The End of Time, pt. 1

[rm]

OMGWTFBBQ!!!!



Well, hrrrrr.

1. I think it's too ambitious. This already feels like a three-parter, but it only has two parts. This really needed to ramp up into what it is, the intensity got too high too fast.

2. The quiet emo moments were really the best. Man, Ten crying is HOT. And all that Ood shit was creepy.

3. John Simm is a really good actor. And it looks like filming this vacillated between really fun and completely sucktacular. All that food stuff. Food scenes SUCK.

4. OMG, the porn. THE PORN. That little smile on the Master's face when he was being buckled into the straight jacket. Hello, hello, hello. HELLO.

5. No Jack yet. This is good. This means he may be there for the regeneration, this is my hope.

6. This really is pretty damn audacious. And the rebirth of Gallifrey/Timelords is a really smart plot line since the Doctor is getting close to the limit unless the council or whatever it is grants him some more. Er, yeah, this is the first time I've really felt stymied by my lack of old who knowledge.

7. So that first shit with the regeneration of the Master? What a waste of Lucy Saxon. What was with all the women basically being witches with potions? And "The Book of Saxon"? What now? The prison was named Broadfell? Seriously? I've never found RTD to be more misogynistic than he is fucked up (i.e., his issues as a writer tend to be more interesting to me than offensive), and this happened. Dude, REALLY?

8. OBAMA, WTF? Actually, could a Brit living in Britain currently help me out here? How is Obama perceived? Was this satire that made sense to you all in an eye-rolling at the believe he can fix everything thing or what? I was like confused. A lot confused. Also I hate when they do scenes that are supposed to be White House press conferences and of course everything looks wrong.

9. Naismith = ne Smith? Also, woah, incesty with the daughter there.

10. OMG, Whoniverse wardrobe department, I love you. But "The Master Race"? Seriously? You went there? Man. Really?

11. I'm glad Ianto got to miss this one, such as it is.

Woah.

Comments

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

Why is everyone going on about how hot the Doctor was when he cried? Would it be okay to being up hot hot a female actor looked when she cried?

Another reading of the women and Broadfell (why are you objecting to the name- it seems to deliberately evoke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadmoor_Hospital to me?)is that they are all empowered, they are the agents of the plot and capable, between them, of the widest range of moral actions- from corruption to madness to responsibility and sacrifice. That the master picks one gender over another to subordinate or enslave might also be read as a particular sign of his perversion or evil. Later we see women in more powerful positions- the female apparition to Wilf, the return of the Doctor Donna and Abigail, who is the center of her world or limitless resource.

I was much more cross with the bum-pinching, because if you inverted the genders it would be considered unacceptable, and yet, apparently old ladies are not subject to the same ethical sanctions as old men (or young men). That, as I see it, is as bad as saying women aren't capable of being responsible for their own actions, which is much more perniciously misogynistic in my view than evoking the fantastical imagery of witchcraft.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I'd be fine with someone saying a crying chick was hot if the context was similar (i.e., not because of violence or weakness, but confronting destiny). Also People tend to find peopel going against type hot -- i.e., a woman being stronger than we expect or a man being more emotional.

I thought the bum pinching thing was extremely annoying. It is a testament to the sheert WTFery of this episode that that didn't even make my list.

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

I can understand that- have sympathies even, but I still thoroughly dislike that attitude. It seems to say not 'congratulations for acting in the way human beings should always be free too' but 'isn't it exceptional for you to do this, and a little bit kinky and transgressive?'. It reminds me too much of how women who act strong and men who act weak are vilified sexually in general discourse. The sanction is positive instead of negative, but it is still sanctioned instead of treated as normal.

And why isn't Cribbins being called hot for his brilliant performance, when he shows fear and concern and sadness over Donna?

tl; dr, I know

[moljn.livejournal.com]

Because of two things: 1) He's old. Old people can be hot and I bet there are people out there who would do Bernard Crippins, but overall, people are not going to think of him in those terms. 2) It's expected of him. Wilf has always been an emotionally open character (I'd even say that the 'loving grandfather' IS a 'type'), so it's not really noteworthy when he acts it. In contrast, the Doctor tends to put up a front, so when that cracks open, we sit up and pay attention.

