The Wolf Victorious

Guest Submission: Clara in "The Name of the Doctor"

Sat, 25 May 2013 13:20:18 -0400

I had some thoughts on tonight’s episode, prompted by a post on my dashboard referring to the Doctor as Clara’s “best friend”:

“can we just appreciate for a second how people were saying Clara was “too special” and they were sick of “special” companions when really she was just an ordinary girl who was brave and decided to save her best friend”

Reading that made me realize how hugely I disagreed. This is my main problem with Clara’s character arc. (Well, it would have been nice if she got some character, other than being generically “cute” and “feisty” when the plot demands it, but that’s a different issue.)

My problem with Clara was never that she was “special”. I like ordinary (hello, shop girl Rose!) but I like special too (hello, space and time bleeding into Amy’s head!). They offer different options when telling the story of a companion, and I like that. I don’t believe one is inherently worse than the other. But what you need, in order to make both work, is a sense of emotional attachment. You need Rose ; angry to the point of tears in a chip shop because “the Doctor showed me a better way of living my life” and she can’t - she won’t - leave him to a lonely death. You need the Doctor ; returning to Amelia as the cracks in the universe start to close, choked with emotion as he rewrites their future, erasing the time they spent together in order to save her. If Amy, or Rose, or Donna, or River, sacrificed themselves for the Doctor the way Clara just did, I’d buy it. Because I’ve seen that connection. I know how deep it runs. I know they’d do anything for the Doctor, and the Doctor would do anything for them.

And here, unfortunately, is where reality sneaks into the middle of an enjoyable dramatic moment and kicks me in the teeth, because, uh … the Doctor is not Clara’s best friend. He’s a funny, strange alien guy who dropped into her world one day and saved her life. Sometimes he flat-out intimidates her. They travel together and she thinks he’s cute (a feeling he apparently reciprocates) but they haven’t really bonded. Let’s be honest, they haven’t. Most of season seven consists of Clara running and screaming (and swooning) while the Doctor saves her. It would take me more than two hands to count the occasions on which Clara has been reduced to this role in the plot. When she’s not doing this, she exists just as a “thing” in the abstract, a mystery the Doctor must solve. “What are you?” he demands repeatedly, and it’s a telling choice of words. In storytelling terms, who Clara is matters much less than what she is. Well, fine. If you want Clara to be a blank cipher around which the plot is built, I can deal with that. But you can’t then turn around and ask me to feel for her. You can’t then hinge the denouement of this huge, epic mystery around her emotional connection to the Doctor. Not if you haven’t bothered to build one.

I like Jenna-Louise Coleman and I want to like Clara, but I can’t. Her character has not been afforded the respect it deserves, and if anything, this revelation of Clara as the brave, self-sacrificing best friend only serves to highlight that. If Clara was always going to give up her life, then we deserved to know more about it before she did so. We deserved to know what she was giving up. On the show, it amounts to little more than babysitting two kids and failing at making soufflés. She offers no last words for the Maitland kids, who she supposedly built her life around. She doesn’t even seem to think of them in her final moments. She sacrificed her dreams of travel for these kids, she’s been a mother to them, and yet we’re supposed to believe that what matters more to her is the Doctor. A guy she knew for a few weeks (a few months at best), and has a vague romantic interest in. A guy who she was horrified to learn - just minutes earlier - had been lying to her all that time. Even earlier than that, her illusions about being the only one in the universe the Doctor trusts were debunked when Vastra asked her what his name was. When she discovered he had a wife he’d never cared to mention. And for this man she gave up her whole life. Would you? Probably not. So why should she? The only real reason is that the plot demands it, and there’s a word for that. Poor writing. (Okay, two words. One idea though.)

I know - Matt and Jenna-Louise are great actors, and have an undeniable chemistry. They’re cute together, and it makes the idea a much easier sell. But you don’t kill yourself for someone you’re “cute with”. You need a much deeper emotional connection for that, and the show just hasn’t given us one. They haven’t shared anything with each other. Actually, a major component of their relationship is the Doctor’s decision to withhold information about Clara from Clara herself. Which is somehow okay because, well, he’s the Doctor. He’s never held accountable for that kind of head-fuckery because everyone knows “The Doctor lies”, and it’s not like a 900 year old Time Lord has any capacity for change. Even though he’s the Doctor, and his constant capacity for change is sort of the point. (It’s probably best if we don’t examine that one too closely.)

