Talk:River Song

Cook Yourself a Time Lord
So there've been a couple of edits to the intro section recently about how River came to have some of her "Time Lord-y" qualities, such as superhuman strength and regeneration. Obviously, this is at least in part due to having been conceived in the vortex. The intro right now states that as the only cause. However, A Good Man Goes to Warstrongly implies that she had been or later would be further augmented by the Silence. For example, this exchange:


 * DOCTOR:Doesn't make sense! You can't just cook yourself a Time Lord.
 * VASTRA:Of course not, but you gave them one hell of a start and they've been working very hard ever since.

The Biography section seems to give a more balanced account, indicating that the conception in the vortex gave her the "potential" for those abilities. Since I think everyone can agree on that at least, I'm going to copy the line from this section to the intro as well for the time being. Further thoughts?Spreee talk to me 20:30, April 27, 2012 (UTC)Spreee

Thank you. It should noted that even the Time Lords couldn't just cook a Time Lord every time, even with all the ingredients: exposure to the Untempered Schism over billions of years; building of time ships involving inventing neutron stars; genetic manipulation by Rassilon; a  billion years of cultural history; training at the Academy; linkage to a TARDIS via the Rassilon Imprimatur...  and not every Gallifreyan was a Time Lord. It's like looking at australopithecus and saying it has the potential to graduate Sandhurst in fifteen million years. I don't believe that River is a Time Lord or Time Lady, but she has many of the marks of one and is as close to one as we're getting -- at least until the 2012 Christmas Special, about which I have some hopes and suspicions. "Part Time Lord" would probably be closer, but given her sui generis nature, it's probably best to point and say "Look! It's a River Song." Boblipton talk to me 21:05, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Age at the Library
Okay. Stop and think. River's hair had darkened by then and she had a few winkles. It makes sense it toke place years after her last meeting with the version of the Doctor married to heself.- (173.167.179.77talk to me 18:01, May 15, 2012 (UTC))

Bisexuality
We've got a little edit war going on over mention of River's bisexuality. I think that regardless of Moffat's tweets on the subject, there's a clear implication in Silence in the Library. She as much as says that she fancies everyone on the expedition except Mr. Lux. I don't think that there's another way to take that exchange. Plus, she comes from the same century as Jack, and it's been made clear elsewhere that people from the 51st century just don't think in the same straight/gay binary that people from the 21st century tend to. —Josiah Rowe talk to me 01:20, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * "I don't think that there's another way to take that exchange." There are as many ways to take that exchange as there are viewers of that exchange. Personally I took it to mean that she found Lux annoying and uncooperative (as much of the audience probably did) and was happy to conceal his face in his helmet as a way of ignoring him. "I don't fancy you" does not by any stretch of the imagination mean "I fancy everyone else." And it's a pretty big generalization to assume that all people of a given century behave in the exact same way. Shambala108 talk to me 05:06, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Here's the full exchange:
 * RIVER: Anita, unpack the lights. Other Dave, make sure the door's secure, then help Anita. Mr. Lux, put your helmet back on, block the visor. Proper Dave, find an active terminal. I want you to access the Library database, see what you can find about what happened here a hundred years ago. Pretty Boy, you're with me. Step into my office.


 * LUX: Professor Song, why am I the only one wearing my helmet?


 * RIVER: I don't fancy you.

In this context, I think that yes, "I don't fancy you" means "I fancy everybody else" (at least, everybody else on the survey team). Yes, she was also doing it to ignore and annoy Lux, but the surface meaning is clear. And since we've got the author confirming that that was what was meant in that scene, I'm not sure what our justification for ignoring it is. —Josiah Rowe talk to me 05:23, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Put it in the behind the scenes section with a source pointing to the information that confirms it. As mentioned on the forums Moffat lies a lot on his twitter.
 * I think sexuality shouldn't be mentioned at all, write what is there in the stories, not the 21st century interpretation of what you see there. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:48, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume that by "sexuality shouldn't be mentioned at all" you're referring only to this particular case? Because it would be pretty hard to rewrite Jack Harkness and remove all references to sexuality. —Josiah Rowe talk to me 18:23, May 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * While the remark can be implied as indicating a sexual interest in everyone else, that is a broad and generous -- in some senses of the word -- interpretation. It might simply be a mean-spirited crack. It might be intended to to set off the Doctor. Given the generally omnisexual orientation of the era -- when humans go out in the universe to dance with everyone -- I would expect the language to reflect that with a general weakening of the already weak sexual meaning of to fancy -- according to the Free Online Dictionary, it's the seventh definition as a noun and nowhere in the formal list as a verb currently. I won't cite my proper dictionaries, since they are American English, but Patridge gives it as the third definition, behind "hold a high opinion of". In any case, given the lack of direct evidence in wiki-approved sources -- no narrative evidence other than the weak quote -- it ranks to my mind as gossip. I've worked hard with the generous cooperation of a lot of people here to keep the River Song page as short as possible, since it's a brilliantly written character, one that once had three separate pages.


