Eruditorum Press

That’s not the voice of god, that’s just a ring modulator

Skip to content

Elizabeth Sandifer

Elizabeth Sandifer created Eruditorum Press. She’s not really sure why she did that, and she apologizes for the inconvenience. She currently writes Last War in Albion, a history of the magical war between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. She used to write TARDIS Eruditorum, a history of Britain told through the lens of a ropey sci-fi series. She also wrote Neoreaction a Basilisk, writes comics these days, and has ADHD so will probably just randomly write some other shit sooner or later.Support Elizabeth on Patreon.

186 Comments

  1. Nyq Only
    May 1, 2013 @ 12:39 am

    Thoroughly enjoyable as always. You captured the tension of "will it be good or will it be awful?" perfectly.

    Reply

  2. Froborr
    May 1, 2013 @ 12:44 am

    When I finally saw the title you picked, it immediately became obvious it was the only title you could have used, and I teared up.

    Also, I hate you because your third paragraph about "Rose" is uncannily similar to (but better than) my first paragraph about "Return of Harmony," which I wrote weeks ago but isn't going online until Sunday.

    "Twice through the cellar sequence – once about a minute into Rose’s Wilson-calling, and once as the Autons are menacing Rose, audio broke through from a set on which Graham Norton was preparing for the next broadcast of Strictly Dance Fever. And so as Rose wanders around calling for Wilson there is a round of applause, and then, as she cowers from the onrushing mannequins, Graham Norton inquires as to where he should be sitting."

    THAT'S what those weird voices were! I always assumed it was the fault of whoever made the BitTorrent files.

    I love that the ultimate secret of "Rose" is the same as the nutter from So Long and Thanks for All the Fish with the inside-out house.

    This article makes me almost like Rose. Almost. But nope, still despise her, though none of the reasons why are particularly on display here.

    And yes, I stayed up until 5 a.m. so I could read this, knowing I have to be at work at 9:30. It was worth it.

    Reply

  3. Anton B
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:07 am

    FANTASTIC!
    I received this a few days ago as a kickstarter donation reward, for which – much thanks. Now I have the agony of celebrating the (finally!) appearance of 'Rose' on the Eruditorum and not being able to read it for the first time here as I've already read it elsewhere.
    How appropriately Timey Wimey.

    Anyway I just want to say thanks for all the work you've put into this blog so far Dr. S and I hope you find many more new readers as we enter the qlippothic realms of NuWho. To which end I will be linking and recommending on facebook and elsewhere.

    Reply

  4. Seth Aaron Hershman
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:09 am

    Her abandoning Mickey after his traumatic near-death experience isn't enough?

    Reply

  5. David Anderson
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:18 am

    I ask this as someone who watches neither of the two programs in question: isn't Jackie Tyler rather more off Shameless than Eastenders?
    Just as Shameless gets wheeled out in discussions of the benefits system by right-wingers, though written by a left-winger and so I presume without that intent. Jackie seems also written as one of the feckless beloved of right-wing propaganda: disapproving of Rose getting a job, telling her to get compensation by sueing people, and so on. One of her narrative tasks is to be the place that Rose is escaping out of, and I fear she does that a little too well.
    Or is that just me?

    Reply

  6. Zoe Heriot
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:36 am

    "Rose is the lone episode of the new series to begin without a cold open – to go straight into its theme song."

    A small correction – Smith and Jones and Partners in Crime also begin without cold open.

    Reply

  7. Andrew Hickey
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:41 am

    I have to pick up on one point, which you only put in as an aside…

    " This is a serious psychological trauma for which he will undoubtedly require extensive therapy that will be difficult to procure even under New Labour’s generous expansion of NHS funding as afforded through policies to create a business-friendly economy and, on occasion, a teensy-weensy smidgen of debt."

    While New Labour did, supposedly, increase NHS spending (though not funding — most of the spending was through PFI, which is a fancy way of saying through crossing their fingers and hoping the money would magically turn up eventually) one thing they definitely didn't do is increase spending on mental health services. On the contrary, for the entire thirteen-year period they were in power, an average of two beds on psychiatric wards were closed per day, every day.

    As someone who has both worked in mental health during the New Labour period (working on a ward where having twenty-one patients for eighteen beds was the norm) and accessed the gutted remains of mental health services, I can say that Labour's destruction of mental health services is, along with their dismal record on civil liberties and their collusion in the worst excesses of the "war on terror", among the most evil things they ever did, and the current government's increase in mental health funding is one of the few things they've done I can wholeheartedly support.

    The parallels between New Labour and the Russel Davies years of Doctor Who, in which branding and a sheen of modernity covered up a rejection of a lot of things many people previously held dear, and anyone who expressed displeasure was told to shut up and remember how much worse things ostensibly used to be, are of course striking. Moffat, in this metaphor, would be Gordon Brown (there is as yet no coalition looking likely to take over). I suspect I'm going to disagree increasingly with you as this goes on, although I hope some of the essays here will help me reconsider some of the new series episodes in a more positive light. But much as New Labour was the point at which I parted company with the Labour party, so New Who is the point at which I stop being a Who fan…

    Reply

  8. Abigail Brady
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:49 am

    I was puzzled by this idea that the shopping centre was not the type of place one might expect to find Mrs Tyler, because I didn't get that at all out of it on my rewatch a couple of weeks ago. So, I looked up the shops in Queen's Arcade.

    Yes, it says "Queens Arcade is home to some of Cardiff's most exciting and fashionable
    boutiques, shops, jewellers and cafes and is situated on Queen Street" on the website.

    Look at the floorplan though and you will discover an Argos Extra, a New Look, a Footlocker, and a Supercuts.

    Maybe Jackie was buying a new coffee table from the Argos. They do them for a tenner.

    Reply

  9. Scott
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:58 am

    "Doctor Who has returned to television."

    God help me, I actually felt myself tearing up for a second.

    Reply

  10. Forrest Leeson
    May 1, 2013 @ 2:01 am

    "Originated by William S. Burroughs and Bryon Gysin…"

    Harrumph. Edgar A. Poe described cut-up technique in "How To Write A Blackwood Article" (and, debatably, "The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq.").

    Reply

  11. Spacewarp
    May 1, 2013 @ 2:01 am

    A fascinating view of how characters work or don't work in and out of their own form of narrative. I've now started to think about other programmes in this manner and it's illuminating to see it as an explanation why some TV works and some doesn't.

    In particular this explains why some scenes with Rose in it just didn't work for me, but until now I didn't realise why.

    In "The Idiot's Lantern" when Rose tries to interrogate Magpie and gets her face sucked off for her troubles, that scene makes me cringe because it feels like a child trying to behave like an adult. I now realise it's Rose trying to transcend the limitations of her character and failing. Similarly her boasting to the Cult of Skaro about how she offed the Emperor makes me squirm.

    And yet when she tries to play Doctor to the Sycorax and she's quite obviously scared out of her wits and making a real hash of it, that works.

    Fascinating as always!

    -Dave

    Reply

  12. Anton B
    May 1, 2013 @ 2:18 am

    I think Shameless' Chatsworth estate would be a little too grim to encompass Jackie Tyler. Her remit is more cheery Londoner than skyving Manc lass. I don't recall her being discouraging of Rose's job search but rather more concerned about her daughter's lack of ambition and unrealistic (ironic in retrospect) aspirations, see the 'airs and graces' speech Phil quotes.
    I did wonder though whether the 'Powell' Estate was a cheeky reference to old Enoch considering the multi-cultural nature of Rose's 'hood.

    Reply

  13. Alex Antonijevic
    May 1, 2013 @ 2:37 am

    This was my first episode. Watched it on the original air date in Australia. Can't remember the exact date, but it was a while after the UK. Watched it knowing nothing of the show. Even now, having gone back and watched all the classic series, I'm amazed at how much I missed in this episode. I noticed a lot of the things you mentioned, but I didn't know what they meant.

    So this is how it's going to go for me. We're up to the point in the show I am very familiar with, but now I realise I know nothing. Although I don't expect all the episodes to be anywhere near this detailed, I am really looking forward to watching these episodes again with a new perspective. It'll be like watching them for the first time again.

    Gonna have to rewatch Rose as soon as I get the chance, and then each episode after reading the post about it. Back when I was watching the classic series, I'd watch the episode and then come to the blog to read the post about it.

    I've been anticipating this post since I finally caught up with the blog (back in October or so). Now I'm anticipating the rest of it just as much.

    Reply

  14. Ross
    May 1, 2013 @ 2:48 am

    I remember the anorak contingent flipping out about the cold open. Because "It's horrible and American! The purpose of the title sequence is to be how you find out what show you are watching! It's RUINED FOREVER if you already know what show you are watching from a cold open!"

    Reply

  15. Nick Smale
    May 1, 2013 @ 2:54 am

    Jackie's arc is similar to Mickey's, so of course she has the start off as dislikable so she can be redeemed through her interaction with the Doctor.

    Reply

  16. Froborr
    May 1, 2013 @ 3:18 am

    Eh, he wanted to go to the pub to watch a game on the night she was attacked and witnessed someone bombing her workplace. He deserves to be abandoned, and his near-death experience doesn't change that.

    Reply

  17. J Mairs
    May 1, 2013 @ 3:54 am

    It's RUINED FOREVER if you already know what show you are watching from a cold open!"

    … Presumably the fact that most people sit down to watch an episode of Doctor Who knowing that are sitting down to watch an episode of Doctor Who doesn't give the game away either?

    I happen to love most of the cold openings – we can go back and forth constantly about whether or not the Doctor, the role of the companion or the Tardis are appropriate to fetishise during the course of the show, but I think the one thing we can all agree on is that the theme tune deserves as much. The delay in the titles, by introducing us straight intot he story fulfils the same function as Sandifer identified the reveal of a Dalek in a Dalek-titled story – it's closure to an act of anticipation: Here is the plot – now it's time to start watching Doctor Who!

    Frankly, a very simple way to generate an uneasy atmosphere in any future stories would be to deny us the closure that the title sequence provides.

    Some of Big Finish's companion chronicles do a cold opening with the Derbyshire theme… it sends a shiver down my spine every time.

    Reply

  18. Ross
    May 1, 2013 @ 4:18 am

    There was also a lot of complaints about them putting Eccleston and Piper's names in the opening titles, since "The cast are supposed to go in the CREDITS at the END, the beginning is for the TITLES to tell you what show you are watching."

    I think it pretty much boils down to "RAR CHANGE BAD!"

    (That said, there's a weird trend with some american drama these days where the title sequence doesn't happen until the end of the first act, like 15 minutes in. Which frankly seems to be missing the point of having titles at all. I assume this is one of the new cheats to confuse and befuddle DVR users or something)

    Reply

  19. Jason
    May 1, 2013 @ 4:25 am

    Wonderful entry. Just one tiny nitpick: Rose names herself earlier in the show, before she meets the doctor. Just after hearing a noise and before going into the room-o-mannequins, she calls out, "Hello Wilson, it's Rose." It's at about 3.09.

    Reply

  20. Sparhawk
    May 1, 2013 @ 4:42 am

    I love it when people say they hate Rose Tyler. It's the ultimate vindication of Davies' work on this girl that she inspires that level of engagement.

    People who didn't get along with her successors say they 'hate the way Martha was written', or they 'hate Catherine Tate' (seemingly on principle). But when people say they hate that bold, clever, flawed young woman from 'round the estate, they really SAY they HATE Rose! She's ALIVE to them, and they hate her like they hate a flatmate whose noisy friends are always round, or a workmate who gets on better with the cute receptionist than them.

    I mean, could there be any higher praise? 🙂

    Reply

  21. S. Alexander Reed
    May 1, 2013 @ 4:44 am

    A reboot on all levels. Nicely done and congrats.

    Reply

  22. Sparhawk
    May 1, 2013 @ 4:45 am

    M A S T E R F U L .

    I love the ending. Drawing a veil over the blog as it's existed to this point and forging ahead into the Now. Got a rush off that comparable to the end of 'Bad Wolf'!

    You're a goddamned hero, Phil.

    Reply

  23. Spacewarp
    May 1, 2013 @ 5:14 am

    That's not a tiny nitpick, it's quite a big one, as it buggers a huge chunk of the post.

    Reply

  24. Alphapenguin
    May 1, 2013 @ 5:18 am

    Dr. Sandifer, does being a bloody genius ever get tiring? How do you do it?

    Reply

  25. Andrew
    May 1, 2013 @ 5:22 am

    Lovely article. Really catches the tension of Rose. It remains one of my favourite experiences of watching Dr. Who (on the illegal download as it happens) as I was trembling all the way through watching it, and it moved me a lot. It was like a much-loved old friend was back – a friend I thought I'd never ever see again.

    As someone who lives in Cardiff, I can confirm that Queen's Arcade and the people who frequent it is exactly Jackie Tyler. RTD knew exactly what he was doing when he sent Jackie there. You go into town in Cardiff (OK, it's supposed to be London, but still …) to buy a cheap T-shirt, have a Costa Coffee with your friends, and whatever you need from Boots. If it's Louis Vuitton handbags and Gucci shoes you want, I'm afraid you have to leave Wales.

    Reply

  26. jane
    May 1, 2013 @ 5:48 am

    He got me at "It's March 26th, 2005…"

    Reply

  27. Assad K
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:09 am

    No, cos I'm pretty sure we're supposed to love Rose.. the Doctor keeps telling us he does, so presumably we should too. :p
    Sadly, I am among the haters. But it's not just her! It's the whole bleedin' Tyler clan!

    Reply

  28. Assad K
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:10 am

    Wonderful final line, indeed. 🙂

    Reply

  29. Theonlyspiral
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:17 am

    This blog is perfect. He stands around doing something very clever and we're around to watch.

    Really how does it get better than that?

    Reply

  30. Anna Wiggins
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:18 am

    "Eh, he wanted to go to the pub to watch a game on the night she was attacked and witnessed someone bombing her workplace. He deserves to be abandoned, and his near-death experience doesn't change that."

    Blogger needs a '+1' button on comments. Because I have nothing to add to this, but I want to Internet-approve of it.

    Reply

  31. Andrew Hickey
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:20 am

    Assad, it's far more important to get a reaction than to get the particular reaction the writer was going for.
    I've just sent the first draft of a novel out to beta readers, and there's a character in it who is (very) loosely based on a real public figure. One of my beta readers likes that public figure, while another doesn't (I don't believe either was aware that the character was modelled on a real person, though). The both came back saying how well the book's characterisation was handled, but one said "X is a wonderful, sympathetic character, incredibly likeable", while the other said "X is wonderfully annoying, irritating and slappable".
    That tells me that I got the character right, in a way that both having the same opinion definitely wouldn't.

    Rose is, if not a realistic character, one that is definitely based on a real type. Most of us have met people like Rose (at least as she appears in these early stories), and not all of us like those people. If the same people who would dislike Rose in real life dislike her on TV, which I think is largely the case, then that's a sign that Davies has captured the character successfully.

