He is the loveliest god, who dissolves
the old and brings in the new, who intoxicates, sending people out of their
conscious minds with his enthusiasm, only to hang over them while they recover
those faculties, to await their acknowledgement. The puer aeternus is therefore
not just what is new and to come, but the very process itself by means of which
the present transforms itself into something fresh – the non-mature, the
chrysalis and imago itself, all within the same whole.
Hey guys, this is a response to Jen's post, as I agree a lot about Disney's iterations becoming sort of the standard when it comes to the properties and stories they adapt at least in the American consciousness.
In the case of myself concerning Peter Pan; I was brought up with the 1960 taped Mary Martin musical version and had seen the play I think both musical and original a few times as a child - alongside the Disney version on tape so the fact Peter was played by a woman was not unexpected to me at all. I knew this as a fact. I knew this because my mom was such a fan of the play and books and the Disney film and she passed that knowledge onto me. I think British people, people in the UK don't bat an eye at Peter Pan being played by a woman as it is such a popular play there more than it is here particularly as it is often a Christmas pantomime which we in America don't really have. People go see Babes in Toyland or The Nutcracker in December and that's about it. Also theater as general entertainment in America is not as fruitful, cheap or as popular per se as it is in the UK (could be wrong that seems to be my observation). Anyone prove otherwise?
Disney's influence and the power of their merchandising HAS warped many people's perspectives. Many people don't know The Little Mermaid traditionally has a downer, bittersweet and sort of religious ending and that Disney's version is actually abnormal with it's happy ending. The movie is actually pretty faithful care for Ursula's scheming/evilness whereas the original sea witch was not particularly bad, her magic just often had a very serious price and had some sort of counterbalance of suffering or sacrifice to work. Disney plunged her into full fledged villainy instead and allowed the Little Mermaid her happy ending...which while nice sort of misses...the point...of the original fairytale...but anyway, Little Mermaid aside there is probably no other better example of Disney's iterations via their merchandising and just overall presence becoming "standard" in the American public consciousness than their blonde, blue dressed merchandise version of Cinderella. Pretty ubiquitous. Now why do I say merchandise version and not just Cinderella? Well; she's not really supposed to be blonde, nor is her dress blue, we are only meant to think so and the perpetuation of that has caused some very interesting reactions, for instance:
During the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade last year they had a segment from the Rodgers and Hammerstein's musical Cinderella, also from the 50s and of course not related to Disney at all, played out by the new revival cast and their Cinderella was played by a brunette actress. You know how many people following the segment went to Twitter, Facebook and tumblr to complain about her not being blonde after that? A lot.
Uh...who said Cinderella had to be blonde? Oh...Disney dolls and merchandise. Okay. Only she's not even blonde in the movies. Disney has you fooled via the power of their merchandising, and it's really impressive that more people aren't arguing otherwise. Okay this is where one might need to get some popcorn and buckle your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy ride through rant town:
I complain about this perpetually since Cinderella's hair in the original movie is strawberry blonde at its possible lightest and just plain ginger-orange brown otherwise, a titian "burnt orange" (actress Amy Adams' preferred hair color or Judy Garland in Meet Me In St. Louis comes to mind) and anyone who watches the movie where they haven't digitally paintcanned her Cinderella blonder in can see that. It was a very popular hair color in the 40's and 50's and between her dove-grey/silver gown, blue eyes, the hair and her black choker; the look is very specific and very 1950's in terms of aesthetics and color palette. Very intentional. And as a lover of design their refusal to portray her correctly consistently is a bit disappointing.
Disney has since they started putting out DVDs, to alter Cinderella's hair digitally to be closer to their merchandise. I think there is some descrpency, I think the top video is perhaps the most accurate on Youtube, there were other older versions on there ripped from VHS and others where it was even more orange but they have seemed to have been deleted. This is probably the darkest and most authentic on there, possibly even VHS? Noticeably deeper, and redder and blends with the rest of the tones of the room's color palette.
The new Diamond Edition from I guess last year is noticeably very brightened and much, much blonder, still sort of carroty-ginger but, noticeably altered. Much too bright and looks painted over and out of place in the hues of the rest of the scene. However it is still shades and shades away from the blonde of merchandise.
Luckily during her transformation scene on this version it has her hair still looking rather correct:
Despite probably some brightening her hair is indeed....not blonde. The lighting in this
scene probably makes it hard to change it without looking too obvious. Still...generally...not really blonde.
