![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Meta: Layers in Doctor Who
"I always loved poetry because you can treat a poem like a puzzle. Everything matters on all the levels: literal meaning, symbolic meaning, allusions, associations, sounds, the rhythm, the relation of each part to whole, the structure of it all, the configuration on the page... the sheer density of information you can encode in a poem is just awesome. There is NO WAY to read poetry passively.
AND THEY MADE A WHOLE TV SHOW LIKE THAT."
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
promethia_tenk
I’ve had the above quote on my profile page ever since Promethia wrote it, because, well, yes. However I recently began thinking about what these layers were (blame Dante, as The Divine Comedy has never less than three layers at any one time). This post is the tentative result.
Layers in Doctor Who
Story level: Everyone is themselves, and stuff happens to them - the basic, ongoing story of the show. There’s running about and alien worlds to visit and monsters to battle. Basic plot, storylines, characters, all that jazz - this is where the criticism will be levelled at, as it’s what everyone can see. But this is only the first layer. Let’s see how deep we can go?
Metaphors/imagery level: Water (= time), fish (= people), mirrors, characters as mirrors, monsters as dark mirrors/subconscious fears manifesting (for example the shark in A Christmas Carol), forests/trees/leaves, books/stories, boxes, eggs, etc. etc. etc. The list could go on and on. The main point being - most of these things are code. To explain, allow me to quote Dante. From The Divine Comedy, Paradise, Canto IV, lines 40 - 45 and 55 - 57, as well as some of the notes. (Translation by Dorothy L. Sayers):
Doctor Who does a lot of the same, using imagery to appeal to a deeper level. But, where does all this imagery come from?
Fairytale level: Wizard (Doctor), orphan (Amy, Melody), crone (River), princess (Rory (sometimes Amy)), prince/questing knight (Amy (sometimes Rory)), evil stepmother (Kovarian), fairy godmother (TARDIS), and of course lots of monsters signifying the different fears below the surface, as well as all the tropes that come with the stock characters. Moffat has of course said that this is deliberate:
The fairytale symbolism is easy to understand and decode, but it builds on deeper things.
Mythology Level: Greek, Roman, Ancient Egyptian, Norse mythology, Christian symbolism - the basic myths and stories that helped shape storytelling tradition. To quotejanie_aire:
There’s plenty more of course - but I have neither the knowledge, nor the time, to delve into it all. Suffice to day that most symbolism we use comes from these sources, and most storywriters since (Dante, Shakespeare, Tolkien) will have used them in their work. And added their own mark, as indeed does Doctor Who...
Also here I will add the Doctor as a Trickster character, an ancient archetype that is found in stories/myths in most (pre-colonisation) native cultures.
Modern Myth Level: Doctor Who has, through its sheer longevity and popularity, created a new specific mythology, inherent to the show: TARDIS, Daleks, ‘reverse the polarity’, Time Lords (which come with specific traits & mythos: regeneration, two hearts, Gallifrey, Rassilon & Omega etc.). Recently we have also been given a whole host of titles, creating its own fairy tale characters: The Lonely God/The Oncoming Storm (tragic hero), Mad Man with a Box (Trickster), The Girl Who Waited, The Last Centurion. Here is what I wrote in my big post on The Big Bang, because it’s important:
But there is another level (well there might be several, but these are the ones I could identify). And the last one is possibly the most intriguing...
Allegory Level:
Clara
To begin at the end, I will merely link to this post byibishtar:
On the significance of Clara's birthdate - meta and speculation
Essentially: Clara is an allegorical representation of the show. Born on the 23rd of November (like the show) and twice dead (like the show) - and she is always the same, yet different - like the show. It’s quite straightforward, go read the post.
The Ponds
The Ponds are fandom in all its various guises. They’ve grown up with the Raggedy Doctor (and he is theirs, just like everyone had *their* Doctor), making dolls and drawing pictures and writing stories and dressing up. Loving and hating the Doctor - killing him and then bringing him back through sheer determination. AUs spring up around them at the drop of a hat, and they even give him a wife. And - maybe most importantly - they grow up to become the storytellers, telling new children all about the wonderful man in his magical box.
And of course River, the one who chronicles his (their) life, ends up in a Library, a librarian/curator/keeper of all the stories.
Doctor Who
Doctor Who (the character, the story of the show, as opposed to the show itself) is England/Britain (post-Empire), trying to come to terms with where we're at now. This is not deliberate, I don’t think, but the story of Britain in the past 50 years is clearly reflected in the show. Gallifrey was known as the Shining World of the Seven Systems, and at the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire", because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous territories. But the glory days of Gallifrey were over by the time the Doctor ran away; the Time Lords a bunch of daft old geezers in silly hats arguing amongst themselves. Until the re-booted show when they (and their once great empire) was gone for good - and the Doctor was left alone, trying to work out who and what he was now.
