I actually thought both of those rants were a bit weird. The original author thinking that all the recent female companions were all smart and capable and sexy etc - I can see that for Martha (but she's a doctor, so I'd hope she's smart ang good under pressure), and mostly for Amy, but you can't really say that of Donna. And even Rose was often dim-but-plucky rather than brilliant.
But then as you say, to interpret that as "ZOMGMISOGYNY!" seems to be reading into the author's words something which probably isn't there. If all companions in Who were smart and capable and sexy females, then it would be a shame. And one of the good things about new Who is that we've had companions like Donna and Rory. It would also be a shame if we had female companions who were originally devised as smart and capable but who ended up written as stereotypical screamers (I'm thinking in particular here of Liz Shaw and Romana), but new Who doesn't suffer from that (probably because of the stronger role of Davies and Moffat compared to old series script editors).
It was aimed at River Song, Amy Pond and person from previous episode whose name has gone from my dim brain.
You're right that Martha, Rose and Donna were very different characters -- but they were previous writer. In fact all the companions have difference characteristics... but those latest three River Song, Amy Pond and Oswin (had to look it up -- it was bugging me) are all brave, clever, flirty, openly sexy-and-they-know-it in a "hey boys!" kind of way. Not that they're not different from each other of course but you can imagine a lot of the Oswin lines being said by River Song for example and vice versa -- which would not have worked so well with, say, Martha, Donna and Rose.
Barbara flirts with Ian a bit.
In a mumsy 50s housewife kind of a way though -- I mean considering it's the swinging 60s...
Barbara in 'The Romans' is definitely flirty - in fact (having re-watched this after a 40 year gap) that story is definitely Not Suitable For Children (I never realised that at the time, of course).
I actually thought both of those rants were a bit weird. The original author thinking that all the recent female companions were all smart and capable and sexy etc - I can see that for Martha (but she's a doctor, so I'd hope she's smart ang good under pressure), and mostly for Amy, but you can't really say that of Donna. And even Rose was often dim-but-plucky rather than brilliant.
But then as you say, to interpret that as "ZOMGMISOGYNY!" seems to be reading into the author's words something which probably isn't there. If all companions in Who were smart and capable and sexy females, then it would be a shame. And one of the good things about new Who is that we've had companions like Donna and Rory. It would also be a shame if we had female companions who were originally devised as smart and capable but who ended up written as stereotypical screamers (I'm thinking in particular here of Liz Shaw and Romana), but new Who doesn't suffer from that (probably because of the stronger role of Davies and Moffat compared to old series script editors).
Reply
You're right that Martha, Rose and Donna were very different characters -- but they were previous writer. In fact all the companions have difference characteristics... but those latest three River Song, Amy Pond and Oswin (had to look it up -- it was bugging me) are all brave, clever, flirty, openly sexy-and-they-know-it in a "hey boys!" kind of way. Not that they're not different from each other of course but you can imagine a lot of the Oswin lines being said by River Song for example and vice versa -- which would not have worked so well with, say, Martha, Donna and Rose.
Barbara flirts with Ian a bit.
In a mumsy 50s housewife kind of a way though -- I mean considering it's the swinging 60s...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment