Discussion:
NAtional review article on Doctor Who
(too old to reply)
The Doctor
2018-02-26 02:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Source

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/

CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM

Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who

By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of Doctor Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans’ relationship to it.
The announcement that Jodie Whittaker will become the first woman to play the title role on the world’s longest-running science-fiction television program elicited reactions so predictable they could have been scripted. Those who had clamored for the last decade that the next Doctor should be female applauded Whittaker’s casting as a blow for female equality and finally bringing Doctor Who into the 21st century. Those who snuff the approach of political correctness in every tainted breeze took to Twitter (do they exist anywhere else?) to rail against this surrender to the social-justice warriors and vowed never to watch the show again. And those with better things to do used their Sunday in more productive pursuits, such as betting on which character(s) would die on the season premiere of Game of Thrones.
I don’t care about reactions to the announcement, positive or negative. My concern is the impact such a radical change will have on the fabric of a series whose first episode aired the day after the JFK assassination, and fans’ relationship to it, a relationship that has experienced more than its share of trials and tribulations. Put simply, Jodie Whittaker’s success in the role will depend on whether she’s the Doctor or a woman first. Yet because of the circumstances in which she was chosen, she may not be able to be either.
Until now there was never a question of whether the Doctor would be a man or the Doctor first, since there was no distinction between the two. With Whittaker’s assumption of the role, that distinction will now exist. Something in the Doctor’s character will change. The question is whether what is changing is fundamental. I would say yes; sex is an integral component of personal identity. The BBC thinks otherwise. It must, or it wouldn’t be making the change.
From Doctor Who’s inception, its makers have operated under the assumption that their hero is male. One need only look at how he has been characterized over the last half-century to see the truth of this. Take the current Doctor. He is abrupt, condescending, domineering, and brusque, has little sense of social decorum, and often treats humans as amusing pets who can talk but have nothing worthwhile to say. He doesn’t suffer fools gladly or care what others think. The Doctor’s lack of social graces became so bad that his traveling companion had him write cue cards with dialogue suggestions on them so he could feign a modicum of empathy and have normal interactions with the humans he met.
Whatever the Doctor’s personality in each incarnation, its traits are generally ones we associate with men. From William Hartnell’s grandfatherly gentility (the First Doctor was literally a grandfather, his first companion being his granddaughter) to Peter Capaldi’s evolution from “rude genius” to “aging rock star” to “hip teacher,” the Doctor has been recognizably male.
This is one reason why the transformation may seem especially dramatic with a woman replacing Capaldi, whose Twelfth Doctor is something of a jerk. Many of his characteristics are the type that, though tolerated (and even encouraged) in a man, are much less so in a woman; indeed, are the sort that get a woman who exhibits them labeled “bossy” or a “bitch.”
Each Doctor has a different personality and temperament. So too will the 13th. Yet by making the Doctor a woman, new showrunner Chris Chibnall and company have placed themselves on the horns of a dilemma.
Even the kind of fictional character the Doctor is, is prototypically male: the eccentric mad scientist. None of the Doctors was madder or more eccentric than Tom Baker’s Fourth, with his teeth and curls, impossibly long scarf, and penchant to offer jelly babies to everyone he encountered. The Eleventh, as eccentric as ever, described himself as a “mad man with a box,” a box that travels anywhere in time and space. An eccentric woman is Eleanor Abernathy.
Each Doctor has a different personality and temperament. So too will the 13th. Yet by making the Doctor a woman, new showrunner Chris Chibnall and company have placed themselves on the horns of a dilemma. The 13th Doctor must be different, but in ways that cannot be immediately attributed to her biology. For if she is different in ways that can be chalked up to her being female, then it does make a difference that she’s a woman. Whereas the whole point of casting a woman in the role is to prove that it doesn’t matter. (Though I suspect those who spent the past decade advocating the change rather think it does.)
The Doctor can be a woman because there’s nothing special about being one. There’s nothing unique or significant about womanhood. It’s not an essential trait or characteristic — and that is the only way the Doctor can still be the Doctor while being a woman, that it is something indifferent. For if the Doctor changes in some fundamental way because he is now a woman, then he won’t be the Doctor any more. Which would mean, therefore, that in fact the Doctor can’t be a woman. Hence the dilemma.
The most beloved of all the Doctor’s companions, Sarah Jane Smith, once asserted that “there’s nothing only about being a girl.” The BBC no longer agrees. Actions speak louder than words, and the BBC’s says that men and women are interchangeable.
What purpose, then, does making the Doctor a woman serve? If the answer is that “it proves that a woman can be the Doctor,” that is an answer in terms of the real world. What is the answer to that question in terms of Doctor Who? That’s the question to ask. What will change with a female Doctor?
One of the main differences between the current version of the show and the original that aired from 1963 to 1989 is that there is, to coin a phrase, a lot more hanky-panky in the TARDIS now than there used to be. The Tenth Doctor, played by David Tennant, was something of a romantic idol. His female companions pined after him. Matt Smith’s Eleventh Doctor even became a husband, marrying a character who in a plot twist was revealed to be the daughter of his companions. With Capaldi, the oldest actor to play the part in several decades, occupying the TARDIS, the program has been thankfully free of soap-operatic elements.
One can readily envision them returning with Whittaker, who is 35. The relationship stuff was tedious when the Doctor was a man. Imagine how rebarbative it will be after three years of everyone hitting on a female Doctor, villains included. And worse yet, commenting on her looks and questioning her intelligence, competence, authority, leadership, what have you. Aha! you say, that’s exactly what happens to women in the real world. Just so. But Doctor Who is not a university course on sociology. It’s a television program. A single note played endlessly can no longer be heard.
