![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
hello, children /french peas (points to whoever gets that reference)
I am like 99% sure that I have actually made this post before. But I'm going to make it again because I KEEP SEEING IT OMG, and it keeps bothering me, and who am I if not a person who rambles on my blog for no reason. Welcome to my world of self-indulgance. You do not have to read this because, like I said, I've already said it all before.
Let's talk about Russell T. Davies and Steve Moffat! YAY! *gag*
For those of you who don't know (although if you don't, I don't think your fandom osmosis is working very well; you should probably look into that), they are the two guys who have been showrunners for the new version of Doctor Who.
Let's get a few things out of the way first.
1) Both of these guys are very talented writers.
2) Both of these guys have weaknesses as writers.
3) Both of them write some things that are horrifying, especially when viewed from a feminist perspective, and often the text doesn't acknowledge that these things are, indeed, horrifying.
Okay? Okay.
Here's another thing I'm going to say: I don't care to talk about these men as people. Like, yes, Moffatt keeps saying horrifically dumb/offensive things in interviews and RTD has said some not-so-great things in the past, too. Yes, I understand why it pisses you off so much (it pisses me off, too). But I'm talking about the texts they create here. I realize that who they are as people influences those texts, but I'm shoving authorial intent to the side here (yay for evolution of literary criticism) and going all reader response on you. So I'd appreciate it if nobody brings up anything they've said/done outside the text up in the comments, okay? Also, I'm not touching on Sherlock (or any other shows) here. Just Doctor Who. Only Doctor Who. Okay?
So here's my big statement:
Whether you like one era or another is largely subjective. Yes, yes, that's right! You heard me! SUBJECTIVE.
When you watch the show, you have a subjective, personal, almost visceral reaction to it. You may deeply connect to RTD's way of storytelling, or maybe Moffat's works better for you (I'm not talking here to the people who like both--hi,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
elisi!--or don't like either one). There's probably all sorts of reasons for your reactions: personal experience, personality, kinks, etc. And it's totally 100% okay fine to like one and not like the other.
The problem becomes when you act like one is objectively better than the other, especially especially especially when you connect this to some kind of morality (and yes, feminism is morality).
For instance. Moffat has been getting a lot of hate since S6 started airing (he got hate before that, too, but it's been really intense this past series). Like, a lot a lot of hate. It's honestly gotten to the point that I don't like to talk about how much I've enjoyed his era because nearly everyone I know just hateshateshates his work.
AND THAT'S FINE. You can hate it! That is okay! There are things to hate! I understand why it bothers you that Amy's agency and story were dropped so hard this season. I understand why it bothers you that the character of River has been constructed so that she is all about a man and not about her own awesomeness. I have no problems with this bothering you.
But please understand: just because you hate a given era doesn't mean that everyone does. And just because someone else doesn't hate that era doesn't mean that they are ignoring the problematic elements (although that does sometimes happen. I'm not talking about that). It just (often) means that the good aspects outweigh the bad for them. AND THAT IS OKAY.
I'm gonna go all personal here for a second. On a most basic level, I just like the kind of world that Moffat creates better than I do RTD. When I'm watching a Moffat-eta episode, there's a kind of delight that I feel that RTD's stuff doesn't stir in me. WHICH DOESN'T MEAN I don't like a lot of RTD's stuff (I think "Midnight," for instance, is genuis, plus: bonus Lesley Sharpe! I madly love Martha and Donna and I'm quite fond of Rose. Yay for Mickey! Etc.). It just means that Moffat's world appeals to me more. That's all that it means. We could talk all day about why that is (reader response!) but that's really neither here nor there for this discussion, so I'll move on.
On a deeper level, I find the things that RTD did to his female characters so, so, so much more disturbing and horrifying than I do the things that Moffat does to his. Having Ten pridefully destroy Harriett Jones, not really taking Ten to task for his treatment of Martha (ALL OF TIME AND SPACE AND YOU PICK A PLACE WHERE HER ONLY OPTION IS TO BE A SERVANT?), Ten's absolute and total violation of Donna's will and bodily/mental autonomy, PLUS the fact that RTD as a writer put these women in these situations to begin with--these sicken me. I have a very hard time enjoying Ten's era now, because when I watch him, I think of what he does to Donna. It's really pretty much ruined my enjoyment of Ten as a character and RTD's entire era. This despite my mad love for Martha and Donna, etc.
