Some more Doctor Who analysis: "I dun care who loves who as long as it doesn't violate continuity."

[timepiececlock]

rynne posted thoughts on why RTD & crew's view of the theme of lonely messiah doesn't mesh with her idea of what DW is about. She talks about season 4 spoilers in depth, and about the character from the "Silence In The Library" two-parter. I gave a long reply and I wanted to post it here.

The Lonely God?

I agree with rynne about not liking the "DW must be the lonely god, alone, isolated and miserable" philosophy that the crew and writers talked about heavily in the 4x13 Confidential. I get that this was a strong part of the first few seasons of New Who, and I even think it worked very well with the plot of his planet being destroyed. But I never thought it was supposed to be forever... I thought he was supposed to be healed by people like Rose and Martha and Jack and Donna. I would have liked to see that healing happen...I thought it was happening. Until the very end of this season, I honestly thought that's what Donna was there for. She could make him better, but he wouldn't be as dependent on her as he was on Rose, so the eventual loss would be okay. She could travel with him for a season or two, leave amicably, and the Doctor wouldn't be quite so destroyed at the season finale. Each season finale has left the Doctor more and more successively miserable, this fourth season being the worst because of the double-loss of Rose AND the new best mate in Donna. I think a season finale can still be exciting without ripping your heart out and kicking it into a rain gutter. The Doctor's been lonely for a while, but it's not a fundamental part of Doctor Who that he be lonely forever.


River/Doctor vs. Rose/Doctor

First, and completely separately from the discussion below, I want to address something I've seen mentioned by a few Rose/Doctor fans about River's character and potential future romance with the Doctor. Namely, the idea that he would somehow be with her in the future "out of obligation" to "maintain the paradox" and, the worst, because "he felt sorry for her dying." Granted, only a few--less than five--- people have said that where I read it, but still. OMG people. That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It diminishes all the characters involved, it makes no sense with the plot proposed or with the Doctor's character development, and mostly, it's stupid. I hope this is a very small minority opinion in the fandom because it's far, far cry from how I see the Doctor, River, Rose, or any of the relationships therein. And on top of that: why diminish the future potential love story there? It's not in competition with the Doctor's love for Rose. THE DOCTOR LOVES ROSE. We know it, it's canon, it's unarguable fact, whether all fans like it or not. And at this point, nothing can change the fact that one of the Doctor's regenerations chose to give up the TARDIS and live out a human lifetime with Rose. He could have traveled with himself, but he didn't-- he gave all that up for love. Not for domesticity or timebabies, for the chance to grow old with the woman he loves. However, that doesn't mean that the version of the Doctor who lost Rose won't love future companions, and it doesn't mean he won't find an equally romantic epic love with someone else in the future. I hope he does! Because love is a good thing. And if it's not a future romantic plotline but something quite different then that's even better because I think the show needs a long break from epic love anyway.



Moving on to my main thoughts: rynne's comments about River Song and fic speculation reminded me of how much I hope we don't see her character return, at least with David Tennant's tenth Doctor. I liked her story well enough (though it could have happened in season 5, after Rose's send-off, and it would have fit better), because it was an interesting concept. But what I liked about it was the idea that her Doctor was much much older than Ten is now, that we're looking at least one, maybe two or three regenerations down the line. Where maybe the Doctor, when he meets River Song for her first meeting, and when he "falls in love" (if that's what their relationship is), that because of his experience loving Rose he would do better and be wiser this time around... he would know enough to not push away love or keep the person he loves at a distance. He'd know not to waste time. The self-punishing reasons he'd had for holding back with Rose would be let go, and he'd be freer to love. That might not make a better tv show, but it'd make a healthier Doctor.

But if that happens in front of us on screen, then it will eventually go back to the same problem that Dr/Rose had in the framework of the show: the Doctor can't have a wife or a true love forever traveling with him. The writers went through a lot of hoops to give as much leeway as they could to the Dr/Rose romance, to make it as epic and TWU LUV as possible, and still keep the Doctor as a gypsy who never settles. They had to go to the extreme lengths of twinning him to end that story with as much of a happy ending as is plausible. So how would they make it work with River? And if there is a way to make the relationship work... why wouldn't they have tried that method with Rose's character? The Doctor's smart enough to think of it.

