On Liking Things

Fandom culture is both wonderful and frightening. I like the things that I like for my own reasons, and I truly enjoy sharing them with others either in person or through sites like tumblr that let me reblog gifsets of shows and movies to my heart's content. I recently transferred my YouTube account to a new e-mail address, which meant re-favoriting all my "favorite videos" one by one because I couldn't figure out a better way to do it. I was fascinated by both the things I had earmarked as early as 2007 and the fact that I actually still loved most of those videos. It was so fun to rediscover The Danish Poet and the 50 Jokes in 4 Minutes series by Hank Green on the Vlogbrothers channel.

I've also been listening to old playlists while I've been driving during break. Songs have shuffled on that friends gave me in high school, and they're still songs I enjoy and am not ashamed (or very ashamed) of as much as I was when they were given to me. Just today I listened to "I'll Follow You into the Dark" and "The Element Song," the former is a fantastic song, and the latter is a fantastic song that happens to be my party trick and a silly thing to have on my "Driving" playlist.

I find the wonderful thing about fan culture to be when we can share things we love with other people who love them just as much as we do. It is such a fantastic way to form communities and friendships.

The frightening thing about fandom is when it refuses to evolve with the thing. Now is the part when you skip to the last two paragraphs if you don't want to read my really long rant about Doctor Who.

(spoilers ahead if you haven't seen The Day of the Doctor or The Time of the Doctor)

I am very frustrated by a lot of the commentary on the current run of Doctor Who. I believe that if you like something, you're allowed to like it, and if you don't like it, you don't have to have anything to do with it. When things exist over time, they evolve. This is true of species, artists, art, stories, planets, people...everything. As you grow and change and the things you love grow and change, you might find that you do not like the thing anymore. THAT IS OKAY. Your tastes are allowed to change. I used to hate asparagus; now I love them. I used to love performing on stage; now I strongly prefer being a techie. All of this is okay.

As a fan, I tend to accept canon. I may think it's terrible, but I try not to superimpose my own extensions to the mythology of things (like I hate the epilogue of Harry Potter, but I would never decide that Harry marries Luna instead of Ginny and call it "in-world" or canon). So, when characters change or plotlines twist unexpectedly, I take it in stride and figure out how the canonical mythology justifies it. For instance, after The Day of the Doctor, I have determined that ALL PREVIOUS PLOTS REMAIN RELEVANT BECAUSE NO DOCTORS OTHER THAN 11 CAN REMEMBER THAT THEY SAVED GALLIFREY.

So, the main complaints about Steven Moffat as showrunner are that he (a) nullifies plots and (b) does not develop characters. This is most often in comparison to Russell T. Davies, who, as a creator, tends to focus his energies on developing the companion characters rather than his heroes (see Torchwood and how much we love Tosh, Owen, Ianto, and Gwen who function as sidekicks to Jack). I think that a faction of the fandom got attached to Davies' style of focusing on the companions and were less satisfied when Moffat turned the focus back to the Doctor because we, as humans, relate to the companions. They live the fantasy most of us have about getting to travel through space and time, and we want to know what their experiences are because the hero is a charismatic, enigmatic alien.

To address these concerns about Moffat, I would like to argue the following. Regarding point (a) the only instance I can think of when he nullifies a plot device without justification is in this year's Christmas Special when the Angel did not send Clara back when it touched her. I have read arguments that he destroyed the integrity of the series by saving Gallifrey (which he justifies in the script) and watering down monsters like the Weeping Angels or the Silence. The Angels and the Silence are really freaking creepy. I think the "watering down" is us getting used to how they work and what they do. I am still frightened by them.

As for a lack of character development, I would say that he selectively develops characters. He gives the series to the Doctor where Davies gave it to the Companions. It is a different philosophy, and I feel that Matt's Doctor was a very rounded portrayal. He got to be goofy, sad, scary, intimidating, frightened, anxious, caring, flirty, and so many other characteristics. His characterization was driven both by the writing and the acting, and I have truly enjoyed this actor in this part. As for the companions, I never really liked Amy, but Rory was a favorite of mine. I liked watching their relationship develop, and I think that Moffat portrayed the impact of the Doctor on a couple as the couple also developed. Clara has not had very much time, but she has already proven to be clever, intuitive, brave, kind, relatable, and initiative-taking. I'm not sure exactly what type of development the dissatisfied fans are looking for, but I clearly remember needing time to adjust to both Martha and Donna when they had their turns on the TARDIS as well. And we can look to Sherlock as evidence that Moffat can develop the heck out of characters.

One final area that gets a lot of complaints is Moffat's portrayal of women. The feminist analytical lens is not kind to many series, including such beloved classics as Star Wars and the works of JRR Tolkein (or even Sherlock, a series beloved by many of the same fans). The fact that a 50-year-old television show has at least one woman written into the paradigm is wonderful. The female companions are always integral to the progression and evolution of the series.

When the Doctor has a young and attractive face, of course there are going to be moments of flirtation that are created for comic relief, but my favorite moments of the show are when there is no sexual tension on screen. It hurts me to read commentary that takes the feminist issues out of context. For instance, in the most recent episode people are taking exception to the way the Doctor kisses Tasha. They had a previous relationship in which it was established that this behavior was acceptable. Just because the moment of consent does not appear on screen does not mean that it does not exist. We accept that Clara uses the bathroom without having to see it, so why do the rules of preexisting relationships differ? As a character, Tasha wields a whole lot of power; she is in charge of the Papal Mainframe, which is basically the intergalactic UN with the military power to back up its policies. If she ever wanted to draw a line, it would be there quite boldly. That's not to say that the nudity jokes or Amy as a kiss-o-gram were useful to the arc of the show, but taking anything out of context renders it meaningless.

Now, I just had a rant about the Doctor Who fandom. Back to fan culture more generally. Rants like the one I just had could be read by many people who understand the moments I reference (mine won't because I don't have a broad readership). First of all, these comments are MY OPINON. They are thoughts that came from my brain, influenced by the things I have read and seen. They are my own conclusions and analysis, and they make sense in my world. The problem I have with fan culture is when it gets to be a very exclusive club after it establishes itself in an inclusive way. Because I do not take exception to the arc my beloved series has taken in ways the fandom has established as popular, I am risking being ostracized, ridiculed, and hated. As much as I stand by the things I am saying at this point in time, it still hurts when a commenter calls me ignorant or selfish. I can shrug it off and say that if you don't like it, stop reading and stop watching, but that does not repair the poor opinion someone has formed of me. I am a part of my fan communities whether I agree with the overarching commentary or not. I am a part of the community whether or not we all agree that something is awesome (although if you don't think the thing we love is awesome, then why would you love it?).

I am a fan because I want to identify that way. It's like being a Nerdfighter: you are one if you want to be one. That is the only definition. I can love aspects of the thing that other people hate and vice versa; that is each individual's right. My problem is when the fans turn against the canon. We cannot unwrite what has been written and presented, and hating on any one contributor to those products (and all things happen collaboratively) is most likely a misattribution of blame. I am ready for a fandom that celebrates things that we love, the good and the bad, and lets each person draw their own conclusions. I am ready to be part of a community that loves the common thing. Like what you love. Love what you love. Squaresville got it right.

I'm not quite sure how to end this post. Love what you love. It's okay to be critical, but understand your content first. Don't hate on people; it's mean. Don't be mean. The things we love at one point in our lives can remain loves even as we evolve. Let yourself and your things evolve. I think that's the takeaway.

Today is awesome because I finished watching Sherlock with my mom. It was her first time and my second (complete), and she liked it. It's cool to share a fandom with her.