SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!

[apple_pathways]

I need to just back away from the internets tonight. Everywhere I turn, someone is Wrong and Needs to Be Told.

For one thing, I need to stay away from anon memes. It's all fun and games when it's LOLcats and "Which Doctor would you shag?", but then someone has to go and say Amy Pond has poor characterization. I mean...what? Of all the criticisms I've heard of Series 5 in general and Amy in particular, poor characterization? What? What? You keep using that word: I do not think it means what you think it means.

Also: people are allowed to enjoy whatever television programs they want, right?

*sigh* I have started, and then (wisely) backed away from so many replies tonight...

Comments

[evilhippo.livejournal.com]

::pats:: This is entirely why I avoid anonmemes. And that "poor characterization" complaint is one that I see get levelled against every female character that someone somewhere doesn't entirely understand the motivations of. It... has given me a lot of headaches, it has. Just like people who claim that any event in a story that they predicted means lazy writing on the part of the author.

But, more importantly: No, people are not allowed to enjoy whatever they want. There is a predetermined list, and straying from said list is discouraged and also dangerous. (-;

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

I know, but the Doctor Who anonmeme is usually much less controversial! It's usually so lovey-dovey... The biggest arguments involve Torchwood, a show I don't even watch.

I am so tired of the debates about RTD vs. The Moff's "writing". Undoubtedly, they both have different styles, and each has his strengths and weaknesses. However, I've yet to see a discussion of their merits without a thinly-veiled subtext of "I'm a 10/Rose shipper" vs. "I'd like to lick Matt Smith's neck".

No, people are not allowed to enjoy whatever they want. There is a predetermined list, and straying from said list is discouraged and also dangerous.

I warn you: it is dangerous to encourage this side of me! (I'm just going to pretend that little wink at the end isn't there, and that you are un-ironically giving me carte blanche to judge and demean anyone whose tastes differ from my own!)

[stick-poker.livejournal.com]

However, I've yet to see a discussion of their merits without a thinly-veiled subtext of "I'm a 10/Rose shipper" vs. "I'd like to lick Matt Smith's neck".

Perhaps not entirely true; I think there are some people who are looking at the bigger picture. But damn funny anyway.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

No, you're right: that comment was made when I still in sulking mode! There are definitely people who are able to discuss the writing of the show without any overt bias, but most of the public discussions I've seen have rather quickly devolved into defensive bashing. I might just be hanging out in the wrong places.

I know evilhippo and I have had plenty of discussions of what we like and dislike about each showrunner's writing, but then we tend to be on the same page about it.

ETA: Oh, and for the record: I want to lick Matt Smith's neck.

And do unspeakable things to/with Arthur Darvill and Karen Gillan as well.

But I try to put those facts aside when discussing the artistic merits of the show. :P

[stick-poker.livejournal.com]

*joins the 'I want to lick Matt Smith's neck' club*

Arguably the meme isn't the place for serious conversations about writing styles, anyway, or at least there are some people who think it shouldn't be and would rather turn things into a shipwar for the lulz.

[jinxed-wood.livejournal.com]

I know, but the Doctor Who anonmeme is usually much less controversial! It's usually so lovey-dovey...

...and I'm guessing you missed the Martha V Rose wars, because they just got nasty.

I actually thought Amy was an extremely well realised character, and I'm very fond of River too - but then again, my first brush with a companion was Romana, whom I adored, so maybe I just imprinted on kickass, opinionated companions...or something...

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

...and I'm guessing you missed the Martha V Rose wars, because they just got nasty.

Undoubtedly, I did. I'm actually pretty good at avoiding drama. I have no taste for it, even as a spectator, and those endless threads of back and forth bile are difficult to follow.

I'll just say: I can imagine!

I'm actually making icons of all the women of Who for this comm: halfamoon! I really, really need to get down to watching some Classic Who!

[evilhippo.livejournal.com]

I actually went off on a huge tangent a while back about RTD vs. The Moff styles, but the subtext was "I think RTD was crazy and the Moff is too serious." And then, today, I had this whole meta response brewing in my head about how each of them developed characters but... most of it's been covered in the other comments, so I can save time and pare the whole thing down to what really interests me:

The way I see it, Moffat is often writing either a critique of or an homage to RTD's opening season. Amy is, in a lot of ways, Rose's opposite. Rose is small, blonde, a city girl with a crappy job and low social standing but who's dedicated and has a lot of heart. Amy's big, ginger, a rural girl with a series of self-inflicted crappy jobs who everyone in town knows and loves (to an extent), but she's a bit of a rogue and keeps her heart as far from her sleeve as possible. And that's without even going into their individual "save the universe through magic rewriting of matter itself!" story arcs. Then there are their boyfriends, and their treatment of them in relation to the Doctor. And their relationship with the Doctor, and what it's meant to say about the Doctor (because in a lot of ways, how they relate to the Doctor is more about characterizing him than it is them)... but anyway, I could go on and on about this forever.

So, even aside from the differences in taste between people who prefer the RTD-style open-book characters versus those who prefer Moff's standard hidden-depths characters (and it's probably worth pointing out that you often can't even look in the same places for characterization between the two writers--which might be throwing a percentage of people off as well)... with Amy and Rose you end up with two characters that are pretty much undeniably similar in scope and purpose, but with almost opposite execution. So people who like one are unlikely to appreciate the other.

I'm still irked by the misuse of the word "characterization" to mean "character" though.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

I'm still irked by the misuse of the word "characterization" to mean "character" though.

And that's what got my knickers in a twist in the first place! It doesn't bother me when people say they dislike a certain character, because people have different tastes and I can accept that. (I can, I promise: I've been practicing! :P) But when someone cites "poor characterization" 1. they're often using the word incorrectly and 2. they're implying objective standards that elevate their opinion over those that differ.

I'd like to disprove your Amy/Rose dichotomy theory (I do so love to be contrary), but: eh, I'm not a Rose fan. I'm far too like Amy. :P

(because in a lot of ways, how they relate to the Doctor is more about characterizing him than it is them)

That's a good point, and also probably coloring a lot of perceptions of the companions: do you prefer a sexy, boyfriend Doctor or a bumbling granddad Doctor? (I prefer that latter, which makes my attraction to him all the more confusing...)

[evilhippo.livejournal.com]

It's all about bumbling granddad Doctor for me (as just about anyone would predict after about five minutes of knowing me). (-;

But really, this is kind of more in response to your most recent entry... I kind of wonder if part of the "problem" with Amy isn't so much that she's sexualized in the media surrounding the show (and by creepy old Moffat), but that she's openly sexual within the show's universe. There are a lot of people who hold the short skirts up as "ewww, they're sexualizing the companion" like the skirts are there for our benefit. The way I read "sexualization" (in the context of people complaining about it, at least) is that it involves dressing a character up purely for the benefit of the audience, and that's not what happened here (whether it was intended that way or not is another matter and I'll ignore that for now). The skirts were/are obviously Amy's choice*, and it actually lends her character to this actually honest existence, where she's a girl who dresses up a certain way because she wants what comes with it. She's not the random sexy-yet-innocent girl you see so bloody much of. And I think that's one of the best things Amy has going for her. And Moffat, as a guy, kind of took a risk in writing her that way, because people do look at it as him projecting his ideals on the companion (and goshdarnit he doesn't help and sometimes comes close to ruining all of my idealized theories, but I'm a big fan of cognitive dissonance anyway). For people who prefer their one-sided Doctor-fancying to be oh-so-pure**, though, Amy is just not going to cut it.

* Sorry
** Actually, interesting inversion here: Rory is the one with the fairy tale "pure heart," pining quietly after someone usually unattainable. I wonder if the people who dislike Amy but like Rory (are there any of those?) are the same people who prefer Rose? Is it about the love-is-pure sort of relationships, or is it about RTD's writing, or... something else entirely?

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

Ok, see...this. THIS is why I should just stay here on my own damn journal to have the discussions I want, and not bother with these stupid anon memes!

The problem is, the easiest way to bait me into an extended argument is to willfully(?) misunderstand what I'm saying, put words in my mouth, and ignore the points I bring up.

What you said about Amy's sexuality is spot-on! (And you said it much eloquently/intelligently than I was being over there...) And it's interesting to compare her to Rory, who does take the traditionally 'feminine' role in many of the scenarios. And despite how much I hate the way Moffat talks about relationships between men and women, this dynamic between Amy and Rory doesn't come across as heavy-handed or superficial to me.

The way I read "sexualization" (in the context of people complaining about it, at least) is that it involves dressing a character up purely for the benefit of the audience, and that's not what happened here (whether it was intended that way or not is another matter and I'll ignore that for now).

