Doctor What next?

So  we guessed, did you?
A few thoughts before the second half of the series starts in the autumn – I’m not interested in the “I watched the filming and overheard X” spoilers, more in clues already dropped in the shows and in the official teasing by the crew and cast.

The problem with internet commentary on Doctor Who is that half is from old-Who obsessives that want old characters to link in.  In the past few weeks I’ve read about Omega, the Valeyard, the Rani etc. etc. even though I’ve absolutely no idea who they are really – I was old enough to watch Peter Davison, Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy’s Doctors in my childhood but most of the mythology stuff seem to be from earlier incarnations.  But I think this might miss the point – the new series doesn’t have to just rely on the past for characters.  For example, when there was a reference to another Timelord in the episode “The Doctor’s Wife”, it was the Corsair – a completely new one!  The much trailed “old friend with a new face” was the TARDIS herself.

Equally some want too strong reinforcement of links to the Eccleston/ Tennant /Russell T Davis era Doctor Who and keep asking for the return of the likes of Captain Jack or Jenny the Doctor’s daughter.  Never mind the filming or family commitments of the actors that played those characters – they are simply not necessary.
Think – Jack enabled the doctor never to fire a gun and has a sucessful spin off series now unconnected to Doctor Who itself.  The Eleventh Doctor has River Song and Rory as weapons-wielders, even Amy shoots guns and flings swords around.
Jenny enabled the Tenth Doctor to talk to Donna about having been a father – which can hardly have been a revelation to the audience (William Hartnell’s Doctor travelled with his grand daughter Susan).  But it is not the Doctor’s daughter but Amy’s that is the focus of the current series’s storyline.  Jenny got to zoom off into space, leaving the door open for a spin-off if the character had been popular enough, or a reappearance if one is ever needed.

Then there are the reviews from people who clearly weren’t listening or watching.
All the stuff about how did he know Madame Vastra the Jack-the-Ripper-eating Silurian who brings a Silurian army on board Demon’s Run to help?  Well, if you watched it, she told us herself – he found her in the underground system of Victorian London taking revenge on the workers for the death of her sisters.  No mystery, but a cool character.
The Stephen Moffatt version of Doctor Who is intelligent TV – the plots are not linear but are always revealed but you need to think about what you’ve seen and there’s plenty to talk about between episodes.

OK, enough of that.  So what are the loose ends?

1) Who is River Song?

  • Yep, River Song is Amy and Rory’s daughter.  ”Melody Pond” was a massive clue, and once you threw in the comment from the dying Idris/TARDIS in “The Doctor’s Wife” that “the only water in the forest is the River” it was clear that – linguistically at least – River was going to be something to do with Melody.
  • She appears to be the Doctor’s wife too if the kissy kissy faces the Doctor pulled at the revelation are anything to go by.  They have already kissed once from the Doctor’s perspective, and for the last time from hers.
  • But what would be written on the cot in untranslatable Galifreyan?  It couldn’t be “Melody Pond/ River Song” – it was old. But hold on – timey wimey wrong order stuff…
    May be names in Galifreyan combine both parents names and she’s the mother of his future children? Or Susan’s mother?
    But equally it could have been the Doctor’s real name, in which case she’d have known it in “Silence in the Library” when she meets the Doctor for her final/ his first time.
    Or she may have known it already if she’s spent a long time with him in the TARDIS?
  • She appears to be able to regenerate: how?
    Well, there are still those little hints that she might be the Doctor’s child in some way.  Amy saying to baby Melody that her father is the last of his kind then clarifying she means Rory “the last centurion”, the Doctor answering “because it’s mine” then clarifying he means the Galifreyan cot… And we’ve had build up to the idea that Amy might actually love the Doctor more than Rory – despite the events of “Amy’s Choice” last season where she realises its Rory and always has been.  In “The Impossible Astronaut”, when in the clutches of the Silents, Amy cries for the Doctor specifically – and only possibly for Rory – the “stupid face” stuff is ambiguous and the pay off unconvincing.
    Stephen Moffatt says in Doctor Who Magazine “You’ll see The Doctor’s life change forever. You will gasp at the true nature of his relationship with Amy and cry out in horror as Rory Williams stumbles to the brink of a tragic mistake.”  Given that that relationship at present appears to be him being her son-in-law, I’m not really gasping, so there must be more to come.
    The whole Time Lord DNA thing that the army were looking for in Melody looks a promising strand of confusion and potentially tragedy in the second half of the series.  While this was explained by the “time head”/ mother’s intuition comment that the Doctor referred back to when discussing the DNA issue with his ragtag army friends, where being conceived in the time vortex might have done to Melody’s genes what billions of years did to the race that became Timelords, neither Amy nor Rory were there. Will Rory conclude that Melody is not his?
  • The Doctor heads off because he says he knows where Melody/ River is… We know too – she’s in a children’s home taken over by the Silence in 1969, then in a New York alleyway six months later. But there are so many things that are going to happen to her – not least being swallowed by a Silents-made spacesuit, possibly being in the forest and regenerating and possibly killing the Doctor…
  • Does River also answer what those sub-TARDISes (in “The Lodger” and in “The Impossible Astronaut/ Day of the Moon”) are for – for her to pilot as an alternative Timelord?