Because the Doctor is every inch the ‘Scion of Empire’ - the Englishman abroad. (The Doctor: “Just walk about like you own the place. Works for me.”) Everyone else is ‘a foreigner’ to him. (It is technically impossible for an Englishman to be a foreigner. Just so you know.) But now he has lost all the underpinnings of his heritage & privilege.
ETA: Meant to include this, as it perfectly illustrates my point - all the privilege, as well as 'the white man's burden':
But - who is he now? How does he interact with the world? Well he falters, and he makes bad choices, and he (grudgingly) ‘dies’, fading from the world he used to rule. However - if necessary, he can still create magic: just look at the London 2012 Olympics & Paralympics. (The opening & closing ceremonies of which, incidentally, played upon allll the levels above.)
Now the fascinating thing is that Bond (the other great British icon, who - along with Sherlock - makes up the trifecta of homegrown heroes) has been going through exactly the same thing in Skyfall. Except Bond is less coded than Doctor Who, and could tackle the issue more directly, leading to M quoting this wonderful poem which sums it all up:
Where do we go from here? Only time will tell...
AND THEY MADE A WHOLE TV SHOW LIKE THAT."
promethia_tenkI’ve had the above quote on my profile page ever since Promethia wrote it, because, well, yes. However I recently began thinking about what these layers were (blame Dante, as The Divine Comedy has never less than three layers at any one time). This post is the tentative result.
Story level: Everyone is themselves, and stuff happens to them - the basic, ongoing story of the show. There’s running about and alien worlds to visit and monsters to battle. Basic plot, storylines, characters, all that jazz - this is where the criticism will be levelled at, as it’s what everyone can see. But this is only the first layer. Let’s see how deep we can go?
Metaphors/imagery level: Water (= time), fish (= people), mirrors, characters as mirrors, monsters as dark mirrors/subconscious fears manifesting (for example the shark in A Christmas Carol), forests/trees/leaves, books/stories, boxes, eggs, etc. etc. etc. The list could go on and on. The main point being - most of these things are code. To explain, allow me to quote Dante. From The Divine Comedy, Paradise, Canto IV, lines 40 - 45 and 55 - 57, as well as some of the notes. (Translation by Dorothy L. Sayers):
This way of speech best suits your apprehension,
Which knows but to receive reports from sense
And fit them for the intellect’s attention.
So Scripture stoops to your intelligence:
It talks about God’s ‘hand’ and ‘feet’, intending
That you should draw a different inference;
[...]
Yet he may not have meant men to be guided
By the words’s surface sense, and thus might claim
Another purport, not to be derided
Notes: ... That which Dante is shown in Paradise is a sign, presented to his senses, so that his intellect may grasp the meaning. According to Aristotelian and scholastic psychology, the intellect works upon images which are retained in the mind after the sense impressions that produced them have vanished. Thus the imaginative faculties (“apprehension”, l. 40) receive from the faculties of sense the impressions which they present for the intellect to work on. [...] Using means similar to those of scripture and of religious art, Dante renders Paradise intelligible in terms of sense, imagination and intellect.
Doctor Who does a lot of the same, using imagery to appeal to a deeper level. But, where does all this imagery come from?
Fairytale level: Wizard (Doctor), orphan (Amy, Melody), crone (River), princess (Rory (sometimes Amy)), prince/questing knight (Amy (sometimes Rory)), evil stepmother (Kovarian), fairy godmother (TARDIS), and of course lots of monsters signifying the different fears below the surface, as well as all the tropes that come with the stock characters. Moffat has of course said that this is deliberate:
"Maybe this isn't new but it is my view: Doctor Who is a fairy tale – not sci-fi, not fantasy but properly a fairy tale. And I don't mean Disney-style where the endings are changed and everyone lives. Doctor Who is how we warn our children that there are people in the world who want to eat them."
The fairytale symbolism is easy to understand and decode, but it builds on deeper things.
Mythology Level: Greek, Roman, Ancient Egyptian, Norse mythology, Christian symbolism - the basic myths and stories that helped shape storytelling tradition. To quote
janie_aire:In many myths around the world, there's a version of what's called The World Tree, an axis mundi that connects Above and Below, and Past and Future, to the Here and Now, in the Center. It's usually a Tree, like Yggdrasil in Norse mythology, but it could also be a Mountain, like Mount Olympus was to the Greeks. So, the top of the axis mundi reaches the Heavens, while the bottom digs down into the Underworld. From a psychological point of view, the Heavens represent our aspirations, our conscience, our ability to fly high and look at the big picture. The Heavens are where our Gods and Goddesses reside. The Underworld, on the other hand, is the place of the Subconscious, a place for monsters and our deepest desires -- but it's not necessarily "Hell" in the Christian sense, just a place where the "baser" aspects of the Self can find a home.