And this--this sentence--is why I love talking about things with you. It's the nuances of a discussion most people miss: what context are we putting this in? What definition of the term are we using? How is something intended vs. how it's perceived? (Am I right in thinking that this quality of thoroughness that I so highly prize in myself and others is exactly what makes most of my friends roll their eyes and sigh whenever I get started in on a topic?)

[evilhippo.livejournal.com]

But anon memes and other irrational parts of the internet are great for spurring these kinds of discussions! (Not that I'm encouraging you to keep injuring your brain with them, but some good has come of it. (-;)

I am notorious for backing arguments all the way up to their definitions. I think I picked it up from one of my classes, which (while not really named such) turned into a class on Shakespeare and the OED. We were encouraged to pick up and drag anything we felt like back to the dictionary and flog it. (I wrote an entire paper on a switch from "the" to "this" in a line from one folio version of King Lear to the next. It still stands as one of my favorite classes ever). I think it's fun but... yeah, most people don't. It's the sort of thing that a lot of people inevitably complain about after taking a cinema appreciation class or something, saying it takes all the "fun" out of enjoying things... like it's a miserable existence to have to think about why you do or do not enjoy something (and to admit that it's not always the author's fault that you don't like it). (-; But I'm beyond help this point, so I have no choice but to enjoy putting things in different contexts to see how they fit. And I can't help that Moffat vs. the fans on companions is a fantastic jungle of intention vs. perception vs. perception of intention vs. intention of perception. ^_^

(My friends roll their eyes and sigh at me, too. Also they've started phrasing their questions as to whether I like a show or something very carefully to keep me from noting and explaining its "issues" as well. My typical endorsement of a show is "Yeah, it's a lot of fun and you should totally watch it, but watch out for...")

[ravelled-ribbon.livejournal.com]

Screw female charactors they don't understand the motivation of and add onto it female charactors whom they dislike or whose motivation is overly deep or unsual.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

I keep trying to find more complex ways to agree with you, but I'll just say: WORD. And welcome to the team. ;)

[wldcatsprstr-14.livejournal.com]

I personally think that Amy's character is poorly developed but you're right, one should stay FAR from Doctor Who threads if you wanna avoid wank. It always ends in headaches.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

I have to disagree that she's "poorly-developed". Amy is definitely a character who plays her cards close to her vest: she keeps things on the inside and isn't overly-emotive. We don't know all there is to know about her: she's not a character you can get to know so quickly and easily.

However, that's different from her being poorly-developed: it's not that the depths aren't there; they're just below the surface. And we've gotten more than a hint of their existence: Amy's had at least a dozen vulnerable moments where the facade has dropped, and we've glimpsed the scared little girl inside.

[wldcatsprstr-14.livejournal.com]

I definitely must have missed all of that then.

But then, that's how I feel about River. So I guess it just works out differently for some.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

Are you Pro or Anti-River?

I have a lot of bones to pick with the way she's written, but dammit, I love her nonetheless!

[wldcatsprstr-14.livejournal.com]

I'm pro-River and I hear a ton of people trash her for being a shallow, stock character of the Mary Sue variety while simultaneously defending Amy for having depth that everyone is just failing to see/acknowledge. So that's why I said that it works out differently for some.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

We've definitely seen a lot less of the inner workings of River Song, but that's part of what I like about her: the mystery. I like characters with hidden depths.

Though I think she's a kickass character, there are aspects of the way Moff writes her that I don't like: I could do with fewer catchphrases, for instance! All in all, I like that she kicks ass: I would like for fandom to allow a female character to kick ass and hold her own with the boys without immediately crying, "Mary Sue"!

[wldcatsprstr-14.livejournal.com]

I would like for fandom to allow a female character to kick ass and hold her own with the boys without immediately crying, "Mary Sue"!

Tell me about it! They bash Rose for crying so much, being useless, and always screaming "Doctor!" (which isn't true at all. I just re-watched all her episodes and she takes matters into her own hands more than any other companion in New!Who) but then they bash River for actually being awesome and competent on her own. It's so frustrating.

[ladylovelace.livejournal.com]

It's a hard lesson to learn, not correcting people on the Internet. Should you figure out the secret to it, would you mind telling me as well?

Also, I would point out that Amy's internal characterisation is practically flawless. To the point of being fairly predictable (at least, she was to me. Rory was the one who surprised me). So that is just a weird statement to my mind.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

THANK YOU!