Meanwhile all their merchandise since forever features this color palette not to mention their new redesign:
Bit of a discrepancy huh. That is canary YELLOW.
Oh, while btw the third Cinderella sequel actually had her hair the correct color too; one of the many strangely higher quality elements to the film, which as a Disney direct to DVD franchise milking movies go, and the awful premise, was actually not terribly bad and was at the least excellently animated and voiced.
Okay, so you may be asking Max why are you talking about Cinderella's hair so much? This blog is about Doctor Who. And Peter Pan. You obviously really care about color palettes. And Cinderella. Okay. We get it. Please. Well, yes I do, and yes I do, but it is important because seeing American's reactions to the brunette Hammerstein Cinderella at the parade indicates that the platinum blonde Cinderella of Disney's merchandise has become so ubiquitous that it dictates people's expectations of what she should look like PERIOD, even when that assumption it isn't even correct from that version's original source! It's purely merchandise and media influenced. It also seems to suggest that people think Disney must somehow control all versions of the character. That's pretty dangerous to be able to convince people that much, not to insult the intelligence of those that were puzzled but it speaks loads on the effect merchandise and media fed images can have on people. Look at all the fan art from sometimes self professed rabid Disney fans: most still perpetuate the very blonde hair and blue dress look for Cinderella too, which makes me wonder if most of these fan artists doing "Disney princess" themed pictures and sets and products are only going by the general public conscious image of what Disney Cinderella "should" look like or have they actually even sat down to watch the film recently or in the case of many have they even seen it at all. Perhaps it's just involuntary. God help us when Princess Anna joins the line later this year or next; as she's also blonde.
It is also very telling or rather sad that Disney then as a company has the gall to then go digitally (and poorly at that) edit her hair to match the perpetuation of said merchandise instead of going the other way around respecting the original aesthetic. That love of "blondness" and the possible exclusion of many girls who may dislike Cinderella solely because they THINK she is blonde and thus is...not like them, is a whole other rant not particularly related to either Doctor Who OR Peter Pan, so I'll refrain from continuing there! (If anyone has thoughts about that, leave comments, I'd love to hear your thoughts).
Disney with Peter has surely done the same thing as they have done with Cinderella; perpetuate a certain image and their image of Peter and Wendy too has become ingrained in the American consciousness. Baby blue nighties and nightgowns and matching hair ribbon are instantly Wendy Darling.This is probably mainly due to the massive amount of tie-ins and products they had for their version of Peter Pan. I've seen vintage old stock Peter-Pan kid's room WALLPAPER from the 50's for sale online. Just like Cinderella is seen as blonde, most see Peter as the red haired, elf eared teenage boy in green tights when he originally was never indicated to have a particular hair color or those pointed elf ears, and his costume was originally "skeleton leaves" either sewed together or stuck together with tree sap and possibly vines. A complete wild child of the woods. Disney's more restrained version has become rather standard influence in his depiction on covers, fanart, and general illustrations of the character all over the world ever since its debut even if not related to Disney at all. Disney's iterations of Peter and Wendy are the first things you see a on a Google image search for 'Peter Pan'. Pages upon pages.
This is a bit problematic as originally Peter was said to have all his baby teeth which puts him much younger than the 16ish teenager that Disney portrayed their version. Which in a way makes their Peter a bit creepier due to his age and the addition of blatant underlying sexuality that comes with that age, when he really shouldn't be much older than 5-7 years old. It's very telling that in the 50's they wanted a more "masculine" Peter, a "non sissy" who while firmly a young man is still rather boyish and non-receptive and indifferent to girls in general despite the female interest overwhelmingly pining after him ranging from the mermaids to Tinkerbell, Wendy and Tiger Lily. Instead of naivety and the flattery of Barrie's Peter; Disney's is all "manly" indifference and toying with Wendy thinking it would be entertaining to have her around. That indifference and yet also selfish indulgence in the attention all these girls give him nonetheless seems to make him all the more attractive due to his fickleness and non-use of that supposed sexuality that causes such jealousy. The romance aspect has been emphasized more and more in iterations since the Disney version to my knowledge especially in the most recent 2003's (wow ten years later sheesh don't tell me I was fourteen...that was five years ago...wait no that five years ago was five years ago oh god whyyyyyy) live action Peter Pan which goes as far as to have their teenage Peter, again played by a boy, floating prostrate above Wendy's bed at night with rather obvious curiosity and tension. This is a sight Wendy replicates in a drawing that causes her teacher a considerable stir due to it's abstract resemblance to sex. While obviously played for laughs it still is a bit odd....Thanks a lot Disney, you're ultimately to blame for this I think. Thanks...a lot.
