![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
A few thoughts on Moffat’s writing.
A note before we start: This is, essentially, meta on Moffat’s writing - trying to study how and why it does what it does. It has nothing to do with RTD, so no comments comparing the two, please. And for anyone wanting to talk about representation or sexism or similar, please see this awesome post by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
such_heights, which echoes my thoughts precisely.
A few thoughts on Moffat’s writing.
Timey-wimey.
The Doctor: People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.
‘Blink’
~
The Doctor: Because that's how I see the universe. Every waking second, I can see what is, what was... what could be, what must not. That's the burden of the Time Lord, Donna.
‘Fires of Pompeii’
~
Amy: Time can be re-written
River: Not all of it.
‘The Impossible Astronaut’
Now, my thought is that Moffat is constructing the show so as to teach the audience to think like Timelords. Look at S5 and 6 so far, and they really are ‘a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff’. Cause and effect are... *waves hands* nigh on impossible to trace. (Just see this diagram outlining The Big Bang - for the whole series it would be... painfully complex.) But the thing is, we get lines thrown at us like ‘The TARDIS can archive things that have not happened yet’, and we understand what that means. (‘The only water in the forest is the river...’) The other side to this is that everything is connected. This is rather delightful, except for the fact that it makes writing meta rather complicated...
Which brings me to:
Moffat tells his stories backwards.
I’ve already touched on the timey-wimey-ness, but this particular feature adds another dimension to the show. I ‘grew up’, fandom wise, with Joss Whedon, and I very quickly learned that if people were happy this meant that horrible things would soon befall them and everyone’s heart would get trampled. And, generally speaking, this is how stories work. We watch to find out 'what happens next', as the stories progress in a linear fashion, although we sometimes get curveballs thrown in. (The Doctor meets Rose, the Doctor and Rose have adventures, the Doctor loses Rose FOREVER. Oh no wait! There she is again. How? Why? Will they be happy *this time*?... Experience says: No.)
Moffat, in his role at the helm of Doctor Who, has done the opposite. He began his story with a tragic death, except we didn’t quite understand it at the time, and we were more puzzled than sad. (Well a lot of people were just annoyed.) But with every reveal of who River is, and what she means to the Doctor, that final separation gains new layers and becomes more painful. All Moffat has to do is write the story, and the tragedy takes care of itself...
Also, moving further out and looking at the whole show from a distance, many moments gain new significance as we go on. We watch a story unfold, but with every reveal, every new understanding, the past gains more weight, more layers. For example, the interactions between River and Amy and Rory. Or - the story of the Pandorica. In the light of AGMGTW the Alliance no longer seems so strange, their actions not so surprising. Because who is the Doctor, really?
What I mean is - re-watch S5 or what we have of S6 so far in the light of AGMGTW, and we are in many respects watching a different story. Like... Oh, looking at a picture through coloured film or similar? Do you know what I mean? You look at something through a red lens and you can only see parts of the picture and it looks complete, but then you look through the blue lens and you see lots of other things - Moffat is slowly adding colours, and when he's done we'll see the whole picture!
Another aspect to getting our story in the wrong order is... We get it in the wrong order. S6 being the prime example of course. We start of with the Doctor's death, and the whole season is about finding out WHY he dies. Filling in all the blanks. It tilts everything, but I rather like it.
Amy's skirt
OK, I'm going to stick my hand in a hornets' nest with this one, but please try to understand that I am merely attempting to understand what he was doing, not whether it was a good thing...
I never wrote about the Comic Relief Special at the time (I was too cross with fandom), but I just rewatched it and yeah, I remember. It's all about the circles. I'll go into how it all fits into the show in another post, for now I just want to walk about the skirt.
I can understand why some people found the whole concept offensive, but I think they're overlooking the meta. Why did Moffat write a whole mini episode about Amy's skirt? Answer: Because it's something that people have talked about incessantly ever since the first filming pictures appeared. Are her skirts too short? Is she too sexy? If she wears short skirts, clearly she is a slut and/or a stripper (this one's still around - no really. She was called a strip-o-gram in The Daily Mail two weeks ago, I kid you not).
Basically, a LOT of people have ~issues~ with how Amy dresses. (A lot of those people are in fandom.) And Moffat is sexist for making her wear them.
So, what Moffat did was tackle these things head on: Amy's too sexy. She shouldn't wear those skirts. She's a distraction to all around her - certainly to that driving instructor. Not to mention to her husband (nevermind that she's a happily married woman, and Rory is entitled to find her attractive)!