Also: thank you for acknowledging that predictability is a sign of good characterization. ("Good" meaning "fully-realized" rather than a value judgment as to its merit. You can still dislike Amy's characterization while acknowledging she's a fully fleshed-out character.)

As much as I love Rory, to me he's the one who's lacking in characterization; that's why his actions are so surprising. We don't know enough about him and his personality to predict what he's going to do.

Of course, it makes sense he's less fleshed-out than Amy: this series was about her. I'm hoping to find out more about him in Series 6.

Oh, as for not correcting people on the internet: I spend a lot of time staring at that little white reply box and the words I've written inside it. The inner battle between "delete and move on with your life" and "hit send and let 'em know what's what!" is an epic struggle. One I still occasionally lose. :P ('Picking my battles' is a skill in constant cultivation.)

[faery-fall.livejournal.com]

It takes a lot of effort on my part to admit that Amy Pond is characterized at all, because it means I just don't like her/do not find her interesting. But I do think she's far from basically every RTD-era season-spanning companion in terms of character depth/development because I feel like I still don't know who she is and what she's about. There's something about her actions & dialogue that seems very... surface, and I can so rarely find a pinhole through which to see ~the Inner Amy,~ assuming there is one. :(

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

Disliking Amy is fine! What bothers me is this:

Saying: "I don't like Amy" implies a personal judgment belonging to the speaker.

Saying: "Amy is badly characterized/ poorly written" implies an objective evaluation of the character's merit; which in turn implies that people who disagree are objectively wrong.

Which, you know, is a fine argument to make: if they can make it. But that sort of statement requires different evidence than if they'd said they didn't like her.

I would agree that a lot of Amy's speech and actions (especially at the beginning) are very 'surface' and superficial; however, I would disagree that we don't get a peek at what's inside. I can find dozens of examples where we've seen the "inner Amy". The sadness of little Amelia when she admits she doesn't have a Mum and Dad; when grown-up Amelia shouts, "Why did you say 5 minutes?"; the heart-broken look on her face when he leaves without her yet again. And those are all from the first episode. No, they're not big emotive speeches where she spells out her inner workings; but then, it's not in her character to do that.

[creativeaminot.livejournal.com]

I see Amy being attacked along with every other female character by Moffat far too often, and I don't really understand why. They all have their moments of insecurity, as well as having in-your-face/stubborn/you're wearing a bowtie moments. So what if Amy wears miniskirts, honestly if I were that tall and had that gorgeous hair, I would too. Watching Amy slowly break down after Rory 'left' was a huge development in her character for me.

I'm still a fan of RTD's companions, but I sort of connect with Amy more. Granted, I consider Liz Lemon from 30 Rock to be one of my female fictional heroes, so there could be something wrong with me.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

I completely connect with Amy! I'm very much the "bold and brash on the surface, keep my inner feelings carefully hidden" sort. And I also find myself very poorly understood. :P

I think that's the crux of this argument: not connecting with Amy's emotional development doesn't mean it isn't there.

[creativeaminot.livejournal.com]

:).

And in that case, there's a reason to go with why Amy never showed much emotion to begin with; the crack took everyone from her. She had to build a wall to protect herself from being hurt again and again. Rory was just the tipping point.

I wonder how Amy will be now with her adorkable parents and other family friends. I'm so excited for S6.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

Oh, I am SO EXCITE words cannot express! I have been eating up all the filming pictures that have surfaced recently. There's so much I want them to explore: I'm trying not to make my list of demands too long, in case I end up disappointed. :P

[creativeaminot.livejournal.com]

Same here! Blogtor Who is ever so addicting. Do we have an official start date yet?

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

I have no idea! All I know is that it isn't now and it needs to be!!!

[be-themoon.livejournal.com]

Annnnnd that is why anonmemes are something I avoid like the PLAGUE. Actually, I don't really go anywhere in Doctor Who fandom except my flist because I've just seen so many nasty things said about her. :(

I tried arguing for a while, but found it didn't get me anywhere and just made me want to beat my head against the wall. So now I just talk about how awesome she is with my flist!

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

I don't usually have that big of a problem with anonmemes. I'm not easily offended, and I have no taste for drama, so I tend to just skip over the big wanky threads. (What do I read there then? Fic recs, news about other comms--it's how I found out about halfamoon! And basically everything that isn't bickering back and forth.)

