Doctor Who Thread III: Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow

[CurlyKitGirl]

My example wasn't with the Doctor. It was going travelling with someone. Someone could offer to show you every country in the world, and have you try every food ever created. All well and good, but unless you have some kind of connection to that person, you're not going to commit a big chunk of your time - let alone your safety to that person.

A connection, yes. But a connection does not automatically mean a romantic connection. If anything, if someone walked up to me, out of the blue, offered me that, proved they were on the level, all I could think would be 'This is the start of a truly beautiful friendship', then I'd grab some stuff and be off.
That's the problem with such a focus on romantic connections nowadays: the beauty in simple companionship and friendship. Not to sound like Twilight Sparkle or anything, but having friends you sincerely trust, love and care for is a joy. Last year, I was sitting my uni finals, and I spent a fair amount of that last term helping a friend not to have a complete emotional/nervous breakdown because of the callous cruelty of some of the people she thought were her friends.
Perhaps to the detriment of my results. I don't know. I don't care.
See, I love her very much. She's my friend. And if I can, I will always try to help them.

I like seeing great friendships. I like having them. I wish people would be more aware of that sort of thing in media. Especially now we have The Internet. Some of my best friends are people I meet for perhaps a week total every year. Some of my friends I've never even met, and most of them I don't know what they look like.
And I don't care. We're awesome, and we're friends.

And that was pretty much the rest of my point, too. Ask any writer of genre fiction - if you want your audience to believe your nonsense, silliness and magic, you have to make the real stuff believable.

So friendship isn't believable?
Let me bring out some genre fiction for you:
Discworld: stunning genre fiction - and that genre is usually sci-fi/fantasy + [another genre]. Is there romance? Yes. Carrot/Angua; Vimes/Sibyl; Those Two Guys from Monstrous Regiment; Magrat/Verence; Moist/Adora; Nutt/Glenda and a few others. Fifty books and this die-hard fan is hard pressed to name even ten successful couple who had a romance subplot.
Oh! Mort/Ysabel; Susan/Lobsang; Nobby/Tawneee and Granny/Ridcully. Although those last two failed, and the one in the middle is only hinted at. Oh, and with the exception of five of the named couple (most of which are comprised entirely of one-off characters) all the other relationships (including, notably, Nobby/Tawneee) have been rather subtle, complex and lasted over numerous books.
On the other hand I can name literally scores of awesome friendships, cordial enemies, just enemies, working professional relationships and so on.
While I don't deny that human/dwarf/other interaction and relationships make things real, I do think that a romantic relationship is one of the last interesting ways to do so. And why? I can't explain here as Pratchett does very realistic (i.e. messy, subtle and fairly long-term) romance. Next point!

The Marvel Cinematics Universe: it's mostly sci-fi with a touch of fantasy thrown in. So classic spec fic. It took two whole films for the Pepper/Tony thing to actually get to the point where they say 'I love you as more than a friend' and for it to be reciprocated, and it was a very messy road to get there. As for Thor, I think most people agreed that the kind-of-there romance plot tumour was unnecessary and kind-of ruined the film as it drew away from the main relationship in the film: the Thor/Loki dynamic and everything about it. And the Cap/Peggy thing was always going to be a never-quite-there romance, as was common in WWII when a lot of potential romances were cut short even before they officially expressed interest in each other due to the war.
And Th Avengers would have been ruined with romance in it. Yes, it was nice to see bits of Tony/Pepper as normal interactions between the two and even Cap's lingering frustration and sadness over his seventy-year-sleep. But it was focussed on the Avengers and the plot, and I didn't think it was any less real or believable for being almost totally devoid of any romance whatsoever.
(Although I will admit I loved Tony's endlessly flirty dialogue with everyone he meets ever)

Relationships are needed to create human interest, but they don't have to be romantic either.

You've been using Donna as an example of a good non-romantic companion. Be that as it may, but she did have a strong personal connection with him. In that instance, it wasn't romantic, but it was a very strong friendship.

Exactly. A strong personal relationship =/= romance. That was his point: you don't need romance to create a strong bond between two people.

Same thing with Sarah Jane, as addressed in her appearances with the post-2005 Doctors. Even if their relationship never was romantic, romance is used as a metaphor to discuss it.

Yes, it was. Because Rose is a heartless bitch who deserves to die in all the fires.

Sure you have to make the real stuff believable. I don't see how romance has to be a part of that, at all. It is an added separate plot point that only occurs because the writers dictate that's how they're going to tell the story. Platonic friends can have just as many adventures and engage in just as interesting (often more interesting from my view) interactions than romantic relationships can.

