irrationally and things getting out of hand as they do.
I am the very picture of calmness and rational thinking! ;) And welcome!

Edited 2010-06-08 14:30 (UTC)

but I didn't want to harsh other people's squee.

That's probably the main thing there. Most of the time people don't set out to be parade-rainers (on?), but they are perceived to be anyway. and And it's very considerate of you, especially because it must be frustrating (or the like) sometimes :)

Ah, and thanks so much for the link! So much truth there, and it made me grin.

hat's probably the main thing there. Most of the time people don't set out to be parade-rainers (on?), but they are perceived to be anyway.
*nods* Which is why I only click on the positive reviews on who_daily, sparing myself the grief. :)

And it's very considerate of you, especially because it must be frustrating (or the like) sometimes :)
Well it is only once in a blue moon that I actually dislike something, and - having been a Buffy fan for years - I am used to fanwanking anything that doesn't work. Being a Joss fan also prepared me very well for writers breaking my heart. That's just how it works...

I have about twelve different thoughts in response to this, and if I try and logically join them together I will end up writing an essay, so forgive me if this seems random and unconnected. :)

I will confess that sometimes I find myself frustrated when I read a review that is so heavily filtered through the author's perspective on a particular issue that there seems to no real attempt to engage with the actual story. I do feel that for some their watching experience is a kind of tick-box exercise. But I also understand it. It's impossible to watch anything detached from your own personal views on things, and if people didn't make a fuss about things they see as wrong, or groups they see as mis- or under-represented, then important change wouldn't happen. It's blanket-ness that I struggle with though, when events are interpreted out of context.

I haven't seen Luther, but I enjoyed this review by AA Gill in which he talks about the tendency to cast black people as presidents and professors and so on, which however well-intended it might be, is really no more than tokenism. It's something I hadn't thought about, and I think it's a valid point and a more sophisticated criticism than OMG! Body count for this episode = 1 white man, 2 black women, 4 aliens! (The latter is a valid point too. I'm not saying it isn't, just that I think there is - I don't know, more to fight for?)

Here's my third point: I love programmes in which the central character is a strong, brave, brilliant woman. But I also am fascinated with the reality of that - how can you be that slightly superhuman person and still function in the real world? How do you have a relationship? How do you deal with the inescapability of being who you are, the expectation, the loneliness? And none of these are issues that arise because the character is female, but I can probably identify with her a little bit more because she is. You see for me, Buffy isn't strong because she is feisty and sassy and can look after herself. (They're very gender-biased terms, aren't they, feisty and sassy?) It's because she gives up herself to look after everyone else. It's because she looks failure in the face and still finds it in her to fight back. And in spite of the message of Chosen, for all it says about choosing and empowerment, I think what I love most about Buffy is that she recognises that being the Slayer isn't a choice, not really. It's a duty, and one that she carries out with courage and heart and grace.

And yes, they sound like clichéd female virtues, duty and grace and heart, but I honestly don't think I would consider any male character "strong" without them. Strength is not something you can measure by the length of a character's skirt or the speed of their snappy comeback. ;) It's about resilience and vulnerability, toughness and compassion, leading from the front and from somewhere in the middle.

I seem to have written an essay anyway, and I've only just begun. ;) But I'll stop. One final point about Amy though: she is an unparented child, and one who has lived her whole life as the heroine in her own fairy tale. As much as anything, that to me is what informs her character.

I must go, and I'm very conscious that what I've written here isn't exactly what I mean, and is open to being misconstrued. Even terminology can be a minefield - culturally what is "correct" varies. But mostly I just wanted to say I enjoyed your post, and this was meant to be a kind of agreeing. :)

so forgive me if this seems random and unconnected. :)
Of course! (My post was pretty random, so...) And I hope you forgive me for being so late replying.

I will confess that sometimes I find myself frustrated when I read a review that is so heavily filtered through the author's perspective on a particular issue that there seems to no real attempt to engage with the actual story. I do feel that for some their watching experience is a kind of tick-box exercise. But I also understand it.
Absolutely! And this is what makes this whole thing so tricky to write about. It's like splitting hairs.

if people didn't make a fuss about things they see as wrong, or groups they see as mis- or under-represented, then important change wouldn't happen.
Absolutely. But - as I said in a response above - a problem is that it's often those who *dislike* something who make a fuss, which makes it harder for those in charge to take them seriously.

It's blanket-ness that I struggle with though, when events are interpreted out of context.
*nods*

I haven't seen Luther, but I enjoyed this review by AA Gill in which he talks about the tendency to cast black people as presidents and professors and so on, which however well-intended it might be, is really no more than tokenism.
I read that back when it was in the Sunday Times, and also thought that it was a brilliant point! (I'd totally watch Luther, except I dislike the OTT violence and misogyny... *sigh*)

I love programmes in which the central character is a strong, brave, brilliant woman. But I also am fascinated with the reality of that - how can you be that slightly superhuman person and still function in the real world? How do you have a relationship? How do you deal with the inescapability of being who you are, the expectation, the loneliness? And none of these are issues that arise because the character is female, but I can probably identify with her a little bit more because she is.
*nods a lot*

It's because she gives up herself to look after everyone else. It's because she looks failure in the face and still finds it in her to fight back. And in spite of the message of Chosen, for all it says about choosing and empowerment, I think what I love most about Buffy is that she recognises that being the Slayer isn't a choice, not really. It's a duty, and one that she carries out with courage and heart and grace.
Awww, how do you always find the perfect words? Really, just ♥ to this.

Strength is not something you can measure by the length of a character's skirt or the speed of their snappy comeback. ;) It's about resilience and vulnerability, toughness and compassion, leading from the front and from somewhere in the middle.
Absolutely. And it's one of the things I like very much about this season of DW - the fact that the Doctor is beginning to heal from all the pain, and a lot of the time it's him looking after his companion(s), not the other way round. (I've been reading a lot of meta these last few days, so it was in my head. And I like to see those qualities in a male hero, because they shouldn't be somehow unique to women.)

I seem to have written an essay anyway, and I've only just begun. ;) But I'll stop.
You know, that's exactly how I felt when I wrote the post. I had all these thoughts, and it seemed that what I wrote down was only the very tiniest tip of the iceberg. (And I'm inordinately pleased that I made you think too! *g*)

One final point about Amy though: she is an unparented child, and one who has lived her whole life as the heroine in her own fairy tale. As much as anything, that to me is what informs her character.
That's a beautiful way of putting it. And yes, that's how I see it too. (I love her to bits, but then I've always liked 'difficult' characters.)

But mostly I just wanted to say I enjoyed your post, and this was meant to be a kind of agreeing. :)
Aw, thanks! :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

One fan's perspective... (no spoilers)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject