There's a prevailing idea, I think, of the Classic Female Companion being a young woman whose scream can shatter glass and who has to be rescued constantly; while there's definitely foundation for that stereotype, I've personally found that it's indeed nothing more than a stereotype. I have to say, that until I watched the series again--as compared to female roles now--I bought into the Who females as stereotypes who, think I said tripped on twigs, rather than holding positions, or having accomplishments. My favorite thing to say was that their function was to ask "What shall we do Doctor, and trip on twigs". But looking at Sarah Jane's first day with the Third Doctor, she deserves, from me, a sincere apology and second look. The Classic Who female held position. The Doctor Assistant or not, Liz was hired because of her qualifications. Jo wasn't a scientist, but she was qualified as the Doctor assistant with other skills. As Jo knew how to fly helicopters and I think had martial arts--she was closer to a soldier than a scientist. And although she wasn't a companion, Winnefred was a soldier. Ace's skills as well were more warrior-like. She becomes Time's vigilante.
Same thing could be said about race; there are serials where there are quite obvious metaphors for racism or segregation, and we're meant to think that's bad - but there's a very notable lack of PoC throughout the decades for a show where you can travel anywhere and anytime in the universe. This lack of POC is significant because issues of oppression, prejudice, aethestics based in "race" and culture on the show are presented from the point of view of entitlement. At least when British enslavement of Africans is mentioned once on the classic show, a man of color is allowed to speak about it as HIs expereince, or the experience of HIS ancestors as it relates to his existance.
Martha Jones is silenced, her attempt voice concerns or questions dimissed as hyper-sensitivity, and then we confronted with Doctors totally unrelated assumption of the situation--he doesn't see color, and of course the absolutely stunningly insulting suggestion that there is no greater menace or meaning in Shakespeare stumbling for the correct term to call "The Doctor's" Blackamoor lady than a man trying to find the right word to get a good looking female in bed with you. "It doesn't matter what he's calling you and why he doesn't have any inkling of what nation or culture you are from--Shakespeare wants to shag you; be happy."
I am always truly amazed by fans--of all ethnic backgrounds-- who think that the Doctor's reaction to Martha's question about the exisitence of the slave trade--bascially he intimates that it doesn't exist--is Politically correct because it proves the Doctor doesn't see "color".
I am always truly amazed by fans--of all ethnic backgrounds-- who think that the Doctor's reaction to Martha's question about the exisitence of the slave trade--bascially he insist it doesn't exist--is Politically correct because it proves the Doctor doesn't see "color".
This is similar to the issue a lot of people have taken with Moffat's tweet about how the Doctor presumably wouldn't understand what you're talking about if you use the words "gay" and "straight". Being blind to things like race and sexuality isn't a good thing - it's a sign of ignorance and lack of understanding of minorities' life experiences.
To say that the Doctor, who is supposed to be someone who readily questions authority and battles injustice, doesn't know about those things is more than just a little insulting. Because it means he doesn't understand the issues related to them, ranging from everyday discrimination to genocide.
"Problematic" doesn't really begin to cover it. Especially since genocide is a very present theme in NuWho.
To say that the Doctor, who is supposed to be someone who readily questions authority and battles injustice, doesn't know about those things is more than just a little insulting.
It's not a positive trait, to be sure, but you could argue that it's in character. The Doctor is sometimes blind to stuff. Take the Ood, for example. I mean, I don't blame him for getting sidetracked by Satan (hard not to be, it's Satan) but I really wish that immediately afterwards, he'd asked some questions. I mean, he's told that the Ood are a "basic slave race," but slavery isn't something that just happens, it's something that's done to people. So the obvious question is, "Who did it?" Followed immediately by, "Can it be fixed?" and "Are they still out there doing it?" and "If so, how do I stop them?"
but you could argue that it's in character We could argue it about the Nu Who, but Seven got into discussion about racism with Ace, talked briefly about the slave trade with a black bartender, Four seems to tackled the matter of feminism. Either in the books or one the episodes I don't recall, he and Sarah Jane talk about Doctor Martin Luther King. The images and conversations were far from enlightened, but he's not ignorant. The Doctor knows Jefferson and was there when he wrote the constitution. He didn't hear that raging arguement about Slavery while he was there? Problem with having the Doctor as unaware, is that the show has already show Doctor present in certain key events.