Eleven's Peter Pan is surely more parallel or born from this Disney version; there's a reason Amy's advance on him resembles Wendy attempt to kiss Peter in the Disney version. His boyishness and awkwardness seems to not interfere at all in all sorts of women liking him....a bit too much...
So yes, I agree with Jen's assertion in Disney's sort of power over American audiences in how they portray things and how the AMERICAN version of Peter Pan through Disney HAS dictated quite a bit about how we perceive him.
I sort of wanted to elaborate further using the "Cinderella must be blonde" argument since it has instilled a particular version in people's heads. Bit obnoxious isn't it? Don't you feel a little used?
We've been writing an awful lot about Amy and Eleven and Rory and River...but we haven't been giving good old Peter his dues here on the blog.
You look about 9
And you look about 14...
After spending my entire day pouring over the new Diamond Edition of Disney's Peter Pan, I've got more than just a thought or two on the Boy Who Won't Grow Up.
Don't Tell Me It's Not Canon
Okay. I know what some of you are thinking...DISNEY'S Peter Pan? Don't you mean BARRIE'S Peter Pan? Well, yes and no, and here's why. Barrie's Peter is the original Peter; there's no denying which came first. HOWEVER we're living in a world now where Disney's Peter has become so universally recognized that you'll hardly meet a person who knew the tale before the animated film entered their life. This was actually brought to my attention by my Dad, who was sitting and watching Disney's Peter Pan with commentary with me. The film makers were talking about how, when Disney came to the story, it was a unique tale to adapt, because it had already been adapted so many times before. There was the play Peter Pan, the books Peter in Kensington Gardens and Peter and Wendy, the silent film and most recently (before the animation), the live action movie that brought Tinkerbell out of the flashlight and into the limelight, depicting her as a real person for the first time ever. Disney's audience would already be well-acquainted with the tales of Peter Pan, and perhaps most importantly, they knew him to be played as a girl.
Look how FRIENDLY the croc suddenly is!
"Interesting" my Dad said. "Now, it's basically the opposite...I mean, when Cathy Rigby played Peter in the 80s, it was like blasphemy to me!" (I'm paraphrasing here, but he did, in fact, use the word blasphemy). That tradition lives on today, as people will almost always be introduced to DISNEY'S Peter before any others, and the age for that introduction is getting younger and younger with the creation of "Jake and the Neverland Pirates" and the "Pixie Hollow" franchise. Disney has almost entirely created a monopoly on Peter Pan in the popular imagination. At the very least, they have inarguably monopolized Peter in the American imagination. Sometimes, perhaps because Peter and the Lost Boys were all played with American accents in the Disney film, even I forget that the tale is originally from a Scottish author, and steeped in British culture and history. That, of course, is factually incorrect, but culturally important, and this is where things come full circle. Because Disney's version of Peter Pan has become so well-known, he is now nearly as American as he is British (or Scottish, however you care to argue it) at this point. This is part of why the American audience latched on to Doctor Who with such a steely grip once Amy became Wendy and Eleven became Peter. THIS is why it took nearly 50 years for our country to fully embrace the series in the same mainstream way that England has embraced it in that same time span, and it's why it's fair to say that we connect to the story because it's part of our cultural history. Walt Disney made sure of that in 1953 by starting the first ever merchandising frenzy connected with an animated film (Second Star to the Right). Peter and his friends were on ads for everything from televisions to kid's shoes; and today you can get t-shirts, mugs, stuffed animals, notebooks, pretty much anything that you can imagine with your favorite character(s) from the movie on them. In short, we as Americans have embraced Peter so fully that, at this point, he's got dual citizenship. When we write about Peter in America, this is what we are talking about. The movie was released here sixty years ago to the day--that means almost three generations worth of little American tykes (and maybe even a Brit or two) have grown up knowing Walt's Peter before any other version of the classic "Eternal Child". Those three generations include a certain television show writer, born in 1961--well after Disney's version had exploded in popularity, both here and across the pond.
Hi guys, Jen and I have been hard at work organizing notes and starting this paper for the ICFA! So again, thank you for tuning in; more updates will be coming in the future as we get closer and closer and things pick up again. Right now it's the tedious quiet stuff. Lots of notes. Lots of writing. Some of the information we've been finding is so amazing we can't wait to share it all with you. We've been even starting concrete sections of the paper and our powerpoint presentation as well.
