December Talking Meme: Clara Oswin Oswald
Dec. 10th, 2013 10:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakTalking about Clara Oswin Oswald is near impossible without employing spoiler cuts, which may be part of the problem - or the advantage, depending on your point of view. Recently, I stumbled across a clever observation of elisi's, to the effect that back in 2005, when RTD had to relaunch and reintroduce Doctor Who to a new audience, the Doctor was (to many) the unknown, the mystery, whereas the Companion, while also a new character, was the familiar (living in easily recognizable and identifiable circumstances). By the time Moffat took over as showrunner, the Doctor was more than familiar to the audience; and thus, Moffat made the Companions the mystery. Or rather, mysteries.
This of course is one of the chief issues of the yay and nay sayers of the entire Moffat era. Personally, I think it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It mostly works with Amy in her first season; I still have a problem with the way the whole crack mystery is handled (i.e. ultra important when it's an arc episode, not a problem when we get a standalone), but Amy herself, personality-wise, comes across clearly from the moment little Amelia Pond prays to Santa. (I didn't "get" Amy emotionally until about mid season, but that wasn't for lack of a sense of personality; retrospectively, I wondered whether it might have been, but now the international iPlayer has put up the fifth New Who season online, and rewatching early Amy episodes confirms she's there from the start.) The mystery as to what the crack in time has to do with Amy is solved by the end of her first season, but that's not the key to her personality, and Amy remains interesting beyond its solving.
"Who is River Song?" is a mystery set up already in the RTD era via the Moff's Library episodes and key to the first two Moffat seasons; while I have considerable problems with the ultimate answer, River in season 5 is an incredibly compelling, interesting character, and her appearances are not dependent on providing an answer to the question for their appeal. It was, perhaps, only to be expected that when Moffat introduced his next regular Companion, she, too, would be a mystery, and she, too, would meet the Doctor out of sequence; Moffat really does love the timey-wimey, and he is, love him or resent him for it, undoubtedly the DW writer who does the most with the possibilities and paradoxes of time travel.
The problem, to me, with how the Companion-as-mystery gambit was executed the third time around isn't that the introduction wasn't good, or the question not interesting. It's that the introduction(s) was/were maybe too good, and the follow-up paled because the very set up of the question made it impossible not to.
Oswin, the girl who turns out to be trapped inside a Dalek and holding out against Dalek-isation is an immediately interesting and compelling character, and because the Daleks are such iconic antagonists for the Doctor, the idea of a former almost-Dalek as a Companion holds enormous character drama potential. Also, Oswin is from our future, and not counting Jack Harkness, it's been decades since there was a regular Companion like that.
Clara the Victorian, who is both barmaid and governess, two polar extremes in Victorian fiction, who gets one of the best introductions to the TARDIS ever and a witty reversal of the usual line ("it's smaller on the outside", she says) , also is immediately interesting, and would have been the first historical companion in ages, too. (Not counting the Big Finish audios.)
Oswin and Clara are the first two versions of Clara Oswin Oswald we meet, and the question of how she could be both and neither is an interesting one. The problem, to me, isn't that 21st century Clara isn't likeable, either - she is. But because she's of the present day, which really is the standard for Companions through all the eras, she was a bit of a let down after the two previous versions who promised to be different. And because the Doctor isn't allowed to figure out who she is before the season finale, I never had a sense of Clara's personality beyond the generic Companion traits (curious, brave, compassionate). The clearest quality that made her Clara instead of Companion No. 205544 was the one carrying over from her Victorian incarnation - she has a knack for relating to children, which shows itself not only in her professions (governess, nanny, teacher) but also in the way she is able to connect with them in outer space (for example in The Rings of Akhenaten). (I know the name was different, but Egyptian pharaos are persistent in the way they kidnap your memory!)