And, while some people might think the crying is hot in and of itself, I imagine most of us expressing the sentiment already find Ten attractive on some level, so that helps.

As for your first paragraph, I think I follow what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. First, you most likely didn't mean to equate being emotional with acting weak, but that's how it sounds. I know you're referring to other people's hangups, I'm just saying that the phrasing gave me pause. Second, the thing is that in the realm of fiction, while there're not just one female type and one male type, the delicate woman and the strong man ARE very common stereotypes, and to have characters act against the norm of those very limiting stereotypes is refreshing. See also point #2 above.

I just don't agree that the negative and positive reactions you describe are created equal, because you can't divorce them from the world we live in and the gender norms we all have to deal with. It would be one thing if people were saying, "Look at this man crying despite being a MAN"; that would be sexist and I'd have a problem with it too. Instead, to me, they are saying, "Look at this man crying despite being a (fictional) man in today's society." The fictional part is kind of significant, at least in this case, both because the writer has to choose to have him cry, and because it'd be pretty sociopathic to find a real person hot when they're crying from emotional distress.

Re: tl; dr, I know

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

I understand that Wilf might be seen as a more emotionally open character. He certainly bears less angst than a Timelord, but treating his emotions as less significant because he's a 'loving grandfather type' seem not only unfair, but a little ageist. It's not as if the character didn't put up a brave front, and it's not as if he hasn't had to keep secrets while facing terrible truths.

"Look at this man crying despite being a MAN"; that would be sexist and I'd have a problem with it too. Instead, to me, they are saying, "Look at this man crying despite being a (fictional) man in today's society."
I'm not sure if statements like "OMG Tennant crying was so hot" carry that distinction. Certainly their phrasing obscures it.

I just don't agree that the negative and positive reactions you describe are created equal, because you can't divorce them from the world we live in and the gender norms we all have to deal with.
And yet we're meant to steer away from any misogyny or norms in narrative or characterization that do not show women on an equal and interchangeable footing with men? That does not seem consistent.

Re: tl; dr, I know

[moljn.livejournal.com]

The keyword in this context is 'loving' not 'grandfather'. He could be 20 or 40 years younger and my second point would still stand, so no, I don't think it's ageist. As for unfair, well, maybe. I probably shouldn't have used the word 'noteworthy', but aside from that, the unexpected is always going to generate more interest from the viewers.

We also shouldn't forget that the Doctor is the main character, and one on his last legs even. Wilf's a well-liked supporting character and has had some nice and moving scenes in the episodes he's been in, but the focus is naturally going to be on the Doctor, and that is not unfair to Wilf.

I'm not sure if statements like "OMG Tennant crying was so hot" carry that distinction

They don't, but they're not what I was talking about anyway, though I did try to tie it back to them. I was responding to your first paragraph in your reply to rm's comment, and that paragraph is a fairly generalized take of one possible reason why people might have said what they did. My point was that reacting positively to someone breaking gender norms is not necessarily a bad thing.

And yet we're meant to steer away from any misogyny or norms in narrative or characterization that do not show women on an equal and interchangeable footing with men? That does not seem consistent.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here or how it relates to what I wrote. How is it inconsistent?

Re: tl; dr, I know

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

How is it inconsistent?

Because you seem to imply that people going "OMG Tennant crying = hot" is partially excused because we can't get away from our societies' gender gender norms, but the criticism/ accusations below of RTD being misogynist could be explained by reference to the same gender norms. I'm asking why one is excused/acceptable and the other not?

Re: tl; dr, I know

[moljn.livejournal.com]

Okay.

First off, we're not a hive mind. I don't know the people below and we haven't exchanged notes on the topic, and even if I did and we had, still not a hive mind.

Second, I repeat, I wasn't addressing the sentiment directly, and I certainly wasn't excusing sexism. I was saying that a positive response to the breaking of a stereotype wasn't necessarily sexist.

Third, you keep saying, or at least implying, that it's misandrist of people to think Ten crying is hot, but from what I've seen, you haven't actually explained why. It has the potential to be, I've already acknowledged that, but it's not inherently so.

Fourth, well, your entire premise is false, since again, I didn't actually excuse sexism, but for the record, there's a pretty big difference between someone having a gut reaction that may or may not be sexist, and RTD writing a script in which Elizabeth I and her virginity is reduced to a cheap joke and a trophy for the Doctor to brag about (the only redeeming point is that the Doctor IS prone to name-dropping, but even so, reducing her to a notch on his bedpost is not the same).

Furthermore, RTD has a history of questionable writing when it comes to female characters. The Queen Bess bit would be problematic no matter what, but considering who wrote it, it just cinches it. As for the people who found Ten crying hot, I don't know anything about most of them, so I can't judge based on that. And, even if you found one or two with general misandrist attitudes, it still wouldn't implicate the rest, because what they said isn't inherently sexist (well, you seem to think it is, but I don't and you haven't given me reason to).

And fifth: Of course RTD is affected by gender norms; we all are. It doesn't excuse sexism, though depending on circumstance, I might cut a person some slack. I'm not inclined to do that with RTD, however, because he's not subject to any special circumstances and should know better.

Re: tl; dr, I know

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

Despite all that mitigation I'm afraid I still don't see why one set of actions (writing a throw away line in a script) should be subject to rigorous policing for sexist motivation and one not (posting gut reactions online). If it's okay to say a man is hot while crying, but it wouldn't be to say a woman is hot while crying then that's sexist. Not necessarily misandrist, but still sexist. If people had said "Tennant/RTD's writing is hot for breaking societal expectations of the male hero" (in however many words) then I would be behind that, although I'd want to point out that sexist expectations should be defeated whether it's hot to do so or not. I am not, of course, asking you to speak for other people, but to explain the principles you seem to be applying.

You seem to see the two actions as qualitatively different and I see them as more contiguous. So I think we can respectfully disagree on this matter, since we are both starting from the assumption that sexist behavior should be prevented.

[darklingwoods.livejournal.com]

The bum pinching bothered me quite a bit (and seemed so strange!) in the sense the character was always up to no good (and everyone thinking it cute) like the reference to being in a police phone box in her youth. The concept that all old folks are going to be best buds (the silver cloak, which is an awesome concept but why are these folks pals to start with? Maybe I missed something there. I really shouldn't complain because featuring elders in an action sci fi program is pretty amazing.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

The bum-pinching is another example of the "predatory middle-aged* woman with uncontrolled, loathsome and mockworthy sexual desires" trope, which has already been used with Jackie Tyler (on the first appearance of Nine, in Rose and in Love and Monsters, for example) with Donna and Jack in Journey's End (she's the only person in canon he's ever declined to kiss) and a host of other examples/


*And that's a fantastic tribute to how good June Whitfield was looking.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

They are all empowered, they are the agents of the plot and capable, between them, of the widest range of moral actions- from corruption to madness to responsibility and sacrifice. That the master picks one gender over another to subordinate or enslave might also be read as a particular sign of his perversion or evil. Later we see women in more powerful positions- the female apparition to Wilf, the return of the Doctor Donna and Abigail, who is the center of her world or limitless resource.

I don't think this is even true of TEOF, but I've been working on a paper on RTD's attitude to women for some months and TEOF is very consistent with a number of general, disturbing themes.

First, throwaway reference to Elizabeth I (to tie in with her cameo appearance at the end of The Shakespeare Code and not needed IMHO). What's that there for except to allow the Doctor to boast "I fucked the most famous virgin in history - and then I ran"?

Second, Abigail. Centre of her world - because her Daddy put her there (and creepy incest vibe, eh?)

Third, The Doctor/Donna. Currently without power (because the Doctor lobotomised her against her explicit and screamed "No!" at the end of Journey's End and, to the extent she has power, because it's a male mind superimposed over her own, not something coming from herself.

Fourth, the cult of the Master. All deluded women and I'm not even going to go into the symbolism of that blond woman's clothing look.


Fifth: all the female population of the Earth except for the Doctor/Donna. No longer in existence. Wiped out and overwritten by the Master.

And finally, Lucy Saxon: "Corrupted" by the Master, as per the Doctor (other people - male people - who go bad in Who eg Dr Lazarus are assumed to be capable of going to the bad because of their own desires and devices, but not poor,fragile Lucy) who finally does the decent thing, for a woman in Who, like Mercy Hartigan and Harriet Jones - she immolates herself.

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

Well that would be the initial reading I was suggesting an alternative to.

1) Well that's not exactly laudable behaviour. It shows the Doctor is being driven by the fear of his death to act irresponsibly. HE is reprimanded for his delay by Ood sigma. He's not taking things seriously and gets a nasty shock from the Elder Ood that reminds him that he should have. Also the notion of Elizabeth I having lived without an active sexuality for the sake of her male government might be read as an act of misogyny that RTD was using the Doctor to correct. Also did he marry her and they fall out?

2) Yes there was a creepy incest vibe, but then they are villains. Abigail still had that power, wherever it came from.

3) Which was a tragedy that the Doctor deeply regrets.

4) Would that scene have been better or worse if it was men pushing Lucy around? Or men as part of a mixed group- leaving aside the idea that in a prison genders are normally segregated.

5) Well, nobody's saying that's a good thing.It's what the Doctor, Wilf, Donna and the woman in white have to work together to correct.

6) So what of the corrupted men and men who self-sacrifice in New Who? Is there a statistical break down of the numbers of men who take that narrative role versus women who do?

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

1)Also the notion of Elizabeth I having lived without an active sexuality for the sake of her male government might be read as an act of misogyny that RTD was using the Doctor to correct.

Indeed it might, by someone who knew bugger all about 16th century British history.

2) What power? Daddy's little princess?

3) And I'm sure Donna would regret it too, if he'd left her with her mind to do any regretting with.

4) That scene would have been far better having been cut and replaced with something which made sense on any level. Leaving aside the idea that in a top security psychiatric detention centre prisoners don't usually have ready access to individually crafted explosive liquids.

5) You can take a Holmesian or a Doylist view of that plot development. All I can see is RTD putting two fingers up to people who say his writing of non-white characters and of female characters is highly problematic and with one twist of the pen writing off the problem all together.

6) Yes, there is, but you'll have to buy the book, I'm afraid.

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

Indeed it might, by someone who knew bugger all about 16th century British history.

Would you care to expand on that?

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

Yes.

To begin with, Elizabeth's male government (as you put it) would have been absolutely delighted for her to have an active sexuality; they spent about 20 years urging one marriage or another on her. Her diplomatic dance around the matrimony game and her use of the carefully cultivated idea of herself as the unattainable Virgin is one of the most brilliant achievements of her reign (and a lot better managed in terms of avoiding faction fights and ingrouping than practically any other sovereign of England, of either sex, before or since managed), and if RTD thinks that the historical Elizabeth would have chucked all that away for a quick shag with the Doctor then he's a bigger twonk than I think he is, which at this precise moment is quite a large size in twonks.

[threewalls]

I <3 this comment.

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting way of looking at a woman denying herself a husband or married and reproductive life in order to remain potential available for diplomatic maneuvers throughout the course of her life. But it overlooks the personal aspect of somebody being made unhappy- and I think it overstates the degree of choice Elizabeth had in the matter. Had she settled the marriage question, or taken a lover that could be known about, at any time then her ability to move diplomatically and secure her reign would have been compromised. I have always considered her a prisoner of the needs of her nation. Her affection for Leicester and then Essex indicated to me a terrible and thwarted desire for trust and intimacy- a desire cruelly magnified by the weight of responsibility. I have no doubt that Elizabeth capitalized in the Virgin Queen image, but I do not believe she deliberately originated it- that would have chiefly been the work of politicians, painters and poets. It seems a little too fanciful and egocentric for Elizabeth I.