    Reply

  32. Theonlyspiral
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:21 am

    I read this when it was released to backers, and then immediately watched the episode. I missed that. Good eye there Jason.

    Reply

  33. Theonlyspiral
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:29 am

    Well one of the constants through Doctor Who is that the show does change. I mean one can hardly say that the Pertwee Era show is the same one as the series starring Hartnell. Of course I came to Doctor Who in the Wilderness years, Loved McGann and Eccelston, rapidly lost affection for Tennant and then fell in love all over again with Smith so to me the show rejecting pieces of itself and changing just seems natural.

    As someone who has a completely different experience with Doctor Who your point of view fascinates me. What pieces of old Who do you feel have been rejected? And who is telling you to Shut Up about it?

    Reply

  34. jane
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:34 am

    In the annals of alchemy, the Rose has a special place. It's a rich, complex symbol, sitting at the point of union on the Cross, the Western equivalent of the Lotus. It is the chalice of love, the signifier of the heart. It's also a symbol of regeneration, the sobriquet of "Rose" belonging to the Virgin Mary who gives birth to a savior.

    Rose, of course, marks the rebirth of the show, and Rose herself stands for the heart of the show — she is the one who reminds the Doctor of the secret heart of compassion, noting how he twice forgets about Mickey. The Doctor's compassion here is abstract, idealistic, not actually rooted to that ultimate secret of alchemy: material social progress for the flesh-and-blood of real people here in the present. The Doctor's compassion is still quite worthy, though — look how he's framed against that Ferris Wheel, a halo of blue and white light around his head, another image that will recur throughout the Revival.

    This new Doctor Who is laden with metaphor, metaphorical imagery, symbolism. Phil's right that the lair of the Nestene Consciousness is an "underworld" — it's more than underground, it's a step into the subconscious of the Doctor and his show. It's here we first get a glimpse of what's really going on in his noggin, the fact of the war, and his desire for the right choice to be taken — there's always a way out.

    But it's the same for Rose when she ends up in the basement of the department store. (Look at what floor she's on — a red X says the elevator. What floor is that?) This is the subconscious fear of the Everywoman, the horror of capitalism, of being reduced to a dummy, a vehicle for wearing clothes. Of being plastic.

    In Mythology the Underworld is only half the story — as below, so above. The World Tree connects Above and Below, past and future, to the Here and Now. But the Doctor's set off an explosion at the top of the department store; there is no connection to the Upperworld, to that heavenly place, to the Divine through simple material consumption.

    The most basic alchemical act is the union of opposites, transcending duality. That's what the World Tree does, connects these polarities. Fitting, then, that the resolution to the story involves Rose knocking a Blue Liquid into that pit of seething Reds — anti-plastic mixes with plastic. The alchemical union is reflected outside with Jackie, who confronts a trinity of mannequins in Wedding dresses — the Wedding Dress, over and over again, is a symbol of this mystical alchemical union in Doctor Who. Of course the Doctor needs a Rose in his Blue Box, if he himself is not to be plastic.

    And yes, this all means that Clive, the Who fan who paints his obsession in terms of celestial horror, must die. Doctor Who needs a heart, needs grounding to our material reality — no wonder Clive is on a basement level of the shopping mall (there's an Underground sign just outside) when the shop dummies break through the window glass and fire away. It's got to kill him that the show has come to this — but in true mythology, this doesn't have to be taken literally, it can be a metaphor for the death of ego, if only he'll stop complaining about that conjoining of polarities: spending summer money in the winter, indeed!

    I love it! I love all of it, what this show has done and is doing. It's like I've died and gone to heaven, but heaven's right here.

    Reply

  35. by Ewan Spence
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:37 am

    (Putting aside the 'leak' and how every Brit who had flown over to San Diego for a conferences was making sure we all had a copy) … The interesting thing for me is that the meta-stuff around Graham Norton has one of those classy BBC phrases applied to it, namely "except for viewers in Scotland." Our technicians know their stuff, and there was no leak of audio from Norton into our broadcast. Oh the hilarity because we had clean 'off air' copies and the rest of the UK didn't… 🙂

    Reply

  36. Theonlyspiral
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:45 am

    I got shivers. For a moment I could feel the world turn…

    Reply

  37. Andrew Hickey
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:50 am

    Primarily, I think that post-Eccleston, the character of the Doctor is fundamentally different. I can see a line from the character played by Hartnell through the character played by McCoy, and I simply can't see the character played by Tennant as the same character. (Smith appears to be attempting to play that character, but with scripts that won't let him).

    I also find many individual episodes of the post-2005 series morally repugnant, but we'll get to that when we get to those episodes, I'm sure.

    The grammar of TV is, of course, completely different in 2005 from that of the 60s through 80s, and I prefer the latter to the former (roughly, televised theatre rather than televised cinema), because I'm more verbal than visual.

    There are also differences with structure, weaknesses in plotting, and so on, but they're minor differences in comparison as far as I'm concerned (though not for other people).

    People don't tell me to shut up now, much (and when they do it's just because I'm dull, not because they want to silence my opinions) but certainly during 2006 through 2008, almost every time I expressed the mildest negative opinion about the new series, I was told that I must hate drama with proper characters, that I must be homophobic, that I was just trying to be different, that I must be a 'sad nerd', or that I must agree that having Doctor Who back on TV (even with few of the things I like about the original intact) was better than not having it at all, and that I was being horribly ungrateful to Davies.

    Reply

  38. Elizabeth Sandifer
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:52 am

    The secret of alchemy is material social progress.

    The secret of literary criticism is that you can usually nudge your wording slightly to preserve a point.

    Reply

  39. Theonlyspiral
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:01 am

    Before this my experience was the TV movie and some spotty coverage of the EDA's. So watching Rose for the first time was…strange. I remember thinking "Who is this guy?" and then "Holy Crap, what happened to the TARDIS?" and then "How can it be over already? I need more!".

    I saw the Doctor in a whole new light. The role of a Companion as well. It was like being reborn. The show is excellent television. It keeps moving, introduces us to the characters, and then resolves our problem. Many shows cannot consistently do that. Here it's incredible just how well made it is. As someone just starting to understand how to analyze and dissect narrative (I was 18 when I first saw Rose) it was revelatory. I could see all the pieces working and understood how they worked.

    Which just boils down the fact that it touched me on a personal level. It changed me for the better. I knew shows like this didn't come around often and so I was hooked.

    Reply

  40. Ross
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:01 am

    Eh, he wanted to go to the pub to watch a game on the night she was attacked and witnessed someone bombing her workplace. He deserves to be abandoned, and his near-death experience doesn't change that.

    When you put it that way, the fact that everyone seems to take the blowing up of Rose's workplace in stride (Even Jackie seems more concerned about the loss of her job than the fact that her daughter nearly got blown up) seems a little Logopolis-style pathological.

    (Like, when Rose shows up at Clive's door, why isn't his first reaction something like "You saw him? Did it have something to do with that big explosion that has been all over the news today?)

    Reply

  41. HarlequiNQB
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:46 am

    I don't know that that's particularly unrealistic though. My mothers boyfriend has had his workplace blown up (quite literally, by the IRA, the large one in central Manchester), once we knew he was alright and had a couple of "Wow, that's crazy, they blew up Manchester" we pretty much got on with things and he went back to work at temporary location. It's not that it wasn't terrible, it's just that life goes on and there are more immediate concerns.

    There was a period of time in the UK where explosions happened so often they had become pedestrian. Rose would have been written, if not actually aired, at the very tail end of that sentiment. Certainly an apparent gas explosion with only one casualty (Wilson) would be unlikely to gain much attention.

    Of course 4 months later the London transport system was bombed, a lot of people died or were maimed, and there were huge economic repercussions. That probably got a lot of talk for a week or two.

    Reply

  42. Ununnilium
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:52 am

    Sparhawk knows what they're talking about.

    Also, HarlequinNQB: SHEESH. I thought that was pretty much over by that point?

    Reply

  43. Ununnilium
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:54 am

    I was going to say – RTD starts out Rose's world as somewhere you'd really want to escape from, and then keeps coming back and fleshing it out. Frankly, it might get fleshed out too much, such that part of the resistance to Martha may have been because we were leaving behind not just Rose but the whole group of people connected to her.

    Reply

  44. Ununnilium
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:57 am

    Hmmmmmm. Yeah, that makes sense.

    Reply

  45. Ununnilium
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:59 am

    Heeheeheehee

    Reply

  46. Assad K
    May 1, 2013 @ 8:01 am

    Fair points, Andrew.. Nevertheless, I will probably always maintain that my dislike of Rose's character was due to the writing of her and those around her, and not due to some underlying snobbery towards chavs. 🙂 Some of my annoyance might be my growing disbelief as time passed that so many people not only liked Rose, but did believe that of all the companions the Doctor has had over his centuries of travel, she was the bestest and definitely the most deserving of him to fall in love with. And maybe I felt protective of Martha, with all the dickery the Doctor did to her.
    But then again, I didn't find Adric all that annoying, and only wished that Mel could scream a little less shrilly, so what do i know? 🙂

    Reply

  47. Assad K
    May 1, 2013 @ 8:10 am

    I shall no doubt mention it in later posts as well, but I do agree with that experience. Especially on the forums of Outpost Gallifrey. Where any criticism of Rose as a character would be greeted with accusations of being emotionally crippled and unable to form relationships, and of course living in the basement of my parents house (admittedly, my collection of collectibles is in the basement, but I don't live there! Much.). Oh, the disagreements with Jon Blum, especially over Torchwood…
    Despite numerous miststeps in my eyes, however, I remain a Big Fan. Including contributing to the coffers of the BBC and Underground Toys and Ripple Junction.
    And hey, mental health? I'm in that here in the US, at a state hosopital. Another favourite victim of public budget cutting, though with the current gun dicsussion, funding may increase.. who knows.
    And as I didn't say it above, good luck in that novel.. :).

    Reply

  48. James V
    May 1, 2013 @ 8:30 am

    I too am a big fan of the Cold Opens, largely because of how they allow us, as fans, to sort of have our cake and eat it too, in the sense of having self-contained, 45-minute stories while also working in a classic-style "cliffhanger," complete with credit sting. And the "Previously" trailers in two-parters are a natural evolution of the old minute-long cliffhanger reprises. It's further evidence of how skilfully Davies and Gardner took every structural element of classic Who and "regenerated" it into a form recognizable to modern audiences.

    One thing Steven Moffat has done that's really cool is sort of elevated the cold opens to an art form in and of themselves, continually challenging himself to see how far he can stretch the rubber band around the story's narrative space before it inevitably snaps into the opening titles.

    Reply

  49. Matthew Celestis
    May 1, 2013 @ 8:32 am

    I remember watching Rose with anticipation and dread back in 2005. I remember feeling 'that was not too bad,' along with a vague sense of indifference. It all seemed a bit too brash and loud for my taste, like most things on television.

    I felt that I had seen the new Doctor Who show and it was not too bad, so I didn't feel the need to watch any further episodes. The next episode I saw was Parting of the Ways when it happened to be on television when I somebody switched it on.

    Reply

  50. Lewis Christian
    May 1, 2013 @ 9:06 am

    Such a perfect start as we head into RTD Who. Love the new blog design, love the article. Cannot wait for more!

    Reply

  51. Lewis Christian
    May 1, 2013 @ 9:11 am

    The thing with Rose is… it's so understated. It actually feels quite underwhelming in some aspects / places.

    But this was RTD's masterstroke.

    You have the slightly alien adventure but keep the final 'key' until the end. Only when the Doctor returns to tell us this magic box travels in time do we kick into gear, ironically with a slow-mo shot. Consider now the show is more established how we kick off with an 'epic' adventure – The Impossible Astronaut, Asylum of the Daleks. There's no need for slow build-up. We have the ingredients. The entire world is privvy to the recipe and everyone has received a cut of their own key.

    The issue, though, is that soon every key must rust. But then we all know Doctor Who's core concept is renewal, so that's no issue.

    The endless, timeless show has truly returned.

    Reply

  52. Theonlyspiral
    May 1, 2013 @ 9:48 am

    Outpost Gallifrey (or Gallifrey Base) or what have you seems to be in general a negative place full of miserable people on the whole. While there are no doubt exceptions to the rule, I've never seen the point in joining a board full of people like that.

    In terms of the preference of an older style of television…if your preference is for an older style, do you find much of that these days? Sorkin might be right up your ally but I can't think of anyone else that defaults to that mode.

    The character arc thing is interesting because I can see how Tennant came to be who he is from watching other Doctors (The Fourth and Sixth especially) while I can see lots of the Second and Seventh in Smith. Eccelston is the only one that seems a solid break from that arc…but the Time War will do that to you. Are there specific parts of the new Doctor that breaks for you? I'm not trolling I'm genuinely interested.

    Reply

  53. BerserkRL
    May 1, 2013 @ 10:16 am

    Just one gripe about the new design: are the words "TARDIS Eruditorum: A Psychochronography in Blue" not going to appear anywhere any more?

    Reply

  54. David Anderson
    May 1, 2013 @ 10:22 am

    'X Arcade is home to some of Y's most fashionable shops,' is one of those assertions that's never made unless it's untrue.

    Reply

  55. David Anderson
    May 1, 2013 @ 10:32 am

    Rose's 'lack of ambition'? Rather the reverse, surely? The job Jackie does suggest is the local butcher's. But it's not given the space in the dialogue or the humour of the plans for dubiously justifiable compensation.
    (Also, the subtext seems to be, 'now you're out of work like the rest of us.' Except on the compensation topic, she's being defeatist at Rose. Or so I think we're meant to read it.)

    Reply

  56. David Anderson
    May 1, 2013 @ 10:49 am

    I quite like Phil's defence/ account of the gymnastics bit. I'm still not sure it quite works.
    Robert Holmes, given the job of introducing Jo Grant as someone to be rescued and explained to, goes for the big book of standard story arcs and picks, New Guy Initially Appears Incompetent and then Saves the Day. And he does it by having the Doctor ask Jo if she knows escapology and she responds by holding up her unbound hand. This is firstly in keeping with the narrative logic up to that point – the Doctor thinks it's possible she's trained in it given her background – and at the same time a subversion – she's got to work on solving the problem before the Doctor thinks of it, and it's also allows her to escape from the narrative logic of the damsel in distress role.
    By contrast, the gymnastics competition isn't really part of Rose's preestablished character either dramatically or narratively. It neither fits her previous dramatic logic (a junior school gymnastics competion? I'm not sure I'd believe it of somewhere much posher) nor does it quite symbolise how she's going to work. It's a much more conventionally action skill than anything Rose does later on. It's also unfortunately reminiscent of a scene in Jurassic Park 2.

    Reply

  57. Froborr
    May 1, 2013 @ 11:00 am

    I have a few major problems with Rose. One is that, starting with "Father's Day," she becomes increasingly self-centered and insufferable. Another big one is that she is a profoundly ordinary person of the sort who would be insufferably boring in real life, and yet for some reason everything in every story is constantly bending over backwards to tell us how great she is. Not in the humanist "ordinary people matter" sense like Donna, but in the Mary Sue sense.