2) How will Silence fall?

  • Anyone else think the Silents fell too easily?  Manipulating humankind from the beginning, even organising for the moonlandings so that a spacesuit would be made but vanquished with subliminal messaging during the moonlanding?
  • We also don’t know how or why they blew up the TARDIS at the end of Series 5 leading to all worlds collapsing.
  • Do Madame Kovarian and the Demon’s Run asteroid army work for the Silents? Building the little girl as a weapon to destroy the famous, great warrior against whom the world must be protected…
  • The thing is, we think of the Doctor as a good man, a fun man, a kind man.  And the character is all of those things.
    He is willing to give a chance to the new species he encounters – New Humans created in the New Earth cat-run hospital, the human-timelord-dalek hybrids, the Flesh Gangers he stablisises.  But he is also ready to exterminate the last dalek in Manhattan, the vampire fish (Saturnynians), even the Timelords themselves, for the greater good of the universe.
  • Other series of Doctor Who have always had the Doctor able to slip in anywhere unknown and disappear before the consequences of events have to be handled.  This series and the last are different.  Fear of the Doctor – the great warrior able to change the world without spilling a drop of blood, the most dangerous being in the universe against whom an all-worlds alliance formed in “The Pandorica Opens” – the Doctor famous throughout all worlds for nearly a thousand years was a totally different perspective.  It fitted the darker Tenth Doctor from “Waters of Mars”, perhaps less aware of his power but completely unaware of the impact he has.
  • It was a neat trick too to have Lorna Bucket – her role was vital in both explaining who River Song is and that the darker doctor, living up to the “oncoming storm”, is a warrior.  It also sets up a forest-based story for the future in which a younger version may feature.

3) Does the Doctor die?

  • Killing the Doctor dead, mid-regeneration, gives us the choice of the series ending when Matt Smith leaves, a time reboot (again) or somehow getting a second Doctor.
    As soon as we saw the Flesh, we knew that the Doctor that dies for good in “The Impossible Astronaut” didn’t have to be the real Doctor.
    Of course, the Doctor is at pains to stress that the Flesh Gangers are real – and that the other Doctor is also the Doctor.  Interesting too that Amy trusted the Flesh Doctor more: was it prejudice on her part because of the shoes (which they had swapped)?  Or was it because she was also of the Flesh and there was a familiarity between them from that?
  • Does River kill him?  All we could see is the Astronaut that emerges from the lake.  We know that Melody is intended by her kidnappers to become a weapon and brought up to kill the Doctor – and that River is in the Storm Cage for killing “the best man she ever knew”, a good man.
  • Is the Doctor a good man? It is clear he’s a just man – think about the Sontaran nurse doing penance for his clone batch and the Family of Blood punishments. But he warns Madame Kovarian that she doesn’t want to see why he sets rules for himself.  The good man, the best man River ever knew is Rory. May be she killed her own father instead.

4) Oh my God, they killed Rory!

On that point, a few thoughts about Rory and Amy.

  • Is Rory still an auton?  No.  The Doctor used psychology to make him confront his potential fears, access the determination of 2000 years as a centurion guarding the love of his life (memories there behind a door in his head, he said), and wearing Roman clothes enabled him to go onboard the 12th Cyber fleet.
  • Is Rory dead, or going to die?  I think both he and Amy may do so before the series ends at Christmas this year.  Why?  We’ve been prepared many times now for Rory’s death: death-by-old-person, death-by-Silurean, death-by-total-eradication-from-existence, death-by-universe-reboot, death-by-FBI, death-by-old-age-madness, death-by-drowning…
  • Amy’s role is also surely almost done – she was an amazing child growing up in a house next to a crack in space and time which in itself could surely have affected Melody’s DNA. Now she’s a mother – and you can’t have a family with a small child on the TARDIS.  But we don’t know how the Silents got the glowing recorder out of Amy’s hand (easier to remove from the Flesh?), how many days she was gone (was that the real Amy with the Silents?) The Doctor says she was taken some time ”before America” – really? Or did he just notice then.

