Death in Heaven
Home › Forums › Episodes › The Twelfth Doctor › Death in Heaven
This topic contains 936 replies, has 106 voices, and was last updated by 
Dentarthurdent 2 years, 4 months ago.
-
AuthorPosts
-
13 March 2015 at 05:51 #38722
Anonymous @
“So if size doesn’t matter…”
bahaha.
It can be cup-a-souped- and ‘matrixed’ -like a snow dome. Everything tiny but real -a paperweight, like the little TARDIS in Flatline crab-crawling across the railway tracks. A great idea. One I must market immediately but…size doesn’t matter? That just won’t work!
13 March 2015 at 06:36 #38723@purofilion Yeah, the curve of bile is predictable. As for this odd “love” of Capaldi while dissing Moffat, IMO the haters know that Capaldi has been a huge success, so they cut Capaldi loose and concentrate on Moffat, out of envy, spite, and whatever other venom spikes their disgusting punch. I’m feeling a tad fragile right now, having got the news of Terry Pratchett’s death at the meager age (these days) at 66. This news inevitably loops back to my last visit to my husband whom I visited on Tuesday in a fine dementia facility half an hour from here, where the same horror of a disease is slowly (well, more rapidly recently) shutting down his beautiful, gentle, clever mind.
So I replied to FTW as my guy might have, with courtesy and truth, at least as I see it. But only that once. Luckily, I know this group now well enough that I trust that this hateful jackal will soon be seen off, his (or her) load of poison harmlessly discharged; so he’ll have nothing more from me (as in, of course, Do Not Feed The Troll).
Let me end with something just found in the latest issue of the New Yorker Magazine, the end of a short review of a book called “Why Acting Matters”, by David Thomson; though what the reviewer says goes equally for all the creative of crew of DW: “. . . our lives are filled with repetition as we play the same roles day after day, but watching [extraordinary actors] perform lets us imagine that another life is possible.” It isn’t, always; the the reminder is always welcome, and soothing, and healing.
13 March 2015 at 08:36 #38724I am so sorry for what is still a loss, dementia gives you that loss by the step -my dad actually passed away from this dreadful illness last December (part of an awful chain of events) but he went ‘well’ – he’d suffered in a home (also fine also caring) for little over a year and my mother took his death in a healthy way -whatever that is I’m not sure. But for it to be your partner?
No, I can’t imagine that and I can say little. There are other much wiser folk here who will and can do that. I hope there is still time for you see or notice a smile, a gesture of familiarity.
As usual you turn to true things in moments of difficulty (shame that a haven like this need be spoiled by a ‘spoiled child’) being graceful and gracious -this is a wise person in action and your quotation, was so very apt and true to me.
Adding bile to bile reminds me of that quote by Dr King: “the ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, returning violence with violence only multiplies violence adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.”
And in bad speech there is also violence I can see.
But yes, Terry Pratchett -many eyes will be a-tear over the next few weeks. What an enormous impact. Even with the little reading I have had of that ‘genre’, you’d have to be in a yawning hole not to notice.
Warmth to you -puro
13 March 2015 at 08:40 #38725apologies mods
in the need to reply to the above post I should have thought of moving it to the Pub or the Sofa, but it didn’t feel right there either.
13 March 2015 at 14:09 #38727@purofilion
More generally, if Moffat’s conception of ‘love’ is that keeping the promise is more important than feeling that chemical high of ‘being in love’ – then you can see why, for example, he’d be okay with Gareth Roberts’ story of Craig defeating cyber-programming in Closing Time.
Because part of the overwhelming emotion of new parenthood is a promise to keep your helpless little child safe. Craig may be worried sick that he can’t keep that promise (because the chemical-induced moment of ‘being overwhelmed with love for your child’ has gone) but in fact – it’s so important to him that it can overcome cyber-programming.
13 March 2015 at 16:37 #38728@purofilion
Wow you should check on the spite you got going on…and if i’m not wrong I can have an opinion as a human being aren’t I? And oh please lower the attitude a little bit, you are approaching it the same way that I do but you are a “Moffat lover”. I signed up here in order to discuss Doctor Who and see different point of views but if that’s the deal then i’m out (at least the others said something about it but didn’t make a personal attack). So good luck on your future and oh by the way I’m not a dude.
13 March 2015 at 18:56 #38730@purofilion Thanks, puro. Things could be a lot worse, but for the moment it’s not so bad . . . you just don’t expect a 45 year marriage to turn into something so different from what it’s been throughout. I remember a quote, not so many years ago, from David Cronenberg (I think — it was about his remake of “The Fly”, as I recall); he said that long love stories become monster stories in the end, when one partner turns into a sort of twisted stranger under the stresses of old age and its illness. It struck me as very hyperbolic at the time, but some of the Dementia stories you find on sites like Caring.com have made me re-think that opinion. I’m sorry to hear that your own family has had one of these drawn-out losses; it’s frightening, how common it’s becoming. On the other hand, so many lives are touched by dementia deaths nowadays that immediate sympathy and understanding are also common, and that is a help to those who trying to hold things together while the inevitable decline occurs.
@bluesqueakpip I remember a time when “love as a promise” was actually commonly assumed to be exactly what held families together — the promise of mutual support and protection between parents and the promise of a secure home for children to grow up in. The promises of marriage ceremonies are, after all, basically about that, not about the “chemical high” — which, after all, isn’t under rational control by the mind, so no mere promise can maintain it beyond its natural life-span. Maybe that understanding of/about love has been melted away by the prevalence of divorce? And the nearly total disappearance of any concept of personal honor and integrity, without which why bother keeping your promises anyway?
Funny, I’m thinking about how in so much of NuWho, the Doctor bonds with his companion and clearly wants to travel with them forever — but of course his “forever” is vast, compared to a normal human lifespan. By his nature, he’s not designed to grow old in loving company with anybody but another Time Lord — another person capable of turning dying into regenerating — but when you go through that, you don’t (normally) emerge as the “same” person emotionally, so it would be even harder (logically speaking) for a Time Lord to keep the *promise* of love than for humans because so much time and potential for growth — including growing apart — is likely to be involved.
Emotionally, the mismatched human/Time Lord time scales matter enormously. Even if, say, the existence of a second heart signifies a capacity for enduring emotional love of the hot-burning passionate type, humans very rarely have that kind of emotional staying power to offer in return even over 50 or 60 yrs, so . . . “growing old with”, even in human terms, generally either becomes “growing fed up with”, or else turns back into love as a promise — which is much closer to the kind of rooted, unwavering, passionate bond that Twelve shows for Clara: “we have each other’s backs”, regardless of who is or is not sleeping with or lusting after whom.
Whoo; what a tangled web . . . well, shallow talk about love isn’t really talk about love, in my book. But that’s just me . . . ?