    Reply

  58. HarlequiNQB
    May 1, 2013 @ 11:43 am

    Ununnilium: Yes, the physical aspects of the IRA bombings were done long before Rose aired (The last were by a splinter group in 2001 I believe, right before a trio of jets made them feel small and inadequate), but after just shy of 45 bombs over thirty years (in London alone) you tend to get hardened to things as the nation; not something that's going to fade in just 4 years.

    Phil even wrote an essay about how the British have a tendency to endure back in the Pertwee posts. It's a stereotype, but a surprisingly accurate one by and large. Unless there's no tea. Cannot endure without tea.

    Reply

  59. David Ainsworth
    May 1, 2013 @ 12:24 pm

    This isn't an entirely serious reply, but here goes. When first watching Rose, I couldn't help but think that the characters are configured as potential audiences for the new series, with the narrative itself constantly communicating based upon audience expectations. If that's the case, then Clive is the contrarian old-school Whovian (as Philip suggests), which Mickey is that self-hating nerd type who could be interested in the show if he weren't trying so hard to convince everyone of how "with it" he is. As a result, he talks loudly about doing "normal guy" things, and the show preempts his accusation that it is rubbish by trashing him first. Jackie is the oblivious, soap and reality TV loving mother who may warm to the show later but hasn't a clue. While Rose is the new fan.

    How does all that account for the sudden appearance of Rose's gymnastic skills? Simple. They demonstrate that to be a fan of the new Who, you have to be willing to throw yourself into it and enjoy it for what it is; in short, kicks.

    Reply

  60. Theonlyspiral
    May 1, 2013 @ 12:38 pm

    I really don't think Rose gets that bad until the Doctor regenerates. Throughout the first series I think she is consistently bearable and fun. She might be a bit boring in real life, but to be honest, I wouldn't want Martha or Donna as friends either.

    I can't really argue about stories giving her moments to shine…but at least in the first season there doesn't seem to by that much trouble to it.

    Reply

  61. jane
    May 1, 2013 @ 12:45 pm

    How does it get better? With us, making pithy comments.

    Reply

  62. encyclops
    May 1, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

    Things I love, in no particular order:

    1. Mickey Smith. Pretty much every time he shows up. Even when he's being an oaf. And that's mostly down to Noel Clarke; Mickey's worst qualities still come off as youth, a good-hearted kid who's selfish in all the ways that good-hearted kids can still be. He and Rose feel like they really are the age they're supposed to be, and, I'm sorry, blow Ace right out of the water in that respect.

    2. Rose Tyler. Certainly throughout Season 1, and at least occasionally in Season 2. And perhaps never more than in this episode.

    3. The whole Tyler clan. The collision with Doctor Who of the world you're identifying with soap opera. A companion with a family who are proper characters, who aren't flat or perfect but feel real in all the important ways. My complaints about New Who are almost invariably with the old-school stuff it usually can't quite do. When it focuses on the new stuff, family, relationships, backgrounds with some emotional reality, it looks revelatory.

    4. This entry. I love that you did such a close reading, went moment by moment, didn't just situate it in time and evolution but also got intimate with what actually happens and what it means to us as viewers. I know you won't be working on this scale every time, maybe not ever again for this show, but I couldn't be happier that you gave us this.

    5. The redesign. Except possibly for the comment system. I'm about to find out.

    Reply

  63. jane
    May 1, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

    Me, I'm on the other side of that line — intensely visual, and especially keen on metaphor and symbolism. And maybe less verbally oriented than I used to be, on account of some hearing loss. So, yeah, if you prefer televised theatre to the cinematic approach, then the current show (and most of the better shows these days) wouldn't appeal, because it's very informed by its visual aesthetics.

    I'll be interested see where the blog (and the commentary) goes as we move the Doctor's character arc… especially considering how it's informed by Rose herself.

    Reply

  64. Anton B
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:25 pm

    Well, maybe 'lack of ambition' is a misreading but note that Jackie is at least suggesting job vacancies to Rose not that she should go and register for Jobseekers allowance. The 'compensation' suggestion is a swipe at the 'I know my entitlements' attitude that is as prevalent in middle class as much as working class households.

    I'm frankly amazed at the amount of Rose-hate and subsequent anti-chav snobbery displayed here. Rose isn't even particularly Chavvy. More aspirant working class. She worked in a posh dept. store in the West End fer Gawds sake! I always thought she was pretty well regarded overall, particularly amongst younger viewers. Does it ultimately clarify as a Nu-Who versus Classic series divide?

    Reply

  65. Pen Name Pending
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:30 pm

    I have a strange love/hate relationship with Rose. Being American, I didn't know what class she represented. To me, she just looked like the stereotypical popular girl: love interest, hip clothes, pink bedroom, blond hair, not concerned with school…it just all seemed like something I couldn't relate to. And when I began watching I didn't, not until series 2, when she seemed to really be more likable. But then series 3 had Martha, a character whom I could relate to much more, and that was overshadowed by the mention of Rose every episode. This made me really dislike her. And then in series 4 she came back, and that series was all overshadowed by the finale. So I still have no idea what to think about Rose. Eccleston, on the other hand, I love. And I adore the quiet, vibrant but dark aesthetic of the first series. It's my favorite out of the Davies run.

    Reply

  66. Anton B
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:50 pm

    Oh nicely done jane! That 'Ferris Wheel' is of course the'London Eye. London's permanant architectural symbol of the Millenium and so as well as a halo it also stands for the mandala, the eternal wheel of life, of renewal and regeneration. The Nestene is lurking beneath its foundations, A Lovecraftian Old God in a veritable underworld. Is there also some Orpheus metaphor to be had in the Doctor leading Rose (I never made the Rosicrucian connection before)out from the underworld?

    Reply

  67. Pen Name Pending
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:50 pm

    I really like what you wrote concerning how the episode presents Rose in the Doctor, and how it's from her point of view. This is one of those distinctions between Davies and Moffat: Davies' Who is about the lives of the companions being invaded by the Doctor, and Moffat's Who is about the Doctor invading the lives of his companions. It's a subtle difference, but it's there. Amy, Rory, and River had their lives totally screwed up by the Doctor (heck, he's the reason River exists). He was also the cause of their deaths, so to speak.

    Reply

  68. Froborr
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:53 pm

    That's a good point about Mickey and Rose actually feeling like the 19-year-olds they're supposed to be, which is probably a big factor in why I hate Rose that I never thought about before. I've frequently complained about her childishness, but of course that makes sense if she's playing an overgrown child.

    Which doesn't make me hate her any less, but does give me more insight into what they were going for.

    Reply

  69. Froborr
    May 1, 2013 @ 1:56 pm

    Somebody, I think Flickfilosopher, has put forth the theory that it's because both of them are playing out their adolescent Doctor Who-themed sexual fantasies through the show. The difference is that Davies wanted to have sex with the Doctor, and therefore identifies with the companions, while Moffat wanted to have sex with the companions, and therefore identifies with the Doctor.

    I like your suggestion that causing someone to exist is a form of screwing their life up. It's true, of course, but still pretty funny when put that way.

    Reply

  70. Pen Name Pending
    May 1, 2013 @ 3:25 pm

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  71. Pen Name Pending
    May 1, 2013 @ 3:26 pm

    It's a bit more disturbing when you put it that way 😉

    Well, I am a rather cynical person sometimes, but I didn't quite mean that the Doctor screwed up River's life simply because he caused her to exist. Rather, it's how she was always intended as a Silence tool, and how her life is so intertwined with the Doctor's that it becomes impossible to escape from it. She gets herself locked in prison and proceeds to escape at her leisure, but ultimately she has to sacrifice herself so he can survive and meet Amy and Rory and cause her to exist. She's bound by time–or, from our perspective, our story arc.

    Some critics see this as the problem of River's character, but to someone who feels the pressure of the block universe (where every point in time is fixed, which is basically how Moffat's Who works, despite the Doctor trying to reassure everyone that "time can be rewritten"), it's a relatable anxiety.

    Reply

  72. Adam Riggio
    May 1, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

    Something occurred to me as I was going over this post again. (I've had a couple of extra days to think about it, as I'm one of Phil's Kickstarter backers, and you should all be too, especially if you have enough money to slap down that $1000 single-pledge.)

    I have now seen Rose so many times over the eight years since Doctor Who returned to the air that I have completely forgotten every detail of my first viewing experience. It occurred to me as I re-read your take on the wheelie bin scene, where you make the apparently obvious conclusion that Mickey was dead, based on that scene alone. But I can't remember if I thought this. I don't know if I was just so happy to see new Doctor Who television again that I never had my critical faculties turned on, or whether I knew from looking at the press materials and initial reviews and seeing that Noel Clarke was a recurring character that he'd be back. But I've watched the Eccleston year so many times that I can't really remember my first reactions to it.

    I should also let you know, there's the weirdness of the Canadian experience with new Doctor Who to consider. While the Eccleston year didn't debut on television for a year in the United States, it debuted with only a week's delay in Canada, on our public broadcasting network, the CBC. However, far from a cultural event, this was just a show that debuted on a network that typically ran a fair number of British drama imports. Two of the habitually highest rated shows on CBC are Hockey Night in Canada and Coronation Street. And for the first four years of RTD's tenure as producer, the third highest rated show was Doctor Who.

    However, CBC were terrible promoters of the show. They ran a few commercials on their own network, but for them it was just another UK import to fill their airwaves so they could get away with producing fewer original dramas. In many ways, the CBC is to Canada what Thatcher would have liked the BBC to be to Britain: a permanently underfunded joke of a public broadcaster with decent news, but whose public profile is of a mentally delayed step-child of Canadian broadcasting. (except in Quebec, where its french-language division, Radio-Canada, is treated as an essential bedrock of the culture). And they were terrible with the show's scheduling. The Eccleston year was transmitted with only a week's delay, but Tennant's first year was delayed by nearly three weeks, they went back to about a week's delay for Martha's year, but Donna's year was delayed past UK transmission by over four months and barely promoted at all.

    Only in the Specials season did the Space Channel, our cable equivalent to Sci-Fi/Syfy, pick up the show and treat it like the treasure it was. Just in time for the worldwide promotional blitz of the Moffat/Smith era. But now I'm getting ahead of myself.

    Looking forward to a Pop Between Realities entry on San Diego Comic-Con 2010.

    Reply

  73. Matthew Blanchette
    May 1, 2013 @ 4:17 pm

    Hatred of Rose isn't anti-chav; it's anti-Rose. Can't you see that? It's not classicist in the slightist; it's the fact that her Mary-Sue-ism rubs entirely the wrong way.

    Reply

  74. Matthew Blanchette
    May 1, 2013 @ 4:19 pm

    Theonlyspiral, the fact that she gleefully abandons Mickey at the end makes it seem that she's joining the Doctor to spite him more than part of any learning process.

    That just irks. Considerably. And it's only the start…

    Reply

  75. nimonus
    May 1, 2013 @ 5:36 pm

    Fair enough, but the whole concept of a "Mary Sue" is anti-women:

    See this article for more details:

    http://adventuresofcomicbookgirl.tumblr.com/post/13913540194/mary-sue-what-are-you-or-why-the-concept-of-sue-is

    Though the gist of the argument can be found in the first paragraph:

    "So, there’s this girl. She’s tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet. Every guy she meets falls in love with her, but in between torrid romances she rejects them all because she dedicated to what is Pure and Good. She has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete level athletic ability and incredible good looks. She is consumed by terrible angst, but this only makes guys want her more. She has no superhuman abilities, yet she is more competent than her superhuman friends and defeats superhumans with ease. She has unshakably loyal friends and allies, despite the fact she treats them pretty badly. They fear and respect her, and defer to her orders. Everyone is obsessed with her, even her enemies are attracted to her. She can plan ahead for anything and she’s generally right with any conclusion she makes. People who defy her are inevitably wrong.

    God, what a Mary Sue.

    I just described Batman."

    Or if you prefer, this is Dr. Sandifer's take from Gallifreybase:

    "In its actual, you know, having a meaning sense the concept is straightforward – a Mary-Sue is a character inserted by the author who exists purely as wish fulfillment. It's a term primarily describing a particularly sloppy relationship of authorial id and narrative that made sense internally in discussions of fan fiction. Most fanfic is in fact about authorial id to some extent. That's fine. And the term has use therefore within fan fiction communities – it's a useful shorthand for "this story is so far up its own ass that nobody but the author is ever going to enjoy it."

    Ported outside of fan fiction the term stops having much use because frankly there's very, very little published fiction that is actually about the authorial id in the same way that fanfic is. It's one of the big differences between fanfic and published fiction. There are a few counter-examples – Twilight is an authorial id vortex. But mostly it becomes code for "a female character who gets to do things only boys are supposed to do." And that's what this supposed "broadening" of the definition is – now instead of describing a relationship with the authorial id it's just any time an author makes a female character who's "too good." Never mind that Doctor Who is, as a show, primarily about a male character who demonstrates all of the same "too perfect" traits in question. And who, given that every show runner since 1965 has been a man, can actually be read as a stand-in for authorial desires. But no, let's skip that and bitch about women who don't know their place. Pathetic.

    You want an example of a Mary Sue in Doctor Who? Jon Pertwee's portrayal of the Doctor. Or Tom Baker's under Graham Williams. Or Colin Baker vis a vis John Nathan-Turner. Three flagrant Mary-Sues in Doctor Who.
    "

    Reply

  76. jane
    May 1, 2013 @ 5:48 pm

    I was cheering wildly when she abandoned Mickey. After all, it was Mickey who says,"He's an alien — he's a thing," and at that point I have no sympathy left for Mickey at all, at all. It isn't until School Reunion that his character's redeemed, when he finally tones down the passive-aggressive guilt-trip shit.

    Reply

  77. Pen Name Pending
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:05 pm

    Quick question: so what's the difference between a Mary Sue and a character who is based on the author (in the sense of a fictional memoir)? Is it that a Mary Sue is fundamentally a perfect person who the author wants to be, rather than someone the author is writing to project his or her own worldview/story/whatever?

    Reply

  78. jane
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:11 pm

    As Phil says, "It hasn’t been Rose’s initiation, or the Doctor’s, or anyone else’s. It’s been ours." Which means that shot of the Doctor juxtaposed with the London Eye also functions as meta-commentary: it's the programme itself that's broadcasting the signal. Which means the 11 million people watching are the plastic people come to life — hence the importance of showing a family of mannequins, men, women, and children, their monstrosity revealed.

    WE are the monsters.

    The opening shot, lingering on the Moon — that's alchemical as well. The Moon is a symbol of the subconscious mind, but juxtaposed with the shot over the Earth, over London, it's the collective subconscious I think that's indicated, before zooming in on Rose… perhaps the Divine Feminine, which is worth bearing in mind considering the series finale.

    Look at that shot in the climax again, Rose bathed in TARDIS-blue light as the Doctor is rendered helpless by the monsters. That's prophetic.