It’s an interesting thought experiment, turning the Doctor into a woman and seeing how people react to that. But a TV show isn’t a thought experiment. One season of “Oh my God, Doctor, you have breasts!” would be bad enough. Three seasons’ worth, the average length of an actor’s time in the role, would be intolerable. Viewers will get very tired very fast of being reminded each episode that the Doctor has internal plumbing now.
The temptation to remind them will be strong, especially if hostility to Whittaker’s casting persists or even increases. When asked in February about the possibility of a woman’s taking over the role, Chibnall declared that he didn’t want the casting of the new Doctor to be a gimmick. Yet in a statement accompanying the announcement of Whittaker’s casting, he proclaimed that he always wanted the 13th Doctor to be a woman.
Either Chibnall is lying now or he was lying in February, because casting a woman in the lead after it’s been played by men since the program’s debut is the definition of a gimmick. It can’t come across any other way. This puts Whittaker in an untenable situation, since she is being asked to solve problems that are beyond her ability and remit to fix.
Doctor Who’s ratings are currently half of what they were at the peak of the revival’s popularity at the start of the decade. A common refrain is to attribute this decline to Capaldi’s age; younger audiences, this argument runs, simply can’t relate to an older Doctor. More likely, fans have realized that the show is out of ideas and running on fumes.
The series is ripping itself off more and more. This season was especially egregious, with each episode containing numerous homages, references, and allusions to earlier stories. The season finale was especially notable in this regard. It was inevitable that “new” Who would borrow elements from “classic” Who. They are, after all, supposed to be the same show. The problem lately is that new Whohas taken to rehashing itself. Stories in this, its tenth season, bore strong resemblances to ones that aired only a few years ago.
The problems besetting Doctor Who are of a nature that cannot be resolved by giving the Doctor a sex change. Repetitive plots, convoluted story arcs, uninteresting villains — what ails the show isn’t who plays the Doctor but unimaginative writing that more and more each week rehashes and repackages earlier storylines. Doctor Who has become one big metacommentary on itself. No wonder fans have gotten bored and casual viewers have drifted away.
How does Jodie Whittaker solve that? If you’re just going to do the standard base-under-siege or monster-of-the-week scenario, but now with double the X chromosomes, the metamorphosis is literally going to be a cosmetic one. This would make casting a woman seem even more like a gimmick born of desperation to boost ratings.
The pressure on Whittaker to deliver will be immense. The pressure on fans will be even greater. Which is why the most unforgivable consequence of the BBC’s decision is the way it forever alters fans’ relationship to Doctor Who.
Every fan likes some Doctors (my favorite is the Fifth, played by Peter Davison) more than others. Hitherto this has been a matter of personal taste and aesthetics. No one suspects ulterior motives if a fan doesn’t take a shine to William Hartnell’s First Doctor, an obstreperous codger whose serials unfold at a leisurely, even turgid pace in black-and-white without modern flourishes; or dislikes Jon Pertwee’s Third Doctor, whose adventures often descend into interminable environmental sermonizing.
Will anyone be allowed to dislike the 13th Doctor for normal reasons? I doubt it and strongly suspect anyone who demurs will reflexively be accused of sexism. The imperative to defend Whittaker’s selection and everything it stands for will simply be too strong to overcome. As Hannah Long writes, “the casting insulate[s] the show from any artistic criticism, because it elevates the enterprise from entertainment to cause.”
The producers have made it so that liking (or not) the new Doctor can no longer be merely a matter of individual preference. It is, rather, an obligation, a duty, an expression of one’s social and ideological attitudes. Embracing her is a sign you’re a good citizen and human being. To oppose her is to oppose progress and the emancipation of women. The BBC needn’t worry. Its viewers would never do anything so vulgar. They’re too busy basking in the good feelings to wonder why a TV show that is a half century old suddenly must transform itself into a vehicle for proselytizing feminism or why one person’s art should be conscripted into another person’s cause.
What happens if they start wondering? Who gets the blame if things go wrong, if the 13th Doctor proves unlucky? Whittaker, for not being up to the task of bearing the burden placed on her shoulders? Or will fans be accused of being Luddites unwilling to accept the 21st century?
A recurrent motif in “new” Who is that the Doctor is a killer with the blood of countless beings on his hands. His quest for redemption for having annihilated his own people to end a war that threatened the universe is arguably the primary theme of the 2005 revival. The Doctor’s decision to wipe out his own people to end the war and save creation was so awful, so cataclysmic, that future Doctors disowned the incarnation that made it, denying him even the name “Doctor.”
It was a judgment imbued with a kind of divine fury and righteousness. It was terrible. Yet it was just. In other words, exactly the sort of decision we can envision a man making. Can we envision a woman making it? Can there, that is, be a female War Doctor (as the Doctor who made it is known)? And if there were, for which would she incur more opprobrium — pushing the button, or not? Such is the trap the BBC has now placed itself in. People will complain when a woman acts like the Doctor — and when the Doctor acts like a woman.
If the Doctor can’t be a woman, then Doctor Who with a woman in the title role is no longer Doctor Who. With this change, something essential, something ineffable, is being lost which, once gone, will never be regained. The Cloister Bell is tolling. I fear it won’t stop as long as the 13th Doctor is piloting the TARDIS.

-- Varad Mehta is a historian who lives in suburban Philadelphia.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain
trotsky
2018-02-26 09:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of Doctor Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans’ relationship to it.
National Review whining about a character being a woman, what are the odds?
Ubiquitous
2018-02-26 10:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of Doctor Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans’ relationship to it.
National Review whining about a character being a woman, what are the odds?
You might want to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word "whine" so you don't
make a fool of yourself again.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Timothy Bruening
2018-02-26 11:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of Doctor Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans’ relationship to it.
National Review whining about a character being a woman, what are the odds?
You might want to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word "whine" so you don't
make a fool of yourself again.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Don't give Trump ideas!
The Doctor
2018-02-26 15:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of
Doctor Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans’
relationship to it.
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by trotsky
National Review whining about a character being a woman, what are the odds?
You might want to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word
"whine" so you don't
Post by Ubiquitous
make a fool of yourself again.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Don't give Trump ideas!
Not funny.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain
FPP
2018-02-26 13:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of Doctor Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans’ relationship to it.
National Review whining about a character being a woman, what are the odds?
You might want to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word "whine" so you don't
make a fool of yourself again.
What's the matter? Jealous of someone coming for your crown?
Don't sweat it, you have nothing to worry about.
--
White House: "Don't call it Trumpcare." 3-8-17
"How bad does something have to be, that Donald Trump doesn't want to
put his name on it?" -SNL 3-11-17
The Doctor
2018-02-26 15:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of Doctor
Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans’ relationship to
it.
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by trotsky
National Review whining about a character being a woman, what are the odds?
You might want to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word
"whine" so you don't
Post by Ubiquitous
make a fool of yourself again.
What's the matter? Jealous of someone coming for your crown?
Don't sweat it, you have nothing to worry about.
--
White House: "Don't call it Trumpcare." 3-8-17
"How bad does something have to be, that Donald Trump doesn't want to
put his name on it?" -SNL 3-11-17
What crown.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain
trotsky
2018-02-26 21:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
      July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of Doctor
Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans’ relationship
to it.
National Review whining about a character being a woman, what are the odds?
You might want to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word "whine" so you don't
make a fool of yourself again.
What's the matter?  Jealous of someone coming for your crown?
Don't sweat it, you have nothing to worry about.
I think Ubi lost a debate with himself just by posting that drivel. And
doesn't he know that comments about what whining is aren't TV related?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The Doctor
2018-02-26 15:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of Doctor
Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans’ relationship to
it.
Post by trotsky
National Review whining about a character being a woman, what are the odds?
You might want to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word "whine" so you don't
make a fool of yourself again.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
good point.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain
The Doctor
2018-02-26 15:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
Post by The Doctor
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of Doctor
Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans’ relationship to
it.
National Review whining about a character being a woman, what are the odds?
Over 50%?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain
solar penguin
2018-02-26 19:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
     July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of
Doctor Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans'
relationship to it.
Well, duh! The producers are _always_ irrevocably altering the show and
the fans' relationship to it. That's part of their job. There's something
wrong if they don't. (Or do the people at the National Review really
think the programme hasn't changed since 1963?)
Post by trotsky
National Review whining about a character being a woman, what are the odds?
Agamemnon
2018-02-26 23:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of
Doctor Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans'
relationship to it.
Well, duh! The producers are _always_ irrevocably altering the show and
the fans' relationship to it. That's part of their job. There's something
wrong if they don't. (Or do the people at the National Review really
That's not what they're supposed to do unless there's something wrong
with it. The fact that they did this when there was nothing wrong with
it is what has ruined it.
Post by solar penguin
think the programme hasn't changed since 1963?)
The Doctor was always a man. What was wrong with him being a man?
Capaldi was a bad choice of actor, and Moffat should have quit at the
same time of Matt Smith or been sacked after Capaldi's first series.
That's when it all began to go to the dogs. Going further and further
down PC loony lane which has caused viewing figures to collapse is
totally crazy!
Post by solar penguin
Post by trotsky
National Review whining about a character being a woman, what are the odds?
The Doctor
2018-02-26 23:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by solar penguin
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
Post by solar penguin
Post by trotsky
Post by The Doctor
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of
Doctor Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans'
relationship to it.
Well, duh! The producers are _always_ irrevocably altering the show and
the fans' relationship to it. That's part of their job. There's something
wrong if they don't. (Or do the people at the National Review really
That's not what they're supposed to do unless there's something wrong
with it. The fact that they did this when there was nothing wrong with
it is what has ruined it.
Post by solar penguin
think the programme hasn't changed since 1963?)
The Doctor was always a man. What was wrong with him being a man?
Capaldi was a bad choice of actor, and Moffat should have quit at the
same time of Matt Smith or been sacked after Capaldi's first series.
That's when it all began to go to the dogs. Going further and further
down PC loony lane which has caused viewing figures to collapse is
totally crazy!
Solar PEnguin should become solar sheep.
Post by The Doctor
Post by solar penguin
Post by trotsky
National Review whining about a character being a woman, what are the odds?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain
Timothy Bruening
2018-02-26 22:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
Each Doctor has a different personality and temperament. So too will the 13th. Yet by making the Doctor a woman, new showrunner Chris Chibnall and company have placed themselves on the horns of a dilemma. The 13th Doctor must be different, but in ways that cannot be immediately attributed to her biology. For if she is different in ways that can be chalked up to her being female, then it does make a difference that she’s a woman. Whereas the whole point of casting a woman in the role is to prove that it doesn’t matter. (Though I suspect those who spent the past decade advocating the change rather think it does.)
The Doctor can be a woman because there’s nothing special about being one. There’s nothing unique or significant about womanhood. It’s not an essential trait or characteristic — and that is the only way the Doctor can still be the Doctor while being a woman, that it is something indifferent. For if the Doctor changes in some fundamental way because he is now a woman, then he won’t be the Doctor any more. Which would mean, therefore, that in fact the Doctor can’t be a woman. Hence the dilemma.
Aggy's solution: Make JodieDoc an avid hunter/biology experimenter.
