This has nothing to do with River, really. Love the blog and all . . . but the Doctor is NOT, by any means, a pacifist. Just because he doesn't like using weapons doesn't mean he won't go to war. He just doesn't much enjoy using guns. Wars fought with intelligence instead of weapons are still wars. Pacifism =/= hatred of weapons and destruction.
((Starting where I left off. And if my arguments seem to bore you just say so. I just love debates, and there aren’t any teams that will allow me. Plus most people do not like debates.))
River Song is not a flawless character but in order to see her character in true light you have to dig a little deeper. As you would anyone new you meet, they may not be upfront rude or they may seem perfect. I have met several people whom seemed nice and respectable. As I began to learn more about them and their actions on others they became tainted in my eyes. I saw them as a repulsive person their major flaws becoming a repelent to me unlike others finding it alright. It is fairly common.
Why does the pacifist Doctor approve of her gun slinging? He does not if you look closely. The first time you see her use a gun it is in “Silence in the Library” if I am not mistaken. They are clearly running for their life and the Doctor knows it is a squareness gun which can cause no physical harm. The next time she is seen using a gun in front of him is in “The Impossible Astronaut” where as he is dead. Then in “Day of the Moon” she is murdering the Silence. She only does this under his command. We have all seen the Doctor’s dark side before. When he is particulary angry he shows no remorse or mercy. The capture of Amy and manipulation of human kind have made the Doctor extremely angry. He may have seemed calm and collected but if you go back to his dialouge you can begin to hear his anger. As seen in “A Good Man Goes to War” he can be dangerous and loses sight of himself when angered. We next see her use a gun in front of him in “Let’s Kill Hitler”, we see him disarming all the guns in the room.
Her unusual birth and childhood. It is all a huge paradox that no one can temper with. I found that a particularly cheap writing, and yet it intrigued me. Her whole existance is a paradox or “spoiler.” She cannot do anything to control it. She is forced in a lock with time. We see her enter the Doctor’s life in the fourth season. But it reality this is not her choice. If she does not comply to the timeline she will either not exist, or simply destroy the universe. She is basically a slave to time, but she makes due with what she does have.
Her being part-timelord. I actually think Moffat had not intended this. Alex Kingston was casted first, and then Tennant left. Moffat had originally intended the next regeneration to be in the 40’s, to present a fatherly/gandfatherly character. Then Matt Smith stepped in playing out the Doctor so well (in staff’s opinion). Matt Smith having a large age difference would make the relationship difficult between the two characters. And he loved the way Alex Kingston acted. So to make it seem less weird between the two. Making her “a homemade timelord.” You can actually see evidence of this. (ex. In “Let’s Kill Hitler” she uselessly kills the Doctor to bring him back to life, making her mortal. Intending her to be mortal.) Then to not cause any complaints he had to have some arc of her childhood. If I had a baby timelord just out there to use for my own personal gain I would. Timelords have always be important (people wanting to use their regeneration for themselves, control of the TARDIS, etc). To see a timelord baby go off with no troubles while the Doctor also being a timelord encounters all these problems would make no sense. Moffat had to cover his tracks.
((I have some more thoughts but I don’t want to drag it on. So what are you thoughts on my arguments? :D ))
She probably wrestled him into it. Actually, no, what am I saying, David would jump at the chance to wear that!
Another very Mary-Sue thing about River! Why the fuck does The Doctor let her shoot things? Doesn't he hate violence? But, for some unknown reason he's ok with River committing it? Mary-Sue thing!~
This is one of the many things that supposedly makes her not a Mary Sue, however, most fans think that she’s so bad ass because of it. Another reason why I can’t like her.
I'm sorry if I offended you, but you sort of offended me. I understand you can dislike a character, yes. My real issue is that you tag this as "River Song." No one who dislikes her is going to be browsing the River Song tag (Maybe they do? I don't know...). And I'm sorry about the too old thing, I was saying I've seen it /elsewhere/, and it just happened to also be mentioned in the submission. As for my defense towards River.. comealonglestrange. tumblr. com/post/10466507100/riversong Thankyou(:
Don’t worry, you didn’t offend me :) however, I don’t see any way that I offended you by my own personal opinions about a fictional character. I pointedly tag River Song to ignite debate and discussion, not insulting and name calling. I have never called anyone a name or insulted them.
Thank you :)
I’m wee bit bored, and up for a good argument. One that doesn’t apply solely on one’s opinions, but still shows a good viewpoint of where this is coming from.
Alright where to start, hmm… I suppose I shall start with the Mary Sue address. The beginning of the term Mary Sue began with most fanfiction writers trying to put themselves into the storyline. But in fact the character is perfect in every way and highly unreasonable to even have in the storyline. This has become highly changed over the time to basically mean character with no visible flaws.
A person’s flaws are mainly described in opinion. One person may say,”Oh my legs are too fat.” When their friend says,”No they aren’t, they are really nice.” or “I think they are actually too skinny.”
River Song presents herself as an confident, sharp minded, and physically strong character.
Personally, I think she is over-confident, to as where a point she is oblivious to major details. (ex. Time of the Angels where she notices that the “statues” do not have two heads) She is a very manipulative character who seems to have selfish motives.
When you first see her she is clearly very “nice” to the main characters. Keep in mind there are characters in the episodes she appeared in that clearly disliked her. With her over bearing sense of pride she reacted with her sharp tounge showing her clear dislike back when she didn’t deam them worthy. And even the main characters are found annoyed by her traits.
In addition, she is clearly hardened character with her emotions. In my opinion a “healthy” person would openly weep when her romantic interest dies right fucking in front of her, but as seen she doesn’t accept the tears. This is emotional scarring from her childhood. As a person who has experienced depression first hand she shows symptoms of it. Her refusal to cry openly, her lack of emotional connection (except when something tramatic has happened), her easy irritablity, and even her “happiness”. Her “happiness” shows to me as false, clearly trying to cover up the fact that she had a shit life. When one is depressed some chose to cover it up, others show it openingly. She has her flirty comebacks, and jokes but in reality she can’t stand it. Her lack of emotional response, and pride also seek refusal for help. So inevitably she does the very thing to keep them from helping her, covering it up.
((Okay well, it’s late and I have some more to write. So, are you okay if I submit more tomorrow?))