[gwyd.livejournal.com]

I don't agree. Given that her Grandfather was incredibly skilled at using imagery and pageantry for the purposes of political propaganda and that starting from right before her coronation, Elizabeth herself went to lengths to use visual and poetic symbolism to reinforce her hold on power, I have trouble believing she suddenly lacked agency when it came top crafting her own image. She commissioned quite a bit of that poetry and certainly had a hand in the imagrry that surrounded her. This is, after all, something Tudors were very, very aware of and good at.

She was raised under the constant threat of death and managed to walk a very delicate tight rope under Mary in particular. She was very politically astute and from her early teens at least clear on the fact that political missteps could be fatal. Her caution in matters of marriage and of image are pretty understandable.

Admittedly, the paper I did on the us of imagery for propaganda under the Tudors was written in the mid-90's, so theoretically new documents could have turned up, but to my mind she was a quintessential early modern monarch, with all the intelligence and ruthlessness it took to retain power in uncertain times. Propaganda was as much a part of that as her spy network and her careful political planning.

I'm not willing to speculate on her private sexuality as all I have are the documents that survive. I do agree she had a very specific taste in men. (The collected images of her court favorites are instructive). I'm not willing to go further, given how often chauvinistic historians have used both her sexuality and her stated virginity against her. It is and always has been a lose/lose situation for her, image wise. No mater what the answer is or was it gets turned against her, so I choose to let it go.

I do know I really don't like the doctor's throw away about Elizabeth. not cool RTD.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

Well said. I particularly liked the idea that the Plantagenet kings had let touching for the King's Evil fall into abeyance and Henry VII revived it, because a touch of divine power was just what his shaky claim needed, given that a few people other than the last incumbent presumably thought of him as "An unknown Welshman, whose father I never knew nor him personally saw."

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

I would be interested to know which artistic works proclaiming her role as the virgin queen Elizabeth personally commissioned, if you can recall them. I was aware of the nipples at court, and had seen that as evidence of her seeing a role and inhabiting it, rather than creating it all herself.

It's a bit tenuous to suggest she somehow inherited all this from her grandfather- he died 20 years before she was born. It is more likely that she taught herself that level of PR acumen through her extensive reading, which may have drawn upon the history of her own family and how they had secured power.

But the original point I was making was that to go through your entire life never having a sexual relationship- or any romance beyond some version or other of courtly love- not out of choice but out of self preservation and national duty can be seen as a deeply unfair condition of living as a woman of power in a patriarchal society. So the Doctor, used by RTD, uses the magic of time travel to relieve that isolation. They got married after all- it hardly sounds like a one night stand.

Do we really think that Elizabeth I would not have taken a husband of her choice had she really had that choice- again, given her obvious affection for Dudley and Devereux? So why does it require knowing 'bugger all' about Tudor history to see the Doctor having a fulfilling relationship with Elizabeth I as something to redress that unfairness?

[elionwyr.livejournal.com]

5) You can take a Holmesian or a Doylist view of that plot development.

..I'm curious what you mean by that.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

Holmesian analysis takes a view of the work from within it, treating it as its own universe, so oddities and inconsistencies have to make sense within that universe and not by reference to external factors. So, for example, in the Sherlock Holmes canon references to Watson's wife having two different names cannot be explained by authorial error, but have to be given a logically consistent explanation by reference only to other bits of canon (in that case, that Watson married twice and for some reason his remarriage was too painful to be dwelt on in the narrative context).

Accordingly, the comment that the situation happened and now it's up to the remaining characters to deal with it is a Holmesian approach; the argument which I put forward, namely that he chose to twist the plot in a way which would limit his need to write female or non-white characters is a Doylist one. Neither is right or wrong, but you can't challenge a Holmesian analysis with Doylist arguments and vice versa, because the framework for argument is different in each case.

[elionwyr.livejournal.com]

I have never come across that before..fascinating. Thank you for breaking it down for me.

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

I think they are more usually referred to as Watsonian and Doylist analysis- that is what you will find them under on TVtropes, for example.