The Doctor
2018-02-26 22:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
Post by The Doctor
Each Doctor has a different personality and temperament. So too will
the 13th. Yet by making the Doctor a woman, new showrunner Chris
Chibnall and company have placed themselves on the horns of a dilemma.
The 13th Doctor must be different, but in ways that cannot be
immediately attributed to her biology. For if she is different in ways
that can be chalked up to her being female, then it does make a
difference that she’s a woman. Whereas the whole point of casting a
woman in the role is to prove that it doesn’t matter. (Though I
suspect those who spent the past decade advocating the change rather
think it does.)
Post by The Doctor
The Doctor can be a woman because there’s nothing special about
being one. There’s nothing unique or significant about womanhood.
It’s not an essential trait or characteristic — and that is the only
way the Doctor can still be the Doctor while being a woman, that it is
something indifferent. For if the Doctor changes in some fundamental way
because he is now a woman, then he won’t be the Doctor any more. Which
would mean, therefore, that in fact the Doctor can’t be a woman. Hence
the dilemma.
Aggy's solution: Make JodieDoc an avid hunter/biology experimenter.
Aga has a different solution.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain
Agamemnon
2018-02-26 22:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
Each Doctor has a different personality and temperament. So too will the 13th. Yet by making the Doctor a woman, new showrunner Chris Chibnall and company have placed themselves on the horns of a dilemma. The 13th Doctor must be different, but in ways that cannot be immediately attributed to her biology. For if she is different in ways that can be chalked up to her being female, then it does make a difference that she’s a woman. Whereas the whole point of casting a woman in the role is to prove that it doesn’t matter. (Though I suspect those who spent the past decade advocating the change rather think it does.)
The Doctor can be a woman because there’s nothing special about being one. There’s nothing unique or significant about womanhood. It’s not an essential trait or characteristic — and that is the only way the Doctor can still be the Doctor while being a woman, that it is something indifferent. For if the Doctor changes in some fundamental way because he is now a woman, then he won’t be the Doctor any more. Which would mean, therefore, that in fact the Doctor can’t be a woman. Hence the dilemma.
Aggy's solution: Make JodieDoc an avid hunter/biology experimenter.
Exactly! My solution works. If Chibnall doesn't do something similar,
and it doesn't look likely with the Mork & Mindy costume, then it will
all blow up in his face.
The Doctor
2018-02-26 23:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Each Doctor has a different personality and temperament. So too will
the 13th. Yet by making the Doctor a woman, new showrunner Chris
Chibnall and company have placed themselves on the horns of a dilemma.
The 13th Doctor must be different, but in ways that cannot be
immediately attributed to her biology. For if she is different in ways
that can be chalked up to her being female, then it does make a
difference that she’s a woman. Whereas the whole point of casting a
woman in the role is to prove that it doesn’t matter. (Though I
suspect those who spent the past decade advocating the change rather
think it does.)
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
The Doctor can be a woman because there’s nothing special about
being one. There’s nothing unique or significant about womanhood.
It’s not an essential trait or characteristic — and that is the only
way the Doctor can still be the Doctor while being a woman, that it is
something indifferent. For if the Doctor changes in some fundamental way
because he is now a woman, then he won’t be the Doctor any more. Which
would mean, therefore, that in fact the Doctor can’t be a woman. Hence
the dilemma.
Post by Timothy Bruening
Aggy's solution: Make JodieDoc an avid hunter/biology experimenter.
Exactly! My solution works. If Chibnall doesn't do something similar,
and it doesn't look likely with the Mork & Mindy costume, then it will
all blow up in his face.
It already is.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain
Agamemnon
2018-02-26 22:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of Doctor Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans’ relationship to it.
The announcement that Jodie Whittaker will become the first woman to play the title role on the world’s longest-running science-fiction television program elicited reactions so predictable they could have been scripted. Those who had clamored for the last decade that the next Doctor should be female applauded Whittaker’s casting as a blow for female equality and finally bringing Doctor Who into the 21st century. Those who snuff the approach of political correctness in every tainted breeze took to Twitter (do they exist anywhere else?) to rail against this surrender to the social-justice warriors and vowed never to watch the show again. And those with better things to do used their Sunday in more productive pursuits, such as betting on which character(s) would die on the season premiere of Game of Thrones.
I don’t care about reactions to the announcement, positive or negative. My concern is the impact such a radical change will have on the fabric of a series whose first episode aired the day after the JFK assassination, and fans’ relationship to it, a relationship that has experienced more than its share of trials and tribulations. Put simply, Jodie Whittaker’s success in the role will depend on whether she’s the Doctor or a woman first. Yet because of the circumstances in which she was chosen, she may not be able to be either.
Until now there was never a question of whether the Doctor would be a man or the Doctor first, since there was no distinction between the two. With Whittaker’s assumption of the role, that distinction will now exist. Something in the Doctor’s character will change. The question is whether what is changing is fundamental. I would say yes; sex is an integral component of personal identity. The BBC thinks otherwise. It must, or it wouldn’t be making the change.
From Doctor Who’s inception, its makers have operated under the assumption that their hero is male. One need only look at how he has been characterized over the last half-century to see the truth of this. Take the current Doctor. He is abrupt, condescending, domineering, and brusque, has little sense of social decorum, and often treats humans as amusing pets who can talk but have nothing worthwhile to say. He doesn’t suffer fools gladly or care what others think. The Doctor’s lack of social graces became so bad that his traveling companion had him write cue cards with dialogue suggestions on them so he could feign a modicum of empathy and have normal interactions with the humans he met.
Whatever the Doctor’s personality in each incarnation, its traits are generally ones we associate with men. From William Hartnell’s grandfatherly gentility (the First Doctor was literally a grandfather, his first companion being his granddaughter) to Peter Capaldi’s evolution from “rude genius” to “aging rock star” to “hip teacher,” the Doctor has been recognizably male.
This is one reason why the transformation may seem especially dramatic with a woman replacing Capaldi, whose Twelfth Doctor is something of a jerk. Many of his characteristics are the type that, though tolerated (and even encouraged) in a man, are much less so in a woman; indeed, are the sort that get a woman who exhibits them labeled “bossy” or a “bitch.”
Each Doctor has a different personality and temperament. So too will the 13th. Yet by making the Doctor a woman, new showrunner Chris Chibnall and company have placed themselves on the horns of a dilemma.
Even the kind of fictional character the Doctor is, is prototypically male: the eccentric mad scientist. None of the Doctors was madder or more eccentric than Tom Baker’s Fourth, with his teeth and curls, impossibly long scarf, and penchant to offer jelly babies to everyone he encountered. The Eleventh, as eccentric as ever, described himself as a “mad man with a box,” a box that travels anywhere in time and space. An eccentric woman is Eleanor Abernathy.
Each Doctor has a different personality and temperament. So too will the 13th. Yet by making the Doctor a woman, new showrunner Chris Chibnall and company have placed themselves on the horns of a dilemma. The 13th Doctor must be different, but in ways that cannot be immediately attributed to her biology. For if she is different in ways that can be chalked up to her being female, then it does make a difference that she’s a woman. Whereas the whole point of casting a woman in the role is to prove that it doesn’t matter. (Though I suspect those who spent the past decade advocating the change rather think it does.)
The Doctor can be a woman because there’s nothing special about being one. There’s nothing unique or significant about womanhood. It’s not an essential trait or characteristic — and that is the only way the Doctor can still be the Doctor while being a woman, that it is something indifferent. For if the Doctor changes in some fundamental way because he is now a woman, then he won’t be the Doctor any more. Which would mean, therefore, that in fact the Doctor can’t be a woman. Hence the dilemma.
The most beloved of all the Doctor’s companions, Sarah Jane Smith, once asserted that “there’s nothing only about being a girl.” The BBC no longer agrees. Actions speak louder than words, and the BBC’s says that men and women are interchangeable.
What purpose, then, does making the Doctor a woman serve? If the answer is that “it proves that a woman can be the Doctor,” that is an answer in terms of the real world. What is the answer to that question in terms of Doctor Who? That’s the question to ask. What will change with a female Doctor?
One of the main differences between the current version of the show and the original that aired from 1963 to 1989 is that there is, to coin a phrase, a lot more hanky-panky in the TARDIS now than there used to be. The Tenth Doctor, played by David Tennant, was something of a romantic idol. His female companions pined after him. Matt Smith’s Eleventh Doctor even became a husband, marrying a character who in a plot twist was revealed to be the daughter of his companions. With Capaldi, the oldest actor to play the part in several decades, occupying the TARDIS, the program has been thankfully free of soap-operatic elements.
One can readily envision them returning with Whittaker, who is 35. The relationship stuff was tedious when the Doctor was a man. Imagine how rebarbative it will be after three years of everyone hitting on a female Doctor, villains included. And worse yet, commenting on her looks and questioning her intelligence, competence, authority, leadership, what have you. Aha! you say, that’s exactly what happens to women in the real world. Just so. But Doctor Who is not a university course on sociology. It’s a television program. A single note played endlessly can no longer be heard.
It’s an interesting thought experiment, turning the Doctor into a woman and seeing how people react to that. But a TV show isn’t a thought experiment. One season of “Oh my God, Doctor, you have breasts!” would be bad enough. Three seasons’ worth, the average length of an actor’s time in the role, would be intolerable. Viewers will get very tired very fast of being reminded each episode that the Doctor has internal plumbing now.
The temptation to remind them will be strong, especially if hostility to Whittaker’s casting persists or even increases. When asked in February about the possibility of a woman’s taking over the role, Chibnall declared that he didn’t want the casting of the new Doctor to be a gimmick. Yet in a statement accompanying the announcement of Whittaker’s casting, he proclaimed that he always wanted the 13th Doctor to be a woman.
Either Chibnall is lying now or he was lying in February, because casting a woman in the lead after it’s been played by men since the program’s debut is the definition of a gimmick. It can’t come across any other way. This puts Whittaker in an untenable situation, since she is being asked to solve problems that are beyond her ability and remit to fix.
Doctor Who’s ratings are currently half of what they were at the peak of the revival’s popularity at the start of the decade. A common refrain is to attribute this decline to Capaldi’s age; younger audiences, this argument runs, simply can’t relate to an older Doctor. More likely, fans have realized that the show is out of ideas and running on fumes.
The series is ripping itself off more and more. This season was especially egregious, with each episode containing numerous homages, references, and allusions to earlier stories. The season finale was especially notable in this regard. It was inevitable that “new” Who would borrow elements from “classic” Who. They are, after all, supposed to be the same show. The problem lately is that new Whohas taken to rehashing itself. Stories in this, its tenth season, bore strong resemblances to ones that aired only a few years ago.
The problems besetting Doctor Who are of a nature that cannot be resolved by giving the Doctor a sex change. Repetitive plots, convoluted story arcs, uninteresting villains — what ails the show isn’t who plays the Doctor but unimaginative writing that more and more each week rehashes and repackages earlier storylines. Doctor Who has become one big metacommentary on itself. No wonder fans have gotten bored and casual viewers have drifted away.
How does Jodie Whittaker solve that? If you’re just going to do the standard base-under-siege or monster-of-the-week scenario, but now with double the X chromosomes, the metamorphosis is literally going to be a cosmetic one. This would make casting a woman seem even more like a gimmick born of desperation to boost ratings.