To show him as not understanding why humans treat each other a certain way is very different than presenting a character whom the audience knows is more than aware and educated about the human condition, callously, amost arrogantly dismiss oppressive prejudice or homophobia it as trivia or non-existent.
He is friends with abolitionist Darwin, Mary Shelly, and Dickens and the classic Doctor bragged of his relationship with Shakespeare who from three major characters--Aaron, Shylock and Othello--. These authors were very involved in the artistic discusiion of how our reactin to complexion differences color and religion impact our behavior.
But I oonfess I am more than happy to have them draw the line at the Doctor acting as savior in an arean where our fellow humans have excelled. I think he knows his limits and he knows when to stand back and allow humans to voice solutions and opinions about their society--which right up to Martha and her question in 1599 is what he does. Rose is allowed to voice her opinion on slavery and so is Donna. Martha is told practically that it doesn't exist and oh, those or just words, there is not mentality of Imperial etitlement behind them.
True. The classic era is a different animal in that respect, and I think in many ways a braver one.
But I oonfess I am more than happy to have them draw the line at the Doctor acting as savior in an arean where our fellow humans have excelled. I think he knows his limits and he knows when to stand back and allow humans to voice solutions and opinions about their society
Agreed completely. For the Doctor to fix purely human social problems is . . . I dunno, a bit too messianic for me. I think things go bad when the Doctor acts too much as the One Savior and forgets to be the eccentric wizard mentor who helps humans realize their own heroism.
First of all, looking at my on post, I'm amazed you were able to reply seeing all of my typos. Yikes
Do you think that one of the reasons the NuWho is more timid or just dimissive about certain sensitiive issues than the Classic Show is because the Nuwho seem to regard the Doctor as less relunctant hero, and more self-appointed Savior?
Actually, I had assumed that NuWho is more worried about getting canceled, and it shows in the sort of stories they're willing to do. The savior thing could be part of it, though. So could the fact that sometimes, NuWho gets downright pessimistic about the ability of anyone to change things for the better, and that attitude is pure poison for social activism of any kind.
Jo wasn't a scientist, but she was qualified as the Doctor assistant with other skills. As Jo knew how to fly helicopters and I think had martial arts--she was closer to a soldier than a scientist.
Jo was also qualified in escapology, although sometimes she was prevented by plot. I've found that the general rule in third Doctor stories is that Jo can be counted on for any physical skill required by the story, from riding a motorcycle to disabling armed men. (Seriously, watch her and the Doctor work in tandem to take down guards. It's a thing of beauty.)
One problem with analysing the female companions in pre-2005 Who is the inconsistency in writing, with some writers attempting to individualise them and others simply doing a generic "companion" (generally giving rise to the worst cases of plot-driving uselessness). Jo in particular suffers from this with her level of skill and intellect fluctuating wildly from story to story. Also, it's a common complaint from companion actors that their characters were given individuality and interesting characteristics in their introductory stories and then got flattened out later on.
One of the things I really blame RTD personally for, though, is not challenging the "all older companions were pathetic damsels" mindset more in his media interviews. It came across to me as unfairly promoting his own character over all others, as for people who've seen the older stories, Rose is certainly the most three-dimensional and best written of the "everyperson" companions, but she most certainly isn't in the top half when it comes to competence, intellect, or the nebulous "being the Doctor's equal".
First, So sad to hear that Mary Tamm, Romana I, has passed away. I very much enjoyed her brief stint on Doctor Who. Very Sad day.
is not challenging the "all older companions were pathetic damsels" mindset more in his media interviews. Agreed. People forget Sarah Jane spent most of her debut episode working on her own. She takes the lead in raid on the enemy forces and not because of what the Doctor taught her--she thought the Doctor WAS the enemy--but according to her own skills and knowledge. This is the perplexing thing about statements about Martha and the Doctor. We meet her and she is already courage--Tennant says that this is what draws the Doctor to Martha, her courage and intelligence. As to her speaking up finally--sorry, as far as I can see that's Francine's influence. That woman walked up to a man she was told was dangerous by her government and smacked him to protect her daughter. Look at Tish courage and support of her sister. The Classic Doctor rarely took credit for his Companion's and Assisstant's fine attributes, or allowed them to think this. Althiough through the Companion we get to see the Doctor, through the Doctor eyes, we have always been able to see what is best and admirable about humanity in his human friends and associates. Moffat has at least returned us to that --well except for the one episode where he's preaching about the bad human mommy. But for the most part, the Moffat lead team is back to allowing the Doctor to see what is best wonderful about humanity again.