(Plus there's the glass floor. Endless fun to be had with that if you have a dirty mind. And fandom does, and Moffat knows it does.)
Result: Amy, put some trousers on!
'But oh we can't have that!' shouts fandom. 'That's sexist too! How dare you!'
So here's the catch-22: You can't have it both ways. Plz make up your mind. Moffat has kindly provided you with both sides of the argument. Either Amy's an inappropriately dressed slut and she should cover up, or she's not. Take your pick.
(This was an example of the show causing RL ripples which rippled right back into the show. Circles, see? Should Moffat poke fandom with a pointy stick? Probably not. But I can understand why he does it, even if his methods might be too tongue in cheek for his own good. Personally, I don't care.) Moving on...
How to re-tell old stores anew
I know that there are probably a lot of people complaining that the whole show is centred around River now, and you know what? They’d be absolutely right. The whole show *is* about River now. And I think this makes Moffat pretty much a genius.
Let me explain: Doctor Who, as everyone knows, is a very, very old show. We know... pretty much everything there is to know about the Doctor, as we’ve watched him for nearly fifty years. And this is a problem, because how can you tell new stories when you’ve already told every story there is twice or thrice or ten times over? (See The 45 deaths of Doctor Who. Notice all the 'X leaves, breaking the irreplaceable magic between companion and Doctor...')
What RTD did was invent the Time War, destroying the Time Lords, and then deal with the fallout from that. This was a very good way of generating a story, and breaking the Doctor was certainly new. He gets big props for that (and for bringing the show back, full stop. *squishes RTD gratefully*). The only drawback is that once you’ve taken someone apart all you can do is put them together again.
So what Moffat has done is introduce River. River is an enigma. River has layers upon layers upon layers of secrets. River can help spin storylines for as long as Moffat wants - she is, quite simply, a goldmine, storywise. And the brilliant thing is of course that she’s deeply tied into the Doctor’s life, so her story is his too.
Which is why it's so important that River isn't a companion. Don't get me wrong, companions are important and wonderful, but they have a clearly defined role, and generate particular kind of stories.(Just look at School Reunion and the mirroring of Rose and Sarah Jane.) River's story is vastly, vastly different, and so is River herself. She always knows more than the Doctor, one way or another, and she is his equal, and so her arc is a completely different shape.
It’s essentially just a difference in focus, because she, like the Doctor, is a Trickster character. But since she part of the story told, it makes her stand inside it, as a character, and outside, as someone propelling it forward - essentially telling her own story...
And how clever is that?
Finallyowlsie complied a giant post of Moffat Quotes which is totally awesome!
such_heights, which echoes my thoughts precisely.A few thoughts on Moffat’s writing.
Timey-wimey.
The Doctor: People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.
‘Blink’
~
The Doctor: Because that's how I see the universe. Every waking second, I can see what is, what was... what could be, what must not. That's the burden of the Time Lord, Donna.
‘Fires of Pompeii’
~
Amy: Time can be re-written
River: Not all of it.
‘The Impossible Astronaut’
Now, my thought is that Moffat is constructing the show so as to teach the audience to think like Timelords. Look at S5 and 6 so far, and they really are ‘a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff’. Cause and effect are... *waves hands* nigh on impossible to trace. (Just see this diagram outlining The Big Bang - for the whole series it would be... painfully complex.) But the thing is, we get lines thrown at us like ‘The TARDIS can archive things that have not happened yet’, and we understand what that means. (‘The only water in the forest is the river...’) The other side to this is that everything is connected. This is rather delightful, except for the fact that it makes writing meta rather complicated...
Which brings me to:
Moffat tells his stories backwards.
I’ve already touched on the timey-wimey-ness, but this particular feature adds another dimension to the show. I ‘grew up’, fandom wise, with Joss Whedon, and I very quickly learned that if people were happy this meant that horrible things would soon befall them and everyone’s heart would get trampled. And, generally speaking, this is how stories work. We watch to find out 'what happens next', as the stories progress in a linear fashion, although we sometimes get curveballs thrown in. (The Doctor meets Rose, the Doctor and Rose have adventures, the Doctor loses Rose FOREVER. Oh no wait! There she is again. How? Why? Will they be happy *this time*?... Experience says: No.)
Moffat, in his role at the helm of Doctor Who, has done the opposite. He began his story with a tragic death, except we didn’t quite understand it at the time, and we were more puzzled than sad. (Well a lot of people were just annoyed.) But with every reveal of who River is, and what she means to the Doctor, that final separation gains new layers and becomes more painful. All Moffat has to do is write the story, and the tragedy takes care of itself...