The pressure on Whittaker to deliver will be immense. The pressure on fans will be even greater. Which is why the most unforgivable consequence of the BBC’s decision is the way it forever alters fans’ relationship to Doctor Who.
Every fan likes some Doctors (my favorite is the Fifth, played by Peter Davison) more than others. Hitherto this has been a matter of personal taste and aesthetics. No one suspects ulterior motives if a fan doesn’t take a shine to William Hartnell’s First Doctor, an obstreperous codger whose serials unfold at a leisurely, even turgid pace in black-and-white without modern flourishes; or dislikes Jon Pertwee’s Third Doctor, whose adventures often descend into interminable environmental sermonizing.
Will anyone be allowed to dislike the 13th Doctor for normal reasons? I doubt it and strongly suspect anyone who demurs will reflexively be accused of sexism. The imperative to defend Whittaker’s selection and everything it stands for will simply be too strong to overcome. As Hannah Long writes, “the casting insulate[s] the show from any artistic criticism, because it elevates the enterprise from entertainment to cause.”
The producers have made it so that liking (or not) the new Doctor can no longer be merely a matter of individual preference. It is, rather, an obligation, a duty, an expression of one’s social and ideological attitudes. Embracing her is a sign you’re a good citizen and human being. To oppose her is to oppose progress and the emancipation of women. The BBC needn’t worry. Its viewers would never do anything so vulgar. They’re too busy basking in the good feelings to wonder why a TV show that is a half century old suddenly must transform itself into a vehicle for proselytizing feminism or why one person’s art should be conscripted into another person’s cause.
What happens if they start wondering? Who gets the blame if things go wrong, if the 13th Doctor proves unlucky? Whittaker, for not being up to the task of bearing the burden placed on her shoulders? Or will fans be accused of being Luddites unwilling to accept the 21st century?
A recurrent motif in “new” Who is that the Doctor is a killer with the blood of countless beings on his hands. His quest for redemption for having annihilated his own people to end a war that threatened the universe is arguably the primary theme of the 2005 revival. The Doctor’s decision to wipe out his own people to end the war and save creation was so awful, so cataclysmic, that future Doctors disowned the incarnation that made it, denying him even the name “Doctor.”
It was a judgment imbued with a kind of divine fury and righteousness. It was terrible. Yet it was just. In other words, exactly the sort of decision we can envision a man making. Can we envision a woman making it? Can there, that is, be a female War Doctor (as the Doctor who made it is known)? And if there were, for which would she incur more opprobrium — pushing the button, or not? Such is the trap the BBC has now placed itself in. People will complain when a woman acts like the Doctor — and when the Doctor acts like a woman.
If the Doctor can’t be a woman, then Doctor Who with a woman in the title role is no longer Doctor Who. With this change, something essential, something ineffable, is being lost which, once gone, will never be regained. The Cloister Bell is tolling. I fear it won’t stop as long as the 13th Doctor is piloting the TARDIS.
-- Varad Mehta is a historian who lives in suburban Philadelphia.
Well said! And now we've seen the choice of companions, the
soap-operatics, the silly Mork & Mindy costume, and the Game of
Thrones/Lord of the Ring's titles, and heard Whittaker's
incomprehensible accent, it's alienated just about everyone that wasn't
alienated already.

The backlash has already begun. Just look at the ratings and
condemnation of "Troy: Fall of a City", which has been called out for
it's cultural appropriation, offensive and racist casting, terrible
writing, and it's boring pacing and crass dialogue.
The Doctor
2018-02-26 23:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
Post by The Doctor
CULTURE
Why Can't the Doctor Be More Like a Woman?
By VARAD MEHTA
July 22, 2017 8:00 AM
Jodie Whittaker as the new Dr. Who
By changing its main character into a woman, the producers of Doctor
Who have irrevocably altered the show and fans’ relationship to
it.
Post by The Doctor
The announcement that Jodie Whittaker will become the first woman to
play the title role on the world’s longest-running
science-fiction television program elicited reactions so predictable
they could have been scripted. Those who had clamored for the last
decade that the next Doctor should be female applauded
Whittaker’s casting as a blow for female equality and finally
bringing Doctor Who into the 21st century. Those who snuff the
approach of political correctness in every tainted breeze took to
Twitter (do they exist anywhere else?) to rail against this surrender to
the social-justice warriors and vowed never to watch the show again. And
those with better things to do used their Sunday in more productive
pursuits, such as betting on which character(s) would die on the season
premiere of Game of Thrones.
Post by The Doctor
I don’t care about reactions to the announcement, positive or
negative. My concern is the impact such a radical change will have on
the fabric of a series whose first episode aired the day after the JFK
assassination, and fans’ relationship to it, a relationship that
has experienced more than its share of trials and tribulations. Put
simply, Jodie Whittaker’s success in the role will depend on
whether she’s the Doctor or a woman first. Yet because of the
circumstances in which she was chosen, she may not be able to be either.
Post by The Doctor
Until now there was never a question of whether the Doctor would be a
man or the Doctor first, since there was no distinction between the two.
With Whittaker’s assumption of the role, that distinction will
now exist. Something in the Doctor’s character will change. The
question is whether what is changing is fundamental. I would say yes;
sex is an integral component of personal identity. The BBC thinks
otherwise. It must, or it wouldn’t be making the change.
Post by The Doctor
From Doctor Who’s inception, its makers have operated under
the assumption that their hero is male. One need only look at how he has
been characterized over the last half-century to see the truth of this.
Take the current Doctor. He is abrupt, condescending, domineering, and
brusque, has little sense of social decorum, and often treats humans as
amusing pets who can talk but have nothing worthwhile to say. He
doesn’t suffer fools gladly or care what others think. The
Doctor’s lack of social graces became so bad that his traveling
companion had him write cue cards with dialogue suggestions on them so
he could feign a modicum of empathy and have normal interactions with
the humans he met.
