The latest Who imbroglio

[snorkackcatcher]

You know, I swore to myself that I wouldn't get involved in this sort of thing. I should just have reviewed The Invasion or something. But hey, defriendings are good for you, right?

On freemaagyeman.com, a scan of a Daily Mail interview with Russell T. Davies (mildly spoilery for S4 Doctor Who) that seems set to cause more ... er, imbroglio.


The key section bringing forth the Rusty-hate?

I [Mail interviewer] wonder if Martha had been too sophisticated and emotionally reserved to win over audiences as Rose had done. Davies is a touch defensive when he explains that Martha was always going to be second best to Rose. 'That's how we played it, rather than fight it. It would have been an awful moment if the doctor [sic] had said "Oh, you are like a new Rose to me."'

Martha 'second best'? (Indirect quotation, btw, so not necessarily RTD's actual words. Just sayin'. Come to think of it, the same applies to the quoted words. This is the Mail, after all.) Well, that simply proves what racist fuckwit bastards he and the rest of the production team are, right?

*headdesk*

*puts on tin hat*

Yeah, it sounds bad when that line is taken by itself out of context but ... um, I'm far from convinced that this one offhand comment carries the weight of subtext people seems to be assuming it does. Consider what the actual quote says on the face of it (er, rough translation from producerese to fanspeak, obviously): "After setting a whole new precedent for Doctor-companion interaction by having two seasons of increasing Doctor/Rose speshul woobiness, it would have like totally sucked if the new companion had just slotted right into the same dynamic. So we went with him angsting about Rose and her pining for him instead."

We've been here before. Yep, Martha is second best to Rose ... to the Doctor. This is obvious. To him, Rose was supposed to be the greatest thing since they invented sonic screwdrivers (not sure why, personally, but hey, tastes differ). They're currently repeating New Who on BBC3, and that makes the season-long S3 arc very obvious -- i.e. how much the Doctor hurts from losing Rose at the end of S2 after her being the one who (presumably) helped him heal after the trauma of the Time War, and therefore keeps Martha at arm's length, but gradually realises how badly he's treating her and tries to make amends; until by the end of the series he totally has to rely on her. And conversely from Martha's side, she falls hard for this exciting, mysterious, distant, heroic and (yes) lovable stranger, but by the end of the series realises that he doesn't feel the same way and has the guts to walk away.

That seems like a very reasonable and not uninteresting arc to me. If you think it would have been in any significant way different if a white actress had been cast as Martha (and since Freema Agyeman only got the role after playing a completely different character in the S2 finale, that wasn't entirely unlikely), then I fear we have some serious points of disagreement on the interpretation of the 'text'. I don't see why an offhand remark from RTD should raise any problems that weren't already completely clear from, you know, the actual series itself.

Is it racist? I'm not sure it is. To rehash the old arguments for the nth time: the Doctor is an alien, and doesn't give a toss what race his companions are (and has been consistently written with that attitude). Martha as a character is consistently written as pretty damn awesome throughout her arc, and the natural interpretation is that the viewers are supposed to notice this and sympathise with her. And since the producers are clearly not complete morons, there presumably isn't any explicit agenda to downgrade the characters of colour (CoCs).

Is there a subtextual, unconscious agenda? Genuinely debatable. I'd say that the CoCs don't receive any 'bashing' that no white characters ever would, although you could argue that taken as a whole there's a consistent bias -- although this strikes me as one of those arguments that tend to end up as 10% reasonable and 90% fannish overanalysis, in which a whole bunch of entirely unexceptional scenes are read in the most damning manner possible and added to the debit side of the ledger.

More generally, of course, the situation is this. Boiled down to the bottom line: you can go two ways with your CoCs, or indeed characters from any other historically maligned or underrepresented group. You can write them as a demographic, or you can write them as a character. If the former, then you must clearly analyse their every action in great detail to make sure that they aren't doing anything, or being treated in any way, that might be considered a negative portrayal of their demographic, even subtextually. If the latter, you just write the damn character as an individual interacting with the other characters as individuals, and although their demographic may factor in at certain points where directly relevant to some situation, most of the time it won't.