The Doctor and Clara aren’t best friends. Their connection is about as deep as the Doctor’s connection with Vastra or Strax. Actually, those two have a far deeper connection with him, as he saved them both from angry, destructive life paths. (Vastra was fixated on revenge, Strax on mindless warfare. Both are shown to be much happier in their current lives.) The Doctor doesn’t have that connection with Clara. He hasn’t touched her life in that way. He just picks her up every Wednesday for a fun day out with a side of flirting. Which is fine. What’s not fine is the message that if you’re a pretty young woman and encounter a man like this, you should be willing to die for him. Because he’s a really special man, and your life is only special if you give it up for him. That’s the only thing that matters about you. In fact, it’s not enough to say your only legacy after you’re gone will be saving this man. Why not make it the entire point of your life? You were born to save the Doctor. Like a robot programmed with only one function. Whatever else you wanted, whoever else you cared about … they don’t matter. That’s what Steven Moffat is saying with this storyline. That was the point of Clara’s character.

And I’m sorry, but that’s not a message I can get on board with. It’s actually a message that makes me deeply uncomfortable, because it’s really, really wrong. Clara the character deserved better. Jenna-Louise the actress deserved better. Doctor Who, the show I love, deserved better. And I deserved better. I’m a viewer and a fan and a woman, and I deserved better than such a poorly written, toxic plot.

This is so well written.

I would also argue that another big problem with not only the Clara arc, but the Ponds arc is that we’re given all sorts of labels for the companions that we aren’t asked to understand, just accept.

Amy is “the girl who waited.” What does that really mean? Well, we’re asked to believe that she has waited for the Doctor, but did she actually? When we meet Amy again as a woman, she has attempted to move on in her life. (To a kissagram.) She has a fiancé, a job, and a memory of this funny man in a blue box from childhood.

To say that she has “waited” means that despite her attempts to move on, that this man she met once stopped her from actually doing that. After running off with the Doctor and escaping her life, she is still “the girl who waited.” In both the Pandorica and in the alternate universe, she has to wait for the Doctor to deliver her from her own life.

Moving on to Clara, the labels start to get ridiculous. She is “the Impossible Girl,” “Souffle Girl,” and the girl who was “born on a leaf.” I can buy where “Impossible Girl” comes from, but clearly she is not actually impossible, but that seems to be something that Moffat likes to overuse anyway.

Souffle Girl is just don’t understand. Am I missing an understanding of the significance of the souffle? Clearly I remember the Dalek Asylum episode, but the importane of souffles to Clara is just not there.

Finally, we have the who “blew in on a leaf” thing. An attempt to explain this one was made and we understand the leaf to represent the vast number of possibilities filtering down to just one outcome. What bothers me the most about this is that we have two different understandings of the significance of the leaf. The one that I mentioned is only what the Doctor thinks the leaf represents and what we’re asked to believe. Clara, however, is sentimentally attached to it because it’s how her parents met.

This is problematic because it muddies the symbolism of the leaf. When the Doctor hands it to her in The Name of the Doctor, what is it’s actual symbolism? Why does it even matter in this particular setting and why should it matter to Clara? In the possibilities symbol, it would mean that the fact that Clara is one outcome in a multitude of possibilities saves her. if it’s the symbol Clara makes it to be, then it’s the sentimental memory of her parents that saves her. Neither actually make sense in the situation in which they are presented.

a-synesthetic-world: dreamsandreveries: i think i have a form of synesthesia? i see letters and...

Sat, 25 May 2013 12:45:42 -0400

a-synesthetic-world:

dreamsandreveries:

i think i have a form of synesthesia?

i see letters and numbers as having genders and personalities

i got made fun of for telling this to people but it’s like a real condition ok

neurosciencestuff: New neuron formation could increase capacity...

