A Bit Too Fairytale

 

“I like Amy Pond.  She’s very funny.”

Yes, seven-year old daughter, she is quite funny and so is her boy Rory.  Funny is important when you are seven.  Funny gets your audience’s attention and gets them on your side—at least, this is what I teach my Drama students.  There are many things about Amy Pond that I have enjoyed over the last two series.  I think her love story with Rory is truly beautiful and moving.  I love the way themes of waiting are explored throughout her character arc.  “The Girl Who Waited” episode utterly broke my heart.  My daughters love her.  But is Amy Pond worthy of their adoration?  Is she a Feminist Fan Girl Icon?

A Feminist Fan Girl Icon must embody a positive body image.  Amy Pond possesses a physically imposing physique.  She is not a frail little flower; she is a gigantic, ginger glamazon with extra glam.  I read an interview with Karen Gillan when she was first cast in which she claimed Amy would be the sexiest Whopanion audiences had ever seen.  Who can doubt Miss Gillan’s intentions?  Long red talons, long, long red hair, long, long, long red legs (when she’s wearing red tights which I am not sure she ever does).

Sexuality filters through the wardrobe and make-up selections for Amy Pond into her chosen profession.  It was a clever trick in The Eleventh Hour episode: present the audience with a Whopanion police officer—a sexy police officer.  Oh wait, no…not a sexy police officer—a Cosplay Kissogram.  I confess that I giggled.

And flirty—oh my yes!  From her first adult meeting with the Doctor, Amy asserts her erotic interest in him.  She does not want a meaningful relationship like Rose, she does not want to worship at his genius shrine like Martha—she wants to watch him strip, shove him up against the Tardis and make time stop.  Who can forget the “Invasion of the Hot Italians” history essay which you just know includes every spear-related innuendo possible.  She even flirts with Vincent Van Gogh!  Then there is Rory: the lovely boy wrapped around her little finger who wins her heart after a couple thousand year’s persistence (bless).

Amy is a hottie fully aware of her sexuality and its power, which makes her controversial feminist territory.

Feminists have been historically divided on issues of sexuality, but something we all seem to agree upon is choice and control.  Part of the feminist mission must be ownership of our bodies in every respect: legally, spiritually, intellectually, reproductively and sexually.  When you compare Amy Pond to Rose, Martha, Donna, Sarah Jane or even the oh so fit and skimpily-clad Leela she is one of the few  Whopanions to declare herself visually and textually as an erotic being (unless you count River Song as a companion, but I think she’s in a different category).  Amy Pond comes across as a woman in charge of her own sexuality.  She decides who, when and how, she takes initiative and seems blissfully ignorant of the patriarchal rules concerning sexual engagement.

That’s all on the Sex-Positive Feminist Good List.  On the negative side Amy only follows through on her wedding to Rory under the influence of the Pandorica’s Universal Re-set.  For me, this is akin to sex under the influence of drugs.  It makes the act suspect whether or not both parties would have agreed freely to it under normal circumstances.  Similarly, every aspect of Amy’s pregnancy falls under the control of external forces.  Amy Pond might present herself as a modern woman who takes the reins, makes the rules and calls her husband Mr Pond, but she is neither her own Fate Master nor her Soul Captain.

So what impact does all this have on the under-tens?

The question of what do my daughters get out of this is a tricky one when it comes to Amy Pond and the body image she presents.  Sexual imagery bombardment begins from birth with pink babygros.  This rapidly escalates into a brand of gender indoctrination which seldom treads down a liberal route when it comes to the visual media.  The creators of children’s programming do not want our daughter’s exposed to things like sex, birth control, homosexuality but they have no problem drenching them in patriarchal standards of womanhood.  Even my beloved Velma slims down to chase Shaggy as a boyfriend in the most recent incarnation of Scooby Doo.  So very wrong!  Disney Princesses, Barbie and Winx Club (to name some of my daughters’ viewing choices) present impossibly beautiful female characters whose stories invariably end with a boy and a veil.

Just like Amy Pond.