I don't see this particular character trait as a negative, by the way, though it's frequently brought up as a complaint about Moffat's sexism. Female characters who enjoy working with and relating to children aren't automatically a throwback to the stone ages; they can exist without being read as a statement about biological destiny. (Note that Clara at no point has said she wants to have a biological child.) And there is a curious snobism sometimes in fandom about female characters who don't have jobs seen as socially progressive, as well as an automatic assumption that "traditional" jobs such as Clara's are somehow less challenging, less interesting than, say, being a journalist or a scientist. Which is devaluing a lot of woman in real life, and ignoring some fascinating fictional characters, including one whom Victorian Clara was obviously coded to resemble, Mary Poppins. Not to mention that the very first female Companion, if you don't count Susan since she's the Doctor's granddaughter, Barbara, was, wait for it, a teacher. (One reason why the anniversary special having Clara now teach at the same school Barbara and Ian did, with Ian's name as headmasater, was a delightful touch.) Barbara was also the first character to give the Doctor a "the reason you suck" speech (I'm not linking to tv tropes to spare your valuable internet time), and if he shaped up into heroic form afterwards, it's not a little because of her.
All this being said? It's still frustrating that Clara's knack for children is the only quality that comes immediately to mind for me when I wonder what makes Clara Clara, and not Mystery Girl/Companion XYZ. I am, however, an optimist, and I wonder whether the upcoming regeneration won't be just the thing to bring out her unique personality as well. Companions who go through regenerations with the Doctor end up relating to the different versions somewhat differently - for example Sarah Jane with the Third and Fourth Doctor; Adric with the Fourth and Fifth Doctor -, and also, Moffat and his writers will have the chance to explore her dynamic with the Doctor without having to be careful not to reveal too much.
elisi's, to the effect that back in 2005, when RTD had to relaunch and reintroduce Doctor Who to a new audience, the Doctor was (to many) the unknown, the mystery, whereas the Companion, while also a new character, was the familiar (living in easily recognizable and identifiable circumstances). By the time Moffat took over as showrunner, the Doctor was more than familiar to the audience; and thus, Moffat made the Companions the mystery. Or rather, mysteries. This of course is one of the chief issues of the yay and nay sayers of the entire Moffat era. Personally, I think it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It mostly works with Amy in her first season; I still have a problem with the way the whole crack mystery is handled (i.e. ultra important when it's an arc episode, not a problem when we get a standalone), but Amy herself, personality-wise, comes across clearly from the moment little Amelia Pond prays to Santa. (I didn't "get" Amy emotionally until about mid season, but that wasn't for lack of a sense of personality; retrospectively, I wondered whether it might have been, but now the international iPlayer has put up the fifth New Who season online, and rewatching early Amy episodes confirms she's there from the start.) The mystery as to what the crack in time has to do with Amy is solved by the end of her first season, but that's not the key to her personality, and Amy remains interesting beyond its solving.
"Who is River Song?" is a mystery set up already in the RTD era via the Moff's Library episodes and key to the first two Moffat seasons; while I have considerable problems with the ultimate answer, River in season 5 is an incredibly compelling, interesting character, and her appearances are not dependent on providing an answer to the question for their appeal. It was, perhaps, only to be expected that when Moffat introduced his next regular Companion, she, too, would be a mystery, and she, too, would meet the Doctor out of sequence; Moffat really does love the timey-wimey, and he is, love him or resent him for it, undoubtedly the DW writer who does the most with the possibilities and paradoxes of time travel.
The problem, to me, with how the Companion-as-mystery gambit was executed the third time around isn't that the introduction wasn't good, or the question not interesting. It's that the introduction(s) was/were maybe too good, and the follow-up paled because the very set up of the question made it impossible not to.
Oswin, the girl who turns out to be trapped inside a Dalek and holding out against Dalek-isation is an immediately interesting and compelling character, and because the Daleks are such iconic antagonists for the Doctor, the idea of a former almost-Dalek as a Companion holds enormous character drama potential. Also, Oswin is from our future, and not counting Jack Harkness, it's been decades since there was a regular Companion like that.
Clara the Victorian, who is both barmaid and governess, two polar extremes in Victorian fiction, who gets one of the best introductions to the TARDIS ever and a witty reversal of the usual line ("it's smaller on the outside", she says) , also is immediately interesting, and would have been the first historical companion in ages, too. (Not counting the Big Finish audios.)
Oswin and Clara are the first two versions of Clara Oswin Oswald we meet, and the question of how she could be both and neither is an interesting one. The problem, to me, isn't that 21st century Clara isn't likeable, either - she is. But because she's of the present day, which really is the standard for Companions through all the eras, she was a bit of a let down after the two previous versions who promised to be different. And because the Doctor isn't allowed to figure out who she is before the season finale, I never had a sense of Clara's personality beyond the generic Companion traits (curious, brave, compassionate). The clearest quality that made her Clara instead of Companion No. 205544 was the one carrying over from her Victorian incarnation - she has a knack for relating to children, which shows itself not only in her professions (governess, nanny, teacher) but also in the way she is able to connect with them in outer space (for example in The Rings of Akhenaten). (I know the name was different, but Egyptian pharaos are persistent in the way they kidnap your memory!)
