Doctor Who Series 9 Wish List

I have 101 very important things I could be doing right now. Instead, I’m going to blog about Doctor Who.

Possible spoilers ensue.

This season, I want the TARDIS to be really, really crowded. I want the kind of family relationship that, in New Who, has really only been touched upon in series 1 (Nine/Rose/Mickey/Jack) and series 6 (Eleven/Amy/Rory/River). Thus, I propose a new TARDIS family.

Peter Capaldi as The Twelfth Doctor - I feel like Twelve hasn't gotten completely comfortable in his own skin, and that needs to happen in this season. And the best way to make that happen, I think, is to have him be surrounded by people he cares about. As well as trying to regulate his relationships with his friends, the Doctor needs to really buckle down on his search for Gallifrey. This is what he needs to do to finally have some semblance of peace of mind.

Alex Kingston as River Song - River is a brilliant character, and I know many people would like to see her come back to meet the similarly aged and grumpily charming new Doctor. The problem seems to be that we know exactly where she begins and ends; her story is bookended almost completely within the Eleventh Doctor’s run, and to delve into the stories in between would seem out of place and anticlimactic. That’s why I think the Doctor needs to do what he’s never dared to do before: bring River out of the library. I know this might seem to undermine tension that came before, but Moffat will find a way à la The Day of the Doctor. Here’s my rationalization. Due to Twelve’s recent muddy relationships with both Clara and Missy, he’s longing for a female presence in his life who he knows he can both trust, and who won’t be sexually threatening to him. A post-library River (perhaps even one whose consciousness has been placed in a lifelike robotic replica of herself) will be both ready to give herself to the Doctor completely, and will be mature enough to give his more sexually innocent incarnation space to breathe. She will be the heart of the TARDIS family, the person who the Doctor wants by his side when he finds Gallifrey.

Michelle Gomez as Missy - It is assumed that the Master escaped from Gallifrey itself, thus Missy should know its true location regardless her lie in Death in Heaven. The Doctor could reasonably ally himself with her, either through force or bargaining, and get her to lead him home. Missy would be the rogue of the family, never trusted, but kept around because she is simply the best option they have. She would also add an incredibly interesting element, since she could very well be both scornful of the idea of the Doctor having a family, while at the same time desperately wanting to be included in it.

Georgia Moffett as Jenny - The Doctor’s artificially created daughter, and one of the few Time Lord-ish beings left outside of Gallifrey, she could very well cross paths with her father after catching word that she may have a home to go to. After well over four seasons with no word from her, it’s about time that her presumably individual adventures come to an end, and there seems to be no better time than now, when what it means to be a Time Lord in this world is in question. She would add some much-needed innocence to this so far rather old and jaded family, being a relatively young person (I’m assuming the in-universe time since she last saw the Doctor would roughly relate to real-world time, or about seven years).

Craig Ferguson as The Human Scottish Bumbler - Not only a huge Doctor Who fan, but a long-time friend of Peter Capaldi, Ferguson is the missing piece of my series 9 wish list. He would be the particular friend that Twelve gets to bond with, someone who he can feel similar to, while at the same time still feel superior to. The Doctor always likes to have a human of Earth along with him, and it's very possible that he'd dip from Scotland both to find someone who shares his accent (aside from Missy), and to feel connected with his old friend Amy. Ferguson would add a fantastic sense of verbal and physical comedy to the family, he could play like a wittier, more vulgar Rory Williams.

Though I doubt many if any of these will be a part of the permanent upcoming TARDIS team, I hope all of them are eventually touched on, if not in this series, then at least in the next. I would just like some new (or relatively new) faces, and several of them, to pull this show out of threats of monotony. And think how fantastic it would be to see four or five names (and faces?!) flying through the time vortex during the title sequence!

Now a few words about Clara and Danny.

Clara may or may not be exiting in the Christmas special, and honestly I kind of hope she does. I like her character, but if she stays on for another series, she’ll have been the companion for longer than Rose, and as long as Amy, which just doesn't seem right. Her story seems to be at the point of reaching a satisfying conclusion (either in happiness with Danny, or her own death), and just the thought of another dozen episodes with her is extremely tiresome. In addition, I want a brand new character to come in soon for the Twelfth Doctor in particular to bond to, instead of being stuck with Eleven’s leftovers (Twelve and Clara’s superior chemistry notwithstanding). Unfortunately for people who think like me, Clara’s inclusion in series 9 seems inevitable. Whether or not she would fit well with the family I've laid out is up for discussion.