Aside from being more aggressive and taller, is she any better than Snow White or Cinderella?  Does the fact that she presents herself as a spunky (pun intended) sex-positive Whopanion have any real bearing on how she will come across to my daughters?  Probably not.  Amy Pond is seldom valued for her intelligence, she does not save the day and I have no clue what she believes in except for Rory.  She had such potential but Amelia Pond goes nowhere as a character that a hundred bird duetting Princesses have not gone before.

She truly is a bit too fairytale.

I find this frustrating as a viewer and a mother.  I hoped so much for Ms Pond.  I had such high hopes for the man who brought us Sally Sparrow, a Whopanion far more worthy of my daughters.  But Steven Moffat has let me down and I am at a loss to understand why.  Is he attempting to present a Fairytale arc for Amelia Pond?  If so, can someone please give him a copy of Tangled?  Fairytale Princesses can save the day, be smart, duet with the animal of their choice, experience romance and even get a trendy new haircut at the end.

Fairytales can mean whatever we want them to.  Isn’t that the whole point of speculative programs like Doctor Who?  I want a Fairy Princess Companion my daughters can admire for more than her humour.

41 comments

  1. Tabitha Smith "Tabz" says:

    See I disagree. Amy does have a lot of choice and control. She is the first companion in NuWho to have a crush on the Doctor and really move on.. grow up… I find her very strong for that very reason.

    • Kate Elmer says:

      A fair point, though the Doctor’s lack of interest in her sexually does not really leave that avenue open to her.

      • Tabitha Smith "Tabz" says:

        That didn’t really stop Martha, now did it?

        • Icky says:

          ..but Martha DOES move on.. I mean, yes, she is crushing on the Doctor and yes, she is jealous of Rose and yes, she is not portrayed as a very strong woman in this regard, BUT: we leaves the Doctor. She decides to leave the Tardis and have a life of her own on earth. Not like Amy who would never have left the Doctor. And I actually did not like the Amy/Rory relationship, because it started at a point where Amy was obviously not happy in her relationship if consider the fact how happy she is to jump into the Tardis and also the way she treats Rory. Rory is more of a comic relief in the first episodes. You are right, their relationship does evolve pretty nicely because Amy grows up and becomes way more emancipated (in my opinion) when she grows confident with herself and not only her body. But my problem is that they started with the idea of Rory and Amy marrying as a actually pretty bad idea and come back there and even though now they are in a better place and it might be the right step, this devalues marriage for me. They or rather Amy was once ready to marry without actually being ready to – so how do we know that this is not happening again here.
          - ok, so maybe this is me speaking as a marriage critic but it is a little bit hipocritical, don’t you think?

  2. I find Amy’s sexuality & personal agency one of the most appealing things about the character – that and her sense of humour.

    The whole wedding thing – well, I’m not a wedding person myself and it does feel to me as if there have been a few too many of them in New Who, but I like the use of it as something problematic in Season 5. I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as Amy not wanting a wedding and later magically wanting one – she was obviously indecisive all along, and we saw a lot of her thought processes of working through what she wants, which is rather lovely and a rare thing in TV.

    I really REALLY like the fact that she basically used the Doctor and the TARDIS to give herself more time to go off and find herself, when the wedding loomed too imminently – and also that it’s the Doctor that figures out that if Amy has too many outrageous space adventures and Rory doesn’t, it will ultimately be something that destroys their relationship.

    I love, LOVE, the idea that Amy doesn’t have to choose between marrying her honey and travelling in space and time, considering the long history of companions leaving to get married in Classic Who. I think it’s especially spectacular that we got to see Jo Grant respond to this in The Sarah Jane Adventures – she had one of the most compelling and convincing romances of the old show, and for her to express her hurt at discovering that a later companion didn’t have to CHOOSE is just so very satisfying.

    Something I think that bears further examination is that the big different between pre- and post- Pandorica Amy is that one was raised in an unsettling world with huge gaps missing in her life and memory (and family) whereas the other was raised in a loving, supportive family. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that post-Pandorica Amy is then far more relaxed about choosing to go through with the wedding.

