?

Log in

No account? Create an account
First impressions and Point of View characters - Eldritch Lacemaking and other Randomness

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile

Links About Me
My Twitter
My Links Lists
My ff.net Profile (Just for the favourites list)

Places I Frequent:

Sporking and Mocking Comms
GAFF
Fandom Wank
The HMS STFU
HP Cornfield
My JF Flist

Fandom and Squeedom (Currently Doctor Who)
TV Tropes Wiki
Outpost Gallifrey
Freema Love
Scans Daily

Meet the Joneses (Comms I moderate)
Life On Martha - All your Martha Jones needs
Torchwood Coffee - Ianto!Love

June 27th, 2006


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
08:07 pm - First impressions and Point of View characters
Okay, this is an idea that originally came up as a throw-away remark in the comments to someone, and just sort of... built in my head, until I realised it sort of explained a huge amount about how I feel about the characters in Doctor Who, especially Rose.

And what it all comes down to is first impressions.


Rose was designed from the very start to be a viewpoint character - that's pretty obvious from Rose, when the story is almost all told from her POV, and for the next few episodes, which are all about her experiences as she discovers time and space. And she's the touchstone for most emotional moments throughout S1, and getting us through the regeneration.

Rose is our eyes for the show. We see what she sees, empathise with her emotions, feel her joys and hurts.

At least, we are supposed to.

As I said, the first few episodes are designed to set up Rose as a POV character, and as far as I can tell, and at that, at least, they were a great success. The response to having Rose as viewpoint is more varied - you get the rabid "I AM Rose" over-associating fangirls, who vow to never watch after Rose leaves, and write Sue!Rose shipperfics; you have the initial Rose fans, who have been struggling as of late with her because they have been seeing things through her eyes for so long, and are getting frustrated with her character developments (as in the character feels inconstant with the things that have been experienced/seen); and you have the people who would se things through her eyes, but whatever reasons can't, and thus tend to dislike her for being a jarring presence.

Now, this doesn't describe everyone, but it does account for an awful lot of people. And the groups, despite diverse opinions between and within themselves, have one constant - Rose being the viewpoint character (supposedly, at least), and thus central to viewing.

And here's where I differ from the majority, because I don't have Rose as a viepoint character, or even as a central character. Which sounds bizarre, what with equal status to the Doctor and all that, but it's true. And I think a lot of it comes from when I started watching the show.

See, unlike most people, I didn't start with episode 1.01, "Rose". The first ever episode I saw of New Who was, of all things, World War Three. Yes, that one with the Slitheen.

No, it isn't the best episode - or for that matter particularly high on the list of best episodes. No, it's not the episode that go tme hooked, that'd be the next week, with Dalek. But what it was - not alone, but in conjunction with the upcoming episodes, I will admit - was the very first episode of New Who that I saw, and thus an awful lot of my opinions about the characters was based on it.

In WW3 we see Mickey saving the day. All with huge amounts of assisstance from others, of course, but he is brave and heroic, he saves Jackie's life, he is responsible for the Slitheen's destruction, he turns down the Doctor's offer because he knows himself that well. In WW3 we see the Ninth Doctor as knowledgable, clever, alien, and also horribly manipulative, indecisive, and completely hung up on some blonde girl for absolutely no apparent reason.

And then, of course, we have Rose. Who in WW3 does what, exactly? Nothing. Well, nothing of huge value. She runs and hides and talks and answers questions, and has the Doctor obsessing over her and has people worried about her. But plot wise, she does nothing. She's just there. The only way she really seems to matter in this episode is how other people are effected by her.

I'll admit this is not the strongest episode for Rose's character. But I'll also admit that it's the first one I saw, and as the saying goes, first impressions count. And so my first impression of these characters were of Mickey as a reluctant and not too brave hero, Nine as a smart alien who obsessed over a human girl to the point of unhealthiness, Jackie as the amusing but caring mother, and Rose as just being there.

And so what was my first impression of Rose? Not as POV character like people had with the earlier episodes. I never had that chance to get into her head, and find out if I loved it or hated it or whatever. For other people who were looking on from Rose's viepoint, perhaps this episode showed her in a better light, but what I saw then? Was not a show-leading character. What I saw was a MacGuffin.

"A MacGuffin is a plot device that motivates the characters and advances the story, but has little other relevance to the story itself." Yes, Wikipedia is hardly the most reputable source. But it's description of a MacGuffin is exactly what Rose was to me in that first episode. Her importance to the story had nothing to do with who she was, but was entirely due to how she effected other characters. And the next few episodes only served to back this up.

I mean, Dalek? Rose gets Adam's attention, gives the Dalek the source of it's power, had Nine emo over her, and causes him to not fire and the Dalek to kill itself, before getting Adam invited on board. The Long Game? Um... is called the best, and is who Adam is compared to?

They didn't do a lot to change the Rose = MacGuffin in my head, and by the time Father's Day came along, where she did have an actual character part, it was too little, to late for me. Perhaps that's why that episode leaves me cold - I had no emotional investment in the Rose. She was in my head a MacGuffin, and by Hitchcock's definition of MacGuffin, even though the plot revolves around them, "The audience don't care" about the specifics of the object itself.

Quite simply, because I haven't that viewpoint character tie to Rose, because she started out for me as just a MacGuffin, I don't care about her.

I care about what happens around her, about how she effects the plot and all that, about how characters are effected by her actions, but her herself? I don't care. Which explains a lot of things about my views on her that I have had difficulty explaining to others.