But look. I recognize that my reactions have so, so much to do with who I am as a person. For instance, I struggle so much with brain-wiping Donna because A) having my mind violated is my worst nightmare--literally the worst thing I can think of, and B) lose of memories is a very emotional topic for me because of my grandmama's Alzheimer's. And I can admit this.
On the other hand, the (legitimate) things people complain about re: depictions of gender in Moffat's era...just don't hit me on a visceral level the way the ones in RTD's era do. I can understand why they bother other people so much, but I just am not as bothered as many people are.
So the whole thing becomes even more complicated when those two levels start interacting together because: we are more likely to cut slack for people/writers/shows/stories that we like than we are to show mercy towards people/writers/shows/stories we don't.
Like, if you're going to argue that these things aren't problematic, I do not have time for you because in that case, you pretty much are objectively wrong. But if you recognize that those things are problematic, but you also admit that they just don't bother you as much as they do me--moreover, that they don't bother you as much as some of what Moffat writes does--then we're okay.
So when people try to compare these two writers and make objective statements about one being worse/better than the other, I think there are two things going on:
1. As I said above, we are more likely to cut slack for people/writers/shows/stories that we like than we are to show mercy towards people/writers/shows/stories we don't. So the people who really like RTD are trying to find all these ~objective~ reasons why he is superior. And a lot of them are appealing to the morality of feminism. But what they're doing when they do this is that they're ignoring that there are loads of reasons why RTD is problematic, too. And since we don't play Oppression Olympics (or shouldn't), the idea of comparing them objectively is...well, it's dumb, but it also just doesn't work.
2. Different moral violations/problematic things/etc. bother different people in different amounts/ways. As I said above, the things RTD does to his female characters bother me more than the things that Moffat does to his. And even if I didn't prefer Moffat's kind of storytelling (which, for the most part, I do), this would still be the case.
These two things interact in complicated ways. Please acknowledge this. And pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease quit acting like one guy is objectively superior to the other. And also please stop acting as though other people who enjoy the things whose problematic aspects most bother you are wrong or morally bankrupt in some way. Because it isn't true, and it's immature to act like it is. Part of being a grownup in fandom is recognizing that just because something is problematic doesn't mean that the people who enjoy that thing (particularly the people who ACKNOWLEDGE that it's problematic and like it anyway) are wrong/evil/terrible people. Let's have a little bit more maturity than that, can we please?
I am the most long-winded person ever. I cannot write in linear ways. I am never even remotely coherent. And I say everything using the most words possible. Why do you people put up with me? I will never know.
Let's talk about Russell T. Davies and Steve Moffat! YAY! *gag*
For those of you who don't know (although if you don't, I don't think your fandom osmosis is working very well; you should probably look into that), they are the two guys who have been showrunners for the new version of Doctor Who.
Let's get a few things out of the way first.
1) Both of these guys are very talented writers.
2) Both of these guys have weaknesses as writers.
3) Both of them write some things that are horrifying, especially when viewed from a feminist perspective, and often the text doesn't acknowledge that these things are, indeed, horrifying.
Okay? Okay.
Here's another thing I'm going to say: I don't care to talk about these men as people. Like, yes, Moffatt keeps saying horrifically dumb/offensive things in interviews and RTD has said some not-so-great things in the past, too. Yes, I understand why it pisses you off so much (it pisses me off, too). But I'm talking about the texts they create here. I realize that who they are as people influences those texts, but I'm shoving authorial intent to the side here (yay for evolution of literary criticism) and going all reader response on you. So I'd appreciate it if nobody brings up anything they've said/done outside the text up in the comments, okay? Also, I'm not touching on Sherlock (or any other shows) here. Just Doctor Who. Only Doctor Who. Okay?
So here's my big statement:
Whether you like one era or another is largely subjective. Yes, yes, that's right! You heard me! SUBJECTIVE.
When you watch the show, you have a subjective, personal, almost visceral reaction to it. You may deeply connect to RTD's way of storytelling, or maybe Moffat's works better for you (I'm not talking here to the people who like both--hi,
elisi!--or don't like either one). There's probably all sorts of reasons for your reactions: personal experience, personality, kinks, etc. And it's totally 100% okay fine to like one and not like the other. The problem becomes when you act like one is objectively better than the other, especially especially especially when you connect this to some kind of morality (and yes, feminism is morality).
For instance. Moffat has been getting a lot of hate since S6 started airing (he got hate before that, too, but it's been really intense this past series). Like, a lot a lot of hate. It's honestly gotten to the point that I don't like to talk about how much I've enjoyed his era because nearly everyone I know just hateshateshates his work.