You probably won't be surprised to hear that I greatly prefer the latter approach, since the former puts extensive restrictions on what the CoCs (or whatever) can and can't do (which in itself arguably shows prejudiced attitudes, just defensively expressed). At some point, you have to let CoCs just be characters without jumping on every tiny little comment as evidence of some deep agenda, or you're never going to get anywhere in terms of equality of portrayal (or indeed simple interpretation of the source text). Martha is a terrific character for the viewers, and if she isn't a replacement for Rose as far as the Doctor is concerned for situational and/or personality reasons -- eh, whatever. Shit happens, whatever your ethnic background.

Oh, just as a bonus: although I couldn't find the original article on the Mail's website, I did find a copy of the magazine in the pub tonight. Here's a passage from shortly after the one quoted above, which I think really does showcase Davies' approach in a way deserving of eyerolling:

Must assistants always end up falling in love with the Doctor? Davies shifts his weight on his BBC office furniture, which looks somehow too small for him, as do the door and ceiling. [Don't read too much into this; the interviewer has already gone on about RTD being six foot six]

'If you write a drama and put David Tennant on screen next to Billie Piper you are telling a love story. If they worked in a factory and talked about sprockets to each other all day long, the audience would still read that into it.

'If you put two people roughly the same age on screen and make it clear that they are not brother and sister, then you are telling a love story.'

However, being a master of his trade, he is now trying to overturn the natural form. 'We have a nice take on it with Donna, who loves the Doctor but is not in love with him. That is the running gag. Wherever they turn up together people assume they are married. It's a breath of fresh air in the Tardis because there was a danger of it getting a bit sappy.'

No kidding. RTD is clearly a shipper at heart.

(NB: The 'demographic v. character' dichotomy isn't mine. But since the person whose LJ I saw it on isn't (AFAIK) a Who fan, used it in relation to portrayal of female characters in fanfic, and might well disagree with the views above, I see no reason to namecheck them.)

Comments

[meddow.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this. Knee-jerk reaction is to think the worst of RTD, but there is another reading to be made from the statement that needs to be put out there and you’ve expressed it incredibly well.

And thanks for putting those other snippets. Knowing that they’re deliberately not gone down the sappy crush route with Donna is very reassuring for season 4 (plus having them constantly mistaken for a couple sounds like it could be a bit fun).

[snorkackcatcher]

I'm looking forward to Donna. I expect her not to let the Doctor get away with being a pain in the arse. :)

[artic-fox.livejournal.com]

OHH, YOU WIN. THANK YOU. meddow pointed me here, because I was complaining about the amount of fanwank that this "quote" had generated, and I was refraining from jumping in feet first. But you've basically outlined everything that I want to say. Martha is second best... to the Doctor, not to RTD, or the writers, or whoever. Because she came after Rose, who was put on a pedestal (rightly or wrongly, your choice) by the Doctor, Martha was bound to suffer because she was *not* Rose.

*le sigh*

[snorkackcatcher]

Yeah, basically. I mean, that interpretation should be as straightforward to glean from the show as realising that Harry and Hermione in HP aren't going to work together. Oh, hang on ...

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

Please, please, please could the next Companion be a heterosexual male zoologist who has just got divorced and really, really wants to see all the animals on other planets? As they travel around time and space, they could pick up an elderly female alien (NOT a cat).

[themolesmother.livejournal.com]

Seconded!!!

MM

[snorkackcatcher]

That would make a refreshing change -- although to be fair, the 'shippy bits' were only secondary storylines in most episodes. Having said that, now you've brought the subject of aliens up, it strikes me that I can't actually think of a companion offhand who wasn't human, other than Romana, obviously -- and she wasn't some random species. It would be an interesting twist.

[parthenia14.livejournal.com]

What drives me completely barmy about this debate is ... aargh, I'm not sure I can even get into it.

1) I think you can look at trends in character portrayal, but the minute you get into one particular show, you are on much stickier ground, especially if it's Dr Who.

2) I'm sorry, but some fans are just looking for a fight, and 'racism' is a perfectly respectable excuse for a politically-conscious right-on sort of fight.