    When she remembers, it seems likely that, as with Rory, and later with the post-Wedding of River Song business, both Amys are merged rather than one taking over from the other. But from that moment on she never shows any doubt or regret in her marriage, so I don’t know how fair it is to suggest she didn’t want it.

    As you say, choice is essential. Not everyone makes the feminist choice all the time, but as feminists it’s important to respect the woman’s right to choose even if we don’t agree with them. Amy chose – the whole of season 5 was about her figuring herself out and choosing paths for herself!

    There was a lot less of Amy focus in season six, largely because of the inclusion of Rory’s POV (which is a hard choice to argue with as he adds so much to the show) and because it’s very much an ensemble of four rather than two with guest stars, but I really enjoy that about it too. Doing something different each time is one of those things Doctor Who does best, and we would complain bitterly about if it wasn’t there.

    But I also love that Amy is always Amy – no matter how much reality gets screwed up, she’s still there, remembering her boys and the TARDIS, making fan art, and posing in bizarre fashion choices. She was so amazing in The Wedding of River Song, with her office on a train, and being in charge and everything. To me it utterly redeemed some of the more passive dealings with her character earlier in the season.

    Her character is certainly problematic at times – and the sexuality aspect is certainly I think part of that, because it’s one of those issues where even quite similar-thinking feminists tend to diverge wildly – but she has brought some very new and modern ideas into the TARDIS, and I like that very much.

    My two year old loves Amy best, and isn’t articulate enough to say why. I will be interested to see if that continues. But there are worse things to love a (female) fictional character for than being funny – there are plenty of shows where women don’t even get to do that.

  3. Kmasca says:

    Some aspects of Amy’s presentation are concerning – particularly, as you say, the lack of agency in her pregnancy.

    However I don’t agree that she never saves the day; she works out the star whale’s motivation in The Beast Below, for instance.

    The other characters do respond to her appearance more than her brain, but I think she is still written as a smart woman, and her position as a “funny” character is closely related to the treatment of her intelligence. I always feel Amy is bright because she is witty. We are rarely invited to laugh *at* her – unlike, say, Rory. She is clearly creative too (I LOVE her fanart even if the centrality of the Doctor to all her creative energies can feel troubling). She doesn’t get the validation for her intelligence that some companions do, but she is still characterised as bright.

  4. Kate Elmer says:

    Amy Pond is my idea of Feminist Junk Food: I like her, I find her frankly irresistible, but I know in my heart she is bad for me. I feel the same way about Scarlett O’Hara and Bella Swan. Not quite a guilty pleasure–more like something I know will offer me no intellectual nutrition.
    I feel like her story line makes her look weak as a woman. She gets manipulated in so many ways by different forces beyond her control. I like the fact she is funny and sex positive but that is all I am getting from her.

  5. renniejoy says:

    Amy’s reproductive/family choices are taken away from her by forces very similar to anti-choice forces in the USA.

    She is kidnapped by the Silence (a religious order whose war against the Doctor, who is akin to a god, apparently justifies any means) before she even suspects that she is pregnant (the Doctor says “before America”). When she does ask the Doctor (an old, white, “upper-class” male) about her concerns for damage to a possible fetus, he blows her off.

    When the Doctor discovers that Amy is pregnant, he decides not to tell her so that he can fix it (is she not entitled to know?).

    Amy possibly never gets to hold Melody in her arms (if I were the Silence/Madame Kovarian, I would have replaced the baby with her Flesh replica as soon as she was born). The Doctor does not allow Amy or Rory to accompany him on his search for baby Melody.

    Amy is never given a chance to say yes or no to anything regarding her child, and most of us find it disturbing – I would like to think that this is a pro-choice parable, but I really don’t know.

    • renniejoy says:

      I say “anti-choice forces in the USA” because that’s where I live, and I am not trying to make a point about any other countries.

      Sorry.

  6. Ritch Ludlow says:

    Nice post, but I think Amy “saves the day” more often than people give her credit for.