14 March 2015 at 01:15 #38739@ichabod That is so very sad. I agree with @purofilion, it is the worst kind of loss, to watch a loved one disappear, from you and from himself as well. I’m very sorry for what you are going through; you seem to be moving through it with grace.
“Love as a promise” rings very true to me right now. My little family is going through a difficult time, not the worst kind of trouble, but the kind that means we have to keep reminding ourselves of all the ways in which we are still so fortunate. Number one on that list is that we really do have each other: like the sticks tied together, we can’t be bent or broken. We have reached half of your 45 years, and I hope that we will come through the remaining half with some of your wisdom!
Peace, Arbutus
14 March 2015 at 05:11 #38742no way, it’s not just you at all. With your long life and your shared love with your partner, I’d think you’d be experienced and well versed in love to truly identify it -and its lesser, shallow copies.
@bluesqueakpip @tenthdoctorftw
Spite checked! But did you want a proper dialogue about what @ichabod and @bluesqueakpip have discussed? Please don’t leave on my account. I apologise. This is a conferential forum which idealises well thought out expressions where imprimatur proceeds from cardinal assertions rather than boiling down an idea into its simplest form. If you have properly worked out theories I’d sincerely love to hear them.
I was allowing for this “If a man does not know what port he’s steering for, then no wind is useful to him”. An epigram summing up the situation from the on-looker. If posts are concomitant with an argumentative frame, then one should be prepared for a small indictment. To express without qualitative analysis causes the gift of the expression to be lost. You can’t alleviate a comment with more comments of an unsympathetic nature. Expression begins with dignity and my own response refused to participate in the festishisation of “Moffat is…” and “you’re a Moffat lover” or “this season had no point because Moffat needs to go”. It’s like “off with her head” because there’s no where or why. I confess to finding that annoying.
Moffat isn’t the only dude running the show -there are writers, directors and DPs. This was the point regarding the original nature of the programme: “too out there”. It’s had an industrious history of unusual producers .
Before I joined, I lurked! I read every page and learnt massive amounts about show-runners & plot points. I was happily surprised at the level of professional knowledge which invariably colours the interpreted word. I’d suggest you’d read Blue’s explanation about the power of love and its promise: it was not the notion of romantic love which “saved the day” but sacrifice. Remember when this 2-parter aired around Remembrance Day? If you read the last few pages of comments, all of this is explained worth the read.
Absolutely! The concept of ‘sticking around love’ different to the romantic confection of love of love itself? God, did I have a lot of those ‘moments’ which I swore up and down were true, unchanging* love.
When I found love, it was a slow burn -ephemeral and enigmatic (it’s still a mystery). I remember the vibe where “being in love” was predicated on something rather absurd. Whole marriages dissolved on the premise that one person lost the “adrenaline” high you referred to as a chemical rush.
It’s true that some partners check into marriage so they can change* their partner into a copy of themselves -trouble? -although Viktor Frankl discusses the nature of partnerships which require a look into the potential of another to re-create a different person as a consequence of this partnership: by being together, both don’t merge but change into, if you like, better people. I used to rear back when I read that. But over the years I can see a fundamental truth -certainly, not a situation for the dynamic of marriage alone -great friendships reveal similar tendencies as O. W. Holmes described.
I like the theory that TLs with two hearts are several people in one -almost hermaphroditic symbolism suggestive of the Persian idea of reincarnation during ‘the one life’ which changes the person as they age and mature not necessarily with a spouse but through social intercourse which positively modifies their behaviour and personality.
“Maybe that understanding of/about love has been melted away by the prevalence of divorce? And the nearly total disappearance of any concept of personal honor and integrity, without which why bother keeping your promises anyway?” How apt ichi. Actually on several levels, it suggests that our lives should stay on the tranquil, enlightened path of integrity. If so, what marvellous lives could be led? Where true love (not the stuff of cartoon movies, though) could literally make all of us The Doctor “stepping in, passing through.” A real heaven on earth where promises are a living enactment.
Isn’t it a truism that our best friends be wiser than us? That they show us towards integrity. Dante’s phrase: “I walked and found myself in a dark path because the correct path had been lost”.
To have friends who say “hey, watch this space, you’ll love it” (I’m thinking of mods like @jimthefish and members like @pedant -absent due to packing and moving – and @scaryb who 1st pointed me to the Buffyverse and my Oz mates and family).
Isn’t marriage fast becoming just The Wedding -a prequel to the Big Divorce? I’m stunned at how much (money, time, fabric!) is invested into the Great Day. On the idea of TLs and marriage, they might have had quite a different conception of its ‘length’? Life long? Regeneration Long? And did they use their real name only for that ‘service’
The idea of love as promise is so true in the case of the Doctor where he speaks of Clara’s betrayal. Such total connection -and also the obligation of that love which I think the Doctor acts upon? This implies that others might have a claim to our love. We’ve been born into networks of acknowledgement -do our lives belong equally to those who love us? I wonder whether this complex love has withered away with notions consonant with fidelity, institutions in villages, and honourable and autonomous individuals prepared to fight against recriminations and invective threatening to break relationships? Are we entrapped behind the provisional and overwhelming paraphernalia of ‘things’: weddings and vacations; honeymoons and acquisition?
@lisa and @barbaralefty much of what you’ve written over the past months reminds me of these concepts. When we erode our relationships, we erode ourselves. Real relationships are contingent upon learning about ourselves (a perilous thing) and knowing that, as we age, we fear being lost.
We and the Doctor both need love and obligation to steer us to the right ports. He may be an old man in a youthful body and we appear young to him: it’s a contrapuntal arrangement, ascending according to needs and the periphery of circumstance. With the fetishisation of youthfulness in perpetuity and the prevailing wisdom that aloneness is acceptable -because then we have no bonds – the Doctor is a remarkable gift for this decade, looking beyond our age where the normal qualities and associations around death are not recognised as part of life: the aged are hidden, the ‘different’ are hauled out of sight so that if a person cannot succeed according to the ambit of medicalised bureaucracy then we’re not seen to ‘benefit’ and are disregarded. If heaven figuratively exists on earth then is this the Death of Heaven?
There is much that springboards from this episode but I’ve turned it into a polemic. Forgive me all, puro
14 March 2015 at 05:17 #38743@arbutus Those are kind words, and I thank you for them. I have my moments . . . like everyone; and dreams sometimes, that show me how this thing is just how events play out (this, or something worse, or something better, but it all goes to the same place). Good luck with your own obstacle course — seems to me that no matter what we do we learn, so yep, you’ll be wise. For me, it helps that I do think we reincarnate, having dreamed of other lives with my Disappearing Man, so I’m as sure as anyone can be that we’ll be seeing each other again, though never exactly the same as now. That’s good enough for me. I’m too impatient to do things just one way for more than most of a lifetime, or identically over and over again, so a change is all right. The actual process is still rough on everyone all the same.