AND THAT'S FINE. You can hate it! That is okay! There are things to hate! I understand why it bothers you that Amy's agency and story were dropped so hard this season. I understand why it bothers you that the character of River has been constructed so that she is all about a man and not about her own awesomeness. I have no problems with this bothering you.
But please understand: just because you hate a given era doesn't mean that everyone does. And just because someone else doesn't hate that era doesn't mean that they are ignoring the problematic elements (although that does sometimes happen. I'm not talking about that). It just (often) means that the good aspects outweigh the bad for them. AND THAT IS OKAY.
I'm gonna go all personal here for a second. On a most basic level, I just like the kind of world that Moffat creates better than I do RTD. When I'm watching a Moffat-eta episode, there's a kind of delight that I feel that RTD's stuff doesn't stir in me. WHICH DOESN'T MEAN I don't like a lot of RTD's stuff (I think "Midnight," for instance, is genuis, plus: bonus Lesley Sharpe! I madly love Martha and Donna and I'm quite fond of Rose. Yay for Mickey! Etc.). It just means that Moffat's world appeals to me more. That's all that it means. We could talk all day about why that is (reader response!) but that's really neither here nor there for this discussion, so I'll move on.
On a deeper level, I find the things that RTD did to his female characters so, so, so much more disturbing and horrifying than I do the things that Moffat does to his. Having Ten pridefully destroy Harriett Jones, not really taking Ten to task for his treatment of Martha (ALL OF TIME AND SPACE AND YOU PICK A PLACE WHERE HER ONLY OPTION IS TO BE A SERVANT?), Ten's absolute and total violation of Donna's will and bodily/mental autonomy, PLUS the fact that RTD as a writer put these women in these situations to begin with--these sicken me. I have a very hard time enjoying Ten's era now, because when I watch him, I think of what he does to Donna. It's really pretty much ruined my enjoyment of Ten as a character and RTD's entire era. This despite my mad love for Martha and Donna, etc.
But look. I recognize that my reactions have so, so much to do with who I am as a person. For instance, I struggle so much with brain-wiping Donna because A) having my mind violated is my worst nightmare--literally the worst thing I can think of, and B) lose of memories is a very emotional topic for me because of my grandmama's Alzheimer's. And I can admit this.
On the other hand, the (legitimate) things people complain about re: depictions of gender in Moffat's era...just don't hit me on a visceral level the way the ones in RTD's era do. I can understand why they bother other people so much, but I just am not as bothered as many people are.
So the whole thing becomes even more complicated when those two levels start interacting together because: we are more likely to cut slack for people/writers/shows/stories that we like than we are to show mercy towards people/writers/shows/stories we don't.
Like, if you're going to argue that these things aren't problematic, I do not have time for you because in that case, you pretty much are objectively wrong. But if you recognize that those things are problematic, but you also admit that they just don't bother you as much as they do me--moreover, that they don't bother you as much as some of what Moffat writes does--then we're okay.
So when people try to compare these two writers and make objective statements about one being worse/better than the other, I think there are two things going on:
1. As I said above, we are more likely to cut slack for people/writers/shows/stories that we like than we are to show mercy towards people/writers/shows/stories we don't. So the people who really like RTD are trying to find all these ~objective~ reasons why he is superior. And a lot of them are appealing to the morality of feminism. But what they're doing when they do this is that they're ignoring that there are loads of reasons why RTD is problematic, too. And since we don't play Oppression Olympics (or shouldn't), the idea of comparing them objectively is...well, it's dumb, but it also just doesn't work.
2. Different moral violations/problematic things/etc. bother different people in different amounts/ways. As I said above, the things RTD does to his female characters bother me more than the things that Moffat does to his. And even if I didn't prefer Moffat's kind of storytelling (which, for the most part, I do), this would still be the case.
These two things interact in complicated ways. Please acknowledge this. And pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease quit acting like one guy is objectively superior to the other. And also please stop acting as though other people who enjoy the things whose problematic aspects most bother you are wrong or morally bankrupt in some way. Because it isn't true, and it's immature to act like it is. Part of being a grownup in fandom is recognizing that just because something is problematic doesn't mean that the people who enjoy that thing (particularly the people who ACKNOWLEDGE that it's problematic and like it anyway) are wrong/evil/terrible people. Let's have a little bit more maturity than that, can we please?
I am the most long-winded person ever. I cannot write in linear ways. I am never even remotely coherent. And I say everything using the most words possible. Why do you people put up with me? I will never know.