    The Beast Below, Victory of the Daleks, Curse of the Black Spot (sort of), and Let’s Kill Hitler (to an extent – i.e. Sonic-ing the baddies “privileges”). I don’t mean to defend her too much, but I’ve heard a lot of people suggest that she isn’t intelligent or never saves the day.

    She’s no less intelligent than Donna Noble, surely. What successes does Donna have? Doctor’s Daughter, and Turn Left? She uses her intelligence in one, and bravery in the other, but I feel like Donna isn’t really admired for her intelligence.

    Maybe we don’t give Amy as much leeway because of her youth and physical appearance. And maybe that’s right to do. I don’t know.

    • I agree that Amy doesn’t seem to be given as much credit for her intelligence & bravery as other companions, & I think that fan response towards her as a whole has changed because of season six. Season five is wall to wall Amy being brave, saving the day, etc. In Vampires of Venice, she runs towards the scream & Rory away from it – their characters are shaped strongly by that.

      In Curse of the Black Spot, she doesn’t just draw a sword against pirates to save her boys, she puts on the coat first! I think she’s valiant and awesome.

      It’s really one storyline where she is “passive” and even in the Moffat stories of season 6 (which mostly I really enjoy) we see her fighting to the end, being Amy with every fibre of her being.

      I hate that Amy lost her baby – it’s a particular trope that I despise – but I don’t think it made her weak, not for a moment.

      Also I’m all for interrogating problematic treatment of women in SF – it’s one of my favourite things to do in the world and I think it’s important – but it’s just as important not to dismiss the female heroes we have because they fall short of any kind of mythical (and changeable) ideal.

      I have absolutely no problem with my daughters holding Amy up as a hero.

      • Kmasca says:

        I also disagree that Amy is weak. There is however also a broader point to be made about what it does mean to be “weak.” I don’t think that being vulnerable is a character flaw. Nor would it necessarily be grounds for criticism if Amy responded to her circumstances with less strength.

        There were aspects of Season 6 that made me angry and I would have preferred were differently written. It disturbed me that Amy was removed from decisions about her pregnancy. I hated how the Doctor physically pushed her around in The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People. (It would help if the breaking of her faith scene in the God Complex included more acknowledgement of how badly the Doctor has treated Amy, including being responsible for the loss of her baby). These things make Amy vulnerable, certainly. But I think they point to problems with the Doctor’s characterisation, rather than hers – or at least his positioning as a hero.

        • It’s amazing how many episodes of Season 6 could have been greatly improved by the addition/removal of one or two sentences.

          I particularly would have liked the older Amy in The Girl Who Waited to include her feelings about her baby in her anger at the Doctor, and for Rory to have acknowledged his own loss at some point.

          • James says:

            The bizarre thing about it is that while the arc plot of the season deals with a mother seperated from her daughter, it’s barely discussed. Meanwhile, Christmas Carol, Curse of the Black Spot, Rebel Flesh, Night Terrors and Closing Time are all of them about father-son relationships. Where the mothers do appear in those episodes – Night Terrors and Closing Time – they’re packed off in the first 30 seconds of the episode and only reappear before the closing credits.

            Night Terrors looks particularly bad owing to its position in the series. One episode after Amy and Rory have realised that their baby’s not going to grow up with them, the Doctor takes them off to rescue a complete stranger’s son. You do have to wonder why one of them doesn’t just lamp him. Probably just as well they’re not around for most of “Doctor, Widow and the Wardrobe”. You can imagine the dialogue.

            “So, Doctor, where are we going?”

            “Well, Amy, there’s these two children of a woman who I met once for 10 minutes and I want to put a disproportionately huge amount of effort into getting them Christmas presents.”

            “RORY! Get Romaned up and fetch a shovel. You kill him and I’ll dig the grave.”

            Maybe that’s how 11 will regenerate?