As for Danny’s potential as a companion, while I would like to see it, I’m ultimately against it. Even supposing that Danny a) will return from the afterlife in the Christmas special or beyond, and b) could ever be persuaded to travel with the Doctor after all the trouble the latter has gotten the former and former's girlfriend into, I feel like his story pattern would too closely match Rory’s (i.e. introduced in his first season as a recurring character and the long-suffering rightful lover of the girl caught between him and the Doctor, and then brought on as a regular in his second season with diminished romantic ambiguity) to be of much interest.

So that’s my over-long opinion. Thoughts?

Milanese Metal

This is a drawing I made upon request to promote the Gioventù Studentesca of Steubenville Opening Day this year. The idea behind it comes from the Cathedral of Milan exhibit which was displayed at the event, as well as the musical nature of the gathering. Design for the cathedral was loosely based on the Cathedral of Milan. View on Tumblr.

If you really want to help me out, you can order this image on a whole bunch of different clothing items and more right here.

Psychiatric Help

My latest piece! DC/Peanuts crossover. Let me know what you'd like to see me draw. View on Tumblr.

What's a Raccoon?

I was asked to draw Rocket Raccoon from the much-loved Guardians of the Galaxy movie. This is what I came up with. I'd be glad to take requests; my drawing skills need exercise. View on Tumblr.

Physics is Happening. Also, Newman Review.

I am currently taking a Summer college physics course which requires a time commitment of approximately 96 hours per day. We're basically covering a semester's worth of material in three weeks, so I feel a little bit like this:

The bad news is, due to said physics cramming, I don't have a lot of time or mental bandwidth to devote to blogging for a bit, which is unfortunate seeing that I just started posting again. The good news is, I have another fascinating theological meditation to bless you all with, something I'm sure everyone is clamoring for due to the overwhelming response to the last post. This time it's a review of John Henry Newman's Fifteenth Sermon (read it), an extra credit assignment that never got handed in.

John Henry Newman’s Fifteenth Sermon is titled “The Theory of Developments in Religious Doctrine.” In it, he tackles the controversial topic of the teachings of the Catholic Church, and whether or not they can be squared with what are considered some sort of “primary sources,” such as the Scriptures. The Catholic Church, in relation to the Protestants, for instance, is known to hold true various beliefs that the Scriptures do not explicitly affirm. Newman attempts to show that this is not only acceptable, but necessary when considering the nature of Divine Revelation.

Newman gives us the idea that a truth will always lead to more truth, more doctrines and ideas will naturally spring from initial ones. This isn’t to say you can just make up whatever you please, or impose your own opinions on Scripture, but truth does not logically need to be limited to what is explicitly stated in the sacred text. Reason will not let you stay in one place for long, but always leads to a greater understanding and fulfillment. We also are responsible to finish the sacred work of understanding and disclosing the entirety of Truth. The Catholic Church claims to be the pinnacle of this idea. 

Heresies, fittingly, thus have the tendency to stagnate when reaching a certain logical conclusion. They tend to uphold one doctrine above others, even to the point of denying the rest of the belief system. Newman says this shows that, in denying part of doctrine, heretics do not even firmly believe what they do profess.

It is important to remember, the sermon says, that, on earth, we are only allowed to see a dim image of the fullness of God’s Truth. While we must attempt to realize it as well as we are able, we must also know that full understanding lies in the next life, not this one. The very nature of this beatific future should hint that the fullness of faith would cause the new development of doctrine.

Newman also presents the interesting idea that whenever we feel as if our faith, our religion, is imagined or foolish, and seems to make no sense at all, it is due to this dim approximation. We only ever doubt Truth because we cannot realize it fully in this life. The whole picture is obscured from us, thus we wonder if there is a whole picture at all. While the assurance that there is a whole picture is the essence of faith, we have confidence that our faith is reasonable, and that we have the means on earth to make it as clear as is necessary.

 I'm appreciating the thought that this post will probably never become popular enough to generate any sort of religious debate. Famous last words.

Review of "Jung's Hermeneutics of Scripture"

Greetings, followers and visitors! After a year and a half of blogger hiatus, I feel almost less able to make proper use of this platform. I have thus decided to use the temporary lull in finals week to post something that absolutely nobody asked for: a theology paper reviewing an article on Carl Jung and Scripture. Why am I writing about complex interpretive methods on a blog apparently saved for pop culture geekery? Well, because it's all that I've got at the moment. I do intend for this to be a fruitful blog at some point, I truly do. But the cognitive soup is still stirring, and we'll both just have to wait for it. In the mean time, if you're not asleep yet, I hope you'll gain some interesting insight from the following. This was my midterm paper for a college theology course; I was instructed to write a three-page review of an article on a Scriptural topic of my choice. You can read the original article here. Cheers.