3) There seems to be some kind of logical fallacy that a character from an ethnic minority background has to present some sort of perfection in relation to that category. This is mind-boggling and were I to overanalyse it, could probably be evidence of deep deep racism.

[snorkackcatcher]

3) is the aspect that bugs me too. If you have a white male character, obviously culture dictates that they have the privilege of being good, bad or indifferent without it automatically being taken as a comment on white-maleness generally. Fandom noting correctly that this privilege is not a good thing, and then when characters who aren't white males appear ... not allowing them to be good, bad or indifferent without it automatically being taken as a comment on non-white-maleness generally, seems pretty much self-defeating.

[themolesmother.livejournal.com]

That seems like a very reasonable and not uninteresting arc to me. If you think it would have been in any significant way different if a white actress had been cast as Martha (and since Freema Agyeman only got the role after playing a completely different character in the S2 finale, that wasn't entirely unlikely), then I fear we have some serious points of disagreement on the interpretation of the 'text'. I don't see why an offhand remark from RTD should raise any problems that weren't already completely clear from, you know, the actual series itself.

I have to admit I groaned aloud at that "bed scene" in the Shakespeare Code and at every "I love him but he doesn't love me" bit thereafter but that wasn't because Martha is black. I wanted to see a companion who would relate to the Doctor as an equal, the way Romana (my favourite) did. The end of Martha's arc was totally satisfying to me from that point of view.

I'm delighted to hear that "Donna loves the Doctor but she's not in love with him". I don't think I could stand to go through all the soppy stuff again :-).

MM

[snorkackcatcher]

I didn't mind the bed scene really (as it was played for comedy), but some of the later sappiness was indeed cringeworthy -- but because I felt sorry for Martha as a character, rather than as a black woman. I'm looking forward to seeing Donna again -- BBC3 reshowed The Runaway Bride about a week ago and it was a lot of fun.

To be fair, I suppose that one of the main points of most Who companions has always been that they can't quite relate to the Doctor as an equal, with the possible exception of a few geniuses like Zoe and Adric. Even Romana took a while because of her lack of experience in the fine art of wandering round time and space interfering in things that aren't, strictly speaking, any of your business. :)

[maple-clef.livejournal.com]

Blimey. I didn't quite know what was going on, so for one it's nice to have it explained - and I have to say I'd have come to the same conclusion as you have.

I hate the idea of writing a character with an agenda because of their background. Yes, Martha is black. She is also a very British, very intelligent (med student!) lass who is her own person. She is not Rose, and good for her. Her colour shouldn't even factor in to it, so it's a shame that it's made to be an issue.

[snorkackcatcher]

Yup, pretty much. I thought they trod a reasonable line with the issue -- where Martha's colour was relevant (e.g. in 1599 and 1913) they mentioned it in context, where it wasn't (future settings) they ignored it. You could argue either way about the writing of the present day episodes, I suppose, but on the whole it seemed no worse than a good-faith attempt with an occasional slip-up. For me, Martha is more interesting as a character than Rose (who began to grate a bit), but yeah, it is actually possible for people to agree or disagree on that without colour being key.

[bana05.livejournal.com]

Also here via who_daily.

I hate the idea of writing a character with an agenda because of their background.

Nor should you, but you also shouldn't write a character and completely disregard some of the histories and experiences she might endure because of her characteristics--in this singular case, race--or ignore the fact there will be specific coding/subconscious messages one takes away from her just because she is a CoC.

Her colour shouldn't even factor in to it, so it's a shame that it's made to be an issue.

But her color does factor into it, and I don't understand why it shouldn't. That's a fact of life even now in 2007-2008. If Martha was another white companion, this whole racial dodgy issue wouldn't exist along with the sexist issue, but you cannot ignore the fact Martha is a black character and with it all sorts of unique concerns that come with it. The Britain in Doctor Who has (mostly) the same history that real Britain does, and so for her race to not matter at all/bring about some issues is a rewriting of history even the Doctor can't do ( (except, you know, they did with New York 1930s, which completely was some sort of Utopia and made me grind my teeth).

