It is not in my nature to brag, but LOADS of people have read my piece about Doctor Who. Really, like…loads. Let’s just say it’s roughly the population of the North Wales seaside resort of Colwyn Bay. I bet that’s super normal for a lot of people, but I am not used to being so popular. For a while there I thought this might be the moment when I become a famous TV writer who has a weekly newspaper column and can comfortably afford groceries. I was obviously wrong, but it was nice while it lasted.
I felt really wary of writing about Doctor Who because even though I like it a lot and have been watching it for many years, much of its viewership is extremely protective and hostile to criticism. I don’t normally worry about not being nerdy enough, but this time I was like “Oh God what if I am not nerdy enough?!”
I got a large amount of comments that were appreciative and thoughtful, and full of new ideas that I hadn’t thought of. But as I anticipated, writing about Doctor Who on the internet is a bit like poking a wasp’s nest with a stick. Wasps will come out, and they will correct your spelling. Note: if I wanted men to correct my spelling, I’d be blogging at www.correctawomansspelling.tumblr.com.
A small amount comments were made with the intention of showing me that I do not have the credentials to write about Doctor Who because of my tastes, gender and spelling. It’s like – have you noticed that often when people want to ascertain whether or not you like Bruce Springsteen they won’t say, “Do you like Bruce Springsteen?”, they’ll say, “Are you a Springsteen fan?” It is a difficult question to respond to. I mean, sure I like Bruce Springsteen! But do I like him enough to tell this person that I am a Springsteen fan, and then face six further questions about Bruce Springsteen which sound friendly but are actually intended to prove to me that in reality I am not a true Springsteen fan but a charlatan? Do I? I do not.
Exhibit A:
“Please do stop watching Doctor Who. Gossip Girl, Glee and other simplistic shows need your viewership. *pats head* Here’s a ball to play with.”
This commenter is asserting that as a woman I would be more suited to watching programmes aimed at women, and leaving men’s programmes to the men…and yet by offering me a ball, he strongly implies that I am a puppy. Which one is it, commenter? Am I a woman or a puppy? When you figure it out, please leave me a note at www.correctawomansspelling.tumblr.com.
There are also a lot of jokers out there who get very angry when you do not publish their screed on your blog. Not publishing a comment is not censorship. You can send two thousand letters to newspapers about how this country is going to the dogs and your neighbours are spying on you. They don’t have to publish them. Because it is not your newspaper.
Power?
It wasn’t within the scope of what I was writing to discuss River Song. But I hate River Song. I think that with her comic/threatening hypersexuality, she is another manifestation of Steven Moffat’s obvious fear of women. I would also strongly dispute the idea that she is a strong or empowered female character. Yes, she does have a gun. But people who imagine that gun-ownership is the same as power are routinely mocked on Doctor Who.
The Doctor replaces Jack’s gun with a banana in ‘The Doctor Dances’
Despite being, arguably, quite badass, River’s story on the show is characterised by powerlessness and frustration, as she is unable to control her relationship with the Doctor, and every time she sees him he knows her less, which makes her all sad and wistful. Her attraction to him is very occasionally reciprocated, but is often framed as unwanted and over-the-top with a side of tragic. Her abilities as a fighter do not make her happy or free.
There are a lot of unhelpful ideas about empowerment around which conflate violence with power. Violence and power are not identical, especially not on the TV, where characters are not real agents but fictional people being shunted around by a writer or a team of writers. I have recently been thinking about power in this way: does this character have the ability to decide what happens to her? Do other people make decisions for her or act upon her in unwanted ways? Is her inability to make decisions about what happens to her part of the drama of the show?
A person can have the ability to do violence to people, for example by having a gun or knowing some cool martial arts skills, and still be written into states of victimhood. Due to unemployment I have recently been watching The X Files. Scully (Gillian Anderson) is an interesting one. She has many of the hallmarks of a modern TV woman- she has a medical degree, she wears a lot of wide-shouldered suits, she has a job which mandates a certain degree of violent behaviour, and she carries a gun. But she does not have the power to decide what happens to her. If Mulder and Scully have pretty much the same job, why is it always Scully who is inseminated by aliens, kidnapped by dangerous hair fetishists, or trapped alone in her apartment with a serial killer with a salamander arm? Eh?
Scully is the most powerful female character that 1993 could come up with, yet she is constantly written into situations in which she is acted upon by others, and frequent violations of her body and personal space are part of the entertainment. It looks a bit like empowerment, but it is not.
So, when Martha decides to leave the Doctor and get on with her life because he treats her badly and makes her hang out with racists, she is given awesome decision-making power! And when the Doctor grabs and kisses Jenny the plucky Victorian detective without her consent, she has her power taken away.
We call this “sexual assault”
Anyway. Next time I’m gonna give myself a break and write about something that almost no-one watches. Like the BBC’s darts coverage, or some GCSE Bitesize programmes that air at 4 am. Or series 14 of Big Brother. Burn! That is exactly the kind of incisive, topical satire you can expect to read in my next post.