Thinking about this division between love as a promise and love as a chemical explosion of hormonal systems, I’m looking at Dark Water and DiH in that light. The Doctor and Clara are in an unequal relationship of “promise” with each other: he would never hurt her, snarky remarks aside; but she definitely hurts him, from selfish motives, with the Tardis keys scene, but by the end of DiH knows better, and trades protective lies with him. With Last Xmas, they get to the bottom of their true feelings, which look to me as if they’ve finally reached the level of love as promise, which is based on mutual trust.
But what the heck is the Doctor’s relationship with MissMaster? Once, apparently, *he* thought it was that kind of promise, at least until the Master looked into the thingie and went cuckoo. But some attraction is still alive between them — it’s what keeps MissMaster coming back to him, snapping at him, trying to ensnare him and bind them together again forever. It’s what twists him up with grief just before he makes up his mind to be her executioner in Clara’s place and kill her for her crimes.
So what is that? Does Missy want what Clara now has with the Doctor, only without having to earn it by actually *being* trustworthy? Does she just want to dominate him as her submissive in some form of popular culture’s quarter-inch thick version of BDSM? What? Maybe that’s a question for Series 9 to answer? The latter would be bit hard on kiddie viewers, though, no? Or rather, on their horrified parents? So not that, then, exactly . . . Is a puzzlement, and probably a product of overthinking it.
14 March 2015 at 06:07 #38746@purofilion Och, no excuses now, and no, you are not forgiven as there’s not one damn little thing to forgive. That’s a great, good gust of thought, and thanks for it. Yes, it’s crucial to keep in mind that regardless of people’s official titles, a show (unlike, say, most novels) is a group endeavor, no matter who appears to steer it or for how long. And, yes, on this particular site, doing the homework is required, mainly because discussions here tend to be ripened over many rounds, and people seem to like them that way and so aren’t interested in being yanked off onto a comparatively crude spur-line (do I mix my metaphors? Very well then, I mix my metaphors — and old writers’ game, I think).
The marriage metaphor is tricky. When I said that more easily obtainable divorce might be a factor in a modern inclination to go for chemical, explosive love and ignore the whole idea of love as long-term promise, I’m not saying that society needs to ban divorce to maintain personal standards. My own family of origin was the first on my block to disintegrate into divorce, back when couples routinely lied to establish legal grounds. As it happened, my parents still loved each other and us kids, but they simply could not live together and, IMO, were better off apart. I’ll take Margaret Meade’s definition of what makes one culture more progressive or “developed” than another: the number of choices that each member of it has open to him or her. Rigid social roles, in this view, are more “primitive” because while they help to shape individual character, they also limit growth by limiting the opportunities to grow and learn presented by taking risks that lie outside of general cultural norms. Flexibility is better for us. So no, I’m not a social conservative, although the easy acceptance of truly atrocious character and behavior that takes the place of ideas of personal honor and integrity makes me wanna tear my damn hair out. That’s how you come out with “romantic love” being taken these days as nearly the only form of love we recognize, when beyond its initial flare-up, it’s the least important, IMO.
And that seems to me to be part of the problem: long love, the love that’s a promise, *is* enactment, or it’s nothing. The fireworks version is more like “a thing”, a flash in the pan instead, but given the social weight of something vast and significant (which it *can* be, see the Prince of Wales & Mrs. Simpson, maybe, and Nelson and Lady Hamilton). Love enacted over time is what we hope for in our intimates — our good friends, our family, our partners. It’s not made out of orgasms; those you can have with anybody, or by yourself.
I’m rather surprised that the TLs of DW even *have* formal marriage. But then, they’re not presented as superior in anything much but technological capabilities (extended life, Tardis transport, weapons, etc.). They’re pretty damn human emotionally, from what we’re shown (as missed opportunity, I think, or a whole bunch of them). Your questions about possible TL marriage customs go to the heart of the thing.
Yes, the Doctor is a gift: a wonderful, rambling, discursive opportunity to think about and discuss such matters, outside of an article in the NYRB or the New Yorker etc. — more freely, more happily. That Heaven you speak of, though — it does’t die, because it can always be revived by people willing to risk true intimacy. This, I believe, is what everyone is looking for (although most look for it in a place where it’s seldom found, the chemical/hormonal love): the huge relief of stepping past your social restraints and daring to reveal your true, core self to another who reciprocates the same way. That’s what “See me” really means, and it’s what the Doctor offers (and what “Do you think I care so little” is founded in)(yeah, I said something else before about this, but this is more true and at another level) and what Clara doesn’t even know exists.
True intimacy seems like a huge risk, and we don’t often take it. Clara gives Twelve a hug in DB, but she’s hugging the Eleven she recognizes in him, not the raw and terrified Twelve at all. He’ll take it — it’s better than rejection! — but what he *gives* is not “Do what I demand or I’ll take away the Tardis”, but “Do you think I care for you so little”. Worlds of depth apart. That’s why “the hugging” in Last Xmas is different: it’s hugging with such open acceptance and welcome that they don’t actually *need* to see each other’s faces. We see Old Clara’s face, and it’s all there, for her “stupid old man” and for us to see.
Crikey, I’m not qualified to write a bloody *textbook* on this! Stopping now. But I knew we’d get to Hug B (which is actually Hug B1 — in the sleigh — and B2, in Old Clara’s bedroom). See footnote xj. NO. Good damn NIGHT.
14 March 2015 at 06:43 #38748Phew, I just read that before you’re off to bed? I’m confused about the time over there! Thought it was morning. Grief.
Ah yes, I spose I painted myself as the social conservative -“give marriage a go and then stay or damn well die doing it”. Not at all -I believe I wanted to express it as a problem in all societies -and this stretches beyond marriage -the idea of the ‘thing’ itself; the ‘event’. The money and the general hoo-ha which abandons the principal in favour of the event management. Much like buying a house as a sign of massive acquisition opportunities instead of the old adage “it’s mine, might not be much, but it’s still something to live in”. And grow in. And change in. And grow veges in – in an age where everything is disposable, the promises to be secure, to be available, and helpful, or useful (or harmless!) are important.
The hug metaphor is a great one isn’t it? “not seeing the faces” made me very teary. And you’re right -Clara hugs, with restraint the 11 she remembers (and I totally get that) but later, she fully understands him -and that comes from an innate trust of this fusty ol’ man (not old to me!) who takes her into all sorts of exotic and dangerous locales (they’re tied up at one point in a hot desert) and they work together to survive and with that, a new Clara is born (or regenerated) and 12 is given confidence that this Clara is prepared to stick around & to work to understand him. How many of us (those in the early tween period) are fully up to that task? Maybe I’m a tad pessimistic (and tomorrow I’ll feel completely different) but I wonder about the absolute concept of trust and care mixed with affection for those who are different. And with the passage of time, one changes, it’s impossible to evade that. And it goes to the heart of how far love is prepared to travel to explore that. I think DiH showed us Danny’s exploration: not abandoning Clara, not evading duty, but sending the young boy back in his place. An honourable man checking his promises.
As to the TLs marriage, I remember thinking at age 7-8 that neither the Trekkies nor the TLs would marry and yet ….here we have River and 11 as man and wife. Would that have continued -or would it have been – -if River had remained alive?
And heaven easily remains in the memories of each other -which was why S5 with the Angels ripping people out of existence was gut wrenching. The Doctor remembers Rory and can’t tell Amy -what that might do to his social and mental interior? Is it no wonder that some things are relegated to another place? Or forgotten. And when the TLs regenerate, do their memories get uploaded into a virtual space (hah, like a matrix!) -to prevent the loss of anything aggravating or poignant, because even the worst memories and the most hellish of events bring another onion layer to that person (surely on a metaphoric level, onions must be one of his favourite foods?)
In the end, all promises and all love must be based on action. Words words words – not enough. Neither are the (wedding) dresses (now invariably sexy!) or the costumes we dress in for our interactions with others. How easy to use as a ‘cover’. Recall 11’s “we’re going to CHURCH!” -so we need to be naked. And yet the Doctor chooses his ‘costume’ too and we had Santa and the elves fit to bursting in their own.
G’night!
14 March 2015 at 09:18 #38750I’d say Closing Time was not the favourite of a lot of people. Just remembering when I read scathing reviews. I loved it. I didn’t think that it was a problem Craig defeating the cyber systems. And yes, the promise of love -across many series.
People claimed (and this was the funny bit) that it wasn’t possible for Craig to do his ‘thing’-not that cyber mice skittering across the floors of a chain store or that a nine year old wanting the autograph of a perfume model (Amy) was any more likely! As always, it’s the story, the metaphor (and the story belongs in an awfully long arc anyway) which prolongs the tale and gives it guts. The tremendous point that the Doctor came back to his friends and had the remarkable conversation with Stormageddon; using the sonic ‘for good’ by showing the child the real universe- no longer a night black with tiny stars, but solar systems of curvy colour -so beautiful it was breathtaking. These are the things I love.
14 March 2015 at 10:26 #38751@purofilion — Just to add that I don’t think you’ve got anything to apologise for in the slightest. I suspect that you were probably right in your earlier asseertion that @tenthdoctorftw had come looking for a fight. Certainly they should have realised that making unsupported assertions about nonexistent plot holes and then calling for Moffat’s head were going to get short shrift here. That ain’t what happens here. So, if they’re genuine in their desire to discuss and debate the show they’re going to have to bring something a bit more to the table. (Something you’ve already clearly done.)
14 March 2015 at 12:02 #38752I’m rather surprised that the TLs of DW even *have* formal marriage.But then, they’re not presented as superior in anything much but technological capabilities
Personally I’d say that as soon as RTD had the Master coming from inherited wealth, you’ve got to have formal marriage contracts. If the Master comes from a world where his father had estates, then which estate is joined to which and who is entitled to inherit them suddenly become important legal matters.
Since the BG and AG Doctors are frequently a bit confused by the whole money thing, it also suggests that ‘wealth’ in Time Lord society is either based on land, or based on academic attainment. Because even if Gallifrey is largely a post-scarcity economy, the one thing they ain’t making any more of is land. There’s always a finite supply of the stuff (and there’s certainly an implication that some kind of farming still takes place – which means them wot own the land have a stranglehold on whatever it is they farm).
The only alternative to inheriting some land (and we know the Doctor is probably the second son) is to succeed in graduating from the Academy – because the Time Lords may not always have land, but they do have power.
I will say one thing about Time Lord’s technological prowess, though. I bet their medicine is crap. Not only do they not seem to have a clue about how to cure the Master/Missy, but they can use regeneration energy for everything more serious than a sprained wrist.
I suspect their reply to anything worse than the common cold is ‘have you considered regeneration?’ 😀
14 March 2015 at 12:27 #38753That’s how you come out with “romantic love” being taken these days as nearly the only form of love we recognize, when beyond its initial flare-up, it’s the least important,
To be utterly cynical, romantic love sells.
Romantic love sells: movies about it, books about it, songs about it, deodorant so you have a hope of getting it, after-shave…
Long term love, otoh, doesn’t sell anything. Not even nappies, because if you get divorced instead of keeping the promise, the kids will still need nappies. But in fact, getting divorced is better for the ‘romantic love’ sales pitches, because you’ll still be after the movies, books, songs, deodorant … but have to buy the nappies (etc.) as well.
I’m not going to go into any mass conspiracy theory, because in fact I think it’s more the result of a lot of little decisions by people who need to sell their stuff to make a living. But just look at the way that the kind of values that have been (sometimes not so subtly) discouraged don’t involve buying anything much. And the anti-values that have replaced them do.
In a desperate attempt to get this back on-topic (or we could move into the pub), Moffat seems to be trying to teach his generation of little Whovians that romantic love isn’t the be-all and end-all. Long term relationships, bringing up kids with love and care, they’re the important thing. His tenure has seen two long-term marriages among the regular characters, plus one disastrous relationship that nonetheless saw ‘the promise’ as more important than ‘the emotion’.
And that’s what saves the world.
14 March 2015 at 15:27 #38767@ichabod Do you remember the lovely scene from Fiddler on the Roof, when Tevye asks Golde, “Do you love me?” Her ultimate answer is: “For twenty-five years I’ve lived with him, fought with him, starved with him. for twenty-five years my bed is his: if that’s not love, what is?” Even as a teenager, I understood the truth in that, and loved it. Today, it makes me weep. Interestingly, even as a teenager, I never had any patience for characters such as, say, Anna Karenina.
“Love is not made out of orgasms.” Fabulous. Can we put that on a fridge magnet, do you think?
I have always thought that there are only two possible ways for Time Lord marriages to work. One, that they might only be considered binding up until one partner regenerates, in which case they might be renewed, or not. Or two, that Time Lords really can see beneath not just the face, the way we do when our partners age, but beneath the “surface personality” of a particular regen, down to the deeper “I’m still me” underneath.
Clara gives Twelve a hug in DB, but she’s hugging the Eleven she recognizes in him, not the raw and terrified Twelve at all. I love this. The Doctor said, “I’m still him,” and this is when she finally believed that. But the reality of course is deeper. Twelve is still Eleven, but Eleven is also Twelve. And Ten, which I don’t think she truly understood when Ten kissed her hand and said goodbye at the end of Day of the Doctor. You’re right, by the end of Last Christmas, she truly understands it. I suspect that no other companion before her, possibly barring Sarah Jane, really did. So part of the Clara arc in series 8 was really Clara as Companion, wasn’t it?
14 March 2015 at 15:51 #38769@purofilion the social conservative -”give marriage a go and then stay or damn well die doing it”
Well, I’m reasonably far from a socon (I don’t know if you use that abbreviation in Aus?), but I tend to agree that most people don’t go into a marriage with the right attitude. People do seem to treat it like leasing a car nowadays, don’t they? We on the other hand have had our Toyota for twelve years now (still going strong!).
It’s possible (even probable) that even with her full understanding of and love for the Doctor, Clara will ultimately have to move on, because she is still a human being with a human’s need to love and be loved by someone who will grow old with her.
Agreed that the Doctor should love onions (see the chip conversation earlier). Onion rings? And given fish fingers and custard, if the Doctor ever showed up at my house, I’d try him on some poutine (for those unfamiliar, a Quebec thing: fries, cheese curds, and gravy).
Yes, the conversation with Stormageddon ranks on my top 5 list of favourite Eleventh Doctor scenes: makes me weep every time!
14 March 2015 at 15:53 #38770@bluesqueakpip plus one disastrous relationship that nonetheless saw ‘the promise’ as more important than ‘the emotion’.
And that’s what saves the world. I love this, very elegant and absolutely true!14 March 2015 at 17:11 #38774@purofilion I like your coming back to Danny’s closure — beautifully done, enough to overcome the very sketchy build-up for him (sketchy by reason of being too one-note and repetitious, that is). The whole question of how *long* can people maintain a solid and recognizable form of that long love is one of those unanswerable things, I guess — and there would have to be fluctuations inside of that, of course. The idea of adding another 50 yrs or more to the human lifespan (for the privileged, at any rate) brings that question up in SF on the question, and the answers are usually some form of “marriage” contracted on a periodically renewable basis, or an assumption of serial partnerships either in couples or as some sort of openwork groups. Even Jim Jarmusch, in his vampire movie “Only Lovers Left Alive” supposes long separations as a given, followed by fairly casual-seeming teaming up again for a while. Personally, I have doubts that I could stand being with my own self for more than maybe a century and a quarter, even in good health, and this is a me that I like pretty well!
If TL’s are so like us in their emotional lives, I suspect there wouldn’t be a lot of long-term pairings, and the Doctor would perhaps be unusual even among his own kind for his constancy, just as humans like that seem to be (but his case is special, given the crazy-making effects of centuries of solo travel — he really *needs* companionship because of the way he lives). Change (in TLs’ case, radical change via regeneration) could work for and/or against such length.
14 March 2015 at 17:49 #38775@bluesqueakpip I agree, Moffat seems to be leaning hard in that direction — long love, in some form, as the rock of (relative) stability in a constantly changing universe, vs. the “thrillingly” chaotic lives of The Stars (or “celebs” now) to which so many youngsters seem to aspire . . . I’ll take “the promise”, myself, for all kinds of reasons, even in stories. All that shuffling around, or zooming from one string of fireworks to another — exhausting even to think about. And yes, the promise saves the world . . . that makes all kinds of sense to me. Love your point about crappy health tech among TLs — though you’d want to be a bit careful, if you’ve only got so many regens to use to get better. I expect they do it all at the outset via genetic manipulation, so you don’t catch cold in the first place, and after that you’re on your own.
And yeah, long term love sure doesn’t match up with consumerism very well! Even with our smaller lifespans, there are reasons that most advertising doesn’t target older people in general — I look at my stuff these days and think either “Time to clear out some of this g.d. STUFF and no need to replace it, either,” or “Hmm, that carpet is pretty beat up, but it’ll see me out”.
I dunno, I don’t think all that much thought has gone into how TLs *as a society* work — their psychology, economy, and sociology all seem hastily cobbled up, full of holes, and boringly familiar (from human societies) to me. What we get instead is a long, close study of the Doctor, who’s an outlier by definition anyway, having fled his home world in a stolen vehicle. Suits me — if we never get to Gallifrey, I won’t mind.
14 March 2015 at 18:11 #38776@purifilion – I totally concur that the Doctor is a remarkable gift to all of us!
@ichabod – Regarding Missmaster and your BDSM idea – or aka ‘come away with me in the night’
to the Doctor is so rich! Your right about some attraction being still alive to be sure
There was certainly some flirty thing going on with Missmaster and so what is that about?
Obviously she is ‘turned on’ by the Doctor. It does bother me sometimes that there is back
story that is out of reach but I guess that is part of what holds me like a fish on a hook
and I need to keep seeing all these characters again and again. I can almost dream what has
been even though I know SM will have surprises for me, So as you say- if TL’s have long
term relationships interrupted by regeneration then could it be possible that something
happened with Missmaster a very long time ago that has awakened in ‘her’ in her current
regeneration but in the Doctor not so much? hm…. this is just too much fum
D14 March 2015 at 18:40 #38777@arbutus on TL long term relationships/marriages — it seems to vary quite a bit. River/Doctor has some seeing-beneath-the-surface, which would qualify maybe as what we think of as a relationship of — soul mates? Something that persists because the surface details have become just trimmings, so they see each other clear? I confess that I found River very irritating a lot of the time, so I didn’t really pay enough attention to remember the details. And Doctor/Master is obscured by one of them being bananas, as it were, so how can we generalize from that?
Ha, yes, Series 8 really was a two-hander, wasn’t it? *Both* of them figuring out who the Hell he was, and Clara being opened out into the person she never really got around to being with earlier Docs (becaus, the writers weren’t interested? With the romance route being firmly shut down, the only feasible option in terms of the life and success of the show — not to mention give the relationship enough depth for Capaldi to play with it — was to grow her). Now the trick will be to keep her real — not that easy, for a team of male writers with one female included for this very purpose, I should think.
I remember Fiddler — a story of that way of life in which arranged marriage is the norm and is seen as a promise, with or without love (which is still supposed to “happen” just from rubbing along together for decades, and sometimes does, by all accounts).
I read someplace where Moffat says CapDoc not being “a hugging person now” at Hug A was written as a throwaway line, but Capaldi really got his teeth into it and made it a thing. As I see it, he’s not that person at that point *because* he knows Clara doesn’t really “see” him, 12 + all the others, yet, so that hug is only provisional, not an expression of any serious level of truth between them, and what good is a provisional hug? By the Hug Cafe, he’ll give the provisional hug a try because looks like that’s as far as they’re ever gonna get and there are those lies between them. In the sleigh, maybe it’s still a one-sided, fantasy hug — it’s a dream, and he’s conflated with Santa in her dreaming mind, for goodness’ sake, and she’s more than half willing to stay with it like that and die of it. We only get to the real thing in Old Clara’s bedroom, where a wiser woman hugs the whole, complicated man, and finally gets hugged back for real. She *gets* it, she’s lived 62 yrs of human life to compare her life-with-her-alien to, and she can see him without even looking. Her hug says, “I’m home!” So he comes, and becomes, home too, and the hug is complete.