[-ragdoll13-.livejournal.com]

I love you. I was so sick of everyone going completely crazy over one little (if in fact real) quote. You rock at life!

[snorkackcatcher]

Thanks. :)

[04nbod.livejournal.com]

excellent post and i completely agree. I said pretty much the same thing at my journal (behind the f-lock because of wankers causing trouble of course).

[snorkackcatcher]

Thanks. :)

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

I agree with most of this. I'm pretty disappointed that so much of fandom has been quick to accept the Daily Mail, of all things, as a reliable source of information and that the 'second best' quote seems to be widely attributed to RTD, rather than some journalist who obviously doesn't like Martha. (Too sophisicated? WTF?)

you can go two ways with your CoCs, or indeed characters from any other historically maligned or underrepresented group. You can write them as a demographic, or you can write them as a character.

There is a third option, that you balance the two by writing CoCs as individuals, whilst being conscious of the issues that come with their demographic, and having a critical awareness of your own work in order to avoid inadvertently stereotyping them or producing negative subtexts.

I think the makers of DW have mistepped in having the only two black companions both feeling under-appreciated by the Doctor. It's not that the Doctor doesn't treat white companions badly sometimes as well - arguably he treated Jack much worse than Martha - but there are a number of white characters with whom he is more generous with his praise and affection. When both Mickey and Martha face similar issues of being made to feel less important than a white character, and it doesn't make logical sense for the Doctor himself to be racist, that's problematic.

Still, I don't think it's necessarily an insurmountable problem, nor do I believe that Martha's many wonderful moments and the very positive aspects of her story-arc should be forgotten because of an issue with the Doctor's attitude. Martha has clearly been written as a character we can find admirable and likable, and I cannot believe that someone who wrote her kicking ass and taking names in such style sees her as in any way second-best.

[snorkackcatcher]

The third way is good if you can manage it -- but the trouble is that once you start second-guessing yourself, it's difficult to stop. You hurt your ability to write the character and may well end up stereotyping anyway. Calling it a 'misstep' is probably the fairest thing to do -- it implies that it's fixable by just making a small course change without changing the fundamentals. Although some in fandom would disagree. (Then again, it's really just us in the active internet fandom who discuss and analyse and look for meaning in every small detail and like to call ourselves 'fandom', ignoring the vastly wider 'fandom' of people who tune in weekly for a show but don't make a hobby out of it.)

As for being underappreciated, that seems to be a pretty standard thing for companions, though -- Rose is rather an exception (for reasons that don't entirely convince, but I'll buy). Even Sarah Jane just got dumped without so much as a backward glance, and the Doctor's a complete git towards Donna a lot of the time in The Runaway Bride -- I'm looking forward to seeing how that's played out in the new series, I suspect quite similar to Martha, at least for a while.

Then again, elsewhere in that interview he refers to Tate as 'a proper equal, she challenges him, we haven't seen that before' take that, Rosefen -- I think from context that he's referring to the actress rather than the character, though. Incidentally, I haven't seen the interview in its entirety posted anywhere (definitely not the Mail's site) -- would it be worth OCRing in and posting?

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

Here via Who Daily -- and I hope it's okay to respectfully disagree.

RTD's record on race isn't limited to Martha, and to minimize the whole issue as an overreaction is to ignore what's really a trend that extends beyond Doctor Who. The character of Bellino in Casanova, for example, suffers a fate remarkably similar to Martha's. And then there's Mickey. *sigh* Groveling in terror and clinging to Rose's leg. *double sigh* And Tosh, the inherently uninteresting, rejected by white male, brainiac wallflower in Torchwood.

What I think is actually going on here is that minorities tend to get cast in roles RTD sees as ever-so-slightly secondary -- not secondary enough to be obviously minor, but not The Most Important One. And of course, that ever-so-slightly-secondary one tends to be the one rejected by the hero. And voila -- unintentional insertion of dodgy racial subtext. It goes way beyond coincidence.