But we need your help! We are both freelance writers and workers fresh out of school and are working our asses off to stay sharp and on our toes! Our Kickstarter drive to help get us down to the conference in Florida could use your support and we have only 15 more days to reach our goal.
Contributors each receive a thank you gift according to the amount
donated to our fund ranging from acknowledgement and thank you's in our presentation and here on our blog, Doctor Who themed postcards from Orlando with personal
doodles to bound copies of our final paper and to the most generous; all of the above plus conference journals bound and presented in the style of River’s diary with photos from the conference which features Neil Gaiman as guest of honor. I
would love it if everyone would take a look and consider help
contributing to our project.
It's
been a while! Hiatus shmaiatus I'm going to write something
today that is incredibly important to our paper on why Amy Pond, or the
loss of the Ponds in The Angels Take Manhattan was so incredibly
painful and hard for many viewers. Certainly for me. It's been enough time I think for me
to be able to write coherently about the subject (though don't play Amy's Theme and any of it's variations - oh wait I already am; true story Amy is sad because her themes are SAD). I know a lot of people didn't or don't like Amy, Jen certainly did not at first sight. The very first pictures of Matt Smith and Karen filming for series 5 I remember succinctly being the first to see them and showing Jen, Jen wanted nothing to do with her. Expletives were made (Matt Smith was also shouted at for his everything). But it came to pass that Amy won Jen over once the show launched (she waited an entire year before she watched it though, I was far ahead of her).
First, Amy Pond is unique in that we meet her as a child. This set up Moffat formerly explored in TheGirl In The Fireplace. But it also sets up the very Peter Pan like set up of this mad figure appearing into her life.
“She [Amy] is like Wendy in ‘Peter Pan’, she’s
wearing a big silly nighty and a dressing gown and slippers. She returns
to her childhood, on the night before her wedding, the night she’s
supposed to grow up. She’s flown off with Peter Pan to have an amazing,
mad adventure on a fairytale ship.”
—
Steven Moffat
And this is a core element to our paper; that the explosion of the show's popularity, while simmering with the 10th Doctor came to full boil with the adaptation ofthe Peter Pan and intentional dark fairytale story of Amy Pond. Why was it so popular? Matt Smith's very "in" awkwardness and the 11th Doctor's attire and him being the youngest to ever play the Doctor certainly contributes, but the reason why people got SO attached to Amy Pond is that she is literally the Wendy that failed to go with Peter as a child, as we all fail to do (or pick your fantasy/sci-fi adventure or dream career poison) but Amy unlike us and Reinette; Amy gets a second chance.
The companions with Doctor Who have always had a vague wish fulfillment aspect alongside the Doctor to go with his shades of Peter Pan-like function but with Amy, she is the ultimate example of wish fulfillment and an audience surrogate. And viewers in the teen's to thirties range all over the world, particularly in America, could relate to that. Many have already experienced the disappointment of growing up and loosing childhood magic and belief. Many think we have moved on, but deep down, like Amy when we meet her again at age twenty-one and then twenty-three on the eve of her wedding: we have not. Amy's second chance with her "imaginary" friend from when she was seven years old; that second chance of magic and adventure despite being all grown up is the ache and want of many young adults and even adults who are "all grown up". We want to see Wendy as an adult be able to go be with Peter, even if she herself does not want to go. That's the audience projecting their desires onto the characters.
So we in a sense because we see Amy from the start, with her backstory of meeting the Doctor then him leaving; it sets it differently as she by the time he comes back already has him wrapped up in her life and personal mythology. And then to see the building rapport between Amy and the Doctor and the close, extremely close kinship they develop over supposedly on and off 200 years HIS TIME.Their friendship is despite the early bumps and Amy's flirtations is extremely sincere. It's SO deep due to that childhood connection. Most friendships and lovers should be jealous of how deep Eleven and Amy's bond created - hence Rory's truly reasonable concerns at first. Eleven's naive or more juvenile traits make this perhaps easier than ever before to truly bond past a romantic attraction as it is a perpetual back and forth of authority versus child with Amy. He treats her like a child- she treats him like a child. He fathers her often quite sternly (especially when agitated and in their first adventures). She mothers him. Like Donna they banter like equals, but in a different manner.
Doctor: No helpful hints? Amy: Hm. Well, here's one. Bow tie: get rid.