For all that she has equal status in the credits, Rose has never been to me anywhere near as important as the Doctor. She was designed as viewpoint character, specifically on an emotional level, but I never got that, I never had that investment in her. The viewpoint, the emotional heart for me has been the Doctor. (Which is probably why I am less fond of Nine - his emotional states was always a sort of background emo, and so wasn't quite as Ten and his sheer exuberance and variety of emotion).

And because I have no emotional investment in Rose, I can treat her in ways that baffle some of my friends. I can ignore her when she is annoying, which has bewildered certain people who can't see how I can ignore a central character (but of course, to me she isn't central in herself but only as a device to move the plot forward). I had no problems at all with the shifting away from Rose, and towards the Doctor's POV during S2, inevitable because of Rose's departure, but has caused some problems for people invested in Rose's POV. Whereas for some of them this is new territory, and thus are less fond of the shows new angle, this is heading to what I always had going on.

And I am not sorry that she is leaving, because firstly I saw it coming way off, and secondly because I have never cared enough about her to be sorry she is going.

Of course, just as there are people like me who have no emotional investment in Rose, there are those who are over-invested in her. Those who have difficulty with the shifts in POV away from Rose, and towards the Doctor. Those who can't see how the show can possibly be good without Rose, and will quit watching then. Those certain people who believe they are Rose in that little subconcious self, and feel she is OOC if she does something they wouldn't do (or say they wouldn't do). Just as my lack of investment in Rose-as-character, and having the Doctor as POV character has meant I prefer S2 for it's Doctor focus, I can start to see why those who have invested in Rose perhaps a little too have such antipathy towards parts of it.

It can't be easy having the entire foundations on the show as you know it shift on you. It's Rose's emotions that they are keyed into, and for an episode such as Girl in the Fireplace, in which Rose's emotions are of no importance, are disregarded it must feel like a personal betrayal, almost. Or at the very least, it leaves them as cold as Father's Day left me.

The thing about POV characters is that we are supposed to empathise with them, to feel for them, so we don't just see through their eyes but feel what they feel. And to do this, a certain amount of emotional investment is required - without that, the character looses all their significance. And the introduction of the character is supposed to trigger that investment. And for Rose, I never had that.

Instead of Rose as emotional heart, I had Rose as Maguffin. Perhaps it's my fault for not watching the episodes in order, for having the wrong start. But it's interesting how different my perspective on a lot of things seems to be because of this first impression and it's results.

And I am wondering, what other people's first impressions of the characters were, who they have invested in, and how they will be effected by Rose's departure. And how the changes in show have affected them.


Wow. That's a lot of words, in which I say... not very much, really. However, I would like to hear from people on how different or similar their experiences have been compared to mine.

ETA: Read the comments. I've got some very diverse and interesting perspectives on Rose and just companions in general.

(111 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:drakyndra
Date:June 28th, 2006 11:51 am (UTC)

Re: Oh, and...

(Link)
(Though their conviction that the new one will be chosen to be pretty is... yes.)

Well, what else were all the old school ones chosen for?
[User Picture]
From:nostalgia_lj
Date:June 28th, 2006 11:56 am (UTC)

Re: Oh, and...

(Link)
*restrains self from libellous comments about Tom Baker*


Yeah. But isn't there an awful lot of "she's pretty! she'd do!" in the "omg who r teh new one" threads?

*fidgets* I want to seeeeeee who we have next. Probably pretty soon after ep 13 airs, yeah? I can't see them saying before then in case it overshadowed Billie going a bit.
[User Picture]
From:drakyndra
Date:June 28th, 2006 11:59 am (UTC)

Re: Oh, and...

(Link)
I see a lot of that in fandom. When there is no confirmed idea of who will play a role, the suggestions are pretty much inevitably good looking types. It's not until we know who it is that the "can they act" thing will kick in.

But I think after 13, yes.
[User Picture]
From:nostalgia_lj
Date:June 28th, 2006 12:02 pm (UTC)

Re: Oh, and...

(Link)
The opposite of "omg no, Tennant is too pretty!"

Also, have you noticed the bizarre conviction that when Rose goes we will lose the idea of Companion As Equal And Realistic Character? There's a lot of confusion between Rose-as-Rose and Rose-as-function.
[User Picture]
From:drakyndra
Date:June 28th, 2006 12:11 pm (UTC)

Re: Oh, and...

(Link)
It comes back to expectations of the show, really. The Doctor is expected to be an older and eccentric man, and the companion is supposed to be pretty and not too annoying.

And I have noticed that a bit. To which I just respond with a hearty WTF? Seriously, how dumb would the production team have to be to make a move as stupid as these people think. Just because Rose was a more "Realistic" character doesn't mean this realism was because of Rose. It was because of the writers, you idiots!
[User Picture]
From:fyrdrakken
Date:June 28th, 2006 04:14 pm (UTC)

Re: Oh, and...

(Link)
*Would probably enjoy libelous remarks about Tom Baker*

I am fairly well uninformed on the topic of the whole Asexuality Doctrine but just from the Four eps I've managed to Netflix thus far I'm finding material to make a case for the "just not shown onscreen due to the mores of the era/prior treatment of the first three versions" viewpoint.
[User Picture]
From:redstarrobot
Date:June 29th, 2006 12:30 am (UTC)

Re: Oh, and...

(Link)
Yes, I think that's an entirely reasonable reading. There's definitely some very unusual intimacy and some verging-on-flirting teasing going on as standard.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com