The Doctor's Imprint

[snorkackcatcher]

While thinking vaguely about the setup of The Girl in the Fireplace, an odd thought struck me: Steven Moffat does seem to have a pattern of writing episodes in which a young girl meets the Doctor, and (for want of a better description) he 'imprints' on her in a way that leads to romantic and/or sexual interest later on.



We now appear to have three examples of this 'imprinting' pattern (four if you count Lorna Bucket in A Good Man Goes To War, but that doesn't play out quite the same so let's not):

In The Girl in the Fireplace itself we have the Doctor turning up in Reinette's life when she's a young kid and seeing off the Big Scary Robot Under The Bed, then when she's a teenager, which makes a big impression on her -- leading of course to her to thinking of him as her 'lonely angel', and to her taking him off for a 'dance'. (Which you may interpret as you will, but given the context and the way that word was previously used as a euphemism, yes they totally did it.)

In The Eleventh Hour we have the Tardis crash-landing in young Amelia Pond's garden and the Doctor fixing the Big Scary Crack In The Wall. Then he turns up again when she's a teenager and then yet again on the eve of her wedding, leading to her thinking of him as her 'Raggedy Doctor' and her unsuccessful seduction attempt at the end of Flesh and Stone.

The third? Well, this one's arguable, but it now looks very much as if River's comment in The Impossible Astronaut about the Doctor first coming to her as a young girl was meant literally. I doubt I was the only one who originally took that as meaning 'young woman', to tie in with the romance arc of the characters -- but assuming she really is the girl in the spacesuit, then she too is going to first meet the Doctor at an early age when he rescues her from the Big Scary Aliens Who Kidnapped Her As A Baby, and he's clearly the most important person to her by some distance.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. On the face of it it's a bit creepy, but to be fair, in the first two cases it's purely accidental on the part of the Doctor -- the time windows back to 17th-century France jump about unexpectedly, and the Tardis temporal steering turns out to be badly off-kilter when trying to get back to Amy's house. And in the third case presumably the requirements for rescue override everything else, as does the fact that River has already made it fairly clear that they will have something going on in the future. (Yeah, predestination paradox temporal loop, but the way it's set up seems to imply a congruence between what the characters are told will happen and what they want to do anyway, with the latter leading to the former leading to the latter leading to ... Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey.)

Now this may say something deep about Moffat, of course (although RTD did it too, albeit the other way round with Rose and Mickey in Father's Day), but on the other hand there may well be less to it than meets the eye. Writers do have a tendency to take one good plot idea with plenty of dramatic mileage and overdo it, without realising they're falling into a pattern. (Arguably Moffat is doing that with the predestination paradox temporal loops too, although I must admit I like the results there and am not objecting!)

Thoughts anyone?

Comments

[jdbracknell.livejournal.com]

It is a bit creepy - but then I find a lot of the ways Moffat writes women a bit creepy, in that he seems to set up these awesome female characters and then you find out their entire lives are kind of enslaved to The Doctor. And maybe that's unfair of me because obviously the show is about the Doctor, not the women but... yeah. I just keep coming back to creepy, the idea that at the age of 8 or whatever, these women meet him and then they're just... in love with him forever and waiting for him to notice. It seems a bit like wishful thinking on Moffat's part, that a man might be SO awesome a short encounter as a child with him is enough to enrapture someone for life - I think that's what gives me the wig about it :/.

[wake-the-dragon.livejournal.com]

I think that's a little unfair.

The RTD era companions all seemed to revolve around the Doctor as well. Rose was so heartbroken that she kept trying to get back to her orignal universe to get back with him and then at the end of Journey's End stays in the alternate universe with Ten's half-human clone; Martha had a long-lasting crush on the Doctor and Donna, like Rose before her, never wanted to leave traveling with him and had to be forced to.

Not saying you don't have a point, but still a little unfair.

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

Jumping in here...

The difference for me is that Rose, Martha and Donna were already adults when they met the Doctor. Each had a life before they met him. It might not have been a fulfilling life, but they were still adults all the same. Each made the conscious choice to travel with the Doctor--in fact, Rose and Donna initially chose not to travel with him, and the Doctor respected that. The companion/Doctor power dynamic was more equal as a result.

OTOH, the adult/child dynamic is a fundamental power imbalance. Amy and River have never really been free of the Doctor, have not known lives outside of him. To me this means the Doctor has undue power and influence over Amy and River, compared to Rose, Martha or Donna.

[wake-the-dragon.livejournal.com]

He was freaked out by Amy trying to kiss him, and he was upset about Rory's comment about making people a danger to themselves, so I don't think he's thrilled about his influence over Amy.

I don't want to assume anything about River yet. We know he's going after her kidnappers now but that doesn't mean he gets her back when she's a kid. Or if he does whether he interacts with her at all until she's older. There's also the possibility that River's Doctor is an alt!Doctor (in an interview Alex Kingeston said River met a Doctor, and kept making comments like that Doctor). I just feel we don't know enough about River yet to determine that.

