Great thoughts! I think it's interesting that, even though we come from different parts of the RTD-era fandom, we're both having similar reactions to the Moffat era. (Which for me is enjoyment without much emotional connection to the characters.)
But really - like Amy in S5 - Abigail was little more than a plot device. And rather an obvious one at that.
YES. I don't know/really think that Moffat is sexist or intentionally trying to be when writing Who, BUT there is an increasingly problematic trend that most of his female characters are written to serve the plot. Even River, who is arguably the most interesting of his female characters, serves as a way of moving the plot forward - her entire character is about the ~mystery~ rather than who she actually is (do we really have any inkling of what River wants or what she feels for the Doctor and why?). Abigail is all the things that irritated me about Amy and River's plotlines but MAGNIFIED TIMES 100. At no point did Abigail have much agency of her own or give voice to what she wanted - she was carefully constructed as a piece to move along Karzan's story and development. She's a complete blank slate.
I think Moffat is very clever, but he's almost too clever? There's a sense of him trying to impress upon us as an audience about how clever he is and I think the result is that the characters sometimes feel a little... empty? I had to forgive RTD a lot during his reign, but I could accept floating Jesus Ten if that meant we got great character scenes like Martha's "I'm getting out" speech.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-12-28 04:22 pm (UTC)But really - like Amy in S5 - Abigail was little more than a plot device. And rather an obvious one at that.
YES. I don't know/really think that Moffat is sexist or intentionally trying to be when writing Who, BUT there is an increasingly problematic trend that most of his female characters are written to serve the plot. Even River, who is arguably the most interesting of his female characters, serves as a way of moving the plot forward - her entire character is about the ~mystery~ rather than who she actually is (do we really have any inkling of what River wants or what she feels for the Doctor and why?). Abigail is all the things that irritated me about Amy and River's plotlines but MAGNIFIED TIMES 100. At no point did Abigail have much agency of her own or give voice to what she wanted - she was carefully constructed as a piece to move along Karzan's story and development. She's a complete blank slate.
I think Moffat is very clever, but he's almost too clever? There's a sense of him trying to impress upon us as an audience about how clever he is and I think the result is that the characters sometimes feel a little... empty? I had to forgive RTD a lot during his reign, but I could accept floating Jesus Ten if that meant we got great character scenes like Martha's "I'm getting out" speech.