Eleven dotes on her like a child as well in which she openly obliges (a good example is in Vampires In Venice after he heals her neck he pops a candy in her mouth or in either The Pandorica Opens or The Big Bang after she was drugged by the cyber-man and Eleven preens her afterwards). Amy at times though does seem to push back and claims to "not be so clingy". The funny thing with Amy and The Doctor; they switch places of dependency over time. Amy's own doting and authoritarian streak with the Doctor, as becomes more mature; she becomes exactly what Wendy was supposed to be for Peter; a mother to the Lost Boys and to an extent Peter himself.
Moffat has gone on the record that Amy understands the Doctor incredibly
well, so much so that perhaps even more than his current incarnation
understands himself. Early in her travels without him sharing information she figures out quite a lot about him just by observation. She has on numerous occasions have made comments on the Doctor's inherent sadness or his susceptibility for getting upset and treats him much like a mother figure would when that occurs.
She scolds him in A Town Called Mercy for having flown around alone and throwing a giant temper tantrum all throughout the episode; saidd alone binge I feel took place after The Angels Take Manhattan. In fact most of Series 7 part 1 (after Asylum of The Daleks) I feel took place after the Ponds were rocketed back into the 1930s at least in the Doctor's timeline. We already know that part of the season was already out of order due to the mention of Rory's cell phone in Henry VIII's bedroom. The Doctor's sadness when dealing with them, particularly in Mercy as well as his going to give them an anniversary present in The Power of Three as well as he and Amy's exchanges in all those episodes seem to me he knows what is about to happen; the "fade away from me" line and talking to Brian Williams in particular is telling.
The Doctor: One day—soon maybe—you'll stop. I've known for awhile. Amy: Then why do you keep coming back for us? The Doctor:
Because you were the first. The first face this face saw. And you were
seared onto my hearts, Amelia Pond. You always will be. I'm running to
you, and Rory, before you fade from me. Amy: Don't be nice to me. I don't want you to be nice to me. The Doctor: Yeah you do, Pond. And you always get what you want.
Amy does gets what she truly wants in the end: Rory. But this exchange shows something that is curious and why in particular loosing Amy hurts A LOT. The phrase "fade away from me" which evokes the angels of course, but sounds so much more like it would be Amy saying it to him. Childhood magic, imaginary friends fade after their creators grow up. We never hear it from the other side. And now you have the childhood figure saying that to her; Amy, now in her early 30s who has been seeing him on and off for twenty-four years. She's all grown up. Childhood doesn't want to let go of her, whereas before it was her still holding onto childhood. And the Doctor has taken the role of child; particularly now that Amy is technically his mother-in-law. And as an audience surrogate Amy fulfills a lot of niches in that role; many would love to be able to take care of the Doctor and be his friend and confidant. Many are just as sad as The Doctor, and would like such a romantic but platonic figure or friend as Amy Pond in their lives just as many want The Doctor or Peter Pan in their lives.
The clincher on WHY people, including myself got so utterly cut up once Amy finally decided to give up her adventures with the Doctor is exactly that; she choose to "grow up". We are suddenly in the Doctor's shoes. This mother-like best friend, confidant whom he has bugged for over twenty-four years total her time; is being wrenched away from him. Even River knows (something) or can see through the Doctor's childish grasping to hold onto Amy:
The Doctor: What are you talking about? Back away from the Angel. Come back to the TARDIS, we'll figure something out. Amy: The Angel, would it send me back to the same time, to him? The Doctor: I don't know. Nobody knows. Amy: But it's my best shot, yeah? The Doctor: No! River: Doctor, shut up! Yes, yes, it is! The Doctor: Amy— Amy: Well then. I just have to blink, right? The Doctor: No! Amy: It'll be fine. I know it will. I'll be with him like I should be. Me and Rory together. {calling River over} Melody. The Doctor: Stop it! Just, just, stop it!
Amy: You look after him. And you be a good girl and you look after him. The Doctor: You are creating fixed time. I will never be able to see you again. Amy: I'll be fine. I'll be with him. The Doctor: Amy. Please. Just come back into the TARDIS, Come along, Pond. Please. Amy: Raggedy Man, goodbye.