There’s plenty more of course - but I have neither the knowledge, nor the time, to delve into it all. Suffice to day that most symbolism we use comes from these sources, and most storywriters since (Dante, Shakespeare, Tolkien) will have used them in their work. And added their own mark, as indeed does Doctor Who...
Also here I will add the Doctor as a Trickster character, an ancient archetype that is found in stories/myths in most (pre-colonisation) native cultures.
Modern Myth Level: Doctor Who has, through its sheer longevity and popularity, created a new specific mythology, inherent to the show: TARDIS, Daleks, ‘reverse the polarity’, Time Lords (which come with specific traits & mythos: regeneration, two hearts, Gallifrey, Rassilon & Omega etc.). Recently we have also been given a whole host of titles, creating its own fairy tale characters: The Lonely God/The Oncoming Storm (tragic hero), Mad Man with a Box (Trickster), The Girl Who Waited, The Last Centurion. Here is what I wrote in my big post on The Big Bang, because it’s important:
Doctor Who is a fairy tale, told to a whole country. A fairy tale for the age of television, and more powerful for that maybe? A story that today’s children are having told to them, just like their parents and grandparents had. A wonderful story about the daft old man who stole a magic box and ran away. And it is brand new (new Doctor, new Companion, new show runner, new logo, new theme) and at the same time very old (the TARDIS once more has its St John’s Ambulance sticker, the Doctor carries around a library card with a photo of his first face), small and personal (everyone has their Doctor), and huge, spanning a nation and generations, and the bluest blue ever (back when the show was in black and white Police Boxes were a common sight and everyone knew that it was blue). It changes, and yet stays the same, and everyone knows about the man with the blue box.
But there is another level (well there might be several, but these are the ones I could identify). And the last one is possibly the most intriguing...
Allegory Level:
Clara
To begin at the end, I will merely link to this post by
ibishtar:On the significance of Clara's birthdate - meta and speculation
Essentially: Clara is an allegorical representation of the show. Born on the 23rd of November (like the show) and twice dead (like the show) - and she is always the same, yet different - like the show. It’s quite straightforward, go read the post.
The Ponds
The Ponds are fandom in all its various guises. They’ve grown up with the Raggedy Doctor (and he is theirs, just like everyone had *their* Doctor), making dolls and drawing pictures and writing stories and dressing up. Loving and hating the Doctor - killing him and then bringing him back through sheer determination. AUs spring up around them at the drop of a hat, and they even give him a wife. And - maybe most importantly - they grow up to become the storytellers, telling new children all about the wonderful man in his magical box.
And of course River, the one who chronicles his (their) life, ends up in a Library, a librarian/curator/keeper of all the stories.
Doctor Who
Doctor Who (the character, the story of the show, as opposed to the show itself) is England/Britain (post-Empire), trying to come to terms with where we're at now. This is not deliberate, I don’t think, but the story of Britain in the past 50 years is clearly reflected in the show. Gallifrey was known as the Shining World of the Seven Systems, and at the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire", because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous territories. But the glory days of Gallifrey were over by the time the Doctor ran away; the Time Lords a bunch of daft old geezers in silly hats arguing amongst themselves. Until the re-booted show when they (and their once great empire) was gone for good - and the Doctor was left alone, trying to work out who and what he was now.
Because the Doctor is every inch the ‘Scion of Empire’ - the Englishman abroad. (The Doctor: “Just walk about like you own the place. Works for me.”) Everyone else is ‘a foreigner’ to him. (It is technically impossible for an Englishman to be a foreigner. Just so you know.) But now he has lost all the underpinnings of his heritage & privilege.
ETA: Meant to include this, as it perfectly illustrates my point - all the privilege, as well as 'the white man's burden':
But - who is he now? How does he interact with the world? Well he falters, and he makes bad choices, and he (grudgingly) ‘dies’, fading from the world he used to rule. However - if necessary, he can still create magic: just look at the London 2012 Olympics & Paralympics. (The opening & closing ceremonies of which, incidentally, played upon allll the levels above.)
Now the fascinating thing is that Bond (the other great British icon, who - along with Sherlock - makes up the trifecta of homegrown heroes) has been going through exactly the same thing in Skyfall. Except Bond is less coded than Doctor Who, and could tackle the issue more directly, leading to M quoting this wonderful poem which sums it all up:
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809-1892) 1833
Where do we go from here? Only time will tell...
no subject
Indeed.