Just gorgeous, and no taking-for-granted, either: he doesn’t just grab her hand. He invites her; and you’re right, it’s not forever because she’s only human, this is our universe in which even mountains change and fall, and it will all end in tears because it must, but meanwhile — Geronimo! How else can we actually live a life, however long or short it turns out to be?
Come on, guys, what’s that tale of courtly love in which the knight learns that the secret to loving a woman is to give her control? It’s not the “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”, it’s another one, I just came across it recently but can’t think where — he’s been *trying* to give her control all season long, and finally, he’s confident enough to really do it, and she’s fit to take it — ?
Gotta go make that fridge magnet now; we gotta make our fortunes somehow . . .
14 March 2015 at 19:16 #38778@jimthefish I never came in here to start up a fight, because I’m not that kind of person and that’s what bothers me when you said it. Let me say one or two last things, explain myself and then I will leave you all alone. 1)You don’t know me, you’ve never met me and the conclusion you’ve made up about me were based on two paragraphs/posts. That’s the time that I had in this forum before being attacked. 2) Misunderstandings can be made esily when you don’t have the other person in front of you when having a discussion and you can’t know way the other person is saying these things to you and get upset for no reason. I wasn’t really agressive (except for replying to puro, I’m going to admit i was when I responded to him) 3) English in not my native language so @purofilion some of the things you said I didn’t understand at all .
In the end all i’m saying is that in reality there is no fuss at all when it comes to what I said here, I think its just the way you took it. So in order to not make another fuss for no reason at all I’m gonna leave you guys here, cause clearly there is no “chemistry” between us, and in all seriousness (not joking here) good luck, hope your forum goes well. 😛
14 March 2015 at 19:19 #38779There was certainly some flirty thing going on with Missmaster and so what is that about?
As I said elsewhere, years of subtext suddenly became very much text. 😈
Personally, I go for the Master/Missy as ‘that ex-boyfriend who turns out to be a psycho stalker’. But whether the Doctor is flat-out still not admitting that they were lovers, or whether the Master was simply the first in the long line of unrequited-hopelessly-in-love companions, we’ll probably never know.
Unless someone comes up with a really good script about it, of course. 🙂
14 March 2015 at 19:25 #38780That sounds like Chaucer’s The Wife of Bath’s Tale from the Canterbury Tales. The knight is sent out on a quest to learn what women want most, as a punishment for raping a woman. Wasn’t Chaucer impressively forward-thinking for a 14th-century guy?
River certainly had no problem recognizing Ten in the Library even though she had never seen him before. Interesting too that she could say he looked “younger”, although by merely physical standards, he was no such thing. So yes, I would say that supports the idea that time lords see beneath the surface more readily than humans.
14 March 2015 at 19:38 #38781@arbutus Yes! That’s it. I’d picked up a mystery novel called “The Stone Wife” that recounts the tale. Smart guy, Chaucer. Thanks.
14 March 2015 at 19:41 #38782@lisa You know, I can’t tell whether she’s *really* turned on by the Doctor (at this point, anyway), or just messing with him for fun — or both at the same time! Bananas, you know. (What’s so crazy about bananas, anyway?)
14 March 2015 at 20:03 #38784Oh my. So much anger, so little clue.
1)You don’t know me
You aren’t as rare as you think you are;
2)Misunderstandings can be made esily
Like when you rock up in a new place and conduct yourself with the grace of an elk with indigestion
3)English in not my native language s
On the evidence presented to date, language is not your native language.
You do not need to be fluent in any language to avoid unsupported assertions and opinion presented as truth. This, of course, would involve being interested in what others have to say – something you have shown no inclination to be.
Bridge Dweller, heal thyself.
14 March 2015 at 21:11 #38787@Bluessqueakpip I totally have all sorts of nifty notions about Missmaster and her
needy affection confliction with the Doc 😀 – I’d like to have a word with that
script team — lol!14 March 2015 at 21:41 #38788What’s so crazy about bananas, anyway?
If you look at a banana, you’ll see that it’s curving gently round the bend…
…though to riff off the late Sir Terry, Missy is so far round the bend she’s now coming back in the opposite direction. And in the opposite gender.
14 March 2015 at 21:53 #38789@IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan — Applause.
14 March 2015 at 22:22 #38792@pedant — good to have you back. Where you been, man? Hope the move is working out OK.
@tenthdoctorftw — apologies if you’re offended but that’s about as much of an olive branch as you’ll get. I hope you do stick around but the most cursory flick through this site will make clear that no one — no one — gets to make unsupported assertions, especially if they’ve got demands for the head of the showrunner attached, without being able to back them up. By all means think that Death In Heaven ain’t all that — if you’ll look above, you’ll see that I was kinda critical of it myself. By all means, think there are plot holes. But you sure as hell better have good reasons to back up your arguments. And plot holes or any other narrative failing never, ever translate into ‘the showrunner should be sacked’ in my book. That just ain’t our call to make.
Stick around. But engage with us. Debate with us. That’s why we all hang out here. And to lob unargued assertions around is as impolite to us as anything you might have got back. You shouldn’t be surprised if it elicits a reaction. But, seriously, do stick around. And put some thought into your posts before you press send. We all do.
Well, mostly. 90 per cent of the time. Well, 85. Well, probably more than 80 per cent. Probably.
14 March 2015 at 22:24 #38793@ichabod I woke up to Chaucer and this has been a very active day for you all!!
Round the bend -bananas. Yeah, I never got it.
spat out my OJ for brekky “language isn’t your language”. I have to say that the amount of people who say “English isn’t my 1st language” amazes me. I understand that d’englisher has not controlled d’planet but still….
@arbutus loved Fiddler -speaking of which, where is my copy ?? Socon. Nope. I don’t think we have that but then it’s been awhile since I’ve been to humanities depts.
I kind of avoided the whole Mixmaster thing with the Doctor -the kiss, the lurve. No. I didn’t want to go there but I have now haven’t I!