    So, to spin the Heroic Journey on its head — isn't the Doctor the "reluctant hero" in this tale? Reluctant in terms of making an emotional journey. Rose is his mentor, helping him to rediscover the Special Place of relationship. Rose is the mentor, not the Doctor.

    Reply

  79. Matthew Blanchette
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:18 pm

    …forgive me for saying such, but I was hoping for more dissection, and less of one giant recap garnished with such well-trodden phrases as "occult" and "qlippothic". Just sayin'. 🙁

    Reply

  80. Assad K
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:24 pm

    Read that tumblr post, and the extract from Dr Sandifer and… I don't really feel as if I agree. The very fact that the existence of Marty Stu is acknowledged indicates that calling Mary Sue as anti-women seems a little bit oversensitive. It's not 'women doing man's work' that is objected to. It's that we're here to read a story about Captain Kirk, Mr Spock, Dr McCoy and company, not the sudden appearance of Ensign Mary Sue who manages to entice Kirk and Spock and then also resolves the situation at the Neutral Zone. While the actual Star Trek characters remain in awe at her abilities. It's just a fact that most franchises have male characters as their leads. It would be just as egregious to read a Xena story and have Xena & Gabrielle usurped by some new warrior/warrior woman. None of this is, of course, to object to new characters being introduced (and indeed, any officer on the Enterprise would be expected to be intelligent and highly competent) or for, say Yeoman Rand to get a starring role in the story. It's a little late so hopefully you won't take this as meaning that I think women in genre fiction only need to open hailing frequencies or make plomeek soup.

    The analogy of Doctor-as-Mary-Sue doesn't work so well because really, we are talking about the showrunner putting his imprimatur on the Doctor (and hey, regeneration allows any producer to be able to do that!). But the Doctor does not become second banana in his own show.

    Reply

  81. Assad K
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:26 pm

    Oh, we so disagree on them Tylers. 🙂

    Reply

  82. jane
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:35 pm

    "Is there also some Orpheus metaphor to be had in the Doctor leading Rose out from the underworld?"

    I think the Orpheus myth is more in play for The Unquiet Dead. The Doctor, who sees in the Gelth his own lost people, wants to lead these shades out of the land of the dead. But he has to look back, has to leave them behind — that is the most important thing to accept about Death. Hence the story being set in the past, and ending in an Underworld setting.

    Reply

  83. jane
    May 1, 2013 @ 6:41 pm

    Why this antipathy for childishness in the first place?

    Reply

  84. Matthew Blanchette
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:08 pm

    It will probably become "A Psychochronography in Paisley", now… 😀

    Reply

  85. Theonlyspiral
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:25 pm

    There's no use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes.

    Reply

  86. Theonlyspiral
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:33 pm

    Jane beat me to it. Mickey grows impressively over his arc, eventually making the ultimate sacrifice for humanity by getting Martha "Osterhagen" Jones away from a place where she can blow up the planet.

    Micky is an ass. He'd rather go catch the later half of a football match than check in on his girlfriend. He's self centred and while Rosé treats him badly, let's not make it out that he deserves anything more. He gets a chance to redeem himself for his backwards opinions (not like me, then it's no good) and he's lucky to get that much.

    Reply

  87. Travis Butler
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:41 pm

    See, I will admit – I hated Rose-the-episode. Or at least found it a crushing disappointment, though with a few good bits mixed in, and at least more hope for the future than with the TVM.

    That opening montage, that some people praise to the heavens? To me, it's that annoyingly precocious arts student saying, "Hey, look at me, look at me, see how clever I'm being? No, really, see how clever I'm being! Look, goddamn you!!" The kind of person who's so proud of all these tricks they've mastered that they insist on shoving your face in them. Repeatedly. Which kind of leads in to the next point…

    "Rose is, if not a realistic character, one that is definitely based on a real type. Most of us have met people like Rose (at least as she appears in these early stories), and not all of us like those people. If the same people who would dislike Rose in real life dislike her on TV, which I think is largely the case, then that's a sign that Davies has captured the character successfully."

    This is a school of criticism that I find intensely annoying. I couldn't care less about whether the character is captured successfully; I care about them being someone I enjoy spending time with, not about how 'realistic' they are. I'm reminded of something I got into more than once in roleplaying campaigns, where a player came up with a character that was all deep backstory and bad experiences that turned them into an asshole and how much fun we'd have developing and redeeming the character through play. To which I responded, "Look. I work with assholes every day. Several of my co-workers are casually racist, sexist, and do things like joking about the office assistant giving them a 'gum job' – because, of course, the funny bit is she's in her 60's and would have to take her dentures out. They said this to her face. I'm tired of working with assholes. It is not fun. Why do you think I'd enjoy roleplaying alongside one in a campaign?" Granted, Rose isn't an asshole, but her extended bouts of Marty Stu-ishness and privilege really do annoy me; and she doesn't even come close to how annoying I find Jackie Tyler. (Pete, OTOH… I actually get to like Pete. Especially alt-uni Pete. Of course, Pete is another reminder of how privileged Rose is…)

    To note, I am American, so I'm sure there were a lot of subtleties that went right over my head; at the same time, I'd never heard the term 'chav' until Cassandra used it in New Earth, so I'd at least like to think there weren't any classist stereotypes tripping me up there. 🙂

    The times I liked Rose best is when she was allowed to be thoughtful and insightful; the times I liked her least is when she was being self-indulgent and immature. Childish.

    "Why this antipathy for childishness in the first place?"

    I like to think of it as the distinction between 'childlike' and 'childish'.

    'Childlike' is the sense of wonder, the innocence, the ability to find joy in almost anything you see and anything you do. Hope. The delight in wandering the universe in a magic box and finding new and wonderful things to see.

    'Childish' is the selfishness, the impatience, the egotistic certainty that the world revolves around them and they deserve whatever it is they want, and right now, and their wishes are obviously the most important, 'me me me mine mine mine!' The cruelty in egging Queen Victoria on, trying to get her to say Those Words…

    Reply

  88. Theonlyspiral
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:46 pm

    So a holistic deconstruction on the principles and philosophies of Doctor Who as identified by the blog so far isn't what you wanted?

    I felt like this is the ultimate is dissection: a moment by moment (post?)mortem.

    Reply

  89. John Seavey
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:53 pm

    Of course Rose becomes insufferable over the course of her second season. She's following Tennant's narrative arc. The Tennant Doctor is a deliberate reaction to Eccleston's survivor-guilt ridden, ineffectual coward (and I don't say any of those things in the pejorative sense; that's his narrative arc, learning how to accept that he did terrible things in the Time War and that it doesn't make him a terrible person. Key to his character is that he almost never saves the day himself; he inspires others to save the day when he can't.)

    And Tennant is a counter to that arc. He is the Doctor shorn of all his survivor's guilt, but more than just that, he's the Doctor shorn of all self-doubt entirely. This is a Doctor who knows he has the right, to paraphrase Tom Baker in 'Genesis of the Daleks'. And Rose, in emulating him, becomes an insufferable monster. Her departure is a warning sign, but it's one that Tennant ignores.

    In other words, if you ended Season Two really not liking Rose very much, that was what Davies was going for. 🙂

    Reply

  90. Theonlyspiral
    May 1, 2013 @ 7:54 pm

    A mad man with a blog, and us as his faithful companions?

    Reply

  91. Theonlyspiral
    May 1, 2013 @ 8:03 pm

    In all honesty and good faith: do you have a more effective way to quickly show us Rose and the world she lives in? The montage is fast and brutal…but efficient and effective. I can understand it not being to your taste…but you must admit it does it's job.

    In terms of being a character you enjoy…well this as in all things is a case of YMMV. No one can make you like Rose…but everyone can identify her and how she'll act and respond. That is by any means an effective characterization. Just because you don't like so etching doesn't make it effective. That's the whole idea behind Brecht's play "Bhaal" and theatre of cruelty.

    Getting the Queen to save those words was incredibly annoying.

    Reply

  92. jane
    May 1, 2013 @ 8:43 pm

    @John Seavey: Some wise words on the narrative arcs of the leads — some good food to chew on.

    I wonder, though — and this is in general, not about what you've said in particular — about this supposed "insufferability" of our heroes. It tends to be an overindulgent word, I think, for when we see those aspects of ourselves (i.e., the unchecked ego) that we'd just as soon not acknowledge within. When people start describing characters in this manner, I always imagine that ring of mirrors around the Mara — and it's fandom who's the Mara.

    Davies is very clever — he develops characters who have a mixture of admirable and monstrous qualities, because that's the truth of who we are. Some will say Rose is the best evah; they can't see the monster within. Others say she's a monster; the angel can't be seen. But the truth is, to play the angel is to play the beast — both qualities coexist. This is again that alchemical union at play. A lot of fans can't stand that.

    I get particularly concerned when it's the female characters who get singled out for Hate. A double bind occurs — either they're too "perfect" or too "flawed" — but I wonder how much of that is simply internalized sexism. And even in regards to Tennant's Doctor, who's obviously quite influenced by Rose herself; suddenly he's a punching bag for everything that's wrong with her.

    Not to say that characters (and their writers) can't be criticized, but when they become a focal point for an intense hatred that's blind to their strengths then I think there's something much more wrong in the fandom itself than in the characters.

    Reply

  93. jane
    May 1, 2013 @ 8:45 pm

    I suspect what Matthew was hoping for was something more cutting, given the sentiments he's expressed about the Revival to date.

    Reply

  94. jane
    May 1, 2013 @ 8:59 pm

    The bit with the Queen, though, is deliberately playing with their over-inflated egos. That's part of the redemption arc of the characters. It's not the be-all end-all of Rose's characterization, it's not her defining moment, or Ten's for that matter.

    And, importantly, they're called on their bullshit — at the same time that they're lauded for their heroism. They are angel and beast at the same time (again with the alchemy) and yet it's showing the beast that presses so many buttons, to the point where their good sides are completely unseen by the their critics. I find that fascinating, and it's very self-aware on the part of the show. Especially ironic is how a lacking of compassion on the part of the characters is met with such righteous fury — fandom is more than willing to throw its own compassion out the window.

    What I love most about that episode is its commentary on the role of Hero itself, and the danger of stepping into that role for the sake of Ego… not to mention how Ego may be inadvertently stoked by the praise that comes from heroism.

    Reply

  95. Kit
    May 1, 2013 @ 9:03 pm

    It’s May 21st, 2005. Will Smith is at #1 with "Switch." Bodyrockers "The Way You Move," Ben Lee's "Catch My Disease," and P-Money & Scribe's "Stop The Music" also chart. As does one-off supergroup The Wrights' cover of "Evie (Parts I-III)," resurrecting a beloved cultural artifact from the past for startling popular success at the hands of current popular performers and creators, plus a few old pros in the background.

    Reply

  96. nimonus
    May 1, 2013 @ 10:00 pm

    To quote Dr. Sandifer again:

    "That the disparity in its use illustrates how much the term is really just used to criticize prominent female characters?"

    No one actually uses "Marty Stu" or "Gary Stu". I'd never even heard the term before reading that blog post. And yet people moan about "Mary Sue" characters constantly. You can't possibly avoid hearing complaints about a "Mary Sue" if you go anywhere near geek culture.

    Your argument that the term refers to guest characters who steal the spotlight for no discernible reason doesn't hold water, as evidenced by the fact that Mathew's objection to Rose was that she was supposedly a "Mary Sue", and he is far from the first to level that accusation. But Rose was one of the leads – she's McCoy or Gabrielle, not a random Ensign. So your definition doesn't match how the term is actually used – that is, to condemn female characters who get to do cool stuff.

    Reply

  97. Scott
    May 1, 2013 @ 10:01 pm

    "In other words, if you ended Season Two really not liking Rose very much, that was what Davies was going for. :)"

    This I'm happy to concede, but it didn't help me find her and the Tenth Doctor any more fun to watch together. The problem with saying that the audience is supposed to find a character unlikable is that, well, the character's still unlikable; I don't start liking a character simply because I'm supposed to hate him or her.

    John and Jane make some good points respectively, but I do honestly feel that something went out of alignment with the Tenth Doctor and Rose. I get that we were supposed to criticise them and their behaviour, and I'm not one of the Hate Brigade, but there were plenty of times throughout Season 2 when Davies seemed to want to have his cake and eat it as well — he wanted to give us the deconstruction of the Doctor-companion relationship as one increasingly alienated from 'normal' people, while still having us think of the Tenth Doctor and particularly Rose as the bestest people ever. From where I was sitting, he never seemed quite willing to commit to the deconstruction but didn't quite want to let it go either, so it increasingly seemed like we got the show constantly patting them on the back for becoming rather horrible and cliquey people.

    He got the balance much better in Season 1; we still get Rose's angels and devils on her shoulder, like Jane suggests, but while Davies is definitely fond of Rose throughout the series he's also a lot more willing to call her out. When you watch "Boomtown" there's no question that when Mickey yells at Rose for the way she's treated him that, for all that Mickey's constantly been presented as a bit of a buffoon, he's absolutely right to feel the way he does and Rose, for all that she's brave and clever, has absolutely no right to treat him in such a fashion and absolutely deserves her rebuke. And he makes this clear not just because it's Mickey — who we've previously been encouraged to see as a bit of a joke — making this clear, but because Rose, for all that she's hurt and defensive about it, clearly sees that he has a point and feels abashed.

    I never got the sense of anything near this kind of willingness to bluntly point out the devils on his characters' shoulders in Season 2 — yeah, he has Queen Victoria banish them and Elton point out that he's about to be eaten by a monster so maybe Rose's fury about him hurting her mum's feelings can be put on hold for a minute, but the flippant way she and Ten shrug off any these and any other kinds of criticism that they receive means that it never really has to stick (which, while this may be the point like John says, also enables Davies to conveniently wriggle out of having to put the boot in too hard), and while Torchwood ultimately causing them to split at the end can be read as a karmic punishment, Davies never seems really willing to commit to this either; Ten ignores the lesson this should give him because the show never really seems to bring it up.

    Reply

  98. BerserkRL
    May 1, 2013 @ 10:03 pm

    Another thought: when the arm is attacking the Doctor, we see it through a window thingy between the kitchen and the living room, so it looks as if Rose has Doctor Who playing on TV behind her.

    Reply

  99. elvwood
    May 1, 2013 @ 11:15 pm

    Theonlyspiral: "Outpost Gallifrey (or Gallifrey Base) or what have you seems to be in general a negative place full of miserable people on the whole. While there are no doubt exceptions to the rule, I've never seen the point in joining a board full of people like that."

    People often say this, but in my experience it only happens in certain areas. I don't venture into any discussions of recently-broadcast episodes because there it really is like the stereotype; but a forum like The Long Game (for discussion of people's marathons), or the various timelashes, are pretty darn civilised. And the media based ones like The TARDIS Scanner or Whispers of Terror generally flag up the threads where things are going to get unpleasant with provocative titles, so they're pretty easy to avoid.