I think it's because people believe they're obligated to put in a romantic plot point. See further up my post for why this isn't true. I think, at least for major budget ventures, it's to get a wider demographic. Personally, some of my favourite stories of all time are almost completely romance free.

Not saying I don't like romance, some of my favourite stories of all time are based on a romantic relationship between two people, but I'd ike to see less romance forced into a story.

As to Donna, I used her as an example once, but anyway they're friends, they do friendly stuff like have snark and go on adventures and so on. It is not at all the same as the romantic arcs that we saw with Rose, Martha, or Amy/Rory. For one it can be split much more easily into a narrative than romantic tension and resolution can.

And with the exception of 'The Doctor's Daughter' I love so much of season four. And while I do for seasons one - three as well, that endless pining and bitching and jealousy about being the Doctor's one twu wuv really puts me off some of the stories from those seasons.

I have seen romantic plots play out in real life. But they are nothing like those seen on tv or movies. I would agree that romantic subplots do not add to the realism because of how they're unrealistically overblown. Most romances I've witnessed involve one guy asking one girl out. Agreeing that they like each other. Continuing to like each other for lengthy periods of time before they split do to disagreement, or just not being particularly good for each other. Sometimes someone cheats on someone else, that's basically the highest point of potential interest right there, and let's be honest here, it's still almost remarkably boring. Some few stay together. That's the whole story. Nothing at all interesting within them. Nothing that would be anything like the long looks, the will-they-won't-they crap, and the DRAMA that appears in any given show on the subject. It is unbelievable, or at least not regular, which would make it a part of the fantastic elements of the story not a part that was grounded in realism.

While I'm kind of in between Eldan's, Diekenes' and Kosmopolite's opinions on the realism of romance in fiction as opposed to real life - I've experienced - well, witnessed - a bit of everything they have. Romance done well is good. Romance slightly exaggerated is good. Romance totally overblown is also good. Understated romance is also good. All of them are realistic and happen, to some extent, in real life.
But honestly, if I wanted good drama I'd go for friendships any time. I'd be more torn up about losing a good friend than over someone I was attracted to. And again, I point out the power of friendship or family. There can be just as much drama and whatnot in a platonic relationship.
People can be instantly heartbroken and terrified a familial relationship will never recover from an argument/incident because those really matter.

And to bring it back to who, if you meat the most different, interesting person ever, who introduces you to yet more people totally outside what you've known before - of course you're going to develop feelings for someone.

Feelings do not end at sexual/romantic interest either. If I meet the most different, interesting person ever who does all that there's a fair chance I'd grow to hate him.
Seriously, just take a moment to write down the Doctor's personality on paper:
an arrogant genius; often forgetful to the point of serious absent-mindedness; doesn't like being proved wrong (albeit not every incarnation is like that); stubborn; self-hating; more than a bit of a Stepford Smiler; great with children; hypocritical (some incarnations more than others); condescending (some moreso than others); sometimes a bit of a buffoon; compassionate; cool; dorky; geeky; away with the fairies; extremely eccentric; a significant portion of the universe is terrified/in awe of him; God complex; sneaky; loves cats; more than a bit childish; inexplicably awesome; bitter and eternally optimistic.
Frankly, I'd be torn between giving him a good slap and being exasperated because I'm stuck babysitting. He's so full of contradictions (which is fine, most people are), but yeah, I'd be torn between babysitting and hitting him.
It's one of the reasons I like 'The Lodger' and 'Closing TIme' so much. It's very much how an ordinary person would react to knowing someone like the Doctor. But at least he got to hang out with Eleven who I think is significantly more tolerable than Ten. Long story short: I'd not mind hanging out with him occasionally, but long term . . . there would be wistful thoughts of hitting him over the head with a two by four.

None of that has been in my experience with meeting new and interesting people, and I have met quite a few. I cannot think of any I have had romantic feelings for. Especially considering the average time spent with any non-Doctor character is less than a day. Has to be a pretty fast romantic subplot that, which just makes it less realistic.

I could easily see people being fascinated by the Doctor and never forgetting them though. I once spent several hours on a train sitting next to some guy talking quite happily about fantasy novels and how they deserve to be studied more. He was certainly very interesting, and I wouldn't have minded getting to know him a bit more, but hey, people come and go. I know his general appearance, and that we had somewhat similar taste in books; doubt we'll ever, ever see each other again, or that we'd even recognise each other if we did. But he was a good travelling companion, we hit it off, I enjoyed some of the books he suggested, and it was a nice way to spend three or four hours.
I don't even know his name. He might have told it to me, but it was getting on for five years ago or so, and he was just someone who made an otherwise boring trip something to remember.
The Doctor could easily be like that, but moreso because things actually happen around the Doctor that would make him very interesting and unforgettable.