While many commentators have gone on about a gay agenda (the gay, married anglican marines and the silurian and her maidservant being the latest additions to this), far more interesting is the anti-faith agenda.  Think about it: the Headless Monks don’t need a head as their minds cannot be changed and they are heart over head.  And the religious army thing?  Moffat says the national armies of today are the aberration if you look at human history where they have mainly been religious (well, may be) – but more importantly the religious army is both the enemy of the Doctor and guardian of the prison where River is kept (perhaps she kills Rory when he was going to kill the Doctor, hence making her the enemy of the army?).  There’s an episode in the second half of this season called the God Complex.  Can’t wait to see what’s in that as there is apparently a minotaur and David Wailliams as a mole…

While Stephen Moffat’s series of Doctor Who have been criticised as too dark and too complex, I think it is true that the clues are there – they are just delivered so fast and so staccato that it is sometimes hard to catch them on a first viewing.  And that’s the perfect excuse to watch episodes more than once :)

I’m going to be hugely, embarrassingly wrong about all this in the autumn, aren’t I?

The modern world is bad for children

Ok that’s it.  What, exactly, are we meant to do, to be doing the right thing?

         

As you can tell by my ever so slightly fed up tone, today there’s yet another report that say that something that parents do all the time is Bad For The Children. Today it’s television that’s in the firing line.

The article I’ve hyperlinked is fairly self-explanatory.  Children getting fat, eating junk food, have worse IQs in the longer run, etc. etc.  All of these things are apparently the long term impacts of toddler-age television viewing.
The professor in charge of the research says:

“Common sense would suggest that television exposure replaces time that could be spent engaging in other developmentally enriching activities and tasks that foster cognitive, behavioural and motor development.”

Ok.  No normal parent wants their child to miss out on important cognitive, behavioural and motor development skills.  So toddler TV’s got to be eliminated, right?  There must be something wrong with it – it’s illegal in France after all.
 
But let’s just think this through for a minute.
I’ve never seen my child watch TV for longer than about 10 minutes at any one time. 
Much as he loves Cbeebies, the TV’s just not that entertaining for that long when there’s building to be done, beds to bounce on, toy cars to drive up walls making vroom noises rather than just the lovely plastic garage, wax crayons and paper and all the card from the recycling bin to build with… and of course mummy to cuddle, to jump on, to play with, to help sort washing, to help find all the red buttons, to chase the frog across the lawn…

As you can gather, it’s not that my toddler lacks interest in the world around him.  That’s just a small sample of what he gets up to when we spend time at home (as opposed to the time in town, time at playgroup etc. etc.)
Nor does he lack the ability to concentrate, in fact he loves reading and often wants to look through books uninterrupted by me,  telling himself stories about the pictures, for a long time.
But even on what are laughably called my non-working days (unpaid work days more like, unless you count the non-means tested child allowance as payment?), I cannot spend 100% of my time as his playmate.  Nor should I – he also needs to play with other children his own age (hence playgroup to make friends), and to learn to entertain himself.
And sometimes, when I really, really need it, TV can be an electronic babysitter (not for long – my toddler has a kitchen stall designed to help him reach the worksurface safely so he tends to try to join in). 
But mostly we watch it together.
Timmy Time and the Tweenies are great for showing hm that it’s not just him that goes to nursery while his parents work, and the Tweenies teaches stories, nursery rhymes and social interaction, while 3rd and Bird stresses the value of a strong community.  Alphablocks and Numberjacks are so good that primary school teachers often use them in their literacy and numeracy lessons. I’ve never been a fan of In the Night Garden, and Waybuloo is a bit hippy trippy for me, but I like the sign language and normalised treatment of children with special educational needs and physical disabilities in Something Special.  Given the reaction of some parents to Ceri‘s employment, this sort of show is very much needed. 
And we don’t just sit and watch TV -we talk about what’s happening, when something similar happened to us…
 
But this is yet another report that tells us that we’re doing long term damage to our kids.
And while frankly I’d vote for the party that can actually bring the recommendations of “Toxic Childhood” into policy (NB it would involve cost, social change, standing up to the Daily Mail and the older feminists for whom equality is about the workplace), the central theme of that book is implying that parents are not up to the job.