 * However, as I have a tendency to do, I digress. We have the statement from Silence in the Library. We have the auctorial statement -- and I have argued elsewhere in regards to The Infinity Doctor that auctorial statements about their intentions don't really impress me. Given that River lies, that Moffat lies and that even if Moffat is not lying it's not proof under the rules of this wiki, it should definitely not appear anyplace but possibly "Behind the scenes" and even there's it's got one possible source. That's not enough to get into a decent newspaper, who like to have three sources.


 * In addition, it gets into issues of current sexual politics that I'm not anxious to have it there at all. Is it enough to say that you wouldn't kick someone out of bed or must you actually occasionally do something about it to have a sexual orientation? I believe that talk is one thing, but you are what you do. We have direct evidence of Jack Harkness' sexual activities, what with Ianto and a daughter.  All we know directly about River are a statement as Mels that she wanted to marry the Doctor, some sultry looks and heavy petting with him. Outside of that, no direct evidence.


 * of these make me feel that it's a question that we should avoid, like issues of the relationship of Romana and the Fourth Doctor or the way the Third Doctor took Jo Grant's leavetaking so hard. However, I strongly suspect that Tangerineduel's sugegstion is going to be seen as an acceptable compromise. Boblipton talk to me 02:14, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * We're getting off track trying to extrapolate to some larger "policy" from this discussion. Sexuality obviously can and should be covered by the wiki — not just because of Torchwood, but also because of Benny, Ace, Dodo, and a myriad of scenes running throughout the, well, Virgin Books ranges.  The policy which applies here is T:NOT SFW.  If sexuality is in the narratives of the DWU it can, will and should be discussed.


 * So this discussion is clearly about just this one incident, this single episode. "Did River Song declare her bisexuality with this line?" is the only question before us.


 * If the line were delivered "I don't fancy you", then we might have more to talk about here. With that emphasis, River would more strongly be suggesting that she fancied the other people.  But Kingston delivers the line flatly and matter-of-factly: "I don't fancy you". Either way, though, I think you have to take the larger context of the episode into consideration.  River's simply being an ass to Lux, because she doesn't like Lux.  I don't think she's making some sort of revelation about her sexuality.  She's just doing what she can to cut the guy down a notch.


 * Consider this scenario. Man walks into a bar.  Man asks for a beer.  Every other patron is drinking a beer, too.  Bartender brings a perfectly chilled shot of quintuple-filtered vodka instead.  Man asks the bartender why he's the only one drinking vodka.  Bartender says, "You look like you've had a rough day.  You deserve something special."


 * Does that mean that the others aren't equally worthy of special treatment, or that the others didn't have a rough day? Not really — not, even, at all.  It means that the bartender is answering the man's question somewhat evasively, because she's trying to come across as helpful and ingratiating so that she can get a bigger tip.  She's trying to show the man that she can "read" her patrons — something that increases the bartender's "worth" to the man.  She's not actually telling the truth — which is that her distributor gave her a deal on this "special" vodka, and she's therefore able to offer it for free so as to encourage guest loyalty.


 * In the same way, River's just trying to mess with the guy's mind, especially since Lux seems to be the kind of guy who isn't all that sexually successful. She's just doing what sexually potent women do when they want to humiliate a man. This is plain, simple emasculation — not River flying the rainbow flag.


 * (By the way, what Steven Moffat says here doesn't matter to the main part of this article. In my view, it's a mistake to try to apply something from the Infinity Doctors thread to this argument.  Steven Moffat isn't the copyright holder to Silence in the Library, and, in any case, this isn't an inclusion debate.  There are therefore no grounds to violate T:CAN's clear assertion that only narrative sources are valid for the writing of in-universe articles.)  16:25: Wed 23 May 2012


 * 'Twasn't my intention to drag in The Infinity Doctor, Czechout. My mention was simply to make the point that I try to consistently apply a standard of auctorial intent doesn't matter. Others may wish to apply it on a case-by-case basis. Boblipton talk to me 18:39, May 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if (as it seems) the majority of active users don't think that the "I don't fancy you" line implies that she fancies the other members of the party, then I suppose the matter of her bisexuality can be moved to "Behind the scenes". I do think that it deserves mention there, though.


 * And, as an aside, I'd question whether we can or should extrapolate anything from the probable semantic evolution of the word "fancy", especially since it's reasonable to assume that we're getting the TARDIS-translated diction anyway. Realistically, it's unlikely that any language spoken in the 51st century would be comprehensible to a speaker of 21st century English; it would be the equivalent of someone from the 10th century BC understanding us. If we're going to work with the meanings of words, we have to do so in the context of a contemporary viewer's understanding. And in that context, the first definition given in the Oxford Dictionary online (make sure you're in the "World English" version) is:
 * 1 British informal feel a desire or liking for:
 * do you fancy a drink?
 * find sexually attractive:
 * I really fancy him


 * I think it's pretty unarguable that that is the sense in which River is using the word; though I reluctantly concede that it's possible not to draw the conclusion that she fancies everybody else in the party. (Again, that was what I thought on first viewing, and it's still my reading of the exchange; but apparently I'm in the minority on this, and I won't push any further for in-universe inclusion.) —Josiah Rowe talk to me 19:37, May 23, 2012 (UTC)