Post by The Doctor
Whatever the Doctor’s personality in each incarnation, its
traits are generally ones we associate with men. From William
Hartnell’s grandfatherly gentility (the First Doctor was
literally a grandfather, his first companion being his granddaughter) to
Peter Capaldi’s evolution from “rude genius” to
“aging rock star” to “hip teacher,” the Doctor
has been recognizably male.
Post by The Doctor
This is one reason why the transformation may seem especially dramatic
with a woman replacing Capaldi, whose Twelfth Doctor is something of a
jerk. Many of his characteristics are the type that, though tolerated
(and even encouraged) in a man, are much less so in a woman; indeed, are
the sort that get a woman who exhibits them labeled “bossy”
or a “bitch.”
Post by The Doctor
Each Doctor has a different personality and temperament. So too will
the 13th. Yet by making the Doctor a woman, new showrunner Chris
Chibnall and company have placed themselves on the horns of a dilemma.
Post by The Doctor
Even the kind of fictional character the Doctor is, is prototypically
male: the eccentric mad scientist. None of the Doctors was madder or
more eccentric than Tom Baker’s Fourth, with his teeth and curls,
impossibly long scarf, and penchant to offer jelly babies to everyone he
encountered. The Eleventh, as eccentric as ever, described himselfÂ
as a “mad man with a box,” a box that travels anywhere in
time and space. An eccentric woman is Eleanor Abernathy.
Post by The Doctor
Each Doctor has a different personality and temperament. So too will
the 13th. Yet by making the Doctor a woman, new showrunner Chris
Chibnall and company have placed themselves on the horns of a dilemma.
The 13th Doctor must be different, but in ways that cannot be
immediately attributed to her biology. For if she is different in ways
that can be chalked up to her being female, then it does make a
difference that she’s a woman. Whereas the whole point of casting
a woman in the role is to prove that it doesn’t matter. (Though I
suspect those who spent the past decade advocating the change rather
think it does.)
Post by The Doctor
The Doctor can be a woman because there’s nothing special about
being one. There’s nothing unique or significant about womanhood.
It’s not an essential trait or characteristic — and that
is the only way the Doctor can still be the Doctor while being a woman,
that it is something indifferent. For if the Doctor changes in some
fundamental way because he is now a woman, then he won’t be the
Doctor any more. Which would mean, therefore, that in fact the Doctor
can’t be a woman. Hence the dilemma.
Post by The Doctor
The most beloved of all the Doctor’s companions, Sarah Jane
Smith, once asserted that “there’s nothing only about
being a girl.” The BBC no longer agrees. Actions speak louder than
words, and the BBC’s says that men and women are interchangeable.
Post by The Doctor
What purpose, then, does making the Doctor a woman serve? If the
answer is that “it proves that a woman can be the Doctor,”
that is an answer in terms of the real world. What is the answer to that
question in terms of Doctor Who? That’s the question to ask.
What will change with a female Doctor?
Post by The Doctor
One of the main differences between the current version of the show
and the original that aired from 1963 to 1989 is that there is, to coin
a phrase, a lot more hanky-panky in the TARDIS now than there used to
be. The Tenth Doctor, played by David Tennant, was something of a
romantic idol. His female companions pined after him. Matt
Smith’s Eleventh Doctor even became a husband, marrying a
character who in a plot twist was revealed to be the daughter of his
companions. With Capaldi, the oldest actor to play the part in several
decades, occupying the TARDIS, the program has been thankfully free of
soap-operatic elements.
Post by The Doctor
One can readily envision them returning with Whittaker, who is 35. The
relationship stuff was tedious when the Doctor was a man. Imagine how
rebarbative it will be after three years of everyone hitting on a female
Doctor, villains included. And worse yet, commenting on her looks and
questioning her intelligence, competence, authority, leadership, what
have you. Aha! you say, that’s exactly what happens to women in
the real world. Just so. But Doctor Who is not a university course
on sociology. It’s a television program. A single note played
endlessly can no longer be heard.
Post by The Doctor
It’s an interesting thought experiment, turning the Doctor into
a woman and seeing how people react to that. But a TV show isn’t
a thought experiment. One season of “Oh my God, Doctor, you have
breasts!” would be bad enough. Three seasons’ worth, the
average length of an actor’s time in the role, would be
intolerable. Viewers will get very tired very fast of being reminded
each episode that the Doctor has internal plumbing now.
Post by The Doctor
The temptation to remind them will be strong, especially if hostility
to Whittaker’s casting persists or even increases. When asked
in February about the possibility of a woman’s taking over the
role, Chibnall declared that he didn’t want the casting of the
new Doctor to be a gimmick. Yet in a statement accompanying the
announcement of Whittaker’s casting, he proclaimed that he
always wanted the 13th Doctor to be a woman.
Post by The Doctor
Either Chibnall is lying now or he was lying in February, because
casting a woman in the lead after it’s been played by men since
the program’s debut is the definition of a gimmick. It
can’t come across any other way. This puts Whittaker in an
untenable situation, since she is being asked to solve problems that are
beyond her ability and remit to fix.
Post by The Doctor
Doctor Who’s ratings are currently half of what they were at
the peak of the revival’s popularity at the start of the decade.
A common refrain is to attribute this decline to Capaldi’s age;
younger audiences, this argument runs, simply can’t relate to an
older Doctor. More likely, fans have realized that the show is out of
ideas and running on fumes.