14 March 2015 at 22:25 #38794@bluesqueakpip And more applause re the banana conundrum! Point, er, taken — ah — hang on a minute —
I like your psycho stalker boy/girlfriend theory too, plus very likely a long and bumpy lifetime ride for the Doctor over there in the fast lane of sex; where at the moment CapDoc is not even driving on the tarmac but pretending there is no lane, not even a dirt shoulder as far as he is concerned. Yet (somehow or other) “not your boyfriend” just didn’t come anywhere near actually quenching the natural sexiness of the current incarnation (yeah to whoever said Capaldi’s “old” is light years from “too old”). The resultant smolder is pretty epic (see, MotOE), given the cultural meme of the exponentially squared pulling-power of an attractive guy who is either playing hard to get or who really *is* hard to get, for whatever reasons. Add the “see me” level of soul-mate status now established between him and a more grown up (but not old) Clara, and the show cooks along like an industrial grade furnace, as background or foreground, depending (“. . . find yourself alone with a — strangely compelling — masculine . . . figure — MAEBH!” Why am I still laughing over this?).
@lisa — what would you say to that script team about MissMaster and the Doctor? Inquiring minds . . . rich veins of ore exist there, all right, but can only be sneakily and obliquely explored, I think, because the show is “Family viewing” or “Youth Oriented”.
14 March 2015 at 23:00 #38795@ichabod Well since this is fundamentally British I’m just thinking now of 1 of
my favorite english novelists Thomas Hardy. He was a limits pusher in his time.
I think there is something to be said for exploring ‘mature’ themes even in Doctor Who.
So I’m thinking of something like Tess that sent the valentine that created all the
misunderstanding.That would work in the Missmaster/Doctor dynamic. Maybe the Jude the
Obscure story of love that crosses boundaries? Or how about something Virginia Woolf-ishy
since she wrote Orlando about a individual that lived a long time and has a sex change?
Need some more time to contemplate but I really think there is a big potential to create a
very intriguing story arc.15 March 2015 at 00:00 #38796@lisa “Orlando”, that works for MissMaster, but I don’t recall the story in that story . . . I’m not up on Hardy at all, only read a novel or two way back in school; too damn depressing for my taste, I think.
I googled “asexuality” to see what came up — the topic has surfaced recently in a noticeable way in SF now that some of the feminist viewpoints have become assimilated into the genres (incompletely, and often badly, but it’s no longer got much shock value). I saw a panel on asexuality on the program at an SF convention I attended last year, went to see why that idea was an issue, and discovered a bunch of people talking vehemently about being not only bombarded by massive amounts of sexual material in TV programming, fiction in general, and advertising of course, but feeling “disappeared” and in fact actively cancelled from the dominant western culture at almost all levels. It had never occurred to me that asexuals might feel oppressed, invaded, and obliterated as individuals as well as members of a class, but some very real pain was expressed around “coming out” as asexual, to responses like, “Oh, you just haven’t met the right person yet”, or “You’re just a prude”, or “You must have been sexually abused as a child.”
My point in bringing this up, though, is that this was the first time I’d heard what we’re calling “love as a promise” discussed, in terms that we’ve been using here, but put more bluntly: “People just won’t accept that some of us have long love relationships that don’t include sexual attraction, let alone sexual behavior.” To which, they said, the general response was, “Well, if you’re talking about marriage-type commitment, if there’s no sexual part to it that’s not real love.” Which leads me to think of all the frenzy in the AARP magazine about how sex can be so nifty in your seventies — when that’s well past the time that some seniors will admit to being relieved at being shut of the whole damn thing.
But I’m thinking now of a few voices raised in DW fandom protesting that the Doctor has always been asexual, and they resent the whole “sex thing” suddenly taking over the show in NuWho. I thought maybe that was from the younger contingent, the kids who go “Eeeeww!” when there’s kissing in an action movie (well, they used to; not sure about nowadays). Now I’m thinking, no, not just them . . . and the complicated [no-flirting rule + mighty smoldering though + “care for you so little” and love is a promise] thing in Season 8 must be baffling, to say the least. Hell, it’s kinda baffling me while I’m typing this!
15 March 2015 at 00:35 #38797@ichabod I also wonder about Missmaster coping with mental illness in a split
personality sort of way that became her current regeneration. But that journey can
get too morbid and brutal and evil Mary Poppins for this show so I doubt we will
go there much.
In the Jude novel its basically about 2 cousins that fall in love and have an affair
but then stuff happens which causes suffering and Sue leaves although Jude doesn’t
want her to. It also involves class social mobility, higher education and so on.
I keep imagining what the long history between the Missmaster and Doctor might be.
I wonder if it could include these same themes?
He said when they were young they ran together and then something happened.
The Doctor isn’t telling what but we know he wasn’t the ‘victim’ of this incident.
However the other TL’s didn’t have a very high opinion of him either for a long time.
Why? So this implies a serious common history with the Doc and Mis for me
Its why I think there is some needy affection confliction thing for them – its seems
a very long love promise that still remains oddly intact and strangely 1 of my
favorite mysteries about the current series15 March 2015 at 03:57 #38799@jimthefish thank you for understanding
@IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan
So:
You aren’t as rare as you think you are;Unless you are me, I highly doubt that. I believe everyone is “rare”.
Like when you rock up in a new place and conduct yourself with the grace of an elk with indigestion
Sure…
You do not need to be fluent in any language to avoid unsupported assertions and opinion presented as truth. This, of course, would involve being interested in what others have to say – something you have shown no inclination to be.
I’m fluent enough to tell you that I never said my opinion was THE truth but it is my truth, since it is my opinion. I suggest you go back a few pages and see what I actually posted which was that I don’t like Moffat’s writting, which I thought I was allowed to believe. But clearly as you point out, I’m not. Sorry I didn’t know that. I am inclined to hear what others have to say, otherwise I wouldn’t keep answering but you’re not going to believe it just cause I’m saying it, no one ever does. That’s what I have to say, If you want to believe me that’s okay, If you don’t then it’s okay again.
15 March 2015 at 04:18 #38800@purofilion
It might amaze you but it’s the truth. Just imagine trying to have a discussion and try explaining things to people while you’re trying to figure out the right word or expression for every other thing. For example, imagine trying to fit into clothes that don’t fit you. I watch series without subs in order to practice but apart from having to know good English to be able to communicate with other people I have to farmiliarize with different accents as well.15 March 2015 at 06:45 #38801@lisa Nice to know that you are a fellow Hardy fan. I love his novels but I do have to make a slight correction. It was Far From the Madding Crowd (of which a new film is imminent) where the Valentine Card sets in motion a Hardyesque chain of events leading to tragedy. In Tess the trigger for the chain of events is her father’s discovery of the family heritage or arguably the accident which results in the death of the family horse.
I like you Orlando?Missy link.
Perhaps the Doctor and Master were both outcast types as children, neither conforming to the expectations of Time Lord society. I get the impression that both were born into Gallifryean aristocracy and both were unable to live up to expectations though for very different reasons I suspect. Still being “disappointments” would have thrown them together as children, the two misfits, one because he could not conform to discipline and was too hyper to concentrate on lessons the other because he was too busy pulling the wings off flys and found the work so easy he couldn’t be bothered with it.