Sat, 25 May 2013 12:05:37 -0400

neurosciencestuff:

New neuron formation could increase capacity for new learning, at the expense of old memories

Cause of infantile amnesia revealed

New research presented today shows that formation of new neurons in the hippocampus - a brain region known for its importance in learning and remembering - could cause forgetting of old memories by causing a reorganization of existing brain circuits. Drs. Paul Frankland and Sheena Josselyn, both from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, argue this reorganization could have the positive effect of clearing old memories, reducing interference and thereby increasing capacity for new learning. These results were presented at the 2013 Canadian Neuroscience Meeting, the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Neuroscience - Association Canadienne des Neurosciences (CAN-ACN).

Researchers have long known of the phenomenon of infantile amnesia: This refers to the absence of long-term memory of events occurring within the first 2-3 years of life, and little long-term memories for events occurring until about 7 years of age. Studies have shown that though young children can remember events in the short term, these memories do not persist. This new study by Frankland and Josselyn shows that this amnesia is associated with high levels of new neuron production - a process called neurogenesis - in the hippocampus, and that more permanent memory formation is associated with a reduction in neurogenesis.

Dr. Frankland and Dr. Josselyn’s approach was to look at retention of memories in young mice in which they suppressed the usual high levels of neurogenesis in the hippocampus (thereby replicating the circuit stability normally observed in adult mice), but also in older mice in which they stimulated increased neurogenesis (thereby replicating the conditions normally seen in younger mice). Dr. Frankland was able to show a causal relationship between a reduction in neurogenesis and increased remembering, and the converse, decreased remembering when neurogenesis increased.

Dr. Frankland concludes: ” Why infantile amnesia exists has long been a mystery. We think our new studies begin to explain why we have no memories from our earliest years.”

englishmajorhumor: Happy Towel Day!

Sat, 25 May 2013 11:57:18 -0400

englishmajorhumor:

Happy Towel Day!

theartistathlete: DAREDEVIL - KEMETER MICH Freesolo climbing -...

Sat, 25 May 2013 11:56:27 -0400

theartistathlete:

DAREDEVIL - KEMETER MICH

Freesolo climbing - Highlining - BASE jumping

Photographer - Alexandre Buisse

COFFEE!!!

Sat, 25 May 2013 02:54:32 -0400

ruraljackdaw: psilentasincjelli: ruraljackdaw: voyagesofabookworm: thatwhoviansynesthete: wearej...

Sat, 25 May 2013 02:53:13 -0400

ruraljackdaw:

psilentasincjelli:

ruraljackdaw:

voyagesofabookworm:

thatwhoviansynesthete:

wearejohnlocked:

hungarian:

do british people have a special £ key on their keyboards

how do you hashtag ??????

hashtag is over by the enter key don’t you worry your lil butt

wait

what… what do American keyboards look like then?

oh

spankydoodledandy: fuckyeahveganlife: marching against...

Sat, 25 May 2013 02:03:56 -0400

spankydoodledandy:

fuckyeahveganlife:

marching against monsanto tomorrow, i hope you are, too. it’s equally a human and animal rights issue. not only are gm seeds and plants killing off all the bees, gmos are used in most pet foods, too. pretty much all food, for animals and people, contains gmos, unless its labeled as organic or gmo-free.

Unfortunately I can’t attend the Nashville March, but anyone who can attend their local March should go for me, and for themselves and the future of the food industry.

jeff-van-gundy: areyouhappyenough: Always reblog. Everyone...

Sat, 25 May 2013 01:55:13 -0400

jeff-van-gundy:

areyouhappyenough:

Always reblog. Everyone needs to see this. Mainly employers.

AAAAAMEEEEERIIIICAAAAAN
DREEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAM

neil-gaiman: fipindustries: the best of give up-gaiman One of...

Sat, 25 May 2013 00:22:11 -0400

neil-gaiman:

fipindustries:

the best of give up-gaiman

One of those “if I could turn back time 12 hours and not put up that photo” moments…

I really hope that someone has been paying attention to my tags today. It’s a thing, I’m...

Sat, 25 May 2013 00:19:31 -0400

I really hope that someone has been paying attention to my tags today. It’s a thing, I’m trying it.

fishingboatproceeds: effyeahnerdfighters: What’s Up with Start...