Not that it's not creepy.

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

I don't think he's thrilled about his influence over Amy.

I agree, the Doctor's not thrilled about it--but the influence is still there. It will always be there.

I agree, we need to know the rest of River's story. I hope it resolves the issues, too.

[snorkackcatcher]

Yes, I'm prepared to wait and see what happens with the River storyline. Moffat's good at surprising you by having stories turn on a little element that you don't even think about at the time but turns out to be crucial later on (like the 'conceived in the Time Vortex' thing), so the most sensible thing to do seems to be to reserve judgement until all the facts are in evidence, as it were.:)

[snorkackcatcher]

I'm not sure it isn't that fanboy!Moffat really thinks that it would, actually, if it's the Doctor.

I don't mind so much because both Amy and River actually seem well able to hold their own in their relationships with the Doctor (as compared to say Rose and Martha, who were always a bit too starstruck). It's ironic that it should be that way round, but it definitely counteracts the creepiness.

[jdbracknell.livejournal.com]

You make a valid point. I think for me what makes it creepy is the accumulation and pattern of it - if it was just Amy I would be cool with that because goddamn I LOVE their story. But when it looks like River might basically play out the same thing but with sex it makes me a bit '...is this how relationships go in Moffat!world? Okay, that's... weird.' (as someone else down the thread said, Reinette was so long ago/different Doctor separated I hadn't made the association).

I think it's interesting that there's also this recurring theme of childhood sweethearts on top of that in new Who, where the girl takes the guy a bit for granted only to later see 'oh, he might be a bit awesome, actually' (Amy/Rory, and Mickey/Rose). Reminds me a lot of Press Gang and Spike/Linda, and I don't think there's anything wrong with a writer having a certain preference when it comes to the type of relationship they write (hell, I do it too - my choices are just different, and probably equally side-eye-worthy to some people).

[snorkackcatcher]

I'm prepared to hold fire and see how it plays out with River -- same as I was watching the 'baby' storyline with some trepidation as to what was going on, but that one didn't go down the creepy routes I was worried about. (Because yes, Melody/River is the naturally conceived and perfectly well wanted child of Amy and Rory, it's just that the unexpected Vortex effect was a joker in the pack.)

Been a long time since I watched Press Gang actually, although Spike/Linda didn't strike me as childhood sweethearts? More your standard opposites-attract prickly teenage relationship sort of thing.

[lareinenoire.livejournal.com]

There's definitely a series of parallels that begin with Reinette & Ten, develop with Amy & Eleven, and (one may presume) reach full, timey-wimey fruition with Ten/Eleven & River (complete with backwards timeline).

I will admit, Girl in the Fireplace is possibly my favourite episode of Who under the sun, because it's just so gorgeously crafted, but that doesn't mean I don't seen the underlying implication that these otherwise amazing women in many ways find themselves completely enslaved by a single childhood memory of this insane, brilliant alien who only briefly enters their lives and leaves just as quickly (although I do think it's less of an issue for Reinette, who clearly has a rich, complicated, fulfilling life without the Doctor, and potentially for River as well, though that has yet to fully bear out). Amy definitely becomes a full-fledged character in her own right, but the Doctor is still this strong presence all the while, in contrast to Reinette.

I will be curious to see what happens with River. When we first met her in Silence in the Library, the implication seemed to be that, regardless of her relationship with the Doctor, she still had her own life that she was living however she liked, and I think that's more or less true, although I was a bit disappointed that she's taken to waiting about in the Stormcage for him to call her.

Okay, this is probably more rambly than useful so I will stop now. :)

[snorkackcatcher]

Actually, when you put it like that I suppose you could say that Amy's story is what Moffat would have liked to be able to do with Reinette's, only allowed to develop at reasonable length rather than crammed into a single episode. River ... a lot of that just seems to be Moffat playing crazy timeline games for the sake of an extended plot. :) We still seem to be missing a lot of backstory for her.

[such_heights]

I agree that it's sketchy, but I also like fan_eunice's take on the issue, where she points out that it's also a kind of fannish wish fulfilment, meeting the Doctor as a kid *and* having adventures with him etc as an adult. So stepping back from the show, totally, it is kind of weird and creepy as a consistent narrative choice, but I sort of really dig it in the context of the show anyway.

I think the element that really works for me is the idea of the Doctor as a child's imaginary friend, but the fairy tale doesn't have to stop when you grow up. That speaks right to my inner kid, you know? I think all Doctor Who writers project their sense of the Ultimate Hero onto the Doctor - RTD's was I think primarily a kind of atheist god, whereas Moffat is going more for the Peter Pan feel. With added kissing.

[snorkackcatcher]

Ah yes, I hadn't seen that (I tend to be extremely wary about reading meta, in case of spoilers). I think the idea of Moffat projecting his own fanboyness onto his characters is very plausible, actually -- and since it's almost a given that the main companion is female, not fully exploring the difference in dynamics that creates.

