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]

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...")