I don't actually talk much about fandom stuff in my journal! I tend to do most of my squeeing over at doctoreleven. That place is FANTASTIC for the positive vibes! :D

[jacknjill270.livejournal.com]

Oh man, anonmemes. They always seem to end in ship wars or RTD vs The Moff or something similar so I try to avoid them. Also every time I hear someone say that Rose was too clingy my first thought is BITCH I WILL CUT YOU so I'd probably only make it worse, lol.

I'm the first to admit that Amy is not my favorite companion- though I like her well enough, except for when she threw herself at the Doctor the night before her wedding. DNW. So I can kind of see where the people who say that Amy doesn't have much characterization come from, though I think they're mistaking someone who doesn't let their emotions show for someone who doesn't have any emotions at all. Like you pointed out already, there are scenes where you see behind the front she puts up. Maybe fandom has gotten used to the RTD-era companions, who were all much more open about how they felt.

What I don't get is why Amy and River (who is a total badass, I don't care what anyone says) get all of the "poor characterization" comments and not Rory. He's basically S1!Mickey, except not as cute. :) Though of course that's my personal preferences talking.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

He's basically S1!Mickey, except not as cute. :)

Now THAT is something that's gonna get you cut on this journal! :P :P :P

No, kidding, I get it: different strokes, different folks and all. I agree that Rory is lacking in the characterization department, but as I said to someone else: this last season was about Amy! I really hope we get to know more about Rory in the new season! (Before you ask, I've always had a thing for skinny geeks. And big noses! So sue me...) ;)

I don't feel the need to bring it up very often, but I did not enjoy the relationship between Rose and the Doctor. I don't bring it up because it's a powder keg. I realize that other people have been obnoxious about her before, but I just didn't enjoy it when she and the Doctor were making goo-goo eyes at each other. And it's not a value judgment on the people who enjoyed it: I've just never been one to enjoy overt romance. I like things more subtle and complicated. (Boring, some would say, but they can BUGGER OFF! :P)

Maybe fandom has gotten used to the RTD-era companions, who were all much more open about how they felt.

I think a lot of people just really loved David's Doctor, or Rose, or really any of the characters that came before, and they're disappointed that they're gone. Which is fine, and perfectly reasonable: but why do they have to stomp all over everyone else's good time and insist that people who think different are somehow "doing it wrong"?

[jacknjill270.livejournal.com]

Oh, I totally have a thing for skinny geeks, too! I just think Noel Clarke is gorgeous. :)

Yeah, I get why Rory didn't get a lot of characterization this past season, and I hope we will now that he's a full companion. And River! That's what I'm most hoping for this season, is that we finally get to know a bit more about her.

Rose and the Doctor's relationship is TOTALLY a powder keg. Which is sad, because really, what does it matter? People are so convinced that everyone has to think exactly the same as them, even with things as silly as ships for a tv show, and anyone who doesn't is SO WRONG OMG.

but why do they have to stomp all over everyone else's good time and insist that people who think different are somehow "doing it wrong"?

Couldn't have said it better myself. :)

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

Noel Clarke is a very handsome man! I wasn't attracted to him at all as Mickey, so when I first saw him outside the show I was all dayum!

I am nervous/excited for more River backstory. I feel like I've built it up in my head so much, that if it's anything less than sheer genius, I will be disappointed. I am really appreciative, though, that we have been promised an answer! I hate it when shows are all about sustaining the mystery indefinitely, and never get around to providing an answer.

[curlybeach.livejournal.com]

Oh man, I have been having SERIOUS issues with Internet restraint of late. While it is flawed, I have a great fondness for the UK's Guardian newspaper (ah, I am a misty-eyed lefty in so many ways ...), but the comments sections are always trolling idiots just looking for a rise from commenters by posting offensive and provoking dribble about issues like rape, abortion, race, etc. Thing is, I know they're trolling, but ugh I get so angry and draft comments back before realising there really are better things to do than to get tangled up in a debate, which is just what they want in the first place. But WHYYYY can I not just ignore it?! Sigh.

(hello, by the way - I've been internet-absent for a while so I apologise for the many backdated comments!)

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

No worries! Hello to you. :D

The truly obvious trolls I'm usually able to avoid--it's the ones that make a pretense at rational discussion that always suck me in! I start off thinking, "Now, here's an interesting discussion I could have..." and then BAM! Here comes the vitriol and bile...

I draft so many comments that I just end up backspacing on! It's just not worth getting sucked in.