[kilodalton]

Moffat says that they didn't "do it." The last DWM has a retrospective on GITF and also reiterates Moffat's comment about this in the audio commentary on the BBC website with Noel Clarke:

Steven Moffat: Yes, he’s off to dance. Now some people might think...
Noel Clarke: The horizontal foxtrot?
Steven Moffat: You know, actually, I don’t think. I’m the writer, I can say this. That’s the night of the Yew Tree ball, and Madame de Pompadour was actually, for all that she’s one of history’s most famous courtesans—look it up kids!—she was quite cold. She wouldn’t be that quick. I think what happened that night is he had the best night of his life at a party with, you know, flirting with Reinette, dancing with Reinette, talking to Reinette, and just thinking she was wonderful. And you’re about to see the after effects of the Doctor of having had the best night at a dance he’s ever had.
Noel Clarke. Okay. Because people have wondered if “dancing” was a euphemism for ...
Steven Moffat: Well, I think it is. And in Doctor Who terms, also, she’s seen inside his head, she knows that he would use it in those terms. So she’s flirting with him. She clearly wouldn’t slap him in the face if he kissed her.
Noel Clarke: Of course not.

But yes, I agree it's kind of creepy. Moffat likes to use a lot of later-sexualized little girls in his plots (Nancy, Reinette, Amelia), and I find it a bit ... odd.

[snorkackcatcher]

Ah, hadn't seen that. Fair enough -- that reads as if Moffat deliberately left the question open as writers do to avoid committing himself, but decided that personally he thought it wouldn't actually happen. In which case that's the reading to go for as it's likely to be the one in use if the matter ever comes up again. :)

[kilodalton]

Yeah I hadn't heard of it til a couple of months back either (lol I didn't even know they HAD mp3 audio commentaries!!)

[snorkackcatcher]

Mm. I think 'fairytale-like' is a good description, which is why for me it seems to skirt the line of creepiness but stay just the right side on the whole.

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

I'm here from who_daily...

The imprinting dynamic really bothers me. The adult-child dynamic is a fundamental power imbalance in the first place--it really needs to be shown carefully, but I think Moffat's muddied the waters with how he's portrayed the Doctor relative to Amy and River. The Doctor's been portrayed as a father-figure, a teacher, and/or a rescuer for both Amy and River. But father-daughter, teacher-student and rescuer-rescued are imbalanced relationships, with most of the power going to the former. Mix in River's implied sexual/romantic relationship with the Doctor, and--I don't know.

With River, when we first meet her in SitL and TToA she's portrayed as the Doctor's superior. Which is good--but that said, the predestination paradox implies that at some point, the power scales must tip in favor of the Doctor. And I think the extent of that power depends on when they meet as well. The Doctor's known a life outside of River, but River is born and dies with him. To me it still implies the Doctor will always have more power than River does in the end. The predestination paradox also means they must orbit each other while River's alive, which is a saving grace. Yet that also has issues with control, because there's no free choice for either of them.

Amy and River are never truly free of the Doctor's influence. Reinette is in-between, because while she is impressed and influenced by the Doctor, she has an "outside" life as Madame de Pompadour. Now yes, Father's Day showed that Rose and Mickey had known each other all their lives, but as children close in age, their power dynamic was equal, so that example doesn't really apply here.

Writers do have a tendency to take one good plot idea with plenty of dramatic mileage and overdo it, without realising they're falling into a pattern.

But patterns are patterns, and this one is IMHO rife with issues of control and choice. Moffat doesn't have daughters, so I don't think he realizes how problematic the Doctor-Amy and the implied Doctor-River relationship really is.

[snorkackcatcher]

Mmm. I think this actually manages to stay acceptable due to good writing (although I don't have daughters either, so ...) -- i.e. to me the kids when they are still actually kids haven't ever seemed sexualised in the writing, which I would find icky (although we haven't seen how it plays out with River yet, but then the part-Time Lord thing is a joker in the pack that complicates matters). In other words, it seems to teeter on the brink but not fall in.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem for me is that by the time we were introduced to Lorna, I was rolling my eyes and saying "what - another one?" There was a gap of a few years between Reinette and Amy, so the repetition of the idea, while obvious, was less ... obtrusive. I agree that it now seems likely that we can add River to the list - so the Doctor 's keeping it in the family! - and there's Lorna (although romance doesn't appear to be a factor there) and I'm starting to wonder how many more women we're going to meet who have met the Doctor in their childhood. Once was charming. But now it's getting a bit old.

[snorkackcatcher]

Actually, thinking about it I'm wondering if Lorna wasn't in some sense an attempt to deconstruct the theme a bit -- yes, the Doctor has the same effect on her, but in this case it's not a positive one -- it gets her killed and he doesn't even remember her. The impression I got of AGMGTW did seem to be that Moffat realised they'd gone a bit too far with angsting up the Doctor, and was trying to walk it back a bit.