roryismyname:

feministwhoniverse:

Queer Representation and Visibility in Doctor Who - River Song

Along with Captain Jack Harkness, River Song is one of the few recurring queer characters we see in Doctor Who. She first appeared in Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead before becoming a recurring character, appearing in several episodes each series. It is during this first appearance that we learn River is, as has recently been confirmed by Steven Moffat, bisexual. This is revealed during an exchange she has with Mr Lux in Silence of the Library.

Lux: Professor Song, why am I the only one wearing my helmet?
River: I don’t fancy you.

Since this initial illusion to her bisexuality, River’s non-normative orientation has not been mentioned again. In fact many fans of the show aren’t even aware of River’s sexuality. 

Though there may be many possible reasons that River’s orientation doesn’t feature heavily in her storylines, the fact is Steven Moffat created a bisexual character. Regardless of his reasons for doing this (I doubt it was to increase the visibility of queer folk in the mainstream media) he had an responsibility to do justice to that characters orientation. What he actually did was ignore River’s bisexuality in favor of a storyline where River is completely stripped of her autonomy as her entire existence revolves completely around The Doctor.

I personally find this erasure to be incredibly hurtful. By not making River’s bisexuality explicit in canon Moffat implies that queer folk are not worth the time and effort it would take to give us representation. We are not worth interesting, complex character arcs and storylines. We are not worth the representation which is given to heterosexual folk by default. 

It suggests to me that Steven Moffat has no desire to actually improve the representation of queer folk in the media, though he has implied otherwise, citing fans annoyance at a lack of queer characters in series 5 as “the one criticism I’ve ever listened to”.

I also feel it is symbolic of a shift in the representation of queer folk on Doctor Who. Whilst under RTD representations weren’t flawless, they were subtly executed and really served to normalise queerness. Moffat, on the other hand, lacks the understanding of erasure and marginalisation, which RTD clearly had, which results in poorly executed, heavy handed representations.

River Song had the potential to be another really great queer character but, ultimately, she is just another female character Moffat has fucked over. 

This is what I don’t understand: surely just like with real people, the sexuality of a fictional character can be a minor characteristic to their overall personality? Just because a character is bisexual doesn’t mean that it has to be a ‘thing’. If you want to talk of representativeness surely the “Look, a gay/bisexual/transgender character! Look at them being stereotypically gay/bisexual/transgender all the time!” is counter-productive to establishing a more representativeness and true to life behaviour pattern?

It’s not that it needs to be mentioned in every scene that a character is queer or that said character needs to behave in a stereotypical or clichéd way but, with River Song some fans of the show didn’t even realise she was queer. Given that representations of non-normative orientations are few and far between in the mainstream media, to expect it to at least be mentioned explicitly is not unreasonable. 

(via compound-interest)

roryismyname:

feministwhoniverse:

Queer Representation and Visibility in Doctor Who - River Song

Along with Captain Jack Harkness, River Song is one of the few recurring queer characters we see in Doctor Who. She first appeared in Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead before becoming a recurring character, appearing in several episodes each series. It is during this first appearance that we learn River is, as has recently been confirmed by Steven Moffat, bisexual. This is revealed during an exchange she has with Mr Lux in Silence of the Library.

Lux: Professor Song, why am I the only one wearing my helmet?
River: I don’t fancy you.

Since this initial illusion to her bisexuality, River’s non-normative orientation has not been mentioned again. In fact many fans of the show aren’t even aware of River’s sexuality. 

Though there may be many possible reasons that River’s orientation doesn’t feature heavily in her storylines, the fact is Steven Moffat created a bisexual character. Regardless of his reasons for doing this (I doubt it was to increase the visibility of queer folk in the mainstream media) he had an responsibility to do justice to that characters orientation. What he actually did was ignore River’s bisexuality in favor of a storyline where River is completely stripped of her autonomy as her entire existence revolves completely around The Doctor.

I personally find this erasure to be incredibly hurtful. By not making River’s bisexuality explicit in canon Moffat implies that queer folk are not worth the time and effort it would take to give us representation. We are not worth interesting, complex character arcs and storylines. We are not worth the representation which is given to heterosexual folk by default. 

It suggests to me that Steven Moffat has no desire to actually improve the representation of queer folk in the media, though he has implied otherwise, citing fans annoyance at a lack of queer characters in series 5 as “the one criticism I’ve ever listened to”.

I also feel it is symbolic of a shift in the representation of queer folk on Doctor Who. Whilst under RTD representations weren’t flawless, they were subtly executed and really served to normalise queerness. Moffat, on the other hand, lacks the understanding of erasure and marginalisation, which RTD clearly had, which results in poorly executed, heavy handed representations.

River Song had the potential to be another really great queer character but, ultimately, she is just another female character Moffat has fucked over. 

This is what I don’t understand: surely just like with real people, the sexuality of a fictional character can be a minor characteristic to their overall personality? Just because a character is bisexual doesn’t mean that it has to be a ‘thing’. If you want to talk of representativeness surely the “Look, a gay/bisexual/transgender character! Look at them being stereotypically gay/bisexual/transgender all the time!” is counter-productive to establishing a more representativeness and true to life behaviour pattern?

It’s not that it needs to be mentioned in every scene that a character is queer or that said character needs to behave in a stereotypical or clichéd way but, with River Song some fans of the show didn’t even realise she was queer. Given that representations of non-normative orientations are few and far between in the mainstream media, to expect it to at least be mentioned explicitly is not unreasonable. 

(via compound-interest)

Posted on 19 May 2012
  1. individual-identicals reblogged this from aro-ace-wonderwoman and added:
    This links in with Moffat’s whole tell, don’t show. He does it a lot with personalities as well (see: Clara telling the...
  2. aro-ace-wonderwoman reblogged this from feministwhoniverse and added:
    Seriously, I didn’t even know that the ‘I don’t fancy you’ comment was meant to indicate that. I just kinda thought it...
  3. the-doctor-deduces-camelot reblogged this from feministwhoniverse
  4. rest-now--my-warrior reblogged this from feministwhoniverse
  5. lgbt-ladies reblogged this from feministwhoniverse
  6. agender-slime reblogged this from feministwhoniverse
  7. mischievouslovegood reblogged this from stfu-moffat
  8. bessibels reblogged this from scifi-feminism and added:
    Plus, honestly, the only allusion to River’s bisexuality is a snarky remark from her about how, in a group of people,...
  9. farawayarriety reblogged this from scifi-feminism
  10. zebrabelly reblogged this from scifi-feminism and added:
    "What he actually did was ignore River’s bisexuality in favor of a storyline where River is completely stripped of her...
  11. myladyrainicorn reblogged this from scifi-feminism
  12. scifi-feminism reblogged this from feministwhoniverse
  13. slyblueaobaseragaki reblogged this from tenlittlebullets
  14. puppybot reblogged this from feministwhoniverse and added:
    How is that even a hint of her being bi though? She just said she didn’t fancy the guy! Straight women aren’t attracted...
  15. kavto-m reblogged this from feministwhoniverse
  16. facingthenorthwind reblogged this from feministwhoniverse
  17. sleepymarmot reblogged this from tenlittlebullets
  18. retrogradewaters reblogged this from calliatra
  19. calliatra reblogged this from feministwhoniverse
  20. comedanceintherain reblogged this from feministwhoniverse
  21. i-like-to-obsess reblogged this from feministwhoniverse
  22. thursdaysoldier reblogged this from ihavealittlefeminism
  23. superhusbandslove reblogged this from feministwhoniverse