    I used to live just down the road from Blackbird Leys, and all anyone knew about that was that it was the place full of wrecked cars where all the joyriding happened. Now I live in a place with a bit of a reputation for being "full of crackheads". Despite a grain of truth, both also have lots of lovely people and a decent community.

    Just saying, don't write off the whole of Gallifrey Base because of the few.

    Reply

  100. Scott
    May 2, 2013 @ 12:07 am

    "Your argument that the term refers to guest characters who steal the spotlight for no discernible reason doesn't hold water"

    While I'd agree that this is fair to suggest this of the term as it is currently used, to be fair to Assad this is an accurate description of what the term originally used to describe. It's only relatively recently that it's started to be applied to characters outside of the fanfiction sphere and in a sense that pretty much means "I hate this character but the author seems to like them"; originally, the term basically was used to describe a poorly-written minor character who was perfecter than perfect and who was poorly wedged into a story took over the story from all the characters the reader actually wanted to read about for no real reason whatsoever.

    But what also tends to be forgotten — and what Phil suggests but, it has to be said, that blog post overlooks — is that the original Mary-Sues weren't just perfect, they were poorly-written on top; like Phil says in that quote, they weren't just wish-fulfilment fantasies, they were badly written ones. (In this sense, her/his defiance over the term being used on the grounds that she/he is 'broke out of a box a female character should be in' is perhaps misplaced, unless she takes pride in writing bad stories with bad characters.)

    Rose, of course, is not a Mary-Sue in that, much as she's far from my favourite character, she's neither poorly written, nor wedged into a story that has no space for her (this clearly cannot be the case if she's the main character). She might be an annoying character, but even by the original definition of Mary-Sue I'd argue she comes nowhere near. But I think the term being applied to her stems, in part at least, from the process that Phil describes above; we're suddenly put into a situation where not only is the companion entering the Doctor's world, but for once the Doctor is also entering the companion's world; the Doctor never 'did domestic' before Rose came along. There's also the fact that, even after she left the series, she was still for a long time clearly treated as being central to it in a way that no other companion before or since really has been, which I suppose leads those so inclined to argue that she's taking over things.

    The fact that the term is frequently used to criticise female characters rather than male characters is definitely problematic, but I would argue that this is also, at least in part, a result of the character being taken out of it's original context and applied to characters and situations she wasn't designed for. It's also often forgotten that the original Mary-Sue that the term comes from was actually a parody of badly Star Trek fanfiction that used this type of character (which was, for what little it might be worth, written by a woman, IIRC); she was meant to be a commentary on a specific type of character occurring in a very niche scenario, not a commentary on female characters as a whole. As well as a crude understanding of the type, people just latched onto the name and decided it only applied to women.

    Reply

  101. Scott
    May 2, 2013 @ 12:14 am

    An OLD episode of Doctor Who at that; one of the ones from the seventies where the special effects were so cheap the actors basically had to pretend that they were being 'strangled' by an animate plastic prop. It's only when Rose enters the room (and re-enters "Doctor Who") that it does anything more complicated.

    The past intrudes on the present again…

    Reply

  102. David Anderson
    May 2, 2013 @ 12:22 am

    "Micky is an ass. He'd rather go catch the later half of a football match than check in on his girlfriend. "

    That's unfair. Whether or not he should have gone to the pub to see the second half (Rose gives him permission), the reason he missed the first half was because he checked in on his girlfriend.
    Sometimes one gets the impression that an author is biased against a character. It's odd that you can get that impression because the character has no independent existence. Micky's an example. As a result I find I simultaneously dislike Micky and feel sorry for him.

    Reply

  103. Anton B
    May 2, 2013 @ 1:31 am

    Again, a fascinating interpretation. This is what I want to be reading about Rose, not a never ending argument about her chav status. At the rebirth of the show Rose provides the feminine principle to the Doctor's predominantly male energy. In Tarot terms the neophyte High Priestess to the Doctor's flawed Magician. Extending the metaphor (perhaps to breaking point) having already shown us The Moon and The World we get Mickey as The Fool not quite ready to start the journey, Jackie as the Empress, representing both motherhood and sexuality, The Nestene as The Devil bringing false consciousness and artificial life and the Tardis as The Chariot, bringing order from chaos and material social progress to the narrative.

    Reply

  104. Assad K
    May 2, 2013 @ 3:30 am

    Those weren't actually the worse moments of characterization from the episode that I found.. I was rather more shocked at the Doctor legging it and leaving the footmen behind to be killed (I am sure someone can point out an equivalent scene from OldWho.. 🙂 ) and the moment where, after that Army feller has been killed trying to slow down the werewolf, Rose and Ten are all giggly over 'Gosh! Werewolf! Cool beans!'.

    Don't get too hard on fandom in general, though. Obviously those of us who are critical of Rose find the negatives outweighing the positives. But I think Rose generally comes out as #1 companion in any polls, even in DWM.

    Reply

  105. jane
    May 2, 2013 @ 4:14 am

    Rose is the Ron Granger to the Doctor's Hermione… yes, Harry Potter is quite alchemical. That shot of the Doctor in the kitchen mirror, very mercurial, especially when he plays with his ears as if he's just changed, or just noticed he's changed. Maybe it's just the first time he could bear to look himself in the mirror.

    Oooh, and I love the Tarot game! Pete will be the Hanged Man I think, on the perpetual verge of Death. Mickey and Rose together, the Lovers — with the angel of the Doctor looming in the sky. Jackie is most definitely the Empress, going to the Queen's Arcade.

    The Hand is a recurring motif, even to this day. The Doctor takes Rose's hand three times (and refuses her three times, three being a fairy-tale number.) Hand-holding is an easy way of showing connection, relationship, even union; a hand is given in marriage. It's juxtaposed with the Auton hands — loaded with guns, the hand on Rose's face and around the Doctor's throat, the hand of power and dominion.

    Rose had the Bronze in her gymnastics — bronze is an alchemical alloy, a fusion of copper (rubedo) and tin (albedo). And this what she puts in the "negative space" of all the things she doesn't have, which function almost like she's invoking a void or vortex into herself.

    Reply

  106. jane
    May 2, 2013 @ 4:19 am

    It's so important to rewatch the episodes — they are densely packed, loaded with imagery and symbols and metaphors. Code-words in the dialogue. Recurring motifs. It's a very cinematic approach to storytelling. There's so much more going on than the bare bones of "plot."

    Reply

  107. Spacewarp
    May 2, 2013 @ 4:54 am

    There's a tendency for blame on the way characters are in a series to be laid at the feet of RTD or Moffat, but I think that's unfair. The showrunner/Head writer tends to control the overall tone of the series, but the devil is in the details, and those details are in the story…which is often written by someone other than the showrunner.

    How a character grows is solely down to the dialogue they say and the actions they take, no matter how much the Head Writer steers the writers in the direction he wants.

    Take Series 2. You can see that RTD is writing hubris into both the Doctor & Rose's character. He said as much in an interview at the time, and that comes out very well in "New Earth" and "Tooth & Claw", where they are both insufferable at times.

    But this hubris is absent in "School Reunion", which was written by Whithouse, and all about the companions left behind. Sure you get a bit of Mickey's resentment at missing out on TARDIS travel at the end, and a flash of Rose's jealousy when the Doctor invites him along, but then by the time "Girl in the Fireplace" comes along, all those strands are dropped in favour of exploring the Doctor's romantic side…because it's written by Moffat.

    Yes I know RTD rewrites a lot of stuff, but he can only bend a story a little, he can't shove character motivation in where it doesn't exist. He might put a snide comment from Rose in to remind you of her bitchiness, but more often than not he doesn't even do that.

    The percieved fan wisdom about Series 2 is that the Doctor and Rose are too smug, getting too big for their boots, and will be brought down to earth with a bang, but after the first two stories…not much. There were hints of foreshadowing, like the Beast saying she was going to die, and you got a fair bit of foreshadowing in the "Ghosts/Doomsday" finale..but then that was written by RTD again.

    The supposed arc of character's development is very often a fan fiction based on a couple of episodes, because like so many things we humans like to see an overall pattern when often there isn't quite one there. This applies very much to Doctor Who.

    The only time it's been done quite consistently is with Martha's "I love the Doctor but he doesn't love me back" arc, but then that's an easy arc to create, you just give the character a couple of lines about how the Doctor never notices her each week and you're sorted.

    Reply

  108. Spacewarp
    May 2, 2013 @ 5:06 am

    @nimonus

    Thank-you for posting that link. There should be an equivalent to Godwins Law for mentions of the phrase "Mary Sue" on the internet. It's been applied to almost every female character in Doctor Who since 2005 (yet none prior to that, funnily enough). Jenny and River Song in particular, and it annoys the hell out of me because it's such a lazy mindless judgement.

    Reply

  109. Spacewarp
    May 2, 2013 @ 5:23 am

    @elvwood. I agree. I think of Gallifrey Base as being a huge room where groups of people are having Doctor Who conversations, some about the classic series, some about their own fanfic, and some about the new episode that was on last night. You walk into that room, fresh from watching yesterday's story which you hated and despised/loved to bits, and you want to talk with people about it. Where you gonna go? Sure enough, the Rate This Ep discussion. And you want to tell everyone how you felt, you want everyone to know how awful/fantastic it was. So you launch into the discussion, and immediately someone else who feels the polar opposite counterattacks you. All arguments have two sides, and in a Doctor Who forum this eventually degenerates to people being labelled Lovers or Haters. Although it's obvious why the Lovers are there, it's not immediately apparent why the Haters are. Why be on a Doctor Who forum if you hate Doctor Who? And so the dissenting comments tend to "jar" and stand out far more than the enthusiastic ones. If you come away from the forum having had a blazing row with someone who thinks Moffat's out to ruin Who forever, it scars you far more than some bouncy bubblehead who gives everything 10 out of 10. And so the impression that forums are full of negativity continues.

    Blackbird Leys eh? I live near Nottingham, and a couple of years ago we had some friends who were wary of coming up to visit in case they got shot, so I know where you're coming from.

    Reply

  110. Froborr
    May 2, 2013 @ 5:37 am

    That line of the Doctor's refers to curiosity, wonder, innocence, and playfulness, all the things the Victorians liked to imagine children were. Those are certainly good traits to have at any age.

    When I refer to Rose as being childish, I refer to actual children: Immensely selfish and self-centered, utterly uninterested in taking any responsibility for their actions, and capable of immense, gleeful sadism to anyone weaker than them.

    Not that adults aren't fully capable of being all those things, of course, but most adults have learned not to by the time they're adults. Children haven't had a chance to yet.

    Reply

  111. Travis Butler
    May 2, 2013 @ 5:41 am

    "In all honesty and good faith: do you have a more effective way to quickly show us Rose and the world she lives in?"

    "Quickly"? Perhaps not. "Effective"? I think it would have been a lot more effective if they'd taken more time and shown us some of her personality as she interacted with her world, instead of just a kaleidoscope of images without context. Which gets to another major criticism I have of the new series; while I certainly can't argue against the old series being overly-padded at times, the new series goes much too far in the other direction. I'll have more to say on this when we get to "Dalek", but in brief – while Dalek is a tour-de-force in presenting its basic story, the story itself is very limited and simplistic compared with the best Dalek stories like Genesis or Remembrance.

    "No one can make you like Rose…but everyone can identify her and how she'll act and respond. That is by any means an effective characterization. Just because you don't like so etching doesn't make it effective. That's the whole idea behind Brecht's play "Bhaal" and theatre of cruelty."

    I think you completely missed my point. Saying the characterization is "effective" is not an argument in its favor, if I dislike the basic character concept. It may be interesting in an abstract critical sense, but it's not going to make me enjoy watching them. In fact, if I dislike the basic character, the more 'effective' the characterization is, the less I'm likely to enjoy watching it. (And for the record, I pretty much reject theater of cruelty, at least as it applies to a protagonist in an ongoing program.)

    "The bit with the Queen, though, is deliberately playing with their over-inflated egos. That's part of the redemption arc of the characters. It's not the be-all end-all of Rose's characterization, it's not her defining moment, or Ten's for that matter."

    Oh, I certainly agree it was deliberate, and could even buy that it was part of a 'redemption arc'. I can agree that it wasn't the totality of the characters, or even the straw that broke the camel's back – I kept watching, after all. But I can argue vehemently that as a trait of the main characters, it doesn't fit any concept of Doctor Who that I want to watch. There's a reason why Ten is pretty far from the top of my list of favorite Doctors, and this is a big part of it. If the Doctor is so bad that he needs to be 'redeemed', then he's perilously close to not being The Doctor at all. (See also the discussions around Six, particularly Our Host's dissection of Twin Dilemma.)

    (And just to note in passing, the childish egoist moments are part of the reason why Four isn't my favorite Doctor either, though they bothered me a lot less with him; there's an innocence, for lack of a better word, with him that's missing in Ten.)

    The times I could enjoy Rose were when she was able to rise above this and be heroic; I couldn't enjoy her when she was being childish and self-indulgent, and I most disliked her when she dragged the Doctor down to that level, Tooth and Claw being a classic example.

    Reply

  112. Froborr
    May 2, 2013 @ 5:53 am

    "Especially ironic is how a lacking of compassion on the part of the characters is met with such righteous fury — fandom is more than willing to throw its own compassion out the window."

    There is a difference between hating a person and hating a thing. I hate cilantro; is that a sign of "throwing compassion out the window"?

    From a diegetic perspective, Queen Victoria and the werewolf victims are people, and Rose treats them as if they are things that exist for her entertainment. That's utterly vile on Rose's part.

    From a non-diegetic perspective, Queen Victoria, the werewolf victim, and Rose actually are things that exist for our entertainment, not people, and there's nothing wrong in treating them as such.

    Hating Billie Piper for playing Rose? Compassion failure, because Billie Piper's a person. Hating Rose? Not so much.

    Reply

  113. jane
    May 2, 2013 @ 5:56 am

    But Rose in Rose isn't particularly childish. She's taking responsibility from the get go, whether it's seeking out the Doctor, pointing out how he keeps forgetting Mickey, and grabbing a hold of that chain and swinging into action. Hell, she's out there working a job and looking for Wilson in that very first sequence!

    If there's anyone who's childish, it's Clive, obsessing over his mysterious Stranger. Or Mickey himself, churlishly reacting against that strangeness, wanting to go to the pub, being possessive and suspicious. Or Jackie, off for a bit of indulgent shopping, or imagining herself the object of the Doctor's sexual affections.

    But no, it's Rose who's unpleasantly childish? I think there's something off in that reading. Her cold shoulder at the end is but a single flaw revealed, and it's perfectly understandable in context of the situation — even here, her first instinct is to be responsible (she calls her mother to make sure Jackie's alright) and has to be tempted twice to let go.

    To call Rose immensely selfish and utterly uninterested in taking responsibility for her actions is to blatantly ignore the vast majority of her characterization.