LOL about Torchwood.
It is my poor dead gay show. I loved it entirely too much...
Honestly, it just never grabbed me.
Strange, isn't it? S1 didn't do that much for me at the time (too bleak, Jack too mysterious, Gwen... not that interesting), Ianto (and Jack/Ianto) being the only thing I really cared about.
I thought CoE was just amazing storytelling. But Miracle Day--UGH UGH UGH, definitely got eaten by the crack in the universe.
The one redeeming feature was Jack talking to Italian-bloke about Ianto. And THAT WAS IT. But that wasn't really enough to justify its existence. Crack definitely ate it. The stupid, it BURNED!
I knew it was going to be bad when I saw Jane Espenson's name crop up.
What what what? Jane E. is AWESOME. Her name gave me hope, which was then CRUELLY SQUASHED.
And it was like four episodes' worth of story stretched out over ten episodes. I still want that ten hours of my life back.
Same here. (Follow my Torchwood tag if you want to read my thoughts in more detail: http://elisi.livejournal.com/tag/torchwood)
Also my sister works in military security and the idea of one worker taking a name tag out of someone else's purse was just so laughable: your badge is ON and visible at all times when you work in those fields--where my sister works, they literally will fire you for not having your name tag on and visible). But I digress. ; D
Oh, digress aaaany time you want. :)
Ten years out, I feel like it still holds up pretty well. My bias is obvious, but I like to think (or delude myself, heh) that I argued my case pretty well.
Interesting. I don't agree with everything, but definitely think that your main point is v. good - they don't exist in any kind of 'gay' context, as if already living in a world where gay people are fully integrated. And that's... really not good. (It's interesting to compare with Ianto, where rather than going 'Gay now!' he specifically says "It's not men, it's just him. It's only him." That whole scene in the kitchen with his sister is, on the whole, wonderful and realistic in too many ways to count, but then Rusty is gay and knows all the issues intimately. Plus, Torchwood is its own little world apart, and Ianto is obviously tentative about stepping out of it and into the 'real' world where being gay is... quite different. /ramble) Anyway, thanks for linking me. Good article, well argued. Thought that Tara became interesting & gained a backbone in S6 - as soon as she got away from Willow *g* - but of course that was all cut short.
no subject
LOL, we'll have to agree to disagree on Jane Espenson. Although I did like some of her early Buffy scripts, "Earshot" being my favorite. Her later stuff really grated on me, and I didn't care for her contributions to Miracle Day.
I will definitely read your piece on Miracle Day and get back to you later with feedback. Again: setting! I don't feel like it worked all that well in the US, although obviously we're supposed to believe TW has branches all over the world (aren't we?). Again, some of the characters just grated, and that silly American blonde bint was the worst one.
CoE was so harrowing. When you finally got the aliens' motives--that they were basically addicts using the kids as a drug source--it was utterly chilling, because the motive was so banal, and yet so horribly evil, and the reactions of the people in the government were honestly worse than the aliens themselves. CoE is like a horrible dark mirror that reflects the worst aspects of humanity. Complete sci-fi, but very believable.
Hopefully tomorrow (when I have the house to myself and can think in more depth), I'm going to post the link to the WT piece on my LJ and write up a retrospective of how I feel 11 years later. In hindsight, I think one of the disappointments is that putting Willow in a same-sex romance provided a rich vein to be mined--not unlike the college setting itself--and the writers did nothing with it. I had similar frustrations with Martha in season 3 of DW--here was an interesting character whose crazy-ass family gave her tons of motivations, and yet everything seemed to boil down to "she's in love with the Doctor." Which we'd just had two years of with Rose. **headdesk** Compare WT to JI or even Jenny-Vastra. The characters are interesting. They live in their own little 'weird/ supernatural' environments, but at the same time they also live in their larger worlds (which may or may not be so accepting). The characters are different from each other. They're interesting. Their relationships have textures. I felt like a lot of that was missing with WT--they were there just to show how 'hip' the producers were, or to provide cheap adolescent sexual gags, or to periodically preach 'gay acceptance' at the audience.
You're right that RTD being gay made a huge difference. He's lived the life, so he knows the territory. A friend of mine made the observation once that most straight male writers can't do lesbians well because "all men have girl-girl fantasies." I definitely felt (at the time) like WT were Joss Whedon's girl-girl fantasy couple.
I did like the changes in Tara in season six. In fact, the scene where she tells Willow where the dog died after Willow mind-wipes her is my absolute favorite Tara scene. I think if they'd stayed broken up (maybe with Tara coming back for a visit in season 7 to confirm that yeah, the relationship really was over), I'd have respected the 'ship a lot more. It would've been an arc where they got together, Tara grew and developed confidence, Willow's insecurity reared its head when they had a disagreement, so she magically wiped Tara's memory, Tara found out, and left, the end. Having Tara come back only to be pointlessly murdered undercut the character growth that had been done earlier in the season. It was a ham-handed motivation for Willow to "go evil" (an idea I found kind of stupid anyway, but that's another rant for another day). ; )
no subject
Torchwood was any fic writer's dream. *deep sigh*
I was very bummed when the Hub got blown up (just as I was bummed when Angel's original digs got blown up and they moved into that stupid hotel).
I know what you mean, although the Hub was far worse. The sheer history encapsulated was extraordinary, whereas Angel's place was fairly new, all things considered. And I rather liked the hotel. And W&H. I was easy. *g* (Also TW never got a new Hub, they just drifted. Which was bad.)
I'm weird like that--location makes a difference to me--I also felt like Buffy lost something when they moved from the high school setting to the college setting (which is weird cos I work in a college, and I think there are interesting veins you could mine). God, I'm so fickle. ; )
I liked the Magic Box. I mean, I liked the Library in the High School and all that, but as I much prefer the later seasons, I'm a Magic Box gal. ;)
LOL, we'll have to agree to disagree on Jane Espenson. Although I did like some of her early Buffy scripts, "Earshot" being my favorite. Her later stuff really grated on me, and I didn't care for her contributions to Miracle Day.
I always liked her (I even watched her Eliza Dushku thing, the name of which I can't remember), but MD was a great let down. :( Esp. cause her blog was awesome and full of good writing tips.
I will definitely read your piece on Miracle Day and get back to you later with feedback. Again: setting! I don't feel like it worked all that well in the US, although obviously we're supposed to believe TW has branches all over the world (aren't we?). Again, some of the characters just grated, and that silly American blonde bint was the worst one.
We seem to be in perfect accordance as regards MD. *g* (I liked Esther, but... *shrug* So she died. It's what people do.)
CoE was so harrowing. When you finally got the aliens' motives--that they were basically addicts using the kids as a drug source--it was utterly chilling, because the motive was so banal, and yet so horribly evil, and the reactions of the people in the government were honestly worse than the aliens themselves. CoE is like a horrible dark mirror that reflects the worst aspects of humanity. Complete sci-fi, but very believable.
Just amazing. RTD at his very very best.
In hindsight, I think one of the disappointments is that putting Willow in a same-sex romance provided a rich vein to be mined--not unlike the college setting itself--and the writers did nothing with it.
*nods* I didn't see it at the time, but looking at it through different eyes, yeah.
I had similar frustrations with Martha in season 3 of DW--here was an interesting character whose crazy-ass family gave her tons of motivations, and yet everything seemed to boil down to "she's in love with the Doctor." Which we'd just had two years of with Rose. **headdesk**
It could have been worse! No seriously. If Catherine Tate hadn't agreed to come back as Donna, we'd have had another love interest. Mutual. Again. (The horrors I have discovered thanks to The Writers Tale...)
Compare WT to JI or even Jenny-Vastra.
A lot of nodding along to all of this.
A friend of mine made the observation once that most straight male writers can't do lesbians well because "all men have girl-girl fantasies." I definitely felt (at the time) like WT were Joss Whedon's girl-girl fantasy couple.
Apparently they were based on some actual friends of his (which he introduced the actors to), so I guess there's some reality in there. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have done something more.
Having Tara come back only to be pointlessly murdered undercut the character growth that had been done earlier in the season. It was a ham-handed motivation for Willow to "go evil" (an idea I found kind of stupid anyway, but that's another rant for another day). ; )
M-hm. It worked, but it wasn't exactly new or clever.
part 2
One of my favorite Jack-Ianto scenes is when Jack comes back in early season two, and he tries to pick up where he and Ianto left off... only to have Ianto pull away from him. It was so nice and so realistic that Ianto wold feel hurt and not want to just hop right back into bed with Jack. I haven't watched any TW for a while, but that scene really stuck with me.
Anyway, more to come later--hopefully I can make a proper post on my LJ tomorrow. : )
Re: part 2
And I'll get back to your long comment above, it made me very happy.
Re. Ianto, then yes. There is - somewhere, I'll hunt it down if you're curious - an analysis of the scene in the office, where Jack tries to find out where they stand now and ends up asking Ianto out on a proper date. And when I say analysis, I mean an indepth look at body language and what it all says. V. excellent.