          • Kmasca says:

            Rory’s feelings could also have been better addressed through the direction. His reactions to River border on indifference (I’m thinking of the final scenes in the Wedding of River Song particularly), which I find very strange because it neither does justice to how complex their relationship is nor reflects Arthur Darvill’s acting ability. Amy’s interactions with River are at least more nuanced in that regard.

          • The relationship between the Doctor and Amy and Rory became outright confusing after the second half of the sixth season. Many episodes left Amy and Rory broken, only to see them at the start of the next episode together as if nothing had happened. Especially the lack of a follow up from what happened in “A girl who waited” was shockingly. The doctor killed Amy, which is not bettered by the fact that there was a spare at the time and even managed torture Rory and to have him feeling guilty about it by saying it is his choice which one of the two may live. If I recall correct the next episode was “The God Complex” where not only everything seems to be forgotten, the Doctor had to break Amys faith – and managed to regain it later with just a few words, after all that happened.

  7. James, I think that’s my favourite comment of all time. EXACTLY that!

    Much though I love Moffat’s writing generally I think I might have to agree with people who have suggested that he fell down on some of the ‘show runner’ responsibilities this year – RTD for all his faults would have rewritten the **** out of those episodes to emphasise continuity.

    (of course he would also have written a dreadful finale but no one’s perfect)

  8. James says:

    Maybe so. I’d like to think he’d've done something about the Silurian scripts for series 5, but then again Chibnall wrote some dross for both Dr Who and Torchwood under RTD, so I’m really not sure.

    Although the scripts for sries 6 and, to a lesser extent, series 5 have been rather uneven, I’ve still enjoyed these two series much more than any since the first run with Eccleston. Largely because Matt Smith – and Karen Gillan and Arthur Darvill – can make pretty much anything watchable.

    Thinking about it, I’ll tell you another other reason I prefer the recent series. Moffat’s not afraid to have the Doctor seem alien. RTD has said that whenever he watched Who as a child, he wanted to be the assistant, rather than the Doctor. He always seemed more interested in the assistant and never seemed comfortable writing a particularly alien character.

    I also felt RTD seemed to be writing down to his audience. There’s a quote somewhere from him about Midnight where he says that this is how he’d like to have written the whole series, but he felt the audience wouldn’t have been able to cope with anything as psychologically complex. He’s also said recently that now he’s finished with Dr Who and Torchwood he can go back to writing “proper drama” to use his words. Kind of suggests he feels he’s been slumming it really. One thing you can say about Moffat – plotwise at least, you can’t accuse him of writing down to his audience.

    • I agree with most of that! There was certainly a level of keeping things simple for the audience in the earlier seasons. I love the complexity and tangled stories of the Moffat era – and the compelling actors in the lead roles. And I like Smith very much as the Doctor. I think making him the protagonist and allowing more mystery in the companions was one of the more fascinating choices made in the last two years.

      After all, the whole point of Doctor Who is that it is constantly changing and trying new things. Both RTD & Moffat have been bold and experimental, in different ways.

      (and goodness, if RTD had written whole seasons not only would we have missed some of the best stories but we’d have only got a new season every three years!)

      • James says:

        AT the moment, I’m enjoying the complexity of the plotting too. I just hope that the payoff when it comes isn’t a disappointment. Of course, even if it does turn out to be disappointing, the journey has still been enjoyable.
        Mind you, I do worry that Moffat may have lost sight of a few things that need tying up. Correct me if I’m wrong, but have we discovered yet who it was who brought the alliance together that imprisoned the Doctor in the Pandorica? If that’s to get explained in the new series, then it’ll be over two years since it first happened – I don’t know whether that’s pushing it a bit for keeping your audience engaged.

        Having said which, I do prefer Moffat’s approach to long term story telling over the idea of repeating a word or phrase and then explaining it in the last episode. The Torchwood arc in series 2 was particularly poor, I thought.

        • It never occurred to me that the question of who brought the alliance together was a mystery – wasn’t it handwaved that they all came together? The big one for me is, why did the TARDIS explode? It has been a bit of a wait now and I can’t believe no one has said ‘hey Steve, that bit, makes no sense’.