    Reply

  114. Froborr
    May 2, 2013 @ 6:07 am

    On "Mary Sue": I had always heard (and used) the term to mean "A character whom everyone in the narrative loves for no reason visible to the audience, and on whose behalf the universe bends over backwards to make everything work out," with the implication that this is because they are a self-insert. Using that definition, I'd stand by my assertion that Rose is one. However, reading that article it sounds like the term has acquired a lot of baggage, and I don't want to be misunderstood, so I apologize for using it in a couple of previous comments.

    On being "anti-chav": I'll be honest, Rose doesn't read as lower-class to me at all. I now know she is, but I have trouble remembering it. This is probably because I'm an American, and therefore missed whatever it is that codes her as a "chav." (A term I had never heard until Cassandra used it in "New Earth.") In the first episode she has fashionable clothes and a spacious apartment and a bedroom full of Stuff and everyone she knows is physically fit, so I read her as being fairly well-off. (Also, I can't remember when they first mentioned her address, but to American ears "an apartment in the Powell Estates" sounds like the sort of place upwardly mobile young professionals live.) It's not until "Bad Wolf" that I really twigged to the fact that her neighborhood was a bit rough and my initial reading was wrong.

    Reply

  115. Travis Butler
    May 2, 2013 @ 6:18 am

    "'You want an example of a Mary Sue in Doctor Who? Jon Pertwee's portrayal of the Doctor. Or Tom Baker's under Graham Williams. Or Colin Baker vis a vis John Nathan-Turner. Three flagrant Mary-Sues in Doctor Who.'"

    Well, I don't particularly agree on Pertwee… but I think it's worth noting that Tom Baker under Graham Williams and Colin Baker under JNT are two of my least favorite stretches of the program. 🙂

    I'm honestly not sure the Marty Stu is best defined by 'perfection', though; I think a better way might be in terms of 'privilege' and 'indulgence'. The Marty Stu character is privileged above the other characters in the story; Scalzi's metaphor of 'playing on the easiest difficulty level' works very well here. They get more advantages and face easier challenges than comparable characters, they have better opportunities, they get forgiven more easily for their transgressions, etc. etc. And the Marty Stu is a very indulgent character; one gets the impression that it was specifically designed so that the author, the character, and even the reader can wallow in the success, praise and adulation the character receives.

    Or to put it another way: you could say the 'inspirational/aspirational' perfect character is the author going 'you can become a better person if you try to be like that.' (See, for example, Aragorn and Faramir in the original books.) The Marty Stu perfect character is the author going 'wow, isn't it cool to be that great?'

    Reply

  116. Lewis Christian
    May 2, 2013 @ 6:21 am

    I like the idea that in an alternative dimension, the Seventh Doctor regenerates into the Sandifer Doctor.

    Reply

  117. Andrew Hickey
    May 2, 2013 @ 6:29 am

    She's not coded as a "chav" (although the term itself is a horribly, horribly classist one) at all. The UK's class system is a fairly nuanced one, and Rose is very clearly respectable working class (though it doesn't help that Piper found it difficult to keep a consistent accent for the part in the first series).

    Those who dislike the character for being "a chav", though, just mean that she speaks with (an approximation of) a working-class accent — which you as an American wouldn't be expected to pick up on.

    There's a lot I dislike about the post-2005 series, but that it (at least under Davies) increased representation of working-class, black and LGB people seems to have been a huge complaint of a lot of those who dislike the programme now, while I think those are the best things about the 2005-2009 period.

    Reply

  118. Chadwick
    May 2, 2013 @ 6:59 am

    Rose, for me, came across as a Mary Sue figure for RTD. I never hated her, because I think she's not a hateful figure, but the all time best companion? Seriously? There is an element of the show trying too hard to make the audience like her: There was a lot of hype in the press about Billie Piper's casting and a lot of supporting material and merchandising went out of its way to make the companion, embodied by Rose, the Doctor's equal and at the end of the day, the companion can never be an equal. Well written, well played and interesting yes…an equal, no. RTD and his writing team tried telling the story from her point of view too many times which could detract from the Doctor.

    Reply

  119. Chadwick
    May 2, 2013 @ 7:07 am

    It's a sad manoever on the part of a certain strand of literary criticism to label the term "Mary Sue" as sexist. It has its male versions in "Marty Stu" or "Gary Stu" and the reason Mary Sue has achieved ubiquity isn't sexism, it's that it's a catch-all term that can be applied to characters of both genders. Lambasting the term risks nullifying the concept and the concept is very valid. So let's not get bent out of shape over the precise wording of Mary Sue…instead, lets use the concept to see if it applies to certain Dr. Who companions.

    Reply

  120. Chadwick
    May 2, 2013 @ 7:11 am

    My biggest problem with Rose Tyler, compared with other companions, is that I never felt she was in any real danger. I felt that RTD had ringfenced her and that she was always going to pull through and end up fulfilled.

    Reply

  121. Froborr
    May 2, 2013 @ 7:18 am

    Oh no, Rose as depicted in "Rose" is fine. Quite promising as a companion, actually.

    The problem is Rose as depicted in "Father's Day" and thereafter, when her negative traits start dominating the character.

    Reply

  122. Arkadin
    May 2, 2013 @ 7:33 am

    I think hating a fictional character is a waste of time. Actually, hating real people is a waste of time too. I'm reminded of Quentin Tarantino's injunction to "never hate a movie":

    "You're not getting me. There's plenty of reasons to not to like a movie. But if you hate them? Meaning if let them bother you? Then they'll do nothing but bother you. Who wants to be bothered? There's so many better things to do with movies. It's like my fucking Top Gun rant, okay? Bad things can be so much more interesting than just bad."

    To me, there are a lot of things about Rose's characterization and arc that really worked and a lot that really didn't, and I think it's worth thinking about which are which.

    Also, I don't like hating any companions, because I know that the Doctor wouldn't. If the Doctor were real, every one of them would matter to him, no matter how irritating they could be, just like us.

    Reply

  123. nimonus
    May 2, 2013 @ 7:57 am

    @Chadwick

    The point is, it is NOT applied equally to male and female characters. Though the term "Marty Stu" and "Gary Stu" exist on TVTropes, they are seldom ever used in fan discussions (except to point to their existence to defend the concept of a "Mary Sue") and it is always female characters who are criticized for being wish fulfillment.

    Much fantasy, sf, and adventure features wish fulfillment characters. Hell, Doctor Who's cult popularity (as opposed to popular acclaim) is largely down to the fact that the Doctor is a hero for misfits, outcasts, and socially awkward intellectuals – someone who gets to be the smartest one in the room at all times, revel in it, and not be thought of as obnoxious for it, but instead gets to save the universe.

    If you don't like wish-fullfilment characters and that is not why you watch Doctor Who, that is fine.
    But it is deeply suspicious that it is 99% of the time women to whom the accusation is leveled.

    I've never heard anyone refer to the Doctor as a Marty Stu (other than Dr. Sandifer, in critiquing the concept), or Jack or Mickey or Rory. But Rose, River, and Amy? ALL THE TIME. It's a BS double standard.

    Reply

  124. Theonlyspiral
    May 2, 2013 @ 8:13 am

    I greatly enjoy stories where I don't have to sit around waiting for the actual plot to start. If you've only got 24 hours to tell a story, then I don't need to spend 10 of them getting pieces in place to start. I like that stories like "Hide" and "A Town Called Mercy" throw us right in and actually give us some meat and potatoes. Dalek gives us exactly what we need before it gets the ball rolling on clashing Rose and The Doctor back into the Daleks.

    It's only a failure of characterization if you are supposed to like them. And is there any media where you like all the characters? Taking Doctor Who as a whole, the only character I dislike enough for it to interfere with my enjoyment of the program is Ambrose from the series 5 Silurian two-parter. Inevitably even if you don't like a character it doesn't make that character poorly done, just not to your taste.

    In terms of rejecting theater of cruelty…how do you mean you reject it? Like you don't acknowledge it exists? Or you don't see it as a viable form of narrative?

    Reply

  125. Ununnilium
    May 2, 2013 @ 8:16 am

    First, I think "Mary Sue" is essentially a useless term – meaningful in the context it was created for, but broadened to the point of pointlessness.

    Second, I'm going to agree that the closest thing to a Mary Sue the series ever had was the Fourth Doctor. And he's great, so.

    Reply

  126. Anton B
    May 2, 2013 @ 8:28 am

    Of course the ninth card of the major arcana is The Hermit which would certainly fit Ecclestone's war weary survivor, the tenth is The Wheel of Fortune, an apt metaphor for the manic energy of Tennant, while the eleventh is Justice, whose scales symbolise Matt Smith's attempt to balance past and future action, twelve is The Hanged Man and thirteen is Death. Read into that what you will.

    Yes hands are important, Ten's severed hand, making him the wounded god, The Handbots of the Girl Who Waited, the recurring image of the Doctor extending his hand to us from the TARDIS doorway, 'come with me' and most recently Clara's burnt hand holding the reset clue.

    Reply

  127. Theonlyspiral
    May 2, 2013 @ 8:30 am

    Romana?

    Reply

  128. Ununnilium
    May 2, 2013 @ 8:37 am

    …yeah, that's great.

    Reply

  129. Theonlyspiral
    May 2, 2013 @ 8:42 am

    My experience on Gallifrey (which I will admit was limited by my own choice) was that even on threads where people were discussing old episodes or marathons, they were still on the balance fairly negative and surly. So much so that it was impacting my ability to enjoy new Doctor Who. So I stopped. I was on there for about 6 months and I absolutely would not recommend it to anyone.

    Reply

  130. Ross
    May 2, 2013 @ 8:55 am

    First time this American ever heard 'chav' was just slightly ahead of Cassandra using it, because occasionally the folks on rec.arts.drwho would take a few hours off from slamming RTD for being "a poof" to slam Rose for being "a chav".

    But I always assumed that we weren't meant to take Cassandra's word for it when she used the term, because of the sort of person Cassandra is.

    Reply

  131. Chadwick
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:05 am

    99%…can those figures be verified? You're ignoring a huge other section of Mary-Marty Sue-Stuism which is young precocious males. I don't buy into the sexism argument and I certainly don't trust 99% as a figure. That's because it puts the cart before the horse: It figures that in perception, most of these wish-fulfillment characters are female so most critics must be, natch, sexist. The questions that scream out are just how many of these characters are indeed female (an accurate figure not just a made up statistic) and if they are in the majority by a long way, why is that so? Just denouncing anyone who uses the term "Mary Sue" as sexist is the kind of student union logic employed to muzzle people who have a contrary view.

    Reply

  132. jane
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:06 am

    @Chadwick: "At the end of the day, the companion can never be an equal."

    Thus making the Doctor the fetish-object of hero-worship. Sorry, no, not buying this line.

    Reply

  133. jane
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:09 am

    And GB is by no means the surliest of sites…

    Reply

  134. Chadwick
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:10 am

    It's not perfect, and goodness knows Dr. S goes off on a point every now and again that makes me want to throw my computer through a window in anger, but he's alright…and I forgive him a lot of things because of the Dalek's Master Plan and Evil of the Daleks posts.

    Reply

  135. Theonlyspiral
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:21 am

    Any specific points in mind that are Computer-Killers?

    Reply

  136. Matthew Blanchette
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:24 am

    I think you're just making stuff up, jane; there comes a point where there are no more layers to be peeled back, you know.

    When that happens, you'll have lost your livelihood, I think.

    Reply

  137. David Anderson
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:27 am

    The term 'Wesley' is available for the type of character. So that Mary Sue has more take-up as the term to use may be telling. Tvtropes also has the term Shilling the Wesley, i.e other characters telling the audience how wonderful the Wesley is. That's one of the things that makes the character objectionable. Rose does get shilled from time to time.

    Reply

  138. nimonus
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:31 am

    No, the vast majority of wish fulfillment characters are Male. They just don't get characterized as "Mary Sues" or even "Marty Stus".

    They are just called "Heroes".

    Obviously there is no way to quantify this (unless Google adapts the tool they have to measure how often a term is used in published works and applies it to private, password protected discussion forums which isn't going to happen) but like I said, I've never, ever heard the term "Marty Stu" used except when people are challenged for adhering to the concept of a "Mary Sue". And certainly it isn't widely used in Doctor Who fandom to apply to the Doctor or the male companions, as the experience of anyone reading this blog can surely attest.

    Reply

  139. Matthew Blanchette
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:33 am

    Eh? No, not at all; I just wanted something less of a recap, more of an overall analysis of themes, perhaps achronistically. It just seemed too "blow-by-blow"-ish, to me. :-S

    Reply

  140. nimonus
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:37 am

    "Just denouncing anyone who uses the term "Mary Sue" as sexist is the kind of student union logic employed to muzzle people who have a contrary view."

    It sound like you are taking this discussion personally, when it wasn't intended as such. No one is accusing you of being a misogynist. This problem often comes up in discussions around sexism / racism / classism etc in media. People assume, when it is pointed out to them that they have used sexist terminology or a show they enjoy plays into racist narratives, that some sort of character judgement is being made on them as individuals. That is not what the terms mean in this context.

    To say that the concept of Mary Sue is sexist is to point out the effect it has (to marginalize female characters, to make male the "norm" and the ideal) and the unconscious assumptions which seem to underlie its "expanded" definition. It is a sexist concept. But it is entirely possible to use a sexist concept without realizing it is sexist or intending it to be. It is an innocent mistake, a result of reflexively absorbing a sexist construct from the culture (in this case, geek culture) without taking the time to think about its implications, not necessarily a sign of any deep-seated hatred of women.

    It is only when sexist and racist constructs are used in full knowledge that they are potentially destructive (like, say, the use of the N word in Celestial Toymaker, contemporaneously with the Civil Rights movement, as Phil has pointed out) that malice should be assumed. Of course, now you have been exposed to the problematic nature of the concept of a Mary Sue, so . . . .

    Reply

  141. Matthew Blanchette
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:38 am

    Quite.

    Reply

  142. David Anderson
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:40 am

    If, in thirty-four years time the series has its second revival, it will feature a Time Lord on his seventeenth regeneration and the TARDIS. And, almost certainly it will introduce a new companion.
    The Doctor has his name on the program title. And he can become a different actor when the actor playing him moves on, which companions can't. This gives the Doctor an unfair advantage over any other character.

    Reply

  143. Ross
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:48 am

    @David Anderson:

    And if the Doctor's advantage is so inherent to the nature of the show, then no matter what bonuses the show chooses to give to the companions, no matter how important the show makes them, no matter how competent, the Doctor still comes out on top. So there's no point in complaining about them making the companion too important/not second-fiddle enough.

    I recall lots of people complaining in season 2 that "RTD is really making The Rose Tyler Show Guest Starring The Doctor and that is why Rose must DIE DIE DIE."

    But that's silly on its face. Because there was no point EVER where ANYONE had ANY doubt that there would come a day when Rose Tyler would be gone and The Doctor would still be there.

    There's never going to be any reason to be threatened by the weight the show gives to the companions.