Cheers
Janette
15 March 2015 at 07:22 #38802you’re doing very well, really. Where are you from? I was chatting to an Indonesian the other day -and there are literally 100s of dialects in that region. Fascinating. Yeah, I know about the clothes -I am rather short and often shop in the kid’s departments to find jeans that aren’t 2 feet longer than me!
So what was your favourite episode this season? Checking the pages, most would reckon Listen was the best? A bit of a thriller, some sadness and clues for next season, perhaps?
we might go to the Sofa pages or the Cloven Hoof where you can introduce yourself better and we can stay on topic then?
15 March 2015 at 07:29 #38803@janetteb a new film of Far From the Madding Crowd? I can’t wait. Hardy kills me with his prose. I find it so bleak and wintry and yet so hopeful and limitless at the same time.
Missy plays the mad woman incredibly well no doubt. Possibly the best Master after Delgado. I recall Phase writing a fantastic discussion about all the Masters?
one other point @tenthdoctorftw the writing is not usually Moffat -the eps are often written by others. Moffat is producer -perhaps along with two others at least. I keep thinking of Sue Virtue but that’s Sherlock after all.
Straying far far from this world of topic!
15 March 2015 at 08:16 #38804@purofilion Looking at your reply to JanetteB, I’m thinking I sort of don’t have a favorite episode in Season 8. If I re-watch one, I end up re-watching all, because they all have elements to admire (and maybe learn from), and puzzles I haven’t solved yet and don’t care whether I do or not because just thinking about them us pleasurable (like thinking about silk, or really good chocolate), and occasionally, even now, surprises. There are *scenes* that I like best, like “there’s only a bed’n it!”, and the whole restaurant sequence in Deep Breath, and lots of MotOE but mostly the conversation on the stony beach, and of course the volcano + back in the Tardis in Dark Water, and the quarrels in KiM, and the Cafe of Lies, the tenderness and revelation of Old Clara, and . . . well. Like that.
For me, the Season flows like a very good novel written by a very smart, very cooperative committee of talented composers and somehow acted out by a chamber group of excellent players who are operating on a pick-up basis and so still learning each others strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to, say, the Guarneri or the Emerson etc.
Irresistible; flexible and varied art structures can entrance me, which is maybe why I’d rather look at Leonardo sketches than Leonardo finished paintings, same with Rembrandt. So much *room* in there. With DW, all that room is where our discussions spring from, like what the Master was like as a boy, or possible forms of Gallifreyan marriage.
15 March 2015 at 08:55 #38805Just imagine trying to have a discussion and try explaining things to people while you’re trying to figure out the right word or expression for every other thing.
I don’t have to imagine.
Then I also have to work out how to spell the ruddy word…
Anyways, regarding:
I don’t like Moffat’s writting, which I thought I was allowed to believe
Yes, of course you’re allowed to believe this. But this is not a forum where that belief is going to go unchallenged. People can and will ask you to explain WHY you believe that – and they will expect you to answer by pointing to specific examples that you don’t like.
Or they will explain what they believe – just as with your second post, when you suggested this series has a problem with what Doctor Who’s all about and I replied that I thought it was about ‘Doctor Who?’
Equally, if you say ‘Doctor Who should be about time travel’ some smart alec (like me) is going to point out that we’re watching a classic Pertwee story this week which is entirely set on Earth. With no time travel whatsoever. A lot of the Pertwee stories were about the Doctor being stuck on Earth with a TARDIS that didn’t work.
And then you have to expand what you mean. Seven episodes in Series 8 wasn’t enough time travel. The Doctor trying to work out who he was meant you weren’t invested in the character enough. The Pertwee era had the Master (okay, that one won’t fly).
Are we good now?
15 March 2015 at 11:28 #38808@purofilion I’m from the crisis country. But seriously thinkinh of becoming an immigrant. Well this season I have two favourites. Flatline and The Caretaker. I hear people saying that they aren’t very good but for some reason I really loved both. Listen was pretty great too and at the ending when we found out who the child was, I literally jumped up from my seat because really I wan’t expecting it at all (that’s what I love about this series…there have been many times that an episode ended and I was still unable to human)
I heard an isane companion rumor but I don’t know if its true and If I’m allowed to post it here so…
What’s your favourite?15 March 2015 at 12:49 #38810I don’t like Moffat’s writting, which I thought I was allowed to believe. But clearly as you point out, I’m not.
The drama queen routine isn’t helping. Any idiot can programme a bot to post “I hate Moffat” (or, for that matter, “I love Moffat”). But that will cut no ice here – despite a lot of verbiage you still haven’t explained what it is you dislike (well, the one thing you did suggest was taken apart brick-by-brick)..
It is where you go after that which is important and which will earn you cred around here. But we’ve been through the show in forensic detail so if people are short that’s why – show some insight.
try explaining things to people while you’re trying to figure out the right word or expression for every other thing
We all do that. They key is to stop and think.
15 March 2015 at 16:21 #38814@janetteb Yep! Thanks for fixing me. I like your concept a lot too! Wondering if you can
think of any other novels with themes that would fit nicely for a Missmaster/Doctor past
history? There is definitely that outcast concept for sure. I’m guessing this is something
SM has spent some real time pondering over as well.15 March 2015 at 16:52 #38816@IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan Okay.
15 March 2015 at 19:18 #38823@ichabod I wasn’t a fan of the story arc construction in Series 6 and 7, and one of my wishes for Series 8 was that it would be a lot less arc-heavy. Interestingly, while watching, I really felt as if I was getting that wish; it’s only retrospectively that I realize that there has actually been lots of “arc” in this series. I think that the difference has been that the arc has been more about character development and less about plot. Yes, we were given the Missy mystery (@purofilion, I loved your use of the term “Mixmaster”!), and the Clara/Danny relationship, but these never felt central to the series in the way that, for instance, “the death of the Doctor” did in series 6. Instead, we were thinking about myth, and morality, and other rather more introspective elements. As a result, I enjoyed the series as as whole much more, and I agree that it was really a well-crafted continuum.
@lisa @janetteb I’m really enjoying the speculation about the Doctor/Master past. It actually doesn’t matter to me if anything is ever made completely clear; in fact, it might be almost better if it weren’t. But it’s fun to think about the possibilities!
I try not to get into the audio world because I realize that most people on this forum don’t listen to the audios, but Big Finish has also gone into this subject now and again. There was a wonderful line of the Doctor’s awhile back where he talked about the two of them both leaving Gallifrey behind, but with different ideas about the universe: “I wanted to see it. He wanted to run it.” I thought that was a pretty great descriptor.
-
AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