I don't see this particular character trait as a negative, by the way, though it's frequently brought up as a complaint about Moffat's sexism. Female characters who enjoy working with and relating to children aren't automatically a throwback to the stone ages; they can exist without being read as a statement about biological destiny. (Note that Clara at no point has said she wants to have a biological child.) And there is a curious snobism sometimes in fandom about female characters who don't have jobs seen as socially progressive, as well as an automatic assumption that "traditional" jobs such as Clara's are somehow less challenging, less interesting than, say, being a journalist or a scientist. Which is devaluing a lot of woman in real life, and ignoring some fascinating fictional characters, including one whom Victorian Clara was obviously coded to resemble, Mary Poppins. Not to mention that the very first female Companion, if you don't count Susan since she's the Doctor's granddaughter, Barbara, was, wait for it, a teacher. (One reason why the anniversary special having Clara now teach at the same school Barbara and Ian did, with Ian's name as headmasater, was a delightful touch.) Barbara was also the first character to give the Doctor a "the reason you suck" speech (I'm not linking to tv tropes to spare your valuable internet time), and if he shaped up into heroic form afterwards, it's not a little because of her.
All this being said? It's still frustrating that Clara's knack for children is the only quality that comes immediately to mind for me when I wonder what makes Clara Clara, and not Mystery Girl/Companion XYZ. I am, however, an optimist, and I wonder whether the upcoming regeneration won't be just the thing to bring out her unique personality as well. Companions who go through regenerations with the Doctor end up relating to the different versions somewhat differently - for example Sarah Jane with the Third and Fourth Doctor; Adric with the Fourth and Fifth Doctor -, and also, Moffat and his writers will have the chance to explore her dynamic with the Doctor without having to be careful not to reveal too much.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-10 12:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-10 02:02 pm (UTC)PS
Date: 2013-12-10 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-10 03:28 pm (UTC)Re: PS
Date: 2013-12-10 03:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-10 04:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-10 05:01 pm (UTC)Intellectually, I love the solution that Clara herself was, in fact, a perfectly normal, mundane, mystery-free girl who became the mystery by dint of her travels with the Doctor, but emotionally, I haven't really connected with her. There was so much invested, narrative-wise, in unspooling the mystery, that her development didn't go much beyond young, plucky, and able to take things in stride.
And there is a curious snobism sometimes in fandom about female characters who don't have jobs seen as socially progressive, as well as an automatic assumption that "traditional" jobs such as Clara's are somehow less challenging, less interesting than, say, being a journalist or a scientist. Which is devaluing a lot of woman in real life, and ignoring some fascinating fictional characters, including one whom Victorian Clara was obviously coded to resemble, Mary Poppins.
It drives me (and I'm someone who has a job that would be seen as socially progressive) 'round the bend. Of course, areas of fandom having latched onto the idea of Moffat as the worst, most sexist/racist/homophobic/horrible creature who ever lived, Clara could have been a physics prodigy who fenced in her spare time, and it would still have been called out as an example of Moffat's sexism. Given that he started out as a teacher himself, with a father also in education, I have a hard time seeing that nod to Barbara as a sexist thing.
I've had a love/hate thing with Moffat for years (there are grains of truth in every criticism of him, after all, but not the stated silos), and I do not get the level of animosity there. I don't see RTD as any better, and often see him as worse.
That small rant aside, Moffat does play a decent long game, so I've got great hopes for what's to come.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-10 05:33 pm (UTC)I'm fond of Clara, but a lot of that is residue from those first incarnations. I really hope we get to know her better this season.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-11 07:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-11 08:39 pm (UTC)Anyway, I have moderately high hopes for Twelve, and part of that is that perhaps Clara will get something to *do*. Or, or something. Having Eleven be Clever and Quirky, and also having a companion who is Clever and Quirky, doesn't really give her a chance to shine. I'm expecting more "ancient Time Lord, mad as a hatter, but with more gravitas" from Capaldi, against which "modern quirky girl" may play well--but we shall see.