Sat, 25 May 2013 00:06:00 -0400

fishingboatproceeds:

effyeahnerdfighters:

What’s Up with Start Ups

I’m just getting a little sick of the system that values aggregators of content more than creators of content, and presumes some kind of magical future where owning users free time results in lots of money.

This is a really interesting Hank video. I think he slightly undervalues concrete/platforms like tumblr, but the underlying point is a very important one to me: In a world where the media landscape is shaped and defined by advertisers, your attention and your creations are the product for sale. Tumblr is not free. It is paid for by you giving it time and making things with it.

I like to imagine a world in which vlogbrothers, and even much more expensive projects like Crash Course can be sustainable without advertising, but because this ad-driven world is accepted so widely, I’m not sure it will ever happen.

Hank and I both continue to be profoundly troubled by it, though, and we’re working hard to imagine other ways to sustain the creators of awesome things, because if I’m going to be for sale, I don’t want Delicious Diet Dr. Pepper Which Tastes More Like Real Dr. Pepper to decide how much you and I are worth. I want us to decide.

fleaingfrance: breadandolives: |Source| in the Dordogne...

Sat, 25 May 2013 00:05:00 -0400

fleaingfrance:

breadandolives:

|Source|

in the Dordogne region of France

sandandglass: #accurate

Sat, 25 May 2013 00:05:00 -0400

sandandglass:

#accurate

Photo

Sat, 25 May 2013 00:03:00 -0400

Photo

Sat, 25 May 2013 00:03:00 -0400

iamtonysexual: fuchsiatyrant: fatkidinmath: kazoothekid: earljrsmith: Google only has about .04...

Sat, 25 May 2013 00:02:00 -0400

iamtonysexual:

fuchsiatyrant:

fatkidinmath:

kazoothekid:

earljrsmith:

Google only has about .04 of the entire internet indexed. Let that sink in

What. What the fuck. WHERE IS THE REST OF THE INTERNET.

NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS OMG

google it

waht

cutestofthecute: (via)

Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:00 -0400

cutestofthecute:

(via)

Photo

Fri, 24 May 2013 22:32:00 -0400

mountainvagabond: It’s GIF, with a ‘j’ (RNN) - Tuesday, Steve...

Fri, 24 May 2013 21:29:27 -0400

mountainvagabond:

It’s GIF, with a ‘j’

(RNN) - Tuesday, Steve Wilhite, the creator of the popular file format GIF, or Graphics Interchange Format, dropped a bombshell about the ubiquitous internet mainstay and put an end to more than a decade of debate.

It’s pronounced “jif.”

“The Oxford English Dictionary accepts both pronunciations,” Wilhite told the New York Times. “They are wrong. It is a soft ‘G,’ pronounced ‘jif.’ End of story.”

Why it took so long for someone to finally, once and for all, proclaim the final answer to this question is hard to say, but now we know.

Wilhite was honored with a lifetime achievement award at The Webby Awards, an international award “honoring excellence on the internet,” for his invention of the GIF.

The GIF is a popular file extension for images which has built in file compression, and allows something other small file formats previously couldn’t – animation. Those moving, repeating pictures you see all over the web are likely GIFs.

“The GIF has had an immeasurable impact on the way users interface with the web and how designers and developers present visual data and imagery,” the Webby Awards said in a statement.

In a world where technology quickly comes and goes, especially online, the GIF remains extremely popular and widespread.

What once started out with simple flashing text and spinning objects has been turned into short clips of video scenes and full-length animations, perfect for quick page loading and for those moments when a simple text response just isn’t enough to capture your feelings on a subject.

“The proliferation of the GIF within today’s meme-powered, Tumblr-driven, pop culture proves it a lasting format still among the most celebrated on the web,” according to the Webby Awards.

Wilhite created the GIF in 1987 while working at CompuServe, the nation’s first major online service. The GIF was to replace black and white images used as illustrations. The first GIF was an image of an airplane.

In 2012 the GIF was officially recognized as both a verb and a noun by the Oxford University Press, which also voted it their word of the year.

While the GIF has not been retired, Wilhite has. He suffered a stroke in 2000 and retired in 2001. He told the New York Times he spends his time going on RV trips, dabbling in color photography and Java programming, and keeps up with his family through email and Facebook.