There is also cut dialogue of the Doctor's (supposedly, is this based in fact?) from after Amy says
"I'll be with him [Rory] like I should be." which further reinforces how desparate the Doctor acts:
"From your point of view. From mine, you'll just turn to dust. Please don't. Please don't do that to me...Amy. My Amelia. The first face this face saw
We, like The Doctor, don't want Amy to go. His visceral incredibly selfish reaction; pleading, saying no, begging is all heartbreaking. " I will never be able to see you again." and "Come Along Pond PLEASE" carries such selfish weight. He sounded like a child, and it is a childlike reaction, and we get just as upset alongside him. She is finally firmly choosing Rory over him. We are loosing our audience surrogate.She's all fully grown up.
We selfishly, like the Doctor want Amy and Rory to be able to continue traveling alongside him or at least have him in their lives because WE want that relationship. We want to live vicariously through Amy because of her such long reaching influence with the Doctor. That is actually a lot to ask of her, and there is a time when she like the true Wendy, must grow up completely and thus her adventures must cease and be entrusted to her daughter. And it is obvious so long as the Doctor pops up; neither Rory nor Amy can commit or truly "live" an adult life. That severance of the mother/friend figure that obviously means so much to The Doctor is so painful and we feel the same way too because "our" second chance through Amy is being cut too. THAT is why Amy Pond is so sad. The girl who waited so long, like all of us, and then gets her wish. And we don't want it to end because it reminds us that our wishes for the same thing go relatively unfulfilled. There is also a lot of ties into the puer aeturnus psychology and the feelings of loss associated with the phenomenon of growing up or the pain of separation which is a big part of I feel Eleven's character under Moffat and his writer's pens. More on that another time.
Many point out there are loopholes; there surely are ways he can go get the Ponds. I'm sure there ARE ways he could go and rescue the Ponds and go have fun with them until they're old and gray and they still die in Manhattan. Surely. If River can send Amy her novel, certainly there are ways. But that's not the point; Amy and the Doctor becoming severed fully from each other; it's symbolic of Amy fully growing up and thus the adventures must cease. And that hurts.
Though look at this way; The Ponds were sent to Manhattan the same place River was in the 70's seems all too coincidental to this particular writer. We really don't know what River was up to between the time she first regenerated in Day of The Moon and the next time we see her growing up in leadworth as Mels. She was hiding from The Silence after all (well sorta). That means (while they were older) both River Song and her parents were in the same city for quite a while....since it wasn't until the mid nineties that she'd be school friends with Amy and Rory as they were both born I think in 1989; my age. Since Rory and Amy don't die (if they were indeed sent back to 1938) until the late eighties and early nineties...I have a little hunch River might have ended up living with the elder Ponds as a child-teen for little bit and after they died made the trip to the UK to find them as children on Amy's command and then grow up with them again. Why else would River say "Hope my old man didn't see that, he gets ever so cross" comment even apply to any Rory she's seen or interacted with? I wouldn't call her ever being present while he was being cross. Sounds more like a much older Rory? Hmmm....what do you think? 50th special; scene of old craggy Ponds? Why were the Ponds epilogue with their adopted son and Brian Williams not filmed? Hmmm.
You have to remember if River was involved in their lives or not while in NYC; Amy and Rory lived LONG productive lives together and seemed to also adopt a child. Seeing them alive and older would most likely help soften the loss a bit I think; people forget they lived on. Think Moffat will throw in a bone or fill in some of River Song's narrative gaps? (le sigh probably not).
But yes, that's the gist of it; many subconsciously (or consciously) want to be in Amy's shoes (care for the kidnapping, knock outs, dying, pregnancy, getting tied up a lot) because she gets that second chance at childhood. The beauty of her and the Doctor's relationship is also what makes it so bittersweet and even enhances its beauty in the end. As Idris said;
Idris: "Alive." I'm alive.
The Doctor: Alive isn't sad.
Idris: It's sad when it's over.
There is a bittersweet sting to the beauty of Amy's story because it simply ends. And like the Doctor; the viewers, we don't like endings. And it sucks. A lot. But like all stories, it can be retold over, and over. And Amy in effect somewhat does that; by telling the Doctor to return to her to tell her stories the morning after he left (as seen in The Big Bang when she looks up smiling after the Tardis sound awakes her) and then leave again; Amy essentially writes her own story and adventures, her whole existance as we saw it and thus ensures that always at the end The Doctor goes to tell her younger self the same stories hence creating a never ending cycle or loop; it always goes back to the start. Oh, and one final note; Jen does the same thing to Clara now as she did to Amy when she first saw her; mainly cursing her out especially after seeing the Christmas Special. You got HUGE shoes to fill Clara. Huge Scottish ginger shoes. Talk to everyone again real soon - Max