Jung’s Hermeneutics of Scripture is authored by Steven Kings, and appears in The Journal of Religion, Vol. 77, No. 2. The article seeks to examine the interpretation of the Christian Scriptures that Carl Jung defined and adhered to, disclose the exegetical methods he employed, and discover what use, if any, his views are to popular Christian thought.

In the introduction, the author proposes two reasons why the Jungian approach to Scripture may be relevant to those who strive to experience and understand the Bible themselves. The first is that it meets the challenges of modernity, or “the impact of scientific thinking [...] on our understanding of scripture.” This would include the effects of history, physics, chemistry, biology—and thus certainly psychology—on the popular view and interpretation of the Bible. The second reason is that the idea of interpretation itself implies a level of unconsciousness in the reader to “certain layers of meaning that nevertheless can be drawn from the text within the reader’s own context,”  and indeed that the authors themselves were unaware of at least part of these layers. Jung’s methods become particularly applicable here when we recall his emphasis on unconscious archetypal structures that become manifest as culturally-influenced images through the faculties of the individual.

The next section focuses briefly on the place of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures in Jung’s work. Though associated with the Swiss Reformed Church by his father and various other family members, Jung’s personal religious affiliations are nebulous and debatable. It is vital to note, though, that this is especially prominent in the area of Scriptural canon. Jung himself adhered to no specific canon as such, but along with the standard Protestant Bible used “apocryphal, Gnostic, rabbinical, patristic, mystical, or hermetic”  sources. The author notes that the Scriptures themselves remained important to Jung precisely because of how these extracanonical sources relate to them, rather than discredit them.

This idea of comparative examination is clarified in the following section on Jung’s hermeneutical method. Amplification, or this juxtaposition of Scripture with outside sources that may shed light on it, relates to Jung’s study of symbols and symbolic experience. As symbols are interpreted through association and analogy, so can Scripture be interpreted. Jung made the distinction between personal symbols and associations, ones that are unique to the individual due to personal experience, and collective symbols, or ones that are shared across the human landscape. Jung believed that “religions ‘consist of universal myth motifs whose origin and content are collective and not personal.’”  This suggests some innate sense of God and Truth perhaps akin to natural law. Jung finds in Scripture the collective symbols of opposites, as well as the union of opposites represented by such images as a quaternity (such as a cross).

Jung maintained several principles of interpretation, as stated in the next section of the article. His hermeneutics were characterized by nonreductive tendencies, a teleological orientation, and a rejection of the semiotic definition of the word symbol. The author juxtaposes these views with the opposing ideas of Sigmund Freud. Freud reduced the libido, or “the driving force behind psychic phenomena,”  to a purely sexual aspect, whereas Jung embraced it as psychic energy in general. Freud also focused on the causal aspect of psychic impulses rather than the purposive aspect of them, in contrast to Jung who examines the ultimate meanings and goals to which the psyche strives. Finally, Freud defines symbols as symbolic of a set and certain idea to be discovered, while Jung insists the final archetype which is symbolized cannot be fully known or understood, and that “they express a content that has not yet been consciously recognized or conceptually determined, or that cannot be formulated in any better way.”  It is noted that Jung himself found the figurative rather than intellectual nature of Scripture particularly suitable for the description of such psychic processes, and that “symbolic language is the truest reflection of the paradoxical and indeterminate realities to which it points.”  Finally, this section explains Jung’s concept of the soul’s progression towards wholeness, through the three phases of discrimination of opposites, confrontation of opposites, and integration of opposites.

The following section applies these principles to specific Scriptural narratives: the creation account, the story of Job, and the incarnation, life, and death of Christ himself. Seeking wholeness through confrontation of opposites, God Himself, we are told, is obliged to separate His goodness (in the person of Christ) from His evil (the vengeful God seen throughout the Old Testament, possibly Satan himself.) In this interpretation, Jesus Christ represents everything good and loving about this God, and through His death and resurrection, He paves the way to perfect wholeness.

“Finally, it remains to be considered what kind of authority can be attributed to biblical writings as Jung interprets them,”  the author states in his concluding remarks. His general opinion is that a text in itself has no meaning beyond what the reader projects onto it through the context to which he is exposed. 

The author has certainly done his job well, making a complex and previously vague subject digestible, and in fact making me more interested in the topic after reading his article than before. This question remains: to the faithful Catholic, are Jung’s hermeneutics useful, or even acceptable? While the concepts and principles explained are fascinating ideas, and may well draw one into a deeper understanding of the Truth in some areas, they are ultimately only that: ideas, sometimes extremely dangerous ones, and should be studied using the utmost care and caution.

Edit 5/6: Needless to say, I took any formatting/editing liberties I felt necessary in putting this text on my blog.