However in RTD's favor, Rose was better percieved as an "everyperson" because of her relationship with Jackie and Mickey. Was there a more every person than Mickey. He gave her a family many people can relate to: a hard working widowed/single mother, making her way with her business in her kitchen, her boyfriend with skilled trades job, and Rose with what appears a thankless job, but we see her in the beginning as a hard worker.
Martha too is very much a everywoman, as I and many otheres can relate to a family who stresses independence and education, most of us who have attened college or University whether it is for the arts, music, medicine, language, know the drill of study, the pull of family especially if there is a breakup, the competitiveness between siblings, but the love underneath it all.
I am familiar with Donna too, especially in the economy of the last thirty years, many single women have been forced back home with parents--usually because have families, and single men too. but I have those firends who struck out of their own, no children, no spouse male and female, on their salaries and pensions.
Having families does help round a character out. I do not think that is a detriment.
Same thing could be said about race; there are serials where there are quite obvious metaphors for racism or segregation, and we're meant to think that's bad - but there's a very notable lack of PoC throughout the decades for a show where you can travel anywhere and anytime in the universe. This lack of POC is significant because issues of oppression, prejudice, aethestics based in "race" and culture on the show are presented from the point of view of entitlement. At least when British enslavement of Africans is mentioned once on the classic show, a man of color is allowed to speak about it as HIs expereince, or the experience of HIS ancestors as it relates to his existance.
Martha Jones is silenced, her attempt voice concerns or questions dimissed as hyper-sensitivity, and then we confronted with Doctors totally unrelated assumption of the situation--he doesn't see color, and of course the absolutely stunningly insulting suggestion that there is no greater menace or meaning in Shakespeare stumbling for the correct term to call "The Doctor's" Blackamoor lady than a man trying to find the right word to get a good looking female in bed with you. "It doesn't matter what he's calling you and why he doesn't have any inkling of what nation or culture you are from--Shakespeare wants to shag you; be happy."
I am always truly amazed by fans--of all ethnic backgrounds-- who think that the Doctor's reaction to Martha's question about the exisitence of the slave trade--bascially he intimates that it doesn't exist--is Politically correct because it proves the Doctor doesn't see "color".
Reply
This is similar to the issue a lot of people have taken with Moffat's tweet about how the Doctor presumably wouldn't understand what you're talking about if you use the words "gay" and "straight". Being blind to things like race and sexuality isn't a good thing - it's a sign of ignorance and lack of understanding of minorities' life experiences.
To say that the Doctor, who is supposed to be someone who readily questions authority and battles injustice, doesn't know about those things is more than just a little insulting. Because it means he doesn't understand the issues related to them, ranging from everyday discrimination to genocide.
"Problematic" doesn't really begin to cover it. Especially since genocide is a very present theme in NuWho.
Reply
Reply
It's not a positive trait, to be sure, but you could argue that it's in character. The Doctor is sometimes blind to stuff. Take the Ood, for example. I mean, I don't blame him for getting sidetracked by Satan (hard not to be, it's Satan) but I really wish that immediately afterwards, he'd asked some questions. I mean, he's told that the Ood are a "basic slave race," but slavery isn't something that just happens, it's something that's done to people. So the obvious question is, "Who did it?" Followed immediately by, "Can it be fixed?" and "Are they still out there doing it?" and "If so, how do I stop them?"
Reply
To show him as not understanding why humans treat each other a certain way is very different than presenting a character whom the audience knows is more than aware and educated about the human condition, callously, amost arrogantly dismiss oppressive prejudice or homophobia it as trivia or non-existent.
He is friends with abolitionist Darwin, Mary Shelly, and Dickens and the classic Doctor bragged of his relationship with Shakespeare who from three major characters--Aaron, Shylock and Othello--. These authors were very involved in the artistic discusiion of how our reactin to complexion differences color and religion impact our behavior.
But I oonfess I am more than happy to have them draw the line at the Doctor acting as savior in an arean where our fellow humans have excelled. I think he knows his limits and he knows when to stand back and allow humans to voice solutions and opinions about their society--which right up to Martha and her question in 1599 is what he does. Rose is allowed to voice her opinion on slavery and so is Donna. Martha is told practically that it doesn't exist and oh, those or just words, there is not mentality of Imperial etitlement behind them.
Reply
But I oonfess I am more than happy to have them draw the line at the Doctor acting as savior in an arean where our fellow humans have excelled. I think he knows his limits and he knows when to stand back and allow humans to voice solutions and opinions about their society
Agreed completely. For the Doctor to fix purely human social problems is . . . I dunno, a bit too messianic for me. I think things go bad when the Doctor acts too much as the One Savior and forgets to be the eccentric wizard mentor who helps humans realize their own heroism.
Reply
Do you think that one of the reasons the NuWho is more timid or just dimissive about certain sensitiive issues than the Classic Show is because the Nuwho seem to regard the Doctor as less relunctant hero, and more self-appointed Savior?
Reply
Reply
Jo was also qualified in escapology, although sometimes she was prevented by plot. I've found that the general rule in third Doctor stories is that Jo can be counted on for any physical skill required by the story, from riding a motorcycle to disabling armed men. (Seriously, watch her and the Doctor work in tandem to take down guards. It's a thing of beauty.)
Yeah, I'm a bit of a Jo fan.
Reply
One of the things I really blame RTD personally for, though, is not challenging the "all older companions were pathetic damsels" mindset more in his media interviews. It came across to me as unfairly promoting his own character over all others, as for people who've seen the older stories, Rose is certainly the most three-dimensional and best written of the "everyperson" companions, but she most certainly isn't in the top half when it comes to competence, intellect, or the nebulous "being the Doctor's equal".
Reply
is not challenging the "all older companions were pathetic damsels" mindset more in his media interviews. Agreed. People forget Sarah Jane spent most of her debut episode working on her own. She takes the lead in raid on the enemy forces and not because of what the Doctor taught her--she thought the Doctor WAS the enemy--but according to her own skills and knowledge.
This is the perplexing thing about statements about Martha and the Doctor. We meet her and she is already courage--Tennant says that this is what draws the Doctor to Martha, her courage and intelligence. As to her speaking up finally--sorry, as far as I can see that's Francine's influence. That woman walked up to a man she was told was dangerous by her government and smacked him to protect her daughter. Look at Tish courage and support of her sister. The Classic Doctor rarely took credit for his Companion's and Assisstant's fine attributes, or allowed them to think this.
Althiough through the Companion we get to see the Doctor, through the Doctor eyes, we have always been able to see what is best and admirable about humanity in his human friends and associates.
Moffat has at least returned us to that --well except for the one episode where he's preaching about the bad human mommy.
But for the most part, the Moffat lead team is back to allowing the Doctor to see what is best wonderful about humanity again.
However in RTD's favor, Rose was better percieved as an "everyperson" because of her relationship with Jackie and Mickey. Was there a more every person than Mickey. He gave her a family many people can relate to: a hard working widowed/single mother, making her way with her business in her kitchen, her boyfriend with skilled trades job, and Rose with what appears a thankless job, but we see her in the beginning as a hard worker.
Martha too is very much a everywoman, as I and many otheres can relate to a family who stresses independence and education, most of us who have attened college or University whether it is for the arts, music, medicine, language, know the drill of study, the pull of family especially if there is a breakup, the competitiveness between siblings, but the love underneath it all.
I am familiar with Donna too, especially in the economy of the last thirty years, many single women have been forced back home with parents--usually because have families, and single men too. but I have those firends who struck out of their own, no children, no spouse male and female, on their salaries and pensions.
Having families does help round a character out. I do not think that is a detriment.
Reply
Leave a comment