    Reply

  144. Travis Butler
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:53 am

    You're conflating two of my arguments a bit, although I wasn't that clear in separating them myself, so mea culpa. My overall argument is that the new series is far too time-constrained, to its detriment; this works out two different ways in the Rose montage and in Dalek.

    In Rose, the problem is that her 'introduction' is a stream of images without context; we're shoved into image after image that purport to show us who she is – but none of them are expanded into actual incidents, that show us what she thinks or how she reacts in anything more than a superficial way. Here is a person that walks through the streets of London, works in a store, and eats lunch with someone who could be a boyfriend. Whoopee. We never get more than the vaguest hint about how she feels about these things below the surface. It's all shallow and perfunctory. Even 30 seconds on some of those incidents would have told us much more than what we got.

    "Shallow" is also the problem I have with the plot in Dalek, though it plays out in a completely different way. In terms of execution, it does right all the things I thought were done wrong in the Rose montage; it develops each incident and draws out a huge amount of nuance from them. The problem is that the core plot it's developing can be distilled – easily! – into a simple sentence: "The Doctor finds a Dalek who wakes up, escapes, slaughters its way through the building, until it has an epiphany and destroys itself." The episode gets a lot of mileage out of it, but it's still a very shallow plot. Compare that to Genesis: "Two warring civilizations are at the last gasp. One is about to try and genocide the other with a giant rocket; the second is about to birth the most evil and dangerous race in the universe, led by a mad, crippled, charismatic genius who betrays his own people. The Doctor is sent there by the Time Lords to try and prevent this from happening." Or Remembrance: "Two Dalek factions go to war over an ancient Time Lord artifact, which the Doctor has – in a stunning change for him – proactively used to set a trap for one of the factions." Either one lends itself to far more development than the new series can manage in a single 45 minute episode. True, the new series does have its dual-episode stories like Empty Child/Doctor Dances, and in general I like them much better than the single-ep stories; but the fact that so much of the new series is single-ep stories skews it towards the simpler plots.

    "It's only a failure of characterization if you are supposed to like them. And is there any media where you like all the characters?"

    Not all the characters, certainly, or all the time; but for me to enjoy an ongoing series, yes, I generally do need to like the ongoing leads, at the very least. I don't have to like all of the regulars, but if the ones I can't stand take over too much of the spotlight, it really hurts my enjoyment of the show. I know this isn't a universal preference, as witness the success of some shows I find vile, like Beavis and Butthead or South Park; but that doesn't stop me from fighting for a show I want to watch.

    I admit, I don't know anything about 'theater of cruelty' beyond the Wikipedia summary. But as described… this is not a form of storytelling that I enjoy watching in general, so I reject it on a personal level. And in a broader context, no, I don't think it's a particularly viable form of narrative in an ongoing series; any narrative needs to engage with its audience to be successful, so deliberately setting out to show the audience 'things they don't want to see' as a primary narrative is rather antithetical to attracting that audience back, week after week.

    Reply

  145. Anton B
    May 2, 2013 @ 10:01 am

    There's an argument that this was the case from Unearthly Child onwards. Who was the protagonist in season one? Ian? Barbara? Susan? His 'name' might be in the title but the Doctor was no more the 'hero' than the Wizard of Oz. I think we were meant to be following Dorothy.

    Reply

  146. Ross
    May 2, 2013 @ 10:03 am

    Personally, I think the difference in "complexity" you claim in the plot summaries is 100% an artefact of you having decided what you wanted the answer to be, and composed your plot summaries accordingly. For instance:

    Dalek: A wealthy genius finds a Dalek and tortures it in the hope of profiting from its alien technology, but the Doctor wakes it up, then, in a stunning change for him, displays profound cruelty bordering on sadism while the Dalek is singularly focused on escape, until it ultimately realizes that true escape is impossible and its own Dalek nature forces it to commit suicide in dispair.

    Genesis of the Daleks: A madman creates mutated super-soldiers, then betrays his own people in order to play god by installing his creations as the dominant species.

    Remembrance of the Daleks: Two Dalek factions try to acquire an ancient Time Lord superweapon, but the Doctor tricks them into destroying themselves with it.

    Reply

  147. Ununnilium
    May 2, 2013 @ 10:31 am

    I think that it was the right choice for this story, though – diving into the nitty-gritty details of the experience, reflecting on how the New Series takes the storytelling down to the individual shot level.

    Reply

  148. David Anderson
    May 2, 2013 @ 10:37 am

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  149. David Anderson
    May 2, 2013 @ 10:38 am

    While I don't care for Rose, I think that's not a good reason. The companions have always been ringfenced. There was never any real danger that Ian and Barbara would die without getting back to 1960s England. (Earthshock succeeds on a superficial level and fails on a deeper level because it gets a cheap shock by breaking the contract that ringfences the companions without going to any effort to lift the contract.)
    And as Phil has pointed out, there is no situation that the Doctor cannot get out of using his special power of Being in the Next Episode.
    I don't think Rose is any more ringfenced than any other companion.

    Reply

  150. ibishtar
    May 2, 2013 @ 10:59 am

    Whereas for me, Rose is the only companion I ever thought might die, in terrifying split-second moments as she fell into the Void in Doomsday, and the Dalek approached in The Stolen Earth.

    Reply

  151. Travis Butler
    May 2, 2013 @ 11:32 am

    Romana was the Doctor's equal, yes (more Romana I than II, at least in feel). I have real trouble painting any other companion as the Doctor's equal. Maaaybe Sarah Jane, Leela and Donna; maaaaybe the Brigadier. It all depends on what you mean by 'equal'.

    The Doctor has more knowledge, experience and power than just about anyone else on the show; in that sense, it's just about impossible to equal him. Even Romana is problematic in that sense; she's also a powerful Time Lord, and the show even lampshades her superiority in technical skill on occasion, but it also lampshades her lack of real-world experience on many occasions. (This is another reason, as I meant to say in the post I never got around to writing, that shipping the Doctor squicks me; there's a huge disparity in power and experience. Much like an older adult going in with a teenager. Squick.)

    Another way to look at equality is the companion's role in the plot; can they take independent action and help resolve the plot, on a level that's at least within shouting distance of the Doctor? Are they, in other words, a full partner? This is where I'd put Sarah Jane, Leela, and the Brigadier; I'd also put Ace here, if it weren't for the clear paternal role the Doctor plays in her life. I'd have trouble putting anyone else here, off the top of my head; there are other companions that have been full partners on occasion, but not consistently or continuously. Rose I'd count as one of the latter; she does take independent, useful action in Impossible Planet/Satan Pit, and that's probably my favorite appearance of hers, but in Army of Ghosts/Doomsday she's mostly a spectator or being rescued by the Doctor. (Mind you, she does get a few good lines in there-'One Doctor? Now you're scared.')

    The final kind of equality I can think of is having a personality that can stand up to the Doctor, and force him to re-assess and change position. Rose absolutely doesn't fit here; as others have noted, I think she encourages and enables his bad behavior. This is where I'd put Donna. Maaaaybe Tegan, in the classic series, although it's hard to say given how 'agreeable' Five was. (I agree with the people who are disappointed she didn't get paired with Six, beyond that one brief special.)

    Reply

  152. Travis Butler
    May 2, 2013 @ 11:39 am

    I don't agree, but let's save the discussion for Dalek instead of hijacking this post further. 🙂

    Reply

  153. Theonlyspiral
    May 2, 2013 @ 12:24 pm

    That's an oversimplification. There's always another lens to look through, a new interpretation a new context. We only run out of ways to look at things when human beings run out of ideas and stop evolving.

    Reply

  154. David Anderson
    May 2, 2013 @ 12:41 pm

    Travis Butler's analysis persuades me, though I might quibble about examples. (E.g. I think Ace's relationship is closer to Leela's: both Leela and Ace have an apprentice role but very much on their own terms.)

    I don't think it's quite silly to be threatened by Rose taking over the program: there's a version of narrative collapse there. If the 'the show's rubbish without Rose' faction become vocal enough that can affect the general reputation and therefore the show's future prospects. Much as 'the show's been rubbish since Tom left' brigade did nothing to help it stay on air once it recovered under Cartmel.
    But I think the reason for not liking the focus on the companion is more that the show is asking us to invest emotional energy in a character who we know isn't going to stick around.

    Reply

  155. Matthew Blanchette
    May 2, 2013 @ 12:45 pm

    Not even "An Unearthly Child" was made to be so drawn out.

    Reply

  156. Theonlyspiral
    May 2, 2013 @ 12:54 pm

    It was a different blog back then. It's regenerated…oh a half dozen times since then.

    Reply

  157. Elizabeth Sandifer
    May 2, 2013 @ 1:03 pm

    Though ironically, the model for this post was in many ways The Daleks' Masterplan. It's just that Rose is made that much more densely than the Hartnell era, such that 45 minutes of it is about twice as long as 300 minutes of The Daleks' Masterplan.

    Reply

  158. elvwood
    May 2, 2013 @ 1:11 pm

    Great post, Dr S! Since I haven't anything particularly clever to add I'm going to channel my inner Clive and point out one more Rose-related item:

    In The Five Doctors, the first Doctor is in a rose garden when he is scooped. (The rose is a symbol of resurrection and new beginnings, so the fact that he has a different face makes this doubly relevant!)

    Long before the revival, Robert Mammone wrote a Brief Encounter for DWM set here. (He's discussed and posted it here.) In it, the Doctor is thinking about Susan – and about how her Gallifreyan name means "Rose". If RTD knew of this (and it seems distinctly possible), it's quite cheeky of him to use the name. He's tying the first companion of the revival to the first companion ever…

    Reply

  159. Gavin Schofield
    May 2, 2013 @ 1:32 pm

    I just want to but in and say this to Travis;

    I disagree with you, but you put your arguments across very well and it's been very entertaining to read them. For purely selfish reasons I hope you keep it up, then I get to read the equivelant of a second blog post about the episode every post that gets me thinking about it on 'a deeper level', so to say!

    Reply

  160. Matthew Blanchette
    May 2, 2013 @ 3:13 pm

    I don't think this episode of the RTD era could be THAT dense. "Midnight", certainly, but not "Rose"… and I'm afraid it shows in the post.

    Moffat era, on the other hand? Wealth of opportunities, there! 🙂

    Reply

  161. drewcastalia
    May 2, 2013 @ 8:23 pm

    I'm looking forward to this era of the blog eagerly; like Andrew Hickey, I find the new series very difficult to enjoy or even to appreciate as a craft. A big part of my relationship to it is based on trying to figure out WHY. This blog's ideas, such as the notion that its purpose parallels New Labour's, help me make sense of the knee-jerk reaction I have to the revival. To me, Doctor Who lost its essential intellectuality in 2005 and became a manic, opportunistic action adventure less concerned with disseminating ideas than consuming them. For this reason, I found Graham Norton's interruption of "Rose," and Sandifer's explanation of it, to be the most interesting part of its incipit episode.

    I like the notion of Doctor Who being brought into the soap opera, and how the rules of their different media take over the characters in the introductory scenes, so I have high hopes for Sandifer's forthcoming insights, but I still wonder WHY the show felt it had to egress to this place. To what purpose? Was it, as the article mentions, to finally turn into mercury a frontier it had never managed to transcend before, leaving JNT's failure a distant memory? Or was it, as my instincts make me fear, a form of ideological plastic surgery (har)? Forgive me for being lurid, but I have this nightmarish impression of the 2005 series as RTD's love-object, not like Semele to Zeus, but like a sex doll manufactured to hold his lust.

    Reply

  162. 5tephe
    May 2, 2013 @ 9:19 pm

    Super as always, Dr Sandifer. Well, more than usual, obviously.

    You have mentioned before that you would be blogging up till the most recently aired episode from this point on, but I had always assumed that you would draw a line at current Doctors: so you would not blog about a currently serving Doctor.

    That way you would retain some sense of historicity, as you have to this point. You'd also be able to talk about the arc of a Doctor in a proper way.

    So as of today your last blog post would be "The End of Time", and if Matt Smith managed to regenerate at the end of the 50 year anniversary special, then on the 30th of November or so you would re-start the Eruditorum project with a post on "The Eleventh Hour".

    Reply

  163. Spacewarp
    May 3, 2013 @ 12:10 am

    @drewcastalia

    "To me, Doctor Who lost its essential intellectuality in 2005 and became a manic, opportunistic action adventure less concerned with disseminating ideas than consuming them."

    Looking from the perspective of a large amount of it's audience, the under-10s, surely this is exactly how Doctor Who should be. A manic opportunistic action adventure.

    That's how it was when damn near most of us (at least in the UK) started watching it. I was 5 or 6, and the first Doctor I watched was Patrick Troughton.

    Doctor Who can be both intelligent and action-oriented, thought-provoking and fun. It's at it's best when it does both at the same time, but if it only manages one then it tends to alienate the other side of it's viewership. But if it's going to manage one, then I'd rather it was the simplistic mindless scary runaround, because then it'll continue to get new viewers from the very young.

    Because Doctor Who is like Santa Claus. Yes adults can appreciate it, and even enjoy it, but first and foremost it's there for the kids. To scare them, thrill them, and make them hide behind sofas, or their Daddy and Mummy's arm. If Doctor Who ever changed in such a way as to alienate any fans over the age of 14, I would prefer that to a TV version of the wilderness years, which was effectively inaccessible to anyone younger than 14.

    Reply

  164. Scott
    May 3, 2013 @ 1:52 am

    "I think hating a fictional character is a waste of time."

    I think you've nailed it, Arkadin. Sure, you CAN hate Rose, but what's the point? She's not real. You might as well hate your living room wall for all the good it's going to do; neither of them are ultimately going to care.

    Reply

  165. Scott
    May 3, 2013 @ 1:55 am

    Thing about "An Unearthly Child" and "Rose", though, is that the viewing experiences are completely different for the purposes of this blog.

    With "An Unearthly Child", you're essentially watching something completely new form from an entirely blank slate. With "Rose", you're watching something new which simultaneously has all the baggage of forty-odd years of "Doctor Who" behind it as well. Without wanting to diminish the importance or quality of "An Unearthly Child" the viewing experience of "Rose" is so much denser in that sense alone.

    Reply

  166. Ross
    May 3, 2013 @ 3:28 am

    To me, when people talk about the modern Doctor Who having lost its "intellectuality", I sort of search back in my head, but all I can come up with is "They've stopped pretending that having Jon Pertwee babble some incoherent nonsense about neutron flows makes this a show about Science." If anything, I'd say that the show is generally more thought-provoking in the modern era (Not sure about the very recent past; Moffat seems like he's in such a damned hurry these days), but it cares little for doing any sort of overt signalling that you are meant to be thinking about things.

    Reply

  167. drewcastalia
    May 3, 2013 @ 11:53 am

    Perhaps you're right, @Spacewarp. I may very well have lost touch with my inner child and have a rose-tinted view of the series that I grew up watching, compared to the unctuous stepfather of a show that returned while I was at uni. It's a dour thought, because my gut tells me that there is a textural difference between the scares and thrills of the two; but so does my intellect – and one can't but trust when those faculties coincide. Can I try and figure it out for a second?