Also, moving further out and looking at the whole show from a distance, many moments gain new significance as we go on. We watch a story unfold, but with every reveal, every new understanding, the past gains more weight, more layers. For example, the interactions between River and Amy and Rory. Or - the story of the Pandorica. In the light of AGMGTW the Alliance no longer seems so strange, their actions not so surprising. Because who is the Doctor, really?
What I mean is - re-watch S5 or what we have of S6 so far in the light of AGMGTW, and we are in many respects watching a different story. Like... Oh, looking at a picture through coloured film or similar? Do you know what I mean? You look at something through a red lens and you can only see parts of the picture and it looks complete, but then you look through the blue lens and you see lots of other things - Moffat is slowly adding colours, and when he's done we'll see the whole picture!
Another aspect to getting our story in the wrong order is... We get it in the wrong order. S6 being the prime example of course. We start of with the Doctor's death, and the whole season is about finding out WHY he dies. Filling in all the blanks. It tilts everything, but I rather like it.
Amy's skirt
OK, I'm going to stick my hand in a hornets' nest with this one, but please try to understand that I am merely attempting to understand what he was doing, not whether it was a good thing...
I never wrote about the Comic Relief Special at the time (I was too cross with fandom), but I just rewatched it and yeah, I remember. It's all about the circles. I'll go into how it all fits into the show in another post, for now I just want to walk about the skirt.
I can understand why some people found the whole concept offensive, but I think they're overlooking the meta. Why did Moffat write a whole mini episode about Amy's skirt? Answer: Because it's something that people have talked about incessantly ever since the first filming pictures appeared. Are her skirts too short? Is she too sexy? If she wears short skirts, clearly she is a slut and/or a stripper (this one's still around - no really. She was called a strip-o-gram in The Daily Mail two weeks ago, I kid you not).
Basically, a LOT of people have ~issues~ with how Amy dresses. (A lot of those people are in fandom.) And Moffat is sexist for making her wear them.
So, what Moffat did was tackle these things head on: Amy's too sexy. She shouldn't wear those skirts. She's a distraction to all around her - certainly to that driving instructor. Not to mention to her husband (nevermind that she's a happily married woman, and Rory is entitled to find her attractive)!
(Plus there's the glass floor. Endless fun to be had with that if you have a dirty mind. And fandom does, and Moffat knows it does.)
Result: Amy, put some trousers on!
'But oh we can't have that!' shouts fandom. 'That's sexist too! How dare you!'
So here's the catch-22: You can't have it both ways. Plz make up your mind. Moffat has kindly provided you with both sides of the argument. Either Amy's an inappropriately dressed slut and she should cover up, or she's not. Take your pick.
(This was an example of the show causing RL ripples which rippled right back into the show. Circles, see? Should Moffat poke fandom with a pointy stick? Probably not. But I can understand why he does it, even if his methods might be too tongue in cheek for his own good. Personally, I don't care.) Moving on...
How to re-tell old stores anew
I know that there are probably a lot of people complaining that the whole show is centred around River now, and you know what? They’d be absolutely right. The whole show *is* about River now. And I think this makes Moffat pretty much a genius.
Let me explain: Doctor Who, as everyone knows, is a very, very old show. We know... pretty much everything there is to know about the Doctor, as we’ve watched him for nearly fifty years. And this is a problem, because how can you tell new stories when you’ve already told every story there is twice or thrice or ten times over? (See The 45 deaths of Doctor Who. Notice all the 'X leaves, breaking the irreplaceable magic between companion and Doctor...')
What RTD did was invent the Time War, destroying the Time Lords, and then deal with the fallout from that. This was a very good way of generating a story, and breaking the Doctor was certainly new. He gets big props for that (and for bringing the show back, full stop. *squishes RTD gratefully*). The only drawback is that once you’ve taken someone apart all you can do is put them together again.
So what Moffat has done is introduce River. River is an enigma. River has layers upon layers upon layers of secrets. River can help spin storylines for as long as Moffat wants - she is, quite simply, a goldmine, storywise. And the brilliant thing is of course that she’s deeply tied into the Doctor’s life, so her story is his too.
Which is why it's so important that River isn't a companion. Don't get me wrong, companions are important and wonderful, but they have a clearly defined role, and generate particular kind of stories.(Just look at School Reunion and the mirroring of Rose and Sarah Jane.) River's story is vastly, vastly different, and so is River herself. She always knows more than the Doctor, one way or another, and she is his equal, and so her arc is a completely different shape.
It’s essentially just a difference in focus, because she, like the Doctor, is a Trickster character. But since she part of the story told, it makes her stand inside it, as a character, and outside, as someone propelling it forward - essentially telling her own story...
And how clever is that?
Finally
owlsie complied a giant post of Moffat Quotes which is totally awesome!
no subject
For me, other than a few things related to trying to fit both and arc and standalone stories in the schedule, without it looking odd, most of the things that bug me about his writing is simply a difference in what types of behavior I find attractive or not in a character.
Both Amy and River are outrageous flirts, wear provokative clothing, and are very sexually liberated.
And I absolutely adore it in River, and get really irritated at it in Amy. And I think part of that is because of the slightly different attitudes of the characters, and the way they are written.
River is written as mature, self-confident, and having a care for the people around her. In a way, River's sexuality is written in a very positive way. It's free and supportive and welcoming.
Amy's sexuality seems to be written in a more negative way. She seems more likely to try to use it as a way of manipulating the men around her. She's unfaithful. And sort of uses her looks as a weapon in some ways, knowing that guys react to it. It's that attitude that bothers me. That particular attitude in the writing I don't think helps the appreciation of the character. It's good character work, she very much has a distinct character, but in some ways it's not a very admirable one, which is sort of odd for a Companion.
Series 6 has toned down that aspect of her character, but the writing itself outside the character still keeps drawing attention to it, apparently for laughs, such as the way we're supposed to believe Amy is telling baby Melody that the Doctor is her father, then discover it is Rory. It's a nice bit of misdirection, and well written, but it does bring back up that question of whether or not Amy is faithful to her husband. Which, to me, and especially in a show where faithful friends are one of the basises of the whole thing, is a bit uncomfortable.
River, for all we know she's a murderess and possibly killed the Doctor himself, is still written as a more faithful character. At least so far.
As for things being written backward. Lots of fiction does this very successfully, and it's a natural fit for a time travel show. But while the backward part, such as learning about River backward, doesn't bother me, the "effects before causes" and "I'll tell you later" aspect, while intrigueing at first, has, to me, been drawn out a little too long.
I greatly believe in suspense in writing, and leaving your audience hanging and panting for more. But when the gratification is deferred so long, with little indication that answers are coming, while new questions are being piled on all the time, after a while it becomes irritating. At least it has to me.
For me personally, I think I'd be just as interested in the story, and future episodes, if we'd gotten a few of the threads tied off by now. To have some things resolved before introducing more. That way I'd feel like something was being accomplished rather than like I was being led by the nose.
Deferred gratification is great, but after a certain point it starts to become irritating. That's why most things work in a cycle of ebb and flow. Not just a constant building of pressure until something bursts. Either an explosive finale, or the viewer's patience.
no subject
Which seems odd to me in a Companion. And I don't actually dislike Amy, I just think some things have gone wrong somewhere in parts of the writing.
I do love Moff's amazing ideas. From Vashta Nerada to the Weeping Angels, to the Silence, have all been based on really interesting and unusual ideas that have stretched the Doctor Who worldview.
no subject
I have seen other people say this, and it always puzzles me. However, if that's how you read her there's not much I can do. But my Amy is pretty fierce and very loyal. :)
I do love Moff's amazing ideas. From Vashta Nerada to the Weeping Angels, to the Silence, have all been based on really interesting and unusual ideas that have stretched the Doctor Who worldview.
I would love to see inside his brain...
no subject
Firstly, then I appreciate that different things work for different people. I happen to love the slow reveals. I know a lot of others find it dull/uninteresting etc. Moffat himself has said that his weakness is being 'too clever' and complicated. Otoh then he's said from the beginning that S5 and 6 were one long story, so hopefully you should be fairly satisfied soon.
As for River and Amy, then this (from the podcasts for the Library episodes - Moffat, David Tennant and Julie Gardner) illustrates things rather well:
Moffat: You can sort of imagine that there was a television series where Alex Kingston rode around space with her little team of Daves and Anita. Probably romantically linked to all of them!
DT: *sporfle* [beat] What - you don’t think she’s... uh, faithful? To her husband... I’m not suggesting who her husband may be, but...
Moffat: Why would she be faithful to her husband if she doesn’t have one?
DT: In not suggesting that she has a husband, but if she were to have a husband... I think she’d be faithful to him.