          (there is a wonderful fan theory that there are actually Silence in the TARDIS with River in those scenes, or could retrospectively be so & ditto for the Amy panicking scenes in The Lodger)

          I suspect from the big prophecy thing unleashed at the end of last season that some of these threads have been left to tie up in Matt Smith’s final season/story, and I have great trust that Moffat will do so.

          Remember the Doctor’s shirt sleeves in Season 5, after all!

          Yes, I like a proper season linking together too. I don’t mind standalone stories, but I want the character development that Moffat conveyed so well in season 5 (but was a touch more haphazard in season 6).

          • James says:

            Well, you have the Doctor saying that it makes no sense that they’re working together, which seems to suggest that there’s supposed to be someone behind it all. Also, before you realsise what it is that’s locked in the Pandorica, River says that there’s a story about how the demonic goblin in there was locked in by a good wizard and says that she hates good wizards in stories because they always turn out to be the Doctor.

            That’s a thought. Could it be a future Doctor who’s behind it all for some reason?

            Alternatively, I read somewhere that the clerics in Time of Angels and Good Man Goes to War are all wearing the Greek letter Omega on their uniforms. Could it be Omega, free from his black hole and out for revenge?

          • Both those options are brilliant! I’d love to see them bring back Omega if only because he’s a great mirror-of-the-Doctor villain without being the Master. But I suspect given Moffat’s history that ‘future Doctor’ is the most likely culprit.

            I am fascinated by the cleric-war time period and love learning more about them. Omega seems the type to hang out with a bunch of headless monks.

        • James says:

          The whole future Doctor thing feels very Moffat – we know he likes playing with time. I suspect it may also play into how Amy leaves. Have you heard anything that’s been announced about her last episode?

          • Only that it involves the Weeping Angels & “someone will die yes REALLY”. I am banking on Moffat’s inherent evilness for that to be another trick, i.e. to mean something other than Amy or Rory dying. I will be furious if that’s how they go out.

          • James says:

            The only other thing I’ve heard is that Karen Gillan has said that she wants Amy’s departure to be final, with no possibility of a return. One idea I’ve had is that Amy gets sent back in time by a Weeping Angel and we get a variation on the Blink plotline with the police inspector perhaps. Moffat being Moffat, I wouldn’t put it past him to have an elderly Scotswoman appear in the same episode and be revealed to be a 90-year-old Amy who has been sent back in time by a Weeping Angel. When the Doctor realises this, he can’t go back and return her to the present day for fear of interfering with Time and so does the next best thing – goes back with Rory to whatever point Amy was transported to so the two of them can live their lives out together. Thinking about it, Annete Crosbie’s character in Amy’s first episode recognised the Doctor. Maybe she’s actually an elderly Amy who’s been living there quietly to keep an eye on her younger self? We’ve already had the revelation that Amy and Rory’s daughter has been living with them without their knowledge. Maybe eldery Amy and Rory have too.

          • Actor always want their characters to be killed off at the end! Luckily they don’t get a vote.

            Some kind of ‘this is how they die MANY YEARS FROM NOW’ ending is about the only way I could cope with them killing off Amy/Rory. Moffat can damn well explain himself to my two year old daughter if he goes that route!

          • James says:

            I could see Amy/Rory being shown dying of old age. Can’t see it being done any other way. On the other hand, I suppose we’ve seen Moffat kill River off, but before we realised who she was. There’s a thought. Mavbe Rory and Amy die but get uploaded into the Library computer to keep River company? I do hope not. Eternity is a very long time.

          • How ballsy would it be to really kill them both off? Send the Doctor into a real emotional spiral.. he did say if they stuck around he’d be burying them. It won’t happen, but man… it’d make for some amazing TV.

          • James says:

            One more piece of information about the last episode for Amy and Rory. It’s set in New York. That’s where we saw young River/Melody regenerate at the end of Day of the Moon. Coincidence? Or Amy and Rory find young Melody there and settle there with her?