    I guess I was a serious child, because I loved how much respect Doctor Who gave its subject: daleks didn't need to swoop about like aircraft, because they were treated as menacing. Ideas existed because the Doctor and his companions believed in them whole-heartedly. I feel like that's a big difference between the two. In the New Series, we have Queen Victoria, Hitler, Churchill, etc, played as the broadest of cartoons, dismissed, mocked, and discarded in service of a weird self-satisfaction. Our heroes only believe in themselves. This isn't just the infamous second-series hubris, but a general need for instant punchline and immediate payoff. But the New Series also underestimates the present. In this season / series, Rose is its representative, and RTD couldn't have chosen a shallower one. She is self-gratifying and petty, and even after entering the Doctor Who universe, she becomes that stereotypical British tourist who can think of nothing but herself. Even when given the chance to expand her mind against the frame of all time and space, to redefine everything she has taken for granted, she, Mickey, Jackie, Martha, and Donna are all closed to it. The show feels trivial, and perhaps it's more accessible for it, but to me its pettiness gives me a sick feeling, like I've eaten too many sweets.

    Nonetheless, if I am blinkered, I am blinkered in a very odd way. I still feel like there are shows for children that, despite modern expectations, have great action and still explore great ideas, like The Last Airbender and its sequel, Adventure Time, Puella Madoka Magica, and more.

    @Ross

    Maybe I'm just missing the thought-provocation of the New Series because it isn't being signaled to me. However, although I feel like technobabble can actually be useful for a dramatist, I don't think this is what I mean by "intellectuality." I mean an interest in exploring ideas for their own sake, like "does chivalry belong in our society?" (Battlefield), "can the innocent survive in a world that, like ours, seems filled with greed and lust?" (Androzani), "how does one submit to age?" (Logopolis), "what happens when entertainment becomes a business?" (Greatest Show), or even "were the Aztecs as barbaric as we think?"

    The New Series does dip into this, but only exceptionally (like with Blink). The running time makes it difficult to explore the ideas very fully, but so many of the two-parters, in RTD's era especially, waste their opportunity with ejaculatory (!) spectacle and self-mythologizing pontification.

    Reply

  168. Ununnilium
    May 3, 2013 @ 2:43 pm

    Coming back to this:

    "Another way to look at equality is the companion's role in the plot; can they take independent action and help resolve the plot, on a level that's at least within shouting distance of the Doctor?"

    I'd definitely put Benny on that level, and also the final kind you mention.

    Reply

  169. Travis Butler
    May 3, 2013 @ 3:47 pm

    Honestly, this blog is the first time I've looked at the Wilderness Years in any kind of detail. The books were not particularly available locally, and the start corresponded with my college and just-post-college poverty years, so I never got started with them; by the time I could afford to look, they were already apparently such an involved Thing that I didn't feel like starting. (My interest in Doctor Who had also waned considerably by that point.)

    Reply

  170. Ross
    May 3, 2013 @ 4:52 pm

    I think there's a certain amount of wishful thinking in your assessment. I didn't see any of the "interest in exploring ideas" you talk about in the old series. If you saw Battlefield as an exploration of the question of the role of chivalry, I think it's because you brought that to it, not because it was especially in there.

    Contrariwise, pretty much every episode of the new series very intentionally tries to address some larger concept, whether it's Dalek asking us what it is that makes the Doctor the good guy and the Dalek the bad guy (by having the Doctor literally shout EXTERMINATE while the Dalek is just wants its freedom), or Tooth and Claw's implied accusation that maybe the audience, like the Doctor and Rose, have given in to something sinister when we take joy in watching people threatened with otherworldly horror, or season 3's whole-season-long theme of having something horrific hidden in plain sight as something mundane.

    Reply

  171. Froborr
    May 3, 2013 @ 7:24 pm

    "Nonetheless, if I am blinkered, I am blinkered in a very odd way. I still feel like there are shows for children that, despite modern expectations, have great action and still explore great ideas, like The Last Airbender and its sequel, Adventure Time, Puella Madoka Magica, and more."

    While I agree with most of your examples, I would put Doctor Who in that list and remove Puella Magi Madoka Magica. Not because it's not thought-provoking, but because it is so very, very, VERY not for children.

    Reply

  172. Drew Castalia
    May 3, 2013 @ 8:03 pm

    Good point about wishful thinking, @Ross. My self-construction of the original series is very suspect because I love it completely, and I am far more eager to redeem its flaws than those of the New, and I just don't know why. It would be so embarrassing (critically) if that were just because I grew up with it.

    You wouldn't disagree, however, that there are significant differences between the two shows, though, would you? I can't wait, in the coming months, to chronograph what they are, so that, even though I feel differently about the show than most, I can come up with more persuasive explanation than "it lost its thoughtfulness." I can see how Dalek raises the question you describe, for example, but I, in my wishful thinking, can't believe its genuine. A handful of minutes in and the dalek is clearly the bad guy, killing people left and right, and being asked by Rose and Murray Gold's simpering choir to sympathize with it is hypocritical at best. Perhaps that describes me too, though, since I really like Jubilee. But again, wouldn't you agree that there significant, potentially definitive differences between them?

    @Froborr

    Maybe it's beyond the purview of this board, and even this discussion, but I am curious why not? You make me feel like I would be very, very, VERY bad at raising children! : )

    Reply

  173. Assad K
    May 4, 2013 @ 8:13 am

    That is, indeed, my major issue with Dalek as well, and it bugs me enough to wonder about all the fuss over it. All very well that it wants its freedom, but I'm sure any of the most hideous criminals currently locked up do as well. Jubilee is different in that the Dalek protaganist doesn't really kill a whole bunch of people – he just has one character killed by another (and not a very nice guy either). Here, though, the Dalek has just killed hundreds of people, including the slightly more 3 dimensional female guard who confronts it on the stairs. And yet, Rose is all 'You're the one holding the gun.' Sorry, but that is really slap-her-across-her-face time.
    Maybe I should save the rest of my thoughts for.. Dalek. that should just be in a week or two. 🙂

    Reply

  174. Daru
    May 5, 2013 @ 11:31 pm

    @ Jane – Catching up on points raised by you above about Rose's dual nature: "Others say she's a monster; the angel can't be seen. But the truth is, to play the angel is to play the beast — both qualities coexist. This is again that alchemical union at play."

    I love Rose myself, not as an extremist one way or the other, but more in the dual or even triple initiation story woven around her. Within fandom this dual nature is shown by the polarised reactions. Underneath her apparent beauty there is a darkness. William Blake's poem 'The Sick Rose' made me think of this as it speaks of the howling storm that conceals the rot or the poison within. Rose herself later on becomes and embodies the 'howling storm' (which is the Rose according to Blake) and she takes on the powers over life and even death…

    O Rose thou art sick.
    The invisible worm,
    That flies in the night
    In the howling storm:

    Has found out thy bed
    Of crimson joy:
    And his dark secret love
    Does thy life destroy.

    Reply

  175. Daru
    May 5, 2013 @ 11:35 pm

    Hello Philip – Very late to this party – laptop bother! But love the post – a truly masterful achievement!

    Reply

  176. Campion
    May 6, 2013 @ 6:48 pm

    Delurking to applaud, especially this bit:

    It hasn’t been Rose’s initiation, or the Doctor’s, or anyone else’s. It’s been ours.

    (Which I think is mirrored in The End of Time, for all its many flaws and annoyances.)

    On a puzzled and pedantic note: what did you mean by Who do you think bought Match of the Day last month? Who do you think watched it?

    Given that no one else has raised this, I could well be just missing the obvious. (I assume you meant the TV show and not the book.)

    Reply

  177. Elizabeth Sandifer
    May 6, 2013 @ 6:50 pm

    Both, in fact. My suggestion was that Clive, as a stand-in for anoraks, was the fandom audience, and bought the Doctor Who book. Whereas Mickey, as a football fan, surely watched Match of the Day, which geeky Clive would have no interest in.

    Reply

  178. Gerald Groy
    May 9, 2013 @ 4:08 pm

    You need to brush up on cut-ups. Burroughs experimented extensively with audio cut-ups right along with and long after Gysin, seeing the potential immediately and applying it to sound, film, and collage… introducing additional tape recorders with Ian Sommerville and recording many dozens of reels and cassettes over the years. It was also a far more occult process than you indicate: "cut into the present and the future leaks out."

    Reply

  179. neroden@gmail
    December 14, 2013 @ 10:16 am

    "Rose, for me, came across as a Mary Sue figure for RTD. "
    Yeah, me too. It wasn't so obvious at first, because in Doctor Who all the companions are supposed to be Mary Sues to some extent (credit Kate Orman for this insight). But they're supposed to be Mary Sues you can all can identify with.

    Unfortunately, later on Rose starts having some of RTD's personal quirks, such as falling in love with the Doctor, which is really more than a little bit unusual and not so easy to identify with, because the Doctor's always been a dangerous, astringent, scary character. The RTD-specific quirks start to mount up — the lack of self-awareness, the egotism, the tendency towards depression — and so the Mary Sue aspect starts becoming far too clear and comes across rather badly.

    Reply

  180. Elizabeth Sandifer
    December 14, 2013 @ 10:20 am

    Ooh, that's a stretch for me. I mean, Rose is a teenage working class shopgirl. Davies is a middle class, middle-aged gay man whose entire adult career was spent in television. They're really not similar characters on any level.

    Reply

  181. neroden@gmail
    December 14, 2013 @ 10:49 am

    "Ported outside of fan fiction the term stops having much use because frankly there's very, very little published fiction that is actually about the authorial id in the same way that fanfic is."

    Russell T. Davies, however, manages to do exactly that when he gives Rose her own Doctor sex toy and has the Doctor declare his eternal undying love for her. Pure, undiluted authorial id, and takes me RIGHT out of the story.

    It's not appropriate. It's a complete disconnect from the Doctor's character(s) as it's been presented since 1963, and it's a piece of wish-fulfillment that is much too explicitly sexual to seem entirely generic. And it doesn't really fit with the story so far. It's squicky, frankly, because it gives me a little too much insight into Russell's sex fantasies.

    Doctor Who frankly encourages wish-fulfillment characters as companions, but there's some limits on how much you can do it. As far as I am concerned, Russell broke the limits in second series Rose. In first series, and in the episodes not written by Russell in second series, she's written better.

    The term and the concept "Mary Sue" are not inherently sexist — you've misread the very essays you're working from. The term has been repeatedly abused and misused, and this has been routinely done in a sexist manner. People call female characters "Mary Sues" when they really, really aren't, particularly when the stories are by female writers, and people don't call male characters "Mary Sues" when they really, really are, especially when they're by male writers, and finally, people condemn Mary Sues all the time — this is why it has a sexist effect. Philip, by contrast, gets the analysis right. The term is useful, and most of the time Mary-Sueing is fine, at least if your format isn't as restrictive as Star Trek.

    (In original Star Trek, guest characters Shall Not Be Heroes. That is reserved for the regulars. Very colonialist really.)

    In Doctor Who's format, by contrast, Mary Sues are appropriate and necessary most of the time; part of the conceit is that the companion is YOU! The AUDIENCE MEMBER!, as they are pretended to be in the stage play of Seven Keys to Doomsday. If the companion character isn't enough of an audience-identification wish-fulfillment, you've probably screwed up. In retrospect, it's amazing that Leela, probably the most unusual of the companions, pulls it off — there must have been a lot of us who identified with her. (Even more identified with K9, believe it or not.)

    Where RTD messed up in series 2, IMO, is by making Rose too idiosyncratically his personal wish-fulfillment character (rather than a larger-audience-segment wish-fulfillment such as with Liz Shaw or K9 or Martha or Mickey, or like the very specifically audience-targeted four members of the original crew), and I think that is what starts to break suspension of disbelief. At least for me.

    It's kind of surprising that RTD's self-image is Billie Piper, but I basically think it's correct. I've seen enough of his other work, and he's very unselfaware, he often writes straight from id.

    Reply

  182. neroden@gmail
    December 14, 2013 @ 11:01 am

    Aargh, lost a long eloquent comment about this…

    Anyway, the point is that back in the day, when TV channels would mess with the broadcast times without telling you, when syndication changes would move a show from one channel to another without notice, when preemptions would cause you to tune into the wrong show, you NEED the story to open with the title sequence. It is your cue that this is in fact the Doctor Who you came to watch.

    The theme comes on and you run into the room (and, later, hit the record button — the show has finally started, after whatever sports event was delaying it.

    Original Star Trek had pre-credit sequences. Most bootleg VCR copies did not. Think about this for a minute. Pre-credit sequences had to be disposable. Half your audience was going to not see them at all.

    This has changed, of course, now that we download everything on-demand and aren't slaves to the TV channel's schedules. But back before on-demand and Internet downloads, pre-credit sequences ("cold opens") were a bad thing, as they failed the functional purpose of the title sequence.

    Reply

  183. neroden@gmail
    December 14, 2013 @ 11:03 am

    "
    In terms of the preference of an older style of television…if your preference is for an older style, do you find much of that these days?"

    Speaking of this, I watched the new (really bizarre) Dracula series. (Which is about, um, fighting against oil barons.) Anyway, it has a very old style. The pacing is uses stopped being used in Doctor Who in 1965 and I haven't seen it in decades.

    Reply

  184. neroden@gmail
    December 14, 2013 @ 11:09 am

    "The difference is that Davies wanted to have sex with the Doctor, and therefore identifies with the companions, while Moffat wanted to have sex with the companions, and therefore identifies with the Doctor."

    Moffat does better only because he proposed, at a convention, that the Doctor was having sex with every one of the companions in the TARDIS, and the reaction he got meant he knew damn well he couldn't write that into the show.

    Russell actually wrote himself, as Rose, getting to "have" Metacrisis Doctor, into the show.

    A lot of good writing is about filing off the serial numbers — about hiding your roots. Everything is derivative and everything is inspired by your own desires, but the art is to mix it up and mystify it enough that it isn't bloody obvious.

    Reply

  185. neroden@gmail
    December 14, 2013 @ 11:14 am

    " My overall argument is that the new series is far too time-constrained, to its detriment"

    No doubt about that. We have fans who grew up on four-parters and six-parters (with a few three-parters), and later on full-length novels, writing for the show — and they're expected to write 45-minute episodes. About half the time they don't pull it off. There are, over and over, moments of "This needed to be longer" in the post-2005 series. This is actually worst with Steven Moffat's big "arc" episodes, some of which are missing the bits which make them make sense.

    Reply

  186. neroden@gmail
    December 14, 2013 @ 11:16 am

    "The companions have always been ringfenced."
    Script protection is the standard term for this.

    And there's one exception. The second producer, John Wiles, didn't script-protect ANYONE. Of course, he also disliked the show, by his own description.

    What got weird about Rose is that most companions are script-protected against death, but not against being written out. Rose kept coming back like a bad penny. That felt way off.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.