And the second point I want to bring up is in response to this:

Yep, Martha is second best to Rose ... to the Doctor. This is obvious. To him, Rose was supposed to be the greatest thing since they invented sonic screwdrivers (not sure why, personally, but hey, tastes differ).

Leaving aside all questions of race -- what a crappy idea. I'm not asking for the Doctor to be perfect or happy or easy to get along with. But for him to be so selfish, petty and blind ruins the premise of the show. How come one can say he's an alien and couldn't possibly be concerned about race (which I don't buy, either, because he's not an alien, he's a fictional character who can only ever represent the attitudes of his creators and never his own); but he's quite human-like in his supposed inability to move on from his dead(ish) ex-girlfriend? I call selective aliennness! But really, what I see here is just a bland romance story, where an automatic assumption is made that the audience would think less of the hero if he didn't have a "proper" grieving period. Which I think just underestimates the audience's ability to think outside the box.

I do know what you're getting at, and god knows you're right in cautioning against giving any credit to stupid tabloids -- but in this case, the reporter is merely pointing out what was glaringly obvious anyway. The Martha character arc misfired. RTD just got lucky that the season included enough really good individual scripts to somewhat make up for it.

[bana05.livejournal.com]

I agree with this completely.

[snorkackcatcher]

Disagreement is fine -- although I might in turn disagree with the disagreement. :)

I can't really comment usefully on RTD's record as Torchwood is the only other stuff of his I've seen (and even that, only a few episodes). I'm not sure that I'd call Tosh 'inherently uninteresting' though (although since the rest of them are more like 'complete wankers', that could be considered a compliment).

More generally -- my personal rule of thumb for this sort of argument is to ask 'would there be any less criticism if characters X and Y switched round?'. In the case of Torchwood, if Ianto or Owen or Gwen had been the CoC, I'd imagine the storm of protest at the portrayal would have been even worse. And as for Rose and Martha -- well, on watching/rewatching S2 Who recently, I was somewhat gobsmacked by the patronising way the Doctor often treats Rose. It's not malicious, but indulgent, like a favoured idiot child -- again, it's not the way he treats Martha (almost always with respect for her intelligence, if not her feelings), and again, if the skin colours were the other way round it would look terrible.

No, I know that's not conclusive or anything, but as I say ... rule of thumb, if you can flip things round in this way and it looks much the same or worse, or if you get to a point where essentially nothing but Mary Suedom for the CoC would escape criticism, then maybe the original argument isn't as strong as it looks.


But for him to be so selfish, petty and blind ruins the premise of the show ... where an automatic assumption is made that the audience would think less of the hero if he didn't have a "proper" grieving period

Again ... I'm not sure the premise of the show hasn't pretty much always been like that, with the Doctor a strange mixture of real concern for his friends and massive indifference. In the old days he was always taking them off to random places because he wanted to go there, and you had things like One sabotaging the Tardis to go and explore the Dalek city, and Four practically bundling Sarah Jane out without so much as a proper goodbye, but if (OK, when) they got into trouble he ran around like a mad thing to get them out of it. Nine and Ten aren't doing much different. And earlier Doctors had grieving periods for people who'd actually been lost, like Adric.

Eh, I think I had something else to say but it escapes me for the moment. :)

Wandering over from who_daily

[aligoestonz.livejournal.com]

'If you write a drama and put David Tennant on screen next to Billie Piper you are telling a love story. If they worked in a factory and talked about sprockets to each other all day long, the audience would still read that into it.

'If you put two people roughly the same age on screen and make it clear that they are not brother and sister, then you are telling a love story.'

It's at times like this I really regret that I don't have a *headdesk* icon. Whatever happened to friendship? It's perfectly possibly to get on with someone, even be very fond of them, without actually being in love with them - even if they are as pretty as BP and DT. And even if the audience do still read that into it, he doesn't have to encourage it! This may not necessarily be support for the "RTD is a bastard" theory, but it's not much of a defence against the "RTD is a muppet" theory.

Re: Wandering over from who_daily

[snorkackcatcher]

Yeah, *headdesk* was pretty much my reaction when I read the comment too. It basically says "Shipper logic? Makes PERFECT SENSE to me." D'oh!