Post by The Doctor
The series is ripping itself off more and more. This season was
especially egregious, with each episode containing numerous homages,
references, and allusions to earlier stories. The season finale was
especially notable in this regard. It was inevitable that
“new” Who would borrow elements from
“classic” Who. They are, after all, supposed to be the
same show. The problem lately is that new Whohas taken to rehashing
itself. Stories in this, its tenth season, bore strong resemblances to
ones that aired only a few years ago.
Post by The Doctor
The problems besetting Doctor Who are of a nature that cannot be
resolved by giving the Doctor a sex change. Repetitive plots, convoluted
story arcs, uninteresting villains — what ails the show
isn’t who plays the Doctor but unimaginative writing that more
and more each week rehashes and repackages earlier storylines. Doctor
Who has become one big metacommentary on itself. No wonder fans have
gotten bored and casual viewers have drifted away.
Post by The Doctor
How does Jodie Whittaker solve that? If you’re just going to do
the standard base-under-siege or monster-of-the-week scenario, but now
with double the X chromosomes, the metamorphosis is literally going to
be a cosmetic one. This would make casting a woman seem even more like a
gimmick born of desperation to boost ratings.
Post by The Doctor
The pressure on Whittaker to deliver will be immense. The pressure on
fans will be even greater. Which is why the most unforgivable
consequence of the BBC’s decision is the way it forever alters
fans’ relationship to Doctor Who.
Post by The Doctor
Every fan likes some Doctors (my favorite is the Fifth, played by
Peter Davison) more than others. Hitherto this has been a matter of
personal taste and aesthetics. No one suspects ulterior motives if a fan
doesn’t take a shine to William Hartnell’s First Doctor,
an obstreperous codger whose serials unfold at a leisurely, even turgid
pace in black-and-white without modern flourishes; or dislikes Jon
Pertwee’s Third Doctor, whose adventures often descend intoÂ
interminable environmental sermonizing.
Post by The Doctor
Will anyone be allowed to dislike the 13th Doctor for normal reasons?
I doubt it and strongly suspect anyone who demurs will reflexively be
accused of sexism. The imperative to defend Whittaker’s selection
and everything it stands for will simply be too strong to overcome. As
Hannah Long writes, “the casting insulate[s] the show from any
artistic criticism, because it elevates the enterprise from
entertainment to cause.”
Post by The Doctor
The producers have made it so that liking (or not) the new Doctor can
no longer be merely a matter of individual preference. It is, rather, an
obligation, a duty, an expression of one’s social and ideological
attitudes. Embracing her is a sign you’re a good citizen and
human being. To oppose her is to oppose progress and theÂ
emancipation of women. The BBC needn’t worry. Its viewers would
never do anything so vulgar. They’re too busy basking in the
good feelings to wonder why a TV show that is a half century old
suddenly must transform itself into a vehicle for proselytizing feminism
or why one person’s art should be conscripted into another
person’s cause.
Post by The Doctor
What happens if they start wondering? Who gets the blame if things go
wrong, if the 13th Doctor proves unlucky? Whittaker, for not being up to
the task of bearing the burden placed on her shoulders? Or will fans be
accused of being Luddites unwilling to accept the 21st century?
Post by The Doctor
A recurrent motif in “new” Who is that the Doctor is a
killer with the blood of countless beings on his hands. His quest for
redemption for having annihilated his own people to end a war that
threatened the universe is arguably the primary theme of the 2005
revival. The Doctor’s decision to wipe out his own people to end
the war and save creation was so awful, so cataclysmic, that future
Doctors disowned the incarnation that made it, denying him even the name
“Doctor.”
Post by The Doctor
It was a judgment imbued with a kind of divine fury and righteousness.
It was terrible. Yet it was just. In other words, exactly the sort of
decision we can envision a man making. Can we envision a woman making
it? Can there, that is, be a female War Doctor (as the Doctor who made
it is known)? And if there were, for which would she incur more
opprobrium — pushing the button, or not? Such is the trap the BBC
has now placed itself in. People will complain when a woman acts like
the Doctor — and when the Doctor acts like a woman.
Post by The Doctor
If the Doctor can’t be a woman, then Doctor Who with a
woman in the title role is no longer Doctor Who. With this change,
something essential, something ineffable, is being lost which, once
gone, will never be regained. The Cloister Bell is tolling. I fear it
won’t stop as long as the 13th Doctor is piloting the TARDIS.
Post by The Doctor
-- Varad Mehta is a historian who lives in suburban Philadelphia.
Well said! And now we've seen the choice of companions, the
soap-operatics, the silly Mork & Mindy costume, and the Game of
Thrones/Lord of the Ring's titles, and heard Whittaker's
incomprehensible accent, it's alienated just about everyone that wasn't
alienated already.
The backlash has already begun. Just look at the ratings and
condemnation of "Troy: Fall of a City", which has been called out for
it's cultural appropriation, offensive and racist casting, terrible
writing, and it's boring pacing and crass dialogue.
So no point watching Troy.

At least someone on Facebook pointed this article out.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain
Agamemnon
2018-02-27 01:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Source
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-takes-over-role/
Post by The Doctor
-- Varad Mehta is a historian who lives in suburban Philadelphia.
Well said! And now we've seen the choice of companions, the
soap-operatics, the silly Mork & Mindy costume, and the Game of
Thrones/Lord of the Ring's titles, and heard Whittaker's
incomprehensible accent, it's alienated just about everyone that wasn't
alienated already.
The backlash has already begun. Just look at the ratings and
condemnation of "Troy: Fall of a City", which has been called out for
it's cultural appropriation, offensive and racist casting, terrible
writing, and it's boring pacing and crass dialogue.
So no point watching Troy.
At least someone on Facebook pointed this article out.
Everyone says it's terrible, even without considering the racist casting.
Loading...