[Julie is TOTALLY with David]
Moff: She’s a fifty-first century woman, come on!
DT [disapproving]: Don’t tar everyone with Captain Jack’s brush!
River is far and away the more sexually adventurous. She flirts (and uses her looks) constantly. She is/seems as omnisexual (and experienced) as Jack. And we don't mind, 'because she's a 51st century woman'.
Amy, however, gets held to 21st century standards. If she had been a boy - a self assured, confident boy, not afraid of going after what he wanted, and maybe a little selfish... The reaction would be very different. How many 'heroes' in how many stories have slept with a woman they shouldn't? And Amy didn't even sleep with the Doctor.
Mostly she reminds me of Gwen, from Torchwood, except - because of the Doctor - she managed to stay clear of Gwen's huge mistake (a fully blown affair, due to exactly the same issues Amy had). And Gwen is now very happily married, and the affair is long since a thing of the past. Of course she never told her significant other... Mostly when Amy tried to jump the Doctor I nodded and went 'Of course'. And was then very grateful that the Doctor diagnosed her correctly.
(As for the whole 'teasing people that the Doctor might be Melody's father', then yes, that was silly, but I've had SO MUCH WORSE, that I just rolled my eyes. Nothing like having your favourite character 'maybe' be evil about 20 times in a row - every time being a fakeout - to make you immune.)
This is all quite rambling, I hope it makes sense. Also - and I only realised this quite recently - my best friend when I was growing up was just like Amy. So I know exactly where she's coming from, which probably helps.
no subject
It's that sort of attitude actually, as used in the writing around Amy, that makes Amy a less attractive character to me. Even if, strictly speaking, we are told she is faithful, they keep hinting that it would be okay, or just funny if she wasn't.
And it's not about Amy being a woman. If Rory had been the one trying to be unfaithful, I wouldn't like it about him either. And so far, River has given no indications of preferring anyone over the Doctor.
no subject
Like I said in the post - he's far too tongue in cheek for his own good. Although I can't see the Doctor being particularly possessive, and I'm sure he wouldn't mind. It's not like he doesn't have ex-girlfriends, sorry companions, scattered all over time and space...
It's that sort of attitude actually, as used in the writing around Amy, that makes Amy a less attractive character to me. Even if, strictly speaking, we are told she is faithful, they keep hinting that it would be okay, or just funny if she wasn't.
She has... an eye for the boys? Having just watched NCIS, I'm reminded of how DiNozzo is always, always, always checking out/complimenting every single pretty girl they come across. Comparatively, Amy is a prude. (I like DiNozzo btw. But he is The Male Gaze personified.)
And it's not about Amy being a woman. If Rory had been the one trying to be unfaithful, I wouldn't like it about him either.
Out of interest, what did you think of Rory and Jennifer in the Ganger episodes?
And so far, River has given no indications of preferring anyone over the Doctor.
Amy would rather die than live without Rory. River... River might not prefer anyone over him, but I could absolutely see her having a bit on the side. ;)
(It's late, I'm tired, I really hope I don't come off as argumentative. *worries*)
no subject
That didn't strike me as him being unfaithful to Amy, it just struck me as him trying to do what he thought was right. It showed the protector in him, that is so often forgotten. He did protect Amy for 2000 years.
But I didn't find anything unfaithful about it. Spouses can disagree without it having anything to do with them cheating on each other. And, considering Amy herself was Flesh at the time, it was sort of ironic.
no subject
Mostly, when it comes to Amy, then I see her as very flirtatious, but also extremely faithful. Yes there was that *one* incident with the Doctor, but a) she was young and stupid and quite damaged (she doesn't know how to deal with people and love and all that - I can elaborate), and b) he's the Doctor and hugely important in her life. The show went out of its way to show that if it came down to it, she'd chose Rory. Plus, even when Rory has been erased from existence, she's just friends with the Doctor.