There’s a terrible irony that we are so child centred these days, but that it is in a sort of “quality time“, taxi driving to activities way.  Being with the children takes time - for example, when I ask other parents how they handle the change to available nursery hours when their child turns three, they say I don’t know, I had a second one so I’m at home and able to do the school run, or that they are lucky to have grandparents near by etc.  otherwise they couldn’t work. 

But the child-centred approach that parents have is being squeezed. 
For example, some people I know have had their ability to work and raise their family affected by local authorities that can’t allocate the school places in a way that avoids someone having to drive miles between a school drop off and a nursery drop off. 
For others, it’s been that in order to “get on” – i.e. to be in the running for promotion etc., work has to be full-time – and that means 4 or 5 full days a week at nusery for the bambino, something we’re also told by the childhood experts is not good for children (note how short the school day looks to a parent and you’ll see that has been accepted fact for some time).
 
Long parental working hours are not good for anyone – tired workers are less productive, tired parents that don’t see each other suffer strained relationships not least because being a parent is really very hard work, parents working hours don’t get to see their kids and are not on good form when they do.  The right to request flexible working is genuinely a good thing (supported by all 3 main political parties in the UK) and being allowed to work from home sometimes cuts travel time and therefore means that more time can be spent with a child before and after childcare, and reduced hours means sometimes actually being able to do one leg of a school run rather than trying to get one of the rare paid childminders willing to do both before and after school and who ends up seeing more of the child than the parents do.
But many parents seem to fear that flexble working will impact negatively on their careers, so one parent doesn’t do it and the whole set up just gets even more complicated. 
Some compensate by treating the children as princes and princesses – in other words little monsters that are so used to being indulged that they don’t know what no means, and have been treated that way not necessarily becausse parents mistakenly think that this is what being child centred is, but because they are so damn tired all the time! 

France might think it has it right by banning toddler TV, but few women breastfeed there for fear of ruining their figure and if you are a career woman, your contemporaries expect you to return to work after 12 weeks otherwise you are letting down the sisterhood.
But even in the UK where we value choice, we don’t really value mothers that choose to stay at home to raise the kids in the way the childhood experts recommend for the first two years. 
Or if we do, we make it a choice only available to the middle classes who can just about afford to exist on one income, and the very poor who don’t work at all.
And those that work part-time are at risk of everything crashing if they are not circus-quality jugglers.
And those that work full-time are effectively letting someone else bring up their child.
And the tired, stressed out parents probably let the kids watch TV so that they can relax a bit.
Oh. 

So basically, with an economic set up that expects both parents to work, and a soul-selling attitude to work that – no matter what the lovely words in the HR guidance say – sends a mesage that flexible and part-time models are for slackers that don’t want to get on in their careers, and every moment that the child is with the parent needs to be a learning activity but that learning activities include pairing socks as well as structured play… argh! 
Basically the modern world is bad for children. 
I just don’t know what to do, except hope that trying to bring my son up to be happy, secure, friendly, outgoing etc. etc. in the best way I can is enough.  And try not to add yet another thing to the list of things to be tired over and stressed about…

And this?  My toddler took an unexpected nap and I was quick typing it…

Feminism: as I was just saying…

Just seen this via twitter… the tweet in question from @chris_coltrane reads “Attention feminists: new tv show My Ugly Best Friend has set the cause back 50 years. http://bit.ly/w853i

Suspected it was a joke but sadly no.
The programme’s blurb:  “My Ugly Best Friend is a brand new show where a glamour puss nominates her ugly duckling best friend for a makeover and we need men to rate these two girls!
Whether you like blondes or brunettes, tall girls or short girls – if you have an opinion and know what you like, then we’d love to hear from you!
You will be watching video footage of our two friends and then being asked to comment on everything from their noses to their clothes but don’t worry; you won’t have to meet the girls in the flesh.
We are shooting on Sunday 20th September and if you fancy taking part, then apply now!  http://www.sroaudiences.com/shows.asp

Oh deary me no.  No no no no no. 
I’d love to believe that no women would volunteer to take part in this.  Other makeover shows have as a minimum the decency to allow the participants to believe that they are doing it for themselves, to improve their self-esteem, and the consultees are family and friends. 
This show does not make clear whether the women know that they are going to be rated by an audience of men (rated via video, note, not getting a chance to meet and identify whether their opinion is worth listening to). 

But the sad truth is that there is a strong body of women out there who really do think that a makeover to attract men is empowering.  And that in going on this programme, even with the word “Ugly” in the title, they’re somehow showing their love for their friend. 

So I think Chris is right, but do you know what?  I’d be willing to bet the producers etc. dealing with this programme are women…