I worry about possibilities of River's return because I am concerned that they'll present the love story in such a way that it invalidates the enormous problems of structure and continuity that the Rose love story faced. If there is River/Doctor, I want it to have to address those same problems, and if it overcomes them, to overcome them in such a way that I'm not left wondering "Why didn't they do that a couple seasons ago? HELLO?"

I hope the River/Doctor romance happens far in the future, not on screen. I like that, because it means I can imagine the romance in such a way that it is in keeping with continuity and prior relationships that Nine and Ten have had with their companions, and older Doctors too. I do hope the Doctor finds love after Rose, but when he does I want it to be written right. I want it to be a compliment, rather than a competition, to his previous loves. And, a bit selfishly, I want it to be with an incarnation that didn't love Rose. That means not David Tennant.

The only way I can see it working within the framework and canon set up by the new who series and its limitations is that River cannot travel with the Doctor. The Doctor can't have a wife or a live-in lover during the show, but if she traveled briefly as a companion then they separated, that I could understand. It matches the Time Traveler's Wife-style diary from the library episode, and in fact would mimic the Clare/Henry relationship in the book, that way. The Doctor could pop in and out of River's life... she on a continuous timeline and him visiting her whenever. Although it's not terribly romantic, it does solve the conflict of her being with him forever like Rose wanted to be (and like he wanted Rose to be.) That's the only way I can see the relationship working... but, again, it's not very romantic, and it's hard to imagine that kind of "drop by whenever" love could lead to the intimacy which was suggested by her knowing his name.

Conclusions? I don't really have any conclusions, but I wish they'd done the River Song subplot after Rose's permanent departure, where it would have felt less awkward. If they ever bring her back, I hope they keep to the in-text canon remarks of him being older, and that the Doctor that falls in love with River (if that's what happens), isn't the same Doctor that lost Rose twice on the beach. I don't think that'd be healthy for him and I don't think it would make the show better to introduce a new true love plotline when it took four seasons to conclude the last one. The Doctor really needs a new friend far more than a new love interest right now.

Comments

[mswyrr]

Pollyanna stories are ones where everything is made to be neat and tidy and work out perfectly to the extent that you can feel the author forcing the characters to embrace each other and smile at the end. Dispollyanna is where you can feel the author forcing the story to make the characters suffersuffersufferr because s/he labors under the delusion that such things are Deeper and More Meaningfuller.

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

Ahh. That makes this episode a bit confusing, doesn't it? kinda does both for the different Doctors.

[mswyrr]

Hmmm. Good point.

Wow. RTD combined BOTH types of unsubtle writing in one forty-three minute episode!

Kid's got talent.

[cecily1010.livejournal.com]

A Polly/Dispollyanna! I like it. Makes me wonder if there's such a thing as a Mary/UnMarySue. A companion character (they are MarySues, right?) who we wouldn't like to be?

[mswyrr]

. Makes me wonder if there's such a thing as a Mary/UnMarySue. A companion character (they are MarySues, right?) who we wouldn't like to be?

The current series hasn't done it, but Five had quite a few non-Sue companions. One joined the TARDIS crew to assassinate him. Another had been trapped on board and wanted only to escape. The third was this irritating little openly chauvinist math genius who once bloody sided with the episode's villain.

I mean, these characters developed, but... DAMN. I wouldn't want to imagine being any of them.

[mswyrr]

...I think Mary Sues have to be a bit more astonishingly perfect to be true Sues. Companions are more like... positive identification figures?

third time's the charm

[mswyrr]

Adam! (Was that his name?) The one Nine and Rose picked up after Dalek and took on one trip and then dumped off with weird finger-snappy tech in his head.

He kind of fits the bill, don't you think?

[cecily1010.livejournal.com]

hmm ... I always thought a Sue is an "insert yourself here" character. The one that makes googly eyes at the hero :-)))
Judging from some of the scripts he wrote, I do think RTD fancies the Doctor a bit - ahem.

[mswyrr]

I think it's required for Sues and Stus that the character be extraordinarily privileged within the text--i.e. s/he can do no wrong; nobody questions him/her and if somebody does, it's because they're Wrong--otherwise, there becomes no genuine room for identification figures who are flawed and human yet live brighter lives than the audience gets to, which are a healthy part of good fiction.

Re: third time's the charm

[cecily1010.livejournal.com]

you're right - although Adam would be more of a Gary Stu, or non Gary Stu ..