  9. Tabitha Smith "Tabz" says:

    Moffat has been in love with the “Time Traveler’s Wife” idea from “A Girl in the Fireplace” (and it’s a love that I wish would now die). So it’s easy to see why he’s fast forwarding through Amy’s pain with the baby to get to River (but again, I wish he’d drop the love). I did think he was slightly redeemed when I finally saw the prequel to Let’s Kill Hitler where we hear Amy’s voice mail to the Doctor. It’s haunting and made me teary.

  10. Maggie says:

    I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say that Amy isn’t valued for her wit, rarely saves the day, and wouldn’t have gotten married.
    1. Amy LOVES Rory. At first, she is not sure what she wants, but in Amy’s Choice, she more than choses him, she choses that she would rather die than live without Rory. That certainly sounds like love to me. Of course she would have married him without the reboot. In fact, in The Girl Who Waited, the bitter, old Amy sacrifices her life to give young Rory the years she didn’t have with him.

    2. Amy is brilliant, mad, and impossible. She remembers things no one else can, and doesn’t care if she has to break the laws of physics to have her way. And, her wit is constantly what saves the day, which brings me to number 3.

    3. Amy saves the day all the time.
    5.01- The Doctor’s plan falls short and Amy finishes the job.
    5.02- Amy inotices what the Doctor misses, preventing him from murdering a star whale.
    5.03- Amy diffuses Bracewell by talking about love as the defining human characteristic, while the Doctor only sees pain.
    5.04- Amy is declared “brilliant” by River Song when she saves herself by shutting off the Angel without assistance.
    5.06- Amy volunteers to enroll at the Calvierri School despite Rory and the Doctor’s objections because she knows it’s the only way to save Isabella.
    5.07- Amy’s insistence that if the life without Rory is real then she “doesn’t want it” ends the first fake reality.
    5.08- Amy saves Tony Mack from being eaten by the Earth, but isn’t so lucky herself.
    5.10- Amy and Vincent dosobey the Doctor’s orders not to follow him, and, in doing so, wind up saving him.
    5.13- Amy’s memories bring the Doctor back from the void.
    And that’s just her first season…

  11. Kate Elmer says:

    I guess I am just expressing my disappointment that Amy’s character showed real promise in the beginning but that I feel like her character was rather stifled after her marriage to Rory. I think Moffat abandoned a good companion to focus on the Doctor’s character and story. I found it frustrating.

    • Larsen says:

      If you are talking about in season 6
      It wasn’t based on the doctor
      SHE HAD A BABY
      They didn’t disappoint me at all
      She will always be my favorite
      Amy felt real to me
      If I was seven and a strange man answered my prayers I would totally wait for him 12 years seems realistic too me
      And I would like to say she saves the day quite often if you actaully watch doctor who
      She was intended to be a kiss-o-gram to show that nobody believed her about the doctor so she became very sassy and had trouble trusting her
      And she waited for him for so long she isn’t very stable
      Her clothes change as she gets older in season 6 and 7′
      It didn’t end with a veil well I suppose it sorta did but it ended with her dying does that sound like Disney to you…no not at all
      And keep in mind you obviously live in America (so do I) so you don’t know what is appropriate over there
      And also there hidden jokes of sex so your kids probably dont even notice it
      And if they do then they probably already know what sex is
      So don’t ever EVER talk like that about amy pond she loves rory her daughter and the doctor (like a best friend) and again she gave her life up with the doctor to be with the man who waited for HER not selfish at all made me cry about everything
      Even stuff completely irrelevant

      • Larsen says:

        Well I made a lot of mistakes in that but you probably know what I mean

      • Kate Elmer says:

        Actually I do not live in America. I’m an American who has lived in Yorkshire for 12 years. I wrote the post before the most recent season of Dr Who during which I think they did improve Amy’s character but I stand by my initial assessment of how her character arc has been developed. On a personal and dramatic level I find it interesting and I find Amy entertaining. I bawled like anything during that last episdode. But, as a feminist I find it a bit deplorable the way she has been presented. Good drama. Bad politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*