Welcome to DW fandom! Arguing over canon for more than 40 years! Seriously, listening to some of the old timers talk, New School are just babies in the way of fandom wars. But in the grand tradition of engaging debate, I dive in...
No, I don't think the Doctor was horribly mean to Harriet Jones. I do think he was irresponsible. While he doesn't think he is a god, he does believe himself to be a higher authority (as he states in New Earth) and he does not like being crossed when it comes to the big stuff. Whether Harriet Jones had a right to shoot the Sycorax out of the sky is debatable, but the Doctor who has preached against changing time lines again and again, took down "The Golden Age of Britain" because he didn't like her actions. That was a deliberate decision on his part which had consequences, one of which there was a power vaccuum that was taken advantage of by The Master. Would the Master still have wreaked havoc and tried to destroy the world? Hell, yeah. But, just as the events of "Bad Wolf" are a consequence of "The Long Game" and, yes, to an extent "Doomsday" is a result of "Tooth & Claw", the Master's ascension to that particular place is a result of "The Christmas Invasion."
In fact, I think that's one thing that New Who *has* done exceptionally well: made the Doctor fallible and shown that there are consequences. Yes, he does a tremendous amount of good but everything has a cost. And while it isn't his job, as you say, to stick around and play clean-up, I'd think he'd have some sort of obligation to ensure that he didn't make things worse. There is, of course, the issue of free will but I think his actions in TCI come off as a bit arrogant, which totally fits in with his "I'm that kind of man" characterization.
As far as Rose deserving to be ripped into an alternate world because of their hubris? I agree with you. I don't think she deserved it. But on the flip side, T&C was the one episode where I thought Rose was extremely OOC. She has always been the Doctor's compassion, the heart where he was logic. Her inappropriate quips in front of the Queen, while Lady Isobel was standing right next to her were really in poor taste and jarring for the character. There was a woman whose husband had just sacrificed himself to save the three of them and Rose and the Doctor are making childish jokes? I'll never forgive the writers for that one because that's *not* the Rose I knew.
As for the Rose and Martha stuff - Yes. ITA. Any reasonable debate on their characterization has been lost in the fire of ship wars and there's no sense even trying. That road is long and bitter, my friend.
I think I can see the nuggets of where fandom is coming up with the assumptions that are making you nuts, but with most things fannish, there are some people who push it to the wall.
And since this isn't said in Who fandom nearly enough: YMMV. ;)
edited because "infallible" and "fallible" are really two entirely different concepts. ;)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-26 01:00 am (UTC)No, I don't think the Doctor was horribly mean to Harriet Jones. I do think he was irresponsible. While he doesn't think he is a god, he does believe himself to be a higher authority (as he states in New Earth) and he does not like being crossed when it comes to the big stuff. Whether Harriet Jones had a right to shoot the Sycorax out of the sky is debatable, but the Doctor who has preached against changing time lines again and again, took down "The Golden Age of Britain" because he didn't like her actions. That was a deliberate decision on his part which had consequences, one of which there was a power vaccuum that was taken advantage of by The Master. Would the Master still have wreaked havoc and tried to destroy the world? Hell, yeah. But, just as the events of "Bad Wolf" are a consequence of "The Long Game" and, yes, to an extent "Doomsday" is a result of "Tooth & Claw", the Master's ascension to that particular place is a result of "The Christmas Invasion."
In fact, I think that's one thing that New Who *has* done exceptionally well: made the Doctor fallible and shown that there are consequences. Yes, he does a tremendous amount of good but everything has a cost. And while it isn't his job, as you say, to stick around and play clean-up, I'd think he'd have some sort of obligation to ensure that he didn't make things worse. There is, of course, the issue of free will but I think his actions in TCI come off as a bit arrogant, which totally fits in with his "I'm that kind of man" characterization.
As far as Rose deserving to be ripped into an alternate world because of their hubris? I agree with you. I don't think she deserved it. But on the flip side, T&C was the one episode where I thought Rose was extremely OOC. She has always been the Doctor's compassion, the heart where he was logic. Her inappropriate quips in front of the Queen, while Lady Isobel was standing right next to her were really in poor taste and jarring for the character. There was a woman whose husband had just sacrificed himself to save the three of them and Rose and the Doctor are making childish jokes? I'll never forgive the writers for that one because that's *not* the Rose I knew.
As for the Rose and Martha stuff - Yes. ITA. Any reasonable debate on their characterization has been lost in the fire of ship wars and there's no sense even trying. That road is long and bitter, my friend.
I think I can see the nuggets of where fandom is coming up with the assumptions that are making you nuts, but with most things fannish, there are some people who push it to the wall.
And since this isn't said in Who fandom nearly enough: YMMV. ;)
edited because "infallible" and "fallible" are really two entirely different concepts. ;)