Now, let me specify. I'm not saying it's impossible, or even that romantic relationships developing over time is unlikely. It isn't. But we've already been down that road with: Rose, Martha, Amy, and River. And that's not including the one-shot characters. It's enough. Let's do something else.

And another reason I'd like less romance and more other relationships: romance has been done to death. I will say though, that I don't have much of an opinion about Amy though seeing as I've not seen season five.

Pretty sure you're wrong about this. Random shipping/slash does not necessarily equal romance. I'm certain Curly appreciates a good romance element in a story, but not to the point that it could be considered 'her thing'.

Honestly? As far as Doctor Who goes, I don't really ship at all. Amy/Rory is perfect, I truly believe there is at least good romantic chemistry, if not a serious relationship going on between Two and Jamie - and that was based off of one serial, and it's cute so I ship it.
I do not seriously ship Doctor/anyone, although I can and will admire subtext and suggested UST because it's fun. I'm ambivalent about Doctor/River, and I'll ship Doctor/Master for UST, ho yay and funsies most definitely.
I like pointing out the chemistry. I like interesting characters. I like flirting.

And if we cast out romance into all my stories. I do like a good romance, it's practically dictated by the fact that I have hormones, but what it comes down to (and I've said this lots) ultimately is character development. But I don't honestly ship people all that much, so I don't really mind stories that do romance/interfere with OTPs and whatever. If it fits, and fits well, I'll go along with it.

Well, except I flat out refuse to ship Spock/Uhura. And Rose/Ten; I admit there was potential for Rose/Nine, but nothing else. And I've been known to all but abandon any story that starts shipping Zutara even if it fits the characters in the story because no. Also, Kirk/Spock forever. And probably Sarah/Jareth.

But mostly, romance is just 'eh'. Some are good, some are bad, some turn out contrary to how I think they should. I'm just generally not opposed to it even though the world could do with more focus on platonic relationships.

Reinette never liked her Madame de Pompadour life. The only thing she wanted was the Doctor. But she didn't try to do anything about it. She just waited. Amy didn't have a life. She was a kissogram who wasn't going anywhere. They even said the Doctor ruined her life. Clara yes that's true for now. But I give you all my 100% Guarantee
that she won't be any different. There will be a problem. And this time, you'll all see it.

And Romance people, you can't avoid Clara/Doctor. Moffat has said he is "smitten by her". However, the love triangle element "won't be done in the way you think"so there's still hope.

'Smitten' - 'to strike or hit hard, with or as if with the hand, a stick, or other weapon'; 'to afflict or attack with deadly or disastrous effect'; 'to affect mentally, morally, or emotionally with a strong and sudden feeling'; 'to impress favourably; enamour'
In short: a powerful emotion that strikes suddenly. I have been known to describe myself as smitten with [book], [concept], [person] and [place]. I have even been enamoured with them.
Never have I found myself in romantic love with any of them.
While 'smitten' can and does often imply romantic feelings/attraction, it does not always mean so.

edit: I forgot. Clara/River romance? I think I can live with that

Me too bro.

2. An Alien Companion would be accused of being too "humanised". It's not the 80s anymore (the last alien companions were Peter Davidson's Nyssa, Adric and Turlough). You can't get away with giving the alien the same values and personality as a human.

Which is a good thing. Madame Vastra; Strax; Data; Spock; Worf; Q; the Faun; the angels in Supernatural; any character labelled fey/faerie; most deities.
They're interesting because they're not quite human. That's one of the reasons I'm begging for a non-contemporary human from earth to be a Companion. It provides a contrast to allow us to look at our society from an outsider's view; it allows us to look at other cultures (real or imagined); it allows for interesting things to happen.
It's one of the key concepts of Good Omens and generally anything by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. When Death tells Susan that

HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE [...]YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

it helps us to see 'little lies' in a new light. The central theme of Good Omens is that “It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”
Both Aziraphale and Crowley received commendations for doing work humans did without any encouragement from them, sending the pair into fits of awe/despair respectively. Why? “Potentially evil. Potentially good, too, I suppose. Just this huge powerful potentiality waiting to be shaped.” Humans are much better at being good than angels, and much better at being evil than demons.

And that's that. A character outside of normal human scope, looking at normal human things and seeing them.

3. Reference Jokes. The Doctor can't make them up unless he has someone who'll get it listening.

Why do we need them? Referential humour/pop culture while funny, is very topical, and will limit the humour/appeal of the story to newer generations.