Actually, the whole ting reminds me a fair bit of the Mal/Zoe/Wash 'triangle' from Firefly, where Zoe and Mal have extremely deep bonds, but she still chooses her husband in a heartbeat when it comes down to it. (That episode could have been called 'Zoe's Choice'! *g*)
Anyway, one of the things I love about Amy/Rory is the fact that they *do* disagree a lot, yet still love each other to pieces. (Also see my previous post!)
no subject
no subject
no subject
*waves hands* I'm not really sure what my point is. Amy's flirtation seems perfectly acceptable and not at all malicious to me (I'm not even sure it's actual flirting, a lot of the time, so much as it's just that she's naturally very outgoing and charming), but I also feel like if there were ever to be something more between her and the Doctor, it's not something Rory wouldn't be at least consenting to. That's where I think the whole 51st century liberation thing fits in--it's not the time, necessarily, so much as the lives they lead.
no subject
Good it isn't just me. And hey - I've read Amy/Doctor/Rory, and lo, it was good. I think one reason it works is because the Doctor so very carefully steps away from being a rival to Rory and puts himself squarely in a fatherly role. (Whereas the Doctor and Mickey were always rivals, and the Doctor didn't play fair.) And the Doctor likes Rory - as you say, Amy calls them 'her boys', and they do 'boythings' (like Rory helping the Doctor fix the TARDIS), which makes Amy roll her eyes. <3
That's where I think the whole 51st century liberation thing fits in--it's not the time, necessarily, so much as the lives they lead.
Good point. And the Doctor enjoys having them both on board. Of course he's now worried at just how much he's screwed up their life, but still - they're *his* couple. (You've read this interview with the Moff, right?)
Anyway, thank you for your lovely comment, it made me very happy! :)
no subject
Right! It's just...cute. I mean, I loved the Doctor and Rose. Their relationship will always hold a very special place in my heart, and maybe even always be my favourite, but in many ways, what Moffat's given us is much nicer. And you're right about the father thing. One of the things I love is that he looks out for them in a way that doesn't always involve keeping them alive. Keeping them together is almost as important to him, and however much he screws up, he wants them to be happy. And the really sweet flip side of that is that they also care for him--both of them, because he is, in many ways, awesomely ridiculous and deeply in need of care-taking.
I haven't seen that interview, I don't think. Thank you for linking me! I'm currently working my way through the post of quotes, and then I will read it. From the quotes, I am gathering that 1. he is very funny. 2. He is kind of an arse. 3. I like him anyway.
no subject
It's difficult to compare, really, because they're so different, which is nice - Rose and the Doctor were very much their own story, and now we're getting something that's not in competition with that. :)
Keeping them together is almost as important to him, and however much he screws up, he wants them to be happy. And the really sweet flip side of that is that they also care for him--both of them, because he is, in many ways, awesomely ridiculous and deeply in need of care-taking.
This is very true, and yeah, I love it too. :)
I haven't seen that interview, I don't think. Thank you for linking me!
It's brilliant, and it's what inspired this icon. And yeah, I have a HUGE soft spot for Moffat, because he's funny and self deprecating. And I think you need to be a bit of an arse to make it...
no subject
I think just about everything Moff says in that commentary has to be seen in light of this line:
Moffat: Why would she be faithful to her husband if she doesn’t have one?
This is way, way early and there's practically *nothing* about River that he can reveal so far at this point. In the meantime everybody else in the room is piling on trying to winkle secrets out of him and they're all a bit loopy and teasing each other and riffing on each other's jokes and Moffat, being Moffat, is gonna take every opportunity to tease and obfuscate and throw out provocative suggestions just to stir everybody up. Every time somebody even tries to call River the Doctor's wife he makes a point of denying or hedging or mocking the suggestion. I'd take every bit of it with a heavy grain of salt.
no subject
I feel like the concept of "faithfulness" is being discussed in two very different ways: the romantic, the sexual, and the platonic.
+ Is River romantically faithful (to the Doctor)? All signs point to yes.
+ Is River sexually faithful (to the Doctor)? No. She does go around kissing other folks (sometimes as a weapon to get her way) and I imagine she's slept with other folks in between the visits from the Doctor (and god, I hope so because I hate the idea of her waiting for him to show
+ Is River platonically faithful (to the Doctor)? Yes. Until no (if she's the one who murdered him). Until yes again.
River strikes me as someone who's very very trustworthy until she betrays you for your own good or because she has to betray you for another purpose. Much like the Doctor in that way.
I won't bother repeating this boring string again with Amy, but I can't help but wonder about Amy's being less than fully committed to Rory on the eve of her wedding (which spans all of series 5) and wanting to see what's out there before marrying... well, that doesn't really speak to me of Amy's overall faithfulness as an individual.
Like
no subject
*applauds*
River strikes me as someone who's very very trustworthy until she betrays you for your own good or because she has to betray you for another purpose. Much like the Doctor in that way.
SO much word! Like I say elsewhere, I'm pretty sure she's the